D&D 5E June 27 Q&A: Modular Features, Paladin Alignment and Legendary Creatures

[Alzrius]

My point is that wondering if it's a mechanic is a weird bit of navel-gazing with no discernible benefit.

I disagree. Pinning down definitions helps to refine understanding of what's under discussion.

 

[Obryn]

I disagree. Pinning down definitions helps to refine understanding of what's under discussion.

Or we find the obvious stuff and work outwards. For 1e/2e/3e paladins, alignment has a mechanical effect; that much is clear and obvious. Whether or not you want to call it a "mechanic" is navel-gazing and avoiding the topic. Because the topic under discussion is generally this mechanical effect.

-O

 

[Alzrius]

Or we find the obvious stuff and work outwards. For 1e/2e/3e paladins, alignment has a mechanical effect; that much is clear and obvious.

See, this is why precise terms and definitions are necessary. Alignment, unto itself, has no mechanical effect for paladins; you play a paladin, with its requisite Lawful Good alignment, and that's that, with no mechanical effect.

Now, the paladin's existing mechanics have an alignment-dependent component, it's true, but that doesn't make their alignment a "mechanic" any more than a ranger's favored terrain class features makes the terrain itself "mechanical" in nature. That's the sort of subtle distinction you only realize when you bother to try and define what it is you're talking about.

Whether or not you want to call it a "mechanic" is navel-gazing and avoiding the topic. Because the topic under discussion is generally this mechanical effect.

It's more correct to say that dismissing that discussion is facile and derailing the topic, because the topic under discussion is exactly a paladin is, and if their Lawful Good nature is an inherent element of the class.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm in favor of alignment restrictions for two reasons: One, these alignments are indelibly tied to the classes' identities. Everyone knows Paladins are lawful good and Druids are neutral. If you take that away, it erodes the "shared language" and classic D&D feel.

Two, why even have alignments at all if you don't use them to describe things? Why say that Orcs are chaotic evil if you're afraid to say that Paladins are lawful good?

 

[Obryn]

See, this is why precise terms and definitions are necessary. Alignment, unto itself, has no mechanical effect for paladins; you play a paladin, with its requisite Lawful Good alignment, and that's that, with no mechanical effect.

Now, the paladin's existing mechanics have an alignment-dependent component, it's true, but that doesn't make their alignment a "mechanic" any more than a ranger's favored terrain class features makes the terrain itself "mechanical" in nature. That's the sort of subtle distinction you only realize when you bother to try and define what it is you're talking about.

It's more correct to say that dismissing that discussion is facile and derailing the topic, because the topic under discussion is exactly a paladin is, and if their Lawful Good nature is an inherent element of the class.

I'm not going down this particular rabbit hole with you. The only thing dumber than arguing about whether something with mechanical effects is a mechanic, is arguing about that argument. I'm out.

-O

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

With the stated changes to Alignment and the Paladin I'm starting to wonder what exactly is going to be left?

Will Alignment still be in the game without me having to purchase something to add it back in, it what form, which serves what purpose?

What will the Paladin's identity look like post-changes? Will the class description merely have a block of descriptive text in place of the words "Lawful Good"?

Will the narrative of fall from grace, redemption or irredeemable, be just that, a narrative divorced from the Paladin specifically and with no supporting mechanics in any case?

I think I know the answers to these questions and it points to something more generic.

 

[pemerton]

What will the Paladin's identity look like post-changes?

Probably much as they look in every other fantasy RPG without an alignment mechanic ie honourable and valiant warriors who favour heavy arms and armour and are driven to protect the innocent and punish wrongdoers.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

That's the Fighter-Knight who adheres to the chivalric ideal. What room then is left for the Paladin?

The answer we're presented with so far it to grab 3E divine melee magic from the Cleric, give it exclusively to the Paladin, and give the Paladin stronger magic casting powers.

Basically melee Clerics.

 

[pemerton]

That's the Fighter-Knight who adheres to the chivalric ideal. What room then is left for the Paladin?

That they are blessed by (the) god(s). That they are saints (eg St Edward; St Joan). That they are holy champions (Arthur, Galahad, Percival, Aragorn).

The answer we're presented with so far it to grab 3E divine melee magic from the Cleric, give it exclusively to the Paladin, and give the Paladin stronger magic casting powers.

Basically melee Clerics.

There are a range of ways to reflect the connection between paladins and divinity. Spell-casting is just one (and not my personal favourite). The AD&D abilities are another.

 

[1of3]

That's the Fighter-Knight who adheres to the chivalric ideal. What room then is left for the Paladin?

I guess a Knight fighter does not have to be chivalrous. It's a fighter born to warrior nobility as opposed to peasentry.