Baldur's Gate 3- What does fried Nautiloid taste like?

[Eldonauran]

The Good Vs Evil morality sounds like a feature not a bug on my end.

Same. Good having objectively BETTER options than Evil, though they have to walk an exponentially harder path to get them ... I am okay with that. More than okay, actually.

[Psyren]

In other editions we had different classes for those concepts.

And in 5th edition they are paladins.

My biggest issue with 5e Paladins is the word "Paladin" has ceased to have meaning in-setting.

Sorry you feel that way but it does have meaning. A paladin is a warrior who supplements their martial prowess with divine power they gained from an oath, which may or may not be tied to a specific deity or faith. Clerics by contrast are defined by their relationship to a divine power/entity first and foremost, with varying degree of martial skill a distant second.

5e paladins CAN still fall, but because the range of oaths they can swear is as broad as... well, as broad as the concept of oaths themselves, you're not pigeonholed into this one tiny outdated box that we were stuck with in older editions.

The dilution of Paladins is just one of the other victims of 5e chasing mass appeal.

You say "dilution", I say "expansion."

If you want to retain the stereotypical Lawful Good 3.5 paladin in your 5e games, you can houserule that the only paladins allowed in your setting are Devotion, but WotC is right to move away from that for their own conception of the class. Paladins of a variety of alignments have been a thing for a long time now and this is the logical evolution of that.

So making paladins boring was the answer to them being divisive? I don't buy it.

You don't have to buy it, and I couldn't care less about your boredom. See my proposed solution above if you're playing 5e, and if you're not, the older editions haven't gone anywhere.

Broadening the lens kind of exactly what of what you can call a paladin is exactly my complaint here Psyren, it make it inherently less cool not more. This is not a situation where more meant better. Most of those characters have other things they can easily be without watering down Paladins to the point where the class has no meaning attached to it anymore.

I for one think its very cool that you can represent a character like Shao Kahn or the Green Knight as a Paladin.

[LaZodiac]

The Good Vs Evil morality sounds like a feature not a bug on my end.

Naw. To each their own, but DND's "always chaotic evil" stuff has always stricken me as stupid.

[Dragonus45]

And in 5th edition they are paladins.

Which is stupid, and devalues Paladins as a concept.

You don't have to buy it, and I couldn't care less about your boredom. See my proposed solution above if you're playing 5e, and if you're not, the older editions haven't gone anywhere.

Of course, just house rule it why didn't I think of that! As we all know the default setting and concepts set by the rules themselves have no value at all and no one ever cares about them.

I for one think its very cool that you can represent a character like Shao Kahn or the Green Knight as a Paladin.

You couldn't care less about my boredom and I couldn't care less about what you think is cool. Especially when it comes to violently breaking a core character concept into pieces to enable someone like Shao Kahn being a paladin when he doesn't fit in any what that character archetype. Neither does the Green Knight. But break the paladin enough that they do and suddenly it has value now?

Naw. To each their own, but DND's "always chaotic evil" stuff has always stricken me as stupid.

Why would it be stupid for outsiders or other inherently magical strange inhuman things things like devils or demons always be evil though?

[Anonymouswizard]

Side note: D&D Paladins technically have nothing to do with gods the same as Druids, Forgotten Realms is actually an exception to that rule and not the default. 3.5 also had Paladins for every corner alignment but I'm not 100% certain if Unearthed Arcana was first party. In general they seem to swear their oaths to cosmic principles or the universe itself, which handily justifies evil Oathbound.

It's also possible for Evil oaths to be just as restrictive as Good ones, you just have to frame it right. The code of an Oath of Slaughter would probably be very uncompromising.

[LaZodiac]

Why would it be stupid for outsiders or other inherently magical strange inhuman things things like devils or demons always be evil though?

I mean how the game's always treated goblins, orcs ad the like. Yes an elemental being of pure Devil energy is probably going to be Evil... even if I also think typecasting demons and the like as things that ARE always maliciously evil and cruel is personally boring, I get why DND does it though!

