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

[evileeyore]

No, see, that just shows that you DON'T understand the other position. Because you still think your position covers both sides. Which my examples demonstrate that it doesn't.

Unless your position is "I get the rules my way, NYA NYA NYA!", yes, Inclusive Alignment Paladins do cover both sides. Your side just now has to use houserules... just like the other side used to (and probably still will).

You think that saying "paladins can be any alignment should make everyone happy" is true

No I do not. I'm pretty sure it'll make the side that keeps clamoring "I want it my way and only my way!" very unhappy.

As is repeatedly shown time and again.

Your actual position should be "people who want LG paladins only should suck it up because XYZ" - which has never been then point I've been arguing against.

Eh, whatever. That's about as close as your likely to get to seeing where I'm coming from, so I'll bite:

Then what is your position, succinctly in one twitter length sentence?

 

[Aenghus]

I do think there's an issue where the gameworld itself as detailed and run by the DM has it's own tone, style and moral dimension which has a bearing on what character concepts are encouraged, discouraged and invalidated. Which is fine when the DM is up front about this, but this may not happen out of secrecy, lack of self awareness, plot protection or many other reasons, rational and irrational.

Obviously players contribute to the overall feel of the game, but in a conventional game the referee sets the tone. If there is more distribution of authority there is more debate and/or nudging on the issue as there is seldom total agreement on such things.

I want any character I come up with to belong in the gameworld and not feel like a fish out of water, someone who shouldn't be there. This has happened before in games.

I dislike totally independent character creation as the potential for completely uncompatible PCs exists e.g. shiny paladin and evil necromancer plus undead minions. Not every game has improvisation-type rules to suggest every player finds ways to allow other players to play their concepts despite clashes.

I've seen every aspect of RPG play turned into battlegrounds when there are differences in player tastes and goals, and to people who don't like real world conflict within the group or dialed up PvP antagonism I strongly prefer ensuring character concepts are at least minimally compatible before play. I dislike PvP with or without violence, YMMV.

I have seen a number of games blow up almost immediately though PC incompatibilities. While sometimes this is a symptom of deeper incompatibilities, I strongly feel that a little collaboration in PC creation could have saved some of those games.

Any PCs can be forced together by a big enough plothammer, but I find such plot devices are short term and unreliable.

For me conventional LG paladins work best when good vs evil is a major theme of the game, and good and evil are recognisable in the gameworld. I find they really don't belong in grey on grey worlds where everyone is or needs to be a little dirty, and IMO it's a DM mistake to allow players to think they are viable in such a world only to prove they aren't in play later.

I often like playing white hat PCs, and the ongoing effect of Dark RPGs and pervasive cynicism can make it very difficult to do so.

 

[Halivar]

If so, it allows them to play all sorts of Knightly characters with differing allegiances.

In what edition were you unable to do this RAW?

 

[Savage Wombat]

...Unless you're no longer talking about your Central Issue of definition?

My point includes the case that one side thinks the definition is malleable and the other does not.

But, your argument basically boils down to saying that because a given player doesn't like any other interpretation other than the one true interpretation of a given archetype (and you can equally apply this to druids - the ability to make non-true neutral druids came about in 3e after all - a pretty radical change in archetype, and you can apply this to Rangers (no non-good rangers until 3e), then no other interpretation should be allowed by the rules.

Sure, we could house rule non-LG paladins, the same way you can house rule anything. But, you're basically telling anyone who disagrees with you, too bad, core will include the one true version of a given class and tough noogies to anyone else. Despite the fact that including a broader archetype class makes it easier for everyone to get what they want. With open alignment paladins, there is absolutely no rule preventing you from playing a classic paladin. There is absolutely no 3e rule that prevents you from playing a classic Druid or Ranger either.

But now, those who don't want to play a classic class, can also get to sit at the table too. How is that not more inclusive? The only way in which it is not inclusive is if a player absolutely wants to dictate to the entire group what they can and cannot play. Sorry, I really don't think the rules should do that. I don't want rules that say, "Sorry, your interpretation is WRONG and you can't play that." I want the rules to say, "Hey, if you want to play this interpretation, here's how you do that. If you want to play a different interpretation, here's how you do that too."

I want inclusive, not exclusive rules.

]

No, my argument boils down to that the "inclusive" side does not understand that they are not, in fact, inclusive of the other side's position. You continue to think in terms of "I define my character and you define yours" - when my point is that, when the D&D book writes up a paladin class for everyone to use, they will either annoy one side or another. I think you believe your rule "makes everyone happy" when in fact it does not.

I have at no time stated a position on who and how this tension between character concepts should be resolved - only that it exists and the official rules will have to come down on one side or another.

Unless your position is "I get the rules my way, NYA NYA NYA!", yes, Inclusive Alignment Paladins do cover both sides. Your side just now has to use houserules... just like the other side used to (and probably still will).



No I do not. I'm pretty sure it'll make the side that keeps clamoring "I want it my way and only my way!" very unhappy.

As is repeatedly shown time and again.

This actually demonstrates my point - that you think it's only the other side that "wants it my way". Everyone thinks their way is correct - you're trying to deny that there's even a reasonable dispute.

Eh, whatever. That's about as close as your likely to get to seeing where I'm coming from, so I'll bite:

Then what is your position, succinctly in one twitter length sentence?

I don't do twitter. Here's your sentence:

My position is that a paladin class defined as allowing any alignment is not inclusive of a paladin archetype that requires LG alignment - and that you are mistaken in thinking that this solution should satisfy everyone.

Put another way:

Your position, from your arguments, is (LG Paladin) is a subset of (Paladins of any alignment). I am pointing out that, to the people who favor alignment restrictions, (Paladins must be LG and only LG) is NOT a subset of (Paladins of any alignment).

 

[TwoSix]

Your position, from your arguments, is (LG Paladin) is a subset of (Paladins of any alignment). I am pointing out that, to the people who favor alignment restrictions, (Paladins must be LG and only LG) is NOT a subset of (Paladins of any alignment).

Paladins CAN be LG != Paladins MUST be LG.

 

[Halivar]

Paladins CAN be LG != Paladins MUST be LG.

That is precisely the point Savage Wombat is making. These two statements belong in two VERY different games. And the assumptions of who you are as a LG paladin are very different in them, as well.

 

[TwoSix]

That is precisely the point Savage Wombat is making. These two statements belong in two VERY different games. And the assumptions of who you are as a LG paladin are very different in them, as well.

Well, maybe. I think both are applicable for "D&D". I think there are settings where a LG-only paladin fits better than an open alignment paladin. I think settings that call out more Judeo-Christian archetypes are a better fit for LG-only paladins. Eberron, actually, despite its noir leanings, is a good fit for LG-only paladins, since the main religions of the bulk of civilization have strong LG tendencies, mirroring the romantic archetypal ideal of the medieval church.

 

[Halivar]

Well, maybe. I think both are applicable for "D&D". I think there are settings where a LG-only paladin fits better than an open alignment paladin. I think settings that call out more Judeo-Christian archetypes are a better fit for LG-only paladins. Eberron, actually, despite its noir leanings, is a good fit for LG-only paladins, since the main religions of the bulk of civilization have strong LG tendencies, mirroring the romantic archetypal ideal of the medieval church.

I've never played Eberron, but I'm genuinely surprised. Maybe FR is a good fit for the "holy warriors of chivalric virtue aren't really all that special" paradigm, but Greyhawk (where I play 1e and on whose chassis I build my other-edition homebrews) definitely is not. The basic assumption of that setting is that being a paladin carries a great deal of weight and authority stemming from its alignment restrictions, even in areas that follow "the Old Faith."

 

[evileeyore]

My position is that a paladin class defined as allowing any alignment is not inclusive of a paladin archetype that requires LG alignment...

Okay. I agree.

That said, it's a terrible place to write the rules from unless your goal is to make non-LG Paladins more difficult to houserule into games.* It is far better to go from the other direction, create rules that support Inclusive Alignment Paladins and then allow the individual DMs to toggle the Alignment switches on their end.**

Thus if a DM wants only LG Paladins, they simply state "Only LG Paladins in this game".

Done, the majority on both sides should now be satisfied.



* Unless the class is written rather generically such that the only area Alignment truly comes into play is in the prerequisites and the Fall From 'Grace' mechanics, in which case it will be an easy toggle then as well.

** This is and has been my core position on Paladins vis-a-vis Alignments and this thread. The other discussions were side digressions.

..and that you are mistaken in thinking that this solution should satisfy everyone.

That's not my position.

As I said, some people will be upset no matter how this falls out.

Your position, from your arguments, is (LG Paladin) is a subset of (Paladins of any alignment).

That is included in my position yes.

I am pointing out that, to the people who favor alignment restrictions, (Paladins must be LG and only LG) is NOT a subset of (Paladins of any alignment).

Which has nothing to do with what makes for a better rules set. You are confusing "core" rules with your home game.

However if your home game requires that core rules be used without deviation... then yeah, I'm pretty sure your group will have a lot to suck up and get over if you wish to play on.


To look at this another way here's an analogy:

I'm saying 3 is a number included in the set of numbers from 1 to 9. Thus Inclusive Numbers Rules allows me to more easily run games in which 4, 5, 6, and 7 can come into play.

You are saying 3 is the only important number (and thus imply the rules should only support play for 3).

And every time any one tries to explain that this position is terrible from a rules standpoint your side shouts "3 is the only important number!" as though that has any relevance.

Paladins CAN be LG != Paladins MUST be LG.

Exactly.

However, 'Paladins Can be LG' includes the subset: 'Paladins MUST BE LG'.

I'd Venn diagram this thing but I'm lazy.

 

[Lalato]

[MENTION=1932]Savage Wombat[/MENTION]... You can continue your circular thermonuclear dialogue, but like so many threads on this topic, you're getting nowhere and neither is [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].

If you like to argue for arguments sake have at it. I'm just trying to maybe have a separate conversation that I hope is a little more constructive.

It really comes down to how people play the game at their table. I'm glad people are passionate about this stuff. I just wish we could move past differences, and on to how people will apply the new stuff in their games. To me, that's a more interesting conversation. Instead all we get is two people yelling past each other.