TheRPGSite

Greetings!

Well, hello to everyone! It is good to be here! I normally DM, and have been doing so for years and years. Recently, I and a good friend of mine decided to join an "Adventure's League" open-table game thing at one of our local game stores here in town. Getting our feet wet with 5E after playing 3.5E forever and such. My friend got his own set of books, and he's reading through them, and he says to me, "Hey, dude, what the fuck is this with the new paladin? Paladins can worship any fucking god they want, and they can be any alignment they want, too. They don't have to be Lawful Good anymore. Hell, they can be Evil from what it seems to say here in the Player's Handbook."

So, I read the stuff, and reread it several times, and rolled my eyes. He did the same. I'm Old School, so Paladins are Human, Lawful Good ONLY. Maybe I can buy a dwarf being a paladin, depending on the dwarf's culture and particular religion and patron deity. Lawful Good still applies though. Maybe, you know? LOL.

I was just stunned though. What the hell happened to the Paladin? Like I told my friend. "You know, I don't understand why all these whining snowflakes think they HAVE to be a Paladin, but they can worship whoever they want, be any race, be any alignment--and do whatever they want. That's such bullshit. They're NOT playing Paladins. I wouldn't let that nonsense fly in my campaigns, that's for damned sure!"

You know, Paladins used to be pretty damned special, back in the day. You had to have a 17 CHA minimum, bunch of other requirements. I carried most of those old standards over into 3.5E too, without breaking a sweat. I mean, yeah, being a Chaotic Good elf paladin that worships nature is cool. I like it. But you know what? That's a zealous elven knight that worships purple Kim Kardashian the love queen. Great, give him some cool powers. Whatever. But that holy elf warrior is not a Paladin. He's something else. Same goes for all the other stupid examples implied. Everyone can be some special holy warrior of whatever--but it doesn't make them a PALADIN. Does that make any sense? A Paladin is like, 1-part Marine, 1-part Chivalrous Arthurian Knight, and 2-parts Kick ass Holy Crusading Templar. (mix the parts to suit precise emphasis) LOL. Human, Lawful Good. Master of war, chivalrous, tough, religiously devoted and zealous. A special HUMAN religious Lawful Good knight. I mean, you can jerk the class around with all the other crazy stuff, but it's not a Paladin. I don't understand why if these people want to play a Paladin, then roll up a Lawful Good knight Paladin. You don't like that? Fine, you're playing whatever else you want, but you can't really call it a Paladin.

And on another note, what's wrong with playing whatever crazy wierd flavor of holy warrior you want? Knock yourself out, you know? Why do they feel like they have to rape the Paladin and, RAW, make the class...I god, I don't know. Pathetic might be too strong. But it just doesn't feel right. Why can't they just say, these other gods all have devoted warriors that are of any alignment, and you can do whatever you want? Why specifically rape the Paladin and make the class pathetic and flavourless?

Oh, yeah, I know about the old Dragon article too, back in the day. That was clearly optional though, to give the DM inspiration on running some kind of exception for his world. The RAW though, remained the strong flavour and standards that defined the class--in line with the HISTORICAL INSPIRATION. Consistent with the history, you know?

Now, I'm like, you know, except for rubbing a different alignment on the Paladin, and a few powers, what the hell distingusihes the Paladin from all the crazy snowflake do what I want monstrosities? HISTORICAL INSPIRATION and history-based flavour anchored the Paladin before, and made the class distinct. In a world of cavaliers, barbarians, rogues, and ruthless greedy fighters that did whatever they wanted, the Paladin stood out as being different.

Now it just seems like the class is open for everyone do just rape the hell out of the Paladin, and make it this generic holy warrior--that isn't holy, isn't distinct, and isn't different from any other so-called "paladin" even though they are of a dozen races and a dozen gods and a dozen alignments.

Am I making any sense? I know. I'm frustrated with the RAW changes they have made with the Paladin. One of my favourite classes from the beginning.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

:) It's OK. There, there. This is their generation's paladin, just like it is their generation's Star Wars, and so on.

:) It is merely the natural passing of a golden age into the mists of time, letting a gloriously novel, tarnished, and rusted metal age take its ignominious place amongst this pageant of devolution.

:) Let us sink peacefully into the welcoming arms of the abyss.

They took away all of the alignment requirements for all the classes, while simultaneously changing spells that used to work with alignment. Makes you wonder why they left alignment in, since it doesn't actually matter for anything anymore.

Quote from: SHARK;1059115Getting our feet wet with 5E [...] I'm Old School, so -

So you're playing the wrong game. Play AD&D1e, or OD&D.

:rolleyes:the old paladin is still there. Grow a pair and role play it like you always had. As for the other options, the class is now a unholy/holy warrior class. Hell I have had Myrmidons a Lawful Evil paladin type since 1983. So it nothing new. Perhaps even inspired in some small part by my write up in my Majestic Wilderlands supplement. Which I been told Mearls had and read.

So if you're going to blame someone blame me. :D

Quote from: Opaopajr;1059116:) It's OK. There, there. This is their generation's paladin, just like it is their generation's Star Wars, and so on.

:) It is merely the natural passing of a golden age into the mists of time, letting a gloriously novel, tarnished, and rusted metal age take its ignominious place amongst this pageant of devolution.

:) Let us sink peacefully into the welcoming arms of the abyss.

Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
 - Dylan Thomas

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

The short version is that D&D grew beyond the early 'one true way' based heavily on LotR (ex. Dwarves can't be magic-users) and similar tropes into more generic fantasy. Even in the AD&D days and through 3e Dragon had various articles creating anti-paladins and paladins of other alignments.

If you want your world to have racial level limits, dwarves to not be wizards, rogues to not be lawful and paladins to be only high charisma lawful good humans... go for it; there's nothing stopping you.

If you want a world where humans only worship primal spirits and shun wizardry (thus druid and bard are the only spellcasting classes they're allowed to take) while the dwarves are a bunch of anti-theists who killed their gods by mass refusal of worship (and cannot be clerics, paladins or druids)... you can do that too.

It's a lot easier to have a basic game where everything is on the table and let GMs pick what, if any, restrictions they want to put into their world than to have a set of rules based on one limited set of assumptions and then unwind how removing those limits might affect the game.

Well, part of the issue is that the paladin and cleric come from a history/legend/fantasy tradition of chivalric Christian Europe that's been mostly forgotten or abandoned by the D&D game of today. The cleric has adapted to the more 'pagan foundation with a medieval veneer' of the D&D cosmology, but the paladin lagged behind a bit longer until 4E and 5E changed it from 'knight in shining armor' to 'holy warrior' (which does muddy the distinction between the two classes a bit).

Quote from: Chris24601;1059136If you want your world to have racial level limits, dwarves to not be wizards, rogues to not be lawful and paladins to be only high charisma lawful good humans... go for it; there's nothing stopping you.

It's a lot easier to have a basic game where everything is on the table and let GMs pick what, if any, restrictions they want to put into their world than to have a set of rules based on one limited set of assumptions and then unwind how removing those limits might affect the game.

Totally. I think the problem here for the OP may come down to two words: Adventurers League

Doesn't that remove all freedom of choice in the matter? I mean, you can choose not to play something you don't like, but you can't choose to not encounter it.

Quote from: SHARK;1059115Oh, yeah, I know about the old Dragon article too, back in the day. That was clearly optional though, to give the DM inspiration on running some kind of exception for his world. The RAW though, remained the strong flavour and standards that defined the class--in line with the HISTORICAL INSPIRATION. Consistent with the history, you know?

Now, I'm like, you know, except for rubbing a different alignment on the Paladin, and a few powers, what the hell distingusihes the Paladin from all the crazy snowflake do what I want monstrosities? HISTORICAL INSPIRATION and history-based flavour anchored the Paladin before, and made the class distinct. In a world of cavaliers, barbarians, rogues, and ruthless greedy fighters that did whatever they wanted, the Paladin stood out as being different.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1059142Well, part of the issue is that the paladin and cleric come from a history/legend/fantasy tradition of chivalric Christian Europe that's been mostly forgotten or abandoned by the D&D game of today. The cleric has adapted to the more 'pagan foundation with a medieval veneer' of the D&D cosmology, but the paladin lagged behind a bit longer until 4E and 5E changed it from 'knight in shining armor' to 'holy warrior' (which does muddy the distinction between the two classes a bit).

To Shark - the thing is, most of D&D has never been consistent with history. Cleric and paladin being exclusively Christian-themed have always been ill-fitting, given that the rest of the material portrayed a pagan pantheon of gods. This includes the odd inclusion of Saint Cuthbert as a single god (?!) in the Greyhawk pantheon. None of D&D's successful settings have stuck to chivalric Christian Europe as a primary central theme - instead having a mish-mash of different historical and fantasy inspirations. As a result, there have steadily been a bunch of options to tune the core rules to different themes and settings, including various anti-paladin and alternate paladin options.

So the trend has been to make the core classes more flexible, so they can represent different flavors of fantasy and different settings. Narrower classes like the thief-acrobat, cavalier, and assassin have been de-emphasized in favor of broader core classes with different options. Within 5th ed, the lawful good knight in shining armor is still there as an option, and it is trivial to make that the only paladin option if you want - just like restricting which Cleric circles/deities and Warlock patrons are available in your setting.

Imo it came down to two things. Players running Paladins eitner as lawful stupid with motalistic high horse stick up their behind. Or worse dirty harry with sword and sheild. Jerkish, dickish, assbole DMs, who made a player fall for any infraction no matter how minor. While usually purposefully setting them up to do so.

As for the OP Im not buying him not knowing alignments were removed from the game. Seems more like hating it being different when they advertised it from tbe start that it would be. I agree with a poster above 5E is not for him.

Gygax hasn't been in charge for decades, and there are far more settings than just the ones he and Arneson made. If paladins work that way in your setting, put those restrictions back in. It's pretty easy to say "in my game, you need to be a lawful good human to be a paladin."

Quote from: sureshot;1059147As for the OP Im not buying him not knowing alignments were removed from the game. Seems more like hating it being different when they advertised it from tbe start that it would be. I agree with a poster above 5E is not for him.

In his posts, the OP has explained that he had to drop out of gaming while dealing with Real Life, so it is understandable that he does not have detailed knowledge of DnD 5E.

And Alignment is detailed on page 122 of the 5E PHB.

My mistake I stand corrected.

Quote from: SHARK;1059115I'm Old School, so Paladins are Human, Lawful Good ONLY. Maybe I can buy a dwarf being a paladin, depending on the dwarf's culture and particular religion and patron deity.

Looked back at Greyhawk; any fighter with at least 17 Charisma and Lawful from the start of play could be a paladin; not really a bunch of requirements. Human, elf, dwarf, hobbit, half-elf or whatever.

QuoteYou know, Paladins used to be pretty damned special, back in the day. You had to have a 17 CHA minimum, bunch of other requirements. I carried most of those old standards over into 3.5E too, without breaking a sweat. I mean, yeah, being a Chaotic Good elf paladin that worships nature is cool. I like it. But you know what? That's a zealous elven knight that worships purple Kim Kardashian the love queen. Great, give him some cool powers. Whatever. But that holy elf warrior is not a Paladin. He's something else. Same goes for all the other stupid examples implied. Everyone can be some special holy warrior of whatever--but it doesn't make them a PALADIN. Does that make any sense? A Paladin is like, 1-part Marine, 1-part Chivalrous Arthurian Knight, and 2-parts Kick ass Holy Crusading Templar. (mix the parts to suit precise emphasis) LOL. Human, Lawful Good. Master of war, chivalrous, tough, religiously devoted and zealous. A special HUMAN religious Lawful Good knight. I mean, you can jerk the class around with all the other crazy stuff, but it's not a Paladin. I don't understand why if these people want to play a Paladin, then roll up a Lawful Good knight Paladin. You don't like that? Fine, you're playing whatever else you want, but you can't really call it a Paladin.

Sorry to be the one to tell you; people have been all over your lawn from the mid 1970s on, and it's not even your lawn.

Quote from: Zirunel;1059144Totally. I think the problem here for the OP may come down to two words: Adventurers League

Doesn't that remove all freedom of choice in the matter? I mean, you can choose not to play something you don't like, but you can't choose to not encounter it.

I can't recall that I've met an NPC Paladin in any AL adventure; the things I find discordant almost always originate with PCs. I don't know how AL could be expected to avoid offending people like the original poster. Even the X card isn't going to help.

In non-AL, the elements that bother you may also come from a jerk DM. The solution is to find another game if it bothers you that much.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1059116:) It's OK. There, there. This is their generation's paladin, just like it is their generation's Star Wars, and so on.

:) It is merely the natural passing of a golden age into the mists of time, letting a gloriously novel, tarnished, and rusted metal age take its ignominious place amongst this pageant of devolution.

:) Let us sink peacefully into the welcoming arms of the abyss.

LOL! I damned near spit my coffee out laughing from this. Just imagining your tone had me smiling.

Yeah, I think there is...a *cultural* difference in expectations, base knowledge, that kind of thing. From what I've seen, it isn't just related to how Paladins work in the game, either.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1059117They took away all of the alignment requirements for all the classes, while simultaneously changing spells that used to work with alignment. Makes you wonder why they left alignment in, since it doesn't actually matter for anything anymore.

Greetings!

Hi there Warboss! You know, you have a very good point there. I touched on it with how they have jerked around the paladin, but they have really cut the balls off of Alignment haven't they? I mean, of course, philosophically, etc, Alignment isn't perfect as a mechanic or a "system." However, for being a quick and easy mechanic that adds a certain nuance and depth to individual characters, and whole dimensions in a campaign, Alignment does a pretty damned good job of that, you know? You used to have Alignments, Alignment Languages, and the Alignments had social, political dimesnions that were significant, too. Now...yeah. What is the point in having Alignment at all, when there is no restriction or expectation that you can't always just do whatever you want, with no consequences whatesoever?

Criticise Alignment as you will, but I agree with you, Warboss. Something meaningful has been lost with the way they have shredded Alignment.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jeff37923;1059133Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
 - Dylan Thomas

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Greetings!

Jeff, that's a fine poem. I always remember that from an old English professor I had. I remember him reading it to the class. Course, he was in his 70's, and was very "Old School." It's weird...I feel like that poem is more and more applicable in our gaming, and in society as a whole. I forgot when that poem was written, too. Good stuff, Jeff.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'd say they killed the Paladin because they hate Christianity and can't identify with a Christian archetype.

However at the gaming table, basically every Paladin I see could have been made for 1e. Exception for a 4e Blackguard who was basically a Millennial version of the old Anti-Paladin - instead of dastardly, she was mildly evil-curious.

Although 5e is good in its own right, 1e is awesome and more interesting to me.

I'm with you on how they neutered the concept of Alignment in 5E and cheapened the Paladin class.

Quote from: S'mon;1059197I'd say they killed the Paladin because they hate Christianity and can't identify with a Christian archetype.

However at the gaming table, basically every Paladin I see could have been made for 1e. Exception for a 4e Blackguard who was basically a Millennial version of the old Anti-Paladin - instead of dastardly, she was mildly evil-curious.

Greetings!

Right on target, S'mon! That, my friend, is so true. " They killed the Paladin because they hate Christianity and can't identify with a Christian archetype."

You know, S'mon, when I was reading the rules and such, from "within" it all seems just like rule-speak and jargon, and it's kind of an intellectual exercise to consider what the designers were thinking, why they changed this or that--but I didn't really step back, and ask, "Is there some deeper ideological agenda going on here?"

Fucking Brilliant, my friend!

Hey! What kind of classes are you teaching?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1059205Although 5e is good in its own right, 1e is awesome and more interesting to me.

I'm with you on how they neutered the concept of Alignment in 5E and cheapened the Paladin class.

Greetings!

Hi Doc Sammy! GOOD! I'm glad I'm not just ranting delusionally. They have done some serious design damage to the Paladin, and extending out to the Alignment system as well. Those effects--have a real impact on a campaign, you know?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Always hated the concept of paladin in the first place and never felt like when one presented in game that it caused anything other than problems at the table both in and out of game.  Gods chosen warrior only sounds good when its your specific god.  Is Lebowski a paladin of Dionysius?  It all just always felt wrong to me.

All that considered... Semper Pistris!

Well we can agree to disagree. No seripus damage eas done imo. One can ignore whstever onrs does not like. While I'm not in a 5E game yet I knosome friends sre and their campaign world did not implode. I allowed Rangers to use two weapon fighting in medium armor.

I can respect not liking the change. The game is far from ruined imo. Anyway we may disagree on many things and that's not a bad thing.

Quote from: sureshot;1059215Well we can agree to disagree. No seripus damage eas done imo. One can ignore whstever onrs does not like. While I'm not in a 5E game yet I knosome friends sre and their campaign world did not implode. I allowed Rangers to use two weapon fighting in medium armor.

I can respect not liking the change. The game is far from ruined imo. Anyway we may disagree on many things and that's not a bad thing.

Greetings!

Hi there, Sureshot! Oh, yeah, I enjoy the 5E system, it's good. There's always a few problems with every edition, you know? You said you're not playing 5E right now--what system are you playing with?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

None now due to more important things outside of gaming such as work and life preventing me from doing so. I have mainly been playing D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder with a occasional Rifts game. The second not do much as I'm not a fan of the system like I used to be.

I was fully on board at first with Pathfinder 2E. Yet recently became tired of the edition train. The rules did not interest me in the least and Paizo suddrnly going woke and insisting I become full time SJW at my game table demanding I be inclusive, diverse and aldo be a full time psychologist really turned me off.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1059205Although 5e is good in its own right, 1e is awesome and more interesting to me.

I'm with you on how they neutered the concept of Alignment in 5E and cheapened the Paladin class.

2nd will always be my fav edition.

The "old" Paladin died for many reasons, but perhaps the key was "balance." Classes are (theoretically) not supposed to be clearly better than another, but a 1e Paladin with the same stats as a fighter is better than that fighter right off the bat.

Now, Gygax's sense of balance used alignment as part of the balancing factor between classes, instead of DPS, HPR, SAVBO, and all the other things a modern gamer considers which wasn't a factor in the 70s.

But alignment (with no  impact on DPS, etc) is pretty de-emphasized in 3.5. They mostly did it in 4e to make it a better computer game (I conjecture), but continued the trend in 5e.

Bottom line, alignment is core to a 1e Paladin. Alignment is basically nothing in 5e. So...the 5e Paladin simply can't be the same as the 1e Paladin.

It was also very very hard to roll up a Paladin due to attribute restrictions. That 17 Cha was a fun killer to someone wanting to role one up naturally. I would have made it a 15 Cha.

Opening the door to different types of Paladins doesn't really bother me.  It used to, I admit, but now...  Eh, there are 5e Oaths that more or less make more sense if they ARE Lawful Good.

Fallen paladins are always infinitely more interesting than pure ones.  That being said I did have a 5e paladin with a 15 Wisdom and a 7 Intelligence.  I played him like he actually believed all the aphorisms and proverbs ever, even when they contradicted each other.

So, really, play a Lawful Good Human Paladin, why not?  Just because the rules don't say you can't.  It's just not the only way.  Still, I think I'd take a page from Rolemaster and consider swapping out spell lists for different alignments.  Generic holy warrior, sure, but does the Chaotic Neutral paladin who worships a Death Slaad still get Protection From Evil and Cure Light Wounds?  I think not.


While you're at it shift to Rolemaster entirely! ;)  50th level Paladins get the Holy Martyr spell that lets them explode at will.  It's the most paladiny thing ever !

I dont think theres any good reason to force them to wait until level 50 for that.  I'm good with that being a first level thing.  Or even a thing that simply happens randomly at any time.

Quote from: SHARK;1059209Hey! What kind of classes are you teaching?

Law - in this case to 18 year olds, it can be taken as an undergraduate subject in the UK. Some of our students come from "non traditional backgrounds", which means that in the past I've had girls standing up shouting and banging the wall, one girl telling the class she was too good for it (she wasn't), and several cases with boys who did 'dominance test' type stuff at the start of class where they refused to sit down, and I had to establish I was the alpha ape before they'd sit and the class could start. Apart from 'too good' girl they were all good students in the end (I show them respect, but make clear they are here to learn; I get respect back), but it often felt like I was teaching teenage children. So much better this year with the jacket! :)

Quote from: SHARK;1059216Hi there, Sureshot! Oh, yeah, I enjoy the 5E system, it's good. There's always a few problems with every edition, you know?

5e to its credit is built for adapting - it's very easy to say "In this campaign Paladins are Lawful Good, human only, with one of the following LG gods as patron".

Just avoid AL like the plague. :D

Quote from: David Johansen;1059225Fallen paladins are always infinitely more interesting than pure ones.  

In this day and age, definitely not IMO.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;10592182nd will always be my fav edition.

2nd I still love because it brought us a playable bard class and the Dark Sun setting.

Quote from: jeff37923;10592482nd I still love because it brought us a playable bard class and the Dark Sun setting.

I enjoy though it does have some flaws. As to Bards I always found it weird how in 1E it required DM permission when imo it was not even remotely overpowered. Nor a broken class.

Quote from: sureshot;1059220It was also very very hard to roll up a Paladin due to attribute restrictions. That 17 Cha was a fun killer to someone wanting to role one up naturally. I would have made it a 15 Cha.

Also part of Gygax's sense of balancing the game. Rarity of an effect justified its power. e.g. rolling a paladin, 18(00) strength.

I am fine with the decision to open the class to all races. It is in keeping with the design of removing racial level restrictions and all that. So dwarven, elven, and even halfling paladins are fine as far as I'm concerned. Discarding the restriction on alignment I am not on board with. Paladins are lawful good end of story.

Quote from: Anselyn;1059253Also part of Gygax's sense of balancing the game. Rarity of an effect justified its power. e.g. rolling a paladin, 18(00) strength.

I understand the restrictions. By the book rolling of the dice. Which when I started in the hobby meant almost no Paladins at least at the tables I played and ran at.

Again the problem with the alignment restriction is that the alignments sre too broad imo. If they would have a codified set of rules for each alignment. Giving in point form what a character can or cannot do.

Palladium Books rules has it's issues yet we never ever had any alignment debates st least at our tables. Their fantasy rpg has a similar class though much less powerful. Players who thought they were going to play Lawful Stupid. Or jerk DMs who got a kick out of making Paladin characters fall were in for a very very rude awakening. They either adapted to the system. Or ran away back to D&D.

Unfortunately whenever myself or others bring up that kind of solution.  Too many in the D&D community want go have a entire baker shops of cakes and eat them too. Keep the alignments vague in description while also insisting to have a alignment. You can't have it both ways imo.

Quote from: S'mon;1059197I'd say they killed the Paladin because they hate Christianity and can't identify with a Christian archetype.

What a load of nonsense. The paladin appeared in 1975 and within a few years, as directed by Gygax himself, D&D had largely abandoned the Christian archetype of the original cleric (the AD&D PHB required clerics to have a deity, and GD&H and Deities & Demigods did not include the Christian pantheon). And how would they have included it? List hit points for Yahweh? I'm pretty sure Jesus would have to make all saving throws automatically, because Jesus Saves. Demons and non-Christian religions in the books undoubtedly helped fuel the satanic panic; just having stat blocks for Christian saints and angels probably would have made it worse.

I suppose Gygax changed the assassin from neutral (Blackmoor) to evil (AD&D 1ed) because he hated capitalism and couldn't identify with a profit-motivated archetype.

Quote from: VincentTakeda;1059213Always hated the concept of paladin in the first place and never felt like when one presented in game that it caused anything other than problems at the table both in and out of game.  Gods chosen warrior only sounds good when its your specific god.  Is Lebowski a paladin of Dionysius?  It all just always felt wrong to me.

Yes.

Circa 1978 or 1979: Somebody to player of a paladin, "You don't have to be an asshole!" got the reply "Yes, I do; it says so in Greyhawk." (I was neither player, if you're wondering.)

