In your campaigns, will you restrict the alignment of paladins?
Or, if no alignment restriction, will they have codes of conduct or oaths that need to be followed? Or religious restrictions/taboos that need to be maintained?
The_Jester wrote:
Yes. Because Paladins have always been Lawful Good.
Now, will there be other Holy Champions that aren't LG? Well, yes. But they won't be called Paladins.
Blackguards, Champions or whatever, but Paladin is for any holy warrior archetype that is both good, and follows a code. 
I don't believe the alpha stuff. Anyways, I don't care about alignment. Too much arguing over what is or isn't part of such and such block. Such worthless discusions or debates.
Either way, almost every paladin is going to be associated with a god of some kind, no? So, using gods from FR, Greyhawk, or whatever? They got easy to reference wiki pages that list beliefs and attitudes and practices they need to follow. That's much better and less subjective.
You swear an oath. You follow oath. We'll even write out the oath. Much easier in my mind.
Yeah, I don't care for alignments...Unless a campaign world is built on them mattering a lot. I do like that idea...A world where alignment effects everything.
For me, 'paladins' will be of any alignment they choose, but they will have a code they must follow, and a deity (like a cleric) they follow/act as inforcers for as well.
Mephi1234 wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
I don't run alignments in my games, so no.
Here is an example:
“Tenets of Devotion
Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.
Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.”
Paladins are Lawful and they are Good. And if they stray from the path of Lawfulness or Goodness, then they lose their God-given paladin abilities.
If you want to play a holy warrior of another alignment, then that's fine, but it is not a paladin.
... Why would I restrict a player from a concept they find compelling?
The_Jester wrote:
CVB wrote:
In my setting, "paladin" is just a synonym for "knight". Characters of the paladin class are simply warriors with some proficiency with "light magic", but have no connection to a deity at all. So no, there are no behavioral restrictions on my paladins.
I'll do whatever the rules say to do with regard to paladins.
For me, Paladins aren't necessarily tied to a divinity, but regardless, they do follow complex codes, which are worked out when the character is created. Part of the reason I've found that people play Paladins is for that character arc, holding powerful beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, and trying to negotiate that in a world full of problems. But I'm not going to mechanically punish the player for breaking alignment. The story will do that enough: being an oathbreaker can have dire consequences (look at the Men of Dunharrow in Lord of the Rings, for example, cursed to wander the earth until they can finally fulfill their oath to Isildur's heir).
akaddk wrote:
My paladins will have the Charisma and skills to intimidate/deceive the targets of their misdeeds into saying nothing, thus being able to get away with anything.
My paladins will drive Bugatti Veyrons.
For my own games I'm very likely to dump the good alignment restriction (except maybe law, as chaotic people don't swear oaths and intend to keep them). But I'll likely have an oath or vow for a holy order or two.
I'm a sucker for a good oath or creed.
Novacat wrote:
I will do whatever the book says by RAW, but I favor just ignoring alignment all together I have always hated the system. One of the best things about 4e was I just assumed everyone was unaligned and never even bothered to learn if it was different.
Marandahir wrote:
CCS wrote:
CCS wrote:
First house rule I'll implement- no alignment restrictions on the Paladin. Want to be a neutral paladin? Cool.
JC999 wrote:
CCS wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
I think we can all agree that if paladins don't maintain the same alignment as Batman, they should lose all their special powers, amirite?
Also any barbarian who willingly acts lawful is stripped of their rage powers right?
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Clerics and paladins both should lose spell access if they go against the tenants of their faith, but my worlds are big places so I normaly just let my players make up their own faiths so not something I have to deal with often when your faith is something like a path of enlightenment without a diety or some force that binds the universe together it is hard to break your vows.
Orethalion wrote:
JC999 wrote:
I prefer my players to decide upon their morals and how they act and THEN assign them an alignment. You get less pigeonholing and stereotypical characters that way.
As for codes of conduct. My campaign will have a lot of those actually.
Paladins
Paladins aren't dedicated to gods but instead swear holy oaths. A cleric does need to ordain them and the gods do fuel their power, but no specific deity claims dominion over them and they won't get their powers revoked. They are highly militarised and have a rigid hierarchical order. If a paladin were to behave in a manner that is unbecoming of their station word would quickly spread and the order would send paladins down to bring them to justice.
Knights
Knights (Fighters) swear oaths and fealty to a king. They're meant to follow a code of conduct as well, however they are less hierarchical. If a knight were to behave in a manner unbecoming of their station then any knights in the area would respond. But it wouldn't be as disciplined or structured as those chasing a paladin.
