Alternate-Aligned Paladins?

[ThinkMinty]

What were the names of those alternate-alignment Paladins? There was a Chaotic Good one, a Lawful Evil one, and a Chaotic Evil one. Plus probably some others.

Additionally, did they make any alt-Paladins in Pathfinder besides the anti-Paladin?

[Florian]

What were the names of those alternate-alignment Paladins? There was a Chaotic Good one, a Lawful Evil one, and a Chaotic Evil one. Plus probably some others.

**** that ****. That ain´t paladins, that´s just terrrorists.

[hamishspence]

What were the names of those alternate-alignment Paladins? There was a Chaotic Good one, a Lawful Evil one, and a Chaotic Evil one. Plus probably some others.

Paladin of Freedom, Paladin of Tyranny, and Paladin of Slaughter were the Unearthed Arcana ones (re-shown on the SRD)

Dragon Magazine had its own versions - one for every non-LG alignment.


CE: anti-paladin
NE: corruptor
LE: despot
CG: avenger
N: incarnate
CN: anarch
NG = sentinel
LN = enforcer

[Inevitability]

CG: Paladin of Freedom
LE: Paladin of Tyranny
CE: Paladin of Slaughter

They can be found in UA, also in the SRD.

[ThinkMinty]

**** that ****. That ain´t paladins, that´s just terrrorists.

Is this a reference or something? Going out of your way to not answer the question is one thing, but I don't get the joke.

[Florian]

Is this a reference or something? Going out of your way to not answer the question is one thing, but I don't get the joke.

It´s both. The word "Paladin" has a certain meaning (and game mechanics attached to it).
There are other mechanical constructs with en par mechanics attached to it, but they lack the original meaning of the word "Paladin".

You´ll find some UA and Drago articles based on the mechanics, but not on the depth of meaning.

[ThinkMinty]

It´s both. The word "Paladin" has a certain meaning (and game mechanics attached to it).
There are other mechanical constructs with en par mechanics attached to it, but they lack the original meaning of the word "Paladin".

You´ll find some UA and Drago articles based on the mechanics, but not on the depth of meaning.

Paladins are champions of concepts. The alt-paladins are champions of concepts that line up with other paradigms. What's the problem?

[ATHATH]

Notably, the TN Paladin (the Incarnate) can rebuke outsiders, and I don't think that the Dragon Magazine Paladin variants have any codes.

[Florian]

Paladins are champions of concepts. The alt-paladins are champions of concepts that line up with other paradigms. What's the problem?

*Laughs*

Minty, the Paladin is roughly modeled after a certain concept, with all the pros and cons. Whatever you do, you do have to hold up to the original role model or you bust. Read up on you Le Mort d´Arthur.
Short: That carries the weight of history, and if you understand it, LG actually gains a deeper meaning.

Stuff you mention ist just sheer ox manure and based on the stuff american college BA students throw around. Throw me a Paladin of Jingoism or a Paladin of Neocon and I laugh my ass off because the term Paladin seems not to be understood.

[Deophaun]

Throw me a Paladin of Jingoism or a Paladin of Neocon and I laugh my ass off because the term Paladin seems not to be understood.
Seems it's you who doesn't undestand the term, as those concepts would not be too far off from the historical useage of paladin, as they were all about fighting off the Saracens.

[atemu1234]

*Laughs*

Minty, the Paladin is roughly modeled after a certain concept, with all the pros and cons. Whatever you do, you do have to hold up to the original role model or you bust. Read up on you Le Mort d´Arthur.
Short: That carries the weight of history, and if you understand it, LG actually gains a deeper meaning.

Stuff you mention ist just sheer ox manure and based on the stuff american college BA students throw around. Throw me a Paladin of Jingoism or a Paladin of Neocon and I laugh my ass off because the term Paladin seems not to be understood.

Linguistic debate aside, that is not how D&D functions.

[LTwerewolf]

Seems it's you who doesn't undestand the term, as those concepts would not be too far off from the historical useage of paladin, as they were all about fighting off the Saracens.

The irony is lost upon them, but not on us. Cleric this person doesn't understand the term themselves.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Paladins are champions of concepts. The alt-paladins are champions of concepts that line up with other paradigms. What's the problem?

