D&D 5E So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?

[Imaro]

They don't "need a code of honor to balance their perks". Or shouldn't. The code is there for flavor, verisimilitude, and to integrate them in the campaign world; it should not have anything to do with game balance. All IMO, of course.

This right here... without the code I'm finding it hard to discern the difference between a cleric (martial champion of their deity) or cleric/fighter and a paladin (uhm... more martial champion of their deity???). I guess in 4e they sort of got around this by designating one as a defender and one as a leader in combat... but without the LG code what is the real difference in the archetypes as opposed to combat roles?

 

[Obryn]

They don't "need a code of honor to balance their perks". Or shouldn't. The code is there for flavor, verisimilitude, and to integrate them in the campaign world; it should not have anything to do with game balance. All IMO, of course.

Balance was his word, not mine. Which is why I asked.

-O

 

[Campbell]

The problem I've always had with the paladin is that when you revoke power based on moral choices you make morality objective and obvious. If I still have my powers I'm making the right choice. There's no room for heresy, moral compromise or ambiguity. That's why I'll jump at the chance to play a Jedi in Star Wars, but will never play a D&D Paladin. The consequences in play are just not as interesting to me.

BTW Fighters in 2e were better than Paladins.

• No wasting a 17 on Charisma.
• Better experience table
• Better followers
• Weapon Mastery was beastly
• Can be a Dwarf or Elf.

 

[Argyle King]

For me, it never really made sense to force all paladins to have the same morality in a polytheistic world.

I do feel paladins should have a code, but I do not feel that code should be the same for every religion.
I also feel that more needs to be done to make the paladin different from a melee focused cleric.

 

[jonesy]

The problem I've always had with the paladin is that when you revoke power based on moral choices you make morality objective and obvious. If I still have my powers I'm making the right choice. There's no room for heresy, moral compromise or ambiguity.

I'm not sure that that's a paladin specific problem, more of a D&D world meta-problem. There was a great thread somewhere here (wish I could find it) where someone made the question "Assuming that the rules of the game were the laws of reality within the game, how many of those rules would the characters be able to figure out?"

 

[Imaro]

The problem I've always had with the paladin is that when you revoke power based on moral choices you make morality objective and obvious. If I still have my powers I'm making the right choice. There's no room for heresy, moral compromise or ambiguity. That's why I'll jump at the chance to play a Jedi in Star Wars, but will never play a D&D Paladin. The consequences in play are just not as interesting to me.

You see I've always found the interesting part of playing the paladin deciding exactly what is or isn't worth risking the loss of one's power and divine grace over. If I can do whatever I want and still retain my power... where are the hard choices and interesting atonements? I liken a paladin in D&D as somewhat similar to a samurai in L5R... The samurai don't get to do whatever they want and not suffer a loss to honor, glory or status... It's the whole point of being a samurai... and IMO the paladin is very similar in that respect.

 

[gyor]

I don't get people who say they can't tell the difference between the cleric/fighter and Paladins.

Clerics are the priests, Paladin's are Knights that are invested with divine authority, fighter are soldiers.

Clerics would be second estate, Paladin's first estate, and most fighters third estate (although some maybe less religiius first estate).

While some clerics were heavy armour and use big weapons it depends on the God and at the end of the day thier societial role is to be priests and deal with spiritual matters.

Paladin is societial role is as a Knight of the Realms and defender of the Faith. Thier role is to defend the people and lead by example. Even a Blackguard if in a dark warped way.

A Paladin is invested with Authority by the Gods them selves.

Does anyone get what I'm saying?

Thier is a reason that charisma is the magic stat and not wisdom for Paladins. While Paladin's serve the Gods, they do so so via Authority invested in them by the Gods, not by spiritual gnosis with the God or deep spiritual knoweldge. Its why I see Paladins as defering usually to a Cleric of thier faith on spiritual matters, but taking the lead on practical matters or basic goverence.

There should be a poll on this question.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Considering WoTC said that alignment was optional in D&D Next, i am fine with (optional) alignment restrictions.

 

[Starfox]

For me, it never really made sense to force all paladins to have the same morality in a polytheistic world.

This made me think of Runequest, and their distinction between Runelords (emulating the god's physical skills, similar to paladins) and Runepriests (manifesting the god's magic, similar to clerics). The two roles still existed, but manifested very differently in different cults (and not all cults had both roles).

This works pretty well as a model for a DnD paladin. It is someone who emulates a god's temporal powers, who "lives the legend". Of course this will manifest very differently for different religions.

 

[Imaro]

I don't get people who say they can't tell the difference between the cleric/fighter and Paladins.

Clerics are the priests, Paladin's are Knights that are invested with divine authority, fighter are soldiers.

Clerics would be second estate, Paladin's first estate, and most fighters third estate (although some maybe less religiius first estate).

While some clerics were heavy armour and use big weapons it depends on the God and at the end of the day thier societial role is to be priests and deal with spiritual matters.

Paladin is societial role is as a Knight of the Realms and defender of the Faith. Thier role is to defend the people and lead by example. Even a Blackguard if in a dark warped way.

A Paladin is invested with Authority by the Gods them selves.

Does anyone get what I'm saying?

Thier is a reason that charisma is the magic stat and not wisdom for Paladins. While Paladin's serve the Gods, they do so so via Authority invested in them by the Gods, not by spiritual gnosis with the God or deep spiritual knoweldge. Its why I see Paladins as defering usually to a Cleric of thier faith on spiritual matters, but taking the lead on practical matters or basic goverence.

There should be a poll on this question.

Where are you getting this from? Clerics, at least in 4e are not priests... and paladins are not knights, they are just warriors with belief in something greater then themselves...

From the 4e PHB...
Cleric's are battle leaders who are invested with divine power...
Paladins are indomitable warriors who've pledged their prowess to something greater then themselves...
Fighters are determined combat adepts trained to protect the other memebers of their adventuring groups...

So I'm not seeing how the archetypes of fighter (Warriors with great prowess) + cleric (battle leaders who've already pledged themselves to a deity, belief or ideal) don't equal paladin (without moral code) when combined? In fact again, from the description the cleric just seems like a martial-lite paladin.