I'm just not as interested when it turns out the potentially good demon is in fact evil and must be killed at all costs and isn't trustworthy because "well yes of course, all demons is like this, they're never trustworthy ever ever". This is why I'm not too fond of Raphael- literally nothing he says is anything other than wind, and why I'm curious how certain aspects of Wyll's story will go (RE that spoiler I had earlier). If demons are forever Always Evil, then it doesn't matter how unique or varied or interesting you make the demon- a mindless screaming hellspawn may as well be treated exactly as one treats Raphael or one treats Zariel, and that's uninteresting to me.

[Dragonus45]

I mean how the game's always treated goblins, orcs ad the like. Yes an elemental being of pure Devil energy is probably going to be Evil... even if I also think typecasting demons and the like as things that ARE always maliciously evil and cruel is personally boring, I get why DND does it though!

No not always, 3.5 had actually put a ton of work in across the novels and in the Monster Manual by working on the whole "Always" "Usually" and so on which mostly was there to delineate between evil cultures versus being that were themselves to some degree inherently evil. It was actually quite good, but 5e had the whole "back to basics" thing going on and removed a lot of that language from it. I mostly don't remember 4e so I can't remember what they did for all of that and I could be blaming it for 4e here.

I'm just not as interested when it turns out the potentially good demon is in fact evil and must be killed at all costs and isn't trustworthy because "well yes of course, all demons is like this, they're never trustworthy ever ever". This is why I'm not too fond of Raphael- literally nothing he says is anything other than wind, and why I'm curious how certain aspects of Wyll's story will go (RE that spoiler I had earlier). If demons are forever Always Evil, then it doesn't matter how unique or varied or interesting you make the demon- a mindless screaming hellspawn may as well be treated exactly as one treats Raphael or one treats Zariel, and that's uninteresting to me.

I think that's a bit reductive myself, you can still have a character like Raphael be a tempting deal and potential ally because being evil doesn't make him incapable if making an honest deal or permanently untrustworthy. Cambion's specifically are Devils now apparently (which still throws me off) who especially tend to be locked pretty hard into having to follow their word when a real deal gets signed. This is the honestly what I think the real problem with the alignment system good versus evil stuff, it's all to easy to forget that even a Cambion is an individual with some goal or desire who quite possibly be dealing in good faith just because it's a good deal or they don't feel like being sneaky right now and just want to go home and people aren't the absolute representation of their alignment at all times. Even when they aren't people at all. (Cambions aside on that front, unless the lore has really gone sideways when I wasn't looking they are still half fiends right? They are actually people people not outsider elemental kind of fuzzy "where does the magic ends and a personality begin" people. They just also due to the circumstances of such a pairing tend to be stuck in the deep end of the hot places from birth which rarely ends well for anyone regardless of parentage.)

[Zevox]

I for one am beyond happy that 5e redefined "paladin." 3.5 Paladins needed to die in all the fire.

You know what we pretty much never have on the 5e subforum? Idiotic "does my paladin fall" arguments consisting of 50 pages of circular flaming if the mods don't nuke them from orbit first.

5e gives us a much broader (and frankly, cooler) lens for what could be considered a "paladin." Shao Kahn is a Conquest Paladin. Captain America is either Devotion or Glory. Heimdall is Watchers. Darth Vader is an Oathbreaker. The Green Knight is Ancients. There are so many more concepts that can be represented by "paladin" in 5e than there ever were in prior editions.

Agreed. The change to Paladins is among my favorite of 5e (alongside the introduction of subclasses in general). It was always silly to me that 3.5 had to introduce alternative classes to represent the same thing, but different alignment - Blackguard, Paladin of Freedom, etc. Rather than just let the Paladin be the crusader strongly devoted to a cause and/or belief system, and define what that cause or beliefs were. The introduction of different Oaths in 5e did that very well. Devotion for the classic LG type, Ancients for NG/CG types, Vengeance for more neutral or evil leaning types but with still enough wiggle room that a good one could work; later Conquest for overtly evil types, Redemption as another good flavor, Crown as a flexible option that can work for any alignment, etc. It's perfect, what the class should have been all along.

