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.

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.