There are a bunch of problems. First and foremost is the champion of a concept. To some degree the concrete loyalties to God and King from the paladin source material have been reduced to a generic "concept" of Lawful Good, but there is still a concrete thing there that people believe in and, in the source material, there is a reason for the particular set of abilities that come with it. The character fluff fits with the paladin abilities provided you consider the source material.

On the other hand, tyranny and slaughter are:
A. not things that people really believe in as such. People may support particular tyrannies. Some like Thrassymachus in Plato's Republic may even advance concepts that, if accepted would make it impossible to have any government that is not a tyranny. However, Thrassymachus did not see himself as a champion of tyranny--merely as a hard-headed realist looking at the world as it is. Likewise, a member of the Waffen SS who functioned as a champion of an actual tyranny most likely saw himself as championing his people and his leader. If you asked him about Stalin's tyranny, he wouldn't have been for it.

In the same manner, Genghis Khan may have been fond of slaughtering his enemies, driving them before him, and ravishing their women (as far as I can tell, he's the original source for Conan's view of what is good in life except Conan left out the rape). However Genghis Khan was only for slaughter when he was the one doing it. He was for killing his enemies, not for slaughter as a generic and universal good.

B. Champions of tyranny and slaughter (and freedom) also lack the literary and historical underpinnings for their abilities. Rather than have a clear story and fluff for their abilities, they simply reverse the abilities of the paladin class. (This is especially true of Pathfinder's Anti-paladin). If you want a CE champion type class, the 3.5 Ravager is leaps and bounds ahead of the paladin of slaughter. Ravager has flavor and the abilities make sense in the class's own terms. Alt paladins get stuff because paladin gets stuff so they need a reversed or altered version of it and that's pretty much the only reason.

Freedom is a little less cut and dried than slaughter and tyranny but it still suffers from the concept problem. What is a paladin of freedom and why does he get that particular set of abilities? Mostly because people wanted a "CG paladin" rather than because there is any compelling link between the concept and and the abilities that go with it.

Put a slightly different way, the standard paladin class is a recognizable out of game archetype. The alt paladins are not.

[Anlashok]

It´s both. The word "Paladin" has a certain meaning

If we were worried about that paladins would be bound in service to a king or a particular religion rather than an ideal of Lawful Good and wizards would be wisdom primary and druids would look more like bards than anything else.

[Elder_Basilisk]

If we were worried about that paladins would be bound in service to a king or a particular religion rather than an ideal of Lawful Good and wizards would be wisdom primary and druids would look more like bards than anything else.

But if you don't consider that, then paladins have a completely arbitrary set of abilities and restrictions. Paladins make sense when you consider their source material and can make sense in settings when given a patron like Heironeous, St. Cuthbert, Torm, or Iomedae who can fill in well enough for that "particular religion" (in many cases because they exemplify particular interpretations of it with the serial numbers filed off). Divorce the paladin class from that and you can't tell the difference between a paladin and a warpriest except for the mechanical differences.

[ThinkMinty]

*Laughs*

Minty, the Paladin is roughly modeled after a certain concept, with all the pros and cons. Whatever you do, you do have to hold up to the original role model or you bust. Read up on you Le Mort d´Arthur.
Short: That carries the weight of history, and if you understand it, LG actually gains a deeper meaning.

A better word for paladins as they're used in pulpy fantasy such as Dungeons & Dragons would honestly be champion, but paladin (as a term) has meaning that has evolved over the span of a bit over two millenea, because language does that and back-formations are a thing.

Linguistically it ties back to the Palatine Hill of ancient Rome, with palatinus being a term for high-level officials of the Imperator/Emperor tied to the imperial palace on the Palatine. Being a palatinus centered around official authority rather than being devoted to righteousness or possessing martial skill. With the Middle Ages palatinus becomes paladin, and is used as a term to describe the Twelve Paladins, also known as the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne. In epic verses of those times, the Twelve Paladins are imagined as idealized champions of purity and courage.

And now, in the future, the concept (in D&D and D&D-like universes anyways) has grown into a knightly champion of Good and Law (Good first, Law second) empowered by their divine patron in a henotheistic (ie, multiple deities confirmed to exist with people usually worshiping just one of them) setting. The medieval Paladin would balk at the idea of teaming up with a champion of a different faith or country to work towards a common good, and the Roman ones would smack you with a stick for making fun of the Imperator's beard, even if they have a funny beard like Nero did.


