I like the Paladin's Falling mechanics.

[Malimar]

I don't know if I've ever seen anyone express anything less than total scorn and loathing for mechanics of the Paladin's Code. (That's probably hyperbole.) But I have to admit I kind of like it.

I like the concept of certain kinds of RP being enforced by mechanics. The natural inclination of the PC is to be a tomb-raiding murderous hobo, and anything that disrupts this inclination in any way is okay with me, and nothing is more disruptive than a Paladin.

I also like the kind of stories you can tell with these mechanics in play. :miko: Miko is the obvious example, but I'm also thinking the controversy over Kore from Goblins webcomic and how such a horrible person could possibly still have his Paladin abilities. It allows more sorts of (non-)redemption stories than if people are subject to their conscience and nothing else.

Plus, I hate how often I have to cajole PCs into biting at my plot hooks, and there's nothing easier than getting a Paladin to bite. (This is in part because ignoring the suffering of innocents risks Falling, but mostly because the code breeds a mindset conducive to conspicuous heroics, where the party Rogue is all too often interested iff there's loot involved.)

(All of that said, I might kind of like the cleric's code better, insofar as it allows more leeway for the player to choose with which rope he is to be hung.)

So I open it up to discussion: why do you hate the Paladin's code? Convince me my opinion is wrong!

[Rhaegar14]

I hate the Paladin's code because it is far too absolute. If it were a guideline, it'd be fantastic. But the problem is that the Paladin does one thing wrong and they lose their abilities. Not only that, but looking the other way while your ally does something evil? According to BoED, that's an evil act. Goodbye Paladin class features.

As a result, unless the entire party is made up of holy crusaders, the Paladin ends up policing the whole group and telling them what they can and cannot do, because if he doesn't, he loses everything that makes him better than a Warrior. Depending on how good the players are at roleplaying and justifying character actions, as well as how well they plan their characters around each other, this can lead to inter-party conflict.

[Cespenar]

Actually, it would be easier for a paladin to function in a party if the rest of the characters were actual good people instead of violent and greedy hobos only with "Good" written on their character sheet.

That said, the binary "it's okay"/"you fell" mechanic is a bit rough for my taste too, but I've never seen it become an issue since I usually play with reasonable DMs and players.

[The Mentalist]

The 2nd edition Complete Paladin book had 4 stages of violations, I rather liked how it worked out. A little screw up would be a day without smite or something and a "You knowingly killed your high priest without justification" would be a "YOU FALL, EVERYONE DIES" (Or laughs because you were a tier 4 before and you are now even worse)

[Aegis013]

I run it as guidelines. If you're working to further good's purpose, but you suffer a misstep, you shouldn't fall.

{{scrubbed}}

When run as guidelines, it's good. When run as absolutes, it's kind of bothersome but workable sometimes. When abused by the DM, it's stupid.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I also like the kind of stories you can tell with these mechanics in play. :miko: Miko is the obvious example, but I'm also thinking the controversy over Kore from Goblins webcomic and how such a horrible person could possibly still have his Paladin abilities. It allows more sorts of (non-)redemption stories than if people are subject to their conscience and nothing else.

...You know it's been heavily implied that Kore should've fallen long ago, right? And that he's also cursed?

And paladin's code is bad because in the olden days of second edition, paladins were one of the most powerful classes there was, and that the code was the way of keeping him in place. But in 3.5, there's no reason not to play a cleric instead, unless you're going for Battle Blessing and Draconic Might and the other precious gems paladin can get with full splat support.

Then, a lot of people interpret the code wrong, thinking that if everyone in their party doesn't live up to their level of righteousness, even with neutral good and chaotic good alignments, they'll fall just for associating with them.

Then there's DMs. Cap is a great example of a paladin, but some DMs would've changed his alignment to neutral or chaotic good and made him fall as soon as he turned rebel.

Finally, there's the fact that objective alignment does not work. I'm betting at least one person in every group disagrees with the others on how to play the paladin.

These are just a few examples. There's plenty more.

[Red_Dog]

violent and greedy hobos

Don't forget lethally armed.

P.S. Seriously, there are rules for buying a house in DMG, but have any one EVER tried expanding your WBL to do that? Neither have I, I need that to get me some more shiny things ^^

I only know ONE player who did that.^^

The rest of us are lethally armed hobos. Or adventurers!


