PC Paladin Falls

[Pex]

As a personal pet peeve I was annoyed in 3E that Paladins of other alignments were created. It felt to me that players just wanted the paladin powers but didn't want to be bothered playing nice guys. In 5E they won out in that anyone can be the paladin to get the spells and smites but no longer need to be virtuous.

I can see the problem of alignment being used as a straight jacket, and I'm right there with you that Lawful Good doesn't mean you play Awful Stupid. Perhaps it is nostalgia for the tradition, but I liked that Paladins had to be Lawful Good, to be the Light in the Darkness, to do what is Right not what is Easy.

I lament the falling from Grace the class has suffered. It may be good for the game as a whole, but I mourn the sacrifice of Paladin Virtue.

[Sigreid]

I think it had to change because of the player base. I've heard too many stories of DMs forcing a paladin to fall but putting them in no win situations because they thought it made for a more dramatic story.

[Morty]

A player who wants to play a righteous, noble and incorruptible defender of all that's good can still do that - with any class, even. But we no longer have a class devoted entirely to a very rigid interpretation of a single alignment. And we no longer have a minefield of a code of conduct that acts like a magnet for bad GMs. I call that a win-win.

[Jophiel]

As a 1e player, I feel ya although I'd be inclined to allow Lawful Neutral or Evil paladins. Not even "anti-paladins" but just devout holy order warriors for the other teams (Auda ibn Jad from the Rose of the Prophet trilogy is probably my model for this). But lawfulness feels like a prerequisite for the class.

There's a bunch of good examples in fantasy literature for paladins who aren't "lawful stupid" and playing one that way is a failure on either the player or the DM (who may be imposing lawful stupid onto the player). I think that people's inability to get past lawful stupid probably led to watering the class down since people wanted paladin-powers without the alignment restriction. This is why we can't have nice things.

Of course, I also dislike the general diminishing of divine magic in general from a direct gift of the gods for service rather than just another flavor of arcane hocus-pocus and the whole "I follow a concept!" nonsense. So my vision of the paladin gets it from both sides.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think it's to the game's overall benefit to uncouple the holy warrior archetype from the tight fluff restrictions of the classic Paladin, but I do see where you're coming from. Maybe rename the base class "Templar" and the Oath of Devotion "Oath of the Paladin?"

You could also make a "Paladin's Oath" feat that requires a LG alignment and gives classic Paladin goodies like Detect Evil.

[Max_Killjoy]

A player who wants to play a righteous, noble and incorruptible defender of all that's good can still do that - with any class, even. But we no longer have a class devoted entirely to a very rigid interpretation of a single alignment. And we no longer have a minefield of a code of conduct that acts like a magnet for bad GMs. I call that a win-win.

That's pretty much what I was going to say.

Plus, shifting from the Alignment restriction to a Code weakens Alignment's hold on the game in general, which is always a good thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

As a personal pet peeve I was annoyed in 3E that Paladins of other alignments were created. It felt to me that players just wanted the paladin powers but didn't want to be bothered playing nice guys. In 5E they won out in that anyone can be the paladin to get the spells and smites but no longer need to be virtuous.

I can see the problem of alignment being used as a straight jacket, and I'm right there with you that Lawful Good doesn't mean you play Awful Stupid. Perhaps it is nostalgia for the tradition, but I liked that Paladins had to be Lawful Good, to be the Light in the Darkness, to do what is Right not what is Easy.

I lament the falling from Grace the class has suffered. It may be good for the game as a whole, but I mourn the sacrifice of Paladin Virtue. D&D players and DM's have apparently demonstrated that most of them can't handle Paladins due to the gotcha instinct.
In other words, this is why we can't have nice things.

What I like about the New Paladin concept is that you can still play like an old school Paladin, you can go for a Lawful Neutral paladin (Crown oath is a great one for that) or a "spread the Light" paladin with the ancients oath.

But it also takes work form the DM and the player, operating in good faith, to make this work out.
I've seen it work famously for a dwarf Vengeance Paladin that a buddy of mine plays. He also folded his background into his Oath.

[TyGuy]

Alignment is fake news

[Sception]

As a personal pet peeve I was annoyed in 3E that Paladins of other alignments were created. It felt to me that players just wanted the paladin powers but didn't want to be bothered playing nice guys. In 5E they won out in that anyone can be the paladin to get the spells and smites but no longer need to be virtuous.

My feeling on it is that the paladin mechanics have always been a pretty good fit a classic dark knight archetype. Much better than fighter/mage or fighter/cleric multiclass alternatives. As such, various anti-paladin alternative classes or subclasses seemed like a natural fit and a good idea. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[OverLordOcelot]

AD&D 1e came up with a weird character class that didn't have much to do with literature, stories, or history as far as I can tell. The original use of 'paladin' was certainly not for someone lawful good in a D&D sense, they were much closer to LN conquest or crown paladins as they were the top dozen knights in Charlemagne's court, they didn't limit their personal wealth and didn't instantly lose their status for killing an enemy instead of bringing him to trial the way old D&D paladins did.

Dumping the whole 'gotcha' game in the original paladin concept is great as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad they did it.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm not necessarily opposed to oaths representing different alignments.

However, the issue for me is that I think there needs to be a better reason as to why some of these require rigid oaths in the first place.

I mean, if you want to have an oath more akin to Bushido or somesuch, then that seems perfectly reasonable.

But at the other end of the spectrum we've had stuff like "I pledge by my blackened heart to slaughter every innocent I encounter! Old, wounded, women, children, I care not! I promise that every one of them shall suffer a slow and agonising death at my hands!"

Why? Just . . . why?

Is this for people who desperately want to play Captain Planet villains? :smallconfused:

[Xayah]

I love the new system for Paladins, because it allows for things like a Chaotic Good Oath of Devotion that left leadership (s)he disagrees with to find a safe space for his/her people, or even an Evil Vengeance/Conquest that just wants to watch the world burn after it took everything from him/her and calls upon the strength of a more evil god to do so, without being an Oathbreaker per se (need to work around certain tenents, but you can). These things are only possible when you give players freedom.

