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

[doctorhook]

Have a coherent, consistent design vision for your game, or get off the pot and let adults who have a clue and a backbone take the helm for 6th ed.

This doesn't seem like an appropriate response to alignment rules that you don't like.

Alignment has a very long history in D&D, and for most of that time its interpretation has also been a major point of controversy. 5E (and 4E before it) takes a non-binding approach to alignment, allowing it to be a roleplaying tool for those who like it and ignored by those who don't. What's wrong with designing the game around the way people want to play it?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think it's a pretty fair reading of the Arthur stories to say most of his knights weren't paladins. Isn't that what makes Lancelot stand out?

PS

Hardly. Galahad was the knight in shining armor; his father was an antihero in shining armor, at best. Aside from the whole adultery thing, Lance stole from peasants, and murdered those who questioned his right to do so. What makes Lance stand out is being a badass and a bad boy.

Oh, and in one of the classic King Arthur accounts, he has every boy child in Britain born during the same year as Modred (Mordred) killed in an attempt to prevent his son from eventually killing him. Yeah.

The way we think of the Age of Chivalry is very different from how it was originally conceived of.

 

[SkidAce]

Hardly. Galahad was the knight in shining armor; his father was an antihero in shining armor, at best. Aside from the whole adultery thing, Lance stole from peasants, and murdered those who questioned his right to do so. What makes Lance stand out is being a badass and a bad boy.

Oh, and in one of the classic King Arthur accounts, he has every boy child in Britain born during the same year as Modred (Mordred) killed in an attempt to prevent his son from eventually killing him. Yeah.

The way we think of the Age of Chivalry is very different from how it was originally conceived of.

I didn't vote because I am "unhappy" about it, but do not consider it a strike against 5th ed.

 

[the Jester]

Hardly. Galahad was the knight in shining armor; his father was an antihero in shining armor, at best.

But wasn't Lancelot the model for paladins laying on hands and curing disease?

 

[LFK]

But wasn't Lancelot the model for paladins laying on hands and curing disease?

More Saint George, really.

Edit: the point being that it's pastiche.

 

[Kobold Stew]

But wasn't Lancelot the model for paladins laying on hands and curing disease?

Both Galahad and Lancelot have hearings attributed to them in the major sources. Galahad is the model of purity, however. If anything, Lancelot is the model for a paladin stripped of his powers.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

It's just a matter of what the archetype represents. To me, the paladin was always about the pure warrior, but I understand that most people have come to think of it as the holy warrior. It bugs me, because I believe the cleric fills the holy warrior archetype just fine*, we wouldn't need a paladin for that.

I also happen to like the serious restrictions on the class, because I've been always attracted by archetypes that are "hard mode" not only to play, but also to role-play, but I understand that some people just want to smite evil, and the LG restriction with a hell of a code of conduct was getting on the way.

Basically, it's good that the paladin can cater to a broader audience now, but surely the class has lost most of what made it special along the way. As almost everything in 5E, I can easily houserule it to my own style.

* This is specially true in 5E, with no 2/3 THAC0 or 3/4 BAB.

 

[DM Howard]

But wasn't Lancelot the model for paladins laying on hands and curing disease?

I thought Aragorn was the inspiration.

“The hands of the king are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known.”

As for the non-LG Paladins, it has always been my opinion that it completely depends on the setting you are running. Thus if you do/don't want Evil Paladins the DM has always been able to change what he sees fit.

I'm excited about it, to be honest. 5th Edition seems to be taking the stance I've had on alignment for years.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's just a matter of what the archetype represents. To me, the paladin was always about the pure warrior, but I understand that most people have come to think of it as the holy warrior. It bugs me, because I believe the cleric fills the holy warrior archetype just fine*, we wouldn't need a paladin for that.

I also happen to like the serious restrictions on the class, because I've been always attracted by archetypes that are "hard mode" not only to play, but also to role-play, but I understand that some people just want to smite evil, and the LG restriction with a hell of a code of conduct was getting on the way.

Basically, it's good that the paladin can cater to a broader audience now, but surely the class has lost most of what made it special along the way. As almost everything in 5E, I can easily houserule it to my own style.

* This is specially true in 5E, with no 2/3 THAC0 or 3/4 BAB.

The restrictions and abilities kind of made Paladins special. Now they are just another watered down concept to try and appeal to the pubbie masses.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

But wasn't Lancelot the model for paladins laying on hands and curing disease?

Lancelot may have healed someone at some point, though I don't remember him doing so. More importantly, when an Arthurian knight healed by laying on hands, it was always the result of a specific circumstance and divine prophecy rather than an ability which the knight could freely call upon.

The most notable instance of the laying on of hands in Arthurian myth is Sir Percival and/or Sir Bors and/or Sir Galahad healing the Fisher King of his wounded "thigh." *wink wink* Galahad is of course the one knight who ultimately attains the Grail due to his unblemished purity, while IIRC Percival and Bors are only granted momentary glimpses of it due to their slightly blemished virtue. Lance doesn't get even that, due to being as flawed as every other knight.

Anyway, the point is that our modern idea of chivalry and knightly conduct is a very recent Disney-fied reimagining of a very old story that probably wasn't terribly accurate to begin with. According to the original tales, Arthur was as ruthless as any king, just luckier and more charismatic. His knights were essentially a bunch of good ol' boys who were good at bashing heads. Even Galahad, perfectly pious, celibate, and undefeatable though he is, lacks any stand-out traits which modern morality would deem humanistic. The chivalric treatment of women only applied to noble ladies; peasants were on their own. Honorable conduct and fair fighting was reserved for those of noble birth; again, peasants and regular soldiers were on their own. D&D's idea of Lawful might apply to Arthurian chivalry, but applying the modern concept of Goodness to it requires the Disney-fication of it all the grim edges.