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

[Majoru Oakheart]

Marjou,
Nobody had an issue on the first attempt. What you missed is that the Paladin has the AC and hit points. If he misses the attack he still presents a target and gives the shaman a chance to get out of the way. Instead, he stayed behind everyone and kept attempting over multiple rounds despite failing at his attempts leaving the two "squishiest" members of the party. Hell, if he had rushed up in the front trying to turn, I don't think everyone would have had as much of an issue (other than retrying an action that kept failing) as he could still interpose himself between the dragon and the Shaman. And, I believe it was Hussar (I could be wrong) whom, when I posted about this encounter a few years back that stated a Paladin has such a low chance of turning a dracolich that he was, essentially, wasting an action.

Still, there's nothing preventing the dragon from ignoring him and attacking his friend anyways, even with his AC and hitpoints. So, running up could accomplish the same thing: Nothing.

It would simply go like this:

"I run up into melee with the dragon."
"Alright, you are now beside your shaman friend, both in melee with the dragon."
"I want to get between the dragon and my friend."
"Sorry, you can't. The dragon is very close to your friend and blocks your progress."
"Alright, then I attack the dragon....and I miss."
"Alright, the dragon attacks your friend and kills him."

Now, I'm not saying that tactically, it wouldn't be a better idea to give the Dragon another target...maybe he'll choose to hit you instead of your friend. You never know. Might as well toss out some insults to try to get the dragon's attention. I'm just saying that claiming that attempting to turn the Dragon is somehow a breach of the Paladin code because you didn't do anything to try to defeat the dragon is awfully harsh.

 

[Lalato]

Since this has already devolved into silliness...

Why the heck does the Paladin even have Turn Undead if he's never supposed to use it? And how is a same level Shaman considered weaker than the Paladin? Or is the Shaman a much lower level? And if the Shaman is a much lower level, why the heck is he trying to stand toe to toe with a freakin' dracolich? And why is the Paladin getting visions in the middle of combat, seems like it would totally be distracting to get text messages from your god while trying to Turn Undead.

Beyond that, the word Paladin doesn't have a lawful good, following a virtuous code connotation to me. I guess I'm a Saracen at heart. Charlemagne and Roland can go screw themselves.

 

[Bluenose]

Since this has already devolved into silliness...

Why the heck does the Paladin even have Turn Undead if he's never supposed to use it? And how is a same level Shaman considered weaker than the Paladin? Or is the Shaman a much lower level? And if the Shaman is a much lower level, why the heck is he trying to stand toe to toe with a freakin' dracolich? And why is the Paladin getting visions in the middle of combat, seems like it would totally be distracting to get text messages from your god while trying to Turn Undead.

The Paladin and the Shaman have different capabilities, even if they are the same level. They're not capable of the same sort of things. At least that's the theory in class based game.

Beyond that, the word Paladin doesn't have a lawful good, following a virtuous code connotation to me. I guess I'm a Saracen at heart. Charlemagne and Roland can go screw themselves.

Meh, Charlemagne's Paladins included some people who weren't particularly virtuous anyway.

 

[Elf Witch]

Since this has already devolved into silliness...

Why the heck does the Paladin even have Turn Undead if he's never supposed to use it? And how is a same level Shaman considered weaker than the Paladin? Or is the Shaman a much lower level? And if the Shaman is a much lower level, why the heck is he trying to stand toe to toe with a freakin' dracolich? And why is the Paladin getting visions in the middle of combat, seems like it would totally be distracting to get text messages from your god while trying to Turn Undead.

Beyond that, the word Paladin doesn't have a lawful good, following a virtuous code connotation to me. I guess I'm a Saracen at heart. Charlemagne and Roland can go screw themselves.

I don't think it is polite to call what another DM does in his game silly especially if his players were on board for it.

Again it is this all or nothing in the case of the example the DM didn't say that turning undead never works but that in this situation the chances of turning were not good and would take a high roll to accomplish hardly the same thing as turning undead never works. If the DM used the visions as a free action it would have no effect on the paladin ability to turn undead.

And he also explained that that the shaman was not trying to go toe to toe but got trapped and paralyzed and could not move.

You do realize that up until recently the definition of paladin in DnD was lawful good who followed a virtuous code it is right there in the description of the class. Now you don't have to follow that in your games and that is cool.

 

[Sadras]

Though, that's not what you were saying before, that's why it confused me.

I'm confused now unless you are mistaking me for Greg K. It was his scenario, and he mentioned the visions in his description of the encounter.

However, it's my general policy to actively step out of character and inform the player directly each time they are taking an action that I think will make them lose their powers that it is about to happen and give them the choice to undo their action.

I try not to take that route personally, I prefer the in-game use of visions.

I'm not sure I'd want to play a character whose actions were constantly micro managed by his god. Generally, I play it that only severe breaches of the god's philosophy gets your powers removed. You fail to protect someone in order to protect yourself? You had a lapse of faith and you might get the sense that your god disapproves of your action. Maybe not even that if sacrificing them meant you were alive to protect a greater number of people or stop an even greater threat. If you repeatedly fail to protect people for no good reason, your powers would go away, but I dislike one action immediately removing someone's powers unless it's a majorly evil action.

