Niccodaemus
First Post
I'm 100% with the OP. No such thing as an evil paladin. That's called an anti-paladin!
Reclaim the name of Paladin!
Remathilis
Legend
I'm willing to compromise: paladin's can be any good alignment, or even any non-evil.
Lord Mhoram
Hero
I've house-ruled that Paladins are LG only in 3rd and 4th.
If paladins have no alignment restrictions in 5E, I'll do the same.
If there is no alignment in 5E, then I'll impose a similar roleplay restriction on them.
But then, in my games, I have no evil gods. Anything evil and godlike are Demons or Devils.
If paladins have no alignment restrictions in 5E, I'll do the same.
If there is no alignment in 5E, then I'll impose a similar roleplay restriction on them.
But then, in my games, I have no evil gods. Anything evil and godlike are Demons or Devils.
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
How to "fix" the Paladin (By Billy, Age 42):
"Monte, Mike...here's a copy of THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONSby POUL ANDERSON. Now you just step in here, here's a spiral notebook and a few pens for each of you...that's right, pick a chair, get comfortable. No no, I'll take your laptops and cell phones. There's a couple of PLAYERS HANDBOOKs on the table for you to consult if you need more inspiration. I'm going to be outside the door with a loaded gun just so you guys don't get any crazy ideas about sneaking out to look at any other references; you can come out when you've got it right.
Get to it, fellows! I'll have pizza brought 'round in a few hours. Pepperoni OK? Oh, on half? Alrighty then! Enjoy! First SOB that tries to get out to consult a 4e book gets shot in the face! Yes for real! Now - chop chop!
...
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS MEANT MOSTLY* HUMOROUSLY. I WOULD NEVER EVER THREATEN AN RPG DESIGNER OR ANYONE WITH A FIREARM, WELL, OKAY PROBABLY SEAN K. REYNOLDS BUT COME ON YOU HAVE TO ADMIT HE KIND OF HAS IT COMING.
*=EXCEPT FOR THE PART ABOUT CONSULTING THREE HEARTS & THREE LIONSIT'S REALLY AN AMAZING BOOK.
"Monte, Mike...here's a copy of THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONSby POUL ANDERSON. Now you just step in here, here's a spiral notebook and a few pens for each of you...that's right, pick a chair, get comfortable. No no, I'll take your laptops and cell phones. There's a couple of PLAYERS HANDBOOKs on the table for you to consult if you need more inspiration. I'm going to be outside the door with a loaded gun just so you guys don't get any crazy ideas about sneaking out to look at any other references; you can come out when you've got it right.
Get to it, fellows! I'll have pizza brought 'round in a few hours. Pepperoni OK? Oh, on half? Alrighty then! Enjoy! First SOB that tries to get out to consult a 4e book gets shot in the face! Yes for real! Now - chop chop!
...
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS MEANT MOSTLY* HUMOROUSLY. I WOULD NEVER EVER THREATEN AN RPG DESIGNER OR ANYONE WITH A FIREARM, WELL, OKAY PROBABLY SEAN K. REYNOLDS BUT COME ON YOU HAVE TO ADMIT HE KIND OF HAS IT COMING.
*=EXCEPT FOR THE PART ABOUT CONSULTING THREE HEARTS & THREE LIONSIT'S REALLY AN AMAZING BOOK.
I'm fairly sure Paladins are a seperate class to Clerics in DDN and they'll be quite different. Clerics are going to be Vancian casters in Heavy armour and Mace. Paladins will be warriors of their faith.
Given that DDN seems to be more about regression than progression. DDN will probably go down the completely nonsensical and absolutely stupid idea that Paladins are LG and can be only LG.
They will however, have optional module options for doings something sensible, like creating a Paladin for whatever deity and alignment you want because Paladins should be representative of whichever deity they serve and that the opinion on what's Lawful and Good is completely subjective depending on who's in charge.
The best solution would be to say that Paladins should be Lawful and Good but what is Lawful and Good is completely subjective. E.G. for a Paladin of Madness and Murder, Murdering and being Mad is Good and sticking to that code is Lawful.
Given that DDN seems to be more about regression than progression. DDN will probably go down the completely nonsensical and absolutely stupid idea that Paladins are LG and can be only LG.
