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

[Imaro]

Depending on which story you read both [-]Gawain[/-] Percival and Galahad were good enough to sit upon The Siege Perilous (it's a magic chair) and thus initiate the Grail Quest, and one or the other actually do complete the quest and recover the Grail.


Were a few of the Knights rather despicable? Yes, my above post lists some of the worst offenders (Bedivere, Kay, and Tristan stand out). But the rest were either decent to middling good with some truly breakout "Chivalric Knights".

Why? Well... see... the stories were written and told over several hundred years. The earlier Knights trended toward the flawed, the later knights stood out as "the best" since they were written after Chivalric Romance swept the arts.

I'm not understanding the point of this post? Those "knights" you are speaking of outside Galahad (and possibly Percival) are not paladins to those who advocate for the LG paladin... they are cavaliers, or fighters with a code/kit/noble background/etc. as to the why... it's irrelevant to the discussion the fact of the matter is that Galahad is held above a regular knight and this was the archetype the LG paladin was supposed to embody... the epitome of good.

 

[Imaro]

B: So you are really upset about how alignment has changed which makes playing your Paladin difficult?

Not sure if I would say I am "upset"... it's ultimately just a game. Honestly, I would have preferred what I wanted to be official but i think that's how most people feel.

EDIT: My larger point was that it is now alot more work to create a LG paladin who embodies the epitome of good archetype in D&D... than it was to modify the LG class before.

I: You misunderstood the point, if WoTC tries to make it more general it will piss of some people and if they make something too specific that is hard to customize they piss off others, not that the two groups are the exact same people.

I didn't miss the point I just didn't think it was a good example.

 

[evileeyore]

My larger point was that it is now alot more work to create a LG paladin who embodies the epitome of good archetype in D&D... than it was to modify the LG class before.

Really? Huh. Oath of Devotion feels very "Paladiny" to me, just tack on an Alignment Restriction and Fall From Grace nonsense and bob's your uncle.

Also rename the base class "Knights of Devotion" or Divine Champion and the the Oaths into "classes", such that Oath of Devotion becomes Paladin, Oath of Vengeance becomes an Avenger, etc.


If you really have to have "Divine Smite" only work against Evil (and a few other things) then yes, you will have to do a small amount work. Not a big issue to me.

I didn't miss the point I just didn't think it was a good example.

Unless I'm totally off base your side represents roughly 30% of base whereas my side represents 52%. Which side should WotC build the class for?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Using paladin mechanics to verify their position is indeed how we do it in my gaming group's game worlds.

What mechanics, in particular, if you don't mind sharing?

Somewhat tangent: Is there a large amount of crossover between people who like LG-only paladins and people who have classes as recognized entities in the game world? There seems to be a similar thought process there.

For my part, I don't like D&D's traditional inconsistency when it comes to classes-as-professions. We've got very generic classes that can be anything from highwaymen to strictly scrupulous warriors to maniacal tyrants to do-gooder knights...and then we've got classes with very specific in-game implications, exemplified by the can-only-be-a-narrow-slice-of-a-single-alignment paladin. It's terribly inconsistent and arbitrary.

A certain amount of variation in specificity is alright, when the specificity comes from the mechanics. Like wizards outside of 4e kinda have to be the 'scientists' of the D&D universe because of how the rules dictate their dependence on spell books and how they learn and cast spells.

But I don't want rules-for-the-sake-of-rules telling players how they must role play their own characters.

 

[Imaro]

Unless I'm totally off base your side represents roughly 30% of base whereas my side represents 52%. Which side should WotC build the class for?

Where are you getting your data from? Or are you saying if this poll was actually representative of the majority of gamers which side should WotC build the class for??

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Unless I'm totally off base your side represents roughly 30% of base whereas my side represents 52%.

You are.

Which side should WotC build the class for?

Both. There should be a standard paladin and some kind of divine warrior. I think what most of us object to is the name "paladin." I'm totally on board with a chaotic good Liberator or some such, or even a chaotic evil blackguard. But a paladin, they ain't.

 

[evileeyore]

Where are you getting your data from? Or are you saying if this poll was actually representative of the majority of gamers which side should WotC build the class for??

This thread's poll. And yes, if this poll were an accurate reflection of the genre's entire playerbase, which side would you expect WotC to build to?

I'd expect them to err on the side of 52%. Heck even if you only compare the "Major Selling Point" versus both "Strike Againsts", it comes out slightly in favor of "Make Paladins Inclusive" (by .22%).

 

[Halivar]

What mechanics, in particular, if you don't mind sharing?

The easiest way a paladin can prove himself is by laying hands on the people with wounds and injuries. This also reinforces the paladin's role as a person with semi-official in areas of civilization.

You wake up in the morning, walk into town, you heal some people, you present yourself to the lord of the area (after he's heard about you), and if you have a Wisdom score higher than a potato maybe he asks you to adjudicate some simple, mundane cases. Then you go find the local assassin's guild and smash some heads.

Then you head to the tavern for breakfast.

 

[Xodis]

This thread's poll. And yes, if this poll were an accurate reflection of the genre's entire playerbase, which side would you expect WotC to build to?

I'd expect them to err on the side of 52%. Heck even if you only compare the "Major Selling Point" versus both "Strike Againsts", it comes out slightly in favor of "Make Paladins Inclusive" (by .22%).

True, but the title post is a little ambiguous. Could be are you happy they are not in the book or are you happy they are in the book. So results could be flawed.

 

[evileeyore]

You are.

Didn't vote in the poll then?

Both. There should be a standard paladin and some kind of divine warrior. I think what most of us object to is the name "paladin." I'm totally on board with a chaotic good Liberator or some such, or even a chaotic evil blackguard. But a paladin, they ain't.

Good luck getting that in 6e.