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

[Savage Wombat]

Because there is no negotiation at all. The DM is right. The player cannot gainsay the DM, after all. If you, the DM, claim that the Raven Queen is X, I cannot, as a player, claim that it is Y.

But players can, and do, "gainsay" the DM because the DM is a friend of theirs at their table. And can be negotiated with just like the players.

So, yeah, if the DM's interpretation is counter to the player's, but the DM didn't negotiate that at the outset, the DM should back off. The DM is playing bait and switch otherwise, and telling the player that he or she is playing the wrong character. I think that my character is X, you tell me, no and it's really Y. If you do so at chargen, I'll probably be fine with it, since I can choose not to play that character. But, afterwards, yeah, it's better for the DM to step back and let the player play the character that the player sees as his or her own character.

Establishing an alignment restriction meets the definition of "negotiated at the outset." To use your phrasing, I see this as "You think your character is X, and I'm telling you that you seem to not be role-playing X." At which point the player should probably drop out of character and directly argue with the DM over what exactly constitutes X, since they don't seem to be on the same page any more.

But, this is somewhat besides the point. The issue was that you wanted to play a "LG Paladin" but are somehow prevented from doing so because I'm playing a CG paladin. Bringing in the DM into the equation is simply clouding the issue. Presumably, in a DM/Player situation, the DM can simply declare that all paladins are LG at chargen. Cool, no problems. It is the DM's world after all. But, if the DM allows for any alignment paladin, you, as another player, should not ever be able to tell me that I can't play my any alignment paladin just because you want to play a traditional LG paladin.

I'm beginning to lose track of your belief here. I'm not suggesting that the player should be able to tell another player what to play, but that one player's decision of what to play can be in conflict with another's. The issue is that, when the question of "should paladins be restricted to LG" is resolved, some people believe that a non-LG paladin is a non-paladin. Some of these players are DMs. I maintain that the "I think only LG paladins are paladins" crowd is not served by a "paladins can be any alignment" rule, and claiming that the second includes the first is a misunderstanding of the first group's belief. If these people are in the majority - probably not - then the game rules would be better served by accommodating their belief, just as they attempt to accommodate what the majority think a "warlock" is.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The people who think paladins should be LG are not talking about an individual character concept, they are talking about a definition in the game world, a rule of physics if you will. Attempting to make the debate about "you don't want to let me play what I want" is avoiding the central issue.

For you. The definition of the paladin is your central issue. It might seem like others are 'changing the debate' or being disingenuous, but creativity and the freedom to role play always was and is the central issue for us.

Definition is malleable, and therefore a non-issue for us.

 

[Savage Wombat]

For you. The definition of the paladin is your central issue. It might seem like others are 'changing the debate' or being disingenuous, but creativity and the freedom to role play always was and is the central issue for us.

Definition is malleable, and therefore a non-issue for us.

If you do not attempt to understand the other side of a debate, you are not engaging in debate but simply nay-saying. I continue to state that many of those supporting all-alignment paladins have not tried to understand why others feel that paladins need to be alignment restricted.

If you wish to argue with me, please attempt to address my point rather than a point you attribute to me.

 

[Hussar]

Ok. Druids for AdnD are restricted to true Neutral. I am playing a true Neutral Druid because I believe that that is the archetypal Druid.

Does that mean you cannot play a Druid of another alignment? In what way do your paladin arguments not equally apply here?

 

[Savage Wombat]

Ok. Druids for AdnD are restricted to true Neutral. I am playing a true Neutral Druid because I believe that that is the archetypal Druid.

Does that mean you cannot play a Druid of another alignment? In what way do your paladin arguments not equally apply here?

OK. You are playing a druid because, in your view as a role-player, druids are True Neutral. (Assume the DM is OK with this.) You have a concept of what your druid believes, how it is relevant to the campaign, and that those who are not True Neutral have some major disagreement with you on how the forces of nature should be served. You, in a spiritual sense, derive your definition of "what it means to be a Druid" from your interpretation of the rule definition of TN.

Another player comes along and says "I'm a druid too - I'm a CG druid of Ehlonna". (Assume the DM has not yet ruled on this.) If the DM says, "Sure, go ahead" - he has just told you that some portion of your character concept is in error. You are told that druids derive power from gods, that they are not solely devoted to the balance (or whatever TN definition you use) - maybe now you don't feel you can trust other druids to support you because now you can't assume they share your viewpoint. His concept has now impinged on yours, without your permission. Your character concepts do not mesh.

This is not a statement that one is right or wrong - that the DM should rule for one player or the other for any particular reason - it is a statement that the second character concept forces the first to compromise a portion of his character concept. Telling the first player "you can still play a TN druid" does not change the fact that his character has been impacted.

You can even go outside of alignment. If you join a campaign assuming that "all elves are mystical children of Iluvatar" and a new player comes in with a "Santa's elf" - your assumption about the universal nature of elves has been compromised. You could say "well, they're different kinds of elves" - but the first players perception of elves doesn't allow for that. But now he has to compromise on that view.

A player who thinks all druids should be neutral is not served by rules allowing all alignments to be druids.
A player who thinks all paladins should be lawful is not served by rules allowing all alignments to be paladins.

Argue for inclusiveness all you want - but on its merits, not on the assumption that inclusiveness covers both positions.