Swordsmen of Baravos
The swordsmen of Baravos are taught the intracacies of combat and swordplay, but also a code of conduct. Unlike knights and paladins they answer to no-one but their own conscience.
Priests
Holy priests (Acolyte background, clerics, holy monks) are expected to live their life in accordance with the teachings of their god. If they go against these strictures then there isn't any organised church to hunt them down, except for inquisitors (think of 4th edition avengers). Some churches (some say all) have secret wings who are charged with hunting down those priests who have strayed from the true path of their deity. They are charged by their god and exist outside of the normal hirearchy of the church. They have full authority to carry out the justice of their god.
---
My world setting is influenced heavily by 4th ed and the fact Dark Sun is the first campaign setting I was exposed to (before I played D&D).
CVB wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
CVB wrote:
I'm not good at enforcing any spectrum of morality onto players, so we don't use the words "lawful good" or "chaotic neutral" that much in any games I've played since 1e. In 1e and perhaps 2e, Paladin was a harder class to get to, because of higher stat requirements. The class itself was more powerful than the fighter and I think that's probably why the developers has LG as a restriction. This reasoning doesn't seem to apply as much since 3e, and the classes were re-balanced. So in this sense, I don't see any harm in letting players stray outside the confines of LG and still getting those class features.
It's definitely a sacred cow, and I respect DMs that can enforce alignments and still keep the game fun. Just not something that I can do very well.
Paladins have tended to be very religious based at our tables, so that connotation tends to impact what is allowed more than alignment restrictions. In other words, pick your deity's alignment rules the day here.
I think it is important for Paladins to follow a code, but I might advocate for throwing alignment out the window all together.
It would be important to stress that being disciplined and following a strict guideline for behavior would be part of being a Paladin.... but I am not even sure they need to be tied to gods. The Paladin class would be a great stand-in for the most die-hard Knights and Samurai serving their lord or cause with absolute devotion after all.
Paladins are LG only, violating this will likely have the character lose some abilities or change class to fighter.
In my campaign any wizard that acts in a way I don't think a wizard should loses all his magic and changes class to commoner
Zardnaar wrote:
I wont use paladins at all. The "religious warrior in heavy armor" design space is already taken by the cleric. Or I redesign cleric to not use heavy armor and keep the paladin. Regardless he would be bound to the tennents of his _faith_ not some random alignment (that mightnot even match his diety..).
kalil wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
kalil wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I will keep Paladins LG.
Zardnaar wrote:
seti wrote:
Erifnogard wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Paladins will not have any requirements assigned to them in my games beyond whatever the Player's Handbook assigns to them... which I expect will mean they can, and should, be of a variety of different alignments to match the various oaths they might have sworn.
As a DM I'll make Paladin orders pretty rare and of the LG Cavalier/Devotion variety. The others probably won't feature at all because there are so many creatures, groups, organizations and NPCs fighting for screen time in a typical campaign. I think the singular Green Knight, Avenger or Blaggard (villain) could make an appearance, but I will reinforce the LG variety as the standard.
If a player actually makes up one of the variants though, well then I'd flesh that out a bit.
The_Jester wrote:
I honestly don't think a Paladin should be restriced by alignment, but they should follow their oath and/or code of conduct. I have a Paladin in a PbP game who is currently LN (though I now feel as though he should be NG), whose deity is Kelemvor, and took the Oath of Vengance. I figure the only law he truly adheres to is the law of life and death, and will follow written law so long as it doesn't interfere with his duty. The following isn't a thorough oath, but it gives the general idea.
"The oath of vengeance is a solemn commitment to punish those who have committed grave wickedness. As a paladin of Kelemvor, Arosk has sworn to punish creatures that slay others before their time [outright, unjust murder], to punish those that practice necromancy, and to bring peace to those forced into undeath. Arosk will follow through with his oath at any cost and by any means necessary."
The_Jester wrote:
The game has actually strayed from what a Paladin truly is.
A Paladin is a virtuos knight who's duty is to be the champion of good and destroy evil at every turn.
A holy warrior is just a cleric and that's how it should remain. You want to be a champion for your god then play a cleric.
The way I see it, restrictions preserve flavour.
If you want a GURPS style of play where everything is open for PC use then I would advise you to not play in my games or wait until I eventually run one, maybe.
