Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[cavalier973]

I would like to say that my favorite version of the paladin (and the source of my handle) is:

Cavalier
This class represents the most common picture of the knight: the gentleman warrior who epitomizes honor, courage, and loyalty. He is specialized in battling 'classical' evil monsters such as demons and dragons.

Advantages:

• Bonus +3 to hit and +3 damage against all demonic and draconic creatures.
• May cast Remove Fear 1 time per day per level.
• Immune to fear and morale failure.
• Immune to poison.
• 20% resistance to fire.
• 20% resistance to acid.

Disadvantages:

• May not use missile weapons.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I want to play a baseball player. But I don't want to swing a bat. I want to kick a ball into a net and CALL myself a baseball player.

 

[JamesonCourage]

One way gives you what you want.

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

No, that's not true. If any alignment can be a paladin in the core game, it's not what I want. I want them to be LG-only. I'd have to house rule the game to make it that way.

If they are LG-only, you'd have to house rule them to not be that way.

Either way, one of us is house ruling. Your option isn't giving us both what we want, it's giving you what you want.

I'll grant you that it's "more inclusive" in a sense. Not one I want in D&D, though. Getting rid of all setting material is more inclusive, since nothing is theoretically restricted. While I don't use pre-written material, I wouldn't want them to abandon staple settings, either.

It's a matter of adaptability. Either way they go, they should include a "feel free to disregard/include alignment, if appropriate" in the core book. But, core sets the tone of the book. If LG-only, new players would come to my game expecting it. If not, they'd come to my game expecting to be able to make a CE Paladin.

I know what I'd prefer, and I know what you'd prefer. It's just a matter of what they'll go with. But, trust me, your way is not in any way satisfying both groups. As always, play what you like

 

[Sunseeker]

I want to play a baseball player. But I don't want to swing a bat. I want to kick a ball into a net and CALL myself a baseball player.

Pointless analogy is pointless.

There are plenty of examples of non-lawful good paladin-types. Pathfinder's AntiPaladin, Blackguards, ect...These are all basically paladin's of non-lawful good alignments.

Why should they require whole new classes? Why do we need to clone abilities for them? Why don't we just let players build non-lawful good paladins?

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

Not everybody feels this way a lot of people feel very differently about it and don't see it as toxic. Some people view things like this as a form of balance or even a way to define a class. Every class has some kind of restrictions built in.

Also I will admit I am wore bell bottoms when they were in fashion your implication that only us old farts feel this way is not true. My son is 33 his gaming group is made up of guys and gals his age and younger they play 3.5/Pathfinder and they want alignment in their games and like alignment restrictions.

I have 20 somethings in my game and they feel the same way.

And I like to point out that you can also do alignment free as a module and have an alignment free paladin.

It just amazes me when people say this does not belong core or that does belong in core. What belongs in core is what the game designers decide will be core.

What ever they decide some people will be thrilled and some won't and it has been that way in every edition.

I don't see why we can't discuss difference without trying to imply that one way is the best or right way. I think discussions like this would go better if words like shackles, toxic were left out of it.

I love alignment and I never felt or looked at as a shackle of any kind but as a tool to help me develop the role playing aspect of my character.

 

[GreyICE]

No, that's not true. If any alignment can be a paladin in the core game, it's not what I want. I want them to be LG-only. I'd have to house rule the game to make it that way.

If they are LG-only, you'd have to house rule them to not be that way.

Either way, one of us is house ruling. Your option isn't giving us both what we want, it's giving you what you want.

I'll grant you that it's "more inclusive" in a sense. Not one I want in D&D, though. Getting rid of all setting material is more inclusive, since nothing is theoretically restricted. While I don't use pre-written material, I wouldn't want them to abandon staple settings, either.

It's a matter of adaptability. Either way they go, they should include a "feel free to disregard/include alignment, if appropriate" in the core book. But, core sets the tone of the book. If LG-only, new players would come to my game expecting it. If not, they'd come to my game expecting to be able to make a CE Paladin.

I know what I'd prefer, and I know what you'd prefer. It's just a matter of what they'll go with. But, trust me, your way is not in any way satisfying both groups. As always, play what you like

If a player brought you an excellent concept for a plain Good Paladin, a truly excellent concept, would you reject it for the alignment at the top?

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

That is just so much bull. I have played in games where the DM took out the alignment restrictions. There is nothing stopping you from playing any class all you need is a DM willing to work with you in making the class fit your concept.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

Do you actually have any hard evidence other than what you have read on a forum or anecdotal evidence from your life to back this claim up? If you have links I would be interested in reading them.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If a player brought you an excellent concept for a plain Good Paladin, a truly excellent concept, would you reject it for the alignment at the top?

I don't play D&D currently. In my system, no. I don't have alignments (or classes, for that matter), and such a similar concept would be fine. My RPG is much more open than D&D in any form because of such loose restrictions, and better for it, in my opinion.

In D&D, almost assuredly (not 100%, but very close). Were I to run a game, and someone brought me that concept, I'd work with them on a custom prestige class or the like, but the Paladin class would almost certainly be Lawful Good.

Again, I know what I want, and I know what you want. I want D&D to model D&D, and part of that to me is Lawful Good Paladins. It's not Good Paladins, or Lawful Evil Paladins. You want more options (like I did before making my RPG), and I can respect that.

It's just a matter of what we're going to get. I don't know yet, but, like I said, one of us would have to house rule to get what we want. As always, play what you like

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Pointless analogy is pointless.

There are plenty of examples of non-lawful good paladin-types. Pathfinder's AntiPaladin, Blackguards, ect...These are all basically paladin's of non-lawful good alignments.

Why should they require whole new classes? Why do we need to clone abilities for them? Why don't we just let players build non-lawful good paladins?

No. These are warriors. At best they are holy (or unholy) warriors. They are not paladins.