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

[SkidAce]

That would be mistaken. From that era all Dragon material was official. Cf. any discussion regarding Planescape fluff.

That may be how it feels to you.


But Dragon magazine was not automatically official.

 

[Xodis]

I don't think the point is whether it is 100% official or not. The point is that this concept is old... And that people that rely on the "tradition" crutch don't have a leg to stand on.

Depends on your version of "Tradition". Is it tradition to include non LG Paladins in the PHB? No it isn't, is it tradition to Include variants in later splat books that also change the name? Yes it is.

 

[Lalato]

Traditionally, when I say tradition, I mean the tradition of eschewing tradition.

 

[Greg K]

That would be mistaken. From that era all Dragon material was official. Cf. any discussion regarding Planescape fluff.

No not all content from the era of the Paladin article was official. Dragon was the official D&D magazine in that it was published by TSR. However, very little of that Dragon content by the people working for TSR was considered to be "official" rules until it made it into a supplement and many articles were not even by TSR employees. Furthermore, Plethora of Paladins was published in 1986 which is three years before AD&D 2e which was released making it an AD&D 1e article. The first pre-design articles for AD&D 2e by the designer, Dave "Zeb, Cook, did not occur until Dragon 118 in February of 1987 while the AD&D 2e questionnaire asking fans what they wanted did not appear until Dragon 124 published in August of 1987. Finally, the Planescape Campaign Setting was not released until 1994 which is 8 years after the publication of "Plethora of Paladins" and five years after the release of AD&D 2e.

 

[pemerton]

And what's with the oil allowances? Was burning oil a big thing in 1e?

Permissibility of use of oil was a standard feature on the AD&D class table, yes. In the PHB, monks were the only class forbidden from using burning oil. In UA, cavaliers, and paladins as a sub-class of cavaliers, were also forbidden from using oil (though a footnote clarified that this applied only in personal combat, and that they were permitted to use oil in siege warfare).

 

[evileeyore]

And what's with the oil allowances? Was burning oil a big thing in 1e?

Permissibility of use of oil was a standard feature on the AD&D class table, yes. In the PHB, monks were the only class forbidden from using burning oil. In UA, cavaliers, and paladins as a sub-class of cavaliers, were also forbidden from using oil (though a footnote clarified that this applied only in personal combat, and that they were permitted to use oil in siege warfare).

Burning things to death used to be considered pretty damn horrendous.

 

[Aenghus]

I'm only willing to play conventional paladins in gameworlds with sufficient black and white morality that there's always a third option in moral dilemmas. Getting a straight answer out of DMs on this topic has proved to be like pulling teeth though (metaphorically speaking).

I've seen far too many supposed LG paladins played as fascist bullyboys or deluded don quixotes, both deliberately and accidentally.

Admittedly I'm inflexible on the issue, but I liked old arthurian tales and feel nostalgic about unrealistic stories about shiny virtuous knights. If I'm playing a paladin I don't want gritty reality, and I want good to triumph, and be seen to triumph, in the end even if the paladin doesn't live to see it.

I have no problem with non-LG paladins, as they give me and other players options. In some of the above cases they allow other players options better suited to what they actually want to play if they are willing to admit it.

I tend to dislike unannounced parody games which mock particular concepts I might actually like. If they are preannounced I can bow out gracefully beforehand.

 

[Hussar]

No not all content from the era of the Paladin article was official. Dragon was the official D&D magazine in that it was published by TSR. However, very little of that Dragon content by the people working for TSR was considered to be "official" rules until it made it into a supplement and many articles were not even by TSR employees. Furthermore, Plethora of Paladins was published in 1986 which is three years before AD&D 2e which was released making it an AD&D 1e article. The first pre-design articles for AD&D 2e by the designer, Dave "Zeb, Cook, did not occur until Dragon 118 in February of 1987 while the AD&D 2e questionnaire asking fans what they wanted did not appear until Dragon 124 published in August of 1987. Finally, the Planescape Campaign Setting was not released until 1994 which is 8 years after the publication of "Plethora of Paladins" and five years after the release of AD&D 2e.

Very good. You can look up dates. Doesn't change the point. Dragon articles are official DnD. Always have been. Says so right on the cover. Why do you think dragon articles are unofficial?

 

[Greg K]

Very good. You can look up dates. Doesn't change the point. Dragon articles are official DnD. Always have been. Says so right on the cover. Why do you think dragon articles are unofficial?

Because when people questioned certain articles, it had been stated in letter and opinion columns that they (the articles in question) were not official.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Dragon articles are official DnD. Always have been. Says so right on the cover. Why do you think dragon articles are unofficial?

I think perhaps the question is what does it mean to say something is official. Yes, Dragon was "official" in that (as part of its branding and marketing): it billed itself as the official magazine of the game (a claim that could not be made by White Dwarf, before it became all Warhammer). As a teenager buying the magazine at the time, I knew that meant that adventures were less likely to have kooky elements or new monsters that were not commensurate with those in the Monster Manual.

But it certainly did not mean that anything published in the game was automatically in. Nothing in Dragon was automatically "in", and everything required DM permission for inclusion.

That, I believe, is what Greg K is expressing -- the lived reality of how Dragon magazine related to the table.

No not all content from the era of the Paladin article was official. Dragon was the official D&D magazine in that it was published by TSR. However, very little of that Dragon content by the people working for TSR was considered to be "official" rules until it made it into a supplement and many articles were not even by TSR employees.

This was a world before the internet, before specialized games stores being widely available, etc., and as a result even the language surrounding this issue that we use continually on these boards ("core rules", "game-breaking", even "house rules") were not widely employed because the opportunities to share them just didn't exist. Maybe your specific table successfully anticipated all of these terms, but it was not possible for them to be widely held, and certainly the relationship I describe (Dragon magazine required DM approval for inclusion, rather than were automatically in unless the DM excluded them) held true at every game I played in those early decades.

Obviously, I'm sharing my own experiences, and they are no more valid than those of anyone else. As it turns out, though, they are also corroborated by Dragon magazine itself.

Issue 41 (November 1980), p. 7, in the Editor's note before the introduction of the NPC class of the Witch, says:

"Dragon's responsibility, as we see it, is not to set forth major rule changes or additions to the already complex D&D and AD&D game systems, but rather to suggest supplements to the game which can be used to add diversity, interest and excitement to an already exciting campaign. The anti-paladin, published in issue #39, was one such suggestion. This is another. And there will be more to come."

Greg K's position -- with specific reference to a variant paladin -- is therefore supported by the editors of Dragon.