You will only see a dark paladin in my games as an encounter, he/she would be the archnemesis for the Paladin player and he would be the only one in existance, very much like Lord Soth.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
For anyone insistent on restricting Paladins to LG, I highly recommend renaming the class to Knight and making Paladin the LG subclass. This is what WotC should have done, IMO.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
No.
Our campaign has a paladin charlitant who uses a bow.
Don't see an issue with it.
I would not enjoy playing Dungeons & Dragons with many of the people posting in this thread.
Alignment is now a flavor, not a mechanic.
Alignment restrictions are dead and gone and I am ready to watch them burn.
Will your Paladins Be Lawful Good/ Have Restrictions?
Yes my players and i spoke about it and we all agreed most Paladins should be LG (anti-paladin is an exception) in the campaign. We find Paladins feel wrong to us with most other alignments. So far no one plays one yet, but at least it was decided as a concensus.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Just the classic Paladin build.
Plaguescarred wrote:
I wonder if these same people will disallow rogues from taking the Assassin or Thief subclass if they're good-aligned. I guess all non-evil rogues are arcane tricksters! Oh wait, tricking people is probably evil too. Ok all set then, all rogues are evil all the time.
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
SeekerOf7ruth wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Depends on the setting/world, for Greyhawk, paladins must be LG (and human), druids must be Neutral, rangers must be any Good (and human), monks must be any Lawful (and human).
JC999 wrote:
My Drow Paladin is coming along quite nicely in 5E. My DM has no issue with my class or race. Shhhh. he thinks it's just a game...
Brock_Landers wrote:
A true neutral character can do anything. Any less would be discriminatory.
In the case of a paladin, they would still need to swear the oath, though. They’d need to follow it too if they wanted to stay much of a paladin.
Sling617 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
The thread was "Will YOUR Paladins be Lawful Good" not "SHOULD paladins be lawful good".
Why everyone is getting their rocks off telling other people how to play their games, or insulting them for playing it a certain way, is beyond my comprehension. What should be a rather interesting and insightful thread is instead filled with back and forth quibbles that make teenagers look like patient (lawful good) saints.
Cennedi wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Sling617 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Sling617 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Sling617 wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Sling617 wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Im not using alignment for my players, so no. I prefer a faction or loyalty and background story to dictate how my players react with their PCs. I feel that alignment is to balck and white, whereas my campaigns tend to be grey. Villians can be good guys if your perception differs. I do have most monster run by their alignment unless I have changed them for specific campaigns. I tend to run most dragons different than their alignment as the metallic ones are just too goody goody. Devils, demons, and most outsiders I do run as their alignments because they are almost for into their roles by their creators.
Azzy1974 wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
I still find it crazy that people are arguing about restricting the whole Paladin class to LG, when only one specific subclass (Devotion / Cavalier) is the traditional paladin, and that one pretty much is LG only.
Meanwhile, why restrict the Avenger to LG, when its never been under such a restriction before?
And why does no one try and promote the whole "Druids must be Neutral!" thing? That's been around as long as Paladins. I feel like there's a double standard running around here.
Mephi1234 wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
The only thing that is true about all Paladins:
Any thread discussing them ends in impotent rage and tears.
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
I don't care what anyone else does at their tables anywhere else.
I don't care what the rules say until anyone in my group wants to play a Paladin.
Personally - I would rather have set oaths for a paladin rather than utilze alignment, that clearly outline what they need to do and how to act. But I am honestly fine either way, since I'm not a jerk as a DM so I won't be pulling "gotcha" moments on any paladin.
Scottevil912 wrote:
In my current campaign, paladins are exclusively in service to a single LG warrior Goddess of a single pantheon. They are the military arm of the church. They are organized along military lines and their Lord Commander answers directly to the highest official in the church.
I can't imagine having any campaign where the term "paladin' meant anything other than good aligned champion. If I wanted other alignments, I'd make up new names for them. I'm not against the class on principle but no way am I calling a neutral or evil character a paladin.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Evil paladins sure.
Chaotic paladins fine.
Good assassins great.
Lawful rogues ok.
Chaotic Evil druids why not.
Anything goes, alignment don't care about it.
Lawful good paladins using poison, traps, ambush tactics, all perfectly fine by me.
I don't even write down my alignment on my character sheets anymore. I just fill it in "N/A". It never actually matters anyway. Better yet, I don't need to follow cartoonish tropes either.
MechaPilot wrote:
If I ever play a paladin again, I'm playing him like Glorion from Journey Quest.
