D&D 5E The Paladin excerpt

[Gradine]

If That Document Which Shall Not Be Named is any guide, then one of the oaths favors freedom (so Chaotic Good would surely fit), and another favors defeating evil at any cost (so Lawful Neutral would fit - the holy warrior unwilling to place her own purity above getting the job done).

That's without even getting into the easy(ish) '1-step off' paladins trying to live up to an ideal (I do think diametrically opposed would be pushing it for a concept).

I could actually see that last Paladin oath even falling under Chaotic Neutral; defeating evil at any cost could mean without regard to one's personal purity (so Evil isn't exactly off the table), but also without regard to established laws and judicial due process. If the forces of Law are protecting my target then I will destroy them as well if I must.

There's a lot more room for Paladin character concepts then there has ever been before.

 

[Xodis]

Isn't a paladin whatever a group wants it to be?

That statement is true with every aspect of the game from stats to the interpretation of gravity.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I'm a bit disturbed by the use of female pronouns next to a clearly male picture. Quite frankly, I don't want to add "Half-Orcs" to the "females have beards too!" line.

The most important bit to me, which it seems isn't revealed on the pages we're given is: Can they fall?

 

[Psikerlord#]

I actually feel like the fluff being so pro-good is a nice olive branch to more "traditionalist" players, who prefer paladins being LG only. The mechanics do not support it, but the fluff sets the stage for this to be what the class normally is. In this way any changes, like having a non LG (or non G) paladin is additive, but also supported out of the box by the mechanics. Nobodies toys are taken away.

Essentially the text inspires ideas about how to play your character. And nothing tells you how NOT to play it. And I really like that.

agree. Melikey what meseey

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The Oaths in TWSNBN are basically summed up like this.

Devotion: Honesty, Courage, Compassion, Honor, Duty

This is certainly the most LG one, it is the traditional Paladin for all purposes. But there's certainly some room to be LN or NG. The LN one putting less importance into compassion, and the NG one putting less importance into duty. Remember that NG is about goodness for good's sake.

Ancients: Spread Goodness, Inspire Hope, Enjoy Life, Be the Change

This certainly sound a lot more like a NG ideal more than anything else. There's certainly room for both LG and CG to take this one up. LN, N and CN may have issues trying to aspire to this ideal, but they could try.

Vengeance: Go for the bigger evil, punish the wicked, absolve your own sins, and do whatever is needed to stop them.

This ideal sounds like more of a neutral alignment ideal, that pushes slightly towards good. I could clearly see any alignment possibly taking this one up.

 

[Agamon]

The most important bit to me, which it seems isn't revealed on the pages we're given is: Can they fall?

When they get kicked into a pit, even Paladins take 1d6 per 10 ft.

"Where are your gods now!?!"

 

[Mouseferatu]

So, I absolutely love what I'm seeing here, but I do have one tiny nitpick. (Said nitpick applies even more to the ranger, working under the assumption that the ranger follows a similar pattern.)

I was really hoping that the game had left room for future non-spell-casting rangers and paladins through the use of subclasses. (I loved the 4E martial ranger as an option.) That would've been fairly smooth, simple to accomplish.

But it appears paladins (and rangers?) get spells a level before they choose their subclass. Which means, if there ever is to be a spell-less option, it'll require something clunkier/more encompassing than just a new subclass.

As I said, that's me being picky. I'm a huge fan of what we've seen so far, paladin-wise. I just could've been an even huger one.

 

[Zhaleskra]

When they get kicked into a pit, even Paladins take 1d6 per 10 ft.

Guess I should have used a capital "F", huh?

 

[GX.Sigma]

I actually feel like the fluff being so pro-good is a nice olive branch to more "traditionalist" players, who prefer paladins being LG only. The mechanics do not support it, but the fluff sets the stage for this to be what the class normally is. In this way any changes, like having a non LG (or non G) paladin is additive, but also supported out of the box by the mechanics. Nobodies toys are taken away.

Essentially the text inspires ideas about how to play your character. And nothing tells you how NOT to play it. And I really like that.

That was exactly how I felt about the description in the last playtest. I think this one goes too far.

In the last playtest, the fluff strongly implied Lawful Good, but did not actually mention alignment anywhere. That way, an old-school DM could point to the fluff and be like "look, it says you've sworn an oath to uphold justice. That means you have to be Lawful Good." Meanwhile, if a DM didn't care, well, there's nothing there that says you can't be any alignment that you want...

In this one, it explicitly says paladins can be any alignment. So, it doesn't make the old-school DM happy. At the same time, it says that non-good alignments don't match the oaths, so that doesn't make the any-alignment-you-want crowd happy.

 

[Zhaleskra]

This certainly sound a lot more like a NG ideal more than anything else. There's certainly room for both LG and CG to take this one up. LN, N and CN may have issues trying to aspire to this ideal, but they could try.

You just broke my brain Kobold. Using your analogy, I could reasonably argue that Æon Flux is a paladin.