Kickstarter link, thanks for checking it out! www.kickstarter.com/projects/homieandthedude/the-wandering-tavern?ref=547nrt
@crowverra5343
4 ай бұрын
Try a paladin warlock combo
@StarforceOnAir
5 ай бұрын
8:25 - Huh. That's actually really smart. That makes Paladins much more flexible with their oaths. I need to keep this in mind.
@mirafeder7992
5 ай бұрын
I have a paladin (5e) who swore an Oath to protect the balance between life and death. That said, she doesn't kill and banish undead outright, more aligned to help ghosts and similar creatures to be gently lifted from the curse that binds them to the material plane and softly help them to the afterlife. Though she slay undead if the need arises or the creature acts outright irredeemable evil to begin with. On the other hand she has no trouble literally killing someone, who would be tortured to death, just to make their passing to the afterlife a quick and more gentle one. "Don't toletare the undeath, ease the passing to the afterlife and protect and celebrate life whereever and however you come across it." Regarding the last part: Yeah... she IS the one of our party who is regularly more drunk than the dwarves (she also cheats at drinking games with her Lay on Hands) and who is flirtier than our bard. But when trouble arises, she is just as dependable as any other knight... albeit a bit more unsteady on her legs after a hard drinking xP
@StonedHunter
5 ай бұрын
@mirafeder7992 that sounds really cool. It's a really neat oath to work with ^^
@ShadowWolf0020
5 ай бұрын
There's a bit in the 3.5 book of exalted deeds that states when a paladin is faced with a decision that conflicts with both alignments, that good will always be chosen above all else, and that's a good rule of thumb to follow
@AzraelThanatos
5 ай бұрын
Yep, and even with Ebberon where alignment doesn't work and there are straight up evil paladins in it, you had way to many DM's who viewed someone wanting to play a Paladin as an excuse to screw with the character with stupidity dumped into it.
@acrab6527
4 ай бұрын
It was never a problem anyway. Paladin does something counter to his god. God says, "I'm taking away your powers... unless" and gives them a quest they have to do to not lose their powers. And that quest is what the DM wanted the party doing anyway.
@ismael8391
5 ай бұрын
8:31 that code of ethics is so good, I'm gonna copy it for my next campaign
@DBArtsCreators
5 ай бұрын
Welcome to Ireland!
@jamesharrington001
5 ай бұрын
My favorite paladin to play to date, I played in the late 90's in 2ed Revised. The catch was that I worked with my GM to make my to make the character fit better with the group. He was a paladin of Helm in FR, the God of Guardians and watchmen. Now, my code extended to me and me alone, I was to be the moral guide, not the enforcer. To this day, he only knew for sure one member of that party was a theif (Bard/Theif), our characters had a conversation. In that conversation the Bard/Theif explained that he only steals to eat, so my paladin explained that while he does not agree with theft, he does not condone starving to death, so as long as he did not catch that character stealing, there was nothing he could do.
@davidaward82
5 ай бұрын
it always bugged me that there were rules in 2e for priests of specific gods, but RAW, paladins were all Tyr, all the time. Glad your GM let you play a less overbearing version.
@TylinaVespart
5 ай бұрын
I play as a redemption paladin with some celestial warlock levels when I’m not the DM. In practice it means knowing I’m going to get hit but standing in the way of the big bad monsters hitting the squishy characters. Also there’s wiggle room for all sorts of things, and I tend to support rather than take the spotlight. Take the hits, heal the people, do the good, inspire the heroism, redeem the redeemable. Death is, occasionally, mercy. She’s fun to play
@jdizzy192
5 ай бұрын
AYYYYY, sounds like my favorite PC but in reverse. A Celestial Warlock with some paladin levels. He was an asshole fiend lock with a long list of issues but with a bit of character development, like 5000 pushups, he eventually took levels in Paladin also going redemption. He offers evil the same chance he was given, to be better, and did his absolute best to not kill, helped by him learning to brew potions. Was still 100% down to kill the irredeemable, especially devils, and help others break devil deals when he can
@Warrior_Lion
5 ай бұрын
The fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a paladin in roleplay makes it by far one of the most difficult things to roleplay consistently
@Author1219
5 ай бұрын
When it comes to paladins, a lot of the trouble comes from people who think they are playing lawful good when they are actually playing lawful stupid. When context is ignored, and a morally Grey situation arises, it can be very frustrating to argue down your paladin from murdering the magically preserved warriors who have done nothing to you directly, but have ties to a long dead evil organization from last millennium.
@mirafeder7992
5 ай бұрын
I often play paladins in regard to evil character (PCs and NPCs alike) as follows: You may be greedy and selfish, that are sins that you have to shoulder. But as long as you don't actively harm people out of your selfishness, you are not my problem. An example: To pay too much for something there are usually two involved: the merchant demanding too much and the buyer who willingly accepts the price. Take advantage of a starving person to take horrendous prices for food as the sole merchant that sells it? Then I smite you. A starving child steals a loaf of bread? Hell, I pay the merchant for that bread... Likely for five more, so that I can donate the bread to the local orphanage. A thief that steals out of greed? To jail with him. As you said: context is king. Sometimes you have to be more good than lawful, sometimes more lawful than good.
@Author1219
5 ай бұрын
@@mirafeder7992 At the moment, I am running a mishmash of Cleric and Paladin in GURPS. Most of the time, this character is a healer first and combatant second. Put her party in danger, make her the only person able to protect her friends, and she will step up, borrow the power of her deity, and end the threat. She is a rose-tinted glasses wearer in a dystopia, a cheerfully optimistic kind of person that will always try to help people by her own strength first. It has been interesting to explore her connection with divinity; how she doesn’t want to call upon it frivolously or too publicly; how her deity knows no peace because this dorky optimist’s friends consume their boots up to the knee collectively and tick off people.
@DevilFruitZero
5 ай бұрын
Played as a vengeance Paladin as a player in my Brother's campaign, I was constantly threatened with losing my powers. It LITERALLY says your purity is not as important as justice, I can lop the bad guys arms off to keep him from threatening people when he is unwilling to change.
@SaganTheKhajiit
5 ай бұрын
I don't know how different it is in 5th edition, I play on 3.5. When something similar happened to me, I had a good talk with my DM and went something like: "Look. Either we figure out how to make this fun, or I'm going to roleplay stiff as a stick until this character is killed off for the good of the game". And it worked. I got some wiggle room with alignment and nobody complained anymore about my character being a battle junkie, since he worshipped a goddamn war god. For those who might need clarification: in that edition Paladins worship deities instead of swearing oaths.
@eddie47523
5 ай бұрын
@@SaganTheKhajiit OP's problem is the DM doesn't understand what 5E paladin really is and though it works like 3R paladin(lawful good only), 5E paladin doesn't bind by the alignment, they bind by the oath, OP's oath of vengeance for example, it is a path that you can do anything necessary to smite the evil, and DM didn't understand this. Also may I ask what's reason your 3R paladin worship a god of war? It sounds kinda confuse to me.
@SaganTheKhajiit
5 ай бұрын
@@eddie47523 Because it's one of the good gods in the pantheon. He is not the god of the people declaring war, royalty and noblemen who don't even step foot in the mud. He's the god of the people fighting those wars. People trying to protect their lands, the people in it, or their livelihood, people who have no other way to make a living other than fighting, and people who weren't given a choice about being conscripted. Because to those people war is their divine judgment, and coming back alive or dying in the battlefield are the possible sentences. And then there's an evil god of domination, who gets the stuff like tyranny and dictatorship. And my problem was a version-equivalent of what you mentioned: my DM didn't understand what being lawful good means, and he was trying to push me into playing how he thought a paladin should play. Thing is: it doesn't even matter if the problem is similar or not. The solution is still talking it out, figuring out what to do to make it fun for everyone. Specially for 5e where most of if not all the encouragement for the "player versus DM" mentality was washed away already.
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
@@eddie47523I mean… chopping a dudes arms off isn’t smiting evil, even if the dude was evil. Cutting his head off, sure. But just giving him a permanent disability and leaving him like that doesn’t accomplish anything. Just because he’s a bad guy doesn’t give you free license to be a petty asshole. Smite him or don’t. DM should just make the guy come back worse than he was before you met him.
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
Permanently disabling somebody isn’t justice, especially if they can continue to do evil despite the disability.