Kid who played Harry Potter: My group are all Hobos!
Hobo#1: Hey! We prefer homeless bozos!
-SNL quote
**EDIT, there complete quote ^^**
^^

[Malimar]

I also like the kind of stories you can tell with these mechanics in play. :miko: Miko is the obvious example, but I'm also thinking the controversy over Kore from Goblins webcomic and how such a horrible person could possibly still have his Paladin abilities. It allows more sorts of (non-)redemption stories than if people are subject to their conscience and nothing else....You know it's been heavily implied that Kore should've fallen long ago, right? And that he's also cursed?
Yeah, that's part of what I meant by "the controversy".

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yeah, that's part of what I meant by "the controversy".

It would work the same if paladins fell if they became non-good.

[Coidzor]

I don't know if I've ever seen anyone express anything less than total scorn and loathing for mechanics of the Paladin's Code. (That's probably hyperbole.) But I have to admit I kind of like it.

Don't forget the base mechanics of the paladin which are already hella weaksauce. :smallwink: Even most players who love Pallys admit to that shortcoming.


I like the concept of certain kinds of RP being enforced by mechanics. The natural inclination of the PC is to be a tomb-raiding murderous hobo

No it's not. That's the natural inclination of a certain personality type that runs and plays games.

Further, generally you don't want too much player on player conflict as beyond a certain level it just gets boring. Also, the fact that the Paladin's player has to feel like he's got to be an ass towards the rest of the players or inventively reinterpret the code is not conducive to table health.


It allows more sorts of (non-)redemption stories than if people are subject to their conscience and nothing else.

No it doesn't. That's an illusion that you're falling for. You could have a redemption story centering around a wizard or a fighter just as well, since all that is about RPing and how the character views itself and how others view the character.


Plus, I hate how often I have to cajole PCs into biting at my plot hooks, and there's nothing easier than getting a Paladin to bite.

That means you have bad plot hooks or don't know your players so you give them the wrong plot hooks or are trying to play a game that your players don't want to play so you feel you have to force them along rather than talking to them and working out what's going on and some form of compromise.

So instead of having a paladin as a crutch to kludge people along with, learn to make better plot hooks or let the players direct the action under their own motivations. You'll find plenty of help here. :smallsmile:

[Menteith]

The only significant issue I have with it is the restriction against even associating with Evil characters - ultimately, a Paladin's goal isn't the destruction of evil, but rather its redemption. To quote Twain, "But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?" It's a bit irritating to me that it's completely evil to even talk to someone who disagrees with you in a moral sense.

[Agrippa]

The only significant issue I have with it is the restriction against even associating with Evil characters - ultimately, a Paladin's goal isn't the destruction of evil, but rather its redemption. To quote Twain, "But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?" It's a bit irritating to me that it's completely evil to even talk to someone who disagrees with you in a moral sense.

I think the argument for the non-assosiaction clause is that those of moraly Neutral alignment (including those with Evil tendencies) are lost souls who should be rescued and redeemed lest they fall into evil. Those of Evil alignment are see as having made their proverbial beds and they can lie down in them. As Leonardo da Vinci said, “He who does not punish evil commands it to be done.” The woman who kills her husband after years of abuse or in self defense isn't evil. Neal Caffrey (http://whitecollar.wikia.com/wiki/Neal_Caffrey) isn't evil while Matthew Keller (http://whitecollar.wikia.com/wiki/Matthew_Keller) is.

[Menteith]

Caveat - There's no way to do this with risking opening a massive can of worms regarding what is and isn't evil. I don't want to derail it to that state. With that said...

There's a difference between allowing evil to continue unchecked, and actively working alongside someone who is evil in the hopes of redeeming them. Insisting that the only way to deal with evil people is outright destruction is sociopathic. Retributive systems of punishment aren't effective - there's a reason that contemporary prison systems focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

[nedz]

I have always viewed this as a guideline, but then I've never seen a paladin in play for a very long time; they just don't fit in the games I run or play in.

If the issue did come up, I would talk to the player and see what they thought. I would expect any fall to be driven by the player's decision. The players own their characters and if they thought that they had fallen then fall they shall. Its a question of roleplaying really.

