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

[billd91]

No, because that's a misprint, which is obviously an error. However, if an official sourcebook calls it a Paladin, and it isn't an error/typo, it is a Paladin.

And a paladin likely to be rejected by the market it is trying to serve. Sticking a feather in your cap doesn't make you macaroni.

 

[Halivar]

No, you are completely wrong here, Xodis, and re-writing D&D's history really severely. Every edition has had rules for non-LG Paladins. No exceptions.

Err... I collected a lot of 1st and 3rd Edition books, and I don't remember this. Where were they? I'm not doubting you; I'm just curious. I never once saw a non-LG paladin; only Blackguards.

As for "AKA the Paladin from WoW." oh my god, really? I take it you've never played WoW, right? Or any Warcraft game?

It's the tired, fallacious 4E = WOW meme. Pay it no mind. What really eats my grits, though, it this:

just a more defensive character with holy charged abilities, AKA the Paladin from WoW.

Defensive? DEFENSIVE? It's been 8 years, and STILL ret paladins get no respect! No respect at all!

The Warcraft Paladins are solidly LG, as a group, and follow a strict code.

My blood elf paladin objects to your scurrilous accusations of goodness!

 

[Xodis]

No, you are completely wrong here, Xodis, and re-writing D&D's history really severely. Every edition has had rules for non-LG Paladins. No exceptions.

4E was merely the first to put them in the PHB, but every edition has had TSR or WotC-printed rules for non-LG Paladins of some kind, whether it's the Anti-Paladin, or merely CG or NG Paladins, or Paladins for all alignments with different names, or whatever.

As for "AKA the Paladin from WoW." oh my god, really? I take it you've never played WoW, right? Or any Warcraft game? The Warcraft Paladins are solidly LG, as a group, and follow a strict code. So please explain, why you call 4E's Paladin, who is not necessarily LG, nor follows a strict LG code, "AKA the Paladin from WoW"?

Wow, must have hit a nerve. Did you miss the part where I specifically mentioned supplements and how that could be considered pandering or marketing depending on the person? Really just proved my point with your rant, every edition (except 4e) had LG Paladins in the PHB (which is THE Paladin) and then later came up with a deviant of that which USUALLY had a different name (meaning the creators dont think of any of these varients as Paladins either); Blackguard, Green Knight, etc..

I played Wow quite a lot actually. Like in WoW the 4e Paladin fits a strict role, Tank with emergency healing and abilities to help "buff" other players. Sure you could "spec" differently (and depending on the version of WoW you played were even better than the Tankadin) but this was the "Vanilla" role.
Thank you again for pointing out that Warcraft Paladins are strictly LG, which again points to them having a focus on being the LG personalities and less on them being Divine Warriors of any god that wants to have them.

 

[Xodis]

It's the tired, fallacious 4E = WOW meme. Pay it no mind. What really eats my grits, though, it this:
Defensive? DEFENSIVE? It's been 8 years, and STILL ret paladins get no respect! No respect at all!

I was playing Ret before it was cool, so I know your anger I wasn't trying to jump on the 4e = WoW meme, but even looking at the abilities for the Paladin class exclusively has a very WoW vibe.

 

[Imaro]

4E was merely the first to put them in the PHB, but every edition has had TSR or WotC-printed rules for non-LG Paladins of some kind, whether it's the Anti-Paladin, or merely CG or NG Paladins, or Paladins for all alignments with different names, or whatever.

Eh, I think it's a little unfair to classify classes like the anti-paladin or even the variants from 3.5 as "paladins with different names"... these classes had different abilities, powers, restrictions, etc. They were, at least IMO, different classes... not paladins and thus why they weren't presented as "paladins"..

 

[Halivar]

I wasn't trying to jump on the 4e = WoW meme, but even looking at the abilities for the Paladin class exclusively has a very WoW vibe.

For my part, I found 4E to be very unlike any MMO. I thought of it as more like MtG. You have your cards, you play your cards, and they're used up until the next hand is dealt. D&D: The CCG.