Really, even now I think the Tenents are too restricting because the spells/abilities the different Oaths get aren't... exclusive to those specific ideas, but I respect their existence and their flavor, and work around them whenever I make a Paladin. It's more fun this way without many Paladins having similar ideas and ideals.

[FabulousFizban]

incorporate the honor mechanic! if a paladin acts against their oath, it lowers their honor. if your honor is too low, members of religious orders will view you as an oathbreaker and refuse to deal with you

[Willie the Duck]

As a personal pet peeve I was annoyed in 3E that Paladins of other alignments were created. It felt to me that players just wanted the paladin powers but didn't want to be bothered playing nice guys. In 5E they won out in that anyone can be the paladin to get the spells and smites but no longer need to be virtuous.


I have to say, this seems like a bit of a departure in your preferences, given the pro-player-agency/vigilance-against-DM-totalitarianism perspective from which you regularly argue.

Anyways, let's be clear, paladins of different alignments started in 1e AD&D, the era where your alignment was supposed to be mapped with little ticks along an axis.
From Dragon #39:
Anti-paladin (CE)

From Dragon #106:
Myrikhan (NG)
Garath (CG)
Lyan (LN)
Paramander (N)
Fantra (CN)
Illrigger (LE)
Arrikhan (NE)
So laying this at the feet of 3e seems a little unfair.

Regardless/ignoring those, I will say that before 3e it made a lot of sense for paladin to be a special subclass that you got for good behavior and equally good rolls. Predominantly because:

The design aesthetic of rewarding good fortune with further good fortune (roll good stats=get access to potentially better classes) was part of the game's makeup.
Gaining mechanical benefit in exchange for roleplaying restriction was more accepted (see 2e Bladesinger fighter-mage kit)


3e did away with paladins as strictly better class* in exchange for higher standards, and made it simply another class, supposedly roughly balanced with all the others**. At that point, things started to become a little odd. Nothing else fit that model, and given how 3e alignment was perceived (at least if online debate was any indicator), it was not necessarily seen as a good thing.
*Mind you, it never really was, as you had follower and equipment limitations as a pre-3e paladin, but for the pre-name-level/Keep&Leader game, it was rarely an actual detriment except in the most otherwise Monty Haul-ish game (where the magic item limitations would ever actually come into play)
**Yes, I know. Let's not dwell on it for the 5-billionth time

I think 5e made the right decision on making it all very up-to-the-group.



I can see the problem of alignment being used as a straight jacket, and I'm right there with you that Lawful Good doesn't mean you play Awful Stupid. Perhaps it is nostalgia for the tradition, but I liked that Paladins had to be Lawful Good, to be the Light in the Darkness, to do what is Right not what is Easy.

I lament the falling from Grace the class has suffered. It may be good for the game as a whole, but I mourn the sacrifice of Paladin Virtue.

That character type is still entirely possibly and plausible, they just allowed the existence of paladins without that requirement. Indeed probably because a whole bunch of people have been turned-off on paladins because of gotcha-ism or distrust of what the gamebooks or online RAW-hounds have to say regarding alignment.



Why? Just . . . why?

Is this for people who desperately want to play Captain Planet villains? :smallconfused:

My general take is simply to have a single class for heroes and villains alike, regardless of whether the players are going to be playing them. Are there going to be extreme villains in a D&D game? Quite possibly. Are the players going to be playing them? Maybe, but most likely no. Here are the rules for them (if you want them built using PC-rules mechanics). Kind of like how Star Wars TTRPGs tend to have darkside powers, regardless of whether or not 'playing as the bad guys' is actively encouraged.

[Unoriginal]

The Oaths of Devotion and Redemption exist, and in a different register of good the Oath of the Ancient is there as well.

There is no "fall from grace" of the Paladin concept. The different Oaths and the very different conception of the Alignment system makes so that you can play an actual virtuous defender of justice and benevolence without issues if it's what you wish to be.

I guess it was less of an issue for people who didn't have DMs smile and start adding orc babies whenever a player wrote "paladin" on their sheet during the 3.X era. And the less is said of the Book of Exalted Deeds the better.

[Coffee_Dragon]

*checks calendar*

[Sigreid]

Well, paladins can still fall, at least in my campaign. They just do it if they fail to give living up to their oath the old college try. They aren't required to be rigidly perfect but they are required to be striving for the ideal of their oath. I've told real world people that if you can live up to your ideals 100% of the time you should raise your target.

[Unoriginal]

Well, paladins can still fall, at least in my campaign. They just do it if they fail to give living up to their oath the old college try. They aren't required to be rigidly perfect but they are required to be striving for the ideal of their oath. I've told real world people that if you can live up to your ideals 100% of the time you should raise your target.

That's what the DMG says about it, basically.

You have to break your Oath deliberately and then spend the rest of your life not trying to make up for it.

Oathbreakers are those who do that, then embrace being a piece of ****. And when they die they end up becoming Death Knights...

[Max_Killjoy]

In other words, an Oath is an ideal that the character is trying to achieve, to live up to? Rather than a trap, which is what too many DMs used to treat the Paladin's "LG code" as in earlier editions?

No rule is going to stop a DM from being a jerk or just bad at DMing, but at least that would take a tool out of the toolbox of tool DMs.

[mephnick]

I preferred when they were supposed to be paragons of good and law as well whether it was an oath or alignment doesn't matter to me. The concept of a Vengeance Paladin(seriously?) and Conquest Paladin are silly to me. I would have preferred the old Paladin/Anti-Paladin divide.

Mechanically it's a very well built class, but the concept as a whole has been rendered meaningless with their desperation to provide edgy chaotic versions that are treated as valid fantasy archetypes.

[Unoriginal]

In other words, an Oath is an ideal that the character is trying to achieve, to live up to? Rather than a trap, which is what too many DMs used to treat the Paladin's "LG code" as in earlier editions?

Yep. You can even change your Oath if you have a drastic change of opinion about what is best in life. Though not many times, 'cause Oaths to yourself and the universe demands actual dedication. Can hardly say you're really trying to achieve an ideal if you're so wishy-washy you dropped it twice already.

