JRRNeiklot
First Post
I would argue those players don't want to play a paladin. It's tantamout to taking my bat and glove and going outside to play football.
Reclaim the name of Paladin!
- Thread starter FireLance
- Start date
I would argue those players don't want to play a paladin. It's tantamout to taking my bat and glove and going outside to play football.
Sanglorian
Adventurer
I think limiting the paladin to Lawful Good is great. With a viable multiclass system, a cleric/fighter makes a great divine warrior - in most editions, a non-multiclassed cleric also makes a great divine warrior!
Having the cleric or cleric/fighter fill that role leaves the paladin to be focused on purity, conviction and righteousness. A paladin's fall from grace is all the more stirring if paladiins are the best of the best. When a paladin faces a difficult moral choice, the fact that he/she cannot compromise even in the slightest without losing his/her unique status makes that decision all the more compelling. The incorruptible paladin is special; he/she loses that specialness if there are paladins of all alignments with similar powers.
My preference for 5e would be paladins who are limited to Lawful Good, but who have the option to fall and become Blackguards, immediately gaining additional special abilities, or simply lapse and lose their paladin abilities. I think it was a mistake in 3e to put the blackguard in the DM's Guide, because that hid something that I think should always be weighing on a paladin - that it would be so easy to become that which they hate the most.
By the sound of it, there'll be plenty of classes in 5e. I don't see the harm in having one reserved for an archetype that shows up in Star Wars, Dragonlance, in medieval legend and three decades of D&D - the holy warrior from whom more is asked than is asked of anyone else.
Having the cleric or cleric/fighter fill that role leaves the paladin to be focused on purity, conviction and righteousness. A paladin's fall from grace is all the more stirring if paladiins are the best of the best. When a paladin faces a difficult moral choice, the fact that he/she cannot compromise even in the slightest without losing his/her unique status makes that decision all the more compelling. The incorruptible paladin is special; he/she loses that specialness if there are paladins of all alignments with similar powers.
My preference for 5e would be paladins who are limited to Lawful Good, but who have the option to fall and become Blackguards, immediately gaining additional special abilities, or simply lapse and lose their paladin abilities. I think it was a mistake in 3e to put the blackguard in the DM's Guide, because that hid something that I think should always be weighing on a paladin - that it would be so easy to become that which they hate the most.
By the sound of it, there'll be plenty of classes in 5e. I don't see the harm in having one reserved for an archetype that shows up in Star Wars, Dragonlance, in medieval legend and three decades of D&D - the holy warrior from whom more is asked than is asked of anyone else.
Last edited:
Incenjucar
Legend
4E, with its alignment non-restricted paladins, marked the first time in my nearly two decades of gaming that everyone I knew with an opinion of paladins liked them rather than hated them.
In the 3E days, there were endless threads about how paladins would go around roasting kobold babies and being pompous snobs about how holy and good they were while performing genocides.
Do. Not. Want.
In the 3E days, there were endless threads about how paladins would go around roasting kobold babies and being pompous snobs about how holy and good they were while performing genocides.
Do. Not. Want.
KidSnide
Adventurer
Alignment restrictions are a fantastic tool for GMs to put their own spin on the game, but they are unnecessary and unhelpful in the default rules. The GM "campaign options" section should include a list of classic alignment restrictions, including LG-only paladins, evil-only assassins, TN-only druids, Good/Neutral/Evil-only wizards and sorcerers for Krynn, and Evil-only defilers for Dark Sun.
Ultimately, alignment restrictions are going to be made on a campaign-by-campaign basis. Unless you're big into organized play, the opinion of your GM is going to matter a lot more than the default rules.
-KS
Ultimately, alignment restrictions are going to be made on a campaign-by-campaign basis. Unless you're big into organized play, the opinion of your GM is going to matter a lot more than the default rules.
-KS
harlokin
First Post
Couldn't have said it better.
Keldryn
Adventurer
The word "paladin" has a meaning outside of its use in D&D, and until 4e the game concept was a pretty close match.
The code of ethics and devotion to Good is intrinsic to the whole concept of a Paladin. Without that, it's like playing a Wizard who can't cast spells or use magic in any form.
Equating a Paladin to a holy warrior who serves a specific god waters down the archetype and conflates the class's role with that of the Cleric.
The Paladin is a righteous warrior devoted to the ideals of Law and Good, above and beyond any specific religion or deity.
The Cleric is a holy warrior who serves a particular church or deity. They are modeled on religious orders of knighthood, not scholar-priests.
This is how these classes were originally presented. Things will of course change as the game evolves, but it is important to remember where a concept originates from.
There is room for the priest who is more focused on spell craft on not in martial training, but it isn't the Cleric class. It could be the Cloistered Cleric, the Invoker, or simply the Priest.
In my opinion, the Paladin shouldn't necessarily even be associated with gods or religion. Good and just deeds take precedence over any religious doctrine. That's not spelled out anywhere, but that's how I interpret the class as presented in 1e and BECMI.
The code of ethics and devotion to Good is intrinsic to the whole concept of a Paladin. Without that, it's like playing a Wizard who can't cast spells or use magic in any form.
Equating a Paladin to a holy warrior who serves a specific god waters down the archetype and conflates the class's role with that of the Cleric.
The Paladin is a righteous warrior devoted to the ideals of Law and Good, above and beyond any specific religion or deity.
The Cleric is a holy warrior who serves a particular church or deity. They are modeled on religious orders of knighthood, not scholar-priests.
This is how these classes were originally presented. Things will of course change as the game evolves, but it is important to remember where a concept originates from.
There is room for the priest who is more focused on spell craft on not in martial training, but it isn't the Cleric class. It could be the Cloistered Cleric, the Invoker, or simply the Priest.
In my opinion, the Paladin shouldn't necessarily even be associated with gods or religion. Good and just deeds take precedence over any religious doctrine. That's not spelled out anywhere, but that's how I interpret the class as presented in 1e and BECMI.
Invisible Stalker
First Post
In the opinion of this DM, if he isn't Lawful Good, he isn't a Paladin. I'd also like to bring back the tithing 10%, giving away most wealth, and number limit of magic items as well. I might be open to him not being a human.
Everyone you knew?
I have seen mostly the opposite. I also encountered a few players who just don't care one way or the other.
My wife played Paladins for many years. It's practically the only class she played. Tried the 4E one. Meh.
I know of two other players that played Paladins for years (both of whom were Eagle Scouts in their younger days in real life) who were not impressed with the 4E one.
For players who love the original concept, 4E raked it over the coals. For players who want to play CN classes, they want the cool Paladin abilities, but were not willing to roleplay the concept. 4E came along, then some players were able to get some of the cool abilities and could go maim, kill, and slaughter indiscriminately. The best of both worlds, right?
grimslade
Krampus ate my d20s
I love a good old fashioned "Is a paladin violating his code by killing pagan babies?" thread as much as the next guy, but that is tangential to the discussion at hand. Alignment brings all sorts of weird discussions but that is a problem with the alignment system not the paladin.
Maybe we should divorce the alignment system from the paladin and instead create a code that must be followed? Would that be easier?
Maybe we should divorce the alignment system from the paladin and instead create a code that must be followed? Would that be easier?
