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

[Xodis]

And I would have trouble playing with a DM who wouldn't allow a whimsical paladin. To my mind, alignment is about your ultimate intent, not personality traits.

And the idea that following a code is enough to make one lawful is an idea I find rather silly. What if your code is "Visit bloody vengenance on all landed aristocrats so that the peasantry will rise up and overthrow them." Or your code is a list of personal taboos like "I must paint every cow I see purple the day following a rainstorm". Doesn't matter how resolutely you follow that list, you're still chaotic to me.

I would disagree, if you follow a code like that you are pretty Lawful. Even if your code is always break the local laws there really is nothing chaotic, random, arbitrary, or (insert any other synonym for chaotic here). You really are not free, you just created a very loose (and strange lol) code to follow that nobody else agrees or even understands.

The only example I know of is current computer AI's, while it appears to be learning and may have no pattern we can follow, its still just a pattern thats coded in.

 

[Imaro]

Though not exactly the same question, I'm going to pull a quote from Why Flexibility Advocates Like the Flexible Paladin because I think it'll help explain our position:

But Clerics have combat training and, at least as originally envisioned, are the military might of the church... by default they aren't the book carrying, enlightened, chanters of prayers you seem to personally want to redefine them as... I'm also not seeing what "paladin" brings (if you're after more martial ability) that multi-class fighter doesn't? Or war domain... or the numerous other ways to make a cleric more martially inclined in various incarnations of D&D? The rest of that post "... it's up to the players and DM's"... is so vague as to be kind of meaningless. So again, I am asking what do you envision the paladin as and how does that differentiate him from cleric, cleric-fighter, fighter with a religious background, and so on...

 

[Lalato]

But Clerics have combat training and, at least as originally envisioned, are the military might of the church... by default they aren't the book carrying, enlightened, chanters of prayers you seem to personally want to redefine them as... I'm also not seeing what "paladin" brings (if you're after more martial ability) that multi-class fighter doesn't? Or war domain... or the numerous other ways to make a cleric more martially inclined in various incarnations of D&D? The rest of that post "... it's up to the players and DM's"... is so vague as to be kind of meaningless. So again, I am asking what do you envision the paladin as and how does that differentiate him from cleric, cleric-fighter, fighter with a religious background, and so on...

I can't answer for TS, but I can answer for myself. A paladin is a type knight who is sent by a church or king to kill the church's or king's enemies (and to loot their bodies). Now... that's my definition of a paladin. As for how I would translate that to a D&D class? Well, to be honest with you, I wouldn't. If it were my campaign, Paladin's wouldn't exist, because other classes can do their schtick just as well with a few feats.

But, since we're talking about D&D at large... which seems to have created some oddball idea of the of paladin as a "good" divinely powered person that follows a strict code in the service of a deity that watches his every move and questions his every thought and choice... I would change the class of paladin to be a warrior that makes a pact with a deity (or the servant of said deity) and is granted some special boons because of it. I would then have a list of special boons that might be granted by a deity with guidelines for how DMs could create their own boons as needed for specific deities (or servants thereof). If, as part of the pact, the deity requires that the paladin follows a strict code... that's a DM and player decision to make. If, instead, the deity requires that the paladin convert all orcs she meets to Sune, then that's the deal the paladin made. Meet an orc, convert that ugly bastage to Sune.

The pact can be silly or it can be serious, depending on the deity, the DM, and the player. Now that's my D&D paladin.

 

[Lalato]

None of those are chaotic principles (indeed, the very idea of "principles" is inherently lawful). That sounds like a LG paladin to me. And any paladin in my game that did NOT uphold those principles would lose their powers.

That sounds like a Good (any ethos) cleric to me. The point of the paladin (according to the multi-edition fluff) is that they have innate divine abilities from their devotion to The Cause, whatever it may be.

I think you really need to re-read the alignment sections of various editions of D&D. Nothing I said is outside the scope of a Chaotic Good character. Heck, it's not even outside the scope of a Neutral character. Do you honestly believe that only LG people do things like depose tyrants and fight slavers? Or that only Lawful people have causes or keep oaths? Or that only Good people do good deeds? Heck even an evil character might take out a tyrant (getting rid of the competition) or save the princess from the dragon (get paid some phat lute, son!) or promote the cause of an LG deity (law of unintended consequences, for the WIN!).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

But Clerics have combat training and...

Yes, yes, we all know that clerics are divine gishes. I even pointed this out using more words during my mistaken conversation with Xodis a few posts back. I guess "clerics study holy texts, paladins practice swordplay" isn't specific enough for the literal-minded, so I apologize.

We all know that clerics are divine gishes; as are paladins, in addition to whatever other archetypes are ascribed to them. Clearly, however, clerics lean more toward the castery side of gish while paladins lean more toward the fightery side. Just to invent some numbers for the sake of illustration, a cleric spends about 50% of his apprenticeship with holy texts and the other 50% on combat training. Meanwhile a paladin's apprenticeship is split about 90%-10%.

Can we agree on this, even if we're comparing clerics only with the traditional LG paladin? Note: I'm not asking you to agree to the specific percentages or anything, just the general idea of my comparison.

