Paladins and alignment

[Torchlyte]

As it stands, the 4e paladins look like, thematically, "Warriors...who are slightly more religious then normal!"

...as opposed to 3.5e Paladins who were, "Warriors... who are slightly more religious than normal! Also, they must all act the same!"

 

[FireLance]

I guess my issue with paladins being the champion of gods is: we already have that. They're called clerics.

As it stands, the 4e paladins look like, thematically, "Warriors...who are slightly more religious then normal!"

The difference between a cleric and a paladin is like, you know, the difference between a warlord and a fighter.

The way I see it, clerics aren't Swiss army knives, and the gods see the advantage in having more than one type of champion.

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

I always hated the Paladin Code. It caused player vs. GM arguments and penalized characters with no bonus in return. Also it made them often unplayable in groups.

I had this happen a lot when I was younger and my GMs were younger. Less of a problem as my gaming group members have grown up. Pretty much the only old-school D&D trope I hold onto is Paladins are LG only. 'Paladin' has a specific historical meaning, if you want to encompass holy-warriors of different backgrounds, call them something else.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Why in the world would you want to be straight-jacketed into playing your character's concept as one and only one class? Especially when you want to play a more "Smite and Fight" Holyman rather than a "Heal and Feel" Holyman.

I'm surprised that you are decrying an increase in options here.

I'm not straight-jacketing a character concept, I'm putting restrictions on a class I feel needs those restrictions. You can make any character concept you want and play it, but wanting a "chaotic neutral" or "unaligned" paladin isn't a character concept, it's saying "I want a paladin but still be LOL SO RANDOM xD." If you want a champion of your god, there's a LARGE array of options for you - hell, many gods have their own PrC for worshipers. If you wanted to be the awesome champion of Lathander, why would you go paladin and not his specific Morninglord?

Being a paladin is supposed to mean upholding the paladin code. That's the entire reason the class exists, to serve as the champions of Lawful Good. You get rid of that, why bother keeping the class?

If you want champions of the gods who aren't clerics, I honestly think it's better to just make a new class. Paladins have NOT been tied to gods unless you play Forgotten Realms, and I've made quite a few agnostic or unreligions paladins in the past. Forcing this in game mechanics just feels...well, it feels wrong. That's not how the class works. It's not how it should work. And it feels like they're "killing a sacred cow" not because it's neccesary, but because they just want to prove that they can.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Being a paladin is supposed to mean upholding the paladin code. That's the entire reason the class exists, to serve as the champions of Lawful Good. You get rid of that, why bother keeping the class?

Well, putting aside the god-worship debate for now. What about Paladin's who follow a Paladin Code, but that code isn't Lawful Good? What if it is another alignment or crosses multiple alignments?

 

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

I had this happen a lot when I was younger and my GMs were younger. Less of a problem as my gaming group members have grown up. Pretty much the only old-school D&D trope I hold onto is Paladins are LG only. 'Paladin' has a specific historical meaning, if you want to encompass holy-warriors of different backgrounds, call them something else.

I'd happily have the name changed to "Crusader" or whatever, and Wizards probably should have, but they didn't, and here we are.

 

[MadMaligor]

I'm not straight-jacketing a character concept, I'm putting restrictions on a class I feel needs those restrictions. You can make any character concept you want and play it, but wanting a "chaotic neutral" or "unaligned" paladin isn't a character concept, it's saying "I want a paladin but still be LOL SO RANDOM xD." If you want a champion of your god, there's a LARGE array of options for you - hell, many gods have their own PrC for worshipers. If you wanted to be the awesome champion of Lathander, why would you go paladin and not his specific Morninglord?

Being a paladin is supposed to mean upholding the paladin code. That's the entire reason the class exists, to serve as the champions of Lawful Good. You get rid of that, why bother keeping the class?

If you want champions of the gods who aren't clerics, I honestly think it's better to just make a new class. Paladins have NOT been tied to gods unless you play Forgotten Realms, and I've made quite a few agnostic or unreligions paladins in the past. Forcing this in game mechanics just feels...well, it feels wrong. That's not how the class works. It's not how it should work. And it feels like they're "killing a sacred cow" not because it's neccesary, but because they just want to prove that they can.

If you approach the class as originally created, and want to stick to that option only, its certainly not restricted in 4E. In fact its supported. Creating a list of available class/race combinations in any given setting is the first thing I do, and it changes from setting to setting. That the beauty of the modular system.

Class trees have branched tremendously from the fighter, mage, thief, clerics of old (toss in some dwarves and elves if you want to go back further). D&D has always been about change and expanding or shrinking the rules to create a more flexible system. 4E is no different. I can see where some of your arguments are trying to stress that 4E is somehow changing things that shouldnt be changed...and you certainly have some good points. The problem with your arguments is that a minimal amount of house rules covers just about every problem you have, and those rules are supported with the modular style of "Put this in, take this out" rules that 4E is proposing.

There is no reason you cant run both a campaign with classic paladin types only, or a campaign where paladins follow a code of conduct set by their god (loosely based on aligment, but more strictly adhering to the mythos and its values), you can even open up the paladin class to allow for a hybrid cleric/fighter type of holy warrior that is less restricted on "do's and don'ts".