Stuff you mention ist just sheer ox manure and based on the stuff american college BA students throw around. Throw me a Paladin of Jingoism or a Paladin of Neocon and I laugh my ass off because the term Paladin seems not to be understood.

I get it, I just would like to see the concept expanded into other alignments, if not for any other reason than to give the OG Paladins some foils.


Seems it's you who doesn't undestand the term, as those concepts would not be too far off from the historical useage of paladin, as they were all about fighting off the Saracens.

There being Paladins who serve different deities from each-other without being at each-other's throats is already monumentally ahistoric as it is.


But if you don't consider that, then paladins have a completely arbitrary set of abilities and restrictions. Paladins make sense when you consider their source material and can make sense in settings when given a patron like Heironeous, St. Cuthbert, Torm, or Iomedae who can fill in well enough for that "particular religion" (in many cases because they exemplify particular interpretations of it with the serial numbers filed off). Divorce the paladin class from that and you can't tell the difference between a paladin and a warpriest except for the mechanical differences.

Do the Blackguard or the Anti-Paladin have no place outside of D&D then?

[Anlashok]

Divorce the paladin class from that and you can't tell the difference between a paladin and a warpriest except for the mechanical differences.

If that's the case then it's already true for paladins and LG warpriests and battle clerics so there's already no point.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Do the Blackguard or the Anti-Paladin have no place outside of D&D then?

Anti-paladin, no. Anti-paladin is not a black knight or a convincing evil champion. It's just paladin with the powers reversed and cartoonishly dedicated to "EEEVILL" rather than good. (It's not a realistic motivation--even Milton's Lucifer is motivated by pride and spite and when he says, "Evil be thou my good," it is not for its own sake but because by championing evil in others he can accomplish his goal of spiting God). Lay on hands for healing become lay on hands for inflicting wounds. Smite evil become smite good. It can almost work if the anti-paladin is an undead fallen paladin, but A. That's not a requirement, and B. even then, different abilities might be more appropriate. For example, smite living would be much more appropriate than smite good. And C. That still doesn't address the motivation issue. Probably the best death knight/anti-paladin examples in D&D influenced literature: Arthos or warcraft and Soth of Dragonlance have motivations which are most decidedly not dedication to evil for its own sake.

Blackguard is a slightly different beast. It's set up to be a fallen paladin or a black knight and between sneak attack, poison use, and a set of abilities that are set up to opposite the paladin code, it is a better match for the treacherous knight archetype than anti-paladin. It's not a great class but it does have a place outside D&D and the abilities are not an exact paladin mirror. It's close to an alternate alignment paladin but it's not. Like Ravager, it works in a way that alternate alignment paladins don't.

[Elder_Basilisk]

If that's the case then it's already true for paladins and LG warpriests and battle clerics so there's already no point.

Only if you accept that the paladin class is entirely divorced from its literary inspiration and the cultural space that it is modeled after. It's not. That's why Galahad and Roland always get mentioned in the paladin write-up. That's why you have the paladin code. That's why paladins can fall and have their own special rules for falling. That's why paladins have the specific set of abilities they have. That's also why you have entire classes of people on message boards who can't wait to post how much they hate paladins. For a lot of them, it's because they hate the RL cultural milieu that provides the inspiration for paladins.

[LTwerewolf]

It's also worth noting that Galahad, Roland, and Bors the lesser (the guys that are now considered paragons of what a paladin should be) were called stupid by the other knights because they didn't understand the world and how it works. They were not revered by anyone, just thought of as rather childish and naive.

Edit: Also Percival was thought of that way too.

[Gnorman]

Some people would like to be able to play the Paladin as game concept without having to conform to the Paladin as historical or literary concept. Alternate-alignment paladins allow them to do that. It's just code for "heavily-armored warrior with a sideline in divine magic" anyway, and that's not something that needs to be confined to LG.

There's nothing special about the word "paladin" that requires you to saddle it with the historical baggage.

[Necroticplague]

I always considered the Crusader to be a paladin with better reason to stay for the whole thing and a loser alignment restriction.

[Anlashok]

Only if you accept that the paladin class is entirely divorced from its literary inspiration and the cultural space that it is modeled after. It's not. That's why Galahad and Roland always get mentioned in the paladin write-up. That's why you have the paladin code. That's why paladins can fall and have their own special rules for falling. That's why paladins have the specific set of abilities they have.
That's irrelevant. The argument was that having alignment variations on paladins would mean that they're no different than warpriests.

