Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[jonesy]

Well, you can take it up directly with Rich Burlew, if you like.

That's just it. Miko isn't that complex of a character. And yet I can't agree with the creater about her alignment. At all. So how could there ever be a paladin everyone could agree on? Even if the game provides one with all versions there will be a lot of people saying that's totally the wrong way to do it.

 

[FireLance]

That's just it. Miko isn't that complex of a character. And yet I can't agree with the creater about her alignment. At all. So how could there ever be a paladin everyone could agree on? Even if the game provides one with all versions there will be a lot of people saying that's totally the wrong way to do it.

Fortunately, the only person you really need to agree with is your DM (or player, if you're the DM). Everything else is just sound and fury on a messageboard.

 

[jonesy]

Fortunately, the only person you really need to agree with is your DM (or player, if you're the DM). Everything else is just sound and fury on a messageboard.

So basically, just another day.

 

[hanez]

So, it appears that heroism and virtue are "ridiculous restrictions" and turn characters into "troped up cliches". So be it. That is the way of the world.

I've often expressed the view that one should choose to play a paladin because one wants to play a virtuous hero. What mystifies me is why those who don't want to play virtuous heroes still want to call themselves paladins.

Completely Agree.

I think Arcana Unearthed from Monte Cooke has a great compromise. In it, he introduced the "champion" class. You could be a champion of various causes like light, good, darkness, justice, death etc. I propose under a model like this the champion of "law and good" would be a paladin with similar restrictions as you and I prefer. But a champion of "darkness" or "justice" might work differently (and have different, or no restrictions at all).

I see this as a way of opening up the class to more options and making it more flexible/customizable to the DMs and players wishes. For me, a typical paladin (or champion of law and good) with all the restrictions and expectations would have different story hooks, more NPC respect, and advantages over one who chose to act however they preferred. Still this framework would open up the option for DMs/players to make those choices

Under the Champion class, the "Paladin" could be emphasized or highlighted. Similar to the way the "illusionist" was highlighted under wizard in AD&D with only a paragraph or two referencing the other specialist schools.

 

[Anguirus]

I don't want to see hard alignment restrictions on the paladin class. They should serve a code that is set by their particular order and enforced by a divine covenant. Break the covenant, and it's time to atone.

You could get "anti-paladins" though who pledge themselves to a new order that may be diametrically opposed to the old. Or, there could be some consolation prize in the rules for ex-paladins who stay rogue (i.e. ronin).

IMO hard alignment restriction to Lawful Good can have positive and negative consequences for a game and the player-DM relationship. I'd like to keep the commitment angle without setting up moral arguments at the table about the nature of "goodness" or even worse "law."

 

[TwoSix]

Paladin is a word that over the course of D&D has soaked up a lot of baggage, mostly in terms of arguments and divergent characterizations. Some people define a paladin by the abilities, and some by the background. No answer WotC gives will satisfy everyone, and we'll be having this same argument when 5e releases.

I guarantee it or your money back.

 

[jonesy]

I suggest we rename the class Larry to get rid of all the baggage.

This can't possibly backfire.

 

[jsaving]

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

This isn't an either-or, and I think the 5e team should do both.

Chivalry implies courtesy, generosity, valor, and martial skill. It has nothing to do with how creative one might be, or the degree to which one judges others, or the extent to which one respects kings or codes or a rigidly ordered society. As such, chivalry doesn't equal lawful goodness, and lawful goodness implies a far broader set of behavioral precepts than are needed (or in my view desirable) for the paladin class.

Bards can have wanderlust, and barbarians rage, and druids a love of nature, and paladins a devotion to chivalry, without needing to tie them to a particular alignment. If a CG guy is chivalrous but also highly creative and with a firm belief that kings/traditions/regulations make it harder for people to reach their potentials, I think he's paladin material even though he clearly isn't LG, at least as past editions have defined the term.