[Rukelnikov]

As someone who played SWd6 for years (and a SW fan in general), having a group of like minded individuals with unique defining powers having to adhere to a strict code never bothered me in the least, quite the contraryit helps give said group an identity.

In 3e I always likened the Paladin to the Jedi, the Blackguards to the Sith, and the Holy Liberators to the Grey Jedi. The alignment Paladins from UA, I didn't like much, but the helped bridge the fact that you could't start play as a Black Guard or Holy Liberator, and it sucked having to play oyur first five levels as something different than what you wanna be, maybe I don't wanna be a fallen Paladin, I just wanna have embraced the evil within from the time that I started adventuring, hell that was probably the moment I became an adventurer, similar for the Holy Liberator, maybe I don't wanna be the one who breaks his code for the greater good, I just never embraced the code that put order and good at the same level.

Having said that, I only saw a Paladin fall once, I was the DM and he wished his that his dwarven cleric companion's beard fell from his face and never grew again, he was always a prankster, but this was too much(as most dwarves said cleric was very proud of his beard), that was during the last session of the first campaign, after the fight with the BBEG. In the second campaign he spend the first 4 or 5 adventures as a fallen Paladin until he managed to attone.

On a similar note I've seen it happen twice to Jedi(one went full darkside, the other become grey), but that's it, 3 times in 20 something years.

[Kish]

As a personal pet peeve I was annoyed in 3E that Paladins of other alignments were created. It felt to me that players just wanted the paladin powers but didn't want to be bothered playing nice guys. In 5E they won out in that anyone can be the paladin to get the spells and smites but no longer need to be virtuous.

I can see the problem of alignment being used as a straight jacket, and I'm right there with you that Lawful Good doesn't mean you play Awful Stupid. Perhaps it is nostalgia for the tradition, but I liked that Paladins had to be Lawful Good, to be the Light in the Darkness, to do what is Right not what is Easy.

I lament the falling from Grace the class has suffered. It may be good for the game as a whole, but I mourn the sacrifice of Paladin Virtue.
I'm with you as far as valuing a paladin being "the Light in the Darkness" and "doing what is Right, not what is Easy."

We part ways sharply at approving of Lawful Good being, explicitly or implicitly, more Good than the other two Good alignments. And thus the way Pathfinder 2ed is doing it, with the paladin class open to all three Good alignments but still restricted from non-Good alignments, still Falling if the paladin ever commits an evil act, is ideal; if, as many people argue, paladins are holy warriors of specific gods then there's no reason to have a separate class rather than simply a martial cleric variant, and "the most Good means Lawful Good" is an atavism well consigned to the dustbins of history.

[Constructman]

Mechanically it's a very well built class, but the concept as a whole has been rendered meaningless with their desperation to provide edgy chaotic versions that are treated as valid fantasy archetypes.

**** fantasy archetypes. If I want to play a Conquest Paladin whose personal quest of strength is to bake the piest pie that ever pied and crush all the inferior pastry chefs out there in the world in impromptu episodes of fantasy Great British Bake Off, then that should be allowed as long as I'm still pulling my weight in the party.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In other words, an Oath is an ideal that the character is trying to achieve, to live up to? Rather than a trap, which is what too many DMs used to treat the Paladin's "LG code" as in earlier editions?

No rule is going to stop a DM from being a jerk or just bad at DMing, but at least that would take a tool out of the toolbox of tool DMs.

This is how I feel about it. Anything that removes the temptation to play gotcha games/"darned if you do, darned if you don't" games is worth considering.

To other people: Except in FR, paladins are not inherently servants of gods. They are empowered directly by their Oath and conviction rather than channeling divine power from a specific god. You can have a completely anti-god Paladin without a problem. So they're very different from a martial cleric thematically.

This is also why falling in 5e requires direct and total rejection of the Oath, not merely failing to live up to it entirely. You can no longer draw power from adhering to something you've rejected, but failure is normal and expected as long as you're trying. It's also why Paladins are CHA-based casters, not WIS-based casters. They're not based on perceiving the will of their god. Instead, they're based on their own inner resolve and self-concept.

And a "must be LG"/failing by one evil act goes against the meaning of alignment in 5e entirely. The only act with defined alignment is animating the dead, and that's merely "not good". Alignment is about general trends and patterns and defaults of behavior, not any individual act in a vacuum.

[Sigreid]

In other words, an Oath is an ideal that the character is trying to achieve, to live up to? Rather than a trap, which is what too many DMs used to treat the Paladin's "LG code" as in earlier editions?

No rule is going to stop a DM from being a jerk or just bad at DMing, but at least that would take a tool out of the toolbox of tool DMs.

That's my take, yes.

[alchahest]

**** fantasy archetypes. If I want to play a Conquest Paladin whose personal quest of strength is to bake the piest pie that ever pied and crush all the inferior pastry chefs out there in the world in impromptu episodes of fantasy Great British Bake Off, then that should be allowed as long as I'm still pulling my weight in the party.

I haven't read the rest of the thread but I couldn't let this go. This post is wonderful and I am going to build a paladin NPC baker in your honor.

[Max_Killjoy]

**** fantasy archetypes.


If we could plus posts, I wouldn't have enough plus to plus this post enough.

[Unoriginal]

"Scary fighting guy who's actually really into baking" is also an archetype, though.

[Great Dragon]

I saw a lot of "gotcha" and no-win situations in all the Old editions up to 3rd edition, and just was never motivated to play a Paladin. (I didn't do either Pathfinder or 4e)

As a DM, I hate 5e Players riding the Edge of their Alignment or Oath and get upset with me when I call them on it. And, I don't expect perfection. But constant behavior changes the PC's Alignment.

I never did get behind the Anti-Paladins.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind calling the 'evil' Oath Blackguards.

Paladins no longer being tied to a deity means that there is no game Rules for reward, and especially punishment for way-out behavior.