Alignment restrictions always led to issues between players rather than characters; one player wanted to play a paladin and another wanted to play a thief. The result was that paladins became Lawful Stupid almost by default ("Oh, you are an expert treasure hunter. Never mind then!"). Is that what people are mourning?
:confused:

Quote from: S'mon;1059237Just avoid AL like the plague. :D

It's lonely defending AL on this site, but not lonely at the gaming table so I can bear it. Carry on, haters. ;)

Quote from: rawma;1059275It's lonely defending AL on this site, but not lonely at the gaming table so I can bear it. Carry on, haters. ;)

We will. :D

Quote from: VincentTakeda;1059227I dont think theres any good reason to force them to wait until level 50 for that.  I'm good with that being a first level thing.  Or even a thing that simply happens randomly at any time.

Well it is a +50 fireball.

Quote from: S'mon;1059235Law - in this case to 18 year olds, it can be taken as an undergraduate subject in the UK. Some of our students come from "non traditional backgrounds", which means that in the past I've had girls standing up shouting and banging the wall, one girl telling the class she was too good for it (she wasn't), and several cases with boys who did 'dominance test' type stuff at the start of class where they refused to sit down, and I had to establish I was the alpha ape before they'd sit and the class could start. Apart from 'too good' girl they were all good students in the end (I show them respect, but make clear they are here to learn; I get respect back), but it often felt like I was teaching teenage children. So much better this year with the jacket! :)

Greetings!

LOL! HAHAHA! Oh my god, S'mon! The "Alpha Ape!" Beautiful! Sounds like your class is fun--I like Law, perhaps not surprisingly. I once read that 50% of Lawyers start out with a degree in *History*. LOL. Your class also sounds a bit...disturbing. Where the hell do these kids come from? I mean, how are they in a Law class, even at 18 years old? What kind of school are you teaching at buddy? LOL. I remember when I was in a high-level Political Science class, dealing with *International Law*--everyone in the class were all well-dressed and very well behaved. The kids weren't 18, I admit. A little older, say 20 or 21. Sounds like British society has gone to hell, too. I'm *shocked* S'mon! LOL. I thought Britain would have the ettiquette and decorum thing down, you know?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Opaopajr;1059116:) It's OK. There, there. This is their generation's paladin, just like it is their generation's Star Wars, and so on.

:) It is merely the natural passing of a golden age into the mists of time, letting a gloriously novel, tarnished, and rusted metal age take its ignominious place amongst this pageant of devolution.

:) Let us sink peacefully into the welcoming arms of the abyss.

What Jeff said

They could have rebadged it "Holy Warrior" and rebadged the Oath of Devotion as "Paladin," but...people expect a class called "Paladin" now. And they don't like being told their character has to be religious or good (although apparently it is perfectly fine to have certain class features available only via a pact with a demon, or by being descended from a dragon).

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1059335They could have rebadged it "Holy Warrior" and rebadged the Oath of Devotion as "Paladin," but...people expect a class called "Paladin" now. And they don't like being told their character has to be religious or good (although apparently it is perfectly fine to have certain class features available only via a pact with a demon, or by being descended from a dragon).

That just wants me to have a Paladin's patron turn out to be Demogorgon.  "What?  Why so surprised?  I'm chaotic and evil.  You make people hate the law and goodness.  It's a match made in heaven.  See what I did there?  Chaotic and evil dude!"

They made a game which is significantly easier to make it your own without messing anything up. You want Paladins to be only humans (or maybe dwarves) of LG alignment? No problem, the class will function perfectly fine with those DM decisions for their campaign. Nothing else will need to be tweaked to accommodate that set up. This is a feature, not a bug. Also, Paladins kick ass in this game. Seriously, they do exceptionally well, and not just in combat.

You're used to 3e, which tried to have a rule for every scenario. This version is much closer in feel to 1e, where the DM has a lot more options over how the world works, without the rules creaking much over those decisions.  Want to eliminate feats or instead add a bunch more? No problem, game works fine. Want to eliminate multiclassing or limit it? No problem, game works fine. No magic shops in your game or lots of magic items? No problem, game works fine. Want just the original four OD&D classes of Wizard, Fighting Man, Cleric and Thief? No problem, game works fine. Want monsters that do or do not follow the player character build mechanics? No problem, game works fine.

So plug in your Lawful Good Human-Only model onto the Paladin. No problem, game will work fine. Meanwhile that college kid can play his Venger elf anti-paladin in his campaign, and it will also work fine.

Quote from: Mistwell;1059340They made a game which is significantly easier to make it your own without messing anything up. You want Paladins to be only humans (or maybe dwarves) of LG alignment? No problem, the class will function perfectly fine with those DM decisions for their campaign. Nothing else will need to be tweaked to accommodate that set up. This is a feature, not a bug. Also, Paladins kick ass in this game. Seriously, they do exceptionally well, and not just in combat.

You're used to 3e, which tried to have a rule for every scenario. This version is much closer in feel to 1e, where the DM has a lot more options over how the world works, without the rules creaking much over those decisions.  Want to eliminate feats or instead add a bunch more? No problem, game works fine. Want to eliminate multiclassing or limit it? No problem, game works fine. No magic shops in your game or lots of magic items? No problem, game works fine. Want just the original four OD&D classes of Wizard, Fighting Man, Cleric and Thief? No problem, game works fine. Want monsters that do or do not follow the player character build mechanics? No problem, game works fine.

So plug in your Lawful Good Human-Only model onto the Paladin. No problem, game will work fine. Meanwhile that college kid can play his Venger elf anti-paladin in his campaign, and it will also work fine.

Greetings!

Hey Mistwell! Damn, that's pretty tight. I like that, Mistwell. It makes things clearer to me. Very cool, sir. Indeed, I'm still labouring under the long spell of playing 3E. I'm used to a rule for every damned thing. LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1059325Greetings!

LOL! HAHAHA! Oh my god, S'mon! The "Alpha Ape!" Beautiful! Sounds like your class is fun--I like Law, perhaps not surprisingly. I once read that 50% of Lawyers start out with a degree in *History*. LOL. Your class also sounds a bit...disturbing. Where the hell do these kids come from? I mean, how are they in a Law class, even at 18 years old? What kind of school are you teaching at buddy? LOL. I remember when I was in a high-level Political Science class, dealing with *International Law*--everyone in the class were all well-dressed and very well behaved. The kids weren't 18, I admit. A little older, say 20 or 21. Sounds like British society has gone to hell, too. I'm *shocked* S'mon! LOL. I thought Britain would have the ettiquette and decorum thing down, you know?

The 21 year olds (third year classes) and Postgraduates are almost always fine, it's some of the high school kids who are trouble. But like I said, most of them are actually good kids who turn into good students, initially they're just a bit feral and not used to sitting down and paying attention. There are some cultural/ethnic aspects also which I'm not going to go into.

Quote from: S'mon;1059354The 21 year olds (third year classes) and Postgraduates are almost always fine, it's some of the high school kids who are trouble. But like I said, most of them are actually good kids who turn into good students, initially they're just a bit feral and not used to sitting down and paying attention. There are some cultural/ethnic aspects also which I'm not going to go into.

Greetings!

S'mon, that's awesome that you teach Law, brother! I'm glad that you straighten the feral kids out! Oh, by the way--send me a PM about the "cultural/ethnic aspects." I want the TRUTH!! lol. Seriously though. I like to learn about what's really happening over there.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: rawma;1059275It's lonely defending AL on this site, but not lonely at the gaming table so I can bear it. Carry on, haters. ;)

(https://i.imgflip.com/2jqmaj.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/2jqmaj)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)

Quote from: rawma;1059275It's lonely defending AL on this site, but not lonely at the gaming table so I can bear it. Carry on, haters. ;)

Quote from: tenbones;1059535(https://i.imgflip.com/2jqmaj.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/2jqmaj)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)

AL is Adventurers League; beyond forbidding alignments that will almost certainly cause grief, it doesn't really have much to say about alignment.

So why this comment on alignment as if it were a response to me?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1059222Opening the door to different types of Paladins doesn't really bother me.  It used to, I admit, but now...  Eh, there are 5e Oaths that more or less make more sense if they ARE Lawful Good.

Agreed. At first it felt a little odd. But then on thinking of it, it made sense. People have been ignoring Paladin alignmet since AD&D hit the shelves, possibly before that. Its been discussed in Dragon way back and ever since. All the stories of effectively "insert alignment here" Paladins who did whatever, usually while claiming to be good! Others just ignoring alignment completely. Sometimes a DM would step in, but more oft seems not.

So making every class open alignment was a good idea. And allows more freedom to play in a style that fits a concept. Even if sometimes those concepts seem a little... off to us.

Quote from: Omega;1059581Agreed. At first it felt a little odd. But then on thinking of it, it made sense. People have been ignoring Paladin alignmet since AD&D hit the shelves, possibly before that. Its been discussed in Dragon way back and ever since. All the stories of effectively "insert alignment here" Paladins who did whatever, usually while claiming to be good! Others just ignoring alignment completely. Sometimes a DM would step in, but more oft seems not.

So making every class open alignment was a good idea. And allows more freedom to play in a style that fits a concept. Even if sometimes those concepts seem a little... off to us.

I have to amend my statement a little bit.  Chaotic Paladins I have a hard time understanding.  Paladins is a life of discipline and requires following a code as written, which goes against everything a Chaotic character stands for in their outlook to life.  So Chaotic Paladins are not something I can wrap my brain around.

Assuming, of course, you ascribe to the 3-5e Alignment descriptions.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1059601I have to amend my statement a little bit.  Chaotic Paladins I have a hard time understanding.  Paladins is a life of discipline and requires following a code as written, which goes against everything a Chaotic character stands for in their outlook to life.  So Chaotic Paladins are not something I can wrap my brain around.

Assuming, of course, you ascribe to the 3-5e Alignment descriptions.

I think it works if you recall that Chaos in 3-5e includes the concept of personal freedom and that one can declare their alignment with that concept of personal freedom while being disciplined themselves (i.e. "I choose to follow this discipline, but it is up to each individual whether this path is best for them.").

Chaotic Good in particular is basically moral libertarianism; the idea that the best society is one where everyone is free to pursue their own interests so long as it does not infringe on others' own lives and freedoms. A Paladin of that philosophy would basically strive to free people from any burden of laws that infringes upon their freedoms, particularly their freedom to choose good.

You could also simplify the code of the Chaotic Good Paladin to "As it harms none, do as thou will."

Chaotic Neutral and Evil kind of blur together in regard to a freedom-based code though since once you discard the "As it harms none" part you're just arguing the degree to which you're personally comfortable with trampling on those weaker than yourself rather than any sort of moral distinction of a possible code.

It is also worth remembering too that the first edition of D&D to do away with alignment restrictions on Paladins also simplefied the alignments to Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil and Chaotic Evil. As such the Chaotic Good and Neutral Good positions were shifted to "what produces good ends irrespective of laws" while Lawful Good was "law and order is the best way to bring the most good to the most people."

As such the only truly chaotic paladin in that edition would be the chaotic evil unholy champion whose code would basically amount to "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!" and who's god doesn't care for or reward any degree of discipline, only death and carnage.

Quote from: rawma;1059576AL is Adventurers League; beyond forbidding alignments that will almost certainly cause grief, it doesn't really have much to say about alignment.

So why this comment on alignment as if it were a response to me?

Because I thought you were talking about Alignment. And I thought it was funny. /shrug.



But that said - I think Adventurers League is far more silly than Alignment.

As far as Paladins go. I don't use Alignment. I want Paladins to be crusading militant badasses for the ethos of their deity. It's that simple. It doesn't matter to me what the Paladin is "alignmentwise" as long as they're furthering the ethos and cause of their deity when it matters. This puts the onus on the deity themselves on what they demand of their followers that they directly invest their power in.

I don't believe Clerics or Paladins get their powerz just because they took a class. To me that's just the mechanics of those PC having been chosen or called by the deity in question to be a vessel through which the gods enact their will.

This allows for Paladins of all alignments doing what Paladins should be doing: fighting, crusading, helping, harming, for their deity's cause. Not for the player's rationalization of their alignment.

I'm with Shark. For me paladin means a strict code of doing good/right (I dont use alignment), and zealous devotion to a justice type deity only. If you want to play a religious zealous warrior of some other kind, that's a cleric yo. 5e paladins are particularly galling in that they are also OP.

Quote from: Psikerlord;10596675e paladins are particularly galling in that they are also OP.

Playing one, it felt better than a Fighter, but not as good as a Barbarian, unless you know you only have one fight that day.

My main issue was that it was all about the spell slots, burning for damage, and felt boring to play, whereas I love playing the 5e Barbarian.

One can alway refuse to allow Paladins to be any other alignment besides Lawful Good. Just because they are in core is not the end of the world. I don't particularly like how Star Wars D6 handles Jedi and usually banned them from most of my games I ran. Sure some players did not like it yet just because "it's in the core" never stopped myself at least from saying no.

In 5E paladins can indeed be any alignment, but they have all taken oaths of one sort or another. Although there's no official sanction for breaking these oaths, you can be as harsh as you like as DM. (Maybe not on AL, but that's just another reason not to play AL). So you can bring back a flavour of 1E paladins by having dire consequences for paladins who break their oaths.
You're a vengeance paladin? No, you can't heal the other PC who dissed you. Paladin of chivalry? You'd rather grab gold than help the damsel in distress? Fine, looks like your spells fail until you atone. The tools are there, you just need to enforce them.

I think the Oaths are in the right place but they're poorly implemented because they're out of context with their patrons. Instead they disconnect that and make it only about their beliefs... which leads to all kinds of dumb rationalizations about why a LG Paladin can commit atrocities because of his Oath.

It's a silly mechanic to justify moral relativism which Paladins *shouldn't* be indulging in. It's ironic - I think Oaths would be cool for a Knight Archetype for Fighters. Paladins should be tied to their religions/deities/etc. and act accordingly.

I never considered that paladin's served a cult or temple. That's the cleric's job. For me, the paladin what God's Asskicker on Earth. Given that the game already had clerics, that gave paladins a different spin for me.

Also, I never considered Lawful Good to be Law + Good. The nine alignments were nine distinct things. There were similarities to their neighbors, and stark contrasts from their opposites, certainly. But, sophistric arguments about which was more important being more lawful or more good seemed to me to be missing the point. Each alignment had its own ideals related to but distinct from the other alignments.

Lately, I've become most comfortable with alignments being "simply" metaphysical sides or power sources rather than both that and behavior descriptors. Also, D&D-wise, I don't find alignments useful with that definition until characters reach 5th level or so. At that point they have enough power where the side you've chosen matters. I have four common alignments; Lawful (Moses), Chaotic (Thor), Insightful (Buddha), Neutral (Me). So, where do paladin's fall? Their alignment is Good. Only they can have that alignment, and all of them are Good. They are the Big Damn Heroes. They embody the virtues of Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Prudence, and Mercy. One day they are the fulcrum upon which the army turns fighting the evil hordes, next they are pulling the widow's plow whose ox has died.

The temples distrust them, for their agenda is their own.
The gods distrust them, for they answer to a higher power.
The people love them, for they stand in harm's way.
The people also fear them, for they have a clear moral compass that does not accept expediency, foolishness, or sloth.

They are honor sans stupidity, kindness without naivety, implacable lacking cruelty.

If you can accept that, then you can play one in my game.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1059757Lawful (Moses), Chaotic (Thor), Insightful (Buddha), Neutral (Me). So, where do paladin's fall? Their alignment is Good. Only they can have that alignment, and all of them are Good. They are the Big Damn Heroes. They embody the virtues of Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Prudence, and Mercy. One day they are the fulcrum upon which the army turns fighting the evil hordes, next they are pulling the widow's plow whose ox has died.

So where does my fighter in a 2e game who managed to routinely guilt the party paladin (who was playing entirely in character for LG , I just managed to regularly outdo him in offers to help those in need because I had ZERO need for any gear of note*) through my PCs actions? Do they not count as Good?

I don't think the idea that only a particular class can hold to the values of Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Mercy feels in any way true to my experiences, both in real life, in fiction and in past games.
 
* Due to a series of recurring early dice flukes involving every magical item the DM ever tried to give me resulting in critical failures to hit (I once critically fumbled twice in a row with the same magic sword and managed to break a supposedly unbreakable sword enchanted to cleave through magic barriers on a magic barrier) and taking multiple critical hits, while my original starting weapons and armor resulted in critical hits by me (more than once immediately after giving up and dropping the magic weapon) and enemies getting critical fumbles when they attacked me, I decided that my PC would just stop trying to get better gear and just gave every part of my treasure shares save what I needed for rations, torches, room and board to people in need.

In one particularly egregious case of outdoing the paladin, we had just liberated a bunch of refugees taken by slavers. The group was just starting to divvy up the slaver's spoils when one of the refugees approached the party saying that the slavers had separated out the group's children and taken them to a nearby fortress. Not only does my fighter blurt out that he'll go immediately to rescue the children, he gives the refugees his entire share of the slaver's loot to help them get food, clothing and shelter.

The paladin's player told me that this actually really annoyed him because there was a particularly powerful magic sword the paladin had just claimed as part of his share of the loot (and by the book could have without violating any part of the Paladin's code... you could easily justify that it would be of more use to the cause in the paladin's hands smashing evil than being sold for food, clothing and blankets by the refugees), but the paladin decided he'd be making his god look bad if he, in his shiny full plate, looked more greedy than the guy in the gear of a common soldier who'd just done every bit as much to save these people and had been the first to jump at going to save their children from the slavers... so he'd felt compelled by my character's (honestly probably foolish) selflessness to give up the shiny powerful magic sword to match my PCs generosity.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1059601I have to amend my statement a little bit.  Chaotic Paladins I have a hard time understanding.  Paladins is a life of discipline and requires following a code as written, which goes against everything a Chaotic character stands for in their outlook to life.  So Chaotic Paladins are not something I can wrap my brain around.

Assuming, of course, you ascribe to the 3-5e Alignment descriptions.

True. Chaotic paladins can be weird. But then some have been playing them as chaotic anyhoo there is that.. ahem. Neutral can be another iffy one.

Some thoughts.

A Neutral Good Paladin is pretty much the exemplar paladin. Goodness with nothing restricting them.
A Chaotic Good Paladin might be the sort that helps people on a one to one basis. He or she might help orcs, villagers, kobolds, halflings, dragons, etc and judge people by their actions rather than what they are. Works best in settings where monsters can be good or bad, like O and BX D&D for example and probably 5e.
A Chaotic Neutral Paladin I see as being possibly very unpredictable in who they help or do not. They might save an orphan from slavery because they see potential in them, or kidt because, but not give a second thought to slavery in general. They follow whatever whim tickles their interest. Technically they ate helping people...
Chaotic Evil Paladins could be fallen paladins who have decided that violence and horror are the best way to get people to be good.

Just one way of looking at it.

Quote from: S'mon;1059695Playing one, it felt better than a Fighter, but not as good as a Barbarian, unless you know you only have one fight that day.

My main issue was that it was all about the spell slots, burning for damage, and felt boring to play, whereas I love playing the 5e Barbarian.

That was my commentary too during playtest. Making the paladins damage reliant on spell slots was weird. It could just as easily been done as level abilities or whatever. But they are relatively unchanged from the playtest. But such is.

Quote from: Chris24601;1059764So where does my fighter in a 2e game who managed to routinely guilt the party paladin (who was playing entirely in character for LG , I just managed to regularly outdo him in offers to help those in need because I had ZERO need for any gear of note*) through my PCs actions? Do they not count as Good?

It depends. From your description, if you're that steadfast in maintaining those ideals then, yes, you would be Good. And your class would shift to paladin. Well done! And, if the other player was being crap at it he would lose his status, too.

Now that said, there is a certain expectation that you acquire and use magical gear. If the other character was that easily shamed into giving a tool away that might have been destined for him, well, that says something about his character, too.

QuoteI don't think the idea that only a particular class can hold to the values of Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Mercy feels in any way true to my experiences, both in real life, in fiction and in past games.

Sorry to hear that, it does to me. That is what I hold paladins to; it's the whole point of the class. If you just want a warrior invested with divine might, the clerical seminary is right over there. If you want a fighter with a good heart, play a fighter with a good heart. For paladins, you do your best, we know you'll fail time to time, but you also persevere. The driving force for my retooling the class was my own impressions (paladins aren't part of a temple, certainly not in AD&D), and whining about paladins being Lawful Stupid and a pain to adventure with. That seemed so dumb to me. Paladins are awesome to have in a fight. Now, if you want to be murderous shits, they can cramp your style. But, if you need to infiltrate the necromancer's lair or topple the Orc Kindgom, they're the hero to have.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1059783It depends. From your description, if you're that steadfast in maintaining those ideals then, yes, you would be Good. And your class would shift to paladin. Well done! And, if the other player was being crap at it he would lose his status, too.

But what if I don't want to be of the Paladin class, I just want to hold to the values of Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Mercy? What if I'm a cleric, wizard or a rogue? Do I have to give up my class abilities in order to be temperate, enduring, just, prudent and merciful?

That's what I'm trying to get at.

Your setup is basically "You cannot hold to the values of Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Mercy unless you are also a Paladin."

That defies logic to me because you're trying to conflate a profession (weapon and armor training and channeling holy power) with the ability to hold to moral principles that do not require weapon and armor training, nor do they require channeling holy power, to follow.

Quote from: tenbones;1059747I think the Oaths are in the right place but they're poorly implemented because they're out of context with their patrons. Instead they disconnect that and make it only about their beliefs... which leads to all kinds of dumb rationalizations about why a LG Paladin can commit atrocities because of his Oath.

It's a silly mechanic to justify moral relativism which Paladins *shouldn't* be indulging in. It's ironic - I think Oaths would be cool for a Knight Archetype for Fighters. Paladins should be tied to their religions/deities/etc. and act accordingly.

Greetings!

Exactly, my friend! This particularly seemed very incisive to me:

"Instead they disconnect that and make it only about their beliefs... which leads to all kinds of dumb rationalizations about why a LG Paladin can commit atrocities because of his Oath. It's a silly mechanic to justify moral relativism which Paladins *shouldn't* be indulging in."
--Tenbones

Justifying moral relativism. That right there is what pisses me off the most about the *implications* which extend from the RAW for Paladins. You want to play a different alignment, so you can do whatever--fine, you may be a holy warrior of some kind for your god--but that doesn't make you a *PALADIN*. You know what I'm saying?

The Historical Roots of the Paladin--Charlemagne, Roland, Ogier the Dane, Arthur, Lancelot, Galahad, all of the knights of the Round Table; The valiant knights and Knight-Templars that marched to the other side of the world to defend Christendom from the Muslims--none of these men were known for their moral relativism. They stood for a particular code of honour, a strict way of life, and uncompromising in their demeanor, and unyielding in their faith. The new RAW go a long way to disconnect the *paladin* from all of this historical roots and inspiration. All, of course, as a lazy suck up of offering the glory, pride and prestige of the Paladin--to people that want to play moral relativists and get all the paladin's powers and goodies without being forced to embrace all of the strict religious and social standards from the historical sources which defined the traditional paladin.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Chris24601;1059787But what if I don't want to be of the Paladin class, I just want to hold to the values of Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Mercy? What if I'm a cleric, wizard or a rogue? Do I have to give up my class abilities in order to be temperate, enduring, just, prudent and merciful?

That's what I'm trying to get at.

Your setup is basically "You cannot hold to the values of Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Mercy unless you are also a Paladin."

That defies logic to me because you're trying to conflate a profession (weapon and armor training and channeling holy power) with the ability to hold to moral principles that do not require weapon and armor training, nor do they require channeling holy power, to follow.

Ah, pardon me, I misunderstood.

If a character is a paladin, they have been granted certain powers that enable as well as require certain behaviors. Certainly others can follow the five virtues, but paladins are exemplars of them in order to inspire those in others.

Furthermore, it's not a profession, it's a calling. You don't just decide to be a paladin. You need to have the qualities and inspiration to follow that path. (Yes, of course, if you want to play a paladin you can. This is the in-game point of view.) And, yes, they are the only class that has a direct connection to that higher power.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1059795Ah, pardon me, I misunderstood.

If a character is a paladin, they have been granted certain powers that enable as well as require certain behaviors. Certainly others can follow the five virtues, but paladins are exemplars of them in order to inspire those in others.

Furthermore, it's not a profession, it's a calling. You don't just decide to be a paladin. You need to have the qualities and inspiration to follow that path. (Yes, of course, if you want to play a paladin you can. This is the in-game point of view.) And, yes, they are the only class that has a direct connection to that higher power.