@RevokFarthis
5 ай бұрын
One of my favorite campaigns I ever took part in was a 3.5 campaign where we all played Paladins. I've never seen a DM driven to tears as quickly as a DM forced to endure 6 golden retriever boy-scout gymbros trying to out "No *I* shall be the most helpful good-boy!" eachother.
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
That sounds excellent
@Xarestrill
5 ай бұрын
I think one of the problems with the paladin (earlier editions anyway, I'm not very familiar with 4th and 5th edition) is the lack of clarity. In all those editions it talks about the paladin code and that they have to follow it or suffer for breaking faith. But nowhere is the actual code given. It leads to players and DMs having different ideas of what the code the paladin needs to follow is, and the DMs almost never want to spend the time and effort to codify the code. I seen forum posts of players asking others opinion of situations where the players and the DMs disagree over what the code is, and how they should act reach 50+ pages.
@bakusai1
5 ай бұрын
So what you're saying is that Paladins needed the player and the DM to COMMUNICATE to make a usable code of conduct for that specific character? As it turns out, the lack of communication between players and DMs seems to be the general root cause of most interpersonal drama at DnD tables.
@mistysolar5605
5 ай бұрын
Maybe the Paladin code is meant to be made up by the DM and players
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
5e lays out specific rules for each subclass of paladin
@MarkFin9423
4 ай бұрын
technically, paladins are tied to their oath not to any morals, code, or even justice which is why paladins can be lawful stupid. So technically a paladins oath can be any oath that any given god character can then approve to receive their power. So, technically you can make an evil oath and get evil powers, or make a morally grey oath to have a more well rounded character with more agency within reason. The lawful stupid route is just the prepackaged set that comes with the game.
@Xarestrill
4 ай бұрын
@@MarkFin9423 As I said, not very familiar with 4th and 5th edition, but in the earlier editions there wasn't an oath. You had to be lawful (non-lawful actions would strip you of your powers until atonement), you had to be good (performing an evil action or having your alignment changed stripped you of your powers forever), and you had to follow the paladin's code which was where a lot of confusion came in since the code is never talked about other than that.
@samualier1774
5 ай бұрын
I'm playing a Oath of Vengeance paladin in my current campaign. Chaotic good and I'm taking vengeance against evil, no gods. Its been fun playing and I have leeway on questionable things my friends do.
@corrinbielawski8035
5 ай бұрын
Playing an Oath of Vengeance Paladin in a campaign at the moment, too. Sworn to an evil deep sea goddess, he's a chaotic evil boy who fights to protect children, and is working with his party because their goals align, that can turn into a great white. I'm having so much fun with him, too!
@jesternario
5 ай бұрын
Before watching the video I will say this. What makes them so unpopular are people being jerks and playing up the lawful over good. We call this Lawful Stupid: The person just wants to disrupt the game by punishing people for playing it. An example would be that you have to sneak into a guard post to get some info, and they immediately inform the guards you're there. Or perhaps just attacking the rogue outright because "they're a thief and therefore a criminal and evil." People like this are not playing paladins correctly. They're just being assholes. Edit: I would also like to add that Paladin is my favorite class in D&D, and it pains me that people are, to this day, still ruining it by being assholes.
@WandererEris
5 ай бұрын
The people saying the Paladin was bad for the party in 3e are just wrong and haven't read the book. In the "Other Classes" section, it says "While they cannot abide evil acts by their companions, they are otherwise willing to work with a variety of people quite different from themselves." In the "Ex-Paladins" section, it says "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities..." So, a paladin can work with an evil character so long as they're not performing evil, should try to maintain their alignment by not taking a backseat when evil acts are being performed, cannot commit an evil act ON PURPOSE, and cannot deliberately go against their oath (which should be worked on with the DM at character creation). Accidentally kill an innocent or break the oath? As DM I wouldn't directly punish that, but encourage roleplay and a sort of redemption act. Temporary alliance with an evil NPC general of the big bad? Perfectly fine if it's to take down the big bad and only goes that far. Stealing from nobles, Robin Hood style, is definitely a Chaotic Good action, but if it's to help take down an evil baron who mistreats and overtaxes his serfs and a step towards a direct confrontation, then it's an act towards the greater good and it should be fine. The problem comes from players not understanding alignment (how it's largely fluid and an ideal to work towards, aiding in roleplay, at least for the mortal races), and then being poor about implementing what is actually written in the books. So many people make assumptions that based on rumour or memes, when really it's much more nuanced than they think. It's up to the DM and the players to put these rules into a roleplay context and apply them in a way that's most fun to the table, but people just take the worst case scenario as default.
@MasterrangerABR
5 ай бұрын
The phrase lawful-stupid, the paladin is the source of this trope.
@AHAB-conscious
5 ай бұрын
The perpect( deliberately make him very bumb to not understand things)
@DHTheAlaskan
5 ай бұрын
It's the players who do it. You don't have to be a total asshole while being lawful good.
@MasterrangerABR
5 ай бұрын
@@DHTheAlaskan true, but they often played paladins while doing it, and so the trope became associated with the class over time.
@DHTheAlaskan
5 ай бұрын
@MasterrangerABR which is a shame honestly. Met a lot of super chill paladins in my time. Some not so chill, but yeah when you find one that doesn't have an immovable rod up their ass, that's a paladin worth keeping around.
@MasterrangerABR
5 ай бұрын
@@DHTheAlaskan agreed and as some who's played a paladin to level 20, LOL
@StonedHunter
5 ай бұрын
Ok that person with the Paladin history was super cool. Had no idea where the concept for them came from until now. Might have to find that book and give it a read
@kiritotheabridgedgod4178
5 ай бұрын
The thing that's nice about the oaths in 5e, is that the way the book suggests to do them, isn't the only interpretation, and in certain cases, *Cough Cough* Ancients *Cough Cough* is in fact a bad interpretation of the subclass. So, provided you discuss with the DM first, it allows you to throw a massive narrative curveball at the other players. Prime example, as alluded to earlier, is Oath of the Ancients. Your average player will look at those oaths and think "Okay, so it's a goodie-two-shoes. Boring, but at least the subclass features are decent." That, is the worst possible interpretation, it's a Fae flavoured subclass, read those oaths again, through the lens of Fae Morality. If you've understood where that's going now, good, if you don't, let me help you along the path of realisation. Fae are inherently chaotic, nature is good to them, the Feywild, is good, music, revelry and indulgence are good to Fae. You could one-hundred percent play a Chaotic Evil, Oath of the Ancients Paladin, who is a serial killer, but they follow their oaths by planting seeds from the Feywild in the soil that was nourished from the blood of their kills. They could turn their victims in macabre art exhibits in the same vein as Jhin from league of legends, because Art is good and brings people joy, and it would a perfectly valid interpretation of their oaths, because it's a *FAE BASED SUBCLASS* . So, to those who believe Paladins are boring, I have an exercise for you. Go to any traditionally good/lawful aligned Paladin subclass, read the oaths carefully, and figure out an interpretation of those oaths, where you don't have to be good or lawful. Then try to roleplay it in a game. It will give you a much better feel for how Paladins can fit into parties, and will be also allow you to get into the mindset when playing a good aligned Paladin, that the oaths are flexible, and you can either hold to the spirit of the oaths, without the wording, or the wording of the oaths, without the spirit, for any giving situation.
@hyper_sword8835
5 ай бұрын
I love the whole "good guy" vibe most of the subclasses give and there have been sessions where if it weren't for me the encounter could have gone very poorly (I play as oath of devotion and basically act as a cleric providing buffs and crowd control through compelled duel and command)
@ShadowDude6488
5 ай бұрын
I have an Oath of Glory Kobold Paladin, and he's the ultimate battle buddy. He gets advantage within 5 feet of an ally, can use an action to give everyone nearby advantage, and can use reactions to either impose disadvantage when someone attacks a nearby ally, make an attack against someone that attacks a nearby ally, and can ignore Disengage for Opportunity Attacks. As to why nobody plays Paladins, they have a strict code for their oaths which doesn't vibe with the chaotic wangrods or creates tensions to play with other chaotic wangrods (ie anyone from the Stupid Alignment, whether it be Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral)
@dezkeiz4946
4 ай бұрын
The first game I ran the party was aiding a rebellion against an evil king who took the throne through murder. The Paladin in the party served the god of kings and royalty and the player was unsure of how his character would justify rebelling against authority. We came up with the idea that since the king murdered the king and queen (his own parents) he would technically be avenging royalty. We also added that the god of kings is someone who acts as a guide for how kings should rule. Kings that follow his way recieve protection, kings that act as tyrants are to face his wrath.
