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

[pemerton]

The Arthurian examples are interesting because they run counter to most D&D Paladin codes, which rarely include stuff like chastity (certainly in later editions), are less opposed to covetousness and so on, and tend to rather focus "being LG".

I've always regarded chastity as a likely implication of paladinhood, but one that in play is almost always easy to adhere to: in the typical D&D campaign, how hard is it not to declare as an action that your PC is sleeping with someone?

I did once play a paladin who got married, after a very tortuous and emotionally draining (but non-sexual) relationship with a fellow PC. (This episode also had odd repercussions in real life. The boyfriend of the other player accused me - wrongly - of having an affair with her, apparently simply on the basis that in the game our PCs were romantically entangled.)

I think it's significant that in the real world model for (trad) clerics and paladins, the crusading orders were regarded at the actual time as the best exemplars, and chastity was one of their rules.

On covetousness, the paladin in AD&D has a duty of immediate tithe, plus a permission only to retain sufficient wealth to keep him-/herself and his/her followers in modest comfort. There is also a magic item restriction. (Monks had a similar restriction, but even stricter on magic items. Both classes enjoyed a permission to retain more than the normal amount of wealth in order to fund stronghold construction.)

To the extent that 3E relaxes these requirements, it seems to be taking these classes away from their historical/literary roots. (4e is different in this respect - it leaves the manner of the display of devotion as a matter for player and GM to work out, rather than specifying a code in the class text itself.)

 

[Sadras]

Ruin Explorer has probably blocked me as he stated some time back, but here's to hoping or maybe it will be included in someone's quote in which case he might see it.

With Moses, the punishment is ultra-extreme for the slightest
disobeyal, but god is literally talking to him, which is not the case for normal Judaic priests.

As opposed to Judaic priests performing miracles every other day? So your problem here is that communication between the Pharisees and their god was lacking not the fact that they don't perform 1st-9th level miracles and therefore this makes it a poor example? It does not seem like a viable issue to dismiss Greg K's point.

This is far more extreme and quite different to anything in any version of D&D I've come across.

You were given an example of Judo-Christian God administering punishment. Greg K did not say he specifically uses earth's deities, but that's were the reference for Gods' administering punishment originates from. Whether the punishment was too severe or not is not under debate. You're moving the goal posts. Indeed deities in D&D are inspired by the same source so I'm failing to see why you so easily dismiss his examples.

The Arthurian examples are interesting because they run counter to most D&D Paladin codes, which rarely include stuff like chastity (certainly in later editions), are less opposed to covetousness and so on, and tend to rather focus "being LG".

"Most D&D Paladin codes" - which are? You might want to include the Paladin Handbook in your referencing since that is one of the first and most definitive guides to the class. I believe 3e had a book too just cannot think of the name currently - I think Exemplars of Good or something along those lines.
Also bringing in versions of D&D is moving the goal posts. You cannot debate the point from a 4e angle saying it is wrong when this is debate strictly about playstyle.

So, again, I really think you're proving my point.

I believe he is not, unless your point is to move goal posts.

I'm saying you can't claim "Oh I'm drawing from myth/history!", because you're clearly not!

He is drawing from the act of Gods meeting out punishment to their subjects should their subjects stray or annoy them. The fact that the myth gods are capricious was not part of the original debate, moving the goal posts again.

Universally, less straight forward and obvious, yes, because it depends on culture and source. That does not mean, that one cannot choose sources for influence. Greek and Roman Mythology are often about obedience and respect for the gods. The exact punishments might not be known by the offender, but there is going to be punishment.

Here he stipulates punishments exist for obedience and respect.

They are my references for having consequences. It doesn't matter that in the source material that I draw from that the people might not know the exact consequences or what exactly might be considered a transgression (although vows of celibacy seem to be obvious). What matters to me is that they occur...

And here he even mentions that the subject might not even know of the transgression, but that matters not - he is reflecting the source of why punishments by deities exist in his game. Calling into question the alignment of the deities is moving the goal posts. Arguing that the deities reflected have a capricious nature is moving the goal posts. Arguing from a 4e angle on the codes of paladinhood is moving the goal posts. Greg K merely states where he draws his inspiration on meting out punishment.

