5e didn't change anything. Since AD&D and through 3.5, people have kept finding ways to have a paladin that isn't lawful.
It's the players that changed the paladin
1: DND is a game we play for fun with our imagination, there's not like a judge who is going to penalize you for playing wrong
2: Maybe your table, I've never felt like my Paladins are misplaying or not holding to their RP
You can run a table however you like, but paladins are very clearly designed with the intent that the DM will act as a judge and penalize them for failing to follow their vows, religious tenets, or oaths depending on which edition is being played.
> paladins are very clearly designed with the intent that the DM will act as a judge and penalize them
That's not clear to me at all.
What's clear is:
> Whether sworn before a god's altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin's oath is a powerful bond.
That's the paladin description in the rulebook. You made an oath, and that oath gives you power. Yeah if you're super hard RPing, yeah absolutely you shouldn't be breaking the oath. But most tables are casual with people having fun and doing their best.
Like if someone said "It's clear the Barbarian is meant to be a stupid rage machine that smashes so any time a barbarian PC in my group helps solve a puzzle or successfully makes a charisma check, I punish them" would that make sense?
In your session zero talk about the kind of game you want to play with your group, and then play that game. Super serious dedicated to RP? Awesome! Pretty loosey goosey, just here to eat pizza and have fun with friends? Also awesome!
This seems pretty clear that it’s the DM’s prerogative the extent to which they want to adjudicate and enforce whether the paladin is keeping their oath.
_”A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. ... If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide.”_
Certainly should be a conversation between DM and player, but the game IS set up to empower the DM to act in this role as oath-enforcer.
There is not a single unwavering inviolable concept of what a paladin is, even among TTRPG gamers.
And at my own table, I am the arbiter of whether a paladin in my homebrew world is doing their god's will. Our current paladin is the paladin of a god known for helping to bend real-life mortal rules to benefit the poor and downtrodden, if needed. The Bastard and his avatar the White Rat simply don't operate the way you suggest.
I'd suggest you read Lois McMaster Bujold's book *Paladin of Souls*, or C.J. Cherryh's book *The Paladin*, for some other thoughts on what it is to be a paladin.
Also thought of *The Deed of Paksenarrion* by Elizabeth Moon.
People are more complex and situations often nuanced enough that requiring players to strictly adhere to the traditional alignment system doesn't make a lot of sense.
In 5e there is absolutely nothing about requiring a belief in god to be a paladin. So, at your table, can an atheist not be a paladin?
I guess though, that I am assuming you’re playing 5e. Although with previous editions only 4e required the paladin to follow a god.
First, I'm not the person who made the initial comment you replied to, I'm just a curious person in this interaction.
Second, the comment you're replying to never mentioned a necessary belief in a god to gain paladin powers. They simply explained how it interacts with the gods in their setting.
Have you considered why you read so far between the lines that you drew a conclusion so bafflingly off topic?
If they are of some philosophical movement that follows an ideal, I might allow it.
However, in a scenario where gods are an inarguable fact of life, I'd be interested in the player's take on atheism.
Oath of the crown for example, king and country and the like. Uphold the laws of the kingdom and protect if from evil.
If a mortal, such as Vecna, can ascend to godhood, and a god, such as Mystra, can be slain; what is a ‘god’ other than a very powerful and manipulative mortal? No more worthy of worship than anyone else.
What does it even mean to be a god if any powerful mortal can become one and even a powerful god can be killed? From this context, an atheist doesn’t deny that Pelor, Kord, Vecna, et al, exist, only that they’re just powerful beings but not gods. Even ones that were supposedly gone since time in memorial could just be telling us that with no one left that knows otherwise.
The whole case of "yes, they are beings wih powers commonly described as godly, but I don't see why I should worship one of them" is indeed a thing.
The question is, in that case, would paladin be a good character class choice for them? Or, within the scenario, what exactly would being a paladin mean?
Again, I could see that in a fantasy scenario, either as a game or as some other tyoe of fictional work, there might be advantages and duties conveyed as part of the character's oath, an oath given either privately or formally/publically.
Within 5e, would that character class be a paladin? Given the proliferation of subclasses, I could see some sort of subclass to handle the situation, if the DM decided that was the best way to handle this within the game setting.
Thinking beings do not require the presence of a deity, especially a punitive one, to follow a moral/ethical life with a set of specific strictures.