@sophiescott143
5 ай бұрын
Nobody knows what "Lawful/Good" means. It's always played "Lawful/Jackass", committing outright evil acts like murder because of minor infractions against the law. Also: Contrary to popular belief, you can be a Lawful-Good character without being an unfun asshole who doesn't let anybody do anything. It's not illegal or evil to have a good time with your friends, or to have a sense of humor. It's not illegal or evil to have a nuanced understanding of right and wrong. The Lawful/Good character is one who believes in both upholding just laws and following agreements made, and doing good and trying to maximize the amount of good in the world. You don't bring good to the world by murdering Joe Schmoe for stealing a pair of shoes, and you don't bring good to the world by telling your party that they are not allowed to have some beer because you personally swore an oath not to drink.
@CooperAATE
5 ай бұрын
Extremely logical response! I like you
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
See the examples you’ve given are fine and I agree that a paladin shouldn’t be murdering people for minor offenses or stopping other characters from drinking, but neither of these really require “a nuanced sense of right and wrong”. The only time a paladin should make ONE attempt to stop the party from drinking is if (for some reason) the DM let them do some weird homebrew prohibitionist oath, but I would think anybody could see that having such a character in a DND party is going to cause some conflict.
@aidanthornton173
5 ай бұрын
I once saw a person play their paladin like *Samara from mass effect.* They had a set code complete with instructions on how to behave in certain situations. She lived by the code. She was trapped by the code. She desperately wanted to cast aside the code and live life freely. But she was called to a higher purpose. The code commands and she obeys. *There is only the code.*
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
Always wanted to try playing that, minus the wanting to break free part. That sort of lifestyle would seem to only attract the sort of people who would accept the burdens of the code, or those who were raised into it and know nothing else. I particularly like when Samara straight up tells Shepard from the moment she joins the crew that she will follow orders, but if you order her to do bad things she will find you afterwards. I think a formal binding like this could alleviate a lot of the problems people have with paladins in general. They are allowed to bend and break the rules while bound to the party, but push them too far and there will be future consequences. Somebody like Samara accidentally finding themselves in service to an evil party could serve as a great final boss for a campaign.
@sonicthehegheghog321
5 ай бұрын
Most of the problems that were mention I solved them particularly by just embracing that part of the 5e description where says Paladins obtains power from their ideals, so if justice can be an idea which gives you magic powers then why a more flexible self imposed code can't be?
@achimsinn6189
4 ай бұрын
As many comments in the video said - it comes down to allignment and following the lawfull good part of the rules or not. If you follow that part you create a character who constantly is forced by the rules to shup down chaotic or evil behaviour of other players because "my character wouldn't stand for that" which is just as bad as a player stealing from other players becuae "my character would do it". If you don't follow that, you end up with a fighter cleric whoc could also cast spells and has almost no downsides. So in order to actually play it in a way that is fun for everybody, you kind of need to find a good comprimese and in many iterations the rules don't really help finding that compromise.
@Xecryo
5 ай бұрын
I think a lot of it comes down to how DMs handle oaths or at least how they did in prior editions. Because I think part of the fun of playing a paladin IS having your oath challenge against preconceived notions. But I think a some DMs think a good challenge is clearing out an orc encampment and then being forced to decide what to do with the orc babies who will probably grow up raised to be like their parents. Not only is something like that entirely lacking in creativity, it's probably something that will make the table uncomfortable. But I think there are good ways to challenge a paladins oath and to demonstrate this I will call on Avatar Last Airbender. Imagine Zuko as a paladin probably oath to the crown and he's in a meeting with the king who decides he has to sacrifice some soldiers for victory. Now that is a very real scenario which happens in war and for Zuko it resulted in him speaking out against his father's idea and THAT'S a scenario which challenges the paladin's oath. But what I will say at least with 5e there's not too much in the way of LG restrictions because of the variety of oaths.
@phillbrown292
5 ай бұрын
Between players being unwilling to play with the fall and return from grace arc, GMs too eager to punish people for being goodie-two-shoes, and a more subjective distaste with do-gooding as its own reward, the class is disliked because it's seen as both dated and difficult. But that's just what i've seen. I love playing paladins, but their chronic hero syndrome gets them killed too often to get attached.
@biffstrong1079
5 ай бұрын
I came to DND through war gaming but my literary source was fantasy novels and specifically Arthurian Legends. I loved the Paladin Class and trying to play a paladin. It did tend to limit who our party could be and play, so I have gravitated towards wizard/rogues. The Paladin often acted as the conscience for the party so it was like adventuring with Jiminy Cricket. I enjoyed the depiction of the Paladin in the DND movie. Omni competent, but painfully dull and literal minded. Little sense of humour, but unremittingly supportive and helpful. Wants the best for everyone around him and is happy to take down the unrepentantly evil. Captain America giving all the soldiers in the elevator the chance to get out before they made their treacherous attack on him was one of the more paladin like moments I've seen in the super hero movies. "Before we get started, does anyone want to get out." Sir Bors in Mallory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" was one of the more insufferable paladin characters in literature. We had a guy who played a Low Intelligence insufferable Paladin in one of our campaigns just because his last thief character had been so constrained by another Paladin's dictums. The high charisma Paladin also ended up speaking for the party a lot which players came to hate. They tend to be truth tellers.
@peopleskingdomofwolcottia
5 ай бұрын
Let me present you an example of what a good paladin is vs what a bad paladin is, giving my personal insight as a Noahide. I know a guy who belongs to a form of Catholicism associated with the Most Holy Family Monastery. MHFM rejects Vatican II, believes that *all* non-Catholics will go to Hell, and rejects the concept of freedom of religion altogether. Heck, he is not even allowed to celebrate my birthday because of his religion. What's worst of all is that my religion is inherently opposed to that of MHFM, as they accurately blame us for killing their false messiah. Now, you'd think that his literal belief that I will go to Hell if I die before converting to MHFM Catholicism would make us enemies, right? Actually no. We get along splendidly despite the difference in our faith, and often discuss religion with each-other. He brings up points defending Christianity, and I bring up points defending Judaism. Religion is also not the only thing we talk about either, as we often play Ck3 together (he can't play Stellaris due to his religion) and occasionally delve into worldbuilding and other topics. When he's in a shitty mood or something bad is happening to him, I make sure he's doing well. Same thing from him. This is basically what a good Paladin does. He may hate your devotion to Asmodeus, but if you are dealing with the same enemy, who cares? A good Paladin will overcome temptation from heretics not by breaking contact with them, but by sitting down with them and calling them to repent. Now, I'll tell you about... the bad Paladin. A while back, a liberal friend of mine and I were talking to each-other when he suddenly blocked me for absolutely no reason at all. I had to ask other people why he blocked me, but they too shrugged until he revealed the answer. I was reported in the server he belonged to for having a shitposting status due to being "anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, and against 'mainstream' Christianity." Thus, I started a trial to defend myself. I brought a Jew, a Muslim, and a Christian to defend myself, along with my accuser. Things went smoothly at first, with a Jewish friend defending me by stating that if I am anti-Semitic, Dylan Mulvaney is a transphobe. Eventually, peace was established between us, and we went back to being friends... ...or so I thought. Basically, the person who reported me asked my thoughts on Reform Jews. I responded plainly, stating that Reform Judaism is a heresy and a distortion of Judaism. Because of this, I was labeled an anti-Semite (despite practically being Jewish) and blocked by my liberal friend. The worst part? I had no grievances against the person and initially believed that the whole thing was a misunderstanding. Despite my olive branch, my conviction was too much to bear for the person, and I lost an entire group of friends. The bad Paladin will refuse to associate with you because you don't fit with his/her narrow view of what is right. This Paladin will hate you not for the things you do, but for the things you believe, showing you no mercy and basically stabbing you in the back.
@expepem189xl3
5 ай бұрын
I am ranger fan, people wtf, they are so cool!