[KorvinStarmast]

I preferred when they were supposed to be paragons of good and law as well whether it was an oath or alignment doesn't matter to me. Yeah, it was a role one could play and get into.

The concept of a Vengeance Paladin(seriously?) and Conquest Paladin are silly to me. I would have preferred the old Paladin/Anti-Paladin divide. Conquest is a lot more like a crusader holy warrior type. I understand your take on Vengeance Paladin.

Mechanically it's a very well built class, but the concept as a whole has been rendered meaningless with their desperation to provide edgy chaotic versions that are treated as valid fantasy archetypes. Edgelords are part of the customer base, so the savvy company offers them a bone.

[Sigreid]

Yeah, it was a role one could play and get into.
Conquest is a lot more like a crusader holy warrior type. I understand your take on Vengeance Paladin.
Edgelords are part of the customer base, so the savvy company offers them a bone.

My inner edge lord is emerging in the form of a kobold devotion paladin with a noble knight background out to redeem his race.

[Great Dragon]

My inner edge lord is emerging in the form of a kobold devotion paladin with a noble knight background out to redeem his race.

That's great.
I could play the Vengeance Paladin with Urchin Background from the same Kobold Clan out to prove that the "Rules of Kartulmak" are the best for the Kobold race, by destroying you. 🤣

[Unoriginal]

My inner edge lord is emerging in the form of a kobold devotion paladin with a noble knight background out to redeem his race.

Tip for that: Pack Tactic removes the issues of using a lance in close quarter, and there is nothing stopping a Small character from using the lance, which has 1d12 damages + reach.

Plus as a Paladin getting an appropriate mount isn't a problem.

Need more Kobold jousters.

[Morty]

I really don't see what traditional paladins lose due to other people being able to play less traditional ones. And I appreciate the implication that liking or disliking the 3E paladin and older is some kind of measure of being a good roleplayer even less.

[2D8HP]

The Oaths of Devotion and Redemption exst, and in a different register of good the Oath of the Ancient is there as well.

There is no "fall from grace" of the Paladin concept. The different Oaths and the very different conception of the Alignment system makes so that you can play an actual virtuous defender of justice and benevolence without issues if it's what you wish to be.

I guess it was less of an issue for people who didn't have DMs smile and start adding orc babies whenever a player wrote "paladin" on their sheet during the 3.X era. And the less is said of the Book of Exalted Deeds the better.


Devotion and Redemption Oath Paladins seem very "classic" to me, Conquest and Vengeance decidedly less so, and then there's Ancients: The PAR-TAY!! Oath, with the bestest 20th Level Feature EVUH! (which sadly I've never seen in play)



Tip for that: Pack Tactic removes the issues of using a lance in close quarter, and there is nothing stopping a Small character from using the lance, which has 1d12 damages + reach.

Plus as a Paladin getting an appropriate mount isn't a problem.

Need more Kobold jousters.


Kobolds?


So sad all that Koboldeliciousness lost

:sigh:

Perhaps it's for the best, some of it was highly NSFW!

How can they be called cold blooded yet be so hot?

If Kobold lovin' is wrong I don't want to be right!


...Don't remind me. I never knew you could fit that many kobolds on one pole. And that bottle of... What was it? The opposite to sovereign glue? It's interesting how many people used that in their artwork.


Well Kobolds are recorded to be completely comfortable with sharing tight spaces.

Props to Volo though, now we know how he learned as much as he has and lived to tell about it.


On one hand, I'm kinda wary about the topic veering toward kobold intimacy. On the other, I'm highly intrigued.


This has taken a lethal turn if people are using universal solvent as lubricating fluid


We all saw the picture. It was that bottle that I was trying to remember.


unfortunately the label was written in kobold so we couldn't read it


Interesting that it wasn't written in Draconic. Are Kobolds keeping their deviant pleasures secret from their dragon masters now? It's the beginning of the revolution and it's starting in the bedroom nest!


So long as they keep it in the nest and out of the public eye, I have no qualms....


I for one welcome our new reptilian overlords.


well nobody is going to notice if some of the lantern oil goes missing:smallwink:


Kobolds... once you go cloaca you never go back-a?

[Sigreid]

That's great.
I could play the Vengeance Paladin with Urchin Background from the same Kobold Clan out to prove that the "Rules of Kartulmak" are the best for the Kobold race, by destroying you. 🤣

In his background I put a quote "if you won't do it because it's right, I'll take it as a personal favor if you didn't make me stab you."

[Vorpalchicken]

The reason why the paladin gotcha is no longer a thing is, the old paladins were strict fighter upgrades. They had fighter abilities and on top of that they had awesome paladin abilities at the cost of having to adhere to both their lawful good alignment and further restrictions including limits on wealth, magic items, followers and those with whom they could associate.

These days, paladins are better than fighters in some ways but worse in others- especially at, well, fighting. So there is no need for an exceptionally restrictive mode of play since the trade offs are in the powers of the class itself.

[Rukelnikov]

The reason why the paladin gotcha is no longer a thing is, the old paladins were strict fighter upgrades. They had fighter abilities and on top of that they had awesome paladin abilities at the cost of having to adhere to both their lawful good alignment and further restrictions including limits on wealth, magic items, followers and those with whom they could associate.

These days, paladins are better than fighters in some ways but worse in others- especially at, well, fighting. So there is no need for an exceptionally restrictive mode of play since the trade offs are in the powers of the class itself.

Tbh, that was a LONG time ago, even in 2e revised with splatbooks Paladins can't get as specialized in weapons as Figthers can, and in 3e they are different classes (both have 1d10, full bab and full plate, but that's pretty much it), where one is better ot some things and the other is better at others.

[Sigreid]

Just looking at the thread title again and thinking someone with more talent than me should parody Its Raining Men as Its Raining Paladins.

[Willie the Duck]

Just looking at the thread title again and thinking someone with more talent than me should parody Its Raining Men as Its Raining Paladins.

Much more appropriate falling paladin music (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5BJXwNeKsQ).