"Mercy? Mercy? *scoff* I am far too brave to grant you mercy."
While ordinarily I don't care that much about alignment, I think the devs did a good job with it in this edition. It's more of a roleplaying tool than a straightjacket. I think the "assumed" alignments for the three paladin oaths are fine (Devotion = Lawful Good; Ancients = Neutral Good; Vengeance = Lawful Neutral). If someone doesn't want to use alignment, though, the game accounts for that by including a set of tenets for each oath as well.
Paladins in my games will generally follow the rules layed out in the descriptions for each individual oath. Knowing that, I am generally curious to see how a paladin of any given alignment might go about adhering to their oath. There's supposed to be the Cavalier (traditional chivalrous paladin), the Avenger (from 4E?), the Warden (nature paladin), and the Blackguard (Anti-Paladin) in the DMG. Am I missing any?
I like that the Paladin has been divorced from its fighting man subclass origins to be its own thing, with its own subclasses. I remember first reading about the class in the old AD&D PHB, and I always saw it as a holy warrior devoted to its god, more or less exactly like a cleric. In that vein, it never made sense to me that Paladins had to be lawful good, while a cleric could be of various alignments depending on their deity.
Given these changes, I might actually play the class in this new edition, where I was never before inclined to do so. In light of that, +1 WoTC!
My paladins will not necessarily be Lawful-Good.
They will have Ideals and I hope they will try to keep to them. Depending on Background, their Ideals may be flagged as lawful, or good, but not both at once. If you stick to the printed choices, there are no "Lawful-Good" ideals as such so it's unreasonable to ascribe Lawful-Goodness to any character. You can ascribe it to deities, religions, regimes and organisations, but not to individual paladins.
Consider a situation where the cronies of a Lawful-Evil despotic ruler are dispossessing farmers and the farmers are trying to defend their homes and livestock. Does the paladin defend the weak (Good) or defend the servants of the legitimate regime (Lawful). He can't do both. If his Ideal is good, he will defend the farmers and that's chaotic but if it is lawful he will help the regime and that's evil. Either way, I wouldn't punish him for being true to his ideals.
Orethalion wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Angel7 wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
JC999 wrote:
http://youtu.be/pVORGr2fDk8?t=4m45s
This is what I think of when I think of paladins now.
Orethalion wrote:
The very word Paladin means good. That is my only qualm. It doesn't matter much because it is only a game. I'll never call an evil character of the paladin class a paladin. I'll use a different name but I can handle that just fine myself. I think they were stupid for not demoting Paladin to the LG only version and then using other names. Call the overarching class the champion. Keep the warrior over on the fighter.
The_Jester wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
CVB wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Actually, paladin comes from the root palatine, which means high ranking church official
Orethalion wrote:
"A Paladin of plain speaking" is a literary allusion to the Matter of France. Yes, it's etymologically linked to Palatine, but it doesn't mean a church official, but rather refers to the 12 knights "of the palace" of Charlemagne, Emperor of France. They're generally considered the French equivalents to the Knights of the Round Table, though the Matter of France has an even more Christian tone than the Matter of Britain, replacing the Wizard mentor figure for Arthur with the Pope himself as the mentor to the Holy Roman Emperor.
If you've ever heard of the sword Durendal, if you've heard of the Italian folk-ballads about Orlando (Italian form of Roland, the chief of Charlemagne's Paladins, and his nephew)… these are elements of those Carolignian Cycles.
Emerikol. wrote:
As far as paladins go, good and evil are very dependant on point of view. Through out history there have been many organisations and belief structures that have view themselves as being good, but there opponents and history have shown them to be evil.
Where I would draw the line is that I would not allow chaotic paladins be they good or evil as a chaotic hieracial martial order is shorly an oxymoron.
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Samrin wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
This being a storytelling game it all comes down to what kind of story you want to tell. Unless "good versus evil" or "staving off corruption as one stares into the abyss" forms the theme and mood of the game, I prefer to ignore alignment. Also the last thing Paladins need is a mechanical incentive to be obnoxious.
Cennedi wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
rethgryn wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
It's the player's job to coalesce a bag of abilities into a coherent character. That's why players generally make player-characters, rather than being given a printout of a pregen and told "this is how you're supposed to play this guy."
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Communism is an even distribution of wealthy and power among all citizens. "Communist" countries have never actually followed Marx.
Fascism is the polar opposite with an oligarchy (elite few) as the only ones in power. In America, the far right oligarchy would be the wealthy and religious elite if it ever came to that.
