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

[Sadras]

Back stories for D&D, I am weaker with because I concentrate on the now-->future as opposed to the past. I've always felt the backstory of importance in D&D is what the character did once he hit the table especially if the characters are coming in at low level. In other games, like Hero, back stories have a stronger emphasis and I treat them treated differently.

I'm similar to [MENTION=5038]Greg K[/MENTION]'s approach with backstories as I tend to think they are pretty important in defining the character as well as the goals he creates and therefore I try as DM to thread backstories into the present for importance.

 

[pemerton]

In your example, using your example, obviously there is something more going on here. So, now it's up to us, as players, during play to determine just what's going on. How can these two concepts both be true? What's happened? Am I pretender or were you just mistaken? I don't know, let's find out in play. Isn't that why we're sitting down at the table?

In your example, my classic paladin's concept is now impacted by the existence of your pretender to his title. What if that's not something I wanted to role-play? Aren't you forcing me to play my character in your story?

<snip>

In a world where any alignment has paladins, you exclude the character whose concept is "only the epitome of LG can be a paladin."

The last line I have quoted is phrase in such a way as to obscure what, from at least my point of view (and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s too, I think) is really going on.

The "world" in which any alignment has paladins is the real world in which the players and GM's live. (The "meatspace" referred to upthread by [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION].) In that world, any player is free to write "paladin" in the class entry on a sheet, and to write whatever alignment s/he chooses on that part of his/her sheet.

But that does not tell us what is true in the fiction. In the gameworld, whether the character is really a paladin is - as Hussar explains - up for grabs. It's up to actual play to determine which character is really a paladin (and of course different players in the game might disagree, just as they might disagree over which PC is the most clever or the most honourable or the most ruthless).

I am with Hussar in thinking that this is what actual play is about. Character creation should be about raising the questions, not answering them.

If I wanted to play a PC whose view of the Raven Queen was in conflict with yours, you'd settle it through role-play. But if I as DM have a view of the Raven Queen in conflict with yours, you think your view should automatically prevail.

Why do you give a fellow player the authority to "prove" through role-play whether your character is "right" (I know that's not really the point) - but would deny the DM the ability to do so?

Because the GM's job in play is not to push for answers to a particular character's questions. That is the players' job. The GM's job is to manage the rest of the fiction in such a way that those questions get asked and candidate answers can emerge.

 

[pemerton]

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.

It seems to me that that leaves plenty of room for Lawful Neutral, unless you really want to play up the issue of generosity.

There is also the paradox that the "infidel" live by pretty much the same code - which generates possible tensions between "show no mercy to the infidel" and "always be right and good against evil and injustice".

Which is to say, even within a completely orthodox conception of paladinhood there is scope to explore outlooks other than one's that D&D would label LG.

 

[Sadras]

But that does not tell us what is true in the fiction. In the gameworld, whether the character is really a paladin is - as Hussar explains - up for grabs. It's up to actual play to determine which character is really a paladin (and of course different players in the game might disagree, just as they might disagree over which PC is the most clever or the most honourable or the most ruthless).

I am with Hussar in thinking that this is what actual play is about. Character creation should be about raising the questions, not answering them.

Because the GM's job in play is not to push for answers to a particular character's questions. That is the players' job. The GM's job is to manage the rest of the fiction in such a way that those questions get asked and candidate answers can emerge.

How are those questions answered through play (via the DM) without offending one of the players/characters?
I doubt these answers will come from play via the players through their characters, which would leave the DM having to sort this mess out as to which character (player's concept) is right or am I not interpreting your post correctly.

 

[Savage Wombat]

You are both forgetting that this thread is not, ultimately, about what an individual DM allows in his or her game. This is about what should or should not be published in the official 5th edition PH. Which is why understanding both sides of the argument is more important than you are willing to accept. I'm not trying to persuade you to accept the other position - I'm trying to get you to understand what the other position is.

But [MENTION=9171]Lalato[/MENTION] doesn't want us to talk about this any more.

 

[evileeyore]

I'm not trying to persuade you to accept the other position - I'm trying to get you to understand what the other position is.

We understand your position. We simply don't accept as a valid position from which to write rules.


Look at it from this perspective:

If WotC write rules that are open to "Any Alignment" Paladins, then it is easy for individual DMs to houserule it to a smaller subset of the "9 Periodic Alignments", say "Only Lawful Paladins" or "Only Lawful Good" or "Only Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil".

However if WotC were to recreate the old "Only One Way" Paladins it may be harder to houserule in the other direction, if a number of Paladinic abilities are based on Alignments (Smite Evil, Lay Hands On Only Good, Uphold Law, Choatic Saves, Evil Summons, etc).

Thus writing the rules to be inclusive at the outset covers both positions. It's still the DM's responsibility to decide on the organizations that sponsor Paladins and those requirements.

 

[Savage Wombat]

We understand your position. We simply don't accept as a valid position from which to write rules.

...

Thus writing the rules to be inclusive at the outset covers both positions. It's still the DM's responsibility to decide on the organizations that sponsor Paladins and those requirements.

No, see, that just shows that you DON'T understand the other position. Because you still think your position covers both sides. Which my examples demonstrate that it doesn't.

You think that saying "paladins can be any alignment should make everyone happy" is true - which I've shown actually isn't. Your actual position should be "people who want LG paladins only should suck it up because XYZ" - which has never been then point I've been arguing against.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

I think I understand both sides of the debate more than you think I do, academically if not intuitively.

However, you seem to have ignored where I addressed your point:

...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.

...Unless you're no longer talking about your Central Issue of definition?

 

[Hussar]

No, see, that just shows that you DON'T understand the other position. Because you still think your position covers both sides. Which my examples demonstrate that it doesn't.

You think that saying "paladins can be any alignment should make everyone happy" is true - which I've shown actually isn't. Your actual position should be "people who want LG paladins only should suck it up because XYZ" - which has never been then point I've been arguing against.

But, your argument basically boils down to saying that because a given player doesn't like any other interpretation other than the one true interpretation of a given archetype (and you can equally apply this to druids - the ability to make non-true neutral druids came about in 3e after all - a pretty radical change in archetype, and you can apply this to Rangers (no non-good rangers until 3e), then no other interpretation should be allowed by the rules.

Sure, we could house rule non-LG paladins, the same way you can house rule anything. But, you're basically telling anyone who disagrees with you, too bad, core will include the one true version of a given class and tough noogies to anyone else. Despite the fact that including a broader archetype class makes it easier for everyone to get what they want. With open alignment paladins, there is absolutely no rule preventing you from playing a classic paladin. There is absolutely no 3e rule that prevents you from playing a classic Druid or Ranger either.

But now, those who don't want to play a classic class, can also get to sit at the table too. How is that not more inclusive? The only way in which it is not inclusive is if a player absolutely wants to dictate to the entire group what they can and cannot play. Sorry, I really don't think the rules should do that. I don't want rules that say, "Sorry, your interpretation is WRONG and you can't play that." I want the rules to say, "Hey, if you want to play this interpretation, here's how you do that. If you want to play a different interpretation, here's how you do that too."

I want inclusive, not exclusive rules.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I didn’t know that Paladins were allowed to be other alignments other than Lawful Stupid in this new edition. If so, it allows them to play all sorts of Knightly characters with differing allegiances. So, on the whole I think that’s a good thing.