I guess my hangup in your description was that ONLY Paladins could be "Good" aligned (i.e. everyone else was limited to Law, Chaos, Introspective or Neutral). That seems off to me, since one doesn't need to have a direct connection to a higher power to champion that power's cause and live by its tenants.

In real world terms a religion is more than just the clergy, there's the laity. Many Catholic Monastic and Knightly orders (upon whom the Paladin is based) had Auxiliaries; groups of laity that existed specifically to take care of smaller matters so the brothers/sisters or knights could attend to more important matters of the faith. To say that the laity in those auxiliaries, many of whom made great sacrifices to support the cause, were not aligned with that cause would make no sense.

So to get to the nub of what I was trying to discern with my questions was... if only Paladins can have the Good alignment, what is the alignment of all the people who act just like Paladins (in the sense of embracing their virtues) and support their higher power even if they cannot access that power themselves (just as the Catholic laity cannot forgive sins nor perform the Mass as a priest can, but are still fully aligned with the same God in whose name their priest acts)?

Quote from: Chris24601;1059798I guess my hangup in your description was that ONLY Paladins could be "Good" aligned (i.e. everyone else was limited to Law, Chaos, Introspective or Neutral). That seems off to me, since one doesn't need to have a direct connection to a higher power to champion that power's cause and live by its tenants.

In real world terms a religion is more than just the clergy, there's the laity. Many Catholic Monastic and Knightly orders (upon whom the Paladin is based) had Auxiliaries; groups of laity that existed specifically to take care of smaller matters so the brothers/sisters or knights could attend to more important matters of the faith. To say that the laity in those auxiliaries, many of whom made great sacrifices to support the cause, were not aligned with that cause would make no sense.

So to get to the nub of what I was trying to discern with my questions was... if only Paladins can have the Good alignment, what is the alignment of all the people who act just like Paladins (in the sense of embracing their virtues) and support their higher power even if they cannot access that power themselves (just as the Catholic laity cannot forgive sins nor perform the Mass as a priest can, but are still fully aligned with the same God in whose name their priest acts)?

Greetings!

Perhaps Baron could have been more precise or expansive, but to my mind, he's totally correct, and you are as well, Chris, at the same time. What makes a Paladin is not just the alignment, though that is essential; but also being anointed and called to serve as a Paladin. It is both alignment, and special powers, together. As you noted in your commentary about about the Catholic laity--yes, they believe the same, have the same alignment, and embrace many of the exact same virtues. But, certainly from a historical point of view, they are not all paladins, because they are not all called to *be* paladins. You can have an old farmer, or a devout shepherd girl, that epitomizes the same values required of paladins. But they aren't paladins. One was called to serve their Lord as a Farmer, while the other is called to serve as a good shepherdgirl. And he, over there? That valiant knight is called to serve as a paladin. I hope that makes sense. Both of you are zeroing in on definite requirements that make a paladin though, but there are different callings for other members of the faithful.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Alignment was so much easier with BECMI.  Just lawful neutral chaotic, with no good, neutral, or evil.  It was easy to say paladin needed to be lawful when goodness could be subjective.  But then how could we separate the hierarchy of devils from seraphim?  Demons were the chaotic ones, but paladins and devils shared an alignment in BECMI.

The supernatural TV show did a fun job of showing that angel behavior could be not so very different from devil behavior.

The key to the 5e Paladin is in the Oath, not in the Alignment. However most often the Oath will only be viable for a narrow range of Alignment. The classic Paladin is the Oath of Devotion, and that one is going to be very hard to play if you're not LG. True, there are other Oaths that fit other Alignments, but the classic Paladin is still there and still bound by an Oath that's got teeth even when Alignment itself doesn't. Alignments can change fairly easily and without issues in 5e. If a character is following the Oath of Devotion as it is written (not some weird-ass creative interpretation of it), then the character will quickly become LG even if that isn't where they started--and this is important since Paladins now don't formally swear that Oath until 3rd level.

Quote from: S'mon;1059695Playing one, it felt better than a Fighter, but not as good as a Barbarian, unless you know you only have one fight that day.

My main issue was that it was all about the spell slots, burning for damage, and felt boring to play, whereas I love playing the 5e Barbarian.

5e barbarians are very fun I have to admit. I played a human sumo barb with an oversized hammer and a demon mask that caused madness effects, but allowed him to see in the dark. Good times.

*swimming in the yawning abyss, making a mouth fountain of its inky ichor*
:) "Come on in, the void is cozy and fine!" :)

I really liked how Companion D&D required you to make tenth level in Fighter before becoming a paladin.  Why should the militant orders accept some first level loser?  Not saying it's the only way to be, but it makes more sense than Clerics converting to Druidism at tenth level.

Quote from: Chris24601;1059798I guess my hangup in your description was that ONLY Paladins could be "Good" aligned (i.e. everyone else was limited to Law, Chaos, Introspective or Neutral). That seems off to me, since one doesn't need to have a direct connection to a higher power to champion that power's cause and live by its tenants.

In real world terms a religion is more than just the clergy, there's the laity. Many Catholic Monastic and Knightly orders (upon whom the Paladin is based) had Auxiliaries; groups of laity that existed specifically to take care of smaller matters so the brothers/sisters or knights could attend to more important matters of the faith. To say that the laity in those auxiliaries, many of whom made great sacrifices to support the cause, were not aligned with that cause would make no sense.

Remember, for me, in my campaign, alignment is not behavior but your connection to a metaphysical power.

So, this is a bit more detail than what I wanted to get into as most people usually aren't that interested in other people's campaigns. But, in short, The Ancient of Days is the Prime Mover. The Ancient ignited the Empyrians, the Radiant Obelisk of Law and the Churning Maelstrom of Chaos. Later, the Twelve Patrons (gods) scribed the Sublime Pattern of Insight. While there are other, lesser empyrians and thus alignments, the Big Four are Law, Chaos, Insight, and Neutrality. The Ancient of Days is too distant, ineffable, uncomprehensable for mortals to build a connection with. (c.f real faiths of Voudoun, Condomble; fictional Arch of Time from T. Covenant stories by Donaldson)

However, the Ancient of Days is able to inspire select mortals who have the potential to be more than what they could achieve on their own. Other classes are unable to utilize this inspiration as they have more direct ties to other empyrians that drown out the more subtle divine inspiration (magicians - Chaos, mystics - Insight, Eidonic sorcerers - Law). Only fighters and thieves, classes that have no intrinsic connection to a metaphysical power, could utilize this inspiration. But thieves disqualify themselves because they're, well, thieves. That's why if a paladin should fall they become fighters.

Okay, what about the laity? They tend not to be inspired- those that do usually become paladins. The Patrons are very present in the lives of the plainfolk, through miracles, clergy, and the social aspects of the temples. While many are certainly aware of the stories of the Ancient of Days, the Patrons come much more easily to mind.

QuoteSo to get to the nub of what I was trying to discern with my questions was... if only Paladins can have the Good alignment, what is the alignment of all the people who act just like Paladins (in the sense of embracing their virtues) and support their higher power even if they cannot access that power themselves (just as the Catholic laity cannot forgive sins nor perform the Mass as a priest can, but are still fully aligned with the same God in whose name their priest acts)?

Those folk who live the five virtues as well as they can, as well as a paladin does, could have any of the big four alignments, potentially. Lawful might emphasize Justice, the Chaotic looks to Mercy, the Neutral Prudence, perhaps. I would say that the Insightful's favorite might be Temperance. But, not Good. Mortals are just not able to make that connection on their own. They can't conceptualize the Ancient sufficiently to make that bridge; it has to come from the Ancient of Days. This is not to say that regular folk can't be "Good". Would it help to say the alignment really isn't "Good" as much as "Beatific"?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1059804The key to the 5e Paladin is in the Oath, not in the Alignment. However most often the Oath will only be viable for a narrow range of Alignment. The classic Paladin is the Oath of Devotion, and that one is going to be very hard to play if you're not LG. True, there are other Oaths that fit other Alignments, but the classic Paladin is still there and still bound by an Oath that's got teeth even when Alignment itself doesn't. Alignments can change fairly easily and without issues in 5e. If a character is following the Oath of Devotion as it is written (not some weird-ass creative interpretation of it), then the character will quickly become LG even if that isn't where they started--and this is important since Paladins now don't formally swear that Oath until 3rd level.

And this demands that I ask - Whose "Cause" does a Paladin serve more? His Oath itself? OR the Metaphysical Concept/Religion/God/Whatever that the Oath is MADE TO?

The problem here is the Oath is coming before whom/what the Oath is made to which presumably is granting the Paladin his nifty abilities. It has the compounded mistake of divorcing more roleplaying opportunities by, as you succinctly identified: forcing the Paladin to roleplay within a specific bandwidth of their Alignment. Both concepts are completely removed from the higher ideal which the Oath is being made to. In fact - by 5e standards, you don't even need to have them.

This is why I advocate for Gods, Creeds, and Ethos to define a larger spectrum to which Paladins adhere to. This is how you get the different examples of the Knights of the Round Table's Galahad and Lancelot's version of Paladinhood. It also completely opens you up to other types of Paladins for other causes diametrically different - and completely distinct of the Fighter.

And they're still Paladins. Strong in their Righteousness. Stalwart in their Faith. Deadly in their Conviction.

Why do you even need Alignment. Their adherence to their code and Gods/Creed via action defines them before that. Assuming they're going to stick to that creed, they will remain Paladins. That they happen to be good/evil/neutral - ultimately is irrelevant because they're doing as their Creed/Belief dictates. Presumeably as their God intends. If not? Well then they're actively choosing to not be a Paladin for that cause with the usual results.

This is not rocket science. This is also why Alignment is not a useful tool. It only causes arguments (and likely why people fall back to the OSR version of them.)

I think it's best to separate 5e the toolbox from 5e the New Forgotten Realms Setting. Insofar as the classes and races available define what goes on in the Realms, yes, it's pretty much a mess, and it doesn't cohere internally at all. In the new Realms, a Paladin starts off with the ability to Lay on Hands and gains the ability to Divine Smite because...uh...like...whatever, I guess. He can take whatever oath he wants at 3rd level regardless of what god he has served, or no god at all, or how he has lived his life. Note that he reaches 3rd level in the time it takes to kill nine orcs. That's right, folks, a 3rd-level character in 5e is simply someone who has slain nine orcs in his life.

As a toolbox, 5e is really wonderful. There's lots of stuff in there to draw your world and campaign out of. You don't have to have Warlocks or Great Old Ones or Tabaxi or Dragonborn at all. You don't have to allow irreligious clerics or paladins. You can give specific gods that correspond to each oath or domain. It's up to you.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1059902I think it's best to separate 5e the toolbox from 5e the New Forgotten Realms Setting. Insofar as the classes and races available define what goes on in the Realms, yes, it's pretty much a mess, and it doesn't cohere internally at all. In the new Realms, a Paladin starts off with the ability to Lay on Hands and gains the ability to Divine Smite because...uh...like...whatever, I guess. He can take whatever oath he wants at 3rd level regardless of what god he has served, or no god at all, or how he has lived his life. Note that he reaches 3rd level in the time it takes to kill nine orcs. That's right, folks, a 3rd-level character in 5e is simply someone who has slain nine orcs in his life.

As a toolbox, 5e is really wonderful. There's lots of stuff in there to draw your world and campaign out of. You don't have to have Warlocks or Great Old Ones or Tabaxi or Dragonborn at all. You don't have to allow irreligious clerics or paladins. You can give specific gods that correspond to each oath or domain. It's up to you.

Would you make it take longer to level up?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1059916Would you make it take longer to level up?

Yes. Absolutely. The part of the game where you and some companions are traveling on foot, besting grotesque humanoid tribes, and exploring caves lasts about 3-4 sessions in 5e. In Ye Olde D&D terms, Keep on the Borderlands is supposed to be for levels 1-3; in 5e there is enough XP in one orc cave to take a party of 4 well into 3rd level.

Quote from: tenbones;1059888And this demands that I ask - Whose "Cause" does a Paladin serve more? His Oath itself? OR the Metaphysical Concept/Religion/God/Whatever that the Oath is MADE TO?

From the way it is written, it appears the Paladin is intended to serve the ideals of the Oath, not the deity/religion/organization that likewise champions it (but those make great allies). Of course, in 5e, most Paladins have dumped their Int and their Wis is only likely to be around 12, so this isn't a question that most of them will ever bother to ponder in depth.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1059931From the way it is written, it appears the Paladin is intended to serve the ideals of the Oath, not the deity/religion/organization that likewise champions it (but those make great allies). Of course, in 5e, most Paladins have dumped their Int and their Wis is only likely to be around 12, so this isn't a question that most of them will ever bother to ponder in depth.

Greetings!

Good post, HappyDaze. I like that. It's got me thinking, on one hand, I think the institution of the "Oaths" like Tenbones also mentioned, is great flavor. But the actual *execution* of that, like you mention here, gets generally divorced and *disconnected* from both alignment, and Deity. This *disconnection* from both alignment and fervent service and identification with a Deity, in past editions, is a large part of what distinguished the paladin. I'm also reminded of Tenbones' earlier point about all of this window dressing is merely to open the door to players of paladins in the game being indulged in embracing whatever flavour of moral relativism, instead of strictly adhering to a demanding code, and an otherwise demanding spiritual and religious identity. I think a good deal of the paladin's identity gets lost in that process.

And yeah, you're disturbingly incisive: Most paladins in the game won't be aware of these distinctions, and from notably low intelligence and wisdom scores--will not even care about them, even if they are made aware of them.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

There is a lot of room to experiment with paladins in 5E.  There is also, as a necessary corollary, a lot of rope to hang yourself with.  Of course, which is which depends a lot on what you are trying to accomplish.

I wasn't particularly trying to emulate the classic paladin as such for my current campaign, though I wanted something within spitting distance of it.  I also thought the Oath of the Ancients and Oath of Vengeance were some of the more interesting options in the game.  They also happened to fit my selection of gods, which is a mix of pseudo Celtic and Norse.  So I've got the default Oath of Devotion as a "imperial civilization" thing associated with a couple of LG/NG gods, almost always human, with a few other assimilated races into the imperial culture--dwarf being the most common, but still rare.  Then Ancients is elder elves, those removed from the dominant imperial culture. I haven't completely forbidden it to other races, but no one has even asked, and I've included no NPC Ancients that aren't elves.  Then the Vengeance paladins is the "traditional" dwarven route.  (It's also the dark elf route, as they are allies of the traditional dwarves, but not necessarily a good mechanical fit, and no has wanted to go that route yet, either.)

Based on what has been said here, I doubt that the above would be very appealing to either Shark or Tenbones, as "paladins"--but they are certainly working well for me right now.  We've had three really interesting characters grow out of this arrangement so far.

Quote from: SHARK;1059934Greetings!

Good post, HappyDaze. I like that. It's got me thinking, on one hand, I think the institution of the "Oaths" like Tenbones also mentioned, is great flavor. But the actual *execution* of that, like you mention here, gets generally divorced and *disconnected* from both alignment, and Deity. This *disconnection* from both alignment and fervent service and identification with a Deity, in past editions, is a large part of what distinguished the paladin. I'm also reminded of Tenbones' earlier point about all of this window dressing is merely to open the door to players of paladins in the game being indulged in embracing whatever flavour of moral relativism, instead of strictly adhering to a demanding code, and an otherwise demanding spiritual and religious identity. I think a good deal of the paladin's identity gets lost in that process.

And yeah, you're disturbingly incisive: Most paladins in the game won't be aware of these distinctions, and from notably low intelligence and wisdom scores--will not even care about them, even if they are made aware of them.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The way I look at the Oaths and Alignment in 5e is this: the Oaths are what the Paladin serves, but the Alignment of the character colors how they serve it.

The same Oath could be taken a totally different direction by an LG Paladin as compared to an LE one.

So it opens the door to more flexibility in the roleplaying.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1059939The way I look at the Oaths and Alignment in 5e is this: the Oaths are what the Paladin serves, but the Alignment of the character colors how they serve it.

The same Oath could be taken a totally different direction by an LG Paladin as compared to an LE one.

So it opens the door to more flexibility in the roleplaying.

Looking at the Oath of Devotion:
Tenets of Devotions

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.

All of these work well for LG and can be made to work for NG and LN characters reasonably well. LE does fine with Honesty, Courage, and Duty but Compassion and Honor (at least in regards to treating others with fairness and doing good) are going to be a bit more tricky. Such characters could try to follow an Oath of Devotion, but they will find it conflicts with their Alignment tendencies (or their Alignment tendencies will start to shift towards LG). If the character values their LE nature more than the tenants of Devotion, they would be well served to consider another Oath, such as Vengeance or Conquest, instead.

Who you serve and how you serve can be in concord, it just requires manner being subset to cause.

This is all easy to me because In Nomine SJG. Your Superior serves a Word (a realist concept made manifest) for they come to embody that Word. You, the servitors, serve the Superior according to your resonance/aptitude/conception of how to navigate reality. If you further take Oaths or Geas, you further restrict your manner, so as to keep your being wholly imbued (attempting to avoid pain of doubt and temptation,).

In TSR D&D this imbuement is a fighter blessing contingent upon staying within benediction. Thus following their truths, through the manner of their life's calling (class,) by added effort through oath restrictions. That agonizing tension brings forth "mystical powers," like mental discipline brings visions to seers, or stress induces poltergeist activity.

Nowadays there is not much attachment to that thinking. All these words for classes are detached from cultural meaning. All that matters is slapping together all the power widgets to feel cool. Hence Sorcadins (sorceror & paladin) and Padlocks (paladin & warlorck). I blame skill-based systems. :p j/k (but am I? :eek: )

Quote from: Opaopajr;1059958Who you serve and how you serve can be in concord, it just requires manner being subset to cause.

This is all easy to me because In Nomine SJG. Your Superior serves a Word (a realist concept made manifest) for they come to embody that Word. You, the servitors, serve the Superior according to your resonance/aptitude/conception of how to navigate reality. If you further take Oaths or Geas, you further restrict your manner, so as to keep your being wholly imbued (attempting to avoid pain of doubt and temptation,).

In TSR D&D this imbuement is a fighter blessing contingent upon staying within benediction. Thus following their truths, through the manner of their life's calling (class,) by added effort through oath restrictions. That agonizing tension brings forth "mystical powers," like mental discipline brings visions to seers, or stress induces poltergeist activity.

Nowadays there is not much attachment to that thinking. All these words for classes are detached from cultural meaning. All that matters is slapping together all the power widgets to feel cool. Hence Sorcadins (sorceror & paladin) and Padlocks (paladin & warlorck). I blame skill-based systems. :p j/k (but am I? :eek: )

Greetings!

Hey Opaopajr! Indeed, Padlocks!!! LOL! My god, when the guy in our AL group said he took a level of Warlock for his paladin--my friend tells me later,

"Man, that bullshit wouldn't fly in your campaign, SHARK. That guy's paladin/warlock would have been burned at the stake for heresy!" LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

To be honest, I never much liked the Paladin.  It was the start of a change of the Cleric from "holy warrior-saint" to "priest", which I always found stupid.

Paladins should be Clerics. Or at least a sub-type of Cleric. Otherwise, Clerics shouldn't have bonuses to combat, they should just be religious spellcasters.

This is why in Dark Albion and Lion & Dragon, I don't have paladins, and regular priests aren't clerics. Regular priests can't perform miracles. Clerics can perform miracles and act as holy warriors/inquisitors.

Quote from: SHARK;1059974Greetings!

Hey Opaopajr! Indeed, Padlocks!!! LOL! My god, when the guy in our AL group said he took a level of Warlock for his paladin--my friend tells me later,

"Man, that bullshit wouldn't fly in your campaign, SHARK. That guy's paladin/warlock would have been burned at the stake for heresy!" LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hah, so you know I speak sooth! :D Told ya, culture shock. :) Come bring your beer & inner tube, the abyss is fine. We wait for the coming of the Auto-da-Fé... it'll probably come by Twitter in this Tin Age (or are we now at Bismuth? Talcum Age? :p ).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1060248To be honest, I never much liked the Paladin.  It was the start of a change of the Cleric from "holy warrior-saint" to "priest", which I always found stupid.

Paladins should be Clerics. Or at least a sub-type of Cleric. Otherwise, Clerics shouldn't have bonuses to combat, they should just be religious spellcasters.

This is why in Dark Albion and Lion & Dragon, I don't have paladins, and regular priests aren't clerics. Regular priests can't perform miracles. Clerics can perform miracles and act as holy warriors/inquisitors.

Straight up.

While I do quite enjoy the Oaths system in 5E, I do agree with Pundit that paladins shouldn't be a base class.

Having said that, a Oath of the Ancients paladin fits perfectly fluff-wise with levels of Fey Pact warlock. And an Oath of Vengeance paladin could easily make sense with levels of Fiend Pact warlock. Yeah, the concepts are more superhuman than the OSR crowd tends to prefer, but that's honestly been true of D&D since I started playing in the late cycles of 3.5.

Obviously there might be specific settings where paladins make sense, though I'd still say that in most of those sorts of settings you'd need to have priest be much more priestly and less warrior-y.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1060926Obviously there might be specific settings where paladins make sense, though I'd still say that in most of those sorts of settings you'd need to have priest be much more priestly and less warrior-y.

The Paladin is a heavily drifted class. They were originally the 'Parfait Gentil Knight' - Percival, Galahad, Roland (obviously). For some reason they swiftly turned into Knights Templar/Hospitaller type holy warriors, which then steps on the toes of the Cleric.

It's a bit like the Ranger; originally the defender of Humanity/Law's frontiers with monsters/Chaos, it turned into a Druid-adjacent Wilderninja.

I do think that 5e has re-broadened the archetypes such that you can play an original style Paladin or Ranger as well as the drifted sorts.

Quote from: S'mon;1060935The Paladin is a heavily drifted class. They were originally the 'Parfait Gentil Knight' - Percival, Galahad, Roland (obviously). For some reason they swiftly turned into Knights Templar/Hospitaller type holy warriors, which then steps on the toes of the Cleric.

It's a bit like the Ranger; originally the defender of Humanity/Law's frontiers with monsters/Chaos, it turned into a Druid-adjacent Wilderninja.

I do think that 5e has re-broadened the archetypes such that you can play an original style Paladin or Ranger as well as the drifted sorts.

... and welcome to the Freakshow D&D has become. It's all morphing along arbitrary lines that cleave closer and closer to the fringier pop-culture references that exist as a reflection of "older" versions of "Vanilla Fantasy".

Wilderninja... hahah perfect.

Quote from: tenbones;1061005... and welcome to the Freakshow D&D has become. It's all morphing along arbitrary lines that cleave closer and closer to the fringier pop-culture references that exist as a reflection of "older" versions of "Vanilla Fantasy".

Wilderninja... hahah perfect.

5e D&D has reached the point of being "self-referencing" and "shaped like itself." Decisions about its design were based largely on whether it "felt like D&D" rather than how well it could emulate a typical fantasy setting or whether a given rule was actually what would work best to resolve something.

It is no longer trying to emulate the broader scope of fantasy; just to emulate itself.

Quote from: S'monThe Paladin is a heavily drifted class. They were originally the 'Parfait Gentil Knight' - Percival, Galahad, Roland (obviously). For some reason they swiftly turned into Knights Templar/Hospitaller type holy warriors, which then steps on the toes of the Cleric.

It's a bit like the Ranger; originally the defender of Humanity/Law's frontiers with monsters/Chaos, it turned into a Druid-adjacent Wilderninja.

I do think that 5e has re-broadened the archetypes such that you can play an original style Paladin or Ranger as well as the drifted sorts.

Quote from: tenbones;1061005... and welcome to the Freakshow D&D has become. It's all morphing along arbitrary lines that cleave closer and closer to the fringier pop-culture references that exist as a reflection of "older" versions of "Vanilla Fantasy".

Wilderninja... hahah perfect.

I suspect you're talking about very different things. From the sound of it, I thought S'mon is talking about the change from Greyhawk (1975) to the original Player's Handbook (1978) - where they changed to give the paladin cleric spells and druid spells to the ranger. tenbones - I suspect you're talking about changes from 3rd edition or later (1999+).

