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

[Elf Witch]

I guess my issues is that I have never looked at paladins as knights in shining armor ala King Arthur. I have always viewed them as special warriors called to a higher calling to defend, smite evil, uphold justice while most may serve a God that is not what comes first.

I have never liked them as holy warriors especially when clerics regardless of god became that with their armor, shields and maces. That seems redundant to me. If a church has a more military arm those should be the holy warriors but that does not make them necessarily paladins. I would much rather see if they insist on doing it this way then have holy warriors as either prestige class or a background for clerics.

 

[thalmin]

But the idea of morally bound classes doesn't sit as well with me. I don't even really see assassins as necessarily evil. Chaotic, yes, because of their means, but every D&D character kills with relative impunity. The difference in the assassins case is that he does so in "inappropriate" circumstances that could land him in prison if he is not careful.

Depending on the assassin's method of target selection, there's no reason why he couldn't be just as "good" as the fighter who kills his way through a bandit camp, if, say, he creeps through Waterdeep killing crime lords in their sleep.

James Bond is an assassin, licensed to kill. Certainly not evil, nor chaotic.

 

[doctorhook]

I guess my issues is that I have never looked at paladins as knights in shining armor ala King Arthur. I have always viewed them as special warriors called to a higher calling to defend, smite evil, uphold justice while most may serve a God that is not what comes first.

I have never liked them as holy warriors especially when clerics regardless of god became that with their armor, shields and maces. That seems redundant to me. If a church has a more military arm those should be the holy warriors but that does not make them necessarily paladins. I would much rather see if they insist on doing it this way then have holy warriors as either prestige class or a background for clerics.

You raise an interesting question: exactly what distinguishes the concept of the cleric from the concept of the paladin?

Are clerics supposed to be the priests and preachers, while paladins act as holy defenders of the faith? This definitely seems like the dominant approach, but there's precedent in D&D to distinguish clerics from clergy. At least as far back as Eberron in 3.5E, clerics were presented as holy warriors, a subset of priests, particularly within large, unstructured faiths like the Sovereign Host. In the D&D Next playtests, "priest" was background that a character of any class could take, and which was certainly not required for clerics; under these rules a cleric could have a background as a "thug" or "sage" or "soldier" just as easily as a fighter or mage or thief or even paladin could be a "priest". (This a feature of the system, not a bug, and I hope it made it into 5E.)

Honestly, as much as my perfectionist streak wants neat lines between classes that direct characters down the plinko board into a particular concept-hole, I'm not sure the distinctions even matter. For as long as D&D has been producing player/character options, D&D has had issues with "concept creep" and thematic overlap. How do we distinguish mage, sorcerer, and warlock? Is a bladesinger a spellsword, a hexblade, a swordmage, or an eldritch knight? What's the difference between bones animated as a bone golem and bones animated as a skeleton? The truth is that most of these distinctions are arbitrary, and exist for the sake of narrative and for the sake of giving players and DMs new mechanical elements to game with.

Feel free to chime in.

 

[Marius Delphus]

[E]xactly what distinguishes the concept of the cleric from the concept of the paladin?

To me, a cleric is a character who seeks answers, casts spells, and supports the party (high WIS, primary spellcaster, usually tied to a deity). A paladin is a character who acts on inspiration, fights, and leads the party (high CHA, primary melee, deity optional).

These definitions are far from absolute, but they're a start.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think there's a genuine validity to, say, monks or paladins being lawful, or barbarians or rogues being chaotic, ... there is some justification for it.

But the idea of morally bound classes doesn't sit as well with me. I don't even really see assassins as necessarily evil. Chaotic, yes, because of their means, but every D&D character kills with relative impunity.

This is a good point, though while Thalamin marks the assassin as an exception

James Bond is an assassin, licensed to kill. Certainly not evil, nor chaotic.

I would also exclude the Rogue. Rogues continue to live under the legacy of their "thief" background, and it is limiting. There are (and should be) many LG and NG rogues in a D&D society.

