Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[GreyICE]

Of course there's people who consider non-LG Paladin's 'not a Paladin.' Hell, there's people who don't consider any RPG that detailed combat rules as a 'real RPG' and instead call them all combat simulators (quite a bit of the White Wolf crowd loved that one).

I simply don't see any reason for the rules to cater to those people.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Of course there's people who consider non-LG Paladin's 'not a Paladin.' Hell, there's people who don't consider any RPG that detailed combat rules as a 'real RPG' and instead call them all combat simulators (quite a bit of the White Wolf crowd loved that one).

I simply don't see any reason for the rules to cater to those people.

Since, of course, your views on the issue are the only ones WotC should consider. I suspect their target players might disagree with you.

 

[Elf Witch]

I prefer that paladins have an alignment restriction of lawful good. It is how I view them based on history real life and game history.

I do think having options to make paladin like classes of different alignments is something needed and adds to the game.

I am hoping that the game designers go with how I like paladins. If they don't then I can house rule it back. The same way people who don't like alignment can house rule if they do it away they don't like.

I really don't get how saying I think paladins should be lawful good is telling other players how to play. I certainly don't think someone else saying the opposite is telling me how to play.

I just helped build a paladin style class for a fighter/rogue follower of St Cuthbert. We are not calling it a paladin we made up an order of clerics, fighters called the Fist of St Cuthbert. They are part paladin, part inquisitor.

 

[Incenjucar]

Yes, some people support horribly restrictive rules which will irritate a significant portion of the audience.

Inclusive rules structures are important for the survival of the brand. Only so many people play D&D for the sake of being shackled to a narrow view forged in the days when bellbottoms weren't just a Halloween costume, and D&D was associated with Satanism.

You can apply those shackles very easily through a module, without detracting from the broader availability of the rules. Alignment is infamously contentious, and that contention ensures that any implementation is going to be hideously flawed for a significant portion of that audience, making it a terrible choice for something that important rules - such as a popular character class - are locked into.

Alignment shackles need to be kept out of core. They're toxic to a lot of players, and the game doesn't need another reason for division. You can add alignment shackles back in, call it the "True Paladin" or something, as optional rules, with special benefits that tie strictly into a Lawful Good True Paladin concept, without breaking the wider concept of the class that has made it so much more popular in recent years.

 

[GreyICE]

Since, of course, your views on the issue are the only ones WotC should consider. I suspect their target players might disagree with you.

One way gives you what you want.

One way gives you what you want and me what I want.

Their goal is inclusiveness. If they're putting alignment mechanics in there they've already failed at that.

 

[cavalier973]

The paladin, as someone said upthread, is the quintessential hero--our should be. That is, while fighters, clerics, thieves, and mages might be adventuring to acquire wealth or glory (for their churches, in the case of clerics), the paladin quests so that he can do good deeds. He helps people because it is the right thing to do--always. His orientation is one of sacrifice on behalf of others.

At least, that's the way I've always perceived the class. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the paladin must be lawful good; in contrast to the argument upthread that the paladin must be of some lawful alignment, I would argue that the paladin must be of good alignment. Consider the paladin in the "Quest for Glory" series: he was supposed to have the discernment to know that certain laws were unjust, and should be circumvented and thwarted whenever possible. It was the right thing to do for the paladin to allow the thief to flee, rather than to bring him to "justice".

There were three knights in the Arthurian cycle (at least, in Mallory's version) that achieved the ultimate Quest for the holy grail: Galahad, Percival, and Dr. Jones. No wait! It was some other knight, but I can't rightly remember who it was. Sir Bors, perhaps? Anyway, Percival was too innocent to acheive the grail quest fully (he didn't know to pose the right question at the right time, or something like that). Sir Bors couldn't achieve it because he had sex once. Sir Galahad achieved it because he was the "perfect knight". But Lancelot was the best knight that Arthur had. He was, in fact, a paladin, even though a flawed one: he performed the miracle of "laying on hands" near the end of the cycle. (And I'm getting my information from "The Once and Future King", by T.H. White, which is more or less a paraphrase of Mallory). Lancelot was the one knight that was guaranteed to beat you in a fight. Lancelot was the one knight from whom you could expect mercy when he beat you. Lancelot was the one you went to if you had a problem (According to White's version, it was because Lancelot had a cruel streak, and he worked hard to overcome it). Lancelot is very much a model of what a paladin should be (excepting, of course, doing the nasty with his best friend's wife).

Essentials had two versions of the paladin: the Cavalier of Sacrifice and the Cavalier of Valor. The Cav of Valor could be good or lawful good, but the Cav of Sacrifice had to be lawful good. It was the Cav of Sacrifice that had a power very similar to the traditional "lay on hands", and some other pretty swell powers and features as well. SO...maybe there should be levels of paladinhood? The very best paladins are lawful good, and get the full benefits of their profession. Paladins that are merely good or merely lawful get some of that, but not as much as the LG.

 

[Sunseeker]

I really don't get how saying I think paladins should be lawful good is telling other players how to play. I certainly don't think someone else saying the opposite is telling me how to play.

Generally speaking, it's much easier to add restrictions than remove them, hence why when you say "I want paladins with restrictions." It's different than when we say we don't, because the latter doesn't keep you from restricting paladins, but the former make keep us from being able to play them.

 

[Savage Wombat]

One way gives you what you want.

One way gives you what you want and me what I want.

Their goal is inclusiveness. If they're putting alignment mechanics in there they've already failed at that.

See, once again you're acting like you're being "generous" and "tolerant" when you're simply insisting on your side of the point.

Your way does not necessarily give me what I want. So the reality is one way gives me what I want and one way gives you what you want.

That's the point you're not getting here.

 

[Sunseeker]

Your way does not necessarily give me what I want.

If what you want if for every game to play by your rules, then no. But then, that's not the goal of 5e anyway.

 

[Incenjucar]

See, once again you're acting like you're being "generous" and "tolerant" when you're simply insisting on your side of the point.

Your way does not necessarily give me what I want. So the reality is one way gives me what I want and one way gives you what you want.

That's the point you're not getting here.

What you want is more problematic than the other option.

You want to detriment the game. It's not about tolerance, it's about audience. And your method will alienate more than it will invite.