@CooperAATE
5 ай бұрын
My 2nd favorite class! Cleric #1 baybeeeeee
@NotsilYmerej
5 ай бұрын
I think the issue people have with rangers is that the base class features were so specific that taking them out of their favored terrain, or facing anything but their favored enemy made the features useless. In most scenarios, they were the actual closest you could get to just a normal person. Almost every other class has features that can be applied universally, or only disabled in very specific circumstances; with the Ranger being the inverse. As much as min/maxing is frowned on, some degree of it is necessary to make it a power fantasy. And rangers usually can’t do that. Sure, addendums to the class have changed that, but the stereotype already exists. And if paladins can’t shake the stereotypes and missteps of earlier editions (like described in the video), then rangers are going to struggle to shake the problems from the start of 5E.
@quintonj.alexander2090
4 ай бұрын
In my previous campaign I played ranger. Idk if the role playing was the best but damn he was a beast in combat
@expepem189xl3
4 ай бұрын
@@quintonj.alexander2090 Yeah i were dealing ~ 40 damage in firrst turn at lvl 4. Poor enemys.
@googanmcboogie9307
5 ай бұрын
The problem here is how the PC defines "lawful". It makes more sense for a Paladin to adhere to a devine law (code) or one that is superior to laws of corruptible mortals. A Paladin needs to be more Just than Wreckless.
@DarkFireTim
5 ай бұрын
In my experience Paladins and Grappler anything are the "vibe check" characters. You play them with new groups that you may bail on to see how the group handles alignment and or mechanics that need to be strictly followed or they break. In short their "Bad DM Detectors".
@gratuitouslurking8610
5 ай бұрын
An interesting take, but I can see the logic. Grappling is a majorly crunchy class and requires a good understanding of gameplay rules, and paladins are the vibe check for roleplay sides of things.
@bronycrafter1526
5 ай бұрын
I have an oath of ancients paladin who I play like a knight templar, kind to the innocent, merciless to everyone else, she's lawful good
@pathoesr7872
5 ай бұрын
I have a paladin concept that I've been wanting to play that's kind of weirdly philosophical. It's based on 2 concepts: 1.) There is a natural order to chaos 2.) It is in the nature of that order to always move towards good. Even if something is born within that universe to be evil. It's based on the question "why would a good god allow death?" and utilitarian philosophy. Ultimately the idea of this paladin is not so much the means or motive, but the end result is what matters. Most of what people typically think paladins rely on is virtue ethics where the morals / motive matter quite a bit. I personally think it would be interesting to play and able to be cohesive within a party.
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
The trouble there is that you wouldn’t know if a particular action broke your oath until all the consequences of said action became clear. There’s a reason we put a good deal of weight on intentions, we are notoriously bad at predicting every outcome of our actions. It’d be a very fine line to tread with little room for error.
@TheSylveonSurfer
5 ай бұрын
Before I even watch, my theory is that... - Role-playing an oath can be intimidating, tedious, or difficult for some people. - Playing Paladin comes with a lot of false assumptions that they have to be annoyingly lawful, often Lawful Good... and often to the point of being counterproductive to the goals of the group. - Playing Paladin more or less forces you to play melee. Most of its features work best when hitting enemies with a sword rather than a bow. I do wish there was a ranged Paladin subclass, personally, but that's beside the point. That's why I think Paladin is unpopular. Let's see if people agree.
@joelrobinson5457
5 ай бұрын
No idea, I love them!
@buttermanaws4693
4 ай бұрын
I think the big thing for a long time was that if someone picked paladin it basically meant that you and the party had to play a certain way or else the paladin player suffers, it definitely didn't help that paladin's we're almost always lawful by rules so you ran into a lot of problems where when making plans you realized mid way though that you couldn't sneak attack, poison the drinks, kill while they are sleeping or even kill while they aren't ready yet simply because the paladin would loose their oath
@louisup5
5 ай бұрын
People not understanding alignment or getting rid of alignment. It’s not “ugh the paladin can only be lawful good!” If you want to be lawful good you pick paladin. Just like if you want to be evil you pick assassin. If you don’t want to be that, pick something else
@michaelmagee2062
5 ай бұрын
I honestly hated the separation of God and Paladin in 5e removing its archetypical playstyle. As a Paladin player I have had groups that roll their eyes but once I actually get to play and show the many layers of lawful stupid people tend to love my paladins
@anthonymondragon5043
5 ай бұрын
As a DM, I allow paladin players to have characters alignments fall within 1 step of the god's they are serving. Most gods have their own tenants, as well as likes and dislikes, and in my campaigns, are forgiving of those who's alignment is slightly askew, so long as they strongly uphold those tenants. More recently, a player who had started as one god started to feel too restricted by his oath, and was considering just being a fighter (Oathbreaker). Instead, I tailored the narrative so that he could earn the favor of another god. This came with the caveat that he would anger his prior god, who may seek revenge for his betrayal. He now happily serves Ares, the god of war, and has to now contend with the fast approaching consequences of this action.
@karisasani7006
3 ай бұрын
What was his previous god may I ask?
@alejandrocamberosrodriguez4222
5 ай бұрын
I think the Paladin's reputation comes from how misunderstood the class is, and the lack of context awareness some players display when playing a Pally (a. k. a. "Lawful Stupid"). My Dragonborn Paladin's oath is Devotion, and he tries to stick to his tenets as much as he can in his own life. However, he knows he can't control what others do: free will and agency should be respected until they directly harm others, or allow Evil to flourish. So he tries to guide, or steer, the party away from more chaotic or evil endeavours, and if he can't do that, he'll stay away from those things and try to help out whoever needs assistance.
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
This, but even this could lead directly to conflict with the party depending on definitions and degrees on “directly harming others”. Taken too far, “You can’t kill that henchman, we don’t know why he’s working for the BBEG.”
@SuperDmetrius
5 ай бұрын
An Oath can be a simple as "If it's Chaotic Evil, it gets the fade ran. No exceptions." The Paladin doesn't even have to be Good aligned technically for this to work. It just has to be a set of parameters the Paladin would have to avoid to retain his faith,and thusly keep his magic powers.
@Athorment
4 ай бұрын
I am playing an Aasimar Paladin of Devotion in Curse of Strahd. For the longest time i made it a point that she wasnt "picking an oath" so much as just picking on her celestial heritage. She grew up in barovia under the resistance, where she had to come to terms with the fact that the people around her see her as this saviour that can defeat strahd and save everyone. It has been very interesting to run into people who demand she protects a town or goes fight off some monster threatening a village. It's also been pretty fun to have some of those morally gray NPCs argue she's a failure of a paladin for not just grabbing a sword and heading over to Strahd's castle. She's been grappling with this sense of doing whats right Vs. doing whats expect of her. The theme of "Identity" and struggling to be HERSELF at all is what's made the campaign so much fun thus far.
@Camera_Guy_Gnu9
5 ай бұрын
first time player here with a Paladin (even though the campaign hasn't started yet, me and the dm did a one shot to practice). I'm making Paladin fun for myself since he is an awoken ooze (played like a plasmoid) that was awoken by the God of Alcohol and Party (essentially a homebrew Dionysus). My paladin's oath is essentially to rid the world of evil and enlighten it with booze and party.
@funnyblog100
5 ай бұрын
I'd say its very restrictive in terms of roleplay you are bound by your oath and have to constantly maintain it. It can be rather difficult to do especially in some morally grey situations.
@TheManInBlueFlames
5 ай бұрын
Paladins? Unpopular? I thought they were the MOST BROKEN class because of their smites and combining magic with a martial class? In one of my old DM's games, one friend was using a Dwarf Paladin and he managed to become so strong that he and his party acquired basically NUCLEAR BOMBS that could wipe out various cities in the original world they were in!
@Hercules1-v9m
5 ай бұрын
Paladin is my favorite class.
@SilvanianPirateKing
5 ай бұрын
I find their subclasses lacking, but I still love them. My first 5e character was a fairy paladin that the party waved around anytime there was an unholy threat.
@VidelxSpopovich
5 ай бұрын
I’m currently playing a Paladin for the first time in 5th edition and so far I’m finding it very exciting. I rolled good stats so I figured there was no better time than the present.
@norandomnumbers
5 ай бұрын
Paladins unpopular? What? I don't think I've ever sat on either side of the table without someone playing a paladin.