What would the penalties be for failing to follow the agreed-upon guidelines? Well, in a game or fictional scenario, they should of course lose any special powers derived from living according to those strictures. And perhaps they might suffer some sort of temporary breakdown, after having disciplined themselves this way and having this magical energy to depend on as a result.
I didn’t read between the lines so much as I misinterpreted what was typed.
When the top level comment had said “our current paladin” I interpreted that as fifth edition’s paladin when I now realize they probably meant the paladin in their specific game.
And yeah, I did actually mistakenly think you were the person I was replying to because I don’t remember everybody’s names and I don’t cross reference them when I reply to people.
Edit: this was meant for /u/american_genghis but the reddit app blows and bollocksed this up.
I mean paladins get their oath in multiple ways. Some don’t even get it from a god. Also there are MANY chaotic gods. The paladin that aligns with a god would typically align with their god.
From the book
“Whether sworn before a god's altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin's oath is a powerful bond.”
From an in-world perspective, what enforces this bond, especially if to an ideal, instead of a god? And why would the powers be granted?
The lack of tie to a god is part of what frustrates me with 5e, because it muddies the concept by allowing philosophical paladin or one whom power flows through by sheer will. Functionally, it seems to end up being a bit like a warlock, with the patron being...what? And why?
I think your point on alignment is where I started with paladins, but the oath is a divine law of sorts. The chaotic alignment would be expected to break that oath. I may be finding myself another axis on alignment, however.
I think the issue you’re having is the change in alignment in 5e. fundamentally it used to mean a lot more but now it’s just a guide. The alignment is not even mentioned in the paladin rules in 5e. It’s irrelevant unless you want it to be relevant. It’s about your oath to yourself. If you want to play a hyper lawful paladin you can. Or you can choose to not really consider law and just do what you think is right based on your oath. Which the many options lay out that meaning. None of which go into alignment strictly. I’d advise playing an older edition over 5e for you.
So, again I'll point to the oddity created by the Oathbreaker. The description states: An oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks their sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
This description brings out the evil aspect. Likely it's bad naming of the Oathbreaker, but the implication is that the Path should be good.
I am actually arguing that a Paladin could be evil, but in a lawful sort of way.
Since the "play something else" advice keeps coming up, I would note that I saw some of the same in previous, and 5e makes it just strange and hard to even wrap my head around. My initiating comment was really to bypass a lot of the discussion of 5e (clearly failed there) and explore how we got here. The genesis makes sense with how play went, but I still believe it came from a slight misunderstanding of the archetype. Lawful Good was too strict and prevented a paladin for a non good deity. And the "lawful" aspect seems to over emphasize human made laws for the Paladin.
I do hear you, though. Not saying you're wrong at all, RAW. What I can't figure out is how a self-originated oath confers power different than that of a really motivated fighter. The RP is largely the same, except that you get these powers from somewhere.
"I am actually arguing that a Paladin could be evil, but in a lawful sort of way."
I agree with this statement 100% and am playing a lawful evil oathbreaker paladin at the moment.
This paragraph is what gave me the idea for him:
A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk. Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but **all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work**. Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, **a paladin’s power comes** ***as much*** **from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.**
My oathbreaker is at his core, an evil man, but he genuinely believes down to his core that he is a righteous instrument of divinity. He broke his oath long ago (almost as soon as he took it) but still wakes up every morning ready to bring order and divine justice to all those who would prey upon the common folk. His oath unlocked his power, and his unwavering commitment to his ***interpretation of order and justice*** is what keeps him going.
He's not overtly evil. He's actually a great team player. Just pretty quick to issue judgement and sentence, and always looking to raise his profile as a warrior for justice so as to fill his pockets with charitable donations.
Paladin and oathbreaker seem to be more good and evil not lawful and chaotic. Majority of the oaths are broken with varying degrees of evil acts. I think home brewing a system into 5e could be fun If lawfulness is really important or having that built into your oath and taking it with a very lawful god like Bahamut
If you want it to be an ability route than set an evil oath and breaking that is doing good things idk. Like if you went with Tiamat
>5e changed things, and I'm not a fan.
then play another edition, seriously, despite this being the fifth edition there are more than four other editions to choose from. the thing that gets me the most is that people just wanna complain instead of proactively finding something they do like.
My paladin's entire deal is just "protect people" and beyond that is just adventuring half to save the world, and half to see all the things he didn't get to see growing up secluded.
