Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[Savage Wombat]

I think you are using flippant remarks to hide the fact that you are the one not understanding other people's arguments. Go back and try looking at the other points of view again.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean they don't have their own point.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

The irony is that in the other thread on alignment, most of the responders said that alignment was an outdated, useless guideline that was better served not even being in-game, and if it was, representing nothing more than a very, super-basic guide.

 

[GreyICE]

And again, the Paladin you are citing is based on the code of a long dead guy who doesn't exist in my campaign setting. Does he exist in Forgotten Realms? Eberron? Dark Sun? Spelljammer?

What setting does he exist in?

He doesn't.

It's fine to say 'many paladins adhere to a strict moral code,' and even do as Dausuul said and suggest possible alternative moral codes beyond 'save kittens and smite evil' but to say that absolutely every Paladin in a fantasy setting must look like some historical ideal figure is ridiculous. It would be like insisting every Cleric has to be Jesus Christ.

 

[Lord Zack]

I think you are using flippant remarks to hide the fact that you are the one not understanding other people's arguments. Go back and try looking at the other points of view again.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean they don't have their own point.

If you're referring to me than you're wrong. There's no basis for misunderstanding him. He wants paladins to be alignments other than lawful good. I don't. There's not really any room to misinterpret anything.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I disagree that all gods should have access to them. They should only be appropriate if they fit a deity's domains/spheres of influence. I don't see Heavy armor, good fighting, healing, or even buffs being appropriate to all deities.

That's an excellent point. But to play devil's advocate, D&D has never been consistent or logical about this kind of stuff. I mean, clerics/priests have always shared a common set of weapon and armor profs, even though it makes little sense for many worshippers. Say, the cleric/priest of a thiefy-sneaky god.

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

Again, playing devil's advocate...that meaning probably isn't what you think it is. Real paladins were elite soldiers; they went to war for Charlemagne and Christ but...well, I'm sure you've heard of some of the horrible things that people have been known to do for god, country and king.

And the knights who influence our modern idea of what chivalry is weren't any better. Take Sir Lance and King Arthur, for example. Lance slept around with Gwen, and pulvarized anyone who dared to call him out on it. And good ol' Arthur...do you remember that prophecy about his own son killing him? Well when he heard that prophecy, he slaughtered every boy baby in England that year in an effort to kill his son in the cradle. He and his Knights o' the Round did plenty of other despicable things, but that one's a favorite of mine.

 

[GreyICE]

If you're referring to me than you're wrong. There's no basis for misunderstanding him. He wants paladins to be alignments other than lawful good. I don't. There's not really any room to misinterpret anything.

Again, I have no problem if every Paladin you make is Lawful Good. I don't even have a problem if when you DM you insist every Paladin is lawful good.

I just have a problem if you try and make every single player on the planet conform to your rules.

Does the idea that somewhere on the planet someone might play a non-LG paladin really chaff your drawers so much? WHY?

 

[Savage Wombat]

If you're referring to me than you're wrong. There's no basis for misunderstanding him. He wants paladins to be alignments other than lawful good. I don't. There's not really any room to misinterpret anything.

The difference between your positions, I'd say, is that from one perspective being LG is what defines the paladin. He's "the warrior that upholds the values of law and goodness." I suppose it even implies a sense that LG is a superior alignment to others, I don't know for sure. Certainly it suggests that being a paragon of CG alignment doesn't invest you with supernatural abilities.

The other perspective is that the paladin is the epitome of an alignment, a champion of his alignment. That the forces of alignment have invested you with the powers to uphold it. So you can paladin whatever alignment you want to promote.

Leaving aside "smiting" and "armored spellcaster", I think these are arguably not the same concept. One is driven by the alignment structure, one is drawing from it.

I guess you need to ask yourself this: in your campaign, do the forces of "chaotic neutrality" or whatever sometimes gather together and say, "we shall choose a champion to promote our ways" and give some guy a load of powers? Because in my (personal) view, I don't think anyone other than LG would do that. CE, for example, wouldn't give you jack unless you went out and took it for yourself.

The question isn't that there are two views on the subject. It's whether one should be preferable for the rules to officially adopt.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Again, I have no problem if every Paladin you make is Lawful Good. I don't even have a problem if when you DM you insist every Paladin is lawful good.

I just have a problem if you try and make every single player on the planet conform to your rules.

Does the idea that somewhere on the planet someone might play a non-LG paladin really chaff your drawers so much? WHY?

You could say that about any rule in the game. What we're trying to establish here is the core, agreed-upon rules, and what the bulk of gamerdom might prefer.

 

[Lord Zack]

And again, the Paladin you are citing is based on the code of a long dead guy who doesn't exist in my campaign setting. Does he exist in Forgotten Realms? Eberron? Dark Sun? Spelljammer?

What setting does he exist in?

He doesn't.

It's fine to say 'many paladins adhere to a strict moral code,' and even do as Dausuul said and suggest possible alternative moral codes beyond 'save kittens and smite evil' but to say that absolutely every Paladin in a fantasy setting must look like some historical ideal figure is ridiculous. It would be like insisting every Cleric has to be Jesus Christ.

But where did the tropes that make up those setting come from? They weren't invented out of whole cloth. No, they were created by the developers drawing upon they're experiences and knowledge of the real world. By you're logic you could have a rogue be a completely law abiding gentleman with no skills in stealth, deception or anything else that you'd expect a class called a rogue to have. Or a ranger that has no abilities related to woodlore. Or a monk that has nothing to do with either asceticism or the hand-to-hand fighting skills associated with the shaolin monks. Dungeons and Dragons is a class-based system and it's classes are based on certain archetypes.

 

[Dausuul]

Suppose the paladin is in a realm ruled by an evil king, whose brutal minions tyrannize the populace and levy crushing taxes. What then? Seems to me like a traditional D&D paladin in such a setting would end up looking like a shinier, more heavily armored Robin Hood.

But in any case, I think the idea that the paladin must slavishly imitate the source material is rather off. I mean, all the original examples are close companions of a king. So does your first-level paladin have to be a king's companion? (Bonus points if the king is of the aforementioned evil tyrant variety.) The originals were devout believers in a monotheistic faith that regarded all other gods as demons or delusions. Does the D&D paladin have to look on all followers of other gods as enemies? Obviously not.

The source material should be respected, but variations on the core theme of "perfect knight" are fine... including, perhaps, different definitions of what constitutes "perfect." There's an excellent example in "Order of the Stick," where you have an order of paladins based on Japanese samurai rather than Frankish chevaliers. Likewise, there could well be a god whose vision of the perfect knight isn't rigorously law-abiding.