@Curathol
5 ай бұрын
two reasons: first is the problem of artificial motivation. Paladins are encouraged to replace any personal motivation for their actions with the tenants of their oath. If you are not good at roleplaying and fleshing out your character then you look at your paladin oath and say 'there's my motivation'. It shouldn't be. Paladin players need to ask themselves, why their char would take that oath. What was it that motivated them to dedicate their live to it. What does their oath mean to them, personally? What was their oath specifically and why? If you cannot explain your own oath to other people and just replace your personal reasoning with the words of your oath, other people see you as shallow and uninteresting. Second paladins have a mechanic to be punished for not acting paladin enough. If the DM thinks you failed to do a good thing that you should have done, he can just nerf you. Or if you do a bad thing. So paladin players are incensed to do the good thing without ever questioning it or talk to the rest of the party about it because it is not a discussion. If they fail to do this, they are the ones that get punished for it. So it is their job to do it, no questions asked. It takes away the agency of other players. I don't mean to imply that paladins are a bad class per se. But it takes skill from the player and skill from the DM to make a paladin feel like he is a benefit to the party and not just their personal Jiminy Cricket with a greatsword.
@thesinfultictac5704
5 ай бұрын
I play a Paladin, my phrase is "there is always a higher law than mans" Historically and In literature,this has happened.
@TheMightyBattleSquid
5 ай бұрын
I mean it's also just straight up written into some current paladin subclasses 🤷
@theinsanegamer1024
5 ай бұрын
I'm playing a sorcerer in a game, though he started with 2 levels of Paladin. It's an isekai campaign, so this Paladin is literally me, but in a Femboy Fairy body. He *hates* it, not only is it humiliating being so small, his sexuality changed. Or rather, it became more pronounced. Bisexual before, but female preferring, and it's not a big part of my life. For him, that was pushed more to the forefront against his will. Everything combined has given him some gender dysphoria. Not to mention, his allies were a little *too* eager to go and kill things. Like, they were dropped into a new world and some wolves attacked. He didn't really want to hurt them, instead searching through his bag that spawned in with his to see if he could feed them and get away. His allies didn't really hesitate in murdering them, which, while understandable, still felt sad, especially since one was older, thin and gaunt. Then later, some statues came to life and he nearly had a panic attack as they attacked. It came to a head when the group began fighting some bandits who stole a dragon egg. He didn't want to kill them. Wolves is one thing, weird statues is another, but these were *people*. He had to draw the line somewhere, he didn't want to get hurt, I am a self admitted coward, and thus he is as well. He tried to convince them to leave, his allies beat the leader to dust, he held some of the bandits in place with magic, and then he offered them a choice to leave again. This time they did leave. He's a coward. He'd more likely to run from danger than run towards it. if he's in danger, he's going to try and talk his way out of it first. But, that's also the right thing to do as well. He's worried this world has made his friends a bit more murder happy, or perhaps led them to forget that they aren't in a game. They aren't killing NPCs, these are people with real lives they are ending. He understand that fighting will be inevitable, convincing some may be truly impossible, but he'll at least give it a shot. Being me, he's Chaotic leaning True Neutral, though by the end I think he'll be more in line with Chaotic Good. No, he doesn't care if someone does Robin Hood stuff. It's about doing what's right. It's not about following or enforcing the law, its following morality, and doing good. Being the example of what it means to do good. It's really fun so far, he's slowly becoming exactly what a Paladin should be: An example of goodness and kindness, Chaotic or otherwise. I think that's part of why Paladins are a struggle for people to play. The rules and nature of Paladins means they often need to be lawful. But why that is is rarely explored. Isekai'd me doesn't want to kill because he's a coward, but he also recognizes that his allies may not realize that "killing is still wrong, even in this world" because of how Game-y the world is (it has magical game-like huds like in many isekai, stats, and all that game-like stuff). He's the voice of reason, telling them that even though they may be in another world, chosen by the gods to save the world, that doesn't give them free reign. That is not just the lawful thing to do, but the right thing. And we got to see exactly where that philosophy came from: Cowardice. It began as Cowardice, and it evolved into worry for his friends. Many Paladins start as "Lawful good goodie-two-shoes do no wrong". Mine was a coward, afraid to fight, but his cowardice meant he didn't lose himself in this game world. It's a great progression that the *others* ended up causing. He's also striving to do *good*. Not what is lawful, but just good. Stealing food for starving orphans? He might not steal, but you can be sure he wouldn't care if someone else did it for the right reason. He may not drink, but he doesn't care if someone else does. Doing the moral thing, the right thing, if at all possible. That's his goal, and that goal was built by everyone's actions. We're only level 6 so far, so he's still got a way to go still, but yeah, it's where he's headed ultimately. A narrative like that is hard to build, and to happen naturally with everyone is even harder, and a Paladin's journey should be like that, I feel. It shouldn't just begin and end at "Lawful good", it should be more than just tested, more than have their faith waver, they need to see nuance and challenges and be able to decide what they want and need to do so they can be more than who they were. That makes Paladins difficult to RP. Gameplay-wise they are one of the most MAD (Multi-Ability Dependent) classes, needing high strength and charisma and constitution, while also wanting high wisdom and dex for skills and saving throws. That means unless you rolled really well, you'll always feel like you're not as strong as you could be.
@amitamaru
4 ай бұрын
Playing within the confines of any oath, even those that aren't of the stereotypical lawful good, can be tricky for some people.
@-Commit-arson-
5 ай бұрын
It’s hard to role-play being zealous and not much else Very powerful class though
@Gale_789
5 ай бұрын
Who says that they have to be zealous and not much else? If you want that vibe I’d say zealot barbarian, it’s even in the name.
@Raziel312
5 ай бұрын
@danny6798 They made it so paladins get their power from an Oath rather than a God. I know this was an attempt to make paladins more diverse, but I don't think Wizards thought through the implications. Getting their power from an Oath means paladins believe what they believe *SO HARD* that it's given them a limited ability to *BEND REALITY ITSELF* to conform to their worldview. So Wizards, in a bid to make paladins more diverse, ended up doubling down on the fanatism.
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
Zealous is certainly going to be an aspect of the character, but the interesting questions are to what belief system, and how does it manifest in their actions? Are they the decent sort, honor and nobility playing a prominent part in their dealings? Are they the vicious type, considering anyone outside their narrow Overton window fair game? Are they somewhere in the middle, accepting coin for *any* work that falls within the bounds of their oaths? How willing to bend the rules are they? Do they follow the spirit of their oaths? The letter? Both? Degree of zealotry and to what allow for a broad range of characters.
@dracoflame33
4 ай бұрын
This is just reminding me when I decided to play a Lawful Good Paladin in a Curse of Strahd game with some buddies who decided it on a whim. Then realizing that everyone made basically neutral or evil characters, and sometimes just made dumb decisions just for shits and giggles because they thought it was, made it hard for me to play because at that point, so I wasn’t dragging down the party, I had to make the Paladin very airheaded and unaware which became harder to do when said characters were being slowly corrupted and delighting in being evil, and now my Paladin is realizing about half the party might be lost causes. I was seen as the problem in the game for the more rambunctious players because they wanted to play stagnant characters that didn’t grow and just got worse, meanwhile my character is trying to make them do better while out of game not trying to ruin too much fun. It didn’t work out, as you might guess, and in two players I accidentally affirmed their hatred of paladins as the “goody two shoes” and no explanation offered would make them see otherwise.
@MalloonTarka
5 ай бұрын
Because it's a very difficult task to be, or play, a character who is both a moral saint and a fun, interesting person. Paladins often had and have strict moral codes - either mechanically or self-imposed. It takes a whole lot of _real_ charisma to make a character who acts not just consistently morally, but supererogatory, engaging. And this is usually done by being so persuasive and charismatic that you manage to sway not only the other characters into being better people, but their players into thinking that that'd be a fun way to play them. Think of every story with a charismatic priest or therapist who gives inspiring yet down-to-earth life advice, and realise that that's essentially how you'd need to play them. That's not easy. It's far easier to play, write, and be a stick-in-the-mud who a) has little grasp of the nuances of morality, so follows every little rule in order not to accidentally break one when it's important, and b) doesn't know how to sway other people to their side, partially because they don't know when to be supple and when to be insistent. This is why giving them Oaths was a great choice. It gives each paladin a number of things to focus on morally, while being much more liberal with other things. This also highlights where issues might arise between characters at the start, without the incompatibility rearing its head later down the line. It doesn't give paladin players charisma, but since it also removes the need to be a stick-in-the-mud on most issues, the need for charisma drops considerably.
