Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[Endur]

A couple of the arguments up stream mentioned Detect Evil and similar abilities. Smite Evil, etc.

I agree with the poster up above who suggested replacing Detect Evil with Detect Evil Outsiders and Undead. Also replacing smite evil with Smite Evil Outsiders and Undead.

The Paladin's holy powers should be directed at undead creatures, demons, devils, etc.

The Paladin shouldn't necessarily have additional powers against greedy thieves.

Although evil spellcasters who have made pacts with demons might be a special case.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Drowbane's post reminds me of a great option for DMs who associate paladins with the [albeit misunderstood] chivalric ideal: even in 4e (or 5e, if the trend continues), there's nothing to stop a DM from calling the PHB class "holy warrior," and reserving paladinhood for characters who actually earn it. Whether as an actual prestige class or whatever, or simply an in-game title, earning paladinhood makes a lot more sense than being handed it at level 1.

That is just so much bull. I have played in games where the DM took out the alignment restrictions. There is nothing stopping you from playing any class all you need is a DM willing to work with you in making the class fit your concept.

And that's usually the big problem, IME. Most DMs don't visit ENworld or any other game forum. Most DMs don't think much about the rules, and if a class has certain restrictions well, "There must be a good reason." (I.e., other than misunderstood tradition.)

For DMs like us, it's easy to just say "Ignore alignment restrictions." But I've found that as a player, it's hard to find a DM willing to make even minor house rules like that.

I don't play D&D currently. In my system, no. I don't have alignments (or classes, for that matter), and such a similar concept would be fine. My RPG is much more open than D&D in any form because of such loose restrictions, and better for it, in my opinion.

In D&D, almost assuredly (not 100%, but very close). Were I to run a game, and someone brought me that concept, I'd work with them on a custom prestige class or the like, but the Paladin class would almost certainly be Lawful Good.

I'm confused. Your game has no alignments; you'd be fine with a "just G paladin" type character in your game, and you say that your game is better for it.

But that same concept isn't acceptable in D&D? That's one doozy of a double standard! Is this one of those "Because Dave and Gary thought it was cool" things? I'm also curious why you went to all the trouble to write your own game rather than play D&D?

Well, isn't 5e supposed to be rather modular? In my campaigns the Paladin will be a prestige thing (not necessarily a class, perhaps more of a title + some holy powerz). Nobody starts as a paladin, it is something that is earned by good RP and uber-good deeds.

I don't think this is a bad way to handle paladinhood at all.

 

[El Mahdi]

Should D&D 5e paladins be open to multiple alignments, or should they follow the ideal of chivalry?

Should D&D paladins be assigned to a specific god (similar to priests), or do they receive their powers from a heroic ideal of chivalry and valor?

First, a historical note: The Chivalric Code (Duty to Liege Lord/King, Country, God, the Innocent, and Women) really only applies to Chevaliers (Noble Knights) and Knights Errant.

A Knight beholden to a Diety (A Paladin) is more like a Templar or Hospitaller, and would therefore adhere more to a Mendicant Vow (same as a Priest: Piety, Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience...to God, the Church, and the Order...not to a Liege Lord or King).




I think the Paladin should be mostly generic. But, included along with the generic class description, or as a sidenote/text-box, list the possible codes and requirements the Paladin can be restricted to follow in each individual game.

Alignment should not be hardcoded in the mechanics. Monte and Company have stated they want to include the basic 9-alignment system, but also want it to be optional for those that want to ignore it. If it's hardwired into the core mechanics, then it becomes something that can't simply be ignored.

Bu, since the original inspiration for the class was a muddled combination of Mendicant Crusaders and Chivalric Knights (due to using the name of The Peers of Charlemagne, The Paladins, as the name of the class), present all of the above definitions for each DM and Player, together, to decide upon for their game.

So, list the typical Alignment Restriction(s), and let each DM and Player decide, together, whether to use it or not.

Also, list the Chivalric Code and Mendicant Vows, and allow each DM and Player, together, to decide what they will use and what they won't use.

 

[Elf Witch]

You mean the history of the game over the decades and the use of the paladin in other games since then? Basic game design principles? Western AND Eastern cultural depictions of fantasy in recent decades?

People love divine knights in shining armor. They love them even more when they can be a little bit more badass and a little less rigid. They especially love when they can choose, and even have both in the same party.

The DnD paladin comes from Charlemagne that is what it was designed from and that is what I am talking about when I say history. Are there other types of knight in history yes there are and DnD as often attempted to make them.

I am talking game history of DnD. Not gaming history in general.

And nothing is stopping you from playing it any way your group wants to play it. I am pretty sure the gaming police will not come to your house kick in the door and take your books if you choose to have paladins in your game that are not restricted to lawful good.

If 5E chose to do away with the alignment restriction it is not a deal breaker for me because I can house rule it the way I like it. The same way you can house rule it if they do it how you would prefer it.

 

[jonesy]

Where does Smite Evil come from?

 

[Elf Witch]

And that's usually the big problem, IME. Most DMs don't visit ENworld or any other game forum. Most DMs don't think much about the rules, and if a class has certain restrictions well, "There must be a good reason." (I.e., other than misunderstood tradition.)

For DMs like us, it's easy to just say "Ignore alignment restrictions." But I've found that as a player, it's hard to find a DM willing to make even minor house rules like that.

So how did all those DM cope before the internet? I have been playing since the 70s and I saw plenty of DMs house rule and change things all the time.

My experience with DMs is that being on the internet has nothing to do with being able to house rule things. Most of the DMs I play with and one that I consider the best DM ever do not spend time on gaming forums. The one DM who I knew who spends a lot of time here and on the WOTC forums was one of the most rigid I have ever played with every thing had to e by the RAW.

 

[Greg K]

A Knight beholden to a Diety (A Paladin) is more like a Templar or Hospitaller, and would therefore adhere more to a Mendicant Vow (same as a Priest: Piety, Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience...to God, the Church, and the Order...not to a Liege Lord or King)

Sorry, but it is not the Paladin, but the Cleric. The Knights Templar were the the influence for the Cleric class.

since the original inspiration for the class was a muddled combination of Mendicant Crusaders and Chivalric Knights (due to using the name of The Peers of Charlemagne, The Paladins, as the name of the class), present all of the above definitions for each DM and Player, together, to decide upon for their game.

How is it muddled by using the name of The Peers of Charlemagne when Gygax has stated on these forums that they were the source of inspiration for the Paladin.

 

[jonesy]

My experience with DMs is that being on the internet has nothing to do with being able to house rule things.

It isn't even about RPGs. People houserule Monopoly and Poker.

 

[satori01]

So? As people have said, alignment and alignment restrictions are not the same thing, and they've differed from edition to edition.

Yes, but when people are advocating for the elimination of alignment ipso facto alignment restrictions go out as well. Paladins and lawful good are like Risotto with a crispy bottom for some. If the bottom is not crispy it is not Risotto.

I am not saying I agree with this position, (see my prior post about wanting a code more than alignment restrictions), but I understand people's feeling on this.

 

[Elf Witch]

It isn't even about RPGs. People houserule Monopoly and Poker.

I never read the official rules for Monopoly until very recently and I have been playing for around 50 years. I never realized putting money into the middle that you win if you land on free parking is not an official rule.