Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[JamesonCourage]

*shrug* Well I don't understand why you'd give up the fun freedom of your personalized game to hold yourself hostage to traditionalist baggage. But I don't get many opportunities to game. Maybe you're luckier, and you have the time and energy for periodic nostalgia campaigns just for the lolz?

Yep, I game once a week for about 9-10 hours, and I could game more often, but don't (4/5 players want to, but I'm only down for a second weekly session if we all make it, so one player isn't continuously skipped). So, yeah, when I want to return to a campaign I used to run, I'll go over to the old system. Or, if a particular game runs the "genre" better, I'll switch to it (I use Mutants and Masterminds 2e for one-shots where everyone plays a character from Justice League).

But, you're basically correct: I wouldn't give up my personalized system for another system in the long term, unless that system really showed up my own design. I'd play in it, but not run it. It's why I'm slightly invested in 5e; my brother runs games, and when he moves back (from his deployment in Texas), he might swap over to 5e if it's "good" (subjective, and all that). He has his own system too (a ninja game), but he loves 3.X, likes 4e, and will probably look into 5e.

I'm also confused about alignment restrictions being part of a kitchen-sink game. I mean the more restrictions you have, the less kitchen sink you have.

True, but that was the "arbitrary" part. You have psionics and fiendish krakens and medusas as a race and mummies and nagas and dragons and bards and druids and awakened bear wizards and so on. D&D is filled with stuff, with kind of a "there's room for it" with a lot of arbitrary stuff thrown in.

But, overall, I do think getting rid of alignments was healthy for the RP in my games. I just like the RP it adds when I do dip into D&D, as long as it's a strong force in the world(s), and not basically ignored. As always, play what you like

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

But, overall, I do think getting rid of alignments was healthy for the RP in my games. I just like the RP it adds when I do dip into D&D, as long as it's a strong force in the world(s), and not basically ignored. As always, play what you like

I can agree with you on this: one of the few areas where I feel 4e went overboard is the neutering of alignments. I never had issues with alignment as a universal force -- I just don't like arbitrary alignment-related stuff -- and I kinda miss alignment actually meaning something. As a result, I ignore alignment entirely in my 4e gaming.

 

[Endur]

Alignment is in some ways a separate issue from Paladins. And yet in some ways it is tied tightly to Paladins, as the champion of LG.

I never really saw the Anti-Paladin or Blackguard as a champion of CE; instead, I saw the Anti-Paladin or Blackguard as an opponent for the Paladin (Sherlock Holmes vs. Moriarty, etc.). The Anti-Paladin was explicitly NPC only. And Blackguards are bascially NPC only, as few D&D campaigns use evil characters for the long term (lots of one shot evil games though).

Could I play a paladin in a non-alignment game? sure. Would it change how I played the Paladin? No it wouldn't.

Could I live with WOTC removing paladin alignment restrictions? sure. Do I think Paladins still need a code? Yes, even without alignment restrictions, I think Paladins need a code.

 

[jonesy]

I never really saw the Anti-Paladin or Blackguard as a champion of CE; instead, I saw the Anti-Paladin or Blackguard as an opponent for the Paladin (Sherlock Holmes vs. Moriarty, etc.).

Sherlock Holmes isn't lawful. And neither is Moriarty. They are both individualists who make their own way when one they agree with isn't provided.

 

[Greg K]

My problem with alignment in D&D has always been that in D&D it is a state of being, whereas I see it as a goal. Lawful Good should be what the character aspires to because he revels in acts of benevolence. Requiring a character to be LG before he becomes a paladin reeks to me of metagaming. You could be someone vile having a crisis of consciousness who wants to redeem himself, so he joins the elite to become something better. He reaches towards the ideal he wants to achieve. But in D&D the order of the paladins takes a look at you with Detect Evil, and says "Nope, you aren't what we are looking for. We want someone who's never been bad." If that's how it is, why are any of them taking vows? You don't need vows if you're already LG, and you have a magic way of detecting it.

