D&D 5E June 27 Q&A: Modular Features, Paladin Alignment and Legendary Creatures
They all rode horse, Gandalf has Shadowfax.
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Maybe Wizards should also get a called mount? ;-)
Szatany
First Post
The Shadow
Hero
I'm all for the paladin being required to follow a code. I just think that 'Lawful Good' is a poor description of one. Honestly, after all these years, the difference between 'Lawful' and 'Chaotic' has NEVER been clearly delineated; it has caused arguments for as long as I've been involved in the game. (Since about 1981.) People think they know what they mean, but when they try to explain it, all sorts of different things come out - Moorcockian primordial powers, degrees of societal organization, level of commitment to a society's laws, level of commitment to a personal code, predictability or lack thereof of personal habits... the list goes on.
Frankly, alignment has never really made sense, and I'm glad to see it go. Paladins in my games won't be any less good, or even any less 'lawful' (whatever that really means) because they don't write 'Lawful Good' on their sheet. (I'd rather see the class called Cavalier or Champion and reserve the term Paladin for the traditional archetype.) Instead, we'll have a clear understanding of what the character's code is, and go from there.
Frankly, alignment has never really made sense, and I'm glad to see it go. Paladins in my games won't be any less good, or even any less 'lawful' (whatever that really means) because they don't write 'Lawful Good' on their sheet. (I'd rather see the class called Cavalier or Champion and reserve the term Paladin for the traditional archetype.) Instead, we'll have a clear understanding of what the character's code is, and go from there.
Imaro
Legend
I agree that the term "paladin" is the specific name for a well defined and traditional archetype (at least so far as D&D and it's lore is concerned), which is why I don't like the any alignment or code you want paladin since it's not the same archetype ( IMO, divinely invested mercenary vs. paragon of good and order called to serve by a higher power) . that said...
Emphasis mine... how exactly is that going to happen? If it's through discussion, I fail to see how the same thing couldn't take place between a DM and player about the definition of LG and the creation of a paladin code in earlier editions where there was an alignment restriction...
Last edited:
The Shadow
Hero
Of course it could have - and did, in many campaigns. (I'd never be willing to play a paladin in a campaign where that discussion didn't take place.)
But it will, in my view, make that discussion a lot easier on both parties if we can do away with having to settle what 'a chaotic act' is. Instead of having to slot things into the highly-artificial category of 'Lawful Good', the GM and player can simply describe the order the paladin belongs to (if any) and what expectations there are of him or her.
If I describe the paladin as 'a shining example of virtue and a champion of the weak and downtrodden' and say he's expected to be truthful, brave, and help little old ladies across the street, aren't I capturing the essence of (one version of) the archetype? What does the term 'Lawful Good' add except to confuse the situation and create pointless arguments about what counts as 'chaotic'?
I've played plenty of roleplaying games where there was no concept of alignment whatever. The heroes were not less heroic, nor the villains less villainous, for lack of the hallowed Gygaxian two-word phrases. In fact, actually the opposite - I find that codifying alignment actually seems to *hamper* roleplaying for some players. Perhaps it shouldn't, but it does seem to.
And I have no objection in principle to opening up the class to other sorts of committed codes. I just, as I said, would prefer for the term 'Paladin' to be used for the squeaky-clean subclass, rather than 'Cavalier'.
Kobold Avenger
Legend
Exclusivity is not what I see as a defining feature for any class, most of you are neglecting to mention that "Paladins" used to be Humans and possibly Half-Elves only back in 2e and before. "Paladins" was a proto-prestige class, and probably didn't have any business becoming a core class in 3e but was grandfathered in, even if the Assassin didn't make the core class cut. The 1 narrow definition needs to be replaced by multiple narrow definitions, if it's to have any justification for remaining a class rather than some specialty in 5e.
DMZ2112
Chaotic Looseleaf
That's interesting. I'd've never said that the lawful/chaotic divide was /unclear/. If anything, I think the problem with the standard nine-point alignment system is that it is /too/ clear. "Moorcockian primordial powers, degrees of societal organization, level of commitment to a society's laws, level of commitment to a personal code, predictability or lack thereof of personal habits..." commitment to an alignment means /all/ of those things, and that's the problem. There's no sense of scale.
Maybe we're saying the same thing in two languages.
This is an Important Thing that I don't see a lot of people zeroing in on. Just because the paladin class is no longer /alignment/ locked does not mean they can get away with murder (perhaps literally). They will still be /code/ locked. Those tables flipping over whether or not an action costs a paladin his class abilities are still going to flip -- at least, any table with a dungeon master who knows what he's doing will.
Imaro
Legend
Will they? What kind of true code would a chaotic good/neutral/evil paladin even follow? Better yet why would a chaotic character ever be bound by a code, isn't that a lawful behavior? And if he or she wouldn't, why can a chaotic character be a paladin (outside of the "because we dropped alignment restrictions" reason)?
Similar Threads