(The Oath of Glory is boring, though.)

[Psyren]

Of course, just house rule it why didn't I think of that! As we all know the default setting and concepts set by the rules themselves have no value at all and no one ever cares about them.

If you're stuck on/require something clearly outdated that has since been abandoned in order to be happy then yes, houserules (or mods in the case of BG) are the solution.

You couldn't care less about my boredom and I couldn't care less about what you think is cool.

I'm glad we understand each other.

Why would it be stupid for outsiders or other inherently magical strange inhuman things things like devils or demons always be evil though?

Fiends / Celestials etc are still always predominantly aligned one way. Paladins are not, because surprise, they are generally complex sapient humanoids like every other PC class and not one-dimensional outsiders.

Agreed. The change to Paladins is among my favorite of 5e (alongside the introduction of subclasses in general). It was always silly to me that 3.5 had to introduce alternative classes to represent the same thing, but different alignment - Blackguard, Paladin of Freedom, etc. Rather than just let the Paladin be the crusader strongly devoted to a cause and/or belief system, and define what that cause or beliefs were. The introduction of different Oaths in 5e did that very well. Devotion for the classic LG type, Ancients for NG/CG types, Vengeance for more neutral or evil leaning types but with still enough wiggle room that a good one could work; later Conquest for overtly evil types, Redemption as another good flavor, Crown as a flexible option that can work for any alignment, etc. It's perfect, what the class should have been all along.

Exactly.

(The Oath of Glory is boring, though.)

I honestly like the changes being proposed to it in One. It is the Divine Athlete paladin; Hercules (Disney version in particular) would be a great Glory Paladin.

[Rynjin]

And in 5th edition they are paladins.

Thanks, Paladin Obvious.

Sorry you feel that way but it does have meaning. A paladin is a warrior who supplements their martial prowess with divine power they gained from an oath, which may or may not be tied to a specific deity or faith. Clerics by contrast are defined by their relationship to a divine power/entity first and foremost, with varying degree of martial skill a distant second.

This is a meaningless distinction in a world where the majority of deities have some kind of martial inclination. The distinction between a Paladin sworn to Tyr and a Cleric of Tyr is largely academic in terms of flavor.

5e paladins CAN still fall, but because the range of oaths they can swear is as broad as... well, as broad as the concept of oaths themselves, you're not pigeonholed into this one tiny outdated box that we were stuck with in older editions.

Tiny? Yes. Outdated? How?

You say "dilution", I say "expansion."

These things are not contradictory terms. You dump a bunch of ink into water and it expands, thus diluting it. The narrowness of the concept was what made it interesting.

Sometimes less is more. It's like walking up to a talented portrait artist and saying their work is lesser because they aren't making 3D sculptures of their subject. It's inane, and misses the point of the portrait and the unique advantages said portrait has as a more 'limited" medium.

If you want to retain the stereotypical Lawful Good 3.5 paladin in your 5e games, you can houserule that the only paladins allowed in your setting are Devotion, but WotC is right to move away from that for their own conception of the class. Paladins of a variety of alignments have been a thing for a long time now and this is the logical evolution of that.

The difference, again, is "Paladins" of different alignments were always called something else. It's a huge setting change for Paladin to fundamentally change from "character with divine power drawn from their conviction to do Good and destroy Evil" to "some dude with magic powers who doesn't stand for anything in particular".

It's a setting change that has already in a small way diminished my experience with this game, because I find Paladin as nothing more than a mechanical splash used to give NPC villains more nova power exceedingly boring.

And hey, if you don't care about my boredom, don't ****ing comment on it because I don't particularly care whether you care or not. I'm allowed my own opinions, and dismissive comments like that are nothing but needlessly antagonistic. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, so keep it locked up in your own head where it belongs.

