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

[Savage Wombat]

So your central issue is "I want paladins to be defined the traditional way, and only the traditional way by default, and I want others to acknowledge that anything else makes me unhappy." If that about sums it up, I do indeed understand your position, and I think where it comes from.

No, I told you what my central issue is, and you rephrased it into a strawman argument. (Unless I'm misusing strawman here.)

This is one of my gripes about arguing online - you tell people what you are saying, and they rephrase it into a statement that's easier for them to argue with.

I am arguing that some people who support the all-alignments model of Paladinhood think that their model includes (in a Venn diagram sense) the preferred archetype of the LG-only paladin - and I am arguing that these people are wrong in this belief.

The argument of "should paladins be restricted to LG" is between "people who prefer the option of any alignment for paladins" and "people who think that what it means to be a paladin includes being LG". It is NOT between "inclusive people who want everyone to have fun" and "butthurt whiners who only want their own way". And I've seen a lot of posters who seem to be arguing exclusively against the second group.

I don't think I've even actually expressed my opinion on what alignment Paladins should be in this particular thread.

 

[evileeyore]

No, I told you what my central issue is, and you rephrased it into a strawman argument.

Your position across the last ten pages has been:

"Paladins can only be LG. Anyone who thinks otherwise for any reason is wrong."


Well, I have to say, your position is wrong.

I can very easily take the current 5e playtest Paladin and make it exclusively LG complaint.


Step 1- Add the Prerequisite: Must Be LG.
Step 2 - Remove all Oaths other than Oath of Devotion.
--Make Oath of Devotion core to the class.
Step 3 - Rename Divine Smite and Imp. Divine Smite into "Smite Evil" and "Imp. Smite Evil"
--Make it work only against Evil creatures and be Radiant damage.
Step 4 - Slap on "Fall From Grace" rider, probably shamelessly stolen from 2e.
Step 5 - Cry out "YES! OH YES!" Roll over and go to sleep.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Your position across the last ten pages has been:

"Paladins can only be LG. Anyone who thinks otherwise for any reason is wrong."

So you admit to not actually reading any of my posts. So much for you then.

 

[Lalato]

So you admit to not actually reading any of my posts. So much for you then.

I tried to warn you that it would continue on like this with no one changing their minds. Oh well.

 

[Hussar]

No, I told you what my central issue is, and you rephrased it into a strawman argument. (Unless I'm misusing strawman here.)

This is one of my gripes about arguing online - you tell people what you are saying, and they rephrase it into a statement that's easier for them to argue with.

I am arguing that some people who support the all-alignments model of Paladinhood think that their model includes (in a Venn diagram sense) the preferred archetype of the LG-only paladin - and I am arguing that these people are wrong in this belief.

The argument of "should paladins be restricted to LG" is between "people who prefer the option of any alignment for paladins" and "people who think that what it means to be a paladin includes being LG". It is NOT between "inclusive people who want everyone to have fun" and "butthurt whiners who only want their own way". And I've seen a lot of posters who seem to be arguing exclusively against the second group.

I don't think I've even actually expressed my opinion on what alignment Paladins should be in this particular thread.

Actually, I have no beef with the idea of having a class: Divine Warrior and then making the LG version the "paladin". Fits with the old "Plethora of Paladins" article quite nicely where each paladin subtype got it's own name. Not a problem with that.

So, essentially, that's the issue isn't it? Nomenclature. You just cannot have a non-LG "paladin" because all "paladin" must be LG. Divine Warriors can be any alignment. Divine Champions can be any alignment. But, nope, we must make sure that the word "paladin" retains its traditional meaning.

It's a POV. Not one I really care that much about. Call the class rutabaga for all I care. I just want to be able to play a Divine Champion of Kord or any other god and have that right there, smack in the middle of core. If I have to compromise on a proper noun, fair enough. I've seen enough Eladrin and Tiefling wankery to last me a lifetime, so I know that people get really protective of their proper nouns.

Me, I'd rather not waste that much energy on it. Ranger used to mean wandering good warrior who defended the borders between civilisation and the wild. Now, Ranger means hunter. Meh, not a big deal. I just wonder why it is that people seem to think that just because they like a change, that somehow justifies the change, but, because they don't like that other change, that other change is somehow objectively bad.