Socialism is what you're referring to as communism. They are not one in the same.
The political spectrum is not absolute and each "wing" branches off. We'd need a lot more wings otherwise
Samrin wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
To answer the question of the topic :
Yes, paladins in my campaign will be Lawful Good and they will be restricted as to which deity they can worship.
If a player wants to play a divine warrior that is not a Lawful Good paladin he will not be a paladin, but rather a holy warrior, divine champion or something else, but the term "paladin" in my campaign will always refer to these particular lawful good champions. In my campaign, its common knowledge among the people that a paladin is a virtuous LG divine warrior (though there can be sometimes a confusion with some LG clerics).
Cennedi wrote:
I think the real confusion here over left-wing and right-wing is how we're conflating potentially-unrelated issues (though I would argue that all of these issues play into each other and making a decision for one can't be in total isolation of the other) that are commonly cared about by Democrats/similar left-wing parties and Republicans/similar right-wing parties.
As Cennadi said, it's easier to split up issues, since they act as different spectrums in terms of where someone's interests are placed. Making Government control as one axis actually works as a pretty good analog to the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic axis in D&D, though correlating the social/economic to the Good-Neutral-Evil axis of D&D would open a a whole can of worms, and I'm not worshipper of Torog, so I'm not going to touch that territory. Let's just say people have different ideas of which social/economic places are "better" for the people. And if your players aren't too sensitive about political issues, you might even bring it into your game (you might even have two LG Paladins with opposite politics and ideas of how government should work), but I'm not going to go into that part here.
Excising BOTH axises for a moment, I'd argue that US politics, especially, are better repesented by splitting up government control against social issues and against economic issues, remembering that no direction is definitively "better" than the others (regardless of my personal beliefs, or those of anybody else here). It is also good to remember that Social and Economic issues aren't truly unrelated, at least in my point of view, and a decision one way is going to affect the other: this is fundamentally the reason that none of these political alignments are good analogs directly to those of the 9 alignments of D&D. So yes, I may be making a false dichotomy by splitting up the socio-economic issues into social and economic sections, but this split is fundamentally how the Left and Right wings of the political spectrum exist today, and if you were to speak of classical leftism and classical rightism, it would be different (and therein lies, in my opinion, the fundamental confusion going on above between posters).
In the United States, there are generally 4 "politicial alignments", with grades of neutrality between them, and obviously, there are people who are more extreme in any of these corners. We have Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, and Populist in the four corners, and "Moderates" are in any spot that would be Neutral on the D&D alignment table (remembering that this IS a different table, but a similar-looking one). Liberals want government control on economic issues, but more freedom on social issues. Conservatives want the opposite: less government control where it comes to their economic rights, but more when it's about social structures. Obviously, most people are not fully one way or another, and will break with those blanket statements on certain issues. That's because there's some degree of libertarian (classical liberalism) and populism (classical conservatism) in both party wings, and a majority of Americans are not party-voters, but in the mass between them that we call swing voters. However, a majority of swing voters are NOT moderate, but rather, are more aligned with one of the other two extremes that are not accurately represented by either of the two major parties because they're trying to force a 4-way axis into a 2-way spectrum. Libertarians want less government control, period. They agree with Liberals on less government control when it comes to social rights, and they agree with conservatives when it comes to economic rights, becuase to them, these aren't split issues (and in a sense, they're right; socio-economic issues are intricately related and influence each other, but that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them; again, that's King-That-Crawls territory and I'm not going into my personal politics). Populists are pretty equally spread throughout the American populace, however, and they are the exact opposite of Libertarians; they believe that things are better when there is more government control on both the social and economic fronts. The "swing voters", which make up about 60% of Americans (the other 20% each going to Liberal and Conservative), are thus split up as 22.5% Libertarian, 22.5% Populist, and 15% "True Neutral" Moderates, with other moderates peppering the ranks of all 4 of the other corners (analogous in placement, though obviously not in D&D alignments, to the other four Neutral alignments).
