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

[Sadras]

If I choose to call my rogue a priest of Kord, again, how is that any of your business?

Player issues aside, this is an interesting concept to play - a rogue who misrepresents himself as a priest. This character has the potential to cause a lot of havoc.

Hmmm, I'm thinking of introducing such a NPC to the party's PC cleric who manages his own parish. Thanks Hussar

 

[pemerton]

by removing the LG requirement, the publishers are redefining the paladin's essential character.

Only if you think that alignment is essential to the archetype. Given that the archetype was invented c 1000 years ago, and alignment mechanics were invented c 40 years ago, I don't think that this is the case.

 

[billd91]

Only if you think that alignment is essential to the archetype. Given that the archetype was invented c 1000 years ago, and alignment mechanics were invented c 40 years ago, I don't think that this is the case.

But is it essential to D&D's specific interpretation of the archetype? I would argue it is. Other games may interpret the archetype in other ways, but for D&D, the classic version is Lawful Good and strict behavioral code. I'd prefer it remain that way and leave alternative formulations as sidebar or DMG options which would give us both what we want out of D&D paladins.

 

[pemerton]

But is it essential to D&D's specific interpretation of the archetype? I would argue it is.

I think it's pretty clear that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I don't accept your argument. Which goes back to Hussar's point - if you want to play an alignment-oriented PC how is it hurting you if someone else is not. Even someone else at the same table?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But is it essential to D&D's specific interpretation of the archetype? I would argue it is.

How would you make that argument? It seems tricky given that D&D-style Paladin is now a fairly common non-literary fantasy trope, but in most fantasy there isn't a strict association between LG/Code and Paladin powers - the powers seem to remain (sometimes become dark mirrors of them, of course) even when the Paladin is less than virtuous, and some Paladins have powers whilst being complete jerks.

Other games may interpret the archetype in other ways, but for D&D, the classic version is Lawful Good and strict behavioral code. I'd prefer it remain that way and leave alternative formulations as sidebar or DMG options which would give us both what we want out of D&D paladins.

Preference isn't really argument, though. You've not shown why you think it's "essential". Given the archetype can clearly work without those (hell, right back to the Solamnic Knights we saw that), it seems a hard one to make.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Why do you care what definition I use for my character? It impacts you in no way. Even if we both play paladins in the same campaign, how is it remotely your business how I play my character?

If I choose to play a fighter and call it a samurai, how does this affect your samurai classed character? If I choose to call my rogue a priest of Kord, again, how is that any of your business?

I am surprised by how many people seem to want to tell other people they are playing wrong. I think the game would be much better served if people could worry about their own characters and stop trying to play someone else's character for them.

I know you don't agree with the argument, I just find it ridiculous after all this time when you act like you don't know what the opposing argument IS.

No one plays D&D in a vacuum. What one person plays affects the game world, which affects everyone else's characters. To claim otherwise borders on solipsism.

If my character concept is "Last Son of Krypton", and you come along and write up a Kryptonian warlord and his band of Kryptonese followers, do you claim your character choice does not impact mine?

 

[billd91]

How would you make that argument? It seems tricky given that D&D-style Paladin is now a fairly common non-literary fantasy trope, but in most fantasy there isn't a strict association between LG/Code and Paladin powers - the powers seem to remain (sometimes become dark mirrors of them, of course) even when the Paladin is less than virtuous, and some Paladins have powers whilst being complete jerks.



Preference isn't really argument, though. You've not shown why you think it's "essential". Given the archetype can clearly work without those (hell, right back to the Solamnic Knights we saw that), it seems a hard one to make.

It's simple. D&D tapped into the meaning of paladin as a knightly champion. The knightly implies chivalric which would include tenets like:
Believe the Church's teachings and observe all the Church's directions.
Defend the Church.
Respect and defend all weaknesses.
Love your country.
Show no mercy to the Infidel. Do not hesitate to make war with them.
Perform all your feudal duties as long as they do not conflict with the laws of God.
Never lie or go back on one's word.
Be generous to everyone.
Always and everywhere be right and good against evil and injustice. [borrowed shamelessly from wikipedia]

Right there, we're pretty much ruling out anything but good. Consider the strictness of the external code and I'd say we're also talking lawful because there's little freedom for individual interpretation or choosing which tenets to follow. The additional restrictions imposed in D&D dating way back to the original Greyhawk supplement serve to increase the strictness load even further. And through his devotion, he has some potent divine grace.

The paladin adapted not simply a religious warrior - it adapted a specific sort of religious warrior - one based on stories of Christian knights and other heroic ideals. Tempus Thales of the Sanctuary anthology may be a religious warrior with his own powers (including regeneration) and restrictions (must not take a woman in any gentle manner) but there's no mistaking him for a paladin by any common conception of the term. It needs more than "religious warrior". The paladin as conceived in the Greyhawk supplement and running through 3e was a much closer mapping to the term paladin because of his codes and alignment than 4e or, as we're learning, 5e. A paladin that could be devoted to any god, particularly an evil one, really doesn't fit the term.

One of the most ironically humorous aspects of D&D's history has been the disapproval of certain Christian authorities and groups when there are no fewer than two character classes significantly influenced by Christian mythologies, one of them being the morally upstanding and strict paladin - the exemplar of the knight in shining armor and heroic (and here I don't mean Greek heroic) archetype.

 

[evileeyore]

Why do you care what definition I use for my character? It impacts you in no way. Even if we both play paladins in the same campaign, how is it remotely your business how I play my character?

Obviously, according to this doll, it touches them in their D&D place.

I know you don't agree with the argument, I just find it ridiculous after all this time when you act like you don't know what the opposing argument IS.

No one plays D&D in a vacuum. What one person plays affects the game world, which affects everyone else's characters. To claim otherwise borders on solipsism.

If my character concept is "Last Son of Krypton", and you come along and write up a Kryptonian warlord and his band of Kryptonese followers, do you claim your character choice does not impact mine?

I find it outrageously funny that you would chose an example that so completely undermines the point you are trying to make.

Wait, you are arguing that Hussar's character choices severely affect yours, yes?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

If it's a question of what you use at your own table, that has no affect on me or the game at large. But, by removing the LG requirement, the publishers are redefining the paladin's essential character. Certainly they have the power to put lipstick on a pig and call it whatever they want, but a little bit of what makes D&D distinct erodes with that change.

I'm just going to point out that D&D history is already littered with discarded ideas that 'make D&D distinct,' including quite a few alignment restrictions that were loosened or relaxed even by the 3e era.

And yet here we are, enjoying what many old-timers no doubt still regard as 'eroded D&D.'

 

[billd91]

I'm just going to point out that D&D history is already littered with discarded ideas that 'make D&D distinct,' including quite a few alignment restrictions that were loosened or relaxed even by the 3e era.

And yet here we are, enjoying what many old-timers no doubt still regard as 'eroded D&D.'

You may have noticed that the 5e development process included an extensive examination of what makes D&D D&D, a distinct contrast to 4e's development process and almost certainly a reaction to 4e's performance in the market. That they have failed to reclaim this distinct piece of ground is unfortunate, but nobody expected them to claim them all.

EDIT: Actually, I'll rephrase that. They don't need to reclaim this piece of ground fully - but I would have preferred them to stick their flag in it by focusing on the traditional concept of the paladin (the one that actually fits the term better) before showing alternative, optional constructions.