[Keltest]

Ok, speaking as a grognard whose first character was an AD&D paladin, I like the paladin change. I find the argument that paladins don't stand for anything now to be absurd. They still stand for things, its just you can have them stand for something besides the generic knight in shining armor lawful good now. They can stand for the sanctity of mortality against the interference of malicious outsider entities, or they can stand for proactively hunting down and stopping X thing that they find repulsive, or they can stand for and champion a strict hierarchal society with an absolute crushing emphasis on lessers serving their betters, or a few other things. These guys are all defined by standing for something, so its not like theyre radically different from older edition paladins, its just the specific thing they champion that has changed, not that they stand for something.

[Zevox]

I honestly like the changes being proposed to it in One. It is the Divine Athlete paladin; Hercules (Disney version in particular) would be a great Glory Paladin.

I barely even looked at the changes to them in that last playtest. The concept just doesn't work for me as a Paladin. I don't see Hercules or Achilles as Paladins, just Fighters. Hercules having superhuman strength because he's a demi-god or Achilles having near invulnerability because of his dip in the Styx don't equate to kind of divine magic that a Paladin gets to me. Trying to do Greek heroes as a Paladin subclass like that just feels off and dull to me as a result.

(I'd also disagree with your earlier interpretation of Shao Khan as a Conquest Paladin; again, I'd put him as a Fighter, with some supernatural abilities because he's from Outworld. But that's just that specific character, not the concept of the Conquest Paladin, which I quite like.)

[Psyren]

We're all allowed to share our opinions on a given topic; this is a discussion forum, not a blog.

These things are not contradictory terms. You dump a bunch of ink into water and it expands, thus diluting it. The narrowness of the concept was what made it interesting.
...
The difference, again, is "Paladins" of different alignments were always called something else.

No, they weren't. Non-LG Paladins have existed long, long before 5e was a twinkle in Mearls' eye.

This is a meaningless distinction in a world where the majority of deities have some kind of martial inclination. The distinction between a Paladin sworn to Tyr and a Cleric of Tyr is largely academic in terms of flavor.

For a deity like Tyr maybe (and even for his faith, War Clerics and Paladins approach battle in very different ways) but for ones like Lathander or Ilmater the cleric and paladin sides of their faiths are very different.

Sometimes less is more. It's like walking up to a talented portrait artist and saying their work is lesser because they aren't making 3D sculptures of their subject. It's inane, and misses the point of the portrait and the unique advantages said portrait has as a more 'limited" medium.

If they're trying to capture a 3-dimensional subject then yes, pointing out the limitations of their chosen medium or approach are valid. Similarly, the concept of "paladin" has more possible expressions than the bog-standard LG Devotion model. You can swear and champion all kinds of Oaths, including negative/self-serving/oppressive ones.

Ok, speaking as a grognard whose first character was an AD&D paladin, I like the paladin change. I find the argument that paladins don't stand for anything now to be absurd. They still stand for things, its just you can have them stand for something besides the generic knight in shining armor lawful good now. They can stand for the sanctity of mortality against the interference of malicious outsider entities, or they can stand for proactively hunting down and stopping X thing that they find repulsive, or they can stand for and champion a strict hierarchal society with an absolute crushing emphasis on lessers serving their betters, or a few other things. These guys are all defined by standing for something, so its not like theyre radically different from older edition paladins, its just the specific thing they champion that has changed, not that they stand for something.

Exactly this.

I barely even looked at the changes to them in that last playtest. The concept just doesn't work for me as a Paladin. I don't see Hercules or Achilles as Paladins, just Fighters. Hercules having superhuman strength because he's a demi-god or Achilles having near invulnerability because of his dip in the Styx don't equate to kind of divine magic that a Paladin gets to me. Trying to do Greek heroes as a Paladin subclass like that just feels off and dull to me as a result.

To be clear, I'm not saying Disney Hercules is a paladin because of his divine heritage. Rather, if you were representing a character like him in 5e, Glory would fit well; a kind of himbo Dudley Do-Right type whose prowess is reinforced by the heavens and seeks to good-naturedly get his party members to hit the gym with him would mesh with Glory pretty well.

