Paladins - to be, or not to be?

Are paladins...


Kzach

Banned
Banned
The main purpose of this thread is to present the poll. To that end, I feel it's best to explain each option so that everyone is clear on the intention of the poll.

1) You believe that the paladin class in D&D is unique and part of that uniqueness lies in its ties to the Lawful Good alignment. It's not that holy warriors can't be of other religions, it's simply that holy warriors of other religions aren't called paladins. They are 'blackguards' or whatever other term you want to use for whatever alignment or virtue they represent.

2) You believe that paladin is a collective term for a holy warrior regardless of their virtues or alignment and should be equally represented by all gods good, evil, or uncaring. In a system with or without alignment, paladins are simply holy warriors with special powers that represent the virtues or gods that the paladin follows.

3) You are agnostic and don't really care either way.

4) You're an atheist and hate paladins altogether!

5) Catch-all for whatever option isn't represented in the poll and you'll either explain further in the thread or just be satisfied that you ruined a darn good poll by choosing a non-committal response.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

2.

To me, Paladin is a class name. It's meta. It's not a designation of who or what you are because it's too broad a descriptor.

I work in an office, but when people ask me what I do, I don't say I'm an "Office Worker", I tell them my more specific job that is within the office. "Office Worker" would be a class name, but there are many, many different jobs and duties Office Workers do. And its the same with Fighters, Rogue, and Paladins.
 

The term "lawful good" only has meaning in D&D (very little meaning at that).

The term "paladin" has has a meaning somewhat similar to "champion" even outside of D&D, where there is no such thing as lawful good.

I look at the paladin as a magic-infused knight. Someone who has a code, but not necessarily the specific code that D&D describes as lawful good. Most paladins probably truly believe in their code and consider themselves to be doing the right thing (which, if anything, suggests they should be lawful neutral, the default knightly alignment). Hopefully, the 5e paladin will no longer assume that every member of the class is a puritanical zealot.

Personally, I would prefer they replace paladins with knights as a class, but that's not the legacy.
 



I've never really been sold on paladins being a separate class from armored clerics. But if we had just (unarmored, basic weapon only) priests and (armored, full weapon options) paladins, I'd warm to them pretty quickly.

Cheers!
Kinak
 


We don't need this debate again. Just vote in the poll and count the results.
Do we need the poll again? :) Perhaps we could all just agree that people are evenly split on the issue and live forever in peace. But where's the fun in that?

For me, paladins present a very tricky problem. Most of the historical and literary examples are tied very firmly to the idea of a monotheistic religion, usually a very specific monotheistic religion. In that realm it's fine to give special powers to knights who embody certain virtues, but as soon as you enter your standard D&D world, it stops making sense. Why are LG gods more uniquely powerful than non-LG gods? The power doesn't come from a diety? That's even stranger.

Either way, to limit the power to LG makes assumptions about the nature of the setting. Assumptions that are too broad to make it into the default system.
 


My vote is still "meh."

You can be a Paladin, or you can be a multiclassed Fighter/Cleric. The world around you will never notice a difference.
 

Remove ads

Top