Quote from: Chris24601;10610075e D&D has reached the point of being "self-referencing" and "shaped like itself." Decisions about its design were based largely on whether it "felt like D&D" rather than how well it could emulate a typical fantasy setting or whether a given rule was actually what would work best to resolve something.

It is no longer trying to emulate the broader scope of fantasy; just to emulate itself.

   I think it hit that point around 3rd Edition, myself, but I'm a cranky old man. :)

Quote from: S'mon;1060935The Paladin is a heavily drifted class. They were originally the 'Parfait Gentil Knight' - Percival, Galahad, Roland (obviously). For some reason they swiftly turned into Knights Templar/Hospitaller type holy warriors, which then steps on the toes of the Cleric.

  I don't know about 'swiftly'--that was always the archetype I saw in the paladin, and I don't think the core game really drifted from it until 4E. Now, I think you can identify the drift in the broader community with the "Plethora of Paladins" article (the anti-paladin, I've recently discovered, does have antecedents in medieval literature), but by that point, the cleric had pretty heavily drifted into 'Symbiotic Relativistic Henotheistic priest' as well.

  One of the reasons old school paladins don't mesh well with the newer vision of the game is that they come from a tradition where Good and Law are right and just, rather than the idea that moral forces must be held in some bizarre form of Balance.

Quote from: jhkim;1061008I suspect you're talking about very different things. From the sound of it, I thought S'mon is talking about the change from Greyhawk (1975) to the original Player's Handbook (1978) - where they changed to give the paladin cleric spells and druid spells to the ranger. tenbones - I suspect you're talking about changes from 3rd edition or later (1999+).

Ranger was fully Wilderninja only in 3.5 but had been heading that way.

Paladin as Knight Templar - only 100% in 4e but there are antecedents earlier. I think in 3e with the abolition of the CHA 17 requirement Paladin tended to move from exceptional individual to Order of Holy Knights. But even in 1e Forgotten Realms there is stuff like every Lord of Impiltur a Paladin, and member of the same knightly order. I know I was treating them as Knights Templar in 4e FR and in my Wilderlands, based on how Necromancer Games/Rob Conley had stuff like Mitra's Shieldhall in it.

If anything, 5e has gone from being Vanilla Fantasy to being "OMG SO RANDOM" Tumblr-fan cartoonish quasi-furryism. Take a look a the #DnD tag on twitter and it's full of genderfluid millennials doing doodles of their cutesy-poo half-tiefling half-genasi non-binary bard.

C'mon your Pundit your better than that. Yes the so called genderfluid millennials can be annoying. We do need new blood coming into the hobby to keep it going. So if 5E beings them in by the truckload it's a good thing not a bad thing imo.

If one is losing sleep and annoyed that's one hobby is popular enough thst it's bringing new members to the fold. Well I suggest one see a mental health care specialist.

Likewise, some settings require more than just bog-standard elves and dwarves, fighters, thieves, clerics and magic-users. If you're trying to be THE fantasy rpg then you're going to need options for those stranger things.

I think the biggest mistake in that regard to all those options though is trying to dump them all into the same setting at the same time. For example, creating a campaign based on the war between the empires of Arkosia (dragonborn) and Bael-Torath (humans who turned to infernalism when the war turned against them) it would make perfect sense to include dragonborn and tieflings alongside humans as playable races while elves, dwarves, etc. would be out of place.

Quote from: jhkim;1061008I suspect you're talking about very different things. From the sound of it, I thought S'mon is talking about the change from Greyhawk (1975) to the original Player's Handbook (1978) - where they changed to give the paladin cleric spells and druid spells to the ranger. tenbones - I suspect you're talking about changes from 3rd edition or later (1999+).

Yeah I think you're accurate.

I actually like the idea of a "holy warrior" being slightly more martial as an Order for some God vs. a Cleric that could also be martial - but less so and more of a miracle-worker. In 2e I tossed out the Cleric. I preferred 2e's Specialty Priests to give more distinction to the Gods and their portfolios as well as the Priests in which they invested their powers. This made the bog-standard Paladin even more distinct from the "Cleric" - since I didn't use them. This had the added effect of making them more playable.

3e watered it all down... and it only got worse from there.

Quote from: jhkimI suspect you're talking about very different things. From the sound of it, I thought S'mon is talking about the change from Greyhawk (1975) to the original Player's Handbook (1978) - where they changed to give the paladin cleric spells and druid spells to the ranger. tenbones - I suspect you're talking about changes from 3rd edition or later (1999+).

Quote from: tenbones;1061682Yeah I think you're accurate.

I actually like the idea of a "holy warrior" being slightly more martial as an Order for some God vs. a Cleric that could also be martial - but less so and more of a miracle-worker. In 2e I tossed out the Cleric. I preferred 2e's Specialty Priests to give more distinction to the Gods and their portfolios as well as the Priests in which they invested their powers. This made the bog-standard Paladin even more distinct from the "Cleric" - since I didn't use them. This had the added effect of making them more playable.

3e watered it all down... and it only got worse from there.

I've got a slightly different take on it. I generally prefer having relatively broad classes that represent a wide range of characters. So I'd say that the Fighter class should be able to represent Galahad, Lancelot, and other fighters. Conversely, I don't like special elite / snowflake classes that only rare PCs are capable of - like the 1e paladin or bard, or many 3e prestige classes. To me it feels a bit like having a "Spiderman" class or "Flash" class in a superhero game. The point of those characters is to be special, rather than a repeated archetype.

I might instead have something like a Templar class as an option of Fighter, but it would represent a member of a knightly order - rather than being a uniquely holy individual. There can still be very special devout and/or holy individuals, but not a class of them.  Based on this, I'm not wholly satisfied with either the 1e or 5e approaches.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1060248To be honest, I never much liked the Paladin.  It was the start of a change of the Cleric from "holy warrior-saint" to "priest", which I always found stupid.

Paladins should be Clerics. Or at least a sub-type of Cleric. Otherwise, Clerics shouldn't have bonuses to combat, they should just be religious spellcasters.

I also found it odd that clerics always get a lot of martial training. There's no clear way to get more of a cerebral priest as opposed to fighting type like Friar Tuck. I never used the 2e specialty priests, but maybe those were a more flexible way to handle it?

I've been seriously considering doing away with the cleric as a class and expanding the magician. It's a lot of work, but if you customize the spell lists for guild or temple and make a couple of other changes for learned vs granted magic, it seems like you can get the non-martial agent of the gods effectively. Then, the paladin becomes God's asskicker.

Quote from: jhkim;1061706There's no clear way to get more of a cerebral priest as opposed to fighting type like Friar Tuck. I

Which is entirely appropriate. "Cerebral priest" isn't an adventuring profession any more than "cerebral blacksmith" is.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1061785I've been seriously considering doing away with the cleric as a class and expanding the magician. It's a lot of work, but if you customize the spell lists for guild or temple and make a couple of other changes for learned vs granted magic, it seems like you can get the non-martial agent of the gods effectively. Then, the paladin becomes God's asskicker.

That's how they do it in Fantasy Craft. I don't know of any other specific game that does it like that where the Arcane casters do the healing. I'm sure they're out there.

Quote from: jhkimI've got a slightly different take on it. I generally prefer having relatively broad classes that represent a wide range of characters. So I'd say that the Fighter class should be able to represent Galahad, Lancelot, and other fighters. Conversely, I don't like special elite / snowflake classes that only rare PCs are capable of - like the 1e paladin or bard, or many 3e prestige classes. To me it feels a bit like having a "Spiderman" class or "Flash" class in a superhero game. The point of those characters is to be special, rather than a repeated archetype.

This is more of an OSR-kind of view. One that I think has its place in OSR style mechanics that tend to be a lot lighter than say 1e/2e. I'm totally fine with that. The real question (a perennial one around these parts) is "what is a class?". Galahad etc. *certainly* are portrayed at having the skills and martial acumen that people popularly ascribe to the "Fighter" (at least circa 2e and earlier). But there is this 'purity' thing that people ascribe to the concept of the Paladin - specifically the Knights of the Round that eventually was turned into "Holy" for obvious reasons. The mechanics of 1e/2e do encapsulate that.

The problem with broad classes, to me, comes when you try to add those things into context of a larger campaign world. This is not to say I can't run a campaign using OSR style rules, but it's the demand for granularity that makes the distinction between "Everyone is a Fighter" but my European-style Knights and their way of fighting is exactly the same as my Parthian Horsemen analogs who fight largely from horseback with an emphasis on bows - should matter. If you WANT it to mechanically matter the system should support that. To what degree... that's the rub, isn't it?

This is my issue with broad-class use in my kind of games. I want a little more fidelity to granular style and ways and means of doing something more than a broad umbrella that attempt to do one-size fits all. Which is probably why I'm not a particular fan of GMing OSR games (but I'd happily play one). I think 2e's Kits is/was an excellent way to split the difference. In act - it's probably the only way I'd go back to playing D&D or a D&D Heartbreaker.

Quote from: jhkimI might instead have something like a Templar class as an option of Fighter, but it would represent a member of a knightly order - rather than being a uniquely holy individual. There can still be very special devout and/or holy individuals, but not a class of them. Based on this, I'm not wholly satisfied with either the 1e or 5e approaches.

Yeah there's lots of ways to skin that cat. You can beef up Clerics to be more martial - sure that would work too. Or you could do Kit-based off of a primary class. Or you could go specialty class like in 2e for Priests. I think it makes perfect sense for only certain Gods to have military orders, for instance (but this is the snowflake class effect - so may not be your thing).

Quote from: tenbones;1061812The problem with broad classes, to me, comes when you try to add those things into context of a larger campaign world. This is not to say I can't run a campaign using OSR style rules, but it's the demand for granularity that makes the distinction between "Everyone is a Fighter" but my European-style Knights and their way of fighting is exactly the same as my Parthian Horsemen analogs who fight largely from horseback with an emphasis on bows - should matter. If you WANT it to mechanically matter the system should support that. To what degree... that's the rub, isn't it?

This is my issue with broad-class use in my kind of games. I want a little more fidelity to granular style and ways and means of doing something more than a broad umbrella that attempt to do one-size fits all. Which is probably why I'm not a particular fan of GMing OSR games (but I'd happily play one). I think 2e's Kits is/was an excellent way to split the difference. In act - it's probably the only way I'd go back to playing D&D or a D&D Heartbreaker.

I'm not an OSR person, myself. I started with D&D back as a pre-teen and I'm running D&D currently, but mostly I've played skill-based systems like Hero System, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, Amber, etc. I haven't used 2e's kits, but I've tried some other class-based options like True20.

Under the structure of 5e, a European-style knight and a Parthian horseman could in principle be handled as Fighters with different class options as well as different feats, skills, and proficiencies. To start with, one will have fighting style dueling vs. fighting style archery (a class option). Overall, there are a lot of ways to differentiate between two characters of the same class as compared to 1st edition AD&D.

Quote from: jhkimThere's no clear way to get more of a cerebral priest as opposed to fighting type like Friar Tuck.

Quote from: Zalman;1061806Which is entirely appropriate. "Cerebral priest" isn't an adventuring profession any more than "cerebral blacksmith" is.

I meant "cerebral" in the sense of a wizard being cerebral. A wizard is an adventurer, but they rely more on their magic and skills than on arms and armor. I think a lot of inspirations for a priest as a PC are less like Friar Tuck and more like saints and exorcists and such.

Quote from: tenbones;1061812Yeah there's lots of ways to skin that cat. You can beef up Clerics to be more martial - sure that would work too. Or you could do Kit-based off of a primary class. Or you could go specialty class like in 2e for Priests. I think it makes perfect sense for only certain Gods to have military orders, for instance (but this is the snowflake class effect - so may not be your thing).

   I was intrigued by HARP's "pick several skill categories as Favored appropriate to your deity or order--if you pick Combat, you're a Paladin" approach to the Cleric.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1061829I was intrigued by HARP's "pick several skill categories as Favored appropriate to your deity or order--if you pick Combat, you're a Paladin" approach to the Cleric.

That's exactly how I think it should be. A "Class" *IS* just a bunch of specific skills that exist as a conceit to a setting - for whatever reason makes them relevent. This is why as D&D has gotten further and further from some specific "setting assumption" we're seeing this bizarre bloat of non-contextual class-titles to represent things that have emerged from gaming vs. concepts rooted in myth and history and folklore.

And very little of it makes sense. HARP's method is just a very elegant way of doing. Would be fun to see D&D would evolve into that direction.

Quote from: jhkim;1061814Under the structure of 5e, a European-style knight and a Parthian horseman could in principle be handled as Fighters with different class options as well as different feats, skills, and proficiencies. To start with, one will have fighting style dueling vs. fighting style archery (a class option). Overall, there are a lot of ways to differentiate between two characters of the same class as compared to 1st edition AD&D.

The problem with this method is the relative weakness of Feats in relation to Class-Level progression. Having a "schtick" shouldn't mean being trapped by it. This is why the problem of the Mounted Cavalier on the Ship problem exists. In order to be effective at their "schtick" they're forced to hyper-specialize in it to the exclusion of other options that in the long run make you inferior or sub-optimal. There is a sweet spot that D&D misses.

I'm not advocating for hyper-optimization. I'm advocating for powerful flexibility. I don't think characters *are* schticks. D&D post 3e. have largely relegated characters to just that schtick - often hypenated with their class. That's Borg the Two-handed-Fighter. Or the Fimble the Nimble - he's a duel-wielding rapier/knife guy. And that's largely where they will stay put because the Feats are too granular and narrow.

I like the "Quigley Down Under" vibe - when he unloads with a pistol and kills everyone after using a rifle like a God throughout the movie. He says looking at his pistol - "I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it."

I'm not saying you CAN'T do it in 5e. I'm saying that 5e is so arbitrarily spread out that it's sub-systems overtake its core systems because they're not really balanced against one another. This is *exactly* why the Paladin and the Fighter feel "bleh". Or worse - that we can easily pigeon-hole one into two other classes and agree it works (then why have it other than having another sacred cow in the herd? We can park it next to the Druid cow.)

Quote from: jhkim;1061820I meant "cerebral" in the sense of a wizard being cerebral. A wizard is an adventurer, but they rely more on their magic and skills than on arms and armor. I think a lot of inspirations for a priest as a PC are less like Friar Tuck and more like saints and exorcists and such.

Agreed, it's not that being "cerebral" disqualifies someone from being an adventurer. My point is that the "cerebral adventurer" class already exists, and it is, as you say, the Wizard.

A "cerebral priest" is not an adventuring archetype in my psyche. An archetype? Sure. Adventurer? Nope. "Exorcists" fit just fine as clerics in the D&D canon. But a person has to do more than "be saintly" to be considered an adventurer to me.

Of course, that's not to say a character of any class can't be cerebral in personality.  But a class (and its powers) based on a cerebral archetype is a different animal.

Quote from: Zalman;1061851My point is that the "cerebral adventurer" class already exists, and it is, as you say, the Wizard.

A "cerebral priest" is not an adventuring archetype in my psyche. An archetype? Sure. Adventurer? Nope. "Exorcists" fit just fine as clerics in the D&D canon. But a person has to do more than "be saintly" to be considered an adventurer to me.

The cleric is odd because in its current form, it isn't an adventuring archetype in fantasy fiction outside of D&D. Most of the other classes have clear examples in fantasy fiction:

fighter -> Lancelot, Gimli, etc.
paladin -> Galahad
ranger -> Aragorn
wizard -> Gandalf, Merlin
barbarian -> Conan
monk -> Iron Monkey

But for cleric, it is hard to see. There is Friar Tuck, but he doesn't have any spells, which is a very significant difference. I think the main inspirations are religious figures like Saint Patrick, Moses, Father Merrin (The Exorcist), and such - but none of those were into heavy armor and weapons.

Quote from: jhkim;1061858But for cleric, it is hard to see. There is Friar Tuck, but he doesn't have any spells, which is a very significant difference. I think the main inspirations are religious figures like Saint Patrick, Moses, Father Merrin (The Exorcist), and such - but none of those were into heavy armor and weapons.

I'm pretty sure Gronan (Old Geezer) had said that the main inspiration was Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter with a smattering of saints so that somebody could be a foil for Sir Fang the vampire PC.

Quote from: jhkim;1061858The cleric is odd because in its current form, it isn't an adventuring archetype in fantasy fiction outside of D&D. Most of the other classes have clear examples in fantasy fiction:

fighter -> Lancelot, Gimli, etc.
paladin -> Galahad
ranger -> Aragorn
wizard -> Gandalf, Merlin
barbarian -> Conan
monk -> Iron Monkey

But for cleric, it is hard to see. There is Friar Tuck, but he doesn't have any spells, which is a very significant difference. I think the main inspirations are religious figures like Saint Patrick, Moses, Father Merrin (The Exorcist), and such - but none of those were into heavy armor and weapons.

Greetings!

I've always thought of the Archbishop Turpin, who fought by Roland's side against the Muslim hordes, defending Europe.

"Turpin - The archbishop Turpin, who fights and dies alongside Roland at Roncesvals, represents Christendom's turn towards militant activity at the time of the Crusades. The way he battles against the pagans reflects the views put forth in Pope Urban II's famous speech at the Council of Clermont in 1095, the direct inspiration for the First Crusade. He is a stout and valiant warrior--"[n]o tonsured priest who ever sang a mass/performed such feats of prowess with his body" (121.1606-1607). He is the last to die besides Roland; when he sees Roland faint, Turpin tenderly sets out for a stream to fetch some water for his dear comrade, but, mortally wounded, he falls down dead before reaching the water. Along with Olivier and Roland, he is taken by Charlemagne's men back to France for burial."

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/songofroland/characters/

I don't know why the image of a warrior-priest seems strange to so many. On all of the medieval literature and stories I read even when I was a kid--or such was read to me--valiant, warrior priests have always been present. The Arthurian tales, the Re-conquest of Spain, the Dark Ages of Europe, the Crusades--warrior priests are always around, fighting alongside the warriors and knights, and usually also serving as some kind of advisor to the hero of the story. Certainly, the "archetype" is not as prominent as the straight out Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, or Wizard--but at least to my mind, warrior priests and devout clerics of the Faith have always been there. Friar Tuck can also be added to the mix--though much of the story examples I remember where not added for comical relief--but were devout and righteous men of God, eager to help and serve in whatever way they could.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim;1061858The cleric is odd because in its current form, it isn't an adventuring archetype in fantasy fiction outside of D&D. Most of the other classes have clear examples in fantasy fiction:

fighter -> Lancelot, Gimli, etc.
paladin -> Galahad
ranger -> Aragorn
wizard -> Gandalf, Merlin
barbarian -> Conan
monk -> Iron Monkey

But for cleric, it is hard to see. There is Friar Tuck, but he doesn't have any spells, which is a very significant difference. I think the main inspirations are religious figures like Saint Patrick, Moses, Father Merrin (The Exorcist), and such - but none of those were into heavy armor and weapons. .

Elrond.

Seriously. He's a kick-ass fighter and probably the best healer in Middle Earth. Many of ME's elves seem more like clerics than the "fighter/MU" concept of old school D&D, both in the type of magic they do, and the way they get their magic.

(Note: I'm not claiming Elrond was the inspiration for the Cleric class. The prohibition against edged weapons isn't ME at all.)

Quote from: jhkim;1061814I'm not an OSR person, myself. I started with D&D back as a pre-teen and I'm running D&D currently, but mostly I've played skill-based systems like Hero System, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, Amber, etc. I haven't used 2e's kits, but I've tried some other class-based options like True20.

Under the structure of 5e, a European-style knight and a Parthian horseman could in principle be handled as Fighters with different class options as well as different feats, skills, and proficiencies. To start with, one will have fighting style dueling vs. fighting style archery (a class option). Overall, there are a lot of ways to differentiate between two characters of the same class as compared to 1st edition AD&D.

Seems like True 20 should work for this idea? If you want a ranger, pick warrior and add the "ranger" feats. For Barbarian, pick warrior and add the "barbarian" feats. If you want a Paladin, alternate warrior/adept 3 to 1. Etc.

Quote from: jhkim;1061858The cleric is odd because in its current form, it isn't an adventuring archetype in fantasy fiction outside of D&D. Most of the other classes have clear examples in fantasy fiction:

fighter -> Lancelot, Gimli, etc.
paladin -> Galahad
ranger -> Aragorn
wizard -> Gandalf, Merlin
barbarian -> Conan
monk -> Iron Monkey

But for cleric, it is hard to see. There is Friar Tuck, but he doesn't have any spells, which is a very significant difference. I think the main inspirations are religious figures like Saint Patrick, Moses, Father Merrin (The Exorcist), and such - but none of those were into heavy armor and weapons.

Conan was a Fighter, pure and simple.  He raged all of TWICE in his adventures.  That's it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1061913Conan was a Fighter, pure and simple.  He raged all of TWICE in his adventures.  That's it.

I'd say fighter/rogue would be best myself, but it could be done with fighter alone.

Quote from: jhkim;1061858The cleric is odd because in its current form, it isn't an adventuring archetype in fantasy fiction outside of D&D. Most of the other classes have clear examples in fantasy fiction:

fighter -> Lancelot, Gimli, etc.
paladin -> Galahad
ranger -> Aragorn
wizard -> Gandalf, Merlin
barbarian -> Conan
monk -> Iron Monkey

But for cleric, it is hard to see. There is Friar Tuck, but he doesn't have any spells, which is a very significant difference. I think the main inspirations are religious figures like Saint Patrick, Moses, Father Merrin (The Exorcist), and such - but none of those were into heavy armor and weapons.

Nah, Galahad is the Cleric. That's the whole point. The cleric wasn't "it's current form" until the Paladin came along and usurped what the Cleric was supposed to be in the first place. See also Templars, Joan of Arc, etc. As for the other examples, I'm not buying that heavy armor and weapons are the key difference -- plenty of archetypal Fighters also use neither.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061920I'd say fighter/rogue would be best myself, but it could be done with fighter alone.

The only reason AD&D made Conan a multi-class character is because the designer had no idea how to make a Fighter get a Climb 'skill', but he's never shown to have any other 'thief like' abilities as per the AD&D rules at the time.

Quote from: Zalman;1061958Nah, Galahad is the Cleric. That's the whole point. The cleric wasn't "it's current form" until the Paladin came along and usurped what the Cleric was supposed to be in the first place. See also Templars, Joan of Arc, etc. As for the other examples, I'm not buying that heavy armor and weapons are the key difference -- plenty of archetypal Fighters also use neither.

In AD&D 2e, the only reference to the Cleric was the Knights Templar, and all they did, was point out they used blunt weapons.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1061982The only reason AD&D made Conan a multi-class character is because the designer had no idea how to make a Fighter get a Climb 'skill', but he's never shown to have any other 'thief like' abilities as per the AD&D rules at the time.

Move Silently? Hide in Shadows? (Or, in modern terms, Stealth?)

In terms of niche, was the cleric ever on par with the fighter as a warrior past the first few levels? Seems to me the fighter has always pulled ahead in terms of raw pain-dishing ability. Even in 5e, certain clerics is midway between the fighter and other full casters in melee...they can wear heavy armor, use martial weapons, typically have lower STR than a fighter, and eventually get an extra 2d8 damage on their single attack. So it's not as good as any of the full martials, but a bit more able to handle themselves up front than a wizard.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061998Move Silently? Hide in Shadows? (Or, in modern terms, Stealth?)

True, fair point.  In 5e, I'd make him a pure fighter, but he also has some pretty obscenely high stats.  Nothing under 12 for example.

Quote from: jhkim;1061858The cleric is odd because in its current form, it isn't an adventuring archetype in fantasy fiction outside of D&D. Most of the other classes have clear examples in fantasy fiction:

fighter -> Lancelot, Gimli, etc.
paladin -> Galahad
ranger -> Aragorn
wizard -> Gandalf, Merlin
barbarian -> Conan
monk -> Iron Monkey

But for cleric, it is hard to see. There is Friar Tuck, but he doesn't have any spells, which is a very significant difference. I think the main inspirations are religious figures like Saint Patrick, Moses, Father Merrin (The Exorcist), and such - but none of those were into heavy armor and weapons.

I'd list Fafhrd for the barbarian as well, although also not inclined to rage; the raging part is probably from the Norse berserker (and berserkers were in the OD&D books). And Caine of Kung Fu would probably be the most direct inspiration for the monk in the mid 1970s. Roland is probably a more archetypal paladin.