Obviously, not everyone in the Democratic or Republican parties are 100% liberal or 100% Conservative; to be that way would be to reach into the extremes. To go extreme within the Libertarian direction would to become Anarchy, while to go extreme in the Populist direction would to become Soviet or Maoist Socialism or else Fascism (regardless of their roots in the interests of the people; labeling of Fascism is actually an outsider's PoV; the German-party-that-shall-not-be-named was actually an acronym for an extremist form of Socialism). The reason we're arguing over whether fascism and socialism are leftist or rightist is because they're neither in the current concepts of what left and right mean; Liberal and Conservative are the opposite diagonals from the Libertarian-to-Populism diagonals. Bot of these are tempered with some government control and some government lax, and if the diagonal of Fascism > Populism > Moderate > Libertarian > Anarchy was to be turned around and turned into the Law and Chaos axis of D&D, both the Conservative and Liberal sides would be believing, justly in their minds, that their temperings are the GOOD that makes them not just Lawful.
Clearly, they are different points of view, but neither political "wing" can easily be reconciled with one of the alignments in D&D, and a Cavalier Paladin's code might be either Liberal or Conservative. OR, the Code might be Populist or Libertarian, because who is to say that that axis is purely a Law vs Chaos one? In 4e D&D, the 5 alignments really were more of a single axis, and you could argue from either a Populist or a Libertarian perspective that your side is the greater Good. You could also say with the 9 alignments that it actually bounces around: Anarchy > Libertarianism > Moderate > Populism > Fascism is Chaotic Neutral > Chaotic Good > Neutral > Lawful Neutral > Lawful Evil, from a Libertarian PoV, or perhaps from a Populist PoV, it could be Chaotic Evil > Chaotic Neutral > Neutral > Lawful Good > Lawful Neutral. Or, you might see it as really a Libertarian is Chaotic Good, a Populist is Lawful Good, but either can drop off the deep end into neutrality or evil as they become more extreme.
Clearly, your take on what is good and what is evil, and what is neither, when it comes to politics, is related to both where your political leanings are, and the timbre of the game (a setting like Dark Sun is going to have major differences in the question of whether government, and thus Law, is Good, from a setting like Eberron with semi and full democracies like Breland and Zilargo; arguably, this is part of why Paladins don't exist in Dark Sun; you can't be both Lawful and Good in that setting, where all Lawful governments are Evil, and is why their priests and Paladins are replaced with the Templars, Lawful Evil Warlocks with Pacts of the Sorcerer-Kings masquerading as Clerics and Paladins).
Let's say, hypothetically, that I wanted to play a sci-fi game with superheroes. All of my friends who played superheroes played characters that fought evildoers in order to protect the innocent who could not protect themselves. Now let's say that somebody wanted to introduce a character into the story that would be considered a supervillain outside of the game, yet the game didn't have a word like "supervillain" in the rules to describe characters like that.
Imagine if I tried to argue, "OK, you can play your villain character, but I don't want to call him a Superhero. Maybe 'Superhuman' should be the rules term, and 'superhero' and 'supervillain' can be the -" but then the new guy insisted "NO! My Guy is a Superhero of (Tyranny or Slaughter) instead of a Superhero of Justice, but he is still a Superhero!"
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
"If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you, then you become something else entirely..."
"Which is?"
"...A Legend, Mr. Wayne."
To me, Paladins are that. Clearly, Ra's al-Ghul was a villain. But he devoted himself so fascidiously to his ideal of justice, that some places, like Gotham were so irredeemable that they'd never be free of violence and greed and problems unless the slate was wiped clean. That meant killing a lot of innocent people, but a lot of innocent people have also died because villain has been allowed to persist in Gotham. I would suggest that would be the ideal definition of a Blackguard, though obviously, as per his depiction in the comics, he's multiclassed into Sorcerer and/or Necromancer Wizard.
Batman is a Paladin. He may be a Cavalier and he may be an Avenger (I would say that his ideals are somewhere in between the two, though leaning towards the Avenger, because the Oath of Vengeance seeks to punish those who do atrocious acts, and Batman has a oath of no-killing, though he's let people die, and he actually did kill Harvey Dent in the trilogy, an act that help break him for years before his return in TDKR).
To say that the Avenger is not a Paladin is kinda ridiculous notion, in my book. They still hold fast to oaths that bind them to carry out their view upon the world. They are devoted to ideals, and that devotion grants them power. Just because they're not all LG White Knights serving God and Country, doesn't make them not Paladins. the Oath of the Ancients and the Oath of Vengeance are similarly narrow oaths, and to me, if you're wanting to play a Paladin, you want to play it because the oaths restrict your roleplaying, giving you a code that will be tested again and again. But there isn't just one code, and every Paladin player should be working that out with the DM, whether relying on the example codes or creating their own with the DM's guidance and support.
