Truer words. My party just spent most of a session poking around a Goliath village and learning the intricacies of their society and religion. I think there were three or four dice rolls in about 90 minutes of roleplaying. It was awesome.
Well, I was talking more about just talking than finding out about Drow culture organically through play. That said, we definitely have a few players who get antsy if you’re going for longer than an hour without rolling initiative. Myself, I enjoy some good roleplay but also appreciate that we have limited time and some people would like to advance the plot meaningfully rather than indulge in a 90min Q&A with Street_Orphan_027
I remember when Clerics could be any alignment except Neutral. If you wanted that one, you had to be a Druid. First edition AD&D rules were very quirky.
Personally, I agree 100% that all deities should have mortal champions. I just don’t think that all of those champions should work in the same, or even analogous, ways. A paladin is basically a Holy Fighter. But why wouldn’t a different god have Holy Rogues as champions, or Holy Wizards? Just saying that “the chaotic paladin has Smite Law instead of Smite Evil” feels like a cop-out to me.
As for “always evil”, consider three different sorts of “always evil”: First, you’ve got the fiends. They are literally made out of the substance of evil. They can’t be otherwise. A fiend could, in extremely rare circumstances (like, once or twice in all of history) be redeemed, but by doing so, they would have to become something inherently other than what they are.
Next, consider a red dragon. One of the biggest differences between dragons and humans is that dragons do not have an infancy or childhood: They grow larger and more powerful with age, but even a dragon fresh out of the egg is powerful enough to be an apex predator in most ecologies, is of human-like intelligence, speaks a language, and can discourse with other sophonts about moral philosophy. When we say that red dragons are always evil, what we mean is that they’re born that way: That red dragon conversing about moral philosophy will tell you that they should properly have all your stuff because they’re stronger than you and can take it, and sucks to be you. They can still change, and become good red dragons (while still retaining all of the inherent nature and abilities of a red dragon), but it’s tough, and any good red dragon you meet will be one who changed.
And then there are some of the more powerful undead like liches and vampires. They once were humans, or something very much like us, with full free will and the ability to be any alignment, but they became what they are as a result of choosing evil, and their continued existence depends on that continual evil. A lich or vampire could also repent, but in so doing, would die, because a good alignment is incompatible with their continued existence.
Except the ones who, Brian-like, think that everyone should think for themselves.
I think 5e does a really good job with this, in two important ways.
-
Multiclassing is very easy and doesn’t punish your baseline scaling (your proficiency bonus and your cantrip damage).
-
The subclass system is simple but flexible, letting the designers add plenty of flavor to the core classes without having to make whole new ones.
So if I want to be a paladin-wizard, I could do that by staying completely inside divine classes. I could start with paladin and take Oath of the Watchers at level 3, which has an arcane defender flavor to it. Then (probably after I second attack at level 5), I multiclass and become a cleric of the Arcana domain. Now I have access to some mage spells as well.
Now, paladin->cleric is a pretty suboptimal multiclass because they use different spellcasting slots, but not everything has to be optimal. Personally, if I wanted to do the “holy arcane fighter” schtick I’d start with a fighter, make wisdom one of my stronger stats, and then multiclass Arcane right to cleric at level 6.
Paladins aren’t necessarily champions of their deity so much as they represent the martial crusading wing of their deities. They’re conquistadors.
I think you guys are getting Paladins all wrong. According to 5e rules, they don’t get their powers from any specific deities, nor are they required to worship any gods (although they can if they want). Instead, they get their powers from their principles and from the strength of their conviction. They’re much closer to Jedi Knights than they are to conquistadors.
I agree with this post, but want to note that none of those 3 examples are “natural” creatures like an orc or a drow who live in their own societies and reproduce naturally - dragons are borderline, but you don’t really see dragon nations so much as individual dragons, and they are so attuned to magic that calling them “natural” is a stretch (I think one of the source books flat put states dragons can’t even fly without the aid of their natural magic).