I see this as a very strong point of 4E. Cirno, I get where your coming from, but I think your looking at it from a bit of a rigid viewpoint.

Mal

 

[Darth Cyric]

I'm not straight-jacketing a character concept, I'm putting restrictions on a class I feel needs those restrictions.

Restrictions = straitjacketing.

You can make any character concept you want and play it, but wanting a "chaotic neutral" or "unaligned" paladin isn't a character concept, it's saying "I want a paladin but still be LOL SO RANDOM xD."

Or it's making a militaristic champion of a CN or unaligned deity. They're as entitled to them as LG gods are.

If you want a champion of your god, there's a LARGE array of options for you - hell, many gods have their own PrC for worshipers. If you wanted to be the awesome champion of Lathander, why would you go paladin and not his specific Morninglord?

Oh, you mean those 50 gazillion superfluous PrCs that amounted to little more than glorified Cleric substitution levels? No thanks.

Being a paladin is supposed to mean upholding the paladin code.

A code, perhaps. But there is no one "THE code."

That's the entire reason the class exists, to serve as the champions of Lawful Good.

No, it's to serve as the champions of specific causes. NOT alignments, necessarily, as that's a straightjacket in and of itself.

You get rid of that, why bother keeping the class?

You should've asked that in 3e, when Clerics could do everything Paladins could and do it all better. Then the Crusader from Tome of Battle came along and saved the day.

Paladins have NOT been tied to gods unless you play Forgotten Realms,

Hey, guess what? Neither have Clerics!

and I've made quite a few agnostic or unreligions paladins in the past.

And I see no reason why you won't be able to in 4e.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If you approach the class as originally created, and want to stick to that option only, its certainly not restricted in 4E. In fact its supported. Creating a list of available class/race combinations in any given setting is the first thing I do, and it changes from setting to setting. That the beauty of the modular system.

Class trees have branched tremendously from the fighter, mage, thief, clerics of old (toss in some dwarves and elves if you want to go back further). D&D has always been about change and expanding or shrinking the rules to create a more flexible system. 4E is no different. I can see where some of your arguments are trying to stress that 4E is somehow changing things that shouldnt be changed...and you certainly have some good points. The problem with your arguments is that a minimal amount of house rules covers just about every problem you have, and those rules are supported with the modular style of "Put this in, take this out" rules that 4E is proposing.

There is no reason you cant run both a campaign with classic paladin types only, or a campaign where paladins follow a code of conduct set by their god (loosely based on aligment, but more strictly adhering to the mythos and its values), you can even open up the paladin class to allow for a hybrid cleric/fighter type of holy warrior that is less restricted on "do's and don'ts".

I see this as a very strong point of 4E. Cirno, I get where your coming from, but I think your looking at it from a bit of a rigid viewpoint.

Mal

If I ever allowed paladins to be the hybrid cleric/fighter, they'd be given a different name. It IS a sticking point with me.

Restrictions = straitjacketing.

Yes, I know, but that wasn't my emphasis. My emphasis wasn't on "straightjacket" it was on "character concept."

Or it's making a militaristic champion of a CN or unaligned deity. They're as entitled to them as LG gods are.

I can't really see why a CN person or unaligned god would need a champion. A CN person wouldn't give two craps about needing to "champion" their cause, and an unaligned god just sounds lazy ;p

Joke that will surely be misinterpreted aside, I have no issues with other gods getting champions. I have no problems with a character being the paragon of CN (though I'm not too clear on how that would work, personally). But those people wouldn't be paladins.

Oh, you mean those 50 gazillion superfluous PrCs that amounted to little more than glorified Cleric substitution levels? No thanks.

And why not? Don't just say "LOL NO," tell me why.

A code, perhaps. But there is no one "THE code."

The paladin codes throughout the various editions and, in fact, throughout different settings, games, and genres entirely, have all been very similar. This is for a good reason.

No, it's to serve as the champions of specific causes. NOT alignments, necessarily, as that's a straightjacket in and of itself.

No, that's you redesigning the class.

Classes are supposed to have restrictions. That is, in fact, the entire purpose of having a class based system. Paladins are Lawful Good, rogues have thievery-esque skills, warriors are good with weapons.

You should've asked that in 3e, when Clerics could do everything Paladins could and do it all better. Then the Crusader from Tome of Battle came along and saved the day.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this. Nothing at all. Is it even possible to have a thread about anything 4e related and not get something that's completely UNrelated about 3e mentioned?

Hey, guess what? Neither have Clerics!

And this is a problem...?

And I see no reason why you won't be able to in 4e.

...Because they're entirely tied to having a deity? I'm not sure what your point here is. Are you saying "You can just HOMEBREW paladins differently!" Well, yes, I can, but if I homebrew everything about the system, why use it?

 

[Dormain1]

The truth of the Paladin was that they must be Lawful Good

Now the alignments have changed I wonder how they are going to put the other variations of the paladin together there is no LN or LE. I know 3E had all alignment variations (from dragon) we used a LN Paladin in our RttToEE campaign

maybe Paladins now only be within one step of their deities alignment which will make things interesting

4E clerics now remind me of 2ed Priests

Paladins are looking more like clerics nowadays

and Paladins without faith are called Knights