[Agrippa]

Mentieth - As I put it above pretty much all circumstances of "evil teamed up good for its oen redemption" are actually cases of Neutral, often times Good leaning, characters paired up with Good team mates. Those of Neutral alignment can be redeemed, and even if they aren't they never constitute an intentional threat to the degree an Evil character would. An Evil character would be far less responsive to reformation and more difficult to control. See the difference between Frank Abagnale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale) and Gaston B. Means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_Means). Both had done shameless and immoral things and were criminals, but one had boundries and later repented for his crimes, while the later didn't.

[Menteith]

Mentieth - As I put it above pretty much all circumstances of "evil teamed up good for its oen redemption" are actually cases of Neutral, often times Good leaning, characters paired up with Good team mates. Those of Neutral alignment can be redeemed, and even if they aren't they never constitute an intentional threat to the degree an Evil character would. An Evil character would be far less responsive to reformation and more difficult to control. See the difference between Frank Abagnale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale) and Gaston B. Means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_Means). Both had done shameless and immoral things and were criminals, but one had boundries and later repented for his crimes, while the later didn't.

That's certainly one way of defining good and evil. These terms are incredibly subjective, and again, I don't want to mire this in a fruitless discussion about what exactly good and evil are (since there isn't a definitive answer, least of all from the game developers). I disagree with how you're defining the alignments - normally that's not a problem, because there's no specific crunch relating to alignment outside of PrC Class reqs (that can easily be waived), a section of spells (Protection from X and its kin), and a few other relatively minor instances. It IS a problem with a Paladin because of how rigidly the Code can be interpreted. If a DM and a Player have differing views, drama is going to ensue whenever the code is dragged into actual game mechanics. It's an unbending system of morality, thought up by a group of game designers, with actual consequences for violating it, that doesn't EVER allow for exemptions (unless houseruled). That's a problem.

[Azoth]

I hate it for my players that end up playing paladins. While I can bait them into just about anything by tugging that LG stick up the butt they have with many different hooks, it has to be a pain for them. It also screws with groups sometimes...litterally had a paladin once refuse anything from our party's rogue for fear he may be accepting stolen goods, even if the rogue honestly aquired it (which was rare). They also fall far too easily into damned if you do damned if you dont scenarios. "Kill your friend or I kill this child" "Help me escape your friends and I will spare this preacher's life" "Bring me this artifact and I will use it to slaughter EBBBEG that you can not who is about to open the gates of hell...(and countless innocent)" Also many others like it.

[Ravens_cry]

I like the idea of Falling.
Acts should have consequences, and a higher calling creates a higher standard.
The execution and particulars could use some work however.

[Coidzor]

"Bring me this artifact and I will use it to slaughter EBBBEG that you can not

Well, yeah, either you're setting up the paladin to fall from the get go or you're not including challenges he can't overcome.

[Zaq]

For me, a big part of it is the story/game part of it. Reading about a fallen Paladin on the road to redemption (or not!) can be really entertaining. Actually playing that tarnished Pally? I suppose in an extremely combat-light game, it could be fun, but overall, it's hard to justify sitting through several nights (or even one night, if you're willing to make it that fast) of being friggin' useless in combat.

Roleplay is a critical part of the game, sure, but there's a limit to how much fun I could personally have while suddenly being basically an NPC class for an indefinite period of time. Playing unoptimized characters is one thing, but playing totally gimped characters is another, and let's face it, combat is never far from the heart of 3.5, like it or not. Even if you play up the RP aspect of it in combat, you can only get so much mileage out of despairing over your loss of your connection to your god before the rest of the party is just going to get sick of it.

So yeah. Stories about playing fallen Paladins are fine, and can be very interesting if told well. Actually playing a fallen Paladin at the table just interferes with a large chunk of the game itself, especially if you want to make redemption a big deal (and not just "welp, hope I don't need to smite anything before we get to the nearest temple. Going for Atonement, BRB"). Playing underpowered characters is fine, but just having everything interesting about my character stripped away from me for a totally indeterminate period of time? Yeah, not worth it, and I can think of very few players who wouldn't either tire of that very quickly or lapse into a mode that the rest of the table would tire of very quickly.