[Dragonus45]

If you're stuck on/require something clearly outdated that has since been abandoned in order to be happy then yes, houserules (or mods in the case of BG) are the solution.

I see my sarcasm failed to penetrate.

Fiends / Celestials etc are still always predominantly aligned one way. Paladins are not, because surprise, they are generally complex sapient humanoids like every other PC class and not one-dimensional outsiders.

So, Paladins are a class and Fiends/Celestials are a race. One is a self selecting group, such as how you don't get very many wizards who just hate math and don't like to study. Saying paladins shouldn't have a predominant alignment because they aren't one dimensional outsiders is like saying that Fighters shouldn't all be using weapons because that forces them to all be stuck in a small box and not the complex sapient humanoids that all PCs should be.

I honestly like the changes being proposed to it in One. It is the Divine Athlete paladin; Hercules (Disney version in particular) would be a great Glory Paladin.

Hercules a Paladin? Hercules... Paladin..... Hercules? Even the super straightforward Disney guy is a terrible Paladin of any variety. Expanding out the class to fit a glory hound like him is exactly why this idea of watering down Paladins to fit anyone is so out of place.

If you want to retain the stereotypical Lawful Good 3.5 paladin in your 5e games, you can houserule that the only paladins allowed in your setting are Devotion, but WotC is right to move away from that for their own conception of the class. Paladins of a variety of alignments have been a thing for a long time now and this is the logical evolution of that.

Outdated, logical? None of those words apply here and WotC being "right" is a pretty bold claim to just lay out like it's a fact.

This is a meaningless distinction in a world where the majority of deities have some kind of martial inclination. The distinction between a Paladin sworn to Tyr and a Cleric of Tyr is largely academic in terms of flavor.

Yea, there are already so many different ways for that idea to be managed across classes and editions that I don't understand where this passion for making Paladins suck more to be option number 37 on that list comes from.

Tiny? Yes. Outdated? How?

In the larger context it probably goes in the pool with anything elto do with alignment and racial stats. You know, things that make plenty of sense as game mechanics but are old thus no longer have any value.

These things are not contradictory terms. You dump a bunch of ink into water and it expands, thus diluting it. The narrowness of the concept was what made it interesting.

Sometimes less is more. It's like walking up to a talented portrait artist and saying their work is lesser because they aren't making 3D sculptures of their subject. It's inane, and misses the point of the portrait and the unique advantages said portrait has as a more 'limited" medium.

Well yea this sums the whole thing up. Paladins are inherently a bit niche, by trying to forcibly broaden them to include a dozen character archetypes most of which already have classes that handled them all it does is make the whole concept less interesting and take it away from the people who did like that niche thing. And it's not even adding anything, because clerics already exist.

The difference, again, is "Paladins" of different alignments were always called something else. It's a huge setting change for Paladin to fundamentally change from "character with divine power drawn from their conviction to do Good and destroy Evil" to "some dude with magic powers who doesn't stand for anything in particular".

It's a setting change that has already in a small way diminished my experience with this game, because I find Paladin as nothing more than a mechanical splash used to give NPC villains more nova power exceedingly boring.

Agreed, it's kind of sad to realize that as far as I have seen Larian isn't even really making any out loud statement with the Paladin character that got me nettled and started all this. She hasn't had any dialogue that really calls to it or tries to justify her actions. She's just there in a boring yet annoying way.

[Psyren]

So, Paladins are a class and Fiends/Celestials are a race. One is a self selecting group, such as how you don't get very many wizards who just hate math and don't like to study. Saying paladins shouldn't have a predominant alignment because they aren't one dimensional outsiders is like saying that Fighters shouldn't all be using weapons because that forces them to all be stuck in a small box and not the complex sapient humanoids that all PCs should be.

It's more like saying Fighters shouldn't be forced into a specific weapon. (Which they aren't.)