[Waterdeep Merch]

As an enormous paladin fan who has been playing them since 2e, I don't mind the restriction lifting. I much prefer the oath tenants. I use them as a starting point before tailoring it to fit my character's ideals/godly commandments, and I'm really thinking of implementing the PF2e paladin's code hierarchy to create a more crunchy chivalrous ideal. Death before dishonor, for starters.

Now there's a clear delineation between a paladin and a Paladin, and it all comes down to roleplaying. If you want to be a serious hero, it takes gumption and hard work.

[Unoriginal]

Just looking at the thread title again and thinking someone with more talent than me should parody Its Raining Men as Its Raining Paladins.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x6leDGV7gs

Hi, hi we're your Ether souls
Ah-huh
And have we got news for you
You better listen
Get ready, all you lonely ghouls
And leave those save throws at home
Alright
Iniquity is rising (uh rising), moral meter's getting low (oh low, girl)
According to all sorcerers (what sorcerers now), the street's the place to go (we better hurry up)
'Cause tonight yet one more time (more time)
Just about half-past ten (half past ten)
For one more time in 3e
It's gonna start falling pals (start falling pals)
It's falling pals, hallelujah, it's falling pals, amen
I'm gonna go out to run and let myself get
Absolutely soaking wet
It's falling pals, hallelujah
It's falling pals, every specimen
Tall, blonde, dark and lean
Rough and tough and strong and mean
God bless Evil's nature, there's some angels too
They fell off from heaven and they did what they had to do
They taught every fiends as they rearranged the planes
So that each and every devil could find their perfect soul
Oh, it's falling pals, yeah
Iniquity's rising (iniquity's rising)
Moral meter's getting low (it's getting low, low, low, low)
According to all sorcerers (according to all sorcerers)
The street's the place to go
'Cause tonight yet one more time
Just about half past ten
For one more time in 3e
It's gonna start falling pals (start falling pals)
It's falling pals, hallelujah
It's falling pals, amen
It's falling pals, hallelujah
It's falling pals, amen
It's falling pals, hallelujah
It's falling pals, amen
It's falling pals, hallelujah
Oh oh oh oh
It's falling pals
Tall, blonde, dark and lean
Rough and tough and strong and mean
Hallelujah it's falling pals

[Jophiel]

To other people: Except in FR, paladins are not inherently servants of gods.
Well, except in FR and in my worlds. The idea that "I oath SO HARD that I get spells!" doesn't wash with me :smallwink:

[OverLordOcelot]

I preferred when they were supposed to be paragons of good and law as well whether it was an oath or alignment doesn't matter to me. The concept of a Vengeance Paladin(seriously?) and Conquest Paladin are silly to me. I would have preferred the old Paladin/Anti-Paladin divide.

I'm not sure why a paladin in the traditional style of the concept is silly to you; the original use of Paladin was to denote conquering knights who served a King. They were good at fighting and obeyed their lord, and paid lip service to their religion, but didn't have any kind of vow of poverty, didn't lose their status if they committed an 'evil' act, and their 'good' was just 'kill the bad people', not the 'help the poor' stuff that the much more recent 1e rules tacked onto them. Conquest and Vengeance are much less silly than the flowers and poverty vow of the 1e D&D paladin, and certainly fit the tradition better.

[Jophiel]

I'm not sure why a paladin in the traditional style of the concept is silly to you; the original use of Paladin was to denote conquering knights who served a King.
I assume the 1e paladin was styled less after history and more after an Arthurian ideal of the Knight in Shining Armor with a splash of romanticized Knights Templar. I mean, historically speaking, paladins couldn't sense evil or cure wounds with a touch either.

[KorvinStarmast]

My inner edge lord is emerging in the form of a kobold devotion paladin with a noble knight background out to redeem his race. This appears to be the beginning of an epic character arc.

Need more Kobold jousters. Yeah.

These days, paladins are better than fighters in some ways but worse in others- especially at, well, fighting. So there is no need for an exceptionally restrictive mode of play since the trade offs are in the powers of the class itself. Fair point.

Just looking at the thread title again and thinking someone with more talent than me should parody Its Raining Men as Its Raining Paladins.Oh no, you went there?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x6leDGV7gs
Man, you went there. (chortled, I did).

I'm not sure why a paladin in the traditional style of the concept is silly to you; the original use of Paladin was to denote conquering knights who served a King. They were good at fighting and obeyed their lord, and paid lip service to their religion, but didn't have any kind of vow of poverty, didn't lose their status if they committed an 'evil' act, and their 'good' was just 'kill the bad people', not the 'help the poor' stuff that the much more recent 1e rules tacked onto them. Conquest and Vengeance are much less silly than the flowers and poverty vow of the 1e D&D paladin, and certainly fit the tradition better. You seem to be describing the Cavalier Sub Class from AD&D 1e's Unearthed Arcana.
Arthurian legend paladins were also a thing. Paladins like Roland (aka Sir Orlando) who served Charlemagne, yeah, I agree with your characterization there.
They (Galahad, Lancelot, et al) were spelled out in the Gods/Demigods/Heroes AD&D 1e book explicitly as Paladins. (Digression done)

I assume the 1e paladin was styled less after history and more after an Arthurian ideal of the Knight in Shining Armor with a splash of romanticized Knights Templar. I mean, historically speaking, paladins couldn't sense evil or cure wounds with a touch either. It was a mish mash. :smallcool:

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, except in FR and in my worlds. The idea that "I oath SO HARD that I get spells!" doesn't wash with me :smallwink:

Makes about as much sense as worlds where wizards can conjure massive blasts of fire by making rude gestures and flinging a bit of poo.

[Unoriginal]

It was a mish mash. :smallcool:

Truest description of early (and current) D&D ever.

[alchahest]

"Scary fighting guy who's actually really into baking" is also an archetype, though.

He beat the butcher of Kiev in a kitchen fight.

[TyGuy]

Mechanically it's a very well built class, but the concept as a whole has been rendered meaningless with their desperation to provide edgy chaotic versions that are treated as valid fantasy archetypes.

Dark knights and anti heroes are valid fantasy archetypes. They aren't edgy. Story archs of redemption or a fall from grace are more complex. But you can't play in shades of grey or redeem an always LG character.

