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

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

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.