If that's true then that's already the case for LG warpriests. You can't say a CG paladin would be no different and then turn around and insist it doesn't count for any purpose other than furthering your argument.



That's also why you have entire classes of people on message boards who can't wait to post how much they hate paladins. For a lot of them, it's because they hate the RL cultural milieu that provides the inspiration for paladins.

Really? Most every anti-paladin comment I've seen has been more about how poorly written their code is or how mechanically ineffectual they are. I can't actually recall ever seeing someone say "Roland is dumb and paladins are dumb". Ever.

Other than LTWerewolf just now.

[yellowrocket]

The code isn't poorly written from a game play stand point. It's poorly interpeted and understood by those who want to see people fail, or who are interested in playing a stick in the mud. A paladin is a sheep dog. Willing to evoke great violence on behalf of their cause, so that lesser men don't have to. The code is what holds them to the higher standard and makes them the protectors of the weak.

What is power without a moral compass? Tyranny

[Necroticplague]

The code is what holds them to the higher standard and makes them the protectors of the weak.

What is power without a moral compass? Tyranny

1. You can protect the weak without a code. Arguably better, since it opens up new options for you, some of which would actually minimize death.

2.Tyranny is only if you use your power to control others. It's trivial to have power, lack a moral compass, and not be a tyrant.

[Gnorman]

What is power without a moral compass? A Paladin of Tyranny

Fixed that for ya.

[Elder_Basilisk]

That's irrelevant. The argument was that having alignment variations on paladins would mean that they're no different than warpriests.

If that's true then that's already the case for LG warpriests. You can't say a CG paladin would be no different and then turn around and insist it doesn't count for any purpose other than furthering your argument.

Sure you can. The point is that the historical context and baggage is what distinguishes a standard lawful good paladin from a warpriest. That's why paladins have lay on hands. It's why they are immune to fear. If you ask what makes a paladin different from a warpriest, you can point to the specific history and say that a paladin is a paragon of chivalry, a holy knight, etc and a warpriest is a different and more flexible concept.

In a game without a paladin class, you could play a paladin using the warpriest class. But the character would be recognizable as a paladin because it is a specific concept that is recognizable even to some people outside of the game.

On the other hand, the paladin of freedom does not have the historical and literary context and baggage to explain why he is different from a warpriest. His code isn't the code of chivalry with the serial numbers filed off--it's just an arbitrary code without the same precedent. There's no set of saintly powers that might be expected to go with it. And unlike the paladin whose code is derived from a more or less coherent historical set of ideals that got assigned to the Lawful Good alignment quadrant, alternate paladin codes are derived directly from the alignment descriptions. For the paladin, lawful good is descriptive. For alt-paladins the alignment has to be prescriptive because they are not a game translation of an existing archetype. Prescriptive alignment is inherently problematic--and the fact that the law/chaos axis is an incoherent and inconsistent philosophical/psychological hash that can't come close to deciding what it is doesn't help matters. (When alignment is descriptive, it's less problematic).

In a game without a paladin or alt-paladin class, you can't play an alt-paladin because it's entirely a game mechanical concept.


Really? Most every anti-paladin comment I've seen has been more about how poorly written their code is or how mechanically ineffectual they are. I can't actually recall ever seeing someone say "Roland is dumb and paladins are dumb". Ever.

Other than LTWerewolf just now.

If you really want evidence, read some alignment threads. (Really--pick nearly any alignment thread). If you'd rather keep your sanity though, it's a good general rule to stay out of alignment threads.

[Gnorman]

I don't see a principled argument here for why the paladin is somehow different from a warpriest in mechanical terms, or should be considered so. The warpriest can cast Cure Light Wounds or Remove Fear (and it can do both of these before the paladin gains those signature abilities). A variant cleric with a dip in fighter can do nearly everything a paladin can, often more effectively, and without being saddled with such a restrictive code.

If I remove the code of conduct requirement from the paladin class, the paladin still charges in to battle fearlessly, smites evil, heals their allies, and rides a pretty horse, because its class abilities are not dependent on its history. If I want a class to smite evil, I do so by giving it the Smite Evil class feature. I don't see why we need it to be a game translation of an already-existing archetype.