[Sigreid]

Nice music selections. I just got this vision in my head of fully armored paladins falling from the sky in mass quantity.

[Millstone85]

Of course, I also dislike the general diminishing of divine magic in general from a direct gift of the gods for service rather than just another flavor of arcane hocus-pocus and the whole "I follow a concept!" nonsense.
The idea that "I oath SO HARD that I get spells!" doesn't wash with me :smallwink:A classic approach to D&D divine magic is that gods run on the power of collective faith, and send some of it back to a select few mortals.

With that as a starting point, it is IMO not that much of a stretch to say that some mortals manage to attune to the collective faith in an ideal. And if they wander too far from that ideal, they lose their connection as surely as if they had angered a god.

One could even imagine the Oath of Devotion manifesting as a place somewhere on Mount Celestia. Which is, you know, one of 17 planes of existence made from ideals (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html).

If that's the arcane hocus-pocus you were referring to, then nevermind.

[Unoriginal]

Nice music selections. I just got this vision in my head of fully armored paladins falling from the sky in mass quantity.

With their swords held proudly in front of them, stabbing the air.

[Sigreid]

With their swords held proudly in front of them, stabbing the air.

Well, my minds I had them flailing desperately. As I think most people would if they found themselves unexpectedly plummeting towards earth.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, my minds I had them flailing desperately. As I think most people would if they found themselves unexpectedly plummeting towards earth.

But these are paladins. True paladins would fall before they'd flail...oh. Wait...:smallbiggrin:

[Jophiel]

Makes about as much sense as worlds where wizards can conjure massive blasts of fire by making rude gestures and flinging a bit of poo.
Perhaps. But I find the pseudo-science of manipulating "the weave", ley lines or elemental forces via arcane research, carefully crafted rituals and material catalysts and also the idea of divine beings granting some measure of their powers onto their select devout servants to both be conceptually satisfying. "I am so into conquest that the pure power of conquestiness gives me extra conquest powers" doesn't push any buttons for me and I find it feels pretty empty.

[Unoriginal]

Perhaps. But I find the pseudo-science of manipulating "the weave", ley lines or elemental forces via arcane research, carefully crafted rituals and material catalysts and also the idea of divine beings granting some measure of their powers onto their select devout servants to both be conceptually satisfying. "I am so into conquest that the pure power of conquestiness gives me extra conquest powers" doesn't push any buttons for me and I find it feels pretty empty.

It's not "I'm so into it I get spells". The Oath is just part of Contract magic.

[Jophiel]

It's not "I'm so into it I get spells". The Oath is just part of Contract magic.
Contract with whom?

[Unoriginal]

Contract with whom?

With yourself and the universe.

Same way that no gods can enter Sigil, or that Asmodeus cannot ever break a deal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

With yourself and the universe.

Same way that no gods can enter Sigil, or that Asmodeus cannot ever break a deal.

Exactly. Oaths having innate power has a long tradition, both in myth and in fantasy. Most people are too wishy-washy and vacillating--they can't devote themselves to their oaths enough to gain power (or risk the downsides of falling short).

Consider the myths of the fey. What they told you three times is true. In others, getting someone to swear an oath on, say, their magic power was binding. Failure to follow through would actually harm their ability to use that power.

Paladins are the extreme example of this.

[Jophiel]

With yourself and the universe.
Well, I'm glad works for you. It does nothing for me.

[Unoriginal]

Well, I'm glad works for you. It does nothing for me.

Are you familiar with the concept of geas?

[Jophiel]

Are you familiar with the concept of geas?
I wouldn't claim to be an expert. But, from my understanding, it's a supernatural obligation. However, it's also placed on someone by another (higher) power versus someone striking a geas upon themselves.

Edit: Also, from reading, a geas is typically a taboo against a specific action versus a code of conduct or similar. "Don't drink from a silver mug" and then you get some extra mojo provided you never drink from a silver mug which of course sets up the eventual point where the hero in question is tricked, coerced or otherwise drinks from the silver mug and loses said mojo.

The Irish stories in question don't inspire me to think of "Paladin" at all but rather folk heroes getting blessed/screwed by fey elements.

[The Jack]

See, the conquest paladin is the guy who makes the most sense: demons and undead are a once in a blue moon kinda deal, whilst warring with your neighbours, beating back the goblins and crushing through some land in the name of civilisation is every day stuff. Most fights aren't good versus evil, they're something versus something else.

(and conquest is still good for fiends and undead)

Why would most paladins be LG or LE? Most DnD gods aren't LG/LE! Most civs aren't LG/LE. A Hobgoblin probably doesn't think they're evil, they think they're strong, honourable and capable of making hard choices; they might even assume they're righteous from that. Would a paladin of hobgoblinyness ideal be LG? Of course not. Would he be an evil-stupid charicature? That's very unlikely.


I'm glad they got rid of the lawful-monk and nuetral druid too.

[Unoriginal]

A Hobgoblin probably doesn't think they're evil

Actually, they do.

They know that being oppressed is a pretty horrible experience. They just think it's great when they get to do it to others.

Thinking that it's better to be an evil tyrant doesn't mean that they don't acknowledge they are evil tyrants.


Self-awareness is about the only gift Maglubiyet gave to goblinkind when he stole them from their original pantheons. Goblins know exactly how much it sucks to be an helpless victim, as it's what they are, and they feel better inflicting that fate to others. Hobgoblins know exactly how much it sucks to have a vicious overlord press a boot on your neck, because it's what they go through, and they prefer to inflict it. And Bugbear exactly how it feels to be overpowered by a crafty brute, and they relish the chance to see it in other people's eyes.

It's not being stupid evil, it's being self aware.

[Yakmala]

Justifying different Paladin oaths for different alignments is nothing compared to the "story gymnastics" you have to pull off justifying the popular Warlock/Paladin multi-class.

[Unoriginal]

Justifying different Paladin oaths for different alignments is nothing compared to the "story gymnastics" you have to pull off justifying the popular Warlock/Paladin multi-class.