So while I accept a tendency for some classes (lawful monks; chaotic barbarians), the Paladin -- with a specific moral compass (and the extensions, Blackguard etc) is unique among the D&D archetypes.

 

[Kobold Stew]

In the D&D Next playtests, "priest" was background that a character of any class could take, and which was certainly not required for clerics; under these rules a cleric could have a background as a "thug" or "sage" or "soldier" just as easily as a fighter or mage or thief or even paladin could be a "priest". (This a feature of the system, not a bug, and I hope it made it into 5E.)

This is a huge feature, and one I've been praising since it first appeared in the play test. Backgrounds are great for this reason. By building in mechanical reasons why the fighter has connections with the village church, and the cleric with the thieves' guild is, for me, the richest addition to the conception of D&D character development that 5e has introduced.

Long may it reign.

 

[DMZ2112]

This is a good point, though while Thalamin marks the assassin as an exception
I would also exclude the Rogue. Rogues continue to live under the legacy of their "thief" background, and it is limiting. There are (and should be) many LG and NG rogues in a D&D society.

So while I accept a tendency for some classes (lawful monks; chaotic barbarians), the Paladin -- with a specific moral compass (and the extensions, Blackguard etc) is unique among the D&D archetypes.

I don't want to start an off-topic and potentially unending discussion on the nature of alignment, so I'm just going to content myself with saying that I disagree with you and with [MENTION=662]thalmin[/MENTION] but respect your rights to your respective opinions!

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think they've pushed the envelope regarding Paladins as far as they can for my tastes. I view the class as primarily LG, although given the concept of virtue there should be room for a variety of fallen and on-the-path-to-redemption Paladin archetypes. The Blackguard for the damned should feature too.

All done and dusted for 5E now however.

Should they in the future remove alignment or dilute the class further I'd decline to update.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

James Bond is an assassin, licensed to kill. Certainly not evil, nor chaotic.

He's clearly not Good, either, nor Lawful, though. He's loyal to Britain, not to good, evil, chaos or law. Nor is he trying to balance those forces. He's just trying to protect Britain and Britain's interests (and to a lesser extent, his own interests/feelings). That's one thing D&D has consistently missed out on - a proper alignment for people whose loyalty is to a concept, such as "my country, right or wrong" (this has particularly caused problems with Druids, who tend to have loyalties to Nature first, and everything else second).

The problem is largely that Neutral, in D&D, tends to get portrayed one of two ways:

1) Apathetic/uncaring - They just don't give a sod. Which is nonsense, of course, people pretty much always give a sod unless they are both depressed and a nihilist.

2) Psycho balance enforcer. Too much happiness in the world? Kill some kittens! Too much misery? Push an evil-doer off a bridge! Too many laws? Burn down a city! Not enough laws? Burn down a forest! Has this person ever existed outside of D&D or D&D-derived fiction? I very much doubt it.

EDIT - Though I am kind of narrowing my eyes at Michael Moorcock here, as I seem to recall one of his characters being along these lines.

4E had a go at fixing it with Unaligned, which was like 1) but without the implied apathy, and that was decent, but it still doesn't really account for people who are loyal to a concept, when that concept doesn't match an alignment (and very few do).

What they really need to do is just write Neutral as it should be, as it kind of is in the real world - "I've got bigger fish to fry!". For a peasant, that's keeping his family alive, probably, eff your war between good and evil, he just needs to eat and stay warm - nothing apathetic about that. For James Bond it's "I have to take down this supervillain and save Britain and the world!", and if he has to do some really morally sketchy stuff doing it, well, that's how these things happen.

EDIT - Back on Paladins, LG-only Paladins would be a "dealbreaker" for me with regards to 5E, because they'd show a design philosophy I had no time for, and a messed-up belief that someone who is LG is somehow "better" than someone who is NG. I wouldn't have minded if each alignment got a different set of abilities and/or name, but that's a lot of work for little gain.

 

[Lalato]

As a bit of history, non-LG paladins have been around since an article in Dragon in the mid-80s. This is nothing new.