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.