[ThinkMinty]

The code isn't poorly written from a game play stand point. It's poorly interpeted and understood by those who want to see people fail, or who are interested in playing a stick in the mud. A paladin is a sheep dog. Willing to evoke great violence on behalf of their cause, so that lesser men don't have to. The code is what holds them to the higher standard and makes them the protectors of the weak.

Yup. A fair amount of problem paladins could be solved by making them read a story or two with a good paladin/bad paladin contrast so they know what to aim for.


That's also why you have entire classes of people on message boards who can't wait to post how much they hate paladins. For a lot of them, it's because they hate the RL cultural milieu that provides the inspiration for paladins.

Playing a paladin like Miko Miyazaki are why people disilke Paladins. Being bossed around by a zealot is, shockingly, a surprisingly unfun experience, even if you're the same alignment as they are, and especially if you're Chaotic Good.

Also, I love old-timey European folklore and get annoyed with the sanitized versions of it like Charles Perrault's because they undermine the structure and moral lessons of the story in favor of looking nicer and safer. The commentary on beauty in the "Glass Slipper" scenes of Cinderella (1950) (as inspired by the work of Charles Perrault) as it was in the Brother's Grimm version paints a graphic scene of young women causally mutilating their their feets, their bodies to try and fit into someone else's shoes. Without the violence there, the scene loses impact as a statement


Some people would like to be able to play the Paladin as game concept without having to conform to the Paladin as historical or literary concept. Alternate-alignment paladins allow them to do that. It's just code for "heavily-armored warrior with a sideline in divine magic" anyway, and that's not something that needs to be confined to LG.

There's nothing special about the word "paladin" that requires you to saddle it with the historical baggage.

I'm going to second this. The game concept is interesting, the literary concept has a lot of baggage and mileage may vary. The word originally referred to old-timey Roman officials, so if we're


What is power without a moral compass? Tyranny

[Florian]

Seems it's you who doesn't undestand the term, as those concepts would not be too far off from the historical useage of paladin, as they were all about fighting off the Saracens.

I do understand the background. Please accept that, given the actual situation in my home country, there´s stuff I don´t talk about, not even in an english speaking forum. Better save then sorry.


Linguistic debate aside, that is not how D&D functions.

This never was about linguistics but rather about how D&D, especially the alignment system functions and how a person could "paladin" it, or rather, "champion" it.
And that doesn´t work. The whole concept, both of the "champion" or the "anti"-variants is self-defeating in D&D.



A better word for paladins as they're used in pulpy fantasy such as Dungeons & Dragons would honestly be champion, but paladin (as a term) has meaning that has evolved over the span of a bit over two millenea, because language does that and back-formations are a thing.

Do the Blackguard or the Anti-Paladin have no place outside of D&D then?

Look at my answer above. Now let me expand on it. The whole slew of paladin versions have a very weird in-build dividing line: Some are strictly _for_ something, the others are strictly _against_ something. Now an integral feature of the "Paladin" is the ability to "Fall". We don´t have to discuss that in-depth right now, but we have to talk about the "Code" that goes along with it. That is the self-defeating point where the concept stops working in actual D&D play.
Most concepts, especially the _against_ ones, simply can´t work out based on this. You have to a) stick to your code and b) have something to work against, else the "Fall" happens. Now, a C-aligned guy holding fast to a code? Weird, ain´t it?

So, frankly speaking, that´s like talking about some "Punks" or "Rebels without a cause".

[Gnorman]

Look at my answer above. Now let me expand on it. The whole slew of paladin versions have a very weird in-build dividing line: Some are strictly _for_ something, the others are strictly _against_ something. Now an integral feature of the "Paladin" is the ability to "Fall". We don´t have to discuss that in-depth right now, but we have to talk about the "Code" that goes along with it. That is the self-defeating point where the concept stops working in actual D&D play.
Most concepts, especially the _against_ ones, simply can´t work out based on this. You have to a) stick to your code and b) have something to work against, else the "Fall" happens. Now, a C-aligned guy holding fast to a code? Weird, ain´t it?

So, frankly speaking, that´s like talking about some "Punks" or "Rebels without a cause".

This is mostly a problem with D&D's Law-Chaos system, which is so nebulous and poorly-defined that "follows a code" can accurately describe both a Lawful character and a Chaotic character.