There is no "story gymnastics". Making a deal with an entity doesn't impact your Oath.

[Constructman]

Justifying different Paladin oaths for different alignments is nothing compared to the "story gymnastics" you have to pull off justifying the popular Warlock/Paladin multi-class.

Uh...

Devotion/Celestial:
- you're working for a church, and one of your god's Planetars has taken a particular liking to you and started handing you side jobs.
- Or perhaps you were a former Demon cultist given a second chance at life by a merciful Couatl, and now you're ready to fully commit to Good.

Ancients/Archfey:
- your adventuring journey began when you swore an oath to protect a sacred grove, and the ancient Dryad who dwells within it is finally ready to return the favour.
- Alternatively, you're an Eladrin and the Archfey patron you are sworn to is your grandfather, who has a vested interest in your survival and success. Nepotism for the win!

Conquest/Fiend:
- you're a Hell Knight, a Paladin sworn to enforce the strict order of the Archdevil Bael. Your soul's already damned; what's one more step over the edge?
- Or maybe you weren't the one to sell your soul. Your parents were, selling you as a baby to a Night Hag. You escaped, and your current path of Paladinhood is your rebellion, in a possibly futile venture to free yourself from the Hag's influence.

Vengeance/Great Old One
- when raiding the headquarters of a cult that had been preying on the minds of a small town, the cult leader stabbed you with a cursed dagger. You haven't been the same since, seeing and hearing things that aren't there, but so far your conviction hasn't wavered.

That's seven plot hooks from four combinations, all of which don't stretch the limits of credulity. Should I go on?

[Pex]

I don't like gotcha games either, but I don't think taking away the paladin's virtue is the proper solution. The proper solution is to tell DMs don't do that. They should also emphasize to players how not to be Awful Stupid. Any class can be played annoyingly - the Leroy Jenkins barbarian, the kleptomaniac rogue, the friendly fire wizard, etc. Have a section in the Handbook to teach how not to be annoying, and for paladin it means not being Awful Stupid.

[Unoriginal]

I don't like gotcha games either, but I don't think taking away the paladin's virtue is the proper solution.


Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.

Honesty: Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage: Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion: Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor: Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible, while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty: Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.


How non-virtuous. Truly they are villains, miscreants and blackguards, and should be shamed.

[MeeposFire]

As one of the many people that have played D&D for many years and editions my thought has been for a long imte


Alignment being a thing sucks, it is not needed, it has never been needed as something that had to be on your character sheet, and has been a detriment to the game for years. You do not need alignment to decide that somebody is acting out of character to how they have been portrayed. You really do not need it to choose sides. Really things like good/evil is just something that should be put into character quirks if particuraly for DM prep for NPCs. Yea you might describe your hobgoblins as evil and they act as such but I did not need it specified as a mechanical thing.

The fact that in general 4e and 5e do not use alignment very much is a good thing and I would be happy if they went further to ditch it even more.

As for paladins I find oaths a much better mechanic as it fits the themes embodied over the years for the class, opens it up to more characters, and gives it something that defines it that other classes do not get. Being a holy warrior was not something that only paladins could do as the very common cleric could easily fit that role. Some classes like warlocks have something similar but have some distinct differences. Warlocks make a deal to get power but are not beholden to the thing that grants them that power. Once it is granted it is there heck not every warlock gained their power willingly. Paladins on the other hand have to make a promise and hold to it or they will no longer be the same ( I like how now their powers can change due to forsaking their oaths rather than losing all their power like before). Rather than the more debatable and harder to define at times alignment we get the more interesting oaths where different oaths have different things you need to uphold which allows for more variety.


When I go back to DM earlier versions of D&D I am going to port the oath concept to paladins in those games because I think it is just a much better way to go.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't like gotcha games either, but I don't think taking away the paladin's virtue is the proper solution. The proper solution is to tell DMs don't do that. They should also emphasize to players how not to be Awful Stupid. Any class can be played annoyingly - the Leroy Jenkins barbarian, the kleptomaniac rogue, the friendly fire wizard, etc. Have a section in the Handbook to teach how not to be annoying, and for paladin it means not being Awful Stupid.

I don't know if it's carried through to my online personality, but I tend not to worry overmuch about proper solutions so much as successful solutions. I think that the 5e rulebook could give any kind of teaching aids it wanted, and people would still view paladins through the lens of 3-4 decades of iconic 'supposedly the good guys but often the exact opposite, plus an invitation for the DM to **** with you and or your moral compass' interpretation.

I don't know that the 5e implementation was the best choice, but I think it is in the same vein of the best choice: advertise, effectively, that the old Lawful Stupid paladin is dead (ignoring that you didn't have to play a paladin Lawful Stupid), and now you can play a paladin without the old baggage (and you can still play them as shining lights in the darkness, if you so desire). If it means that people trying to play good-guy characters who previously wouldn't touch a paladin with a 10' pole are willing to give the new implementation a chance, I call that a win.

[Zevox]

As a personal pet peeve I was annoyed in 3E that Paladins of other alignments were created. It felt to me that players just wanted the paladin powers but didn't want to be bothered playing nice guys. In 5E they won out in that anyone can be the paladin to get the spells and smites but no longer need to be virtuous.

I can see the problem of alignment being used as a straight jacket, and I'm right there with you that Lawful Good doesn't mean you play Awful Stupid. Perhaps it is nostalgia for the tradition, but I liked that Paladins had to be Lawful Good, to be the Light in the Darkness, to do what is Right not what is Easy.

I lament the falling from Grace the class has suffered. It may be good for the game as a whole, but I mourn the sacrifice of Paladin Virtue.
Paladins being restricted to just one alignment never really made sense, though. As a character archtype, the concept is clearly that of a holy warrior, which is certainly something that it makes sense to have a class to represent. But it never really made sense that it should be restricted to just one very specific type of holy warrior, and not be able to be used for others. Prestige classes in 3E could get that specific and have that make sense, sure, but for a base class, it stood out like a sore thumb, being the only base class to be restricted to just one alignment rather than a spectrum of them (at least in the PHB, I suppose it wouldn't surprise me if there were others in one of the umpteen billion splatbooks from 3E).

