Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[satori01]

Right. So non-LG paladins have been canon for the almost the entirety of the game.

So much for that baggage.

Look guys, I might agree with you, but do not distort the facts. Dragon Magazine was not canon. The 1e Anti-Paladin was an NPC class, and an entirely separate class from the Paladin, More an amalgam of Paladin and Assasin class.

Moreover, NPC classes were wildly not balanced, (Beastmaster I am looking at you), when used as PC classes. So much so, that most campaigns I played in at the time banned the use of NPC classes.

Arcana Unearthed was the 1e book that introduced Dragon material to Cannon status....and Paladins just became a subclass of Cavaliers.

Paladins for most of the history of the game have been LG. There might have been other classes of a similar theme, (which speaks to your point of demand for more flavor), but they were not Paladins.

I have DM'd for a group that had the traditional Paladin, and an Arcana Evolved Champion of Freedom, the classes and characters were quite varied. Again, to just re-skin a Paladin to fit a another identity, does a disservice to the alternate identity...it is ok to have both a Champion and a Paladin class, likewise Themes, can also add some flavor differences as their use has been hinted at in design posts, (like kits in 2e).

Most importantly their is a specific tone to a Paladin. Charisma is meant in it's literal meaning of "God gifted grace". Clerics are liturgical, you can train anyone to be a cleric, but Paladins are chosen by a higher power.

The mythological/ historical figures we commonly associate with Paladins: Galahad, The Peers of Charlagmane, Joan of Arc, all were Charismatic (in the technical sense) figures, that in service to a just divinely empowered human lord, also by such service supported the proper supernatural foundation of the world and heaven. Sounds Lawful and Good to me. It is also an archetype found in China and Japan.

 

[Elf Witch]

D&D paladins have changed over the years. In previous editions, they had rules for non-LG paladins. It's an option people WANT. Give it to them. It doesn't hurt the Charlemagne concept if a paladin of freedom can also heal the sick.

The character builder could actually stop people. Living Whatever could stop people. DMs who are afraid to venture from the rules could stop people. You have to keep these factors in mind. It's not just fluff anymore when parts of the game hard code it away, and when there is a known history of DMs who have no confidence in themselves.

Yes DnD paladins have changed over the years but for the most part the core concept has not changed. But over the years supplemental rules have been written to allow you to do different things with the paladin class the same as with other classes.

Your last statement just makes me roll my eyes. First of all Living games have a lot of restrictions in them it is the nature of the beast. You will never have the same freedoms in them as you do in a home campaign.

Secondly if the DDI or whatever does not give you the freedom to build your character then simply do it the old fashioned way. Use paper and pencil and books to build your character. If the only way you can build a character is to have to use an online character builder then that is a huge problem far worse than anything else.

If your DM is so rigid that he is not willing to allow you to build a different character concept then find another DM. Rules won't really protect you from rigid DMs.

A lot of you claim that you want it to be inclusive but what you mean is what think should be included. I have read go ahead and have the traditional paladin but don't make it core. Well what about DMs who only allow core classes? Wouldn't the same scenario play out as you described?

I like the more traditional paladin and I hope that the rules support being able to play this that being said I don't see how hard it would be for the game to have different types and alignments of holy warriors. How hard would it be to have the base class and then say add these features based on what alignment you have chosen.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Dragon Magazine was not canon.

Late on, close to #300, it billed itself as 'your official Dungeons & Dragons magazine' and even '100% official Dungeons & Dragons'.

 

[Elf Witch]

That either makes you lucky, me unlucky, or both.

I'm not saying a 'net DM automatically equals a house rule DM. I'm saying that depressingly few DMs I've known have been willing to ignore alignment restrictions, even as subjective as they can be.


Wow, that's interesting. IME, DMs who frequent game forums tend to understand the whys and hows of the game a bit better as a result of discussion. And so they're a little more willing to ignore certain areas of RAW. Whereas DMs who discuss things only with their groups tend to assume that RAW has a deeply-buried rhyme and reason, and so are stricter about stuff like restrictions.

And this is why I try and avoid saying things like well most people fill in the blank kind posts. Everyone's gaming experience is a little different.

Personally I don't think it is the internet or lack there of that causes rigid DMs. I think it is more a self confidence issue they worry that they don't have the experience or the game design knowledge to allow changes. I think they are afraid of breaking the game.

Maybe the internet can help with someone saying that won't break the game but I have seen to many threads where a DM as asked this kind of question and some people go no that is broken to oh that is fine.

I think the longer you play and DM the more confidence you develop in being willing to try new things with the game.

 

[Elf Witch]

Right. So non-LG paladins have been canon for the almost the entirety of the game.

So much for that baggage.

What you see as baggage other people see as a sacred cow. Kill to many of those and people won't buy your game. Just look at how many people went with Pathfinder or stayed with 3E or went to another game entirely when 4E slaughtered so many of the sacred cows.

 

[Derren]

Ah, the eternal paladin issue.

Let me start with a picture (not from me and you need to have played a lot of Bioware games to really understand it)
Epantiras's deviantART Gallery

There are a lot of different ways people portray paladins yet D&D has always had problems with defining them.

First, the issue with always being LG or not. While one could now have a lengthy discussion I say, why bother? When we have LG only paladins then we will in a few splatbooks have a blackguard anyway. Lets save the space and make paladin for all alignments on the GE alignment axis. (One class with different build paths for each alignment)

But that does not address the real issue with paladins now, does it? Even when just focusing on LG paladins, there are a lot of ways to portray them (see the picture above).