The fictitious version of Bishop Turpin might be the inspiration for the D&D cleric. I'd also list Van Helsing (turning undead, and actually arranges several successful blood transfusions before blood typing was known - surely a clear sign of divine favor). I was told when I started playing D&D that the cleric followed the Knights Templar or similar religious combatants, and could use blunt weapons only to parallel vows not to shed blood, but I have no idea if that information was even accurate, or would have been old hat or surprising news to Gygax or Arneson.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062001In terms of niche, was the cleric ever on par with the fighter as a warrior past the first few levels? Seems to me the fighter has always pulled ahead in terms of raw pain-dishing ability. Even in 5e, certain clerics is midway between the fighter and other full casters in melee...they can wear heavy armor, use martial weapons, typically have lower STR than a fighter, and eventually get an extra 2d8 damage on their single attack. So it's not as good as any of the full martials, but a bit more able to handle themselves up front than a wizard.

Clearly they were intended to be in between fighters and magic-users from a game balance point of view: the MU got more and better spells, and the fighter got more and better combat (HP, weapons, attack rolls). But the cleric also had some specialized spells and abilities that the MU did not (healing and related, turning undead), and so was not just directly on the continuum between all combat and all magic.

It used to be that clerics were not that popular in D&D campaigns; this could have been because they're not best at magic or combat, or the lack of inspiring exemplars in familiar works, or their tendency to be primarily a support role. 5e clerics seem more popular; a full spell caster with fairly good combat potential, and they can heal with Healing Word and not give up more direct attacks. Or maybe the tendency of inspirational fantasy literature lists in fantasy role playing games to include ever increasing numbers of D&D inspired books has added the cleric to fantasy archetypes familiar to players.

For specific paladin inspiration it's certainly Ogier the Dane, as imagined in Three Hearts and Three Lions. The abilities match far far far far far better than any other source.

For Conan in 5ed it's easy to give him the right abilities as a pure 5ed fighter without even especially high stats. Just give him a high enough level and sink some of his ability score increases in to the prodigy feat for the right skills, but you should be able to get a good range with the bonus skill that variant humans get, pick up some good ones from his background and have plenty of flexibility with the number of ability score increases that fighters get.

Quote from: rawma;1062077It used to be that clerics were not that popular in D&D campaigns; this could have been because they're not best at magic or combat, or the lack of inspiring exemplars in familiar works, or their tendency to be primarily a support role. 5e clerics seem more popular; a full spell caster with fairly good combat potential, and they can heal with Healing Word and not give up more direct attacks. Or maybe the tendency of inspirational fantasy literature lists in fantasy role playing games to include ever increasing numbers of D&D inspired books has added the cleric to fantasy archetypes familiar to players.

The main thing with older D&D is clerics were actually terrible at combat. Maybe not OD&D (I don't know, never played it), but with all the widgets they kept adding, they became terrible. First of all, if I roll 18 high STR, I'm probably not choosing a cleric. So the fighter probably has +1 or +2 to attack & damage over the cleric. Then the fighter's THAC0 falls faster. Plus he also gets multiple attacks. If you're using the proficiency system, the difference is even more pronounced On top of that, if you find a +3 mace, it sure as heck isn't going to the cleric if the fighter has a +1 sword still, no sense wasting it on the religious nerd. But then, the casting is also pretty boring. You don't have a lot of slots, so it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly the party is best off if you prepare Cure [X] Wounds in each one, with maybe a bless or two thrown in.

5e gets around this by giving fighters extra attacks and a fighting style rather than a much larger to-hit, and with flexible casting. Preparing Cure Wounds in 5e doesn't mean your L1 slots become unavailable to other effects if it turns out those would be more useful. You don't have to decide before you've run into a single monster what you're going to need, and the ability to use any slot of any level for healing (IIRC, AD&D didn't have a 2nd-level cure spell) mitigates that some more.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062001In terms of niche, was the cleric ever on par with the fighter as a warrior past the first few levels? Seems to me the fighter has always pulled ahead in terms of raw pain-dishing ability. Even in 5e, certain clerics is midway between the fighter and other full casters in melee...they can wear heavy armor, use martial weapons, typically have lower STR than a fighter, and eventually get an extra 2d8 damage on their single attack. So it's not as good as any of the full martials, but a bit more able to handle themselves up front than a wizard.

2e Clerics with certain Kits or Specialty Priests could *almost* stand-and-bang with a Fighter. War-god Specialty priests typically got Warrior HP/Proficiencies, Str./Con. bonuses, plus some got Weapon of Choice and Multiple Attack progression. I know Tempus and Anhur priests got 2 attacks per round at 13th and of course all their spells.

Quote from: tenbones;10621892e Clerics with certain Kits or Specialty Priests could *almost* stand-and-bang with a Fighter. War-god Specialty priests typically got Warrior HP/Proficiencies, Str./Con. bonuses, plus some got Weapon of Choice and Multiple Attack progression. I know Tempus and Anhur priests got 2 attacks per round at 13th and of course all their spells.

Yes, but they were delayed for several levels compared to the single class Fighter's Weapon Specialization, and could not go beyond one specialized weapon. Solid optional material that never really stepped too hard on the fighter's toes. I liked the design that ended up, delayed limited oomph, as a nod to another class' expertise.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1062250Yes, but they were delayed for several levels compared to the single class Fighter's Weapon Specialization, and could not go beyond one specialized weapon. Solid optional material that never really stepped too hard on the fighter's toes. I liked the design that ended up, delayed limited oomph, as a nod to another class' expertise.

Agreed.

They got their 2 attacks per round at 13th as I recall. But the conceits of 2e definitely allowed them the "feel" of being more martial - but not *quite* Fighter level.

Combined with their spell-casting and other special abilities they were very formidable and useful tactically for a party. Don't really get these dynamics from Clerics post 2e. But it's not just because of the class, it's due to the changes in the core rules across respective editions.

Edit: I would argue that if you scratched off the name and called them Paladins I wouldn't bat an eye. I don't remember being too impressed with the Paladin offerings of 2e... but I could be mis-remembering.

It seems to me, by looking back thru the years, that other versions of the Paladin existed that didn't adhere to the LG requirement.

Plethora of Paladin in 1e
The anti-paladin
Dragon #310 - Divine Champions (different alignment Paladins)
Unearthed Arcana - Paladin of Freedom, Slaughter, Tyranny
4e Paladins had to have the same alignment as their deity
5e Paladins adhere to their Oath, which are largely alignment-agnostic

When 5e was being playtested, they rolled out the Paladin and Monk class together. They both had the lawful alignment required. People on the message boards at wotc basically warred with one another about it. Threads for and against alignment requirements raged. WotC put out a survey about what to do and from what I remember reading, the vast majority of people who took the survey did not want any sort of alignment requirements as hard-coded rules.

Thus WotC kept them from the game, second time in a row.

Divine Smite in 5e is pretty dope.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1062738Divine Smite in 5e is pretty dope.

100% agreed. After playing a 5e Paladin (human, Cha 17, and LG lol) I decided to revise the 3.5 Paladin version to be similar for when we venture back to 3e games.

Quote from: Batman;1062729It seems to me, by looking back thru the years, that other versions of the Paladin existed that didn't adhere to the LG requirement.

Plethora of Paladin in 1e
The anti-paladin
Dragon #310 - Divine Champions (different alignment Paladins)
Unearthed Arcana - Paladin of Freedom, Slaughter, Tyranny
4e Paladins had to have the same alignment as their deity
5e Paladins adhere to their Oath, which are largely alignment-agnostic

When 5e was being playtested, they rolled out the Paladin and Monk class together. They both had the lawful alignment required. People on the message boards at wotc basically warred with one another about it. Threads for and against alignment requirements raged. WotC put out a survey about what to do and from what I remember reading, the vast majority of people who took the survey did not want any sort of alignment requirements as hard-coded rules.

Thus WotC kept them from the game, second time in a row.

Greetings!

Indeed, there were isolated variations on Paladins, as I mentioned previously. The major difference was though, all such were *unofficial*--and entirely optional. In the Official rules--the Player's Handbook, required Paladins to be Human, 17 Charisma--and Lawful Good alignment.

Even up through 3X, Paladins were still Human, and as I recall, still Lawful Good in alignment, though the Charisma requirement was dropped. I think Dwarves and those Lizard men guys--from a novel, geesus--could also be Paladins. Even through 3X, the Paladin though with some slight variation, was still recognizably a Paladin.

I can't speak to 4E.

Now, here we are in 5E. "Paladins" can be *any* race, worship *any* deity, and embrace not Lawful Good alignment, nor even just restricted to some GOOD alignment--no, now in our enlightened age, Paladins can also be *any* alignment.

In my view, that is unfortunately watering down and essentially distorting the Paladin. In the Official rules. I find that to be unfortunate and grating on a historically based archetype. All of the other stuff now has simply made the "Paladin" a sticker that they slap onto some weird form of generic holy warrior that can be any alignment, of any race, and do whatever the hell they want.

Going back to the Official rules in 1E, the archetypal class of the Paladin, now, is barely recognizable.

As I mentioned earlier, fine, go ahead and have a Chaotic Evil Tiefling "Paladin". That's some kind of special holy warrior--whatever--but such a character is not a Paladin. Paladin has sadly just become a sticker now.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

That's one place Rolemaster's spell lists shine.  Want a paladin who's not lawful good?  Swap in another set of spell lists.  Perhaps, "Evil Channelling" and bang!  The skill costs work great for any generic holy warrior and the special abilities are instantly appropriate to the new alignment / patron.

Quote from: SHARK;1062748Greetings!

Indeed, there were isolated variations on Paladins, as I mentioned previously. The major difference was though, all such were *unofficial*--and entirely optional. In the Official rules--the Player's Handbook, required Paladins to be Human, 17 Charisma--and Lawful Good alignment.

Even up through 3X, Paladins were still Human, and as I recall, still Lawful Good in alignment, though the Charisma requirement was dropped. I think Dwarves and those Lizard men guys--from a novel, geesus--could also be Paladins. Even through 3X, the Paladin though with some slight variation, was still recognizably a Paladin.

Close, the 3e/3.5/PF versions all allow any race to become Paladins. In fact there were multiple options in supplements that encouraged different races to be Paladins. For example, in Races of the Wild elven paladins could use their smite with Ranged Weapons. To take it steps further away from the "Classic" sense, Paladins in 3e weren't required to follow or worship any deity as they derived their powers from their righteous devotion to Law and Goodness. Of course specific settings trumps this rule, such as the Forgotten Realms where all divine classes derive their powers from a deity.

As to the "Optional" part, that's pretty much anything on the table the DM deems fit. A game makes assumptions, sure, but each and every "option" is simply that, an option. The fact that it's pushed only in the PHB doesn't mean that other things aren't considered.

Quote from: SHARK;1062748I can't speak to 4E.

4E Paladins had to adhere to their chosen deity's alignment, though the PHB really pushed the Good or at the very least "Unaligned" deities in the Book. Evil gods were reserved for the DMG in that particular edition. Later 4E created two sub-classes of the Paladin- The Cavalier (which had to be Good or Lawful Good) and the Blackguard (Evil or Chaotic Evil).  

Quote from: SHARK;1062748Now, here we are in 5E. "Paladins" can be *any* race, worship *any* deity, and embrace not Lawful Good alignment, nor even just restricted to some GOOD alignment--no, now in our enlightened age, Paladins can also be *any* alignment.

A furthering of WotC's ideals on what the class is/should be for over a decade now. From this perspective, its simply following a very routine procedure though I can appreciate how it might look from the perspective of someone who's been out of the loop for some time.

Quote from: SHARK;1062748In my view, that is unfortunately watering down and essentially distorting the Paladin. In the Official rules. I find that to be unfortunate and grating on a historically based archetype. All of the other stuff now has simply made the "Paladin" a sticker that they slap onto some weird form of generic holy warrior that can be any alignment, of any race, and do whatever the hell they want.

Going back to the Official rules in 1E, the archetypal class of the Paladin, now, is barely recognizable.

See, here I'm going to disagree with you. I think that this is a prime and great example for the DM to stick to their core values and beliefs. If a DM, such as yourself, enjoys a Paladin class that 1) is difficult to achieve, 2) is restricted by race, and 3) requires a STRONG moral fiber then sticking to old ideals in your 5E games is paramount. In your games make Paladins require a 17 in Charisma. Make them Human only. Make it required that they be Lawful Good in alignment. I think this sort of conviction really helps mold a DM's world. The system is going to cater to a wider market, so let them and make the game you actually run your own.  

Quote from: SHARK;1062748As I mentioned earlier, fine, go ahead and have a Chaotic Evil Tiefling "Paladin". That's some kind of special holy warrior--whatever--but such a character is not a Paladin. Paladin has sadly just become a sticker now.

The Paladin has always been holy warrior. It never really embodied "historical" elements, though there was some classical renditions of writing and Authurian legends it played from. The Court of Charlemagne would never be able to even qualify for the Paladin class - what with the whole slaughtering of pagans who didn't confirm to Christendom and all.

Quote from: Batman;10627714E Paladins had to adhere to their chosen deity's alignment, though the PHB really pushed the Good or at the very least "Unaligned" deities in the Book. Evil gods were reserved for the DMG in that particular edition. Later 4E created two sub-classes of the Paladin- The Cavalier (which had to be Good or Lawful Good) and the Blackguard (Evil or Chaotic Evil).

Actually, one of the Cavalier virtue options (Valor as I recall) allowed you to be Unaligned (though Lawful Good or Good was also allowed for it). The Blackguard vices didn't actually require evil alignments (it was still in a book geared for heroes). The vice of Domination required Unaligned or Evil while the Vice of Fury could be any except Lawful Good (so yes, you could be a good aligned Blackguard of Fury... basically a wrathful destroyer of all those who prey upon the innocent).

Quote from: Chris24601;1062781Actually, one of the Cavalier virtue options (Valor as I recall) allowed you to be Unaligned (though Lawful Good or Good was also allowed for it). The Blackguard vices didn't actually require evil alignments (it was still in a book geared for heroes). The vice of Domination required Unaligned or Evil while the Vice of Fury could be any except Lawful Good (so yes, you could be a good aligned Blackguard of Fury... basically a wrathful destroyer of all those who prey upon the innocent).

I stand corrected. I didn't put much stock into those options honestly though the Cavalier is one of my favorite archetypes so I might have to look into it again when we do 4e again :D

Quote from: Batman;1062787I stand corrected. I didn't put much stock into those options honestly though the Cavalier is one of my favorite archetypes so I might have to look into it again when we do 4e again :D

Greetings!

I know the Cavalier has been often blasted and lamented, but I've always liked the Cavalier. Another old archetype thingy that I just love. The Cavalier could kind of go in different directions--and come from a sort of different direction--than the Paladin, role-playing wise. I have always viewed the Cavalier at their best, as being similar of course to a knight of the roundtable, and something of a peer to the Paladin. However, just as easily, the Cavalier could be in lots of different *things*, image-wise, campaign-wise, where perhaps a Paladin would feel out of place. In my mind, I'm thinking of say, a noble-minded Cavalier that is nonetheless a gritty warlike bastard from some forgotten village on the frontier. His peasants aren't sweet, pious church-goers. No, they're greedy, often lazy, and entirely part of the "unwashed masses"--and often being depraved, as well. Still, the rough Cavalier has to defend them, and always seek to defend his lands from savage marauders. The Cavalier can definitely be a very different sort of beast than a Paladin. The Cavalier is a great class.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

My thoughts as well, though it really varies depending on edition. For example I'm re-playing Baldur's Gate (2e) and the Cavalier is a Paladin Kit that drops missle weapons (but throwing axes are ok, lol) for some extra goodies.

3e the Cavalier is a PrC (not a good one) but all about horseback fighting which I felt was....meh. Basically I just consider the Knight 3.5 class as the "real" cavalier.

4e its back to the Paladin kit

5e it's back to a non-divine Martial Warrior.

Damn make up your mind WotC!!!

Quote from: Batman;1062810My thoughts as well, though it really varies depending on edition. For example I'm re-playing Baldur's Gate (2e) and the Cavalier is a Paladin Kit that drops missle weapons (but throwing axes are ok, lol) for some extra goodies.

3e the Cavalier is a PrC (not a good one) but all about horseback fighting which I felt was....meh. Basically I just consider the Knight 3.5 class as the "real" cavalier.

4e its back to the Paladin kit

5e it's back to a non-divine Martial Warrior.

Damn make up your mind WotC!!!

Greetings!

Yeah, damn straight! I also think the whole focus of the class being *mounted warfare* is very weak. Yeah, I know the whole original genesis of "knights" were actually just some ruthless bastards that had armour, swords--and a horse. And they were mean enough, and greedy enough, and possessive enough--to stomp the jelly out of each other or anyone that threatened *their* peasants, or their cows and stuff. That's how the centuries-later uber nobles of Europe even developed. Yeah, as an aside--think about it. All these kings and princes--every last one of them--were originally just a mounted barbarian with an attitude. That's where the "nobles" originally came from.

I'm inspired by, I think it was Clovis. Yeah, Clovis was a low-level barbarian *chieftain's son* for god's sake. He wasn't noble anything. He started out with what, maybe a dozen or two dozen other bastards that followed him around? LOL. He ended up *murdering* all three of his brothers, so HE would inherit his father's mantle of tribal leadership. Tough barbarian. Cool even. But damn, this guy was a ruthless son of a bitch, you know?

AND--it is from this barbarian's loins...many centuries later....that we get the perfumed Kings of France. Same thing with England, and all the rest. Yeah. Not really quite like the whole fairytale knight thing I know. LOL.

Anyways, yeah, back to what I was saying. The Cavalier. It's a great archetype, and *can* be a good class, in the game, but you as the DM have to kinda fuck with it to make it better. Why? Because game-wise, the whole mounted thing. Yes, they are mounted experts, but geesus, you know? Now, any Player that plays a Cavalier, or you the DM using a cool NPC to help the players maybe...yeah, since we spend 90% of our time in dungeons and crawling in sewers...your "mounted expertise" does what for us again? You know what I'm saying? That whole *gamist* mechanical chewing the Cavalier gets..while a nod towards history, mechanically screws them over, and doesn't really embrace what Cavaliers were really so badass for being. They were more like...25% Paladin, 75% badass Fighter. Different from your bog-standard "Fighter"--but also different from the game version or history-based Paladin, too. On more thought, you know what the problem is? They have repeatedly tried through the editions of the game to give the Cavalier Class *mechanical* differences, to distinguish them from the Paladin or a Fighter. But that isn't what distinguishes them, at least *historically.* What distinguishes the Cavalier has less to do with *mechanics* and their actual *historical* JOB--and far more to do simply with attitude and *Culture*. Does that make sense?

Of course, that shows you also how powerful things like attitude and *culture* can be, as that alone has formed in our minds this vision of what a Cavalier is. We know that Cavaliers are different from feudal militia, or mercenaries, or bandits, or gladiators, or even uber-trained professional soldiers like the Roman Legions. Cavaliers are different from all of those. And yet, we also know that Cavaliers don't quite fit our image and inspiration of the Arthurian Knights, though they do to some degree; but moreso they don't fit into Roland's Paladins, or the Knight Templars. The Paladin covers that quite well. So we know that Cavaliers aren't the same as a wide variety of warrior types, and they're not Paladins...they're different. But how do we express that difference in a game way that...also has some mechanical stuff?

I think making them non-stop mounted knights is kind of a mistake; it cripples them from a game point of view, and it's not entirely satisfying from a historical archetype point of view. I'm thinking that a Cavalier needs to be built essentially on a Fighter chassis; give him a few special mounted powers, a few extra uber weapon powers, and that's it in that area. What the Cavalier otherwise needs is some political and social skills. See, think also of Raymond De something or other. I forgot his name at the moment. This guy was a Norman knight, 12th century, just prior to or into the Crusade period. This guy was a nobody. But, he got a few dozen knight wannabes to follow him. What did this awesome fucker do?

In a few years, he had built one of the most powerful armies in all of Europe. He kicked the shit out of the Muslims, and took over all of Sicily for god's sake. Then he stomped on the Byzantines, and conquered southern Italy. He also chased down and killed pirates at sea. He then got an alliance going with THE POPE, and also some barbarian LOMBARDS. The fucker was imprisoned by some noble, he escaped. He was impoverished, and managed to get a huge fortune again, and come back a badass. I think before he was 30 years old, some Italian princess chick, known then as one of the hottest women around--she was super beautiful--and she was also fucking rich as hell. SHE decides to fall totally in love with Raymond or Bohemond. She marries him, and they have a bunch of kids together, crazy in love and devoted. Like they were both crazy fanatics about each other. He took her on some of his campaigns too, as an advisor. The other knights were often like, WTF? But wait...dayum, she's beautiful to look at! LOL. Raymond was a ruthless bastard, too. Like you wouldn't believe. He'd torture you if he needed too, as well. Like, getting *medieval* on your ass, you know? And yet, this knight--who became a Count I think--became known for his great wealth, his great diplomacy, awesome, ruthless skills in war--and an insane resourcefulness that would just fuck you over silly if you became his enemy.

Clearly, he wasn't a Paladin. Clearly, damn, this guy was a god of war, and was nothing like ordinary warriors. I like to think of him as being a Cavalier. :)

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Batman;1062771The Court of Charlemagne would never be able to even qualify for the Paladin class - what with the whole slaughtering of pagans who didn't confirm to Christendom and all.

Pretty sure Gygax's Paladin class would be A-ok with that.

Quote from: SHARK;1062828Yeah, damn straight! I also think the whole focus of the class being *mounted warfare* is very weak.

In this case, you might appreciate that the 5e Cavalier (which is a Fighter type, not a Paladin type) is based heavily on protecting others and only has a single minor ability tied to using mounts. It's a good option if you like the classic "high strength with heavy armor" type of Fighter over the new hotness of high-Dex Fighters.

I argued for the Paladin being Lawful.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1063813I argued for the Paladin being Lawful.

Greetings!

Hey Pundit! You did? That's awesome! It just really annoys me that the official rules allow you, as I've argued, to be any race, any alignment, and thus, act however you want. That is not what a Paladin is, you know? Hell, for a historical example, the Vikings had sacred, holy berserkers. They were elite, and highly motivated warriors, and entirely devoted to the Viking gods and spirituality--but does that mean that such Viking Holy warriors were *Paladins*? It's that absurdity *right there* that drives me nuts. Call these other holy warriors, of whatever race or alignment, "holy warriors" or whatever you'd want, but they aren't *paladins*. I like the historical archetype of the paladin. That seems to be the essential definition of the paladin--generally and primarily human, (some racial variation stipulated)--and of lawful and good alignment. Not Neutral. Not Chaotic Evil. Lawful Evil, etc etc. All of that just waters down and bastardizes the iconic archetype of the paladin and distorts the class into some morally relativistic mess of jello to make the snowflakes happy. LOL

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It was never about the alignment or trying to bypass it for getting cool powers for little gain. It's how vague and undefined alignment was. With players running the class as Lawful Stupid and ruining for everyone else. Or tried to play the Paladin like Judge Dredd or Dirty Harry with sword and shield. Coupled with dick DMs either forcing the player to endure a table of " mother may I" ? Or screwed over the player  simply because they hate the class or try to add modern morality to a fantasy rpg where it has no place belonging imo. If what I heard on another forum is true a player was not allowed to kill a evil character who pretended to surrender than tried one last attack to take out the party. Due to the DM tossing in "well you can't the Geneva convention" or some kind of fantasy bullshit equivalent and making the Paladin fall.

It was almost impossible to roll the class with 3D6 due ti stupidly high absurd attribute requirements. It is the only class that really seems to cause the most issues at tables imo. One can play with LG only alignments at one table. I don't see the issue of removing LG as a alignment. Unless their is a gun held at your table it is a non-issue.

As for what constitutes a Paladin at my table it's whatever the hell I want it to be if I'm the DM. Accept it and move on. If you can't take the door and go home is the way I handle it. We make huge issues out of the smallest thing in a rpg instead of actually talking about mechanics that cause real issues.

