Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[tlantl]

I like paladins in the champion role.

They can be any alignment and champion any church or deity. I also liked them as cavaliers from the unearthed arcana

Other than that I don't see them needing to lose their spells. 1e, 2e, and 3e paladins cast a few spells over their latter levels. I'm thinking there weren't too many who could cast 4th level spells.

I don't know where looking at the paladin as a weak cleric comes from, most people who play Paladins don't get to cast more than a spell or two.


Perhaps giving paladins spells that help them perform their missions better. Take away the spells that contribute to the wimpy cleric theme and let them have spiritual magic that reinforces their mystique as Paladins

 

[FireLance]

All this talk about deities and alignments is putting the cart before the horse, IMO.

I liked the Essentials take on paladins in that they were champions of virtues such as valor and sacrifice. To me, the paladin has always been the most "heroic" class, and deciding to play a paladin ought to imply a commitment to play some kind of hero. The idea of promoting a virtue ties in nicely with that.

After you have decided on your virtue, the choice of alignment and deity should flow naturally. So, it's not a case that paladins have to be good or lawful good. It's just that in promoting particular virtues, paladins tend to act in ways that are compatible with a good or lawful good alignment. Similarly, it's not that only certain deities have paladins. It's just that in promoting their virtues, paladins are drawn to worship deities who espouse those virtues. In fact, given that paladins are draw power from a virtue instead of directly from a deity, they would not need to worship any specific god, any more than a fighter, rogue or wizard (cleric being perhaps the only exception).

That said, the idea that a paladin is a special servant of a deity is quite prevalent and needs to be supported. I would do so with a "Minister of [deity]" theme or feat which would make the paladin a member of the deity's religious organization and possibly grant access to deity-specific spells or abilities (clerics of that specific deity gain access to this theme or feat for free). The advantage of this approach is that the theme or feat can be taken by any character class, not just paladins. So, the god or thieves can have Ministers who are rogues, the god of war can have Ministers who are fighters or barbarians, and the god of magic can have Ministers who are wizards.

 

[GreyICE]

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?

Why couldn't there be a Paladin like Robin hood who robs from a rich tyrant to help the poor suffering people of the villages, and has a deep mistrust of official authority?

Well that's not what a Paladin is? Why not?

Arbitrary restrictions based on alignment are just saying "no! Youre not playing the make believe wizard game right!"

 

[tlantl]

Why couldn't there be a Paladin like Robin hood who robs from a rich tyrant to help the poor suffering people of the villages, and has a deep mistrust of official authority?

Well that's not what a Paladin is? Why not?

Arbitrary restrictions based on alignment are just saying "no! Youre not playing the make believe wizard game right!"

Because that's what thieves do.

Paladins spill blood for their Gods.

(or their causes)

To me Sir Robin was certainly not a paladin.

 

[Minigiant]

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

I believe a paladin should be LG. The focus and dedication to be a paladin should force them to be lawful and accept the strict rules to become a paladin.

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?

Paladins should be assigned to a "Paladin Force". It could be tended to by one or more deities but it should be the manifestation of chivalry and valor that powers Paladins.

In one setting it could be a single deity for Paladins that aligns itself with other deities. In others it be something like a "SpellPaladinweave" that all good and lawful deities use. In others it could be a giant sentient ball of good energy that decides to aid the deities it chooses.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Because there still exists a dispute as to whether Paladins should be a story archetype or a power set. If a paladin is first defined by his personality, then anyone who doesn't match the personality isn't a paladin.

Only if you're looking at the class as a list of powers is the line as obvious as you want to make it.

 

[trancejeremy]

Why couldn't there be a Paladin like Robin hood who robs from a rich tyrant to help the poor suffering people of the villages, and has a deep mistrust of official authority?

Well that's not what a Paladin is? Why not?

Arbitrary restrictions based on alignment are just saying "no! Youre not playing the make believe wizard game right!"

Because Paladins are taken from the real world, that's why. The word has an existing meaning.

Paladins were the name of the peers of Charlemagne, his group of elite knights more or less analogous to the Knights of the Round Table. Most were armed with a Holy Sword. There are books full of legends about these guys.

Legends of Charlemagne by Thomas Bulfinch - Project Gutenberg

They arrive from D&D from the same source that alignment does, Poul Anderson's 3 of Hearts, 3 of Lions, which is sort of a modern sequel to one of those old tales, involving Ogier the Dane.

If you want a Robin Hood class, fine, just don't call it a Paladin. (And I would also argue that Rangers pretty much filled the role as do-gooders of other alignments, since they were originally derived from Tolkien's version of Ranger. But Rangers had to be changed to any alignment and turned into just woodsmen, or tiger riding dual weapon specialists...)

 

[Dausuul]

The paladin ought to be required to follow a strict code. This code should not include any reference to alignment, and several possible codes should be presented, like:

Classic Paladin: Always fight with honor; obey legitimate (as recognized by your church) authority; defend and protect innocents, even at cost of your own life; never lie.

Paladin of Arcana: Treat all arcane casters with honor and respect, even when facing them on the battlefield; preserve knowledge and wisdom, even at cost of your own life; protect arcane casters from the fury of the mob and the laws of non-magi.

Blood Knight: Never decline a challenge to battle; avenge any defeat you suffer; bring swift, honorable death to any foe who fights with valor and who neither flees nor surrenders.

Paladin of Chaos: Never aid or submit to agents of the law; defend criminals against the law, even at cost of your own life; challenge and defeat any agent of the law whom you meet beyond the protection of walls and fellows.

Dark Paladin: When offered power, grasp it, no matter the cost; slay anyone who dares stand between you and your goals; for any who serve you, punish failure with death.

By enumerating specific requirements of the code, rather than relying on the shoddy and ill-defined alignment system, 5E can avoid the endless arguments about what constitutes an evil act, when a paladin has ceased to be lawful, and so on and so forth. (There will still be arguments, but there will at least be some reasonable basis for them.)

 

[GreyICE]

Wow.

I just post that and two people immediately come here to tell me that if my Paladin did that I would "not be playing the magical wizard make-believe pretend" the right way.

Way to totally miss the point guys. The point is that if a player wants to make a Paladin who does that, then who are you to say that they are playing pretend wrong?

Here is a fact: it's a game. If you don't think the paladin class adequately represents the vision of a dead guy whose paladins probably didn't live up to their own code, well... Good for you.

If someone has an interesting, fun, and engaging idea for a character... Well, no. You're exactly the sort of people who would take a fun, well built character with well written backstory that is well roleplayed and focus on nothing but the fact that the Paladin being played was just plain good and wasn't lawful at all.

This is a fantasy roleplaying game. And it should be open to the widest range of possible choices. If you want to declare that in your world all Paladins are lawful good, go for it. Please dont try and get every single person who plays D&D on this entire planet, in every country and culture, to adopt the restrictions of your setting.

 

[Lord Zack]

Why couldn't there be a Paladin like Robin hood who robs from a rich tyrant to help the poor suffering people of the villages, and has a deep mistrust of official authority?

Well that's not what a Paladin is? Why not?

Arbitrary restrictions based on alignment are just saying "no! Youre not playing the make believe wizard game right!"

It's not arbitrary just because you disagree with it. The word paladin has a meaning and in the context of pre-4e D&D that meaning precludes the paladin being any alignment other than lawful good.