They will however, have optional module options for doings something sensible, like creating a Paladin for whatever deity and alignment you want because Paladins should be representative of whichever deity they serve and that the opinion on what's Lawful and Good is completely subjective depending on who's in charge.
The best solution would be to say that Paladins should be Lawful and Good but what is Lawful and Good is completely subjective. E.G. for a Paladin of Madness and Murder, Murdering and being Mad is Good and sticking to that code is Lawful.
harlokin
First Post
Sadly, this is probably true.
Except that you are.
Until 4E, the Paladin WAS the epitome of the LG Holy Warrior.
The fact that 4E (and even some splat books in 3.5) watered that down to mean absolutely nothing doesn't mean that a Paladin wasn't a LG Holy Warrior for over 3 decades. Sure, people house ruled it.
I'm all for a LG Holy Warrior Paladin. I'm also all for a LG Holy Warrior Paladin with a 16 requirement in Charisma. I'm for Paladins getting back their Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Divine Grace, and Aura of Courage.
I think this is how the D&D Paladin should be, but I do realize that some people do not like that. Fine. Have a small sidebar stating that at the DM's option, some of the Paladin restrictions (or even class abilities) can be removed.
But the default should be the classic Paladin, not this fighter-like pretender.
Ditto for evil Assassins.
I find the most amazing thing in D&D to be the sheer number of players who hate alignment and opine that a significant percentage of them don't want to roleplay their PC with a certain set of moral codes, rather they just want to do whatever the hell they feel like in a given session. To me, that's not roleplaying. People want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a Holy Warrior Paladin, but they want him to also not be alignment straight jacketed so that he can do whatever pleases him, "all in the name of his deity". Screw that nonsense. Certain baseline morals should be part of certain classes. Not most classes, but some.
I personally think that DMs should play deities for divine PCs (and spirits in the case of Primal) as beings that just don't hand super human abilities out without the PC having to toe the line a bit. This should be the default of D&D. It shouldn't all just be "break in monster lair", "kill monsters", "loot bodies", rinse and repeat. I'm a PC and I can do whatever I want. 4E went heavily down this road in how they set up combat abilities, and what the designers wrote in the DMG. They have these power sources with no DM suggested control over them. Sorry, but that's lame. In fact, I've never seen a 4E Warlock even taken to task by the mysterious powers that give him his powers. It probably happens in some games, but the game should support that concept, not ignore it.
Starbuck_II
First Post
Well in the playtest so far, a guy played a Pally, a guy played a Warlord, and a guy played a Cleric so they are classes in DDN.
The warlord was not a 4E warlord but was similar and very useful he said.
Mercurius
Legend
No offense to the OP, but this is a good example of what I've been blabbing about with regards to some folks wanting to form 5E around their preferred style or edition of D&D, which is strictly against the design principles that M&M have been talking about. Sure, the default ranger might be Aragorn, but they want to accommodate Drizzt-style rangers too. The same, I imagine, goes for paladins: the default will likely be the LG Smiter of Evils, but the rules will allow for paladins of other alignments.
As some have said, in "post-Y2K D&D" a strictly LG/16+ CHA paladin is more of a prestige class, theme, or paragon path. That said, this could still be the default approach, but the rules almost certainly will (and should) facilitate other themes.
One way 5E could go about classes is with three layers, all within the PHB:
*general class (paladin as holy warrior) - this would be more of a template, customizable to suit an individual player's desires and the campaign setting
*default theme/build (paladin as LG holy warrior) - this would be the "quick pick" default option, the classic AD&D paladin
*variant themes/builds (blackguard, avenger, guardian of nature, etc) - these would variant approachs and could, theoretically, wait for later products
That way we all win, and that's the point with D&D Next, afaict.
As some have said, in "post-Y2K D&D" a strictly LG/16+ CHA paladin is more of a prestige class, theme, or paragon path. That said, this could still be the default approach, but the rules almost certainly will (and should) facilitate other themes.
One way 5E could go about classes is with three layers, all within the PHB:
*general class (paladin as holy warrior) - this would be more of a template, customizable to suit an individual player's desires and the campaign setting
*default theme/build (paladin as LG holy warrior) - this would be the "quick pick" default option, the classic AD&D paladin
*variant themes/builds (blackguard, avenger, guardian of nature, etc) - these would variant approachs and could, theoretically, wait for later products
That way we all win, and that's the point with D&D Next, afaict.