Restricting the Paladin to Good only and having a Blackguard/"Anti-Paladin" (always liked the former name better personally) for the evil alignments would make sense I'd say. Opening the Paladin up to any alignment and emphasizing different ideals they could be striving to uphold and embody as 5E does is even better, in my opinion. But restricting them to just one of the many things the class could be used to represent is just a silly waste of potential.

And it's hardly like original Lawful Good Paladins have gone anywhere. That's very clearly what the Oath of Devotion is based on, and that's literally the first one presented in the PHB.

[Millstone85]

I liked how the PHB gave clear alignment advice for each oath. It was also a pretty great trio to start with.


Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods' tenets as the measure of their devotion.First, you got the classic LG paladin, who not only strives to be compassionate and courageous, but is also reluctant to lie, to cheat, or to go against a just authority.


This oath emphasizes the principles of good above any concerns of law or chaos.Then there is the NG paladin, also heroic but more flexible with the rules, and making a point to delight in laughter and beauty. Possibly a par-tay dude, but I see them more as a gallant knight who is a bit of a poet.


Paladins who uphold these tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment.Finally, there is the LN/TN paladin who is all about smiting evil, by all means necessary, including lesser evils. Surely a controversial one, and a Vengeance/Fiend palalock would make a great Knight of the Blood War. It beats being devoted to evil for evil's sake.

[OverLordOcelot]

You seem to be describing the Cavalier Sub Class from AD&D 1e's Unearthed Arcana.
Arthurian legend paladins were also a thing. Paladins like Roland (aka Sir Orlando) who served Charlemagne, yeah,
I agree with your characterization there.

I am describing the use of 'paladin' that predates AD&D by roughly 800 years, the knights who served Charlemagne (or Roland who served Charlemagne). If someone wants to talk tradition, the less than half a century back to 1e AD&D is a drop in the bucket compared to eight centuries. The AD&D 1e paladin is it's own thing that doesn't actually have very strong historical, literary, or cultural roots as far as I can tell, it's a unique thing cooked up for the game, and the 2e and 3e versions just came from it, not from other sources. I point this out because people talk about the 1e paladin like it's a traditional fantasy archetype, when as far as I've ever been able to find the specific paladin alignment/behavior limitations are entirely an artifact of D&D.

[OverLordOcelot]

Justifying different Paladin oaths for different alignments is nothing compared to the "story gymnastics" you have to pull off justifying the popular Warlock/Paladin multi-class.

What exactly are the 'gymnastics' involved when an Oath of the Ancients paladin makes a pact with an actual Ancient, for a vengeance or conquest paladin to make any kind of pact to improve their ability to destroy enemies or conquer, or for any paladin to make a pact with a celestial?

[Alucard89]

I don't like gotcha games either, but I don't think taking away the paladin's virtue is the proper solution. The proper solution is to tell DMs don't do that. They should also emphasize to players how not to be Awful Stupid. Any class can be played annoyingly - the Leroy Jenkins barbarian, the kleptomaniac rogue, the friendly fire wizard, etc. Have a section in the Handbook to teach how not to be annoying, and for paladin it means not being Awful Stupid.

I don't understand you. There is Devotion Paladin whose whole code is strict and he lives be highest virtues. If you want to play "old-school" Paladin just play Devotion. Hell, if you are DM you can always say "around my table I only accept Devotion or Redemption Oaths" and there you have it.

Devotion:

Honesty: Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage: Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion: Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor: Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible, while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty: Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

This is like 100% Old School LG Paladin.

[Pex]

I don't understand you. There is Devotion Paladin whose whole code is strict and he lives be highest virtues. If you want to play "old-school" Paladin just play Devotion. Hell, if you are DM you can always say "around my table I only accept Devotion or Redemption Oaths" and there you have it.


The point is the problem was never paladins being virtuous but players and DM rebelling against them being virtuous. DMs rebelled by playing gotcha. Players rebelled by not wanting a Lawful Good requirement. I'm just lamenting this so called rebelling was popular enough to become official. For me there wasn't anything wrong with Paladin fluff that needed changing. All the horror stories about playing one were the fault of the DM/Player being a jerk. I find it unfortunate that the cost of stopping it was Paladins no longer being their fluff, that it is now one among many.

I'm not saying it is bad, wrong, atrocious, ruins the game, or anything like that. I'm just lamenting the Paladin is no longer pure. That it is to say for 5E. I was against it in 3E, but surprisingly to myself now that I think about it I wasn't so upset with the prestige classes that darkened the Paladin's light a bit like Grey Guard. Yeah, I don't see consistency in that either.

[patchyman]

I assume the 1e paladin was styled less after history and more after an Arthurian ideal of the Knight in Shining Armor with a splash of romanticized Knights Templar. I mean, historically speaking, paladins couldn't sense evil or cure wounds with a touch either.

The holy touch that can cure disease does exist, though if I remember correctly it was more associated with nobility rather than holiness.

[patchyman]

Paladins being restricted to just one alignment never really made sense, though. As a character archtype, the concept is clearly that of a holy warrior, which is certainly something that it makes sense to have a class to represent. But it never really made sense that it should be restricted to just one very specific type of holy warrior, and not be able to be used for others.

I agree with this but I want to add an additional point. If you are hearkening back to the LG paladins of 2e and 3e, you can’t ignore the blatant stupidity associated with alignments in those days.

Remember Lawful didn’t just represent what you valued, there were also a mish mash of arbitrary personality traits that were associated with it.

[Illven]

Honestly if it was styled after the Christian knights in history, it's already a massive shift to call them LG. I've met a total of one single solitary Christian that isn't massively bigoted.

I'd expect a Christian oath to you know be close to a paladin of tyranny.

[Sigreid]

The holy touch that can cure disease does exist, though if I remember correctly it was more associated with nobility rather than holiness.

One of the Red Branch knights from Celtic mythology could heal any wound on another by giving them water to drink from his hands.