...I'm also not seeing what "paladin" brings (if you're after more martial ability) that multi-class fighter doesn't? Or war domain... or the numerous other ways to make a cleric more martially inclined in various incarnations of D&D? The rest of that post "... it's up to the players and DM's"... is so vague as to be kind of meaningless. So again, I am asking what do you envision the paladin as and how does that differentiate him from cleric, cleric-fighter, fighter with a religious background, and so on...

I gave Xodis the benefit of the doubt because he seems to be new here, but I'm sure that you've seen countless paladin threads in your time, and have gotten countless answers to the questions you're asking. My answers probably don't match every single response you've gotten during the various paladin threads, but neither are they unique. You've no doubt heard it all before.

So I'm not going to go around in circles with you on this; if you still genuinely don't understand why some of us like flexible paladins -- rather than just feigning ignorance for the sake of argument -- read this blog post. The first bit, up until I start answering the bolded questions, encapsulates much of the reasoning behind my own personal opinion. It's not deep stuff; you don't need an advanced degree to understand it, at least intellectually. You may never grok my reasoning on an intuitive level, just as I'll never fundamentally grok your exclusionary attitude toward the paladin, but I'm fully confident that you can grasp it intellectually at least.

All it requires is that you step away from the traditional paladin archetype long enough to imagine yourself in my shoes.

 

[Halivar]

I think you really need to re-read the alignment sections of various editions of D&D. Nothing I said is outside the scope of a Chaotic Good character. Heck, it's not even outside the scope of a Neutral character. Do you honestly believe that only LG people do things like depose tyrants and fight slavers?

No. I said that those actions cannot adequately define a CG "paladin" because a LG paladin ought to be doing them also. So I'll ask again: what differentiates a CG paladin from a LG one?

Or that only Lawful people have causes or keep oaths?

In this case, I'd say that a non-lawful character can and may. But you can't depend on it. If you could​ depend on it, I'd start calling that Lawful.

Or that only Good people do good deeds?

Again. Can and may. Take your chances.

 

[Imaro]

I gave Xodis the benefit of the doubt because he seems to be new here, but I'm sure that you've seen countless paladin threads in your time, and have gotten countless answers to the questions you're asking. My answers probably don't match every single response you've gotten during the various paladin threads, but neither are they unique. You've no doubt heard it all before.

So I'm not going to go around in circles with you on this; if you still genuinely don't understand why some of us like flexible paladins -- rather than just feigning ignorance for the sake of argument -- read this blog post. The first bit, up until I start answering the bolded questions, encapsulates much of the reasoning behind my own personal opinion. It's not deep stuff; you don't need an advanced degree to understand it, at least intellectually. You may never grok my reasoning on an intuitive level, just as I'll never fundamentally grok your exclusionary attitude toward the paladin, but I'm fully confident that you can grasp it intellectually at least.

All it requires is that you step away from the traditional paladin archetype long enough to imagine yourself in my shoes.

It's not me feigning ignorance... it's you and your blog post not actually answering the question I asked... I didn't ask why you liked flexible paladins... I asked you what would define this so called flexible paladin (beyond holy warrior which is an archetype that can be accomplished easily in every edition as well as in different combinations of fight/spell without a specific paladin class). It doesn't take an advanced degree to actually answer the question I posed as opposed to creating one, answering it and claiming I'm the one not being genuine. So you want a more martial cleric? Again that's what a cleric-fighter is for... so I'm missing the point of what archetype or niche your flexible paladin with no code and no alignment restriction actually fullfills... it's not the chivalrous knight like @pemerton's (which, while I don't like it I at least understand what archetype or niche it fills)... It's not the paragon of good that the LG paladin reflects... so what is it?

 

[Lalato]

No. I said that those actions cannot adequately define a CG "paladin" because a LG paladin ought to be doing them also. So I'll ask again: what differentiates a CG paladin from a LG one?

In this case, I'd say that a non-lawful character can and may. But you can't depend on it. If you could​ depend on it, I'd start calling that Lawful.

Again. Can and may. Take your chances.

Interesting take on alignment. So... if an evil NPC never actually commits an evil act in order to become the king, then by your definition, that person is not actually evil? That's some next level philosophy stuff that I'm not qualified to speak on.

As for what differentiates the two Paladins, the CG Paladin might go about deposing the tyrant by using different methods than an LG Paladin... but that doesn't mean she isn't as devoted to the cause. They're just different. Same goes for a True Neutral paladin that seeks to end the injustice of a tyrant.

The end point of this conversation is... play what you like. If you like LG paladins with codes and nosy deities, go for it. I would even welcome you at my table. Though I might make funny noises every time the Paladin acted Lawful Silly.

 

[Halivar]

Interesting take on alignment. So... if an evil NPC never actually commits an evil act in order to become the king, then by your definition, that person is not actually evil? That's some next level philosophy stuff that I'm not qualified to speak on.

If an evil NPC never commits an evil act, then I would posit that he has the wrong alignment.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, on this one, I have to go with Halivar. D&D has always defined alignment through your deeds, not your thoughts since thoughts cannot be known. I can burn all the nunneries in my mind that I want, and still be a LG character. Your alignment is defined by your actions. A character which performs no evil acts is not evil. It can't be. It might not be good either (since the character has performed no good acts) but is certainly not evil.