I'm still not seeing why racial restrictions--usually "human only" or something very close to it--on the paladin are a desired feature. Is this just because that was how it was originally done, or it there a good reason for carrying forward a (now very) dated decision?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1063911I'm still not seeing why racial restrictions--usually "human only" or something very close to it--on the paladin are a desired feature. Is this just because that was how it was originally done, or it there a good reason for carrying forward a (now very) dated decision?

I think the original line of thinking was that paladins come from European legend as opposed to Tolkien. Since European legend didn't have demi-humans, therefore paladins could only be human. That is inconsistent, though, since clerics are also non-Tolkien but demi-humans can be clerics.

From a world-building perspective, it doesn't make much sense to me - given a setting without Christianity. If the cosmology is polytheistic with many different good deities, why are only humans and only lawful good singled out for this?

Paladins are magical (so no dwarves), heroic and brave (so not gnomes), and shining exemplars/defenders of lawful, orderly civilization (so not elves). The way the class and the races are described in the early books, they just don't fit at all with anything except humans.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063941Paladins are magical (so no dwarves), heroic and brave (so not gnomes), and shining exemplars/defenders of lawful, orderly civilization (so not elves). The way the class and the races are described in the early books, they just don't fit at all with anything except humans.

Greetings!

EXACTLY, FEARSOMEPIRATE! That's precisely what I've been trying to get at.:) LOL. Thank you for reaching into my mind and organizing my thoughts and expressing them so wonderfully! Outstanding, my friend.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063941Paladins are magical (so no dwarves), heroic and brave (so not gnomes), and shining exemplars/defenders of lawful, orderly civilization (so not elves). The way the class and the races are described in the early books, they just don't fit at all with anything except humans.

I'll buy that elves are described as tending to be chaotic - but that's just a tendency. There are lawful elves and chaotic humans. An elf can absolutely be a shining exemplar of lawful orderly civilization.

The others don't make any sense to me. Dwarves can be clerics, which is exactly the sort of magic that paladins use. And I see nothing in the material about gnomes being cowardly compared to humans. In AD&D1, they are noted as being particularly skilled in fighting against much larger creatures (gnolls, bugbears, ogres, trolls, ogre magi, giants, and/or titans) - which signifies bravery.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063941Paladins are magical (so no dwarves), heroic and brave (so not gnomes), and shining exemplars/defenders of lawful, orderly civilization (so not elves). The way the class and the races are described in the early books, they just don't fit at all with anything except humans.

Agreed.

Plus, early D&D, up through 1e, was explicitly humanocentric. The human-only limit on paladins is part and parcel of that humanocentricity.

Quote from: jhkim;1063950I'll buy that elves are described as tending to be chaotic - but that's just a tendency. There are lawful elves and chaotic humans. An elf can absolutely be a shining exemplar of lawful orderly civilization.

AD&D elves are described as nature loving folk who seem both aloof and frivolous to humans, almost drifting out of the world when they get old. Valiant defenders of the world of cities, farms, mines, and ports they are not. Certainly an elf would not care to build a small keep within riding distance of the farms surrounding Hochoch so he can teach the commoners virtue and discipline.

QuoteThe others don't make any sense to me. Dwarves can be clerics, which is exactly the sort of magic that paladins use.

Not in 0e (where Paladins were introduced), and only as NPCs in 1e.

QuoteAnd I see nothing in the material about gnomes being cowardly compared to humans.

They're described as furtive and shy IIRC.

A paladin as originally conceived is not merely brave, lawful, good, and blessed by the gods. He is the heroic defender, guardian, and enforcer of law and goodness in the world of Man. He is as much responsible for striking down the evil that threatens Man from within as from without. You've got to keep in mind that in the original concept of D&D, demihuman races are on the wane in a world that increasingly belongs to Man.

Now, I agree that if you stray away from that concept, the Paladin as human-only makes less sense. Particularly in the Mos Eisley Cantina world of the modern Forgotten Realms, there really is no reason at all the Paladin should be human. If you don't want to run a World of Man with demihumans on the boundaries, the race/class restrictions in 1e and earlier feel arbitrary. But in the 1e World of Greyhawk, there is no reason to expect to ever find anything but a human paladin. The most heroic elven warrior in all of the Grandwood Forest is still not a paladin. He's not going to ride out to serve as a shining exemplar of morality and virtue to all the people of the realm. It's just not what elves do. Or gnomes. Or dwarves.

Now IMO, in 40 years, D&D has very much relaxed the implicit setting assumptions of the original game. I think this is fine, and I don't mind at all that they still call the Magic Holy Warrior class a "Paladin." I am simply explaining why it makes sense in the original game's concept that a Paladin was a human only.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956Now IMO, in 40 years, D&D has very much relaxed the implicit setting assumptions of the original game. I think this is fine, and I don't mind at all that they still call the Magic Holy Warrior class a "Paladin." I am simply explaining why it makes sense in the original game's concept that a Paladin was a human only.

I haven't played for 40 years, but I have played for more than 30, and I never really bought into the World of Man style you speak of, so even if that was the intent of the original writers, I've always gone at it a bit differently. That said, I still find the newest extremes of races to be a bit much, but I accept that I'm just getting old.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1064029I haven't played for 40 years, but I have played for more than 30, and I never really bought into the World of Man style you speak of, so even if that was the intent of the original writers, I've always gone at it a bit differently. That said, I still find the newest extremes of races to be a bit much, but I accept that I'm just getting old.

It seems like people began diverging from the original conceits very quickly, in large part because the rules themselves overtly encouraged you to build your own world instead of playing in Gygax's (so why do I have to have only one platinum dragon, anyway?). They also demanded hobbits.

Short form - I still think the human-only restriction in 1e AD&D is a meta-game conceit because paladins are European legend rather than fantasy, and it doesn't have good in-game justification.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956A paladin as originally conceived is not merely brave, lawful, good, and blessed by the gods. He is the heroic defender, guardian, and enforcer of law and goodness in the world of Man. He is as much responsible for striking down the evil that threatens Man from within as from without. You've got to keep in mind that in the original concept of D&D, demihuman races are on the wane in a world that increasingly belongs to Man.

Now, I agree that if you stray away from that concept, the Paladin as human-only makes less sense.

Even within this sense, I don't see why paladin as human-only makes sense. Even if I accept that dwarves are on the wane and the world increasingly belongs to Man... why does that mean there shouldn't be a dwarf paladin who strikes down evil and enforces law and goodness wherever they go? You specify here that paladins work within the world of Man and defend Man. Do you think human paladins refuse to defend good dwarves who are threatened by evil? I don't think so. Paladins aren't just restricted to the world of Man and refuse to defend the waning races - they will defend humans, dwarves, gnomes, elves, halflings, and whoever against evil. They should serve as exemplars and defenders to people of all races.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956But in the 1e World of Greyhawk, there is no reason to expect to ever find anything but a human paladin. The most heroic elven warrior in all of the Grandwood Forest is still not a paladin. He's not going to ride out to serve as a shining exemplar of morality and virtue to all the people of the realm. It's just not what elves do. Or gnomes. Or dwarves.

I don't see any justification for this in the material. In 1e Greyhawk, there is less mixing of the races than in some later settings. So there are more human-only communities and dwarf-only communities and so forth. Humans on average don't go out and defend dwarves, and dwarves on average don't go out and defend humans.

But paladins are the exception. They will go out and defend all people, and serve as an exemplar to all.

Quote from: jhkimThe others don't make any sense to me. Dwarves can be clerics, which is exactly the sort of magic that paladins use.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956Not in 0e (where Paladins were introduced), and only as NPCs in 1e.

So in AD&D, dwarves can be clerics. Also, note that in the Monster Manual, dwarves have plenty of fighter/clerics in their communities. The NPC-only rule doesn't say that there aren't dwarf clerics - just that metagame you're not supposed to play them. If it was being consistent, then there could also be NPC-only dwarf paladins.

Quote from: jhkimAnd I see nothing in the material about gnomes being cowardly compared to humans.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956They're described as furtive and shy IIRC.

I just double-checked, and I see nothing in the 1e Player's Handbook or Monster Manual to indicate that gnomes are furtive or shy. You might be thinking of halflings, where it is implied by their sneakiness.

Quote from: jhkim;1064044Even within this sense, I don't see why paladin as human-only makes sense. Even if I accept that dwarves are on the wane and the world increasingly belongs to Man... why does that mean there shouldn't be a dwarf paladin who strikes down evil and enforces law and goodness wherever they go? ...So in AD&D, dwarves can be clerics. Also, note that in the Monster Manual, dwarves have plenty of fighter/clerics in their communities. The NPC-only rule doesn't say that there aren't dwarf clerics - just that metagame you're not supposed to play them. If it was being consistent, then there could also be NPC-only dwarf paladins.

This would be a lawful good fighter, not a a paladin.

In particular, dwarves do not particularly get along with non-dwarves. This is expressed mechanically by their CHA being capped at 16, and reduced to 8 for the purposes of recruiting non-dwarves as henchmen. A paladin is not just a great warrior, but an inspiration to all around him. That is why his min CHA is 17. A paladin can recruit at least ten henchmen to follow him, and they are fanatically loyal to him. No dwarf can command this kind of loyalty and devotion from those outside his race.  Furthermore, paladins are moderately ascetic, eschewing gold and jewels beyond what they need to keep their modest keep staffed and their henchmen supplied. This is not a dwarven trait. It is unlikely for a skilled miner to be uninterested in minerals!

The cleric thing should be a clue. Sure, dwarven clerics exist, but unlike human clerics, they are never adventurers.

QuoteDo you think human paladins refuse to defend good dwarves who are threatened by evil? I don't think so.

Indeed, and that's why they can only be humans. Dwarves have massive CHA penalties for interacting with humans. Elves and gnomes cannot ever become 9th level fighters, the level at which you gain a keep and the paladin gains the ability to cast cleric spells. They are practically forced to be more nomadic and reclusive by their level caps. A gnome who establishes himself permanently among humans can only be a thief. An elf can only be a thief or a wizard (and wizard towers tend to be reclusive). So I think that says a lot about what Gygax intended for the role of those races to be in the world.

On gnomes, from the 1e PHB:

"A gnome's preferred habitation is an area of rolling, rocky hills, well-wooded and uninhabited by humans." So "furtive" might be overstating it. But paladins don't prefer to live far away from humans. A paladin might recruit 10 gnomish henchmen and build a small keep in gnome territory, but a gnome would never, ever do the reverse. In fact, gnome fighters are capped at 7th level.

QuoteBut paladins are the exception. They will go out and defend all people, and serve as an exemplar to all.

Indeed...and apparently, in AD&D, only humans will ever do that. Perhaps the Paladin is what it is not just because Paladins are special, but because humans are. Which isn't very PC. ;)

OK, I forgot that AD&D1 dwarves have max Charisma of 16. I'll buy that makes them ineligible for paladins simply because of that on a race-neutral basis. However, I don't buy your level limit arguments.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1064055Elves and gnomes cannot ever become 9th level fighters, the level at which you gain a keep and the paladin gains the ability to cast cleric spells. They are practically forced to be more nomadic and reclusive by their level caps. A gnome who establishes himself permanently among humans can only be a thief. An elf can only be a thief or a wizard (and wizard towers tend to be reclusive). So I think that says a lot about what Gygax intended for the role of those races to be in the world.

That makes no sense. You're saying that anyone who doesn't have their own keep and followers is nomadic and reclusive? By your logic, a gnome can't establish himself permanently even among gnomes. Further, wouldn't that mean that paladins are always nomadic and reclusive, since they don't get a keep or men-at-arms? You agreed earlier that paladins would defend all good races - so that means that there should be paladins among humans as well as paladins among gnomes, elves, dwarves, and others - regardless of their race.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1064055On gnomes, from the 1e PHB:

"A gnome's preferred habitation is an area of rolling, rocky hills, well-wooded and uninhabited by humans." So "furtive" might be overstating it. But paladins don't prefer to live far away from humans. A paladin might recruit 10 gnomish henchmen and build a small keep in gnome territory, but a gnome would never, ever do the reverse. In fact, gnome fighters are capped at 7th level.

Unlike fighters, paladins aren't required to establish keeps, and don't attract men-at-arms. Further, I disagree that a human paladin is any more well-established towards gnomes than the reverse in AD&D1. By the racial preference table, gnomes and humans have equal attitudes towards each other - neutral with some suspicion. The humans don't have a description saying they prefer to live away from gnomes, but that's just because humans don't have a description. In fact, by the racial preferences table, gnomes get along better with all races better than humans - except half-orcs. A gnome is more likely to go out and defend dwarves, elves, and halflings than a human is. And the gnome is just as likely to go and defend a human as a human is likely to go out and defend a gnome.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1063956Not in 0e (where Paladins were introduced), and only as NPCs in 1e.

Perhaps I'm remembering house rules and not the actual rules, but I'm pretty sure that Supplement 1, Greyhawk, said that any fighter who was lawful (no two dimensional alignment system then) with a Charisma of at least 17 could be a paladin. Am I wrong? (The discussion was confusing until I understood that "originally" can apparently mean AD&D 1e.)

There would still be a level limit, but not every human paladin made it to 4th level and they were still paladins.

(We did have house rules to raise level limits by heroic quests, which ironically led to more heroic demi-humans and less heroic humans.)

Quote from: Batman;1062771The Paladin has always been holy warrior. It never really embodied "historical" elements, though there was some classical renditions of writing and Authurian legends it played from. The Court of Charlemagne would never be able to even qualify for the Paladin class - what with the whole slaughtering of pagans who didn't confirm to Christendom and all.

I don't recall any prohibition on that in the 1e PHB. You could play a Paladin as a ruthless, pagan slaughtering SOB if you wanted to.

From the discussion of the 5e "Paladin" it sounds like one more reason why 5e probably ins't the game for me.

Quote from: rawma;1064210Perhaps I'm remembering house rules and not the actual rules, but I'm pretty sure that Supplement 1, Greyhawk, said that any fighter who was lawful (no two dimensional alignment system then) with a Charisma of at least 17 could be a paladin. Am I wrong? (The discussion was confusing until I understood that "originally" can apparently mean AD&D 1e.)

There would still be a level limit, but not every human paladin made it to 4th level and they were still paladins.

(We did have house rules to raise level limits by heroic quests, which ironically led to more heroic demi-humans and less heroic humans.)

Fearsome is wrong and your memory is correct.

To wit From Greyhawk Supplement I page 8

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3020[/ATTACH]

The writeup on Dwarves from Men & Magic Book 1

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3021[/ATTACH]

One could argue that "Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class" precludes them from being paladins. Except that Greyhawk makes a deal out of calling paladins a status while at the same time introducing thief as a class. Indicating that Paladin is a possible benefit of a fighting who is Lawful from the start and has a 17 or higher charisma.

For that matter Elves or Halflings could be Paladins as well, neither have a cap on Charisma and both can progress as Fighting Men.

Now by the time AD&D it became obvious that Gygax and company were aghast at some of the variants and types of campaign being run. For example following was written by Tim Kask as part of the intro to Deities, Demi-Gods, and Heroes.

QuoteThis volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the "Monty Hall" DM's. Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?

And likely non-human paladins was one of the things that Gygax and Kask considered as being done "wrong" as in AD&D the requirement for Paladins were tightened up. Likely because the primary source material for the paladin was Holger Carlson from Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lion (good book, I've read it) and the Charlemagne and Arthurian Mythos. All exceedingly humancentric in their conception of the warrior for good.

And likely this all happened in a 5 minute conversation causing Gygax making a note of it and found it way into the rough draft of AD&D.

Keep in mind that among other considerations for writing AD&D (like being a second bite at the same apple, standardizing D&D for conventions, cutting Arneson out of a version of D&D) was to tighten things to stem the flood of questions they were receive. Among them was undoubtedly can dwarves be paladins.

All of this only pertains to why things are the way they are. What one does with their own campaign is up to them. From personal experience it is not a big deal whether one considers paladins a human things or a holy warrior that any race can take. Nor it not a big deal if you decide that other alignments have paladin like holy warrior as well.

Circa 1984, I introduced the Myrmidon, a Lawful Evil Paladin for the God Set. I personally thought the idea of a CE Paladin to be ludicrous. By it very nature Chaotic Evil doesn't have their shit together enough to have any kind of holy warrior "class". Far more likely is a random mish mash of demonic abilities infused into a individual.

However Lawful Evil is a different story, and thus born the Myrmidon as the true opposite of a Paladin. It worked and persisted because of the nature of my Majestic Wilderlands which featured Set vs. Mitra as one of the central conflicts of the setting. In another setting it may not work as well.

So the question about the nature of the paladin is best answered by considering not what is a paladin? But what is a paladin in that setting?

It certainly makes sense to me that Paladins should only be human, they seem like a very human conception. Of course, in 5e that was never going to happen.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1064819It certainly makes sense to me that Paladins should only be human, they seem like a very human conception. Of course, in 5e that was never going to happen.

Everything we see in RPGs are human conceptions. Non-humans that are very much like humans with various traits heightened and others diminished are human conceptions too. Merging those conceptions only creates an issue if you desire for there to be an issue.

Quote from: estar;1064373Fearsome is wrong and your memory is correct.

To wit From Greyhawk Supplement I page 8
One could argue that "Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class" precludes them from being paladins. Except that Greyhawk makes a deal out of calling paladins a status while at the same time introducing thief as a class. Indicating that Paladin is a possible benefit of a fighting who is Lawful from the start and has a 17 or higher charisma.

For that matter Elves or Halflings could be Paladins as well, neither have a cap on Charisma and both can progress as Fighting Men.

  If memory serves, Sage Advice once cited this ambiguity as part of the reason that Dragonlance allowed Silvanesti elves and Hylar dwarves to be paladins in DRAGONLANCE Adventures. Dragonlance's pantheon, and several other things, have OD&D roots rather than being 'made up' for the AD&D version of the game.

Isn't part of the disagreement between those that view classes as (mostly) mechanical widgets, versus those that view classes as vehicles to portray archetypes?

I'm in the first group.  I don't have a problem with 5E elven "paladins of the ancients" who worship particularly gods in my current setting, because for me, class/culture/gods builds a particular, new archetype for that setting.  Then the "imperial humans" that worship other gods pick the more traditional paladin route, and thus embody that archetype.  "Paladin" for me is not even an in-game concept necessarily, though for convenience we aren't strict about it.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1064876Everything we see in RPGs are human conceptions. Non-humans that are very much like humans with various traits heightened and others diminished are human conceptions too.

Well, in one sense this is certainly true. I'm so glad to see you agree with me!

[video=youtube_share;RwvqXDdIeeM]https://youtu.be/RwvqXDdIeeM[/youtube]

Quote from: DavetheLost;1064298I don't recall any prohibition on that in the 1e PHB. You could play a Paladin as a ruthless, pagan slaughtering SOB if you wanted to.

Hmm, my 1e PHB says this "Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seeka high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and
do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform on evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood
immediately and irrevocably All benefits are then lost, and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood; he or she is everafter a fighter."

So to me, a DM could classify a ruthless slaughtering SOB as falling into this area where you'd lose your powers.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1064298From the discussion of the 5e "Paladin" it sounds like one more reason why 5e probably ins't the game for me.

Yeah, some editions just aren't for everybody. I mean you could restrict the 5e Paladin to human only, LG only, and require a Cha 17 and it wouldn't really hurt the game overall.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1065598Well, in one sense this is certainly true. I'm so glad to see you agree with me!

I don't entirely disagree with you, but why is the paladin the sore spot? You argue that elves should not be paladins because the class, as originally written, was a human-centered archetype. Well, I don't see elves practicing magic in the same way as human wizards, but that's how they do it in D&D. How then is an elven wizard "more appropriate" than a elven paladin? I don't think either is an issue, and the rules are flexible enough to allow both. In fact, the subclasses (in this case, Oath of the Ancients for paladin and Bladesinger for wizard) show how the base class ideas can be expanded to allow a greater range.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1065670I don't entirely disagree with you, but why is the paladin the sore spot? You argue that elves should not be paladins because the class, as originally written, was a human-centered archetype. Well, I don't see elves practicing magic in the same way as human wizards, but that's how they do it in D&D. How then is an elven wizard "more appropriate" than a elven paladin? I don't think either is an issue, and the rules are flexible enough to allow both. In fact, the subclasses (in this case, Oath of the Ancients for paladin and Bladesinger for wizard) show how the base class ideas can be expanded to allow a greater range.

Arcanis' self-designed RPG system (the one between their 3e and 5e versions) actually handled this wonderfully. There were actually multiple distinct types of arcane magic, each of which prioritized different attributes and had different spell lists, in the setting.

The elven magic (called "Eldritch") was very studied and refined as befits a people who had been honing its use for 10,000 years. Human magic (called "Sorcery") was raw and very improvised. Finally, Val (humans with the blood of the gods in their veins) magic (called "Psionics") was focused on channeling their innate divine power to affect the world around them.

They also replaced the Paladins with "Holy Champions" and had a different holy champion classes for each of the gods in the setting.

Quote from: Chris24601;1065676Arcanis' self-designed RPG system (the one between their 3e and 5e versions) actually handled this wonderfully. There were actually multiple distinct types of arcane magic, each of which prioritized different attributes and had different spell lists, in the setting.

The elven magic (called "Eldritch") was very studied and refined as befits a people who had been honing its use for 10,000 years. Human magic (called "Sorcery") was raw and very improvised. Finally, Val (humans with the blood of the gods in their veins) magic (called "Psionics") was focused on channeling their innate divine power to affect the world around them.

They also replaced the Paladins with "Holy Champions" and had a different holy champion classes for each of the gods in the setting.

With D&D 5e, we have class names that have become fixtures (druid, monk, paladin, wizard, etc.) even if some concepts have to be bent to fit within them. It doesn't have to be this way; the warlock was fairly innovative (for D&D) when it first appeared in (IIRC) 3.5e. The design since then has been to avoid adding new classes and to just keep adding subclass options instead. This results in some subclass options that are poor fits mechanically while others fit perfectly well mechanically but alter the flavor that some associate strongly with the class. Still, more options are not inherently a bad thing, especially as GMs can always choose what to include or exclude in their games. As a GM, I find it much easier to simply say no to an available option than to have to make up such options myself.

I think I'm going to have to take WotC's side on this one. The paladin archetype a lot of people are supporting here is really specific and narrow and I'm not sure it's justified from a page-count perspective to have a good chunk of content dedicated to something so specific that's not going to fit into a lot of campaigns and settings. So repurposing the paladin as a more generic religious warrior makes sense so you've got only a few classes to cover a whole slew of fantasy archetypes you want to make sure that each class is bearing a good bit of the load. As to why it's called a paladin when it doesn't really fit the traditional idea of a paladin, well it's legacy IP, there's always going to be D&D classes named bard, druid and paladin because there's been classes named that for so long it's just inertia at this point.

For a more old school paladin in 5ed you'd be better served making it a fighter sub-class then the character can default to a fighter if they break their vows without having to rewrite their character sheet from the ground up since they're already a fighter, just with some special abilities that can be lost if they break their vows.

But then I never much liked the original paladin to begin with, always it was either a big pain in the ass to include them into your standard Black Company party group of PCs so that your PC had to deal with a bunch of headaches because of someone else's vow or the DM just let shit slide and the paladin was just a more sparkly fighter.

Quote from: Daztur;1065847I think I'm going to have to take WotC's side on this one. The paladin archetype a lot of people are supporting here is really specific and narrow and I'm not sure it's justified from a page-count perspective to have a good chunk of content dedicated to something so specific that's not going to fit into a lot of campaigns and settings. So repurposing the paladin as a more generic religious warrior makes sense so you've got only a few classes to cover a whole slew of fantasy archetypes you want to make sure that each class is bearing a good bit of the load. As to why it's called a paladin when it doesn't really fit the traditional idea of a paladin, well it's legacy IP, there's always going to be D&D classes named bard, druid and paladin because there's been classes named that for so long it's just inertia at this point.

For a more old school paladin in 5ed you'd be better served making it a fighter sub-class then the character can default to a fighter if they break their vows without having to rewrite their character sheet from the ground up since they're already a fighter, just with some special abilities that can be lost if they break their vows.