No. It is prove you are worthy by your actions and, when you are redeemed in the eyes of deity [x] and they grant you the divine abilities, you will be a Paladin.

 

[Sunseeker]

No. It is prove you are worthy by your actions and, when you are redeemed in the eyes of deity [x] and they grant you the divine abilities, you will be a Paladin.

So Paladin's would really just be fighters until say, lvl 5, where they can undergo a Paladin Test and thus gain divine powers.

Sure some Orders may want you to be the perfect golden son since the day you were born, others may be more accepting or sinners seeking repentance. Either way, it still sounds like a good argument for going light on pally-powers for the first few levels and making being a paladin more of a commitment than a class.

 

[jonesy]

No. It is prove you are worthy by your actions and, when you are redeemed in the eyes of deity [x] and they grant you the divine abilities, you will be a Paladin.

What is? The vows? The way Detect Evil works doesn't make much sense.

 

[Greg K]

So Paladin's would really just be fighters until say, lvl 5, where they can undergo a Paladin Test and thus gain divine powers.

Sure some Orders may want you to be the perfect golden son since the day you were born, others may be more accepting or sinners seeking repentance. Either way, it still sounds like a good argument for going light on pally-powers for the first few levels and making being a paladin more of a commitment than a class.

No. a character that was a paladin at first level, led a worthy life up to that point to be blessed by the deity.

A first level character starting as a Paladin could have the backstory could be that they sought redemption and succeeded.

If your character is seeking redemption after the start of play, the character should prove themself through play as a requirement to multi-class.

 

[FireLance]

If you ask me, the only reason why we are having this conversation in the first place is because what it means to be a paladin has been gradually watered down over the years. That's why a couple of months back, I started a thread proposing to reclaim the name of Paladin. To quote from my first post:

One of the greatest travesties of 4e was that any character with a bit of divine backing and some ability to challenge or mark his enemies was allowed to call himself by the name of "paladin" regardless of his moral fibre (and let's not even talk about blackguards ).

With the advent of a new edition, I propose to consign all amoral, dishonorable, unrighteous and evil so-called "paladins" to the cleansing pyres of history, to be consumed by holy flame until not even a single blemished scrap of memory remains.

The name of "paladin" should henceforth only be borne by the righteous, holy, honorable, dedicated, heroic and good. Let the forces of evil once again tremble at the very mention of the name of "paladin" and fear their righteous wrath and holy smites.

Of course, I calmed down somewhat later on in the thread:

Realistically speaking, I agree that the 5e design team probably wouldn't come up with a whole load of mechanics for an entire class and then restrict it to a single alignment. That said, I do like the idea of calling the base class something else - maybe Holy Warrior, Champion or even Divine Defender - and then having the paladin as a theme.

Frankly, to me, the issue isn't mechanics or even alignment. It's a mindset. You start with the basic concept of a paladin: a hero who always strives to do the right thing, because the ends do not justify the means; a protector who shields the weak and the innocent from harm, potentially at the cost of his own life; a weapon poised to strike at the powers of darkness, not because of hatred or anger, but because they must be stopped; a paragon who attempts to embody the highest virtues: sacrifice, honor, valor, justice, compassion, etc.

You play your character this way, you get to call him a paladin. If not, you're a Champion of [Deity] or a Holy Warrior of [Domain], or whatever.

So really, if you don't see a paladin as anything more than a generic divine warrior, I can see why you wouldn't want any alignment restrictions. However, for people like me who see the paladin as something more: a hero, an ideal, an embodiment of virtue, there are things that a paladin just shouldn't do, and causes that a paladin just shouldn't support. Not without losing the right to call himself a paladin, anyway.

 

[Elf Witch]

That's some creative grammar there, in your first phrase. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, so I'll just agree with your second sentence.


I'm sure that confidence plays a part; maybe a big part. In any case, I'm sure a few other factors are involved too.

Yeah that sentence got away from me. Sometimes my aphasia kicks up and I can't get out what I am trying to say. What I was trying to say is that I try not to use anecdotal things as facts on these kind of posts. Does that make better sense?