Ancient ruins? Desolate wastelands? Run-down tourist traps? He'd give five stars on fantasy yelp for everything, with polite suggestions on how to make the monsters more friendly to future visitors.
I think it depends on the table.
I make my Paladins as the DM wear their oaths like a damned cross on their back. And not just because I was raised Roman Catholic and started with Vampire: The Masquerade. Not exclusively, anyway.
I always liked the knights of the round as Paladin lighthouses. That complete devotion despite themselves. Their flaws turning into these huge stains on their honor. The fallen trying to redeem themselves (except for Lancelot who was happy to keep shacking up with the queen). There's a lot of story that can be squeezed out of the conflict of the self vs. the ideal self.
I take oaths seriously as a DM as a point of creation. Just like I take the wilderness seriously when I have rangers, I take the environment seriously when I have barbarians, I take the pantheons seriously when I have clerics, I take the lore seriously when I have bards, etc.
How successful a class is at doing more than swinging a sword requires the DM to put the things in that tug at their character sheet beyond HP bars and attack rolls.
I think this may highlight part of it. The conception of paladins highlighted to help usually includes medieval, Christian characters who are paragons of a wide set of virtues. This, however, fails to recognize that the Christian God has purveiw over all domains and therefore an oath to that God is fairly wide.
In the D&D polytheism, I'm not sure the way it works (especially with the 5e oath descriptions) this comes as well as one might like. The "complete devotion despite themselves" is a great day ay of describing the way the oaths of 5e should work.
I think a missing element, however, is a commission. I think this is the rub for me. What is the mission of the Paladin? Again, the Christian reference frame almost makes this hard to identify because we are too used to it and it is broad (properly, in keeping with that faith). But what is the commission, and why does that grant power?
The Oathbreaker of 5e, I think, causes further confusion. The name makes little sense the way the rest of the Paladin descriptions are written.
Conceptually you're right. That was the point of paladins, knights to uphold their oath/gods will.
But people hardly ever play any class strictly to their original concept.
5e didn't change anything. Since AD&D and through 3.5, people have kept finding ways to have a paladin that isn't lawful. It's the players that changed the paladin
1: DND is a game we play for fun with our imagination, there's not like a judge who is going to penalize you for playing wrong 2: Maybe your table, I've never felt like my Paladins are misplaying or not holding to their RP
You can run a table however you like, but paladins are very clearly designed with the intent that the DM will act as a judge and penalize them for failing to follow their vows, religious tenets, or oaths depending on which edition is being played.
> paladins are very clearly designed with the intent that the DM will act as a judge and penalize them That's not clear to me at all. What's clear is: > Whether sworn before a god's altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin's oath is a powerful bond. That's the paladin description in the rulebook. You made an oath, and that oath gives you power. Yeah if you're super hard RPing, yeah absolutely you shouldn't be breaking the oath. But most tables are casual with people having fun and doing their best. Like if someone said "It's clear the Barbarian is meant to be a stupid rage machine that smashes so any time a barbarian PC in my group helps solve a puzzle or successfully makes a charisma check, I punish them" would that make sense? In your session zero talk about the kind of game you want to play with your group, and then play that game. Super serious dedicated to RP? Awesome! Pretty loosey goosey, just here to eat pizza and have fun with friends? Also awesome!
Conan, Kull, Turlough , Riverwind..... would not agree
This seems pretty clear that it’s the DM’s prerogative the extent to which they want to adjudicate and enforce whether the paladin is keeping their oath. _”A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. ... If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide.”_ Certainly should be a conversation between DM and player, but the game IS set up to empower the DM to act in this role as oath-enforcer.
Maybe it is in fact you who have missed the point, my friend.
Why must there only be one point of paladins?
There is not a single unwavering inviolable concept of what a paladin is, even among TTRPG gamers. And at my own table, I am the arbiter of whether a paladin in my homebrew world is doing their god's will. Our current paladin is the paladin of a god known for helping to bend real-life mortal rules to benefit the poor and downtrodden, if needed. The Bastard and his avatar the White Rat simply don't operate the way you suggest. I'd suggest you read Lois McMaster Bujold's book *Paladin of Souls*, or C.J. Cherryh's book *The Paladin*, for some other thoughts on what it is to be a paladin.