It does not, however, inherently proscribe the existence of chaotic paladins.

[Necroticplague]

Look at my answer above. Now let me expand on it. The whole slew of paladin versions have a very weird in-build dividing line: Some are strictly _for_ something, the others are strictly _against_ something. Now an integral feature of the "Paladin" is the ability to "Fall". We don´t have to discuss that in-depth right now, but we have to talk about the "Code" that goes along with it. That is the self-defeating point where the concept stops working in actual D&D play.
Most concepts, especially the _against_ ones, simply can´t work out based on this. You have to a) stick to your code and b) have something to work against, else the "Fall" happens. Now, a C-aligned guy holding fast to a code? Weird, ain´t it?

No, it's not really weird for a Chaotic person to follow a code. Chaotic means you see rules not having any inherit value, and thus value your own freedom. Choosing to follow a code is still reasonable, because those are rules you've invested value in. They're important because you chose to follow it, not merely because they exist.

[Florian]

This is mostly a problem with D&D's Law-Chaos system, which is so nebulous and poorly-defined that "follows a code" can accurately describe both a Lawful character and a Chaotic character.

It does not, however, inherently proscribe the existence of chaotic paladins.

Actually, I don´t know. This could be the starting point for a rather lengthy discussion and one that I don´t want to engage in while being stone-sober. It would also derail this thread even further.

Let us use the term "Paragon" for this, as it is rather more fitting and I think that this is where the whole thing breaks down, as different alignments need different base classes for their paragons to be fitting.
The "problem", if we might call it this, is that the "Paladin" class is based on a very specific archetype and that can´t be translated to other alignments without losing its underlying meaning.

[Gnorman]

Actually, I don´t know. This could be the starting point for a rather lengthy discussion and one that I don´t want to engage in while being stone-sober. It would also derail this thread even further.

Let us use the term "Paragon" for this, as it is rather more fitting and I think that this is where the whole thing breaks down, as different alignments need different base classes for their paragons to be fitting.
The "problem", if we might call it this, is that the "Paladin" class is based on a very specific archetype and that can´t be translated to other alignments without losing its underlying meaning.

Again, there is no underlying meaning to the "Paladin" class that requires it to conform to Lawful Good. As long as it's fulfilling the central role of "smashy dude of the gods," I don't see how it matters in any mechanical way.

[Florian]

Again, there is no underlying meaning to the "Paladin" class that requires it to conform to Lawful Good. As long as it's fulfilling the central role of "smashy dude of the gods," I don't see how it matters in any mechanical way.

Can you elaborate here? I´ve looked at your statement from a core POV and it doesn´t make sense.

[Gnorman]

Can you elaborate here? I´ve looked at your statement from a core POV and it doesn´t make sense.

None of the paladin's abilities are dependent on being Lawful Good, except for the part where it says that breaking the Code of Conduct causes them to lose all class abilities. You don't have to be Lawful Good to heal, to smite, to wear heavy armor and wield martial weapons, to turn undead, to stave off fear & disease, to cast spells, to own a horse. What about the combination of these abilities (a combination that many chaotic or evil clerics can achieve with very little effort) suddenly necessitates a Lawful Good alignment, other than adherence to historical tradition? And if the only reason you're restricting the Paladin to Lawful Good is "because history," you've all but admitted that there's no mechanical reason to do so. And if there's no mechanical reason to do so, why do it?

Entertain, for a moment, the concept of a Paladin class that had no alignment restrictions and no Code of Conduct, but still had all of the same abilities. It could still Smite Whatever, was still immune to disease & fear, could Turn Undead & Lay on Hands, and cast a smattering of divine spells at higher levels. It would still be recognizably a Paladin, because Paladin is a game concept that has transcended its historical origins and come to mean something other than "Lawful Good fighter with a stick up his butt." Some folks might insist on calling it a "Warpriest," because they're keeping the concept of "Paladin" locked inside a tower of literary and historical baggage. But what is a Paladin, in game terms, except a combination of a Warrior and a Priest?

Keep in mind that I also think that Bards & Barbarians should be able to be Lawful, that Monks should be able to be Chaotic, and that we should have more Chaotic Evil druids in the world. Alignment is a game construct that should have little to no bearing on what classes a player should be able to use to fulfill a character concept.

