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.