Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[Lord Zack]

Paladin's should be restricted to the alignment of their deity. Being Lawful Good when your deity is chaotic good doesn't make much sense.

Thus paladins should rarely, if ever, worship a chaotic good deity.

 

[Sunseeker]

Thus paladins should rarely, if ever, worship a chaotic good deity.

So, you can be a Paladin of Helm...or a Paladin of Helm...or a Paladin of boring. I'm not interested in editions that start telling me who or what my character can or cannot worship. I got rid of those rules in any edition I ran. You want to be a elven Paladin of Corellion? Gnomish paladin of that Glittergold guy? Don't let me stop you from being creative. Only rule? Gotta be the same alignment.

What's the point in creating an edition full of rules that most people are going to ignore right out the door to begin with?

 

[Lord Zack]

If the paladin is just a generic holy warrior that's fine (though that also overlaps with the cleric, which in 2e and 3e was pretty much exactly that, in 1e in earlier it was less generic, but still a holy warrior). However, that's not what the paladin was up until 4th edition. The paladin was intended to be the paragon of knighthood and chivalry, so righteous that he manifests holy powers, not a fighting man devoted to a specific deity. Therefore it makes more sense for them to worship deities like Helm, or Heironeous or Paladine. However a paladin shouldn't even have the same relationship with whichever deity or deities he chooses to worship as a cleric does.

 

[groklynn]

I remember those guys in 2 edition and I think that paladins were rather setting-driven than system-driven class that time. So, to have a paladin that could be an interesting class is a big goal for a design team. My image of the paladin is based on a thought that paladin is some sort of fanatic and freak, guided by his temple and acting like a golem. So the character like this hanging around with a tiefling rogue and a guy with some demons summoned (e.g. wizard) is kinda pretty broken roleplaying cliche. Let's make paladin an npc class, some sort of good guys who can kick your ass if you are the evil one. And I want my necromancers back!

 

[Endur]

Thanks for the comments so far. Commenting on my own questions below.

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

I think Paladins should be Lawful Good Heroes with a knightly code.

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?

I think Paladins may worship one or more gods, but their powers actually come from lawful good holy source (i.e. heroic ideal of chivalry and valor).

By having the powers come from a lawful good source instead of a specific god, we avoid the issue of why every God does not have paladins.

 

[Arytiss]

I think that with Paladins there seems to be two schools of thought on what they are. The first is the Holy Warrior, a role which, as has been mentioned, was mostly played in editions prior to 4e by the Cleric (which was created with the intention of being a Holy Warrior).

The second is that of a paragon of Good and Law: the Galahad; the Michael Carpenter. This is how the Paladin was played in 1st and 2nd editions, and is pretty much what the word has come to mean.

3e blurred the lines between the two, introducing the concept of Paladins of other alignments, Paladins of Freedom, Slaughter, and Tyranny. The Paladin at this point was less an exemplar of Law and Good, but rather a representative of a philosophical concept.

Further blurring the lines in all editions was that a Paladin was typically a servant of a deity (Bahamut, Ra, Lathander, Pelor, etc.) and the idea that it was from the deity that the Paladin gained his power - thus merging the idea of a paragon of good with "Holy Warrior", which it became in 4e.

If we look back at the "Iconic D&D Clerics" blog entry, we see that there are two styles of Clerics there: the Holy Warrior, and the Priest. If we were to split these in to fundamentally different classes, as was suggested, then that would likely open up the possibility for the Paladin to return to what it was originally intended as - The Chivalrous Warrior.

 

[satori01]

2e added weapon specialization to the fighter to give the fighter something that paladins did not have. 3e gave the fighter lots of feats to balance the fighter versus the paladin.

This is not entirely accurate as Weapon Specialization was introduced in 1E Unearthed Arcana. If memory serves correctly 2e in one of the splat books basically allowed Weapon Specialization to Rangers and Paladins.

I personally think there should be no explicit alignment requirements for the class, but more class ideals that are expected.

Define the Paladin as a Defender of the weak, a stalwart of justice, a person more concerned with ideals than material goods, and let people interpret those ideals through the prism of their alignment choices.

I do not want to see Lawful Stupid again as a mandatory requirement.

 

[El Mahdi]

I think the game should present what the original inspiration and concept of the class is (likely in an aside or seperate text box), have a generally generic class structure, and then leave it up to each individual group to choose how to define the Paladin. Whether based on Crusading Mendicant Warriors, Chivalric Warriors, Charlemagne's Paladins, the Knights of the Round Table, a Polytheistic D&D interpratation of the Class, or other...it should be each individual groups perogative to choose what a Paladin is...and the mechanics should support that flexibility.

 

[GreyICE]

Oh god.

Just say no to alignment restrictions, race restrictions, and gender restrictions.

 

[Arytiss]

Oh god.

Just say no to alignment restrictions, race restrictions, and gender restrictions.

I'm with you on Race and Gender, but why no restriction on alignment? Especially on a class which has traditionally been defined by (or defined) a particular alignment?