[Florian]

None of the paladin's abilities are dependent on being Lawful Good, except for the part where it says that breaking the Code of Conduct causes them to lose all class abilities. You don't have to be Lawful Good to heal, to smite, to wear heavy armor and wield martial weapons, to turn undead, to stave off fear & disease, to cast spells, to own a horse. What about the combination of these abilities (a combination that many chaotic or evil clerics can achieve with very little effort) suddenly necessitates a Lawful Good alignment, other than adherence to historical tradition? And if the only reason you're restricting the Paladin to Lawful Good is "because history," you've all but admitted that there's no mechanical reason to do so. And if there's no mechanical reason to do so, why do it?

Entertain, for a moment, the concept of a Paladin class that had no alignment restrictions and no Code of Conduct, but still had all of the same abilities. It could still Smite Whatever, was still immune to disease & fear, could Turn Undead & Lay on Hands, and cast a smattering of divine spells at higher levels. It would still be recognizably a Paladin, because Paladin is a game concept that has transcended its historical origins and come to mean something other than "Lawful Good fighter with a stick up his butt." Some folks might exist on calling it a "Warpriest," because they're keeping the concept of "Paladin" locked inside a tower of literary and historical baggage. But what is a Paladin, in game terms, except a combination of a Warrior and a Priest?

Keep in mind that I also think that Bards & Barbarians should be able to be Lawful, that Monks should be able to be Chaotic, and that we should have more Chaotic Evil druids in the world. Alignment is a game construct that should have little to no bearing on what classes a player should be able to use to fulfill a character concept.

Honestly? Reading this, I´ve got the very distinct feeling that you´re mixing things up. There is a distinctive difference between Core and campaign setting that blurry the lie here.

[Gnorman]

Honestly? Reading this, I´ve got the very distinct feeling that you´re mixing things up. There is a distinctive difference between Core and campaign setting that blurry the lie here.

Well now you're going to have to elaborate, because I have no idea what you mean by this.

[Florian]

Well now you're going to have to elaborate, because I have no idea what you mean by this.

Well, there´s a disconnect between "core" and "setting". The Paladin class actually shows that gap pretty good. The moment you start putting a "lens" to things and try to explain them being based on the cosmology and deities involved, you end up with the situation you named. You would ask yourself why a Paladin of a LN deity can´t smite chaos, for example, or opt to channel negative energy then.
I´m only saying that we´re talking about different levels here that will generate different outcomes.

[Gnorman]

Well, there´s a disconnect between "core" and "setting". The Paladin class actually shows that gap pretty good. The moment you start putting a "lens" to things and try to explain them being based on the cosmology and deities involved, you end up with the situation you named. You would ask yourself why a Paladin of a LN deity can´t smite chaos, for example, or opt to channel negative energy then.
I´m only saying that we´re talking about different levels here that will generate different outcomes.

Well, yeah, you'd have to loosen up the alignment restrictions on Smite, I suppose. But frankly, as it's already a limited resource, I don't see the point in limiting it to opposed alignments anyway. Just let the Paladin say "this attack is a Smite attack" against any target they damn well please. And I'm trying to keep things setting-neutral here, because the moment we start bringing in settings, well, then we have to talk about Paladins of Sune, and that just gets weird.

[Florian]

Paladins of Sune.

Temple whores? Divine hookers?

Besides that, an actually good example for what happens when the Paladin class is forced to work with a setting and when things break down based on that.
(With that, I´m off to have a last smoke for today and go to bed. G´night)

[digiman619]

Really? Most every anti-paladin comment I've seen has been more about how poorly written their code is or how mechanically ineffectual they are. I can't actually recall ever seeing someone say "Roland is dumb and paladins are dumb". Ever.


Paladins have three major problems: 1) when we get the Lawful Stupid paladin uses the class as an excuse to be sanctimonious, 2) DM who make the paladin fall for little-to-no reason, and 3) People who only play the alignment and are altruistic to the point of being a caricature rather than a character.

[Necroticplague]

Paladins have three major problems: 1) when we get the Lawful Stupid paladin uses the class as an excuse to be sanctimonious, 2) DM who make the paladin fall for little-to-no reason, and 3) People who only play the alignment and are altruistic to the point of being a caricature rather than a character.

You forgot 4: The class itself isn't very good mechanically, even if RP restrictions are ignored.