Paladins and alignment

[Intense_Interest]

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.

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.

Sacred Cow. Tasty Beef. Also what is this CN you speak of? Why would any mortal choose to dedicate themselves to an ineffable concept?

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.

Alignment debates and PC/GM conflict are particularly tasty forms of Sacred Cow.

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

Because PrCs are wasted design space with little to no cross-application. Anything a PrC is trying to do should be included within a class's path. Taking 1 level of "Champion of Bane" doesn't make you a level 17 Champion of Bane. It makes you a level 16 beatstick with some front-loaded features added on. Or worse, a level 17 half-formed mutation that can't compete with anything of an equal level.

No, that's you redesigning the class.

So is giving Fighters more to do in combat and more unique abilities. Or Wizards without a slavish devotion to Vance. There is nothing to complain about here that there isn't in the redesigning of the entire edition.

Paladins, specifically, are now supposed to be an open concept that allows more people to play something other than a reconstituted Healbot leader-type. Champion of a God vs. Speaker for a God. He is redesigned, yet this is for the better.

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.

Every Class is supposed to have a purpose- A "Role", if you will. These "Roles" should be core concepts of the base class and the primary application of their abilities. If a class has no purpose or "Role" within a party, they are not a well-designed class and it should be investigated if their "Role" is at all necessary.

If a Paladin's "Role" is to be a walking Philosophy argument, why keep him? If a Paladin's "Role" could be expanded into having more freedom for the enjoyment of players, why limit that?

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?

If you didn't have anything to compare the changes to, you and I wouldn't have an argument at all. Because I can tell you that allowing more people can play their characters true to their concepts is an objectively better situation than a kludgeamication in the name of a Sacred Cow.

...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?

All combat-inclusive Roleplaying games are elaborated games of cops and robbers, with some kind of system involved so that the kind of "Hit You! Nyuh Unh!" argument doesn't descend. Complaining that the actual mechanics and mathematics of this system allows for more freedom and less arguments over what entails a Code breaking isn't a point in your favor.

 

[Darth Cyric]

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

You're letting alignment straitjacket your entire argument.

Tempus is CN. Somehow I think a Paladin glorifying, learning and waging war while calling his name would satisfy him just fine, since he is, you know, the FR god of war.

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.

Aside from, again, straitjacketing your entire argument and definitions of a cause in alignment, why not?

From Merriam-Webster:

pal·a·din
Pronunciation:
\ˈpa-lə-dən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French, from Italian paladino, from Old French palatin, from Medieval Latin palatinus courtier, from Late Latin, imperial official — more at palatine
Date:
1592

1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause

In short, the word paladin is derived from a Roman imperial official, and be definition it is the leading champion of a cause. ANY cause.

The word had its roots well before Charlemagne used it.

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

I just did. I said they were superfluous and something that could've been easily accomplished as variations on the Cleric class, and if it were adequately functional, the Paladin class. Which all would be true in a better system.

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.

Most fantasy novels outside of D&D-inspired pulp don't even USE the word "paladin" regularly, if even at all.

Knights with their codes, yes. But are all knights Lawful Good?

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.

How is alignment even comparable to skills and abilities. Non sequitur much?

And this is a problem...?

Not at all. It's just to indicate that in all settings, Clerics and Paladins both follow the same rules in regards to how they can obtain their divine powers.

And if they follow the same rules otherwise, then there is no reason to say that some causes can have their Words, but no Swords for them, and other causes can have their Words and their Swords.

...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?

It's homebrewing fluff. And I hate to break it to you, but you homebrew fluff every time you create your own setting.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Sacred Cow. Tasty Beef. Also what is this CN you speak of? Why would any mortal choose to dedicate themselves to an ineffable concept?

Hey, I'm only going by the example that was given to me

Alignment debates and PC/GM conflict are particularly tasty forms of Sacred Cow.

Strangely, I don't often have those conflicts. They can be fun when you do have them, or rather they AREN'T fun, but it's good to have them rather then let the player or DM just sort of sit and fester with resentment.

Because PrCs are wasted design space with little to no cross-application. Anything a PrC is trying to do should be included within a class's path. Taking 1 level of "Champion of Bane" doesn't make you a level 17 Champion of Bane. It makes you a level 16 beatstick with some front-loaded features added on. Or worse, a level 17 half-formed mutation that can't compete with anything of an equal level.

And I'm not neccisarily disagreeing. My point is, though, that the answer ISN'T just to completely alter the paladin class, but to change the ideas behind cleric or to make a new class.

The freakish thing here is that, really, I would think the 3.x version of paladin would fit wonderfully in 4e's desire for epic good vs evil fantasy.

So is giving Fighters more to do in combat and more unique abilities. Or Wizards without a slavish devotion to Vance. There is nothing to complain about here that there isn't in the redesigning of the entire edition.