But then I never much liked the original paladin to begin with, always it was either a big pain in the ass to include them into your standard Black Company party group of PCs so that your PC had to deal with a bunch of headaches because of someone else's vow or the DM just let shit slide and the paladin was just a more sparkly fighter.

I think I agree with all of this but I'm going to offer some additional comments anyway.

Making a paladin a subclass or some other add-on to another specific class would either be unbalanced (being a fighter or whatever augmented with the powers of the paladin) or would give an odd result (hey, fallen paladin, you lost your spells and laying on hands and smiting but you gained another Extra Attack and five other Fighter-specific powers when you became an ordinary Fighter!). It might have worked out better with some sort of template that adds on to a character (as was suggested for things like lycanthropy) but then players would add the paladin template on to warlock or rogue characters and spawn another thread just like this one.

Mechanical benefits that are ostensibly balanced by role-playing requirements never seem to work well; the game turns into one of playing the GM to evade or minimize the impact of those requirements, to the general detriment of the game. And that's ignoring the additional problem of interfering with other players' choices ("you can't play your Thief character because I'm playing my Paladin character.").

Quote from: Batman;1065609Hmm, my 1e PHB says this "Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seeka high level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and
do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform on evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood
immediately and irrevocably All benefits are then lost, and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood; he or she is everafter a fighter."

So to me, a DM could classify a ruthless slaughtering SOB as falling into this area where you'd lose your powers.



Yeah, some editions just aren't for everybody. I mean you could restrict the 5e Paladin to human only, LG only, and require a Cha 17 and it wouldn't really hurt the game overall.

Greetings!

Indeed, Batman. The description in the text for the Paladin says that. However, the Paladin's religion could embrace the idea--even a divinely approved mandate--that it is precisely lawful and good to be a ruthless SOB when slaughtering hordes of evil Pagans.

This concept isn't popular with the politically correct crowd--but the Paladin's god could view that well, evil Pagans need to suffer judgement and wrath, so therefore it is a righteous thing to go forth and smite them, and bring wrath and judgement to them, because they are evil and wicked Pagans that have refused to embrace the Light and kneel in obedience to the Righteous King. Furthermore, as a Paladin bringing that wrath to them, the evil Pagans may, in the process of suffering this judgement and wrath, see the error of their evil Pagan ways, and beg for the opportunity to convert to the True Faith. Thus, from a theological perspective, it's a Win/Win situation! On one hand, you cleanse the land of evil Pagans. Having fewer of them around in general, is a good thing, because there are fewer of them actively seeking to seduce and corrupt the Faithful, and resist the Faithful in other ways as well. As an additional blessing, it gives the land of milk and honey to the Faithful, and increases their flocks, wealth, and strength. Then, on the other hand, while there are now fewer of the evil Pagans in the area, in the process of reducing their numbers and strength, some of them embrace the Light of Truth, and become bold members of the community that serves the True Faith. You see? WIN/WIN!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: rawma;1065910I think I agree with all of this but I'm going to offer some additional comments anyway.

Making a paladin a subclass or some other add-on to another specific class would either be unbalanced (being a fighter or whatever augmented with the powers of the paladin) or would give an odd result (hey, fallen paladin, you lost your spells and laying on hands and smiting but you gained another Extra Attack and five other Fighter-specific powers when you became an ordinary Fighter!). It might have worked out better with some sort of template that adds on to a character (as was suggested for things like lycanthropy) but then players would add the paladin template on to warlock or rogue characters and spawn another thread just like this one.

Mechanical benefits that are ostensibly balanced by role-playing requirements never seem to work well; the game turns into one of playing the GM to evade or minimize the impact of those requirements, to the general detriment of the game. And that's ignoring the additional problem of interfering with other players' choices ("you can't play your Thief character because I'm playing my Paladin character.").

Greetings!

Hello Rawma! I see what you're saying there, I think. Having such *in-game* conflict between player characters can be challenging--but it is also a sort of "hard-coding" of the natural and inevitable friction that you would likely have--not in every instance, of course--but certainly much of the time between someone that is similar to an FBI agent or a US Marshal...being thrown together on some mission with a professional burglar, professional drug dealer, or professional Thug/Hit-man/Enforcer/Assassin. Yeah, having extreme tensions between people like that is, to my mind, unavoidable, and expected. They are oppositional not merely professionally, but also socially, and philosophically, in addition to morally and ethically. That provides challenges to be sure--but also drama, roleplaying, and even potentially humour. Such a scenario is a rather long-standing dramatic trope within several genres of fiction, both in books and television/movies.

Similarly, while party cooperation is always essential, it doesn't seem to be a requirement that every party member must somehow be just all laid back and totally cool with the morally bankrupt, essentially selfish and self-interested Rogue. I know the Rogue Archetype is a much beloved and celebrated character--but Paladins, and to be honest, many other character types as well, would likely have deep and enduring suspicion and hostility towards any Rogue character. Rogue characters may not like it, of course, but simply because they have chosen to be a morally jello-like Rogue doesn't mean that the rest of society--or their adventuring group--must laugh and giggle in social approval of them. If a player wants to be "socially accepted and approved of"--then playing a Rogue character has definite social drawbacks to it. That's the breaks for being a Rogue character though! :) Rogue characters get the moral "flexibility" of being social predators, unburdened by moral codes, and free to enrich themselves at every opportunity--not through honest labour and sweat--but by whatever contrivance, charlatanry, and corrupt mischief they can employ. Such choices usually come with a price. The "discomfort" and social drama that Rogues get is part of the backlash in social disapproval that they get--in addition to whatever penalties and judgement they suffer from the Law. On occasion, merely because they have yet to be caught up in their criminal behaviour--that doesn't mean that those around them, whether family, friends, and certainly party members--don't know what they've done, what they're guilty of, and what they're into. People know that Rogues are social reprobates! :) LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

At my table the question was always 'why did we suffer the paladin to live for so long?'

Quote from: SHARK;1065920Greetings!

Indeed, Batman. The description in the text for the Paladin says that. However, the Paladin's religion could embrace the idea--even a divinely approved mandate--that it is precisely lawful and good to be a ruthless SOB when slaughtering hordes of evil Pagans.

This concept isn't popular with the politically correct crowd--but the Paladin's god could view that well, evil Pagans need to suffer judgement and wrath, so therefore it is a righteous thing to go forth and smite them, and bring wrath and judgement to them, because they are evil and wicked Pagans that have refused to embrace the Light and kneel in obedience to the Righteous King. Furthermore, as a Paladin bringing that wrath to them, the evil Pagans may, in the process of suffering this judgement and wrath, see the error of their evil Pagan ways, and beg for the opportunity to convert to the True Faith. Thus, from a theological perspective, it's a Win/Win situation! On one hand, you cleanse the land of evil Pagans. Having fewer of them around in general, is a good thing, because there are fewer of them actively seeking to seduce and corrupt the Faithful, and resist the Faithful in other ways as well. As an additional blessing, it gives the land of milk and honey to the Faithful, and increases their flocks, wealth, and strength. Then, on the other hand, while there are now fewer of the evil Pagans in the area, in the process of reducing their numbers and strength, some of them embrace the Light of Truth, and become bold members of the community that serves the True Faith. You see? WIN/WIN!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

See, maybe I'm in the PC crowed but to me I have a hard time imagining that the tactics and practices of Germany's SS could even remotely be considered Lawful Good just because they claim moral superiority. A deity in D&D that believes infidels, "pagans", people no of that very specific faith, etc must be put to the sword or convert probably shouldn't have the Lawful Good descriptor in their title.

Quote from: Batman;1065979 A deity in D&D that believes infidels, "pagans", people no of that very specific faith, etc must be put to the sword or convert probably shouldn't have the Lawful Good descriptor in their title.

That's a modernist/postmodernist standard of "good", most commonly found in superhero comics and widely imitated in other media. It has real-world antecedents, especially the Christian pacifist movements of the late 19th - early 20th century period. It is neither universal to human history and culture (contra Rousseau's "Noble Savage") nor any kind of absolute moral standard.

Quote from: RandyB;1065981That's a modernist/postmodernist standard of "good", most commonly found in superhero comics and widely imitated in other media. It has real-world antecedents, especially the Christian pacifist movements of the late 19th - early 20th century period. It is neither universal to human history and culture (contra Rousseau's "Noble Savage") nor any kind of absolute moral standard.

True, so then by who's authority does one look to when dealing with the alignment system of D&D? If what's "good" cant be agreed upon by anyone or there's no collective conformity about the subject why even bother with the notion altogether? Why the angst over LG-only Paladins if said player just says "yeah my deity said it's ok to steal and lie so long as it's when dealing with the unfaithful." At that point, you might as well open up the class to whatever alignment the player wants.

Quote from: Batman;1065989True, so then by who's authority does one look to when dealing with the alignment system of D&D?

The Great Gygax, of course! (Who shares SHARK's view of Paladins BTW).

Quote from: SHARK;1065921Hello Rawma! I see what you're saying there, I think.

No, you did not see.

QuoteHaving such *in-game* conflict between player characters can be challenging

This is not "in game" conflict; this is two players who each want to play their favorite character but one of them can't, no matter what their characters negotiate, unless you want to endorse the "mislead the lawful-stupid paladin" trope to preserve the game. Nothing to do with the specific characters involved and everything to do with an absolute prohibition in the rules; paladins of the Greyhawk supplement will associate only with lawful characters, and thieves are not lawful. (Add in that non-humans generally had to be thieves if they want to advance past relatively low levels.)

Greetings!

Well, the Paladin is inspired by a few sources culturally, historically, and theologically.

In the Scriptures, many holy Prophets and leaders--Joshua and Gideon come to mind. The Lord spoke to them, saying; "Gather up the mighty men of war. Gird thyself for battle with sword and spear, and go forth to smite the Moabites. The Moabites have killed and persecuted my prophets. The Moabites are an evil pagan race, and I have declared that they shall suffer wrath and judgement. Take your mighty men of war, and go down into the lands of the Moabites. Slay them. Pour out your wrath against them. Slay their men, their women and their children, for they have sinned against the Lord. The lands flow with milk and honey, and riches and blessings shall be given to thee and thy house, and to all of your people. Do not fear the pagans, and their great spears and horses and coats of iron. They shall be trampled under your feet with blood and fire, they shall be scattered like wheat tossed into the wind. Fear not, for the Lord shall be with you in all things." I'm paraphrasing, of course. But it's quite accurate. There is a huge amount of Christian doctrine, theology and history that contributes to the Paladin.

Next, the valiant Roland, the holy Archbishop Turpin, who led righteous warriors of Christian Europe to stand against the invading monstrous hordes of the Muslim armies, seeking to enslave all of Europe to Muhommedism.

The knights of the glorious King Charlemagne, that stood guard on the frontiers, fighting and bringing judgement and wrath against the evil pagan tribes of Germany and Bohemia. Christendom wasn't just under threat by the Muslims from the south, but also from European pagans from the north, as well as from the east. Valiant knights rose up to stand guard, and ride forth to protect the faithful during these ages. Just like the ancient Pagans that faced Joshua and Gideon, and other heroes of the Scriptures, there were evil and savage pagans facing good Christians in later ages as well, such as the Muslims, the Saxons, various Germanic tribes, as well as Bohemians and some pagan Slavic tribes--all formed a threat to the Christian community, to the very existence and prosperity of the Faith.

In the Crusades, the Muslims again were a great evil and a great threat to all of Christendom. The bells of Christiandom sounded all over Europe, and from Ireland and Britain, to Norway, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Greece--from all over Europe, brave and valiant men heard the call, and sought to serve the Lord, and defend Europe from the rising tide of Islam. And stand tall they did, as they valiantly brought war and judgement to the Muslims by conquering the Holy Land. This enormous expedition crushed the Muslim ambitions of invading Europe, and let the Mohammedans know that Europe would fight them, and not passively kneel and accept their tryanny.

The Arthurian tales, of course, as a reflection of the smaller-scale affairs of defending the Faith throughout a mysterious and Pagan Britian, essentially during the Dark Ages. The Church had much work to do in Britian, and the Pagans resisted and fought against the new wave of Christian expansion after the fall of the Roman Empire. The native Pagans were of course strengthened by the arrival and invasion of the Danes and Norse Vikings from across the sea. Though fictionalized, the Arthurian tales are a reflection of the struggles and concerns of a Christian community and kingdom throughout a dark, Pagan Britian during the Dark Ages and early Medieval Era.

In America, and the Western Frontier. Way back then, in the great Land of Texas, the savage pagan Commanche didn't just bring turkey and sing kumbyyah. In a land so distant and far from any help the United States Army could hope to provide, the simple Christian farmers of the land were vulnerable, and ripe for slaughter. I bet you've never heard of whole villages of Texans being slaughtered and burned alive? Men, women, children, all hacked apart, tortured, and roasted alive in great fires by the Commanche. Well, it happened. The Commanche Indians were warlords of their realm, excellent horsemen, and ferocious warriors. They were also pagan, savage, and cruel. Even to other Indian tribes, they were feared and hated. The white Christian Texans were just some other tribe to be crushed, and forced into subjection. The Commanche were quite successful at launching a bloody, ferocious war all along the south-western frontier for many years. Many ranches and communities were slaughtered en masse by the Commanche. Women were raped. Men were skinned and tortured. Children thrown into the fires. Terror spread like a wildfire amongst all of the people of Texas, and beyond. Homesteads, ranches, whole villages and towns literally wiped off the face of the earth by the savage Commanche. It was a terrifying time for the early settlers and farmers of Texas and the south-west. Finally, however, the Texas Rangers rose up, and gathered new men to their banners in leading a new kind of war against the Commanche. Preachers in churches--both Catholic and Protestant--sounded the call. Who would join the local militia, and ride with the Texas Rangers? Who would rise up to smite the pagan Commanche? Who would stand to defend their Faith and community, their people from the savage Commanche? Well, many good Christians heard the call, and the Texas Rangers, amongst other leaders, began prosecuting a whole new kind of war against the Commanche. In the past, battles had been fought in daytime, during the spring or summer, essentially between small bands of Commanche warriors and small bands of Militia, or rangers and lawmen. Now, however, there would be no quaint little battles, only in the daytime, and only in the spring and summer. The Texans led the way in a months and several years long campaign of a new kind of brutal war--a sort of total war against the Commanche. Night and day, columns of American Militia rode out against the Commanche. The Texas Rangers led the way, ferociously attacking the Commanches, and then pursuing them deep into the wilderness. The Commanche camps were attacked, and seething with vengeance for their own slaughtered people, the Rangers and Militia likewise slaughtered the Commanches--men, women, and children. Night and day, the Commanche camps were attacked and put to the torch. The campaigns even continued into the cold, snowy months of Fall and Winter. Relentlessly, the Texans pursued the war against the savage Commanche season after season, year after year, until the power of the Commanche was broken.

I picked the Commanche War as merely one amongst many. The frontiers had long been a source of warfare, and embraced both cultural and religious conflict, whether the enemies were the Iroquois, the Cherokee, the Wampanoags, the Delaware, the Seminoles, the Sioux, the Nes Pierce, the Cheyenne, the Pawnee, the Apache, and many others. In all such cases, however, the Church was heavily involved. Not merely the preachers, but the ordinary, Biblically literate church people would ask, "Like Joshua and Gideon, like Lancelot and Galahad, who shall stand for the faith? Who shall stand and defend the people of the faith?"

In World War II--yeah, the Christian ethos, yea, even the ethos of the Paladin can be seen reflected in American society back to Europe. As the Nazis marched over Europe, and Britain was being slowly bombed and starved into submission, Winston Churchill said something to the effect that "Thank God. The Alimighty has answered our prayers. We shall not end in slavery and ruin. America shall rise in righteous wrath and bring liberation to Europe. We our saved! America will join now with us from across the sea, and we shall have our salvation. Europe shall be freed from darkness." It took a while to get things going for sure--but just like in the past, gathered at church, and around the dinner table, families would pray, and ask, "Who shall defend our land? Who shall defend Christianity from the Nazi hordes? Who shall stand to bring liberty and freedom to Europe?" America very much viewed World War II especially as a holy crusade to save the world from barbarism and tyranny. President Roosevelt told the American people that our Christian faith was under attack, and the enemy would annihilate our faith from the land. Christendom would end, if we did not rise up and defend the faith.

So, the Paladin has a number of cultural, historical, and religious sources of inspiration. That's what I've always gotten from them. It's what I've always read from what Gary Gygax said.

Oh, I don't believe in any such of these situations, some brave young man, eager to defend his people, his faith, his community,--heard his mother, or his sister, or his wife, say to him by the mantled fireplace, as he gathered his weapons and prepared to join the other men to ride out into the wilderness--"Now, my brave Tom, you shouldn't be involved in any of this. Don't you realise that you're acting...like Hitler's SS stormtroopers?"

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: S'mon;1066014The Great Gygax, of course! (Who shares SHARK's view of Paladins BTW).

Yea, not everyone praises at that dude's alter.

Holy hell! That's a remarkably one-sided tirade, SHARK. Having expressed an interest in real-world history, I am surprised that you would have such a view. Christian countries have frequently made unjust and unprovoked violent attacks on other countries. That's not really up for debate - it requires massive blinders not to see that.

But speaking about RPGs,

Quote from: Batman;1065989True, so then by who's authority does one look to when dealing with the alignment system of D&D? If what's "good" cant be agreed upon by anyone or there's no collective conformity about the subject why even bother with the notion altogether? Why the angst over LG-only Paladins if said player just says "yeah my deity said it's ok to steal and lie so long as it's when dealing with the unfaithful." At that point, you might as well open up the class to whatever alignment the player wants.

Yeah, it's a tricky question. Alignment in D&D inherently means that there is an absolute morality, not a relative one. There are definitions of good and evil in the books, and for any game that uses alignment, that will be important for world-building. For the paladin, though, 5E at least separates the paladin's oath from their alignment. I appreciate the flexibility of this.

In my current campaign, one of my players is new to D&D, and she picked a pregenerated orc paladin that I had made. (In my game, orcs are generally good-aligned while humans are evil.) I had originally made her character for her with Oath of Devotion. However, she developed the background that the paladin's family were slaughtered by humans, and she is now devoted to putting all humans to the sword. Even though she is still marginally Lawful Good, I recommended that instead of the Oath of Devotion - she would fit much better with the Oath of Vengeance. It really fit perfectly.


I think there is definitely an appeal to the fantasy of having evil hordes out there, and that it is righteous to just go out and kill them. That's something we can engage in within games. I think my player is having fun with her character, and I think other people also enjoy this sort of paladin concept. The problem is mistaking fantasy for reality - like thinking that white Texans invading Comanche territory were innocent and peaceful. But that's an aside from RPGs.

Quote from: rawma;1065910I think I agree with all of this but I'm going to offer some additional comments anyway.

Making a paladin a subclass or some other add-on to another specific class would either be unbalanced (being a fighter or whatever augmented with the powers of the paladin) or would give an odd result (hey, fallen paladin, you lost your spells and laying on hands and smiting but you gained another Extra Attack and five other Fighter-specific powers when you became an ordinary Fighter!). It might have worked out better with some sort of template that adds on to a character (as was suggested for things like lycanthropy) but then players would add the paladin template on to warlock or rogue characters and spawn another thread just like this one.

Mechanical benefits that are ostensibly balanced by role-playing requirements never seem to work well; the game turns into one of playing the GM to evade or minimize the impact of those requirements, to the general detriment of the game. And that's ignoring the additional problem of interfering with other players' choices ("you can't play your Thief character because I'm playing my Paladin character.").

Balancing mechanical benefits with roleplayig requirements can work if it's tailored specifically by the GM for the campaign they're running. But yeah it can cause a lot of problems if it's just laid out in the rulebook as different GMs are going to approach things very differently.

I think a good way of approaching it is how things worked in Three Hearts and Three Lions, the main source of D&D paladins, in that one the paladin made a circle of protection vs. evil that failed as soon as a sinful act happened inside the circle. So have powers be tied to moral behavior on a case by case basis.

Quote from: jhkim;1066038Yeah, it's a tricky question. Alignment in D&D inherently means that there is an absolute morality, not a relative one. There are definitions of good and evil in the books, and for any game that uses alignment, that will be important for world-building. For the paladin, though, 5E at least separates the paladin's oath from their alignment. I appreciate the flexibility of this.

I do as well, as it allows for multiple interpretations of what someone sees when they play a Paladin. Playing the same ol' Holier than thou, paragon of Christendom despite there being any notion of the word in D&D always made me shake my head. Like, I get it, but....all the time? Geez.

Quote from: jhkim;1066038In my current campaign, one of my players is new to D&D, and she picked a pregenerated orc paladin that I had made. (In my game, orcs are generally good-aligned while humans are evil.) I had originally made her character for her with Oath of Devotion. However, she developed the background that the paladin's family were slaughtered by humans, and she is now devoted to putting all humans to the sword. Even though she is still marginally Lawful Good, I recommended that instead of the Oath of Devotion - she would fit much better with the Oath of Vengeance. It really fit perfectly.

Yea, that definitely sounds like an Oath of Vengeance. Are there any humans in the ground how does that play out with her dedication to the extinction of their race?

Quote from: jhkim;1066038I think there is definitely an appeal to the fantasy of having evil hordes out there, and that it is righteous to just go out and kill them. That's something we can engage in within games. I think my player is having fun with her character, and I think other people also enjoy this sort of paladin concept. The problem is mistaking fantasy for reality - like thinking that white Texans invading Comanche territory were innocent and peaceful. But that's an aside from RPGs.

I feel there is definitely a place for Alt-History style games, especially if you're throwing Magic into the story. An alternate-Earth world set around the early 12th century during the 3rd Crusades where Paladins of the Holy Roman church were defending (or were they attempting to re-take?) Jerusalem, I could see them smiting 'Infidel' Saracens. That would make sense in that setting (and Saracens would probably use their own smites vs. the Knights templar for being evil religious fanatics taking their home).

Quote from: jhkim;1066038Holy hell! That's a remarkably one-sided tirade, SHARK. Having expressed an interest in real-world history, I am surprised that you would have such a view. Christian countries have frequently made unjust and unprovoked violent attacks on other countries. That's not really up for debate - it requires massive blinders not to see that.

But speaking about RPGs,


Yeah, it's a tricky question. Alignment in D&D inherently means that there is an absolute morality, not a relative one. There are definitions of good and evil in the books, and for any game that uses alignment, that will be important for world-building. For the paladin, though, 5E at least separates the paladin's oath from their alignment. I appreciate the flexibility of this.

In my current campaign, one of my players is new to D&D, and she picked a pregenerated orc paladin that I had made. (In my game, orcs are generally good-aligned while humans are evil.) I had originally made her character for her with Oath of Devotion. However, she developed the background that the paladin's family were slaughtered by humans, and she is now devoted to putting all humans to the sword. Even though she is still marginally Lawful Good, I recommended that instead of the Oath of Devotion - she would fit much better with the Oath of Vengeance. It really fit perfectly.


I think there is definitely an appeal to the fantasy of having evil hordes out there, and that it is righteous to just go out and kill them. That's something we can engage in within games. I think my player is having fun with her character, and I think other people also enjoy this sort of paladin concept. The problem is mistaking fantasy for reality - like thinking that white Texans invading Comanche territory were innocent and peaceful. But that's an aside from RPGs.

Greetings!

One-sided tirade, jhkim? I was merely alluding to much of the source material. As for "expressing such a view"--I didn't express any personal view, jhkim. The attitudes concerning the Commanches, and many other Indian groups--were detailed in *primary* sources, jhkim. In sermons, public gatherings, diary entrees, letters by normal, ordinary farmers to relatives back east, as well as reports and materials maintained by the Texas Rangers--it becomes clear--that the people of Texas and other areas of America during the Indian Wars were absolutely terrified of the Indian tribes. *I* haven't made this up. Professional historians reviewed such material with myself and the entire class throughout many projects concerning American History. In understanding history, what you or I *believe* in our sweet modern Egg of Modernism has zero relation to what really happened in history, and various perspectives from different sources, that are available to the modern historian and student in understanding the history of past ages.

