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

[pemerton]

I don't see clerics as knights at all, i see Clerics as just priests with different specialities dependingnon deity and domain. Some can fight, others focus on orisions(cantrips), some more on skills and so on.

The clerics are seen by most as just priests, what ever knightly connection they had in the past has drifted away.

Clerics are clergy. Paladins are laity. Paladins do not have and can not hold ecclesiastical rank or authority. They can not perform religious rituals or sacraments. They are, instead instruments who receive patronage from divinity.

From PHB p 20 (author Gary Gygax):

This class of character [the cleric] bears a certain resemblance to religous orders of knighthood of medieval times.​

Which is to say, clerics as conceived of in AD&D weren't particularly ecclesiastical - given that the crusading knights were lay brothers, not clergy. If one took level titles seriously then a cleric was ordained at 3rd level ("priest").

There's also no reason to think that paladin's cannot hold ecclesiastical rank or authority. Kings like Edward the Confessor or (the mythical) Arthur certainly exercise ecclesiasitcal authority eg they appointed bishops within their realms. Charlemagne (perhaps not a paladin, but nevertheless a revered figure who sits in the general space of the archetype) was annointed Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope, and also appointed bishops in his realm.

It is possible, of course, to construct differences if one wants to - though this assumes a contrast between church and laity which may have no currency in some gameworlds - but the original archetypes were the same.

 

[Alzrius]

Big difference between "modular option" and "rule 0 it."

Yeah, the difference is that a modular option is one that's actually in the books somewhere - which, insofar as I'm aware, wasn't what was being discussed when [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] talked about "if it comes up at your table, just negotiate what kind of PCs you want" - and using a house rule to change it.

Likewise, the Rule 0 Fallacy is saying that something's not really a problem since it can be fixed manually, which is what telling someone to just change it if something's not working for them is.

 

[Imaro]

It was in BECMI well after it was in AD&D, introduced in the Companion set. But yes, it's been in the game for a while.

However, the point you're making is utterly tangential to the point I was making and the point I was arguing against. We all have parts of the game we want to see, and parts we don't want to see. We will all have to use modules to make it work for our individual games. Rightly or wrongly, this is by design.



-O

So are you saying any and all things in the game are of exactly the same importance, weight, and relevance to D&D? If not then the discussion of those differences isn't tangential to any statement centered around whether something should or shouldn't be core, especially if a comparison is brought up, in fact it's pretty important.

 

[Obryn]

So are you saying any and all things in the game are of exactly the same importance, weight, and relevance to D&D? If not then the discussion of those differences isn't tangential to any statement centered around whether something should or shouldn't be core, especially if a comparison is brought up, in fact it's pretty important.

Nope, not what I'm saying at all.

-O

 

[pemerton]

The idea that it's "rule zero" to come up with a campaign idea, to work out what sort of PCs would ift into that capaign, to agree how the players and GM can work together to have a fun game, is new to me.

 

[tuxgeo]

Minor points that some here seem to be skipping:

1. Aragorn was a "Ranger," not a "Paladin." It says so right there on the tin.

2. Clerics are all "clergy." That's what "clergy" means: "the clerics."

3. I don't see any need for all Paladins to be laity, but I'm not fussed about it.

4. I am greatly pleased with the idea that members of the ordinary orders of Knighthood (to be redundant, because all "orders" are "ordinary") gain their ranks through mundane channels, but that Paladins bypass that entire schmear to gain Knight-like powers by direct intervention of the relevant deity or deities. ("Yon King won't make me a Knight? The god he worships will!")

 

[pemerton]

Aragorn was a "Ranger," not a "Paladin." It says so right there on the tin.

The main respect in which Aragorn resembles an AD&D ranger is that at 10th level he can use scrying items (namely, Palantiri). But he very obviously draws on the myth of kingship that underpins Arthurian romance and is evidenced by such points as that "the hands of a king are the hands of a healer".

Clerics are all "clergy." That's what "clergy" means: "the clerics."

In Gygax's D&D they become priests (presumably a mark of ordination?) at 3rd level. He himself doesn't compare them to clergy, but to the crusading orders of knighthood (whose members were lay brothers).

"Yon King won't make me a Knight? The god he worships will!")

Within the mythical framework of paladinhood, this would mark out said king as a usurper of some sort. A just ruler (or other knight) would afterall recognise the call of divinity in the aspirant to knighthood, and therefore knight them (eg the scene in John Boorman's Excalibur in which Uriens knights Arthur).

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

End of the day still pretty unimpressed and unconvinced about the proposed Paladin changes. As far as I'm concerned the LG only is one of the defining traits of the class which emphasizes its exclusive & elite status. Still, wait and see - can do nothing more.

 

[tuxgeo]

The main respect in which Aragorn resembles an AD&D ranger is that at 10th level he can use scrying items (namely, Palantiri). But he very obviously draws on the myth of kingship that underpins Arthurian romance and is evidenced by such points as that "the hands of a king are the hands of a healer".

In Gygax's D&D they become priests (presumably a mark of ordination?) at 3rd level. He himself doesn't compare them to clergy, but to the crusading orders of knighthood (whose members were lay brothers).

Within the mythical framework of paladinhood, this would mark out said king as a usurper of some sort. A just ruler (or other knight) would afterall recognise the call of divinity in the aspirant to knighthood, and therefore knight them (eg the scene in John Boorman's Excalibur in which Uriens knights Arthur).

Clearly I disagree about those conclusions, and I consider those points to be insufficient.

There's more to the Ranger than existed in AD&D; there's more to Paladinhood than was written in the French legends about the Welsh Arthur; there's more to D&D than Gygax, whom I admire (and almost revere) but do not worship; and there's more to the connection between kingship and religion than perfect alignment: particularly, the conflict between Temporal and Ecclesiastical authority is of long standing, and lead Henry VIII to start his own church under his own authority, so he could appoint the bishops.

 

[Weather Report]

1. Aragorn was a "Ranger," not a "Paladin." It says so right there on the tin.

Not a D&D ranger, he did not cast spells, dual-wield, specialise in archery, or have a pet.