Own up to your own preferences. The latter era ranger and druid is just different. Not better or worse. The latter era paladin is just different, again, not better or worse. Please stop trying to pretend your preferences are somehow objective value judgements.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

No, I told you what my central issue is, and you rephrased it into a strawman argument. (Unless I'm misusing strawman here.)

This is one of my gripes about arguing online - you tell people what you are saying, and they rephrase it into a statement that's easier for them to argue with.

I'm really not intentionally misrepresenting your opinions. I'm just trying to consolidate your Central Issue(s) into one concise package, so I took what you told me:

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

That arguments saying "just make a paladin class that allows all alignments and everyone's happy" are incorrect. Everyone's not happy, because a class built to support all alignments does not fill the needs of players who want the LG-only paladin. Effectively it's saying "we took the paladin out of 4e and replaced it with the champion class". To some people, it's not the same class.

All I want is for, say, @Hussar , to say - "Yes. Take your class out of the game and replace it with my Champion class, because it's more inclusive" - instead of "my way should make you happy too, and you're being unreasonable for not seeing so".

And I paraphrased it as accurately and as succinctly as I could. But if I didn't capture the spirit of your position, please restate it in a sentence or two if possible. And by all means, I'd like to hear which alignment you think paladins should be.

The argument of "should paladins be restricted to LG" is between "people who prefer the option of any alignment for paladins" and "people who think that what it means to be a paladin includes being LG". It is NOT between "inclusive people who want everyone to have fun" and "butthurt whiners who only want their own way". And I've seen a lot of posters who seem to be arguing exclusively against the second group.

Outside of gaming, when you're confronted with a rule or tradition that excludes certain individuals from a perfectly harmless and reasonable activity, title, position, or recognition, how do you feel when that rule or tradition gets defended by a group of people saying "Allowing just anyone to do this perfectly harmless and reasonable thing violates and excludes our definition of this thing, and that's our basis for excluding groups X, Y, and Z"? How do you view that exclusionary definition, and the people defending it? Assume that the excluded groups include your neighbors, your family, your friends, and/or yourself.

 

[Halivar]

So, essentially, that's the issue isn't it? Nomenclature. You just cannot have a non-LG "paladin" because all "paladin" must be LG. Divine Warriors can be any alignment. Divine Champions can be any alignment. But, nope, we must make sure that the word "paladin" retains its traditional meaning.

Yep. The names we give things are important. Look at the mess WotC made of tieflings and eladrin; they aren't want they were for the 30 years before 4E, and there was no good reason for it. When you introduce something new, use a new name. Don't fundamentally change something else and slap the old name onto it.

Outside of gaming, when you're confronted with a rule or tradition that excludes certain individuals from a perfectly harmless and reasonable activity, title, position, or recognition, how do you feel when that rule or tradition gets defended by a group of people saying "Allowing just anyone to do this perfectly harmless and reasonable thing violates and excludes our definition of this thing, and that's our basis for excluding groups X, Y, and Z"? How do you view that exclusionary definition, and the people defending it? Assume that the excluded groups include your neighbors, your family, your friends, and/or yourself.

I think this is an inappropriate analogy on many levels. Characters on a piece of paper don't have feelings, and being told by your DM you can't play a certain character is not a civil rights violation. I could make an equally inappropriate analogy by saying that you're trying to bring borscht to my thanksgiving dinner (someone did this; don't do that).

 

[Savage Wombat]

But if I didn't capture the spirit of your position, please restate it in a sentence or two if possible. And by all means, I'd like to hear which alignment you think paladins should be.

I don't understand why I keep having to repeat myself. My position is that the definition of Paladin as a class with no alignment restrictions is not inclusive of the definition of Paladins as always LG. And that some people continue to propose that their definition IS inclusive. That there is no reasonable disagreement on this point. My position is that this is an error.

Outside of gaming, when you're confronted with a rule or tradition that excludes certain individuals from a perfectly harmless and reasonable activity, title, position, or recognition, how do you feel when that rule or tradition gets defended by a group of people saying "Allowing just anyone to do this perfectly harmless and reasonable thing violates and excludes our definition of this thing, and that's our basis for excluding groups X, Y, and Z"? How do you view that exclusionary definition, and the people defending it? Assume that the excluded groups include your neighbors, your family, your friends, and/or yourself.