Many elements of early D&D--and inspirations for the Paladin--are found within the histories, stories, and *dynamics* of the American West, and the Frontier. Isolated communities, frontier forts, *savage tribes*, bands of outlaws, on and on. There's too many. :) At any rate, jhkim, that is what I was referencing. I don't think you would really like to know what my *personal* views are on the issues of war and conquest in the Americas. I couldn't possibly discuss it in any meaningful way in a paragraph, or three. :)

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1066042One-sided tirade, jhkim? I was merely alluding to much of the source material. As for "expressing such a view"--I didn't express any personal view, jhkim.

Choosing one set of sources and ignoring another with conflicting messages is expressing a view. Interestingly, jhkim did not appear to have anything to say about your Comanche example, and yet you defend nothing else in the rest of this post.

QuoteThe attitudes concerning the Commanches, and many other Indian groups--were detailed in *primary* sources, jhkim. In sermons, public gatherings, diary entrees, letters by normal, ordinary farmers to relatives back east, as well as reports and materials maintained by the Texas Rangers--it becomes clear--that the people of Texas and other areas of America during the Indian Wars were absolutely terrified of the Indian tribes.

Fear is not a basis for being a paladin. Fear is the path to the dark side.

QuoteMany elements of early D&D--and inspirations for the Paladin--are found within the histories, stories, and *dynamics* of the American West, and the Frontier. Isolated communities, frontier forts, *savage tribes*, bands of outlaws, on and on. There's too many.

What do any of these have to do with paladins like those in Charlemagne's court or like Galahad?

You started with "Well, the Paladin is inspired by a few sources culturally, historically, and theologically." and ended with "So, the Paladin has a number of cultural, historical, and religious sources of inspiration." so it seems reasonable to read everything in between as being about the inspirations for paladins, but if you want to claim you were mostly talking about elements of early D&D, at least have the courtesy to make your retreat explicit.

Quote from: Batman;1066036Yea, not everyone praises at that dude's alter.

You don't have to worship him to use his model.

Quote from: rawma;1066043Choosing one set of sources and ignoring another with conflicting messages is expressing a view. Interestingly, jhkim did not appear to have anything to say about your Comanche example, and yet you defend nothing else in the rest of this post.



Fear is not a basis for being a paladin. Fear is the path to the dark side.



What do any of these have to do with paladins like those in Charlemagne's court or like Galahad?

You started with "Well, the Paladin is inspired by a few sources culturally, historically, and theologically." and ended with "So, the Paladin has a number of cultural, historical, and religious sources of inspiration." so it seems reasonable to read everything in between as being about the inspirations for paladins, but if you want to claim you were mostly talking about elements of early D&D, at least have the courtesy to make your retreat explicit.

Greetings!

Well, Rawma, how acquainted are you with American Frontier history? More pointedly--how familiar are you with the popular songs, novels, and Western Films made concerning and depicting the American Frontier?

As for the other side--Rawma. I'm part Native American. Cherokee to be precise. I had an Indian ancestor--my great, great grandmother, as I recall--from my mother's father's lineage--she was on the infamous "Trail of Tears". The Trail of Tears was where the United States Army forcibly re-located, medieval-style, at bayonet-point, the entire Cherokee Nation from their ancestral homes in Tenessee and the Carolinas all the way out to the fucking desert in Oklahoma. My mother used to tell me various stories told to her from her grandmother, who had them passed down to her by her grandmother, and so on. I'm well aware of the history of racism, genocide, rape, mindless bloodlust, wicked greed and treachery of every kind imposed upon the Native Americans by the Whites from the early 1600's all the way through to the "Closing of the Frontier" in the 1880's and even beyond. It's a monstrous tragedy of epic proportions. Roughly four hundred years--four centuries--the Native American tribes on one hand tried to befriend the white man, and accomodate the new white settlers in a generous land, and share things. On the other hand, they fought and resisted, every step of the way...from when the "Western Frontier" wasn't the Mississippi River, but a few miles from the Atlantic shoreline, when the American Colonies were still new, only a few generations off the boat. Every step of the way, every 5 to 10 years, the Whites always wanted more. More land. More animals. More gold. More trees. More corn. More, more, more. And always more fucking treaties. Everything signed with such solen hypocrisy, on fancy paper and ink. Like a Cherokee chieftain said of the treaties with the White Man, "The treaties are like Talking Leaves. When the wind blows the leaves away, whatever the leaves said is now gone and forgotten"

So, chew on that. As a Historian, historians are supposed to know all the main perspectives of a topic--whether they personally like them or agree with such perspectives is entirely irrelevant. So, I was talking about how such attitudes and culture influenced Paladins. In the Old West, lots of white people even back then--before D&D--drew inspiration and paralelles between ancient, valiant knights and western marshals, Texas Rangers, and so on. In my mind, I can easily see the connections and sources of cultural inspiration.

All of which--in my experience--clearly depicts the Texas Rangers, and various stripes of frontiersmen and lawmen--as incarnations of the "Paladin" from ancient and medieval sources. Hell, there was even a western series named Paladin. Many such characters in the comics, novels, and films depict characters that resemble very much the medieval knight, and Paladin. The depicted heroes--yes, heroes, not villains or Hitler's SS--were typically shown routinely fighting against savage Indians, evil outlaws, cattle-rustlers and assorted villains of the Old West.

I think the literary and cultural inspirations are quite clear in inspiring the Paladin, and in turn, being inspired *from* the Paladin of medieval times.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I think the problem is the Alignment.  People take it to mean different things.  Some think it's objective, subjective, some think it's stupid, others think it's part of D&D, but because the Paladin is tied to it, it affects players and DMs in different ways, depending on how you see alignment.

(to me)

Quote from: SHARK;1066042Many elements of early D&D--and inspirations for the Paladin--are found within the histories, stories, and *dynamics* of the American West, and the Frontier. Isolated communities, frontier forts, *savage tribes*, bands of outlaws, on and on. There's too many. :) At any rate, jhkim, that is what I was referencing. I don't think you would really like to know what my *personal* views are on the issues of war and conquest in the Americas. I couldn't possibly discuss it in any meaningful way in a paragraph, or three. :)

(to rawma)

Quote from: SHARK;1066049I'm well aware of the history of racism, genocide, rape, mindless bloodlust, wicked greed and treachery of every kind imposed upon the Native Americans by the Whites from the early 1600's all the way through to the "Closing of the Frontier" in the 1880's and even beyond. It's a monstrous tragedy of epic proportions. Roughly four hundred years--four centuries--the Native American tribes on one hand tried to befriend the white man, and accomodate the new white settlers in a generous land, and share things. On the other hand, they fought and resisted, every step of the way...from when the "Western Frontier" wasn't the Mississippi River, but a few miles from the Atlantic shoreline, when the American Colonies were still new, only a few generations off the boat. Every step of the way, every 5 to 10 years, the Whites always wanted more. More land. More animals. More gold. More trees. More corn. More, more, more. And always more fucking treaties. Everything signed with such solen hypocrisy, on fancy paper and ink. Like a Cherokee chieftain said of the treaties with the White Man, "The treaties are like Talking Leaves. When the wind blows the leaves away, whatever the leaves said is now gone and forgotten"

Thanks, Shark, for the clarification. Your previous post read really strangely, and it seemed like you were talking about real history rather than popular stories of the Frontier. Your post to rawma did clarify about real history.

I agree that early D&D did take a lot from popular depictions of the American wild west. I suppose the paladin does take from that mythology, though I hadn't thought of it previously. The Western genre has an archetype in particular of the lone wandering gunman who shoots the bad guy and then moves on. The AD&D1 paladin is like this - not part of any organization, and taking only what they can carry with them.

But the mythology is adaptable. Just as AD&D1 mixed and matched from different genres for its archetypes, individual campaigns can mix and match for their inspirations. I'm taking a lot of D&D as written, but also reversing many things by having a different set of core races. There are also new takes on a given genre. I'm in the middle right now of reading a Western genre book of sorts from a Lakota point of view, called Hundred in the Hand ( https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Hand-Novel-Lakota-Western/dp/1555916538 ). I'm only halfway through, but its pretty good.

My favorite aspect of the old skool paladin is their CHA 17 requirement mixed with Lawful Good restraint. They are the flowers of valor. "Goodness is their meat and drink," as to quote the D&D source text (2e). They fight evil by being a charismatic paragon of 'soft' virtues, basically the element that comprises the Tarot's major arcana Strength card: mercy, grace, compassion, fidelity (chastity,) etc. They project leadership and presence of the best LG alignment has to offer.

They love the people and live virtuously as a means to lead people out of darkness and into the light. They reserve violence for when absolutely necessary, unmitigatable evils that have near zero likelihood for reform, hence demons and undead magics. (That's why they can only see an evil mortal's alignment when: a) they are a high level devotee, b) are a cleric of such evil, AND c) are in the middle of an evil act, as per AD&D 2e. Otherwise they are assumed to be just another human who you cannot tell their alignment -- and thus possible to reform!)

The crusade/jihad is a separate aspect entirely, but allowed if there is no other choice for defense. But punishment must fit the crime is integral, so targeting can never be sloppy. All the 'soft virtues' needed to be applied in good faith first beforehand, otherwise the divine blessing leaves, possibly forever if unrepentant. You answer to a higher calling beyond violence for your in-group, you answer to goodness within societal bounds with a radiant hope for others' reform.

It's supposed to be an awe-inspiring level of self-sacrificing and compassionate virtue. Its existence should draw people, like moths to a flame, to be better than they currently are. It is a specific alignment's (LG) mystical beacon to a world crying out for a lovable hero. That's what makes it so beautifully hard. :)

Other alignments are welcome to have their own mystical sub-class paragons, but it doesn't need to muddle the paladin sub-class. And it's easy enough to hash out your own alignment paragon, especially from past literature. However, with enough player whinging and secular confusion/rejection, here we are. ;)

Quote from: Daztur;1065847I think I'm going to have to take WotC's side on this one. The paladin archetype a lot of people are supporting here is really specific and narrow and I'm not sure it's justified from a page-count perspective to have a good chunk of content dedicated to something so specific that's not going to fit into a lot of campaigns and settings. So repurposing the paladin as a more generic religious warrior makes sense so you've got only a few classes to cover a whole slew of fantasy archetypes you want to make sure that each class is bearing a good bit of the load. As to why it's called a paladin when it doesn't really fit the traditional idea of a paladin, well it's legacy IP, there's always going to be D&D classes named bard, druid and paladin because there's been classes named that for so long it's just inertia at this point.

Inertia is part of it, but it isn't the full story.  They found out during the 4E run that there are vocal fans that don't really handle very well the idea that, "The class name X isn't in this edition, but you can get the same thing by playing Y and taking these options."  

Now, I think this was a little overblown, because it was one of the mindless jabs deployed against 4E in the edition wars.  (The strangest thing to me about the 3E vs. 4E wars was how often people fixated on something relatively minor or outright subjective, when the point they were supposedly making had better evidence readily available from even a moderately attentive inspection.   But I digress.)  Nonetheless, for good or ill, the lesson WotC learned from all that was "don't monkey with the classes."  They even promised during the playtest that all the traditional classes would be in the game.

In the case of the paladin, one could make a decent argument that the class would have been well served by flipping the classes and paths.  Specifically, make the class something like "Oath Warrior" or "Champion" or whatever.  Then make the "Oath of Devotion" as the paladin path.  Then they can easily put whatever classic restrictions (including alignment) that they want onto the path, without burdening the overall class mechanically.  This would have probably allowed some of the other paths to be even more flavorful.  I think a similar reversal for Ranger as class Scout with a Ranger path, would have helped too.  But the screams of anguish at not having a "paladin class" in the game was not something they wanted to deal with.

Quote from: SHARK;1066049Well, Rawma, how acquainted are you with American Frontier history? More pointedly--how familiar are you with the popular songs, novels, and Western Films made concerning and depicting the American Frontier?

You are inexplicably wedded to the notion that other posters are disputing your post regarding the American Frontier stuff. I'm not, either the history or the popular culture relating to it. My objections are, again, what you leave out (or don't respond to, as in your reply to jhkim).

Fiction in lots of settings have lawful good champions, but they're not all paladins in the sense of the paladin you're mourning. The holy warrior who eschews wealth and power in order to better pursue a righteous cause is well represented in many cultures and many genres of fiction. You want to link the paladin solely to a Judeo-Christian arc culminating in American exceptionalism; you need to defend not the examples you give, but the decision to omit others that undercut your point.

QuoteHell, there was even a western series named Paladin.

The series "Have Gun Will Travel" did indeed have a character called Paladin; but you should watch the episode "Genesis" before you claim too much from it. Paladin adopted both the name and his costume after killing a gunfighter called Smoke whom he agreed to duel in order to pay off a gambling debt; Smoke, who had a cough they both believed would kill him, honed Paladin's gunfighting skills before facing him in a duel (in which both men sought somewhat dishonorable advantages). As he died, Smoke mocked Paladin, "Where is righteousness, noble paladin? Where is your cause?" Smoke was the champion of the town he protected from the villain who had recruited Paladin. Paladin relates the story to a young man who was similarly pressed by debts into trying to kill Paladin, and when asked if the villain had ever returned there, Paladin replies "Only once."

That character is not Gygax's paladin; not even the Lawful Stupid variety.

Quote from: rawma;1066213My objections are, again, what you leave out (or don't respond to, as in your reply to jhkim). You want to link the paladin solely to a Judeo-Christian arc culminating in American exceptionalism; you need to defend not the examples you give, but the decision to omit others that undercut your point.

Greetings!

What I "leave out" or "don't respond to"? Well, Rawma, I didn't respond to such--or chose to omit other examples--because to me, and to the core inspirations of D&D as written and expanded upon over the years by Gary Gygax seems to draw their primary focus of inspiration from such examples that I gave. While other, differing sources are, as you note, extant--to myself, and it seems to Gygax--that such other examples are more or less on the fringe, and do not represent a major source of inspiration for the Paladin. Such divergent sources, whatever their supposed merit may be--are at the end of the day, less significant in their inspiration to the Paladin class as envisioned by Gygax and early D&D.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1066190Inertia is part of it, but it isn't the full story.  They found out during the 4E run that there are vocal fans that don't really handle very well the idea that, "The class name X isn't in this edition, but you can get the same thing by playing Y and taking these options."  

Now, I think this was a little overblown, because it was one of the mindless jabs deployed against 4E in the edition wars.  (The strangest thing to me about the 3E vs. 4E wars was how often people fixated on something relatively minor or outright subjective, when the point they were supposedly making had better evidence readily available from even a moderately attentive inspection.   But I digress.)  Nonetheless, for good or ill, the lesson WotC learned from all that was "don't monkey with the classes."  They even promised during the playtest that all the traditional classes would be in the game.

In the case of the paladin, one could make a decent argument that the class would have been well served by flipping the classes and paths.  Specifically, make the class something like "Oath Warrior" or "Champion" or whatever.  Then make the "Oath of Devotion" as the paladin path.  Then they can easily put whatever classic restrictions (including alignment) that they want onto the path, without burdening the overall class mechanically.  This would have probably allowed some of the other paths to be even more flavorful.  I think a similar reversal for Ranger as class Scout with a Ranger path, would have helped too.  But the screams of anguish at not having a "paladin class" in the game was not something they wanted to deal with.

Yeah people get hung up over the weirdest things. I mean, who really gives a fuck about gnomes? Yeah, making a big deal about how more awesome tieflings and dragonborn are than gnomes was stupid Poochy advertising but gnomes of all things, really?

Quote from: Daztur;1066220Yeah people get hung up over the weirdest things. I mean, who really gives a fuck about gnomes? Yeah, making a big deal about how more awesome tieflings and dragonborn are than gnomes was stupid Poochy advertising but gnomes of all things, really?

Greetings!

Hi Daztur! "Poochy Advertising"? Can you elaborate on that?

I agree though--Tieflings and Dragonborn are so much cooler than Gnomes? I admit, I don't understand the deep fascination with Tieflings and Dragonborn. The group I'm in at the Adventurer's League at my game store...is filled with them. My home groups, on the other hand...aren't enchanted by them at all, for some reason.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1066223I don't understand the deep fascination with Tieflings and Dragonborn.

"I'm a dragon! Grrr!!"

"I'm so dark and edgy...!"

IME young boys like my son love dragonborn PCs, while chicks love playing tieflings. :D I hardly ever (never?) see a mature (30+) player playing a dragonborn or a guy playing a tiefling. But both archetypes definitely appeal to particular market segments. The appeal of gnomes seems much narrower and those few who like playing them I think would be just as happy playing a halfling, so I can see why 4e initially left them out.

Quote from: S'mon;1066225"I'm a dragon! Grrr!!"

"I'm so dark and edgy...!"

IME young boys like my son love dragonborn PCs, while chicks love playing tieflings. :D I hardly ever (never?) see a mature (30+) player playing a dragonborn or a guy playing a tiefling. But both archetypes definitely appeal to particular market segments. The appeal of gnomes seems much narrower and those few who like playing them I think would be just as happy playing a halfling, so I can see why 4e initially left them out.

*raises hand*

I'm a 30-something player that has a Tiefling rogue|assassin in our 4E game lol. Though the character isn't an Edge-Lord and is a quite sociable, non-brooding type. Its easier to acquire marks for assassination when you can get close to them via friendship vs suspicious dark and shifty dude in the corner.

I love gnomes. Its hysterical to play a character whose gear weighs twice as much as the gnome...and that's not an issue cuz I've got STR 13.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1066232I love gnomes. Its hysterical to play a character whose gear weighs twice as much as the gnome...and that's not an issue cuz I've got STR 13.

I desperately tried to make a 5E gnome paladin, oath of vengeance, as a pre-gen for a game.  There was a particular player in mind.  My better nature took over in the end.  I decided it wasn't fair to the rest of the players to inflict on them that character played by that player.

Edit:  Possibly related, I also enjoy ducks as gritty characters in Runequest.

Quote from: SHARK;1066219What I "leave out" or "don't respond to"?

:confused:

Quote from: jhkim;1066038Holy hell! That's a remarkably one-sided tirade, SHARK. Having expressed an interest in real-world history, I am surprised that you would have such a view. Christian countries have frequently made unjust and unprovoked violent attacks on other countries. That's not really up for debate - it requires massive blinders not to see that.

You've spent subsequent replies showing off your massive blinders like a New York fashion model on the runway.

Quote from: SHARK;1066219I didn't respond to such--or chose to omit other examples--because to me

You omit other examples because they don't support your conclusion. I got it a long time ago.

Quote from: S'mon;1066014The Great Gygax, of course! (Who shares SHARK's view of Paladins BTW).

Greetings!

Well, Rawma, I "omitted" other examples, not due to your explanation--but primarily because they are not primary in their inspiration to the Paladin class as developed in early D&D by Gygax.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim;1066134(to me)

(to rawma)

Thanks, Shark, for the clarification. Your previous post read really strangely, and it seemed like you were talking about real history rather than popular stories of the Frontier. Your post to rawma did clarify about real history.

I agree that early D&D did take a lot from popular depictions of the American wild west. I suppose the paladin does take from that mythology, though I hadn't thought of it previously. The Western genre has an archetype in particular of the lone wandering gunman who shoots the bad guy and then moves on. The AD&D1 paladin is like this - not part of any organization, and taking only what they can carry with them.

But the mythology is adaptable. Just as AD&D1 mixed and matched from different genres for its archetypes, individual campaigns can mix and match for their inspirations. I'm taking a lot of D&D as written, but also reversing many things by having a different set of core races. There are also new takes on a given genre. I'm in the middle right now of reading a Western genre book of sorts from a Lakota point of view, called Hundred in the Hand ( https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Hand-Novel-Lakota-Western/dp/1555916538 ). I'm only halfway through, but its pretty good.

Greetings!

You're quite welcome, JHKIM. I'm glad to clarify. That's an interesting book that you're reading there, as well. I've heard some good things about the author.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1066223Greetings!

Hi Daztur! "Poochy Advertising"? Can you elaborate on that?

I agree though--Tieflings and Dragonborn are so much cooler than Gnomes? I admit, I don't understand the deep fascination with Tieflings and Dragonborn. The group I'm in at the Adventurer's League at my game store...is filled with them. My home groups, on the other hand...aren't enchanted by them at all, for some reason.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Reference to one of the best Simpsons episodes in which suits try to make Itchy and Scratchy more "hip" and "modern" but adding a third "cool" character called "Poochy." Everyone hates Poochy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5eDDPD1slo

Dragonborn just scream Poochie to me especially in the dumbass marketing 4ed video in which they talked about giving the gnome a boot and replacing it with cooler races.

It should be noted for clarity that one "could" play a gnome in 4e with the Core rules. There's an entire write-up in the Monster Manual for it and everything. They were simply not listed in the PHB, not entirely dismissed as an option altogether.

In over 30 years of gaming, and having been involved in either a D&D or D&D-descendended game for most of that time, I've never seen anyone play a paladin.  It's situations like that that make me feel as if I'd had a much different experience than most D&D players.

I always liked the stat requirements in the older editions but that point of view simply got outvoted overtime. People  want to be able to play the class they want to play.  And stats still matter. Making a low CHR paladin does not seem like a good idea in 5E. But I don't really see an issue there.They are trying to appeal to their audience with each edition. As far as I can tell, the current edition is doing a pretty good job in that respect. In terms of flavor changes to the paladin, I have not really played much 5e, but looking at the entry, I like what they did with it. The different oaths allow for a variety of paladins, which I think as a good thing. I like the classic paladin, but it is quite specific, in the way the monk is often quite specific. The different oaths look like they give some flexibility that can be handy for fitting them to settings. I definitely don't see an issue other races being able to play paladins. Back in the day, I played with tons of groups that ignored those kinds of limits (and pretty sure this has been allowed since either late 2E or early 3E, so it is hardly new).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1066547I always liked the stat requirements in the older editions but that point of view simply got outvoted overtime. People  want to be able to play the class they want to play.  And stats still matter. Making a low CHR paladin does not seem like a good idea in 5E.

Less so than a lot of other prime requisites. Consider a Paladin with Oath of Vengeance, very high Strength, who uses spell slots only for Divine Smite; that's an impressive tank, especially with the right feats. Low Charisma costs this Paladin some uses of Divine Sense and Cleansing Touch, and weakens Aura of Protection. Saving slots for smiting, the spell DC/attack bonus and preparing extra spells are not too important, and the Oath of Vengeance brings with it Haste, which does not depend on spell attack bonus or save DC, which works well with the combat approach. Aura of Protection is probably the most painful to weaken with low Charisma; Cleansing Touch seems nice but I have yet to see a 14th level Paladin in a fair amount of higher level play, and it's only 5 uses per long rest with a 20 Charisma. Probably the biggest thing you give up is the ability to multiclass; the main reason I never see 14th level Paladins is that they tend to switch over to Bard or Sorcerer to get spell slots faster for smiting, and Charisma has to be at least 13 for that.

QuoteBut I don't really see an issue there.They are trying to appeal to their audience with each edition. As far as I can tell, the current edition is doing a pretty good job in that respect. In terms of flavor changes to the paladin, I have not really played much 5e, but looking at the entry, I like what they did with it. The different oaths allow for a variety of paladins, which I think as a good thing. I like the classic paladin, but it is quite specific, in the way the monk is often quite specific. The different oaths look like they give some flexibility that can be handy for fitting them to settings. I definitely don't see an issue other races being able to play paladins. Back in the day, I played with tons of groups that ignored those kinds of limits (and pretty sure this has been allowed since either late 2E or early 3E, so it is hardly new).

As written, paladins of other races were in Greyhawk in 1975. The big problem with the traditional paladin is that it's a terrible character, on top of entangling game mechanics with roleplaying. It's an archetype with a surprisingly small number of exemplars, and so rigid there's really nowhere for the character to develop, except to become a fallen paladin.

I think it's pretty hard to ignore the Christianity of the original Paladins.

Of course, unless you're playing a Medieval-Authentic game of D&D (like Lion & Dragon) or a medieval-authentic setting (like Dark Albion), it's unlikely that the setting will be monotheistic, or even that it will have a faith equivalent to that of Christianity. Which is one of the reasons why honestly most Paladins end up feeling anachronistic.

Also, while you could have paladin-like groups in a fantasy setting full of multiple gods and religions (none of which end up appearing very much like Christianity, or with the same moral paradigm), the further away you get from Christianity the less what you have seems like a Paladin at all.