@Zetact_
5 ай бұрын
I'd think that the main issue is just that for something as vague as having to live up to an oath, not only is it not outlined but each person will have a degree to which they think the oath is meant to be followed. In part, going for the stereotypical Arthurian vision as the inspiration is a bit of a problem because there are plenty of figures who you can generally look to from OTHER heroic romances and mythologies that could logically be considered paladins. You may not think of it as such but characters like the party from Journey to the West, the Pandavas of the Mahabharata, or Fergus mac Roich of the Ulster Cycle are far from what you'd consider to be paladins (or at least "sticking to a code of conduct similar to a paladin") but if you actually take a step back you might say, "Actually, that WOULD work." This is just spitballing but I think in heroic romances or other sort of stories with a "paladin" vibe there are three major plot threads that could inform a D&D campaign: 1. The hero doing great deeds to earn something or prove himself, usually in the name of love but it can also be simply to tame the wilderness by killing monsters, 2. The hero setting right something that is wrong, usually in the form of a cruel king taking control of his homeland, 3. The hero is not an ideal person but through living as a moral hero gains enlightenment/redemption. The paladin having a code of honor and a level of nobility should be a part of their character, but it should be only a PART of their character. I think that having a character who is not always going to be moral but whose actions are informed by their desire to live up to that oath works better than someone who either has it on 24/7 or turns it on only when convenient.
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
I think it is good for good aligned paladins to always make a genuine effort to do the right thing. They should at least advise the party on what they believe to be the most morally upright path through any situation might be, but also accept that this will not always be the most optimal solution and to be willing to go along with whatever the party decides as long as it isn’t outright evil, especially if the paladin isn’t required to personally carry out any morally questionable actions.
@michellebleakley2766
5 ай бұрын
whenever I play a paladin I usually only take a 2-level dip to avoid the subclasses which really restrict RP especially if you have chaotic friends and also smite + full caster class is just to fun. being able to spam smite + smite spells what not something the game was made to sustain.
@borncreole6152
5 ай бұрын
QUESTION. Could an unarmed barbarian use eldritch claws while raging? Curious on everyone’s thoughts.
@ToaTitanus
4 ай бұрын
5th edition does paladin well. The oaths leave room for interpretation like vengeance. I play a Str Elf vengeance paladin of death. I think the move from serving alignment to serving an ideal is much more flexible. This approach let my paladin get over some of his issues with the undead and them being not dead lol.
@grandempress1947
5 ай бұрын
My Paladin is a Drow Princess. Runaway daughter of the Underdark Queen. She's oath of the seas, which I myself have taken (and interpreted as) to swearing an oath to freedom and liberty. To oppose the forced subjugation that her people subscribe to. However she herself isn't without faults. And that nature still finds itself in her from time to time. She rarely cares what happens to others so long as her own freedom and those she considers her friends isn't trampled upon. It makes her an extremely morally grey character, doing the right thing most of the time while having some extremely questionable means of achieving the results she wants or some very off-putting views on things. This way of building her character allows for some baller RP moments and gets me around the "tied down by your oath/holy warrior" crap that plagues the class. On the combat side, she's an absolute unit. Easily carrying the party on her back a lot of the time. Ludicrous damage output, crazy good mobility while mounted or when able to teleport, very good at tanking damage, only outdone by our moon druid and barbarian (naturally), and great at passing out party buffing spells when needed. A very fun and powerful character. And loved all around the table. Always a treat to play her
@elchuniloco8
5 ай бұрын
Something that wasn't mentioned in the video is that Paladin has a big stereotype for being the "main character" in DnD groups and people will HATE you for that. Like, wow, the amount of RPG horror stories involving them as the problem is high as the sky. I'm glad to see homebrews that let them be more flexible in personality, but the "main character" syndrome cannot be fixed with game mechanics.
@spupergames7771
5 ай бұрын
Depends on your oath too, vengeance oath cant stop vengeance. But a anchient oath can. Anchient oath is my favorite because your able to look beyond robin hoods stealing and see the poor in need
@bogustoast22none25
4 ай бұрын
The DM worked with me, making the Paladin Lawful, so long as there was an over-arching reasoning behind it, and allow for context. Theft, deception, and turning a blind eye could be allowed, if it was for the greater good, maintaining order, or if the alternatives were worse, HOWEVER, doing so too many times could be construed as me falling out of being a lawful entity, and THEN I would lose my oath. So the rogue stealing from other villains, absolutely okay, contextually speaking, they are not good people, and taking from them could prevent their operations from escalating. HOWEVER, I would need to know where they are so we can deal with them later. It was a very situational thing that required some common sense, reasoning, but also needed me to, in one way or another, come back and fix the issue. I also got away with not following my own code if it came in conflict with the law of the land, so long as the law of the land wasn't TOO wrong for my character, so if a duel to the death was not allowed where I was from, but it was allowed in the land I was visiting, I could turn a blind eye, so long as I got confirmation that all parties involved were okay with it.
@KagemaruHitokiri
5 ай бұрын
For playing as one, it's the restrictions. Lawful Good *with a code of ethics guiding that* means you can't do much finagling with the rules. Couple this with a few experiences involving particularly vindictive DMs/GMs, and Paladin starts feeling like painting a target on your back for moral lose-lose choices. For playing with one, there's a combination of bad Paladin players (lawful "good" stupid) ruining a group's prior experience, as well as other bad players (chaotic "neutral" stupid) not wanting a player to hold them accountable for their actions. I rather like PF2's way of handling the problem. Instead, there is a Champion class, and its powers and code depend upon their alignment instead. Paladins are still Lawful Good, but Redeemers are Neutral Good and Liberators are Chaotic Good, and all of them have different codes to suit them, allowing them to fit better into different parties.
@thebladeofchaos
5 ай бұрын
One of the main things i find is folk are too strict on what the oaths and alignments mean, and will be over Draconian over them. If tfe DM doesn't want you to ve a paladin, eatch that oath go out the window
@SK3L3_T0N_PLAYZ
5 ай бұрын
Ahh I was planning to play a Paladin after the current campaign I’m in
@stadnikds
5 ай бұрын
dewit
@TheMightyBattleSquid
5 ай бұрын
No reason not to. Current edition paladin is lax as hell. The paladins I played had oaths like "I'm going to kill ice giants or train to kill more ice giants" (ancients) and "I'm going to travel around clearing out tyrants, bandits, etc. that disrupt society" (crown.) My oath has NEVER been in jeopardy with either character and people loved playing with them both.
@SK3L3_T0N_PLAYZ
5 ай бұрын
@@TheMightyBattleSquid Ty for the advice! I do understand that current editions are much better for a player who wants to play a Paladin but def gonna keep a few points from this video in mind
@tenchraven
5 ай бұрын
Do you have a good DM, or a by-the-book pedant? If you have a good one, talk to them now.
@SK3L3_T0N_PLAYZ
5 ай бұрын
@@tenchraven I do have a good dm, I’ll talk to them once our current campaign is a lil closer to ending since we are about barely half way through
@mistysolar5605
5 ай бұрын
I have an entirely different reason for why I haven’t played a paladin. They are naturally low dexterity characters, and their weapon proficiencies tend to involve a lot of the big clunky ones. I don’t see a lot of function for the alignment system in DnD5e, so that just doesn’t feel that impactful to me. The alignment system is very applicable to role play. I don’t think a person always has to stick with their alignment, because even in the real world people don’t always stick to their “alignment”. )) Good = Balance, Harmony, Love )) Neutral = Either doesn’t care; Is flexible (gray); Or hits both extremes. )) Evil = Imbalance, Dysfunction, Fear )) Lawful = Structured life style. Follows rules; whether minority or majority. Orthodox, typical. )) Neutral = Flexible life style. Follows guidelines, not rules. Falls somewhere between orthodox and unorthodox / typical and atypical. )) Chaotic = Messy “wing it” life style. Is opposed to rules. Unorthodox, atypical. As far as I’m concerned a paladin’s oath should have just as much flexibility as a warlock’s pact. I don’t think that being a person who does good things means not associating with people who do evil things. I think it means not allowing yourself to be influenced badly by them, while trying to be a good influence to them. In my mind that would be fighting the good fight on the front lines. If you can’t manage either of these things; or if being around them is dangerous for you, then yes, don’t associate with them. At least not until you are internally stronger (work your way up).