No, you are still trying to twist my point into another strawman. I am not defending inclusion or exclusion - I am making the statement that a common argument used on this forum is based on a misunderstanding of the other sides viewpoint - and that those making that common argument do so out of a desire to seem like the compromise position. Please do not try to "infer" what I am "really" saying - I am only trying to make the point I have stated.

My personal opinion? I think that paladins should derive their powers from virtue, not from a particular church. And that while those virtues can differ, I think that the characteristic traits of paladins (defenders of belief, inspiring figures, etc.) are more communal than individual, and thus belong in the lawful side of the structure. And further, I think that removing alignment-based powers from the class detract from its feel. So I would prefer that, in the absence of multiple individually-constructed classes, I would prefer that paladins be at minimum Lawful. It is entirely possible that the "oath" motif of 5e might satisfy me when we see the final version. I just can't see a CN fighter that serves the elven goddess of insects as being anywhere remotely in the "paladin" archetype.

But if someone says, as in another thread a while back, "I just can't see a Chaotic character swearing an oath in that fashion" - he's immediately beset with "why can't you let me play what I want" arguments in lieu of actually discussing the point.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'm by no means a D&D expert, but again, why would Gods want Paladins (or this Champion) when a lot of the prominent Gods in established settings already have their own Divine/Profane Warrior? It's been a long time but I was pretty sure that DL and FR have plenty of "God Champions". So these gods should get their own special flock AND these guys? Talk about greedy Gods.

Not to my knowledge, they don't, but then I don't know every detail about those settings.

But more importantly, I believe we went over this a few pages back, which resulted in me realizing that you don't actually want to discuss this -- you just want to argue. So you'll forgive me for not explaining again why any given god might want a variety of faithfuls.

 

[evileeyore]

It's a POV. Not one I really care that much about. Call the class rutabaga for all I care.

That's my take.


On a side note, I just noticed that the playtest Monk also has no alignment restrictions.

I'm doing my happy dance.

Yep. The names we give things are important. Look at the mess WotC made of tieflings and eladrin; they aren't want they were for the 30 years before 4E, and there was no good reason for it. When you introduce something new, use a new name. Don't fundamentally change something else and slap the old name onto it.

Why not? Everytime I run a new campaign (even if it's the "same" world) I change a few fundimental things just to spice it up.

People who get their panties in a bunch over a noun are people with bunched panties.

My position is that the definition of Paladin as a class with no alignment restrictions is not inclusive of the definition of Paladins as always LG. And that some people continue to propose that their definition IS inclusive. That there is no reasonable disagreement on this point. My position is that this is an error.

Okay. I can accept that this is your position on the issue. I don't see it as reasonable. Your position is an error in logic, being based in emotion.


However, that aside, in what way does your position matter? From a purely rules creation standpoint, why should there be any Alignement Restrictions in the core rules, when by all other examples WotC has moved away from this as a design philosophy*? Would you (and possibly by extension the side you are arguing alongside) be satisfied with a DMG module that offers a resticted variant (likely restricted variants for all previously restricted classes)?


* Take that Sacred Cow! One more for the barby!

My personal opinion? I think that paladins should derive their powers from virtue, not from a particular church. And that while those virtues can differ, I think that the characteristic traits of paladins (defenders of belief, inspiring figures, etc.) are more communal than individual, and thus belong in the lawful side of the structure. And further, I think that removing alignment-based powers from the class detract from its feel. So I would prefer that, in the absence of multiple individually-constructed classes, I would prefer that paladins be at minimum Lawful. It is entirely possible that the "oath" motif of 5e might satisfy me when we see the final version. I just can't see a CN fighter that serves the elven goddess of insects as being anywhere remotely in the "paladin" archetype.

I think you will be semi-satisfied. The two Oaths presented in the playtest were ostensibly LG and LN, so I can see a third being LE (or not being included until the DMG since we supposed to be playing "Heroes").

While there was no Alignment Restriction or Fall mechanics tied to them, they do present a nicely themed set of powers to fit the "Alignment" of the Oath.

I also agree, an Oath (or Virtue) Champion (which is what the Paladin has become in 5e) should be Lawful*. A Divine Champion should be open to all 9 Alignments (I've been rereading the Paladin and tighten up some loose notions about what they are in 5e - at least as far as the playtest is concerned).



* I could see a Good virtued Oath as well (NG), but not a Choatic one.