Well, yeah, they are redesigning all the classes. Redesigning a class isn't always a BAD thing. Sometimes change is needed. Fighters prove this the most. My argument is, I don't think the change in paladins is needed.

Paladins, specifically, are now supposed to be an open concept that allows more people to play something other than a reconstituted Healbot leader-type. Champion of a God vs. Speaker for a God He is redesigned, yet this is for the better.

That last one is a matter of opinion, which is what this whole bizarro argument is about.

Every Class is supposed to have a purpose- A "Role", if you will. These "Roles" should be core concepts of the base class and the primary application of their abilities. If a class has no purpose or "Role" within a party, they are not a well-designed class and it should be investigated if their "Role" is at all necessary.

And paladins have a roll. They're the knight in shining armor. They're the lawful good knight errant who travels the land, righting wrongs, saving maidens in distress while alarmingly keeping them as maidens, and other general romanticism styled things. No, not THAT type of romanticism, I did state the maidens remained maidens.

If a Paladin's "Role" is to be a walking Philosophy argument, why keep him? If a Paladin's "Role" could be expanded into having more freedom for the enjoyment of players, why limit that?

Because he's only a walking Philosophy argument with 1) DMs that have an irrational hate for paladins and live to see them fall, laughing maliciously on the inside while coldly telling their crestfallen players that there really was no way to solve the situation WITHOUT falling, or 2) players who don't want to play a paladin, but want charisma to saves.

If you didn't have anything to compare the changes to, you and I wouldn't have an argument at all. Because I can tell you that allowing more people can play their characters true to their concepts is an objectively better situation than a kludgeamication in the name of a Sacred Cow.

The first thing that caught my eye here was "What the heck does kludgeamication mean?" I'm no english major! Secondly, that bit still had nothing to do with the discussion.

"I think paladins should have to be lawful good."
"I think they should follow a god and be any alignment."
"I disagree, I think that is what clerics should be for."
"BUT CLERICS ARE ALL POWERFUL IN THIRD EDITION!"

Do you see how that last line has nothing to do with the first three?

All combat-inclusive Roleplaying games are elaborated games of cops and robbers, with some kind of system involved so that the kind of "Hit You! Nyuh Unh!" argument doesn't descend. Complaining that the actual mechanics and mathematics of this system allows for more freedom and less arguments over what entails a Code breaking isn't a point in your favor.

And again, I disagree. I think the game should have freedom - lots of it. I think I'm vaguely growing infamous around here for running around the forums, ringing a bell, and shouting "FREEEDOOOOOOOOOM!" But I think classes need restrictions. Freedom should pertain to the option to choose classes, not the option to make a class into whatever you want. Because again, if classes have no restrictions, there's no reason to have those classes in the first place.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You're letting alignment straitjacket your entire argument.

"Joke that will surely be misinterpreted aside..."

Holy crap, I called it so hard.

Aside from, again, straitjacketing your entire argument and definitions of a cause in alignment, why not?

From Merriam-Webster:

Because I'm not playing Merriam-Webster the game.

Also, stop using the word "straitjacketing." It's turning into one of those words that's just parroted while not really meaning anything. Like "epic." Or "innovative."

I just did. I said they were superfluous and something that could've been easily accomplished as variations on the Cleric class, and if it were adequately functional, the Paladin class. Which all would be true in a better system.

Well, I think they work just fine. The thing is, as Cleric-based PrCs, get this? They are variations of the Cleric class.

"Oh hey, my diety and character matches PERFECTLY with this PrC that's supposed to represent a closer bond between myself and my god."
"Pfh, how superfluous. You should just change an entire class instead."

Most fantasy novels outside of D&D-inspired pulp don't even USE the word "paladin" regularly, if even at all.

Knights with their codes, yes. But are all knights Lawful Good?

No. But uh...you're proving my point for me. When paladin IS used, it's used with specific connotations: namely, Lawful Good (or its equivilant). Saying it isn't used often really isn't an argument against that.


Simple:

In theory, Clerics and Paladins both receive blessings, gifts, abilities, etc. from the power of their faith, whether in a deity or a cause, dependent on setting. Also, in theory, the nature of those gifts are different between one who focuses more on being the Word of the Faith (Cleric) and the Sword of the Faith (Paladin). But they're still gifts, should be just as powerful as each other, but just in different ways. Both require devotion, perhaps to a code prescribed by a deity or otherwise.

In execution, 3e Paladins sucked even at fighting. 3e Clerics were overpowered and could do everything the Paladin could do and more.

So why have a class that's cut from the same cloth but with needless extra restrictions? And one that's nowhere even as good? Especially when, theoretically, a Cleric of a given cause should be burdened with the same moral obligations as a Paladin of the same cause.

So your argument is "Paladins should be any alignment because in 3.5 clerics were too powerful."

...Uh...?

Not at all. It's just to indicate that in all settings, Clerics and Paladins both follow the same rules in regards to how they can obtain their divine powers.