Outdated, logical? None of those words apply here and WotC being "right" is a pretty bold claim to just lay out like it's a fact.

2014 Paladin in WotC's PHB survey was one of, if not the highest-rated classes in the game. Objectively, the removal of alignment restrictions has been a success, and well-received.

[Dragonus45]

It's more like saying Fighters shouldn't be forced into a specific weapon. (Which they aren't.)

No, and if they aren't interested in any weapon at all they would probably Wizards. Or Warlocks if they also hate math. Just like if you aren't interesting in upholding LG Paladin values why be a paladin?

2014 Paladin in WotC's PHB survey was one of, if not the highest-rated classes in the game. Objectively, the removal of alignment restrictions has been a success, and well-received.

Ah yes one of the most mechanically busted classes in the game has access made easier for people not interested in engaging with the RP and now it's at the top of almost every optimization guide for a long while and about half of all the characters I saw at conventions for about 2 years straight were Sorcadins. I wonder how it got so popular. All it took was not really being Paladins anymore.

[Keltest]

No, and if they aren't interested in any weapon at all they would probably Wizards. Or Warlocks if they also hate math. Just like if you aren't interesting in upholding LG Paladin values why be a paladin?



Ah yes one of the most mechanically busted classes in the game has access made easier for people not interested in engaging with the RP and now it's at the top of almost every optimization guide for a long while and about half of all the characters I saw at conventions for about 2 years straight were Sorcadins. I wonder how it got so popular. All it took was not really being Paladins anymore.

Your mistake is thinking that LG values are the only value system that people can believe in. It worked well enough when "Lawful" was generally considered to be better than "chaotic", but that went by the wayside a long time ago.

[Dragonus45]

Your mistake is thinking that LG values are the only value system that people can believe in.

Your mistake is thinking I believe that.

Also I should go dig up some stuff I remember from PF about Paladin also being one of the most popular classes there as well and they do have an LG requirement. And are also fairly busted mechanically.

[Keltest]

Your mistake is thinking I believe that.

Well you sure seem to be starting from the assumption that paladins have to be LG and working backwards. Heck, your question of why be a paladin if you don't want to be LG is pretty telling all on its own.

[Psyren]

No, and if they aren't interested in any weapon at all they would probably Wizards. Or Warlocks if they also hate math. Just like if you aren't interesting in upholding LG Paladin values why be a paladin?

Because other kinds of paladin exist, and have for decades now. All 5e did was enshrine that idea in core.

Ah yes one of the most mechanically busted classes in the game has access made easier for people not interested in engaging with the RP and now it's at the top of almost every optimization guide for a long while and about half of all the characters I saw at conventions for about 2 years straight were Sorcadins. I wonder how it got so popular. All it took was not really being Paladins anymore.

Alignment being completely optional scored well too.

[Batcathat]

While both sides have some points, I'm leaning mostly towards paladins being "supernaturally empowered warrior devoted to an ideal" (or something along those limes) regardless of what that ideal is, since that's typically how it works with other classes. A fighter is a fighter whether they are fighting to save the orphanage or to burn it down.

[Dragonus45]

Well you sure seem to be starting from the assumption that paladins have to be LG and working backwards. Heck, your question of why be a paladin if you don't want to be LG is pretty telling all on its own.

My question for why a class that has a requirement for being LG would have characters who are LG is telling?

Because other kinds of paladin exist, and have for decades now. All 5e did was enshrine that idea in core.

Paladin of Freedom was dumb, not terribly well thought out, and had a silly name. Paladin of Tyranny and the other one I can't remember the name of right now were just Blackguard the base class and had too much thematic overlap with the same. Just calling them Blackguard was easy, or Antipaladin like PF did also worked well.

Alignment being completely optional scored well too.

No accounting for good taste.

[Errorname]

Just like if you aren't interesting in upholding LG Paladin values why be a paladin?

Very easy to imagine someone wanting to play a lawful oathbound knight type who is not a good person.

