Invisible Stalker
First Post
The 5e DMG can bring the guidelines and suggestions, I'll bring the 1e style restrictions.
Perhaps because you want to be a champion of good, but not be tied down by a code of conduct. Maybe you want to be a freedom fighter. Maybe you're a DM and you want a blackguard. The word "paladin" is associated with goodness, but the mechanics of the class don't need to be. Thus, I suggest a broader themed divine champion class. Either that, or you need a bunch of different "paladins" for other alignments, which is wasteful.Can someone kindly explain the reason(s) for why playing a non-lawful Paladin? Is it because you disagree with the story of a Paladin that is a paragon of honor and cannot fluff/customize a Cleric to match your vision of a holy warrior, or you're playing the Paladin for mechanical/tactical reasons and don't want story-based constraints, or you fully intend to play the Paladin lawfully in the story but are worried about the mechanical instrusion of Law alignment rules, or something else?
Perhaps because you want to be a champion of good, but not be tied down by a code of conduct. Maybe you want to be a freedom fighter. Maybe you're a DM and you want a blackguard. The word "paladin" is associated with goodness, but the mechanics of the class don't need to be. Thus, I suggest a broader themed divine champion class. Either that, or you need a bunch of different "paladins" for other alignments, which is wasteful.
Is there really anything in there that can't be easily generalized so that anyone of any alignment, deity, or cause can use this class?
That's fine with me theoretically (did you see my post #30?). OTOH, I could pick any class, divine or non-divine, fluff the character as having zealotry towards a deity or cause, and have him/her call herself a champion (self-styled or not). Don't need class mechanics at all. It would be great to see a divine champion class that feels like it deserves to be its own class, doesn't overlap with other classes, but I think a theme would be quite appropriate. (There's also the DDXP rumor I thought i heard that a Priest is a divine caster, and a Cleric is a divine warrior, and if true, I still don't know what a 5E Paladin is).The word "paladin" is associated with goodness, but the mechanics of the class don't need to be. Thus, I suggest a broader themed divine champion class. Either that, or you need a bunch of different "paladins" for other alignments, which is wasteful.
(There's also the DDXP rumor I thought i heard that a Priest is a divine caster, and a Cleric is a divine warrior, and if true, I still don't know what a 5E Paladin is).
A treacherous divine warrior whose faith is lip service, an agent of the crown sworn to slay its enemies, an anarchist hermit plucked from isolation for a great quest, and an honorable warrior seeking vengeance for a monstrous injustice? Sign me up!An adventuring party with a LE paladin, a LG assassin, a CN monk and a LN barbarian sounds more like an Order of the Stick joke than a legit D&D party...
A blackguard isn't just a fighter who worships a god, he's a servant of evilness. He's Lex Luthor and Red Skull. He holds himself to a strict amoral code and lifestyle (affecting his possessions, maternal wealth, associates, and code of conduct) and in return he is rewarded with divine aptitude: repelling celestials, healing by touch, sensing hostile creatures, calling a mighty steed, resistance and immunity to good attacks, and raw vile power channeled through his weapon that shears good and natural beings.A paladin isn't just a fighter who worships a god, he's a servant of goodness. He's Superman and Captain America. He holds himself to a strict moral code and lifestyle (affecting his posessions, material wealth, associates, and code of conduct) and in return he is rewarded with divine aptitude: repelling undead, healing by touch, sensing hostile creatures, calling a mighty steed, resistance and immunity to evil attacks, and raw holy power channeled through his weapon that shears evil and unnatural beings.
A blackguard isn't just a fighter who worships a god, he's a servant of evilness. He's Lex Luthor and Red Skull. He holds himself to a strict amoral code and lifestyle (affecting his possessions, maternal wealth, associates, and code of conduct) and in return he is rewarded with divine aptitude: repelling celestials, healing by touch, sensing hostile creatures, calling a mighty steed, resistance and immunity to good attacks, and raw vile power channeled through his weapon that shears good and natural beings.
My resistance against restricting a paladin to "purely good" or even "non-evil" is three-fold. The first is that alignments are just silly, but that's more an opinion that will never be settled. Having two classes that mechanically work exactly the same is horribly inefficient. Not only does it take up space (and thus money), but it means that for every paladin option (that makes sense) there must be an equivalent blackguard option.
The third, and more important one, is that you are restricting how others can play the game. This goes against one of the cornerstones of the new edition. If you or your group decides the class must have an alignment restriction, that's great.
However, there's that one guy in the world that wants to play something a little bit different. He asks his DM if he can make an evil Paladin (assuming no blackguard class exists). The DM looks at the book, sees the restriction for Lawful Good and says no, even though he doesn't care one way or the other. By putting that in the book, you are making the assumption for everyone.
This is one of those rare cases in RPGs where less is more as it allows everyone to play how they want. If you don't want the books to associate "Paladin" with "non-Paladin" people, I can understand that. However, as a base class, there should not be a default restriction. There can be all sorts of restrictions of themes, feats, prestige classes, or whatever else. But not a base class.