D&D 5E Paladins in SCAG are all good-aligned?

[hawkeyefan]

It always surprises me the enormous gap between the way fans talk about the fandom overall using 5e, and the way (other) fans speak about how they personally use 5e.

That is, it seemed like I couldn't hear the end of "5e lets you do anything! It's free and open to all possibilities!" And yet it seems like the actual 5e fanbase is highly, even dramatically against that. It's tradition all the way, and lamenting the places where it's not traditional enough. While it might not actually signify a closed-minded attitude, it's really hard not to feel like that's what 5e...encourages? Permits? Fosters? I dunno.

5E is open to all possibilities. Even traditional ones that have been done before.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

Eh. Tradition comes in many sizes and varieties. Think of the number or people (or at least how vocal they are) that are demanding the class from 4e that shall not be named.

The thing that's fun about 5e is that it supports variety. If you want to play a more BECMI/1e style game, you can strip it down. If you want to play a campaign with Lawful Evil Halfling Paladins and Water Genasi Wild Magic Sorcerers, well, you can do that too. You can even mix and match- you can have grumpy, "I only play the champion version of the Fighter, because anything new is terrible," player playing alongside the "I was wondering if my UA warforged character would make a good Mystic?" guy.

I think that the perception might be there just because so many grognards have surfaced again. They are no longer just in their little holes, saying, "I'm still walking 5 miles, in the snow, both ways uphill just so that I can adjust my weapon's to hit vs. different armor class, like Gygax intended." Instead, they are back in the conversation. Which is good, and bad, I guess? But may be ... different than the experience in, say, 4e when many just sat it out.

TLDR- it's because you have variant playstyles coming together and talking (BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3.xe, 4e) and playing 5e. Overall, that's a good thing.

Good points. To follow along, I think it's fair to say that 5e does let you do anything, so long as 'anything' is defined as Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Eh. Tradition comes in many sizes and varieties. Think of the number or people (or at least how vocal they are) that are demanding the class from 4e that shall not be named.

The thing that's fun about 5e is that it supports variety. If you want to play a more BECMI/1e style game, you can strip it down. If you want to play a campaign with Lawful Evil Halfling Paladins and Water Genasi Wild Magic Sorcerers, well, you can do that too. You can even mix and match- you can have grumpy, "I only play the champion version of the Fighter, because anything new is terrible," player playing alongside the "I was wondering if my UA warforged character would make a good Mystic?" guy.

I think that the perception might be there just because so many grognards have surfaced again. They are no longer just in their little holes, saying, "I'm still walking 5 miles, in the snow, both ways uphill just so that I can adjust my weapon's to hit vs. different armor class, like Gygax intended." Instead, they are back in the conversation. Which is good, and bad, I guess? But may be ... different than the experience in, say, 4e when many just sat it out.

TLDR- it's because you have variant playstyles coming together and talking (BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3.xe, 4e) and playing 5e. Overall, that's a good thing.

That's all well and good. It's just hard to swallow people--sometimes even the same people--getting all gushy about how the rules get out of the way, they let us apply our imaginations however we want, etc. ad nauseam, and then turn around and generate a list of a dozen "you can't play this, you can't play that, all Xs must be Y, all Zs are W" stipulations, not just for a campaign, but for absolutely every campaign they'll ever run, or even participate in.

I agree that it's good for games to embrace the diversity of the community. I'm just not seeing the community embrace the diversity of the game, despite applauding it.

 

[werecorpse]

Read the first two sentences under the paragraph The Cause of Righteousness about the nature of the Paladins oath as expected in the PHB.

You don't need a prescribed alignment but if you "stand with the good things of the world and hunt the forces of evil" it gives you some idea of your behaviour

 

[Uchawi]

I guess if we get into an inclusiveness versus exclusiveness argument on this thread, at least alignments can be added back in without much fuss. I don't have the DM guide, but it would be a good optional rule. However, 5E is heavily biased towards 2E/3E but willfully steps away from 4E options that had support like the warlord. It did include encounter power-esque abilities but that created more problems because of how many classes depend heavily on daily powers.

If you took a paladin and spread it across a cleric subclass, and fighter subclass then there would be mutiny. I am a grognard, but I did not have the disdain that some others have shown in regards to making 5E the best of all editions and include features from all editions.