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

[pkt77242]

I'm only willing to play conventional paladins in gameworlds with sufficient black and white morality that there's always a third option in moral dilemmas. Getting a straight answer out of DMs on this topic has proved to be like pulling teeth though (metaphorically speaking).

I've seen far too many supposed LG paladins played as fascist bullyboys or deluded don quixotes, both deliberately and accidentally.

Admittedly I'm inflexible on the issue, but I liked old arthurian tales and feel nostalgic about unrealistic stories about shiny virtuous knights. If I'm playing a paladin I don't want gritty reality, and I want good to triumph, and be seen to triumph, in the end even if the paladin doesn't live to see it.

I have no problem with non-LG paladins, as they give me and other players options. In some of the above cases they allow other players options better suited to what they actually want to play if they are willing to admit it.

I tend to dislike unannounced parody games which mock particular concepts I might actually like. If they are preannounced I can bow out gracefully beforehand.

I always liked to give my Paladin a flaw. One of my favorites was a LG Paladin who was a womanizer. He followed the law, and even had a code about womanizing (no married women, no evil women, etc) but every time the party stopped at an inn he would be off chasing after a barmaid and a few times kicked off an adventurer by chasing after the wrong women (a local lords daughter, and once an evil female mage, that he didn't know was evil at the time). I think giving them a "flaw" makes them more real.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I always liked to give my Paladin a flaw. One of my favorites was a LG Paladin who was a womanizer. He followed the law, and even had a code about womanizing (no married women, no evil women, etc) but every time the party stopped at an inn he would be off chasing after a barmaid and a few times kicked off an adventurer by chasing after the wrong women (a local lords daughter, and once an evil female mage, that he didn't know was evil at the time). I think giving them a "flaw" makes them more real.

This is awesome, and demonstrates exactly the sort of richness that results when the player is allowed to define his or her relationship to their code, rather than have it forced on them by a DM. Letting the player struggle with the code doesn't need mechanical enforcement (e.g. power stripping).

I've always wanted to play an alcoholic paladin.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Permissibility of use of oil was a standard feature on the AD&D class table, yes. In the PHB, monks were the only class forbidden from using burning oil. In UA, cavaliers, and paladins as a sub-class of cavaliers, were also forbidden from using oil (though a footnote clarified that this applied only in personal combat, and that they were permitted to use oil in siege warfare).

Burning things to death used to be considered pretty damn horrendous.

That makes sense. It's just hard to imagine oil being an effective weapon, rules-wise. I don't remember oil in 2e, and in 3e...I think it did enough damage to maybe take out a few goblins?

 

[evileeyore]

That makes sense. It's just hard to imagine oil being an effective weapon, rules-wise. I don't remember oil in 2e, and in 3e...I think it did enough damage to maybe take out a few goblins?

I never used it. Of course I did whacky things back in 1e... so it could have been effective, just not weird enough for me.

 

[Hussar]

You have to remember that things in AD&D had a LOT less HP. 19 HP ogres were average size. IIRC, burning oil was d6+1 damage with secondary damage the next round, plus splash damage. Three or four burning oils and you could take down a LOT of creatures.

 

[pemerton]

It's just hard to imagine oil being an effective weapon, rules-wise.

You have to remember that things in AD&D had a LOT less HP. 19 HP ogres were average size. IIRC, burning oil was d6+1 damage with secondary damage the next round, plus splash damage.

Hussar is misremembering, and underestimating, the awesomeness that was AD&D 1st ed burning oil.

2d6 in the 1st round, 1d6 in the second round, plus 1d3 splash damage (with a save vs poison to negate) on adjacent creatures.

That's a signifiant power up for most PCs at low levels.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Not to mention that many DMs would let a large cumulative effect happen if you threw enough flasks. I remember a Dragon letter column with someone trying to buy a barrel of flaming oil and drop it on monsters.

 

[evileeyore]

Not to mention that many DMs would let a large cumulative effect happen if you threw enough flasks. I remember a Dragon letter column with someone trying to buy a barrel of flaming oil and drop it on monsters.

But how long would the barrel of flaming oil last? I guess it depends on how it's flaming when bought....

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Hussar is misremembering, and underestimating, the awesomeness that was AD&D 1st ed burning oil.

2d6 in the 1st round, 1d6 in the second round, plus 1d3 splash damage (with a save vs poison to negate) on adjacent creatures.

That's a signifiant power up for most PCs at low levels.

When fighters are dealing a flat 1d6 damage a hit (if I'm remembering the right conversation), and all HD are of the d8 variety? That's the understatement of the week, at least!

Talk about combat-as-war!

 

[Emerikol]

I see so much of this as campaign specific and not a lot of it is objectively bad. I can see a world where the Gods are very active and speak directly to their followers and if you disobey or fail in your oath you get stripped of powers. Nothing wrong with that world either. I can also see a world where the Gods are not as involved directly and the religous are often only outwardly one particular alignment while inwardly another. No powers ever get stripped and it's questionable whether the power even comes directly from the Gods and not from the religion. Neither approach is bad. It's purely campaign flavor.

I only dispute with those who might claim it is objectively bad to strip player powers when they do something in the game that offends the Gods. It's campaign world dependent. It's also something some players may not want so they might prefer the latter model. Doesn't make it wrong for those that like the stricter model.