Paladins and alignment

[ProfessorCirno]

I agree with all of those except the last one. I already know that a few short months from now, the majority of the d&d community will look back on LG restricted paladins and roll their eyes.

Oh for crying out loud, stop trying to get the last word in to win the internet. Just agree to it and let the whole thing die

 

[Torchlyte]

Oh for crying out loud, stop trying to get the last word in to win the internet. Just agree to it and let the whole thing die

Why should he?

I agree with all of those except the last one. I already know that a few short months from now, the majority of the d&d community will look back on LG restricted paladins and roll their eyes.

I agree with you.

This thread has reminded me why I've never wanted to play a paladin in the past. That reason being so many people have such strong feelings over how a paladin should be that it makes it difficult to play the character that *I* want to play. I've seen more than once DM's literally step in and tell players how they're playing their character wrong when it comes to paladins.

Well said.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

This is stupid.

 

[Cheesepie]

This is stupid.

Nonsense! All you have to do is, whenever someone mentions a paladin with a non-LG code or no code at all, mentally replace 'paladin' with 'something that is not a paladin'! Then we will all agree to disagree and live happily ever after.

 

[Family]

All you have to do is, whenever someone mentions a paladin with a non-LG code or no code at all, mentally replace 'paladin' with 'something that is not a paladin'!

Or versa vice!

Knight? Paladin? Just don't call him cute.

 

[Ferrous]

I think that it would have been better to change the name of the class from Paladin to Paragon. However this word has already been used in the 4th edition lexicon. I think that Paladin as a word has a lot of baggage in D&D. Paladin originally meant "Palace guard" indeed they are from the same root Pala pertaining to the Palatine in Rome. But Paladin was used to describe other palace guards i.e Charlemagne peers. As Charlemagne was a champion of his faith (Christian), Paladin came to be associated with a religious warrior. When D&D borrowed the word Paladin they used the word in this sense and for many people this was their first exposure to the term. So for them Paladin means a pseudo-christian holy warrior( the code of chivalry is Christian).

If you want Paladin to remain LG just use it as the term for a specific type of holy warrior and call the others Anti-Paladins or Exemplars or Champions or whatever to suit your campaign. A rose by any other name...

 

[pemerton]

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?

Excellent points.

The role "righter of wrongs" is not a mechanical role. It is a social role. Note that the fighter fills this role at least as easily as the paladin. And the fighter can also grab the social role of "ruthless black knight who slaughters the weak in the name of Grummsh". Why should the fighter be allowed more flexibility in social roles than the paladin?

More excellent points.

This thread has reminded me why I've never wanted to play a paladin in the past. That reason being so many people have such strong feelings over how a paladin should be that it makes it difficult to play the character that *I* want to play.

<snip>

A players character is their part of the game and really it shouldn't be taken upon by others to alter it, otherwise you've taken away what's theirs (and I dont mean player characters are sacred and should never come to harm, but using the rules to bludgeon the character of the character is decidely uncool IMO).

Still more excellent points.

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.

What's wrong with wanting CHA to saves without wanting to be a walking philosophy argument?

It's arguable that, in 1st ed AD&D, Paladin's having to be LG was a type of disadvanatage system. Given that, in contemporary D&D gaming, most modules are written under the assumption that PCs are good and many GMs forbid evil players, LG is not much of a disadvantage. Furthermore, to the extent that LG is a disadvantage it's often a disadvantage for the other PCs in the party rather than for the Paladin whom, if s/he is to be viable, must have the other PCs bring their behaviour into conformity with the Paladin's requirements.

Thus LG as a disadvantage has been shown to be mechanically unsound. So if CHA to saves is not broken for LG Paladins, it's not broken for other PC holy warriors either.

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.

The reasons to have classes is to permit the exploration and deployment of different character roles. Lawful Good is not a role in the relevant sense. There is no sound mechanical reason to permit only a certain sort of moral and political orientation to enjoy the class role of being a combined defender/leader whose flavour text is that of holy warrior.

It might be different if D&D was a game of romantic chivalrous roleplaying, and there were various Knight classes available which were designed, in mechanics and flavour, to permit players to explore the different varieties of Knighthood available in that genre. But D&D is not such a game. Each class needs to occupy a niche at least as broad as that of the Warlock or Warlord. The alignment-free Paladin does that. And at the same time it removes yet one more of the traditional features of D&D that have made it prone to abusive GMing.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

The only thing I'm having a bit of a problem with are the (potential) unaligned paladins. That just seems wrong to me, honestly. A paladin should be someone with strong beliefs, be they good or evil.

 

[Khuxan]

The only thing I'm having a bit of a problem with are the (potential) unaligned paladins. That just seems wrong to me, honestly. A paladin should be someone with strong beliefs, be they good or evil.

What if a paladin has strong beliefs about something other than Good or Evil?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Or is a disenchanted Paladin who has given up what strong convictions he had, but the God still bequests him with powers because it senses something unique in this Paladin. It is quite fun playing a Paladin that gets drunk, lazy, gets into bar brawls, doesn't take care of his armour, etc.