D&D 5E Ok I have to ask..... what's with the Paladin hate on here?

[Arilyn]

Old-school baggage, I suspect.

In days of old when Paladins were notoriously fussy about the company they would keep (no evils, chaotics only on the very short term) someone sticking a Pally in a party had a lot to say about what anyone else could play; due to these restrictions. This - quite rightly - gave them a bad name.

They have yet to recover.

Old School barbarians were even worse...

 

[Henry]

A friend is playing one in a game now, and he’s been a lot of fun to interact with. (Vengeance Paladin) Paladins in this edition have definitely arrived at the position they needed to be long before now - holy warriors for all faiths.

 

[Henry]

Old School barbarians were even worse...

Don’t bring up those magic-item-destroying, high-XP-requiring, showboating monstrosities. great premise, but they were just totally written to be unfriendly and incompatible with a party. Heck, they couldn’t even willingly associate with clerics or magic-users until higher level!

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The problem I have with the 5e Paladin is that I dont know why they get their special power if they dont have their old restrictions: they are not divine and only driven by their conviction to their oath, but they still get divine spellcasting, divine smite and strike. In game, what's the difference between a fighter championing a cause or a faith and a paladin? Why does a paladin"s conviction gives him divine spellcasting and not to a devout rogue? I get why they wanted to stay away from the old-school zealot/stick in mud paladin for 5e, but the execution is weird. In 5e, the paladin's stuff makes me feel like they should have been more psionic (power from willpower/ego/self-conviction) than divine. In the games I DM, paladin's abilities are described more as infectious fanaticism and power of conviction than divine (see Pillars of Eternity paladin's stuff). I played a dwarven crown paladin in the last few months to roleplay a Dwarven Defender, but it felt just like playing a Variant:Fighter than something truly special. They are incredibly powerful tho.

 

[DeanP]

Love paladins, always play them. I love them even more in 5th edition because the quirky restrictions of AD&D are gone in part, because alignment is handled differently. Love the class, love roleplaying the class, love the different oaths which provide distinctions for how one roleplays the class. I generally prefer the Lawful Good, Oath of Devotion paladin but I've recently started playing a chaotic good high elf, oath of the ancients paladin, who just reached fifth level; he has a very different feel and ethic. I also like the mechanics of the 5e paladin. All good in my book.

 

[Azzy]

Everyone who has played a long time has a Stupadin story. A story about a paladin who just had to be the living embodiment of every bad paladin stereotype. It's up to them if they let the bad players color their view of the class.

Actually, I don't. I was the first in my group to play a paladin, and when I did, I intentionally subverted the crusader archetype to be someone that was more a protector and defender of the weak, poor, downtrodden, and oppressed. My character would be just as likely to use the wealth he acquired to build homes for the homeless, to espouse the tenants of his faith to those that were willing to listen (he wasn't pushy about it), as he was to smite those that sought to harm others.

 

[Azzy]

The problem I have with the 5e Paladin is that I dont know why they get their special power if they dont have their old restrictions: they are not divine and only driven by their conviction to their oath, but they still get divine spellcasting, divine smite and strike. In game, what's the difference between a fighter championing a cause or a faith and a paladin? Why does a paladin"s conviction gives him divine spellcasting and not to a devout rogue? I get why they wanted to stay away from the old-school zealot/stick in mud paladin for 5e, but the execution is weird. In 5e, the paladin's stuff makes me feel like they should have been more psionic (power from willpower/ego/self-conviction) than divine. In the games I DM, paladin's abilities are described more as infectious fanaticism and power of conviction than divine (see Pillars of Eternity paladin's stuff). I played a dwarven crown paladin in the last few months to roleplay a Dwarven Defender, but it felt just like playing a Variant:Fighter than something truly special. They are incredibly powerful tho.

Partly, it's to give players/DMs a choice in how they present their settings. Also, it's the same reason that priests in 2e could gain spells from following philosophies rather than gods. Ultimately it's up to players/DMs/setting to define how paladins, clerics, paladins, and the like are related to the divine, and whether gods exists (as actual in-game entities) or not, and what have you. Also note that there is not actual categorization of "arcane" and "divine" magic in 5e like there was in 3e.

 

[transtemporal]

Paladins are fine, I just wouldn't let my daughter marry one.

 

[transtemporal]

In days of old when Paladins were notoriously fussy about the company they would keep (no evils, chaotics only on the very short term) someone sticking a Pally in a party had a lot to say about what anyone else could play; due to these restrictions. This - quite rightly - gave them a bad name.

Plus, Paladins tend to attract sanctimonious, dogmatic trolls - "But I have to play him that way. My alignment says so! Hue hue hue"

 

[SkidAce]

Check the "paladin" named Sparhawk. re: David Eddings

Not a nice guy, but a paladin none the less.