You can ban Avengers and Wardens in your game, and only play Cavaliers, if your setting ONLY uses the Mostly Lawful Good Cavaliers. You might even have strict alignment requirements for your Paladins. But the notion that WotC has somehow abandoned the Paladin as it was formulated in early D&D, well that's ridiculous.
Besides, if you want to play a Warrior of the Faith that's devoted specifically to a good God, you obviously choose the War Domain Cleric. It's got full spellcasting and full weapons and armour proficiencies, and has the extra attacks too, and even some of the Paladin's smiting spells amongst its Domain spells. There's nothing to say that you can't be a War Cleric of a deity that's not traditionally associated with War, since pretty much any deity might have a martial order devoted to it, and even if it's a deity of pacifism, you might be part of a heretical or dissident sect. DM fiat is the only thing stopping you from doing that. You don't play Paladin because you want to be a Soldier of the Faith; you play Paladin because you want to follow the straight and narrow path (straight as defined by your Oath, of course). That is the very core of the Paladin concept from when it first emerged as a Fighting-Man subclass in early D&D, and it remains to this day. I do have to say that it was dropped from being the dominant fluffy-bits in the 4e PHB1, though it was played up a bit more in Divine Power (and the PHB2/Primal Power's Warden), and was back-in-force with the Cavalier and the Blackguard in Essentials). 5e's Paladin is the Paladin you know and love, it's just there are variations that don't carry the same idea of what is straight-and-narrow as you do. You may not find these fun, but other people clearly do. So enough with the Bad-wrong-fun.
Marandahir wrote:
From Wikipedia:
"The name of Paladin has also been adopted by the game Dungeons & Dragons and subsequent media it has inspired. Here, paladins are warriors blessed by a deity of their chosen morality alignment, and must keep to a very strict code defined by that deity's teachings. Should they stray too far from this code or break it outright, they lose the favor of their deity and, with it, lose all holy powers bestowed upon them."
Apparently yor definition of paladin is out of date. Catch up with the times old man.
CVB wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I do have to say, though, the Paladin part of the Alpha Document suggests that the Oaths are GOOD, just different types: Cavaliers are Lawful Gooddy Always-Do-the-Right-thing; Avengers are Willing-To-Sacrifice-Self-and-Others-For-The-Greater-Good, and Wardens are Protect-Life-and-Nature-Be-Good-Fight-Evil-Planateers-Like.
So they could all be considered LG, though obviously many Wardens are NG or LN, and many Avengers are LN or N; and it also depends on if you impose strick alignments or not. Earlier playtests, they had the core rules impose alignments, and say that your DM might lift the restrictions, but there was huge outcry against specifically saying you "had to be X.alignment" (this was the same case for Monks and the Lawful alignments). They seem to have settled into, "Many Paladins/Monks are this alignment" and let your DM fiat the rest.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Alignment is a way of stopping Paladin/Barbarian, Monk/Barbarian, Paladin/Druid etc. There are better ways, but that is the best one we've been given.
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Tradition for tradition's sake is a terrible argument. One should judge the new idea on its own merits.
The_Jester wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
To hopefully get this thread back on track (if it ever were on track), we should discuss how the Excerpt approaches this issue.
Simply put: it doesn't. There is no mechanical alignment, HOWEVER the fluff is very extremely in the vein of LG or at least G (maybe CG for the Avenger/Dark Knight).
I think (as I mentioned elsewhere) that this is a very good compromise. It means that the base paladin, that a new person that comes to the game and sees, will end up looking like the traditional paladin of D&D yore. However, since there is no mechanical alignment restriction, it means that someone can take the base class concept and twist it to their own end (as per their group/DM).
I think this is the best way to do it. Any change is additive to the fluff. No one is forced to accept non LG/G fluff, and no one is forced by an alignment restriction. Out of the box it is both the White Knight and whatever the heck kind of paladin you want it to be, just like anything else in the book.
Samrin wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Eberron's one of the core settings though. You may not agree with it, you may now want it in your game, Nine Hells, Orc isn't even a Playable RACE in the 5e PHB (though apparantly it will be in the 5e DMG). But I hope you accept it as a PART of the D&D experience. It's a part of D&D that means a lot to some people. It's just not the genre that YOU like.
Marandahir wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
So much sound and fury over a ship that has already sailed. People, do what you and your group likes in your home games—just be aware that it's not going to change what others do in theirs.