Orcs, in most settings, are a true breeding species of humanoid, not inherently magical. That’s why they don’t fit the “always evil” mold for me, even if they are evil the vast majority of the time. They are akin to my gnoll example, not red dragons or vampires or fiends.
This is another aspect of the paladin I don’t particularly care for. Just like I don’t care for clerics that aren’t connected to particular deities.
I actually like the concept that in an inherently magical universe, the very fact that someone swears an oath, and upholds it, can in and of itself grant them magical powers. It means that people can mold reality through the power of their principles.
Look at it this way: where do clerics get their powers? From gods, you say. But where do gods get their powers? Maybe divine energy is something that exists as a universal force. Gods control a lot of it, and pass it on to others, but maybe some mortals can access this force by themselves. Paladins don’t need gods, because they have a direct link to the divine.
Even back in 1e, didn’t low-level cleric spells explicitly come not from the patron deity or a supernatural go-between, but just from the mortal’s knowledge and faith?
“Whether sworn before a god’s altar and the witness ofa priest, in a sacred blade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief as the only witness, a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion.”
and then
“Although many paladins are devoted to the gods of good, a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.”
So a paladin doesn’t have to worship a god at all so long as they uphold their oath, but that doesn’t have to mean that the paladin’s power comes solely from the oath. It’s pretty much up to the individual backstory of the character.
The last time I actually played one was in 2e, quite a long time ago. I don’t think I ever noticed that their power could come strictly from the oath in 5e. That’s neat.
IIRC, 2e had a significantly similar option.
Maybe in a supplement like the Complete Paladin’s Handbook? I never had it.
The baseline paladin was definitely a grail knight. They had to serve and tithe to a church, and even little screwups meant finding to a LG cleric for absolution and penance.
Complete Paladin’s Handbook: “Some paladins avoid associations with any type of organized religion, instead choosing to venerate a philosophy, a belief system based on intellectual concepts rather than supernatural entities … Paladins who follow a philosophy may worship privately or in small sects. Meditation may substitute for prayer … A book of poetry may take the place of a holy text … faith in a religion or philosophy all work the same way in the context of the game. A paladin’s devotion is sufficiently intense to attract the magical energy necessary to cast spells and give him his special powers.”
Nitpick Re Liches
According to the Monstrous Manual entry, not all liches are evil. Arch liches are wizards or clerics who were good in life and remain so in undeath. The entry mentions arch liches are ‘rare as Roc’s teeth’
That part always struck me as way more lame than Neutral Evil paladins. I happily impose a “Divine casters need to represent a deity” rule in my campaigns. No one has complained yet. I don’t sit there and say “Well, your life cleric bopped a goblin so now you lost all your spells” or otherwise try to make it a burden but Clerics, Druids and Paladins need to have a deity in my campaigns.
I’m too lazy to dig for my old Deities & Demigods, but 1st and maybe 2nd levels spells were sort of powered by the deity’s plane of existence, 2nd-4th by various divine intermediaries of the deity, 5th by demigods, 6th by lesser gods and 7th by greater gods. The implication at the lower levels being that gods don’t spend every moment fielding Cure Light Wounds requests but directly have their finger in Resurrections and Heals. But it’s still being powered by the deity (indirectly from the divine nature of their plane) and there’s no suggestion that any random atheist could just plug into it.
It also has the side effect that a cleric of a demigod is locked out of high level clerical magic.
“1st and 2nd level spells are gained through the cleric’s knowledge and faith. All other spells are gained through prayer. Third, fourth, and fifth level spells are granted by the supernatural servants or minions of the cleric’s deity.”
Was that from 1e Deities & Demigods? I could have sworn it went into more detail than that.
In any event, “knowledge and faith” were still obviously intended to reflect “…in their god and its teachings” and not “Faith in myself and knowledge about tacos” or something. 1e made it clear that clerics and paladins have patron deities to function. The PHB says “A cleric is dedicated to a deity or deities…”