 

[Sadras]

I did once play a paladin who got married, after a very tortuous and emotionally draining (but non-sexual) relationship with a fellow PC. (This episode also had odd repercussions in real life. The boyfriend of the other player accused me - wrongly - of having an affair with her, apparently simply on the basis that in the game our PCs were romantically entangled.)

That is quite a story! I'm derailing the thread, but on a similar note, I know of a female player who whilst being involved with a player in their Vampire game became quite enamoured by the storyteller (my friend) of that group. I think the intense emotional and love-like scenes between her character and 1-2 NPCs did not help matters. Thankfully nothing happened.

 

[Anastrace]

Personally paladins of any alignment was one of the things I loved about 4e. They were simply the martial religious arm of the clergy, and that could take the form of any religion no matter what god you served. I think in our games we had at least two or three unaligned paladins worshiping the Raven Queen.

 

[MJS]

I'm not opposed to it. People have been making non-LG Paladins in D&D ever since there was a Paladin class. Might as well provide support in the rules.

That doesn't mean I have to allow the LE pally IMG. I don't. But I think classes and races should officially be the sandbox they have always been.

 

[Xodis]

I prefer (and will always play) my Paladins as LG. They get a lot of power, at the cost of following very strict rules on conduct. I understand its not everyone's cup o' tea though so I'm fine with it. Still not sure how a Chaotic character chooses to follow a code (even one very loosely written) but to each their own I guess.

The argument about Gods of other alignments having Paladins...why would they want them? If I am a CG deity, why would I choose the Paladin class to be my holy warrior, when I have Rangers, Druids, and my own Clerics to bestow my awesome power on? They can be my Paladins in name without all their "up-tightness" lol.

IMO these are the only "Paladins" that should be allowed, but thats just me.

LG=Paladin: Holy warrior of righteousness, my cause is just.

LN=Marshell or Green Knight: The law of the land rules over your intentions, and your intentions matter not.

LE=Blackguard: To rule is my calling, and I do so with an Iron fist. Kneel or die.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Wow, this thread is doing its very best to avoid the grave.

Well, so long as its still here I'll use it to plug the Exemplar class for PF, a homebrew flex-paladin that I've been putting together with a couple of Paizo fans. It's not quite finished, but anyone interested should be able to get the gist of it.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Still not sure how a Chaotic character chooses to follow a code (even one very loosely written) but to each their own I guess.

Gamers who like a flexible paladin class either:

1. Treat chaotic codes as guidelines,
2. Use a variety of codes, as appropriate for alignment and/or deity,
3. Don't see the code as a necessary part of the paladin class,
4. And/or just don't use alignment.

This blog post might give you some insight into our general attitudes.

Presumably there are chaotic clerics in your campaign world, yes? If so, how do you justify them following their codes?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Personally paladins of any alignment was one of the things I loved about 4e. They were simply the martial religious arm of the clergy, and that could take the form of any religion no matter what god you served.

But I think classes and races should officially be the sandbox they have always been.

100% agreed.

 

[Xodis]

Presumably there are chaotic clerics in your campaign world, yes? If so, how do you justify them following their codes?

They dont follow codes, they are who they are and as such fall in line with their deities beliefs. A Chaotic God wouldn't implement a code, its an oxymoron. Lawful Gods have codes, Chaotic Gods have guidelines, and Neutral gods kind blend the two, as in definitely don't do this, but this is OK if it's necessary.

Players can always work around restrictions one way or the other; ignoring alignment side steps the situation, same as treating a code as a guideline. When DMing or playing a Paladin, I always consider "What would my (or the characters) god think?"

If I was Waukeen (God of Trade, Wealth, Money, and TN) why would I even want a Paladin? I want Bards and Rogues as my patrons, I don't need/want Paladins because I'm not about fighting the good or bad fight, I dont need Crusaders, nothing about them would even interest me, so why bother myself with them?

As Sune (Beauty, Love, Passion, CG), again I have to ask why bestow anyone with Paladin abilities? Evil isn't my enemy, ugly is lol. I want to spread love and joy (Bard), maybe I need to protect a beautiful forest (Druid, Ranger), nothing about a Paladin would interest me. I can get the muscle from fighters and Clerics.

So I'm sure any player with a decent imagination can come up with some alignment argument, character background, etc.. to defend their non-LG Paladin, but for me its just wanting to playing a different class with Paladin abilities...which is cool if thats what helps them enjoy the game.