And if they follow the same rules otherwise, then there is no reason to limit Paladins to one set of causes when Clerics have a greater choice in the matter.

Sure there is. Because that's how the class works. The class is meant to be Lawful Good, or at least it was until 4e.

It's homebrewing fluff. And I hate to break it to you, but you homebrew fluff every time you create your own setting.

No, it's homebrewing mechanics. If I say X Class must be X Alignment or have X Code of Conduct, I'm very literally affecting the game mechanics.


All that said, I cannot believe I'm - well, no, I can EASILY believe this. But I find it hilariously dumb that this entire argument is revolving around someone going "NO CIRNO, SHUT UP, YOUR OPINION IS WRONG. WRONG, DAMMIT. MY IDEA FOR PALADINS ARE AWESOME, YOU YOU MUST, BY HOLY MANDATE, ADMIT THAT THEY ARE BETTER THEN YOURS. NOW I MUST UNITE THE INTERNET TO PROVE IT!" Take a chill pill. Relax. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean you have to dislike it too. We're allowed to have a difference of opinions.

 

[Green Knight]

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.

Look at it this way. Exactly how many Prestige Classes and rules were there which allowed for Paladin versions of other alignments? Blackguard, Holy Liberator, etc. Is it really necessary to have two-dozen different Prestige Classes when one class can easily cover all of that? Wouldn't it be best to just cut out the middle man, rather then wasting precious page space on two dozen Paladin variants?

 

[Darth Cyric]

Because I'm not playing Merriam-Webster the game.

Then I guess you should just play D&D in a language for which Merriam-Webster has no dictionary.

Sure there is. Because that's how the class works. The class is meant to be Lawful Good, or at least it was until 4e.

Just because "that's how it always was" doesn't make it right.

No, it's homebrewing mechanics. If I say X Class must be X Alignment or have X Code of Conduct, I'm very literally affecting the game mechanics.

Alignment affecting mechanics is something 4e is getting rid of. And good riddance, indeed. Gaming-constructed pseudo-philosophy should not be the basis for whether my character gets to use his powers. Fleshed out campaign worlds and plots, just like the real world, are a lot more than a nine-point/five-point/whatever grid that doesn't even begin to describe the range of possible moral codes.

 

[Cirex]

I think it was Unearthed Arcane that had rules for different paladins, like, Paladin of Tyranny or Paladin of Freedom. I was constantly annoyed at the paladin issues, as a DM (go figure) so I eventually removed the alignment restriction (shortly after alignments became obsolete) and made them paladins of a crusade or a sacred mission.

If 4e holds the paladin as the LG standard, my first house-rule will be remove that part.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Then I guess you should just play D&D in a language for which Merriam-Webster has no dictionary.

I have no clue what you're trying to say here.

Just because "that's how it always was" doesn't make it right.

Correct, it doesn't. But it does add some weight to my opinion. Which is a bloody opinion, you know, those things that differ between people?

Alignment affecting mechanics is something 4e is getting rid of. And good riddance, indeed. Gaming-constructed pseudo-philosophy should not be the basis for whether my character gets to use his powers. Fleshed out campaign worlds and plots, just like the real world, are a lot more than a nine-point/five-point/whatever grid that doesn't even begin to describe the range of possible moral codes.

Hey, get this? I disagree. AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME AGREE. NYEAH NYEAH NYEAH

 

[see]

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.

Wizard

NOUN: 1. One who practices magic; a sorcerer or magician. 2. A skilled or clever person: a wizard at math. 3. Archaic A sage.

Now, if Wizards of the Coast printed a rogue-type class and called it a wizard, would anybody be defending the class name on the basis of the second definition? Of course not; both the first definition and historical D&D use firmly establish the expectation that wizards do magic.

So, let's look at the definition for paladin:

Paladin

NOUN: 1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion. 2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause: “the paladin of plain speaking” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.). 3. Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

Are 4e's divine defernders by definition heroic champions and adhere to a code with at least a passing resemblance to chivalry? Do they resemble the D&D paladin class as it was portrayed in the D&D tradition? Well, then, they aren't paladins, whatever Wizards of the Coast is calling them.

 

[Ginnel]

Hey, get this? I disagree. AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME AGREE. NYEAH NYEAH NYEAH

Heh for once I'm reading your opinion and not itching to write a flame back but I do think your excuse about not wanting to have to homebrew a paladin into being LG with a code is a bit weak, that is exactly the kind of thing you'd do with a campaign setting.

If the lack of restrictions enables more DM's not to be blinded by the rules all the better, I've noticed some people saying stuff like we've got to do it this way its in the rules, if they're a bit less restrictive it will hopefully help players and novice DM's with their concepts, there is no need for a paladin to be of one alignment, but maybe it would be nice to have a little side bar in the PHB or DMG saying if you want to take paladins back to their 3rd edition concept do this, otherwise I see no problem.

P.S quoting dictionary definitions is not going to get her to agree, its D&D not the real world