 

[Lalato]

OK dudes, circular arguments are circular. This is getting old (Methuselah old).

Accept that you are not convincing anyone, and let's turn this thread into something more constructive. Tell me about your Paladin's code, oath, lifestyle, guidelines, power source, pact with their deity... whatever. Tell me something good... but preferably not lawful good. (see what I did there?)

 

[evileeyore]

Argue for inclusiveness all you want - but on its merits, not on the assumption that inclusiveness covers both positions.

It requires a DM to either houserule and restrict Alignments to play the "Restrictive Alignment Camp" or leave it open and thus play to the other Camp.

So where is the problem? Just houserule it in your campaigns. Or if you're the player, put up with whatever the DM decides.

 

[pkt77242]

OK dudes, circular arguments are circular. This is getting old (Methuselah old).

Accept that you are not convincing anyone, and let's turn this thread into something more constructive. Tell me about your Paladin's code, oath, lifestyle, guidelines, power source, pact with their deity... whatever. Tell me something good... but preferably not lawful good. (see what I did there?)

Well I already told my story of my womanizing Paladin so, I once played a LG Paladin that couldn't stand to lie or be around people that were lying as his facial expression would give it away (think Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory when being asked to lie) it led to some very awkward role-playing moments and quite a few busted scenarios for the poor rogue in our group.

Also earlier someone mentioned that they wanted to play an alcoholic Paladin and that is a great idea. I once played an alcoholic Dwarven fighter that was awesome. We had a group get to 12 level and then a TPK happened so we all created 10th level characters to pick up where the last group left off and I made my 10th level Dwarven Fighter who drank to forget about all the friends that had died as well as all of the horrible things (devils, dragons, Drow) that he had seen. I think a functioning alcoholic character can work in D&D and can add a touch of realism to any character class (but would be very interesting in a Paladin).

 

[evileeyore]

Tell me about your Paladin's code, oath, lifestyle, guidelines, power source, pact with their deity... whatever. Tell me something good... but preferably not lawful good. (see what I did there?)

I tend to dislike Paladins in D&D (I'm not a fan of Alignments, thus things that force them to be an issue poke one of my buttons).


Thus I've only ever played one. Me and a friend decided to play brothers, Paladins and to push one aspect of the Aligment requirement as the central concept for each character.

As the older brother my Paladin was Law and Duty before all things, with a passing nod to Good, and my younger brother was Good and Bravery before all things, only mildly restrained by Law. Each of us served a different diety, both were LG, but like our characters the two gods both favored one aspect of their alignment over the other (I want to say it was Tyr and Torm respectively).

That campaign was interesting considering the other characters were a CN Wizard, a LE Assassin, and TN Druid.... the Assassin walked a fine line and kept his alignment (and most of her side missions) well hidden. But even with the "obvious strife" presented in the alignments of our colleagues, it was the arguments we brothers got into that were the most contentious.

 

[Chaltab]

OK. You are playing a druid because, in your view as a role-player, druids are True Neutral. (Assume the DM is OK with this.) You have a concept of what your druid believes, how it is relevant to the campaign, and that those who are not True Neutral have some major disagreement with you on how the forces of nature should be served. You, in a spiritual sense, derive your definition of "what it means to be a Druid" from your interpretation of the rule definition of TN.

Another player comes along and says "I'm a druid too - I'm a CG druid of Ehlonna". (Assume the DM has not yet ruled on this.) If the DM says, "Sure, go ahead" - he has just told you that some portion of your character concept is in error. You are told that druids derive power from gods, that they are not solely devoted to the balance (or whatever TN definition you use) - maybe now you don't feel you can trust other druids to support you because now you can't assume they share your viewpoint. His concept has now impinged on yours, without your permission. Your character concepts do not mesh.

If that really bothers you that bad then honestly, get over it. If your concept of Druid requires all other Druids in the campaign to share your alignment then you're being unreasonble. The DM is not telling you your character is invalid; the DM is telling you that your Druid's tradition is not the only Druid tradition in his world. If that is intolerable to you as a player then either get thicker skin or find another group. None of this is even a coherent argument as to why this needs to be supported in the core rules. "I would feel personally slighted if a DM didn't run the campaign to my specifications." Is not really a premise that you can take to the conclusion "Therefore my specifications should be the default rules for the game." If you want Paladins = Lawful Good to be regarded as something worthy of encoding into the base rules, then you need to come up with an argument for the merits of the rule based on other than preference.

You can even go outside of alignment. If you join a campaign assuming that "all elves are mystical children of Iluvatar" and a new player comes in with a "Santa's elf" - your assumption about the universal nature of elves has been compromised. You could say "well, they're different kinds of elves" - but the first players perception of elves doesn't allow for that. But now he has to compromise on that view.

And? Either compromise or leave the campaign. Nobody is forcing you to continue. Something that out-there is not likely to be without controversy anyway if your players weren't expecting it, so if you have a reasonable DM you can probably talk it out like adults.

Argue for inclusiveness all you want - but on its merits, not on the assumption that inclusiveness covers both positions.

It does. It includes both positions by leaving it entirely in the hands of the DM. If you want alignment restrictions, implement them as a house rule. If the majority of the players and/or the DM doesn't want them and you do, suck it up and deal. If your players are new and don't give a flying fig about tradition, then insisting upon that tradition is just going to annoy them.