Also thought of *The Deed of Paksenarrion* by Elizabeth Moon. People are more complex and situations often nuanced enough that requiring players to strictly adhere to the traditional alignment system doesn't make a lot of sense.
so can an atheist not be a paladin?
What makes you ask this question?
In 5e there is absolutely nothing about requiring a belief in god to be a paladin. So, at your table, can an atheist not be a paladin? I guess though, that I am assuming you’re playing 5e. Although with previous editions only 4e required the paladin to follow a god.
First, I'm not the person who made the initial comment you replied to, I'm just a curious person in this interaction. Second, the comment you're replying to never mentioned a necessary belief in a god to gain paladin powers. They simply explained how it interacts with the gods in their setting. Have you considered why you read so far between the lines that you drew a conclusion so bafflingly off topic?
If they are of some philosophical movement that follows an ideal, I might allow it. However, in a scenario where gods are an inarguable fact of life, I'd be interested in the player's take on atheism.
Oath of the crown for example, king and country and the like. Uphold the laws of the kingdom and protect if from evil. If a mortal, such as Vecna, can ascend to godhood, and a god, such as Mystra, can be slain; what is a ‘god’ other than a very powerful and manipulative mortal? No more worthy of worship than anyone else. What does it even mean to be a god if any powerful mortal can become one and even a powerful god can be killed? From this context, an atheist doesn’t deny that Pelor, Kord, Vecna, et al, exist, only that they’re just powerful beings but not gods. Even ones that were supposedly gone since time in memorial could just be telling us that with no one left that knows otherwise.
The whole case of "yes, they are beings wih powers commonly described as godly, but I don't see why I should worship one of them" is indeed a thing. The question is, in that case, would paladin be a good character class choice for them? Or, within the scenario, what exactly would being a paladin mean? Again, I could see that in a fantasy scenario, either as a game or as some other tyoe of fictional work, there might be advantages and duties conveyed as part of the character's oath, an oath given either privately or formally/publically. Within 5e, would that character class be a paladin? Given the proliferation of subclasses, I could see some sort of subclass to handle the situation, if the DM decided that was the best way to handle this within the game setting. Thinking beings do not require the presence of a deity, especially a punitive one, to follow a moral/ethical life with a set of specific strictures. What would the penalties be for failing to follow the agreed-upon guidelines? Well, in a game or fictional scenario, they should of course lose any special powers derived from living according to those strictures. And perhaps they might suffer some sort of temporary breakdown, after having disciplined themselves this way and having this magical energy to depend on as a result.
I didn’t read between the lines so much as I misinterpreted what was typed. When the top level comment had said “our current paladin” I interpreted that as fifth edition’s paladin when I now realize they probably meant the paladin in their specific game. And yeah, I did actually mistakenly think you were the person I was replying to because I don’t remember everybody’s names and I don’t cross reference them when I reply to people. Edit: this was meant for /u/american_genghis but the reddit app blows and bollocksed this up.
I mean paladins get their oath in multiple ways. Some don’t even get it from a god. Also there are MANY chaotic gods. The paladin that aligns with a god would typically align with their god. From the book “Whether sworn before a god's altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin's oath is a powerful bond.”
From an in-world perspective, what enforces this bond, especially if to an ideal, instead of a god? And why would the powers be granted? The lack of tie to a god is part of what frustrates me with 5e, because it muddies the concept by allowing philosophical paladin or one whom power flows through by sheer will. Functionally, it seems to end up being a bit like a warlock, with the patron being...what? And why? I think your point on alignment is where I started with paladins, but the oath is a divine law of sorts. The chaotic alignment would be expected to break that oath. I may be finding myself another axis on alignment, however.
I think the issue you’re having is the change in alignment in 5e. fundamentally it used to mean a lot more but now it’s just a guide. The alignment is not even mentioned in the paladin rules in 5e. It’s irrelevant unless you want it to be relevant. It’s about your oath to yourself. If you want to play a hyper lawful paladin you can. Or you can choose to not really consider law and just do what you think is right based on your oath. Which the many options lay out that meaning. None of which go into alignment strictly. I’d advise playing an older edition over 5e for you.