[Rynjin]

Ok, speaking as a grognard whose first character was an AD&D paladin, I like the paladin change. I find the argument that paladins don't stand for anything now to be absurd. They still stand for things, its just you can have them stand for something besides the generic knight in shining armor lawful good now. They can stand for the sanctity of mortality against the interference of malicious outsider entities, or they can stand for proactively hunting down and stopping X thing that they find repulsive, or they can stand for and champion a strict hierarchal society with an absolute crushing emphasis on lessers serving their betters, or a few other things. These guys are all defined by standing for something, so its not like theyre radically different from older edition paladins, its just the specific thing they champion that has changed, not that they stand for something.

And all of those character concepts work just as well as a Fighter, is my issue. "Paladin" means nothing, that's my point. It used to have a very distinct meaning.

Paladin as "guy who believes in...something and champions...a cause?" is meaningless. Every character should believe in something and champion some kind of cause. Those are character traits inherent to any fully fleshed out character.

We're all allowed to share our opinions on a given topic; this is a discussion forum, not a blog.

It's a forum with rules on discussion, and sharing the opinion of "I don't care about your opinion" skirts pretty close to breaking them IMO.

[Batcathat]

Paladin as "guy who believes in...something and champions...a cause?" is meaningless. Every character should believe in something and champion some kind of cause. Those are character traits inherent to any fully fleshed out character.

If that's the case, why have paladins at all? Just have the knights in shining armor be Lawful Good fighters.

[Dragonus45]

Very easy to imagine someone wanting to play a lawful oathbound knight type who is not a good person.

Well depending on edition, or system, you could just play a Knight then or a Hellknight if you are in pathfinder land. A Fighter with the Noble background also works just fine.

If that's the case, why have paladins at all? Just have the knights in shining armor be Lawful Good fighters.

Because that is exactly what I don't want to happen by diluting the paladin down to just anyone who swears a vow to anything so now it's just some random Knight and not a paladin. But more specifically the Paladin is an idea of someone being held to a higher standard by something objective that stands above it all. When the knight in shining armor screws up he might pay a fine or get exiled. When the paladin screws up they fall.

[Rynjin]

If that's the case, why have paladins at all? Just have the knights in shining armor be Lawful Good fighters.

That's pretty much what I'd lean toward with the way 5e does them. In terms of flavor and mechanics there's not a ton different between a "Paladin" and an Eldritch Knight except the former has bigger numbers.

[Keltest]

Because that is exactly what I don't want to happen by diluting the paladin down to just anyone who swears a vow to anything so now it's just some random Knight and not a paladin. But more specifically the Paladin is an idea of someone being held to a higher standard by something objective that stands above it all. When the knight in shining armor screws up he might pay a fine or get exiled. When the paladin screws up they fall.

And the current paladin doesnt do that because... why?

[Psyren]

Very easy to imagine someone wanting to play a lawful oathbound knight type who is not a good person.

Right.

My question for why a class that has a requirement for being LG would have characters who are LG is telling?

It's telling that you're starting from the premise that that should be a requirement to begin with, rather than questioning it. At best it's Appeal From Tradition.

Paladin of Freedom was dumb, not terribly well thought out, and had a silly name. Paladin of Tyranny and the other one I can't remember the name of right now were just Blackguard the base class and had too much thematic overlap with the same. Just calling them Blackguard was easy, or Antipaladin like PF did also worked well.

Paladin of Freedom was pretty popular even on this board IIRC. Probably even moreso than Tyranny if I were inclined to count up the threads/builds about it.

But my point stands - the concept did not originate with 5e.

[Batcathat]

But more specifically the Paladin is an idea of someone being held to a higher standard by something objective that stands above it all. When the knight in shining armor screws up he might pay a fine or get exiled. When the paladin screws up they fall.

Right, but why can all of that only apply to Lawful Good paladins? Just like a classic paladin is held to a higher standard of Lawful Good than some random Lawful Good fighter, a Lawful Neutral paladin can be held to a higher standard of Lawful Neutral than some random Lawful Neutral fighter.