Community

May 1, 2012 -- 1:34PM, greatfrito wrote:

If I had to guess, I'd guess that this:

We’ve tentatively agreed that D&D is big enough to accommodate the various Player’s Handbook classes and races, and we want to make sure these options are available when the next version comes out.

Will mean that we won't see strictly "lawful good" Paladins in 5e's PH.

Well, that's a good argument.

But it also means we should expect 4e versions of classes to be possible (in this case marking Pallys and Fighers) as well as 1e versions.

So it might not be a good argument, but it's an argument I can agree with because I want marking Pallys and Fighters.

Maybe I'm just twisting your argument to get hopes of what I want.

May 1, 2012 -- 1:59PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:47PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

I'm fairly definite on that my self, but there will be alignment restrictions (even if self selected you will need to hold to a certain alignment) and rules that the paladin will have to hold themselves to (tenets of faith, strictures, codes of conduct).  I can almost guaruntee that those things will be there since every PHB in the past has had those things.

1.Proof?

2.4e PHB didn't have that.

It sort of did, but breaking it didn't cause you to lose power unless your DM made that part of the story. Paladins are required to choose a deity, and their alignment must match their deity.

May 1, 2012 -- 2:29PM, IxidorRS wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 2:23PM, greatfrito wrote:

If they're as "easily ignorable" as 4e's "restrictions", then sure, no (real) harm done.  Because you can still have a Paladin of whatever-alignment.

And honestly, I think calling them "restrictions" is stretching it - it's not what most people think of when they think of "classes with alignment restrictions".  The Cleric had similar "restrictions", but I don't think I've ever seen anyone characterize it as having "alignment restrictions, and a code of conduct".

While I did state that before Sleep, I agree with you on all this. The restrictions only matter if the RP of your adventure matches them. It's down to whether your DM causes the worshippers to hunt you down after you break the code.

Additionally, those codes are not really specified anywhere, IIRC. You can make one up based on the deity descriptions, but again, that's all custom player-created elements.

And here we fall on an inconstant factor in 4e (one of the many).  The first gods presented in the original 4e PHB and DMG all had a structured and bulleted list of tenets.  Three tenets for every god.  Later on the gods were all presented in differing formats so for some gods or exarchs it was unknown what the tenets of faith were.  This only served as a way to further confuse the fact that 4e paladins had to follow tenets of faith.  Mainly because various deities left the tenets up for guessing.  However based upon the original presentation, and if the had stuck to that presentation, every god had a short blurb about them followed by 3 tenets of faith followers of that god would follow.  This was the presentation and RAW in the first PHB/DMG (the evil gods were in the DMG as the original PHB for 4e highly discouraged players playing evil paladins or clerics)  

So actually in the base rules of 4e the various codes paladins could abide by were specified somewhere in the PHB.  I think it was around page 20 but I may be wrong on the exact page.  However they became inconsistent on representing these things in later releases as far as I can remember.

I personally say player/DM collaboration to create a code of conduct for your paladin would be awesome.  Hence the reason that was in my original suggestions.  Although there should still be static codes already written for those that don't wish to put in the time or consideration.  Not saying thats bad just saying the tools should be provided to do it either way.