Paladins range from Jesus in armor who never do anything remotely naughty to Judge Dread with a big sword punishing anything not following their strict world view.
And all of those interpretations are correct as WotC themselves doesn't seem to know what to do with paladins so the description they give of them are not consistent at all.

And while one can argue that this just gives freedom to the player, which technically is correct, it has the problem that paladins tend to be, well lets say they don't tend to stay in the background and let the others "do their thing". Having a paladin in the party affects all players (strangely there is no such problems with clerics even though their religious undertones also lends itself to this, but that is a different matter)
And having a paladin player who understands something different from a paladin than the other players or DM is just a train wreck waiting to happen.

So in this case it might be beneficial to define the paladin more strict instead of less. And when we have paladins for several alignments )one way or the other) it might be a good idea to focus more on the lawful part.

Coming back to the picture again lets look a bit at Samara (the blue one) from Mass Effect. While that is SciFi Samara is as paladin like as one can be and is generally a nice person. Unless you get between her and her mission, then she kills you, no matter who you are (bad criminal or good cop just doing your job. She won't feel good about it, but she will kill you). While this sounds rather one dimensional, she still manages to be a rather interesting character, especially when she comes into conflict with her code.

Now while such devotion can be as problematic as the current paladin issue, by relying on a code instead of a vague definition of good and evil players will know what to expect from the paladin as either they will use a code from the book or they have to make up one before the game and share it with the DM.

 

[Sunseeker]

Ah, the eternal paladin issue.

Let me start with a picture (not from me and you need to have played a lot of Bioware games to really understand it)
Epantiras's deviantART Gallery

There are a lot of different ways people portray paladins yet D&D has always had problems with defining them.

First, the issue with always being LG or not. While one could now have a lengthy discussion I say, why bother? When we have LG only paladins then we will in a few splatbooks have a blackguard anyway. Lets save the space and make paladin for all alignments on the GE alignment axis. (One class with different build paths for each alignment)

But that does not address the real issue with paladins now, does it? Even when just focusing on LG paladins, there are a lot of ways to portray them (see the picture above).

Paladins range from Jesus in armor who never do anything remotely naughty to Judge Dread with a big sword punishing anything not following their strict world view.
And all of those interpretations are correct as WotC themselves doesn't seem to know what to do with paladins so the description they give of them are not consistent at all.

And while one can argue that this just gives freedom to the player, which technically is correct, it has the problem that paladins tend to be, well lets say they don't tend to stay in the background and let the others "do their thing". Having a paladin in the party affects all players (strangely there is no such problems with clerics even though their religious undertones also lends itself to this, but that is a different matter)
And having a paladin player who understands something different from a paladin than the other players or DM is just a train wreck waiting to happen.

So in this case it might be beneficial to define the paladin more strict instead of less. And when we have paladins for several alignments )one way or the other) it might be a good idea to focus more on the lawful part.

Coming back to the picture again lets look a bit at Samara (the blue one) from Mass Effect. While that is SciFi Samara is as paladin like as one can be and is generally a nice person. Unless you get between her and her mission, then she kills you, no matter who you are (bad criminal or good cop just doing your job. She won't feel good about it, but she will kill you). While this sounds rather one dimensional, she still manages to be a rather interesting character, especially when she comes into conflict with her code.

Now while such devotion can be as problematic as the current paladin issue, by relying on a code instead of a vague definition of good and evil players will know what to expect from the paladin as either they will use a code from the book or they have to make up one before the game and share it with the DM.

I agree that establishing Paladins as unrelenting exemplars of a specific code(which may be created by the player or the DM), I think we can satisfactorially establish almost any sort of paladin. What is your code? Violence against those who would harm the weak? Care and love for those who cannot defend themselves? Destruction and wrath against nature and hippies in the name of your god?

All of these would make great paladin's, though the first two may be more typical of classical paladin's.

Through reading all of this, the issue sounds like the ever-present communication issue I see in so many topics. There seems to be a logic by some who want to just assume everyone will come to the table with the same idea of how to play. There seems to be a separate logic that assumes the DM will lay down the limitations on what can or cannot be played.

And there's always the problem of players not roleplaying even their own creations as they have set them out before. But no amount of rules will solve that problem.

Of course the question is: How do we encourage players to be creative and create their own code?

 

[satori01]

Double Post

 

[satori01]

Late on, close to #300, it billed itself as 'your official Dungeons & Dragons magazine' and even '100% official Dungeons & Dragons'.

Yes but then we also have to get into Gygax's editorial statement in Dragon about if you don't use all the rules , (and by extension buy all the books and adopt all rules), and only the rules as written, then you are not playing D&D. I have great fondness for Gary, but even as a kid I found his threat to excommunicate D&D games for something that has gone on from the beginning of the hobby to be ridiculous. From Gary's lips, it was farsical like a Borgia Pope lecturing you about chasisty.

Coming to a season with a Dragon Magazine did not, then now, and I would imagine the foreseeable future, does not guarantee that the contents of the magazine see play at the table.

 

[Derren]

Of course the question is: How do we encourage players to be creative and create their own code?

Not providing one is one way.
The other way is to provide extensive rules about how to create it and not just suggestions (but that would probably better for a splatbook)