@aaverageweeb5660
5 ай бұрын
I love paladins and who ever says lawful good paladin try adding flavor to aspects flavor your oath to whatever god you server my person favorite is the capitalist chaos god
@cmykrgb1469
5 ай бұрын
Currently playing a Fighter (5e) attempting to become a Paladin (AD&D) because he earned his squireship in Solamnia when DragonLance released Shadow of the Dragon Queen. He doesn't meet the AD&D Stat Requirements. Several long term goals for this guy have been developed and some completed, conversations with the Herald of Paladine had, and dedication to earning different dragon Boons to make him reach the Stat Requirements (AD&D) have been attempted...and he knows that if he fails, he will fail completely and utterly. The DM approves of the high-risk, high-reward, heavy roleplay of this character with the dedication to give it his all or die trying. So yeah. It's been a fun ride. I do hope he makes it.
@acrab6527
4 ай бұрын
"I want to play a thief character! I don't want a paladin hampering my crime!" Part of roleplaying a criminal is avoiding the cops. Oh look, the paladin is your parole officer, and here's right there watching you. Roleplay, dude
@simondemoulin5815
5 ай бұрын
Please, do it with ranger too. I easily understand what's difficult with Paladin, but not really what is the problem with the Ranger.
@starcrafter13terran
5 ай бұрын
8:19 Love how people spin original ideas into new "takes" on them which are simply twisting them.
@nils-peterwihlney8732
5 ай бұрын
I've never had a problem with playing any specific class. I play for fun not to be overpowered. But I have had some bad experiences with RPing as a paladin, cleric, or druid. I used to play 3.5 and in that edition, your alignment locked you out of your class if it shifted out of order. So most of my paladin experiences are from those times. I could not work alongside chaotic or evil characters. And I could not perform acts that the GM determined to be a breach of my paladin's code of conduct. In 5e I've met similar problems but it is less that your paladin breaks alignment and more your paladin breaks their oath. People just can't seem to remember the nature of their oaths. In video games, specifically Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, the system prevented you from doing anything outside of your alignment. Essentially railroading you through your alignment. As a cleric, your alignment is limited to your deity and as a druid, if you leave neutral you are no longer aligned with nature. It was very weird and felt restrictive. I as a gm have never enforced alignments with classes. But I have made a point that your alignment should represent your character's core concept, they can perform acts that go against their alignment. People perform reluctant acts all the time. I intend to play a 5e Paladin in the near future but I still prefer the primal classes like barbarian, ranger, and druid compared to clerics and paladins.
@HellqueenRoz
Күн бұрын
I think the reason a lot of people don't like Paladins is because a lot of players, especially people who are new to D&D or TTRPGs in general tend to be drawn to extremely exaggerated or over-the-top embodiments of their class. We've all played a game or twelve with the person who thinks that playing a Rogue means you have to be constantly stealing everything not nailed down, or that being a Barbarian means that you have to start a fight everywhere you go. I think it's a combination of people not used to the group storytelling angle of TTRPGs and not realisng that being a gremlin in a single-player ARPG where the entire game revolves around your character isn't an issue but that it doesn't translate well to a collaborative gameplay experience. Also, Paladin both officially and unofficially as a class tends to encourage a more black-and-white way of looking at things. So that's how you get situations like the party Paladin attacking the Neutral Evil pirate captain even if the party needs to stay on that person's good side because "WELL THEY'RE EVIL", and that's the end of that. This was also especially an issue in older editions where Paladins could actually literally lose their powers for acting against their alignment and I feel like the class has never fully gotten over that.
@qwefg3
4 ай бұрын
I would say it is the main 3 1) Lawful Stupid 2) Rules Lawyer Paladin where they make as many excuses or loopholes to allow their PC to twist any oaths or restrictions into a knot before tossing it behind their back and keeping the powers. 3) Plot plague... With a lot of pre made campaigns played straight from a book... There are plot required things that must be done that would clash with what a paladin wouldn't do... So you need a work around, ignore, half baked excuse to allow the paladin to do it... Or the popular joke of sticking a bucket on his head and telling him to count loudly while the rest of the party does what is needed to progress without crippling the paladin. Oh and of course the bonus... Every other character when getting a plot around them gets one based around them... While the paladin plots usually end up as what no win situation can be given to force that oath break.
@rabidspatula1013
5 ай бұрын
Playing a pally in the next campaign. Should be interesting.
@justinthompson3937
5 ай бұрын
I had fun playing a paladin tho I was playing a lv12 oathbreaker lv5 hexblade witch led to rolling around 23 d8 and 6d6 on a crit😅 with burning hexblade's curse and two 3rd lv spell slots for divine and eldridge smight
@octosalias5785
5 ай бұрын
I never had a problem with a paladin. I had a problem with players and DMs dictating my moves to 'what a Paladin should do' and it sucked the joy out of the game
@Great_Getter
5 ай бұрын
I would think that a Paladin folliws not the "law" but what's right. A corrupt noble makes the laws. A Paladin seeing the poor being taxed to Oblivion shouldn't think "Thats the law" they should be thinking "That's not right"
@cooldownboi3890
5 ай бұрын
We have a ranger and paladin in our current game
@BlackWolfessUSCM
5 ай бұрын
excuse me ive been a ranger for over 20 years and currently a gloomstalker ranger i love this class no matter what anyone else says.
@Rodrigo_Vega
4 ай бұрын
We just don't live in an era where lawful, earnest heroes are very popular. It's just not a popular power-fantasy. Look at any recent successful show or movie and most characters are at least a little bit roguish. Now, multiply that five-fold accounting for the well know _subtlety_ of the avarage player in a beer and pretzels game and most of them will avoid playing anything that "gets in the way of fun".
@pauliepizzo8633
5 ай бұрын
I usually play ng to cg characters even paladins for that matter and never had a problem with my party
@thod-thod
5 ай бұрын
The majority of oaths (vengeance, conquest, glory, the crown) seem evil to me, not good
@zerothefaceless4888
4 ай бұрын
Oath of vengance is basically a Renegade Commander Shepard. Good guy trying to help others but ruthless in pursuit and merciless to evildoers. Oath of glory doesn't seem inherently evil, but I see why it might be taken this way. At the same time, I can see Minsc (who is a good guy) being something akin to that. Oath of the crown is pretty much "Lawful before good", not bad in itself, but can be restricting for do-gooder or can be abused if someone is a tyrant. Oath of conquest... okay, that one does seem like "paladin in name only".
@homebrewisthebestbrew5270
5 ай бұрын
DMing since 1E. By the time 2E released, paladins already had the reputation of being insufferable asshats (including those at my table), and clever DMs could easily crush them with moral dilemmas that any other PC could ride out one way or another. In my group, the situation got so bad that I scrapped the class entirely created a custom replacement for my setting: the Knight of the Holy Orders. In my homebrew, most religious orders from LG to CE have a military arm, and the Knights are those soldiers. Also, the gods of my world are a pragmatic lot, more tolerant than most of the contradictions and ambiguities of the mortal condition, so they do not seek "perfection" from their followers. Ideals are there to guide, never to shackle. This makes playing a Knight more of a roleplay challenge and less of a minefield that blows up the party along with him. And for those who are wondering: Knights have proven far more popular in my games than paladins ever were. I can practically count on one per campaign.
@trueblueflare
5 ай бұрын
I could never play a paladin I'm chaotic by nature irl that any character I play would reflect it to an extent and as such couldn't play a lawful-aligned character for shit.
@nick2037
5 ай бұрын
Paladins don't have to be good in fifth edition though
@friendofmara9362
5 ай бұрын
personally my brain thinks "if i wanted to play a holy warrior in melee combat with spells... I'd play war cleric so I could still get full caster spells" yeah i dont get an aura or smite but ya know what i do get? the "i really wanna hit that guy" button and much MUCH more spells, like, ya know, Harm and Heal... or RESURRECTION where you, for the price of a gem worth 1k gold can pick any person whos body you have (that didnt die of old age) and pull them out of the afterlife
@postapocalypticnewsradio
5 ай бұрын
PANR has tuned in.