Azzy1974 wrote:
Gah. I mean how pointless are these codes - if you've really worked out how the character will act in a given situation, then you already know how play will turn out, don't you? Never mind how that makes the palladin more of a mmorpg toon than even a mmorpg toon is, as the palladin runs off what is a hard coded program/tenents that decide everything.
Second when you haven't actually worked it out and the wording is open to two or more interpretations but the GM can't or wont admit that, it makes for the most obnoxious GM's (and occasionally most obnoxious players) ever!!
There's nothing worse than having to watch someone use their power to become tiny minded about their interpretation as if there can be only one interpretation and they happen to be the one who knows it and you don't (presumably because they are better than you, because what other reason could they be so bloody minded)
There, had my rant.
Noon wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Noon wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Noon wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
For me and my games: A Cleric is the Voice of a God. The Paladin is the Arm.
A cleric goes into adventuring with the ideal of conversion, whether through action or words (or more forceful and less savoury methods depending on the God in question.) If they're good aligned, they'll try to help people, and give sermons, but they won't force people. They still want more people following their God(s) though.
A champion/paladin doesn't care about converting people, he or she is there to deal with whatever threat the religion, or just people (assuming they're a heroic type Paladin) in general. If the people start to believe? Fine. But if they don't, he'll still help them, because it's what he's there to do.
CVB wrote:
A cleric is a priest, ordained by a deity to perform sacraments. Yes, some of them adventure, but adventuring isn't what makes them a cleric. Giving blessings, performing ceremonies, doing the things that separate a church from a nation or a hobbyist group... that's what makes you a cleric.
A paladin, by default, is not a priest. She is an extension of her deity's will in the world, yes, but she holds no ordination and cannot perform sacraments. She is a knight of her god, for good or ill, sworn to the deity and, quite likely, the deity's church, empowered to protect her god's followers and slay her god's enemies but not the marry or offer whatever Helm/Bane/Vanya/whoever's equivalent to Communion.
That's what makes even a War Cleric different from a Paladin. A War Cleric is a priest first; a Paladin is a soldier.
I'm thinking of a Paladin concept that's somehow both unexpected and obvious:
I've only been in one group where a paladin had ever had his powers stripped of him, and you know what happened? The player stopped coming because it was not fun for him, and the campaign broke up not long after due to lack of interest. There's a very fine line between enforcing the oaths and just being a jerk and snatching away your player's sense of agency.
As for this ridiculous semantic argument: you can choose to call non-LG Paladins something other than that, but the actual Paladin class has not been designed to tie in to an alignment. The 4e Warden and Avenger classes have already been more or less built into it, and I'd wager the Blackguard will show up sooner or later. This makes a lot more sense mechanically than designing a whole new class, since the story of a fallen Paladin turning to evil to regain lost power is such a common trope. It's a lot easier to just swap out some class features and spells than to essentially remake the character.
If you really want to keep the term pure, just call the overall class something else like "Champion" or "Knight" and have "Paladin" be reserved for the oath of devotion or whatever. Complaining about other tropes being built into the same core class is like whining that the Arcane Trickster archetype for Rogues ruins the concept of a baseline Thief.
Qmark wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
JC999 wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
JC999 wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I can imagine a CG Barbarian becoming a Paladin (multi-classing) and still fitting the PHB preview narrative.
He gets really, really mad when he sees people doing evil and calls loudly upon the gods to help him put an end to it. The gods think "Hey, we can really use this guy and he's not even asking for any super-costly plate armour" and sign him up. They also think "So maybe he does defend the weak peasantry against lawful-oppressive regimes. It's okay, he's a wildcard."
Cennedi wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
I ran a campaign once where a PC lost his Paladinhood. Without going into a long story, I advised the player of the consequences of a series of actions BEFORE allowing him to complete them. He decided it was in character at that moment and carried on. He played the fallen paladin to the hilt for a couple of levels after that until the current story arc had been fulfilled and then asked to seek redemption. The next story arc of the campaign centered on the character's quest for atonement and his friends' commitment to help him. He DID regain his Paladinhood, but yes, the player had to run him at less than optimal for a couple of months (seems a stark contrast to those who complain about suffering penalties for a few rounds or not having something cool to do EVERY turn). He didn't quit, contributed hugely to the campaign (the stories are recounted whenever the group talks of he olden days), and was rewarded with a Holy Avenger after redemption.
Situations like this can enhance your game, but I would NEVER trick a player into such a choice.
Brock_Landers wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
quindia wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
quindia wrote:
quindia wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote: