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

[evileeyore]

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."

So you can't extend (and alter) this to "Paladins carry a great deal of weight and authority stemming from their God Mandated Code or from their Divinely Vested King/Emperor or as Bestowed from the Virtues and Duties of their Knightly Order"?

Really?

 

[Halivar]

So you can't extend (and alter) this to "Paladins carry a great deal of weight and authority stemming from their God Mandated Code or from their Divinely Vested King/Emperor or as Bestowed from the Virtues and Duties of their Knightly Order"?

Really?

No, I can't, because those things apply to any cleric or even secular figure. What sets the LG paladin apart is that the mechanical restriction is the single greatest guarantor to the people of the world he inhabits that he will act justly and goodly. If we remove the alignment restriction, then you live in a world where displaying the power of a paladin is no indication of your moral bent. Such a person would not be invited into the village to adjudicate disputes any more than a secular magistrate, and thus the class is less than it used to be for roleplay purposes.

In short, the roleplay potential (in terms of how it shapes the game world and the people in it) of the any-alignment paladin can be fulfilled by any other class in the game. The roleplay potential of the LG-only paladin can not be fully realized by the any-alignment paladin.

 

[TwoSix]

Exactly.

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

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

Well, no. And I'm in the "don't care about alignment anyway!" camp. Part of the definition of "Paladins must be LG" is that they CAN'T be NG or LN. The definition is exclusionary. The fact that a broader definition includes LG is irrelevant. It's the fact that it doesn't exclude the other 8 alignments that's a problem.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Okay. I agree.

OK, we're off to a good start.

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.**

This is, I feel, a reasonable position. I don't even have a good answer to it.

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.

This is back to wrong again. In your scenario, the "Paladins must be LG" Paladin does not actually exist in the game without rebuilding the class. Your footnote about "generically" applies here - people who want LG paladins (I assume) want a class that mechanically supports LG.

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.

Yes, 3 is a number from 1 to 9. But I'm saying paladins are triangles and you're saying they are n-sided polygons.

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

And this is why I say you don't understand my point. I am, in fact, saying that the definition of paladin as "Paladins must be LG" is not, in fact, included in the set "Paladins can be LG or any other alignment". That you are mistaken in thinking that the two are the same. This is what my examples were intended to demonstrate.

Just because LG is a member of the set "alignments" does not mean that your statement is true. To rephrase [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]:

The character class Paladin(subtype=LG) != the character class LG Paladin.

You can say (and did!) that it's better for D&D to provide Paladin(subtype=all) than to provide LG Paladin. But you can't say they are the same class.

 

[TwoSix]

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."

To be fair, I doubt it's a concept that many Eberron-philes would embrace. But I like having a few shining lights in my noir, because it helps delineate the grey.

 

[Hussar]

Meh, I look at it this way.

If Savage Wombat gets his way, then basically the rules are a big middle finger salute to any player who wants to play a non-classic paladin. Sure, we can house rule it, but, the rules are planting a big old flag that says, "Paladins must be LG".

If I get my way, the only players who get a big middle finger salute are players who insist that not only must Paladins be LG, but, any other version of paladin isn't really a paladin at all, and the core rules must reflect this and not present any options other than the classic LG paladin.

I'm pretty fine with the rules not supporting that very small group of players that are so wrapped up in "paladins MUST be LG" that they cannot accept differing interpretations of paladins even existing in the core rules. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'm perfectly okay with the rules giving that group a big middle finger salute and telling them directly that 5e is not for them. Anyone who is so wrapped up in a single interpretation of anything that they cannot even accept the idea that other options are being presented in the rules is not someone I really want to share the hobby with any more.

Druids and rangers have both survived the relaxation of restrictions. No one claims that CE rangers aren't really rangers. No one claims that non Neutral Druids aren't really druids. Paladins are no different.

I'd much rather empower individual DM's and give them options than stand on the wrongbadfun podium and declare to all and sundry that Paladins MUST be played a certain way.

Isn't it funny. 4e got absolutely castigated for making comments about how the game should be played. There are a plethora of posts completely crucifying 4e and the 4e devs for trying to plant the flag of how the game should be played. Yet, here we are, being told that there is only one way to play the game and anyone else who thinks differently is just wrong.

Options are a good thing. Variety is a good thing. People insisting on one true ways are a bad thing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Given Specialty Priests in the FR frequently packed more punch than Paladins for less alignment/behaviour restrictions (some were even better warriors - of Clangeddin, for example), then yeah, FR is not a good fit, especially as the FR was a whole seems to regard NG as "True Good" and LG as "Good confined by Law" (not an uncommon view among D&D players, of course, but it seems like in Ye Olden Dayes LG was regarded as "more good" - the wheel turns and so on - don't think it'll ever turn back to LG as "more good" of course).

 

[Savage Wombat]

If I get my way, the only players who get a big middle finger salute are players who insist that not only must Paladins be LG, but, any other version of paladin isn't really a paladin at all, and the core rules must reflect this and not present any options other than the classic LG paladin.

As long as you understand that those players are, in fact, getting the "big middle finger salute". As long as you understand that your interpretation of "paladin" differs from those who prefer the classic LG paladin, and that they won't be getting theirs.

But that's not the same as "everybody gets to play what they want". You want your view to win out over others, and that's normal.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As long as you understand that those players are, in fact, getting the "big middle finger salute". As long as you understand that your interpretation of "paladin" differs from those who prefer the classic LG paladin, and that they won't be getting theirs.

But that's not the same as "everybody gets to play what they want". You want your view to win out over others, and that's normal.

Actually, not that simple. Three main groups:

1) Want all alignment Paladins in the rules.

2) Want LG Paladins at their table, don't care if rules allow for others.

3) Want LG Paladins only in the book, strongly do not want rules to allow for others.

Pretty sure most people who "prefer the classic LG Paladin" are 2, not 3. Indeed I imagine 95%+ of D&D's playerbase is 1 or 2 (or close relations thereof).

 

[Hussar]

Like I said, I'm to the point of no longer caring. If a player is so inflexible that even the presence of options causes distress, I'd quite honestly be happier for that player to find another hobby. We really don't need that level of onetruwayism in the hobby.

But, can you explain to me how a NG Druid, allowed in 3e is any different than a, say, NG paladin appearing in 5e?

What is the difference? Why is it acceptable to relax the restrictions on Druids but not paladins?