Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Visanideth" data-source="post: 6112162" data-attributes="member: 6705825">I think an interesting angle of the discussion that has been somewhat omitted is that divorcing paladins from alignement wasn't a one step process in D&D.We actually have 3 states of being:A) the paladin is alignement-bound, and has to be Lawful GoodB) the paladin is alignement-bound, and has to match his deity's alignementC) the paladin is not alignement-bound, and the nature of his oath is left to agreement between him and the DM, and to roleplayAside from 4E (which followed C), D&D has juggled quite a bit between A and B. A is, in my eyes, problematic, because it implies that either:a) only lawful good deities can have paladinsb) paladins don't have to follow their deity's alignementThe implications here are interesting. a) is a somewhat archaic approach, and narrows down the paladin concept the most. But b) does too, because it removes the breath of different paladin concepts that could stem from different religions and deities, and turns the Paladin (divine warrior) into a Knight (morally flawless warrior).So unless what you want is Knights and not Paladins (as in, you want pseudo-christian mythical noble warriors rather than exalted servants of any deity who excel at martial combat), the entire alignement coding makes very little sense. If Paladins have to be Lawful Good, how would a paladin of Lolth look like? Would a paladin of Kord be really Lawful?In the end I think 4E had the right approach. The paladin was bound to the alignement that stemmed from his background, but that alignement could be any alignement and not just one. Every individual paladin maintains the quirks of the paladin type, but the breath of different paladins you could create was preserved.</blockquote>

Verification