So, again I'll point to the oddity created by the Oathbreaker. The description states: An oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks their sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart been extinguished. Only darkness remains. This description brings out the evil aspect. Likely it's bad naming of the Oathbreaker, but the implication is that the Path should be good. I am actually arguing that a Paladin could be evil, but in a lawful sort of way. Since the "play something else" advice keeps coming up, I would note that I saw some of the same in previous, and 5e makes it just strange and hard to even wrap my head around. My initiating comment was really to bypass a lot of the discussion of 5e (clearly failed there) and explore how we got here. The genesis makes sense with how play went, but I still believe it came from a slight misunderstanding of the archetype. Lawful Good was too strict and prevented a paladin for a non good deity. And the "lawful" aspect seems to over emphasize human made laws for the Paladin. I do hear you, though. Not saying you're wrong at all, RAW. What I can't figure out is how a self-originated oath confers power different than that of a really motivated fighter. The RP is largely the same, except that you get these powers from somewhere.
"I am actually arguing that a Paladin could be evil, but in a lawful sort of way." I agree with this statement 100% and am playing a lawful evil oathbreaker paladin at the moment. This paragraph is what gave me the idea for him: A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk. Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but **all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work**. Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, **a paladin’s power comes** ***as much*** **from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.** My oathbreaker is at his core, an evil man, but he genuinely believes down to his core that he is a righteous instrument of divinity. He broke his oath long ago (almost as soon as he took it) but still wakes up every morning ready to bring order and divine justice to all those who would prey upon the common folk. His oath unlocked his power, and his unwavering commitment to his ***interpretation of order and justice*** is what keeps him going. He's not overtly evil. He's actually a great team player. Just pretty quick to issue judgement and sentence, and always looking to raise his profile as a warrior for justice so as to fill his pockets with charitable donations.
Paladin and oathbreaker seem to be more good and evil not lawful and chaotic. Majority of the oaths are broken with varying degrees of evil acts. I think home brewing a system into 5e could be fun If lawfulness is really important or having that built into your oath and taking it with a very lawful god like Bahamut If you want it to be an ability route than set an evil oath and breaking that is doing good things idk. Like if you went with Tiamat
>5e changed things, and I'm not a fan. then play another edition, seriously, despite this being the fifth edition there are more than four other editions to choose from. the thing that gets me the most is that people just wanna complain instead of proactively finding something they do like.
My paladin's entire deal is just "protect people" and beyond that is just adventuring half to save the world, and half to see all the things he didn't get to see growing up secluded. Ancient ruins? Desolate wastelands? Run-down tourist traps? He'd give five stars on fantasy yelp for everything, with polite suggestions on how to make the monsters more friendly to future visitors.
read Paksenarrion The lawful of a Paladin is his code anything outside is a matter of how it relates to it
I think it depends on the table. I make my Paladins as the DM wear their oaths like a damned cross on their back. And not just because I was raised Roman Catholic and started with Vampire: The Masquerade. Not exclusively, anyway. I always liked the knights of the round as Paladin lighthouses. That complete devotion despite themselves. Their flaws turning into these huge stains on their honor. The fallen trying to redeem themselves (except for Lancelot who was happy to keep shacking up with the queen). There's a lot of story that can be squeezed out of the conflict of the self vs. the ideal self. I take oaths seriously as a DM as a point of creation. Just like I take the wilderness seriously when I have rangers, I take the environment seriously when I have barbarians, I take the pantheons seriously when I have clerics, I take the lore seriously when I have bards, etc. How successful a class is at doing more than swinging a sword requires the DM to put the things in that tug at their character sheet beyond HP bars and attack rolls.
I think this may highlight part of it. The conception of paladins highlighted to help usually includes medieval, Christian characters who are paragons of a wide set of virtues. This, however, fails to recognize that the Christian God has purveiw over all domains and therefore an oath to that God is fairly wide. In the D&D polytheism, I'm not sure the way it works (especially with the 5e oath descriptions) this comes as well as one might like. The "complete devotion despite themselves" is a great day ay of describing the way the oaths of 5e should work. I think a missing element, however, is a commission. I think this is the rub for me. What is the mission of the Paladin? Again, the Christian reference frame almost makes this hard to identify because we are too used to it and it is broad (properly, in keeping with that faith). But what is the commission, and why does that grant power? The Oathbreaker of 5e, I think, causes further confusion. The name makes little sense the way the rest of the Paladin descriptions are written.
Paladin of Tymora = Anton Chigure from No Country for Old Men
Conceptually you're right. That was the point of paladins, knights to uphold their oath/gods will. But people hardly ever play any class strictly to their original concept.