@johnevans5782
4 ай бұрын
First I want to say that I liked the Video, However, you have a few things that are incorrect. 1. You mention that 3rd edition changed the Paladin by not allowing the to adventure with characters that weren't 'Good aligned'. Actually, this was reversed, IN 1st edition AD&D a Paladin could not team up with Evil or Chaotic characters, and only with ones that were neutral or non-Lawful good for short periods in pursuit of a specific cause. In 2nd ed, this restriction was lessened a bit to allow adventuring with Good and neutral characters, but 3rd edition was the first one to simply say that a Paladin could travel with different characters so long as they didn't commit Evil acts. 2. Gary Gygax debunked the myth that Paladins were based on 3 Hearts and 3 Lions. He stated in a inteview that he has no idea where that rumor came from. According to Gygax, he based the Class on King Arthur and his Knights. 3. Your statements referring to a paladin as a "Holy Warrior" are off base. Paladins started out as a subclass of Fighter that performed good deeds, were forbidden from doing Evil, and that because of their purity and devotion to the cause of being both Lawful and Good, they had some divine powers. This is important to state, because other than in 4th ed, Paladins have never been required to worship a deity at all. I honestly have no ides who started the concept that all Paladins are Holy Warriors. Paladins are Knights who have a devout belief in something, be it King and Country, or faith in a deity. The Holy Warriors would be some form of Templar... a Cleric trained in the Knightly arts, as opposed to a Paladin being a Knight who has strong beliefs. No 1,2,3 or 5e Player's handbook states that ALL Paladins are devoted to deities. In fact they actually have statements to the opposite effect, stating that their powers come from their belief or in modern 5e, their Oath. I have never understood the "Holy Wrath Paladin" concept. A true Paladin is based on Sir Galahad, Sir Lancelot as written by Pyle (as opposed to Mallory). He has the Kindness and mercy of Fred Rogers, the unwavering strength of will of Captain America, and the integrity and moral compass of Clayton Moore's Lone Ranger. No, a Paladin does not commit or participate in doing Evil. Paladins are devoted to doing what's right, and helping and protecting those in need. That said, the modern Class does seem to allow for Paladins of other alignments.
@rhodes3983
5 ай бұрын
I treat my warforged paladin's "oath" as the literal code and programming that he runs on. He has to follow these instructions because his memory is corrupted and his personality, which would be able to act independently from this to a certain degree, is no longer functional, causing him to revert to his machine programming.
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
That’s very Asimov, I personally like the concept, but from what I’ve read of the paladin hate exactly this sort of paladin is typically what is complained about.
@stadnikds
5 ай бұрын
I am playing a lawful evil noble rogue. He is an assasin from a clan of assassins, so he is not by any means a murder hobo, has his family's and clan's code which says how and on what conditions he can kill someone. He does not steal also. Started as lawful neutral(assasin, no ambition other than protect family, no killing and involvment other than by contract), and became more evil after DM gave us a very personal revenge motivation. The next session I plan to take Oath of Conquest multiclass, as subclass description states that there are hell knights who took this oath, so it doesn't mean it forces me to be lawful good. And we discussed it with my DM and as my character has his clan's code and strong motivation to serve his clan, it is enough to be considered paladin's code of ethics and also enough to be considered oath of conquest compatible I think nothing will change in my RP after that. He is friendly with his teammates and his evil side is only shown when dealing with something other than them in a way that says "me and my team is above anything else"
@HellqueenRoz
2 ай бұрын
It’s worth mentioning that Paladins as envisioned by Gary Gygax were not meant to be paragons of virtue so much as a bunch of fanatical asshats going around being judge, jury, and executioner. In a forum Q&A he give in the early 2000’s, Gygax at one point stated that if an enemy surrendered to a Paladin and renounced their evil ways, that the most ethical and moral course of action was to execute said enemy on the spot so that they would go on to their eternal reward at the moment of their redemption. This was seen as superior to letting them live and thus potentially return to their evil ways. This was an action that Gygax thought of as a justified and encouraged act for a Paladin of the Lawful Good alignment. This is a man who had a long history of espousing *extremely* reactionary attitudes regarding morality and ethics. Paladins in Gygax’s view were really not supposed to be good. They were supposed to be a bunch of fanatics going around dispensing Old Testament “justice”. Gygax has been dead for decades by this point but people seeing Paladins as a bunch of cruel zealots dispensing summary justice is a persistent thing for a reason.
@DreadPyriteBob
5 ай бұрын
I love LG Paladin The trick is when you get into a sticky moral situation, as LG you can choose the lawful, or the good path. As soon as you decide on one of them, defend it with your life, but not your sword. When playing LG, violence should be the last option. As soon as all the opportunities for comprise have been exhausted, strike to kill no matter what. And when you play LG, you can choose what is lawful, or what is good with defeated enemies, you then are allowed to pick mercy or punishment. If you pick it up, it’s an incredible duality to play a flawed Paladin trying to do what is right, sometimes it’s not good but obeys the law, and sometimes it’s unlawful but overall good
@TheMightyBattleSquid
5 ай бұрын
That's one version of lawful good but not the only version. If it's lawful to kill bandits that have been killing innocents along the road you don't become evil or neutral from doing so. DnD alignment isn't built like that. ANGELS in-lore smite living thinking beings all the time and you don't see them being branded neutral or evil for doing so. Zariel, for example, had a LONG way to fall before she was considered evil.
@AzraelThanatos
5 ай бұрын
@@TheMightyBattleSquidThe party and DM was kind of surprised when my LG Paladin had his berzerk button pressed and led to an extermination campaign against a group of slavers...followed by more investigative in dealing with someone who actually murdered someone but may have been, well, insane at the time rather than just purge the wicked.
@Evoker23-lx8mb
5 ай бұрын
It was brought on the class by Wizards themselves. The lore says paladins HAVE to be lawful good. Being forced into that kind of character just by picking the class can cause boredom. Experienced players know this is wrong but new players might not know that.
@Lizzard570
5 ай бұрын
I hate having a Paladin in any party, they always cause tension between both the characters and the players. Any good aligned Paladin always makes dnd groups break apart with the conflict they impose on the group.
@spiritvdc5109
3 ай бұрын
13:08 - I guess you could say that that player is a neutral-aligned paladin irl for keeping his oath to only play neutral characters xDDDD PS - I find that the best way to play a paladin is to make their oath be something that the character personally believes in and has a conviction not to violate, but at the same time something they've learned to deal with and navigate in sticky situations. For example, a highly religious knight might swear the oath of "I will never dishonor my god before the sight of others", which can be kept by being true to his religion's tenants, as well as by making a reasonable justification for seemingly breaking them for the sake of the greater good. If breaking the letter of the law would better keep the spirit of the law, such a paladin should have little difficulty keeping his oath intact by swearing to the spirit rather than the letter - the same would go for the Robin Hood scenario, instead of swearing "I will enforce the laws of this land", he might instead swear "I will uphold the greatest good my hands can produce for those who need it most". In most cases that'll be enforcing the law, but like the previous example, breaking a law as-written for the sake of the greater good is well within their purview, and often better reflects how the character themselves actually views right and wrong. Tie it into their character's own morality and how far they're willing to bend it, instead of trying to bolt them down to an external set of rules that you can't work around - essentially, write an oath that the character themselves would choose to swear because they believe in it, and play them accordingly.
@raymondparisza5094
4 ай бұрын
I feel this is not as bad in 5e as in earlier editions. There is no LE requirement anymore and my last Pally worshiped a CE God He was very pompous and was not afraid to tell people who his god was Of course the God was very cruel and selfish so all the Pallys actions were to achieve what the God wanted....when he would talk. Most of the time my Pally just went around telling people that his god was actually a good guy and had been framed
@devonleonard6926
2 ай бұрын
Notice most the issues people have with paladins aren't even relevant in 5e. You don't have to be good or religious, and can certainly run solo. They gain their power from their oath. And there's several less than "lawful good" oaths you can take, such as conquest.
@ogfail1867
5 ай бұрын
Depends on the system and the DM. 5E had some ok ideas for Paladins, but the no alignment requirement, and not having to pick a god to follow were sacrilegious. If you have a DM that is always trying to take your powers, and constantly puts you in situations with no other options that can ruin a Paladin PC's game. Paladins that aren't Lawful Good are just fighters.
@derekeastman7771
5 ай бұрын
That’s indicative of a bad DM, I think. Once through the course of a campaign is fine, so long as there is some third way and it’s not just two options that both break your character. If your DM puts you in such situations at every opportunity with no other options I’d just straight up ask if they would prefer I play something else. That doesn’t sound fun.
Пікірлер: 233