 

[Xodis]

For my part, I found 4E to be very unlike any MMO. I thought of it as more like MtG. You have your cards, you play your cards, and they're used up until the next hand is dealt. D&D: The CCG.

Also a very fair comparison, could be why I didn't like it personally as I quit the MtG phase of my life long ago.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wow, must have hit a nerve. Did you miss the part where I specifically mentioned supplements and how that could be considered pandering or marketing depending on the person? Really just proved my point with your rant, every edition (except 4e) had LG Paladins in the PHB (which is THE Paladin) and then later came up with a deviant of that which USUALLY had a different name (meaning the creators dont think of any of these varients as Paladins either); Blackguard, Green Knight, etc..

"Pandering or marketing" tells us a lot about your attitudes, but nothing about those supplements, and is a godawful thing to claim as a result. That you sneer at something and demean it does not mean it did not happen, or that it was in any way bad.

No-one has much of a problem with non-LG Paladins having different names, but it would be super-pointless to rename the class for each alignment variant.

I played Wow quite a lot actually. Like in WoW the 4e Paladin fits a strict role, Tank with emergency healing and abilities to help "buff" other players. Sure you could "spec" differently (and depending on the version of WoW you played were even better than the Tankadin) but this was the "Vanilla" role. Thank you again for pointing out that Warcraft Paladins are strictly LG, which again points to them having a focus on being the LG personalities and less on them being Divine Warriors of any god that wants to have them.

WoW Paladins don't worship any god. They're Jedi, essentially.

Tankadin was the default? ROFL. Can tell you didn't start WoW in Vanilla. Tankadin wasn't even a "thing" until TBC.

Eh, I think it's a little unfair to classify classes like the anti-paladin or even the variants from 3.5 as "paladins with different names"... these classes had different abilities, powers, restrictions, etc. They were, at least IMO, different classes... not paladins and thus why they weren't presented as "paladins"..

Your opinion is noted, but they given that most of them shared the vast majority of their abilities with Paladins, and merely had a different theme, I don't buy it. They absolutely WERE presented as Paladins in most cases. Anti-Paladin is a great example - the entire concept is that it's like a Paladin, but of EEEEEEVIL.

It's no more "unfair" than lumping evil Clerics together with good Clerics, even though OH NO some of their powers are different!

 

[Xodis]

"Pandering or marketing" tells us a lot about your attitudes, but nothing about those supplements, and is a godawful thing to claim as a result. That you sneer at something and demean it does not mean it did not happen, or that it was in any way bad.

Who said Pandering or Marketing is a bad thing? Giving people what they want or optional ideas and trying to make money with a business has never been bad things. You seem to have your own jaded opinions of it and projected that on to my response.

Tankadin was the default? ROFL. Can tell you didn't start WoW in Vanilla. Tankadin wasn't even a "thing" until TBC.

I did play Vanilla, and the designers goal was to have Paladins be able to play the Tank role in the begining, they just were not "good" at it until TBC. Just like the Ret tree was originally designed as a (horrible) PVP tree, it later was revamped into something very very useful.

 

[Lalato]

Well that escalated quickly.
[MENTION=6777265]Xodis[/MENTION] and [MENTION=9327]Halivar[/MENTION]... calling an edition of D&D a card game is going to sound very edition warlike to many people. I suggest you refrain from doing so, and try to keep your arguments to Paladins.

If you read upthread, I mention the Dragon article (A Plethora of Paladins) that officially introduced multi-aligned Paladins in 1e. This is not a new concept. Prior to that, the concept of Anti-Paladin was around.

Back in the day, the alignment restriction and code seemed necessary to keep a character with obviously awesome stats and abilities in check. The need for that "balance" is gone in the more recent editions of the game. The archetype that is trying to be portrayed can be done by any class through feats... and furthermore... I would argue that the Cleric can already handle the niche better than the LG-only Paladin anyway.