Based on this paragraph, I think our styles are fairly similar.

The problem is that apparently your interpretation of protection is different from mine.

That can certainly happen and the DM needs to be rather clear on that, which I think based on Greg K's setting description in his posts he was.

 

[Lalato]

Honestly, I thought that last bit about Charlemagne and Roland would tip you all off that I was the one being silly... not the other folks in this thread.

As for Paladin's being only LG and Virtuous until recently, that is not entirely true. Anti-Paladins were mentioned very early on in the game. Additionally, Dragon #106 had a great article (A Plethora of Paladins) on Paladins of different alignments. While it's true that non-LG Paladins haven't been part of the core game in the PHB until recently, the concept has been around for a long time.

That said, in your game, at your table, you're welcome to play it however you like. That's what's so great about D&D.

 

[pemerton]

Fighting to protect the weak is nothing when you are safe behind your armor and confident of your own survival and success. It only matters when you must risk your own life to protect others. That is the essence of the class, and what makes it a special sight to behold. As a DM I would have resurrected him via his god on the spot after the battle was won if he had died valiantly.

Where's the risk, then? Or are you keeping that secret from the player, in which case you're expecting the player to have regard to a secret house rule in making decisions about how to play his PC?

Also, if the paladin died then how would the battle have been won? A premise of the whole situation is that the shaman and rogue aren't capable of defeating the dracolich on their own.

Why help a cowardly paladin? Let him suffer the wrath of excommunication. He knows what he was doing, even if he wouldn't admit it. He'd have slunk off out the back door of the dungeon while the lich was chewing on his chewy squishy team mates in a couple rounds.

<snip>

A noble death is worth more than a coward's life, that's the code I'm talking about.

I don't see how you know that the paladin in that episode of play was cowardly. In the story as actually told, the paladin was trying to turn the dracolich, apparently because he had doubts about his chances of defeating it in melee. That might be a triumph of prudence over glory, but I don't think it follows that it's cowardly. If the d20 had come up 18, I suspect it might have been a widely-remembered and talked-about episode where the paladin saved the party with a well-timed application of divine power.

Such a player deserves not only excommunication from his church, but a permanent banishment and blacklist from receiving aid from that church, communicated instantly to all high priests of the order.

Do you mean the player or the character? I assume the latter, but then we get back to the question of interpreting the PC's motives and character. If the player sincerely thinks that his/her PC is doing the right thing, I personally don't see how it improves the game for the GM to step in and override the player's self-judgement. Let it play out and see what happens.

 

[Sadras]

Since sometime in the 2e era, I've viewed paladins as one type of champion. Champions are deity-specific warriors inspired and empowered by their gods, as opposed to clerics, who pray to their god (or philosophy, or what have you). I think the fundamental difference in my view (on a roleplaying level) is that a cleric talks to his or her god, while a paladin listens to/for his or her god.

This distinction may not mean anything specific, but it means a whole lot in terms of how paladins and clerics function vis-a-vis their gods. (Append an 'in my campaign' to everything in this post, btw.) I've long held to the tradition that a cleric's alignment must be within one step of his or her god's, but a paladin (or other champion) must match the god's alignment exactly. It also means that a paladin doesn't question his or her god, while a cleric might.

This is quite neat. I'm might steal it

For instance, on obvious option that the GM had was to have the dracolich ignore the shaman and swoop on the paladin, mocking him for his futile attempts at turning. As a GM I prefer to use my tools first - NPCs, monsters, etc who are opposing the PCs - rather than trying to manipulate the players (especially via the sorts of threats and penalties that were used here).

This is a really great idea. But in all honesty I also a fan of how creative Greg K was in that the paladin didn't lose all his powers, just the ones that didn't seem right to apply to the "coward" paladin - so the deity gifted the rogue temporarily with the "Protection from Evil" and "switched off" the paladin's Turn Undead power.

 

[pemerton]

I understand playing a character who is lawful good and goes to great lengths to protect his allies. However, in this case I do not see a difference between attempting to turn and running up to the front. The actions would accomplish about the same thing. Unless, once again, the turn attempt had a nearly 0% chance of success. But that's mostly due to the tactical side of me making me feel guilty about taking sub-optimal actions than because I feel that turning isn't an attempt to save your friends.

claiming that attempting to turn the Dragon is somehow a breach of the Paladin code because you didn't do anything to try to defeat the dragon is awfully harsh.

Agreed.

 

[Sadras]

It is true of the PC that he is sworn to carry out his god's will. But the player is there to play a game, not just to dance to the GM's tune.

It's one thing for the GM to provide the player with relevant information (eg that the chance of successful turning is very low). But if the player decides to continue taking that chance (eg because the player has decided that the chance of success in melee is comparably low or even lower), then I don't see that it's the GM's job to step in and micromanage.

I see the redirection of the dracolich onto the paladin and the redirection of the "protection from evil" onto the rogue as similar. You're using in game fiction to "force" a situation. You're essentially forcing the player to dance to the GM's tune, one way or another. Whether he goes to the girl or the girl comes to him - he is still being forced to dance.