[Madara]

Meh, Paladin would be better off leaving it as a roleplay option. Keep mechanics separate from most of the fluff. It's the GMs job to say "You chose the Paladin class, your character should at least act a little like a Hero", not the class's job.

That being said, when the DN handbook says to take a paladin dip for Cha synergy, :smallamused: you know there's something silly going on(Excluding Slaughter and Tyranny, which defeat the point)

[Gnoman]

This i the main reason I throw out the LG restriction for paladins and replace it with a written code from each Paladin order. I like the mechanics fine, but the alighment metric is simply too fuzzy for actual play, plus that allows paladisn of Evil gods without using silly classes, Of course, paladins in my games are much more powerful than normal, because I've added a lot of boosts to the class.

[Red_Dog]

Playing underpowered characters is fine, but just having everything interesting about my character stripped away from me for a totally indeterminate period of time? Yeah, not worth it, and I can think of very few players who wouldn't either tire of that very quickly or lapse into a mode that the rest of the table would tire of very quickly.

Well you now the board's response to this =>

don't play T5, play a caster!

And from purely mechanical stand point, that would be true. However, you can always consider this as a Sub plot. If you were a great asset to the group prior to the fall, the group would be inclined to help you thru your trouble. This makes for a great RP experience to which dedicating one-to-three session seems completely ok to me. You could always discover something new about your character in this time, perhaps go full on Black Guard replacement, or shoot for Gray Guard after atonement. This seems like a totally legitimate reason to have subplot->Character development ^^
**And like in ANY subplot, character development does not have to be limited to the person that subplot is about ^^**
***EDIT Here is a great random sub-plot-to-plot hook! Paladin does questionable behavior A to Villain's minion B, Paladin goes "BRB getting boiled goose&atonement, goes to monastery but it's burned down, than either Paladin A receives Divine mission from 1800Palor55 or goes BlackGuard from shock, or finds one/some survivor who atones him before death and etc.
A great Plot-to-SubPlot-To-Plot path ^^***

Keep in mind though, if you used Ubercharging [PA+IBR+ShockTrooper], you still deal significant damage to enemies to matter in combat ^^ It can be said, to other builds that are capable of functioning mechanically[such as using Diplomancy for example] without Paladin's class features.

[Madara]

This i the main reason I throw out the LG restriction for paladins and replace it with a written code from each Paladin order. I like the mechanics fine, but the alignment metric is simply too fuzzy for actual play, plus that allows paladins of Evil gods without using silly classes, Of course, paladins in my games are much more powerful than normal, because I've added a lot of boosts to the class.

Exactly this. Have the player write their own code(with approval). Along with the power boost, it sound like something I'd be willing to play.

[Red_Dog]

Exactly this. Have the player write their own code(with approval). Along with the power boost, it sound like something I'd be willing to play.

One can always adapt Crusader's way of handling this.
...but after you do that... the temptation to just PLAY a crusader seems to great = ]

[Coidzor]

Well you now the board's response to this =>

1. "know."
2. Nope.
3. Wanting the class to not be derp about gimping itself is largely separate from the general tier discussion.
4. Being annoyed at badly constructed classes for being badly constructed is different from wanting to always play a fullcaster.

[Red_Dog]

1. "know."
2. Nope.
3. Wanting the class to not be derp about gimping itself is largely separate from the general tier discussion.
4. Being annoyed at badly constructed classes for being badly constructed is different from wanting to always play a fullcaster.

1. Genuinely bilingual, Genuinely dyslexic, Genuinely edit my posts around 5-7 times after I spot mistakes. *I think this should be in my signature*
2-4.

I didn't disagree with the majority's opinion on this one. I do agree, that choosing between Cleric and Paladin the choice should technically be-> cleric. Cleric has a similar "falling" mechanic, as in he/she can fall out of favor with divine power provider and can undertake the same exact mechanic that I described for Paladins[though not facing multiclass penalties, and the code of cleric is slightly more loose, as it requires alignment shift.].

But being said that, boards[any boards, not just these] do advocate playing T3+ class as a solution to fixing a problem. This is especially painfully obvious when a class has a direct, vastly more powerful, analog of itself in terms of RP. Examples being->
Fighter<Warblade
Paladin<Cleric [both carry out will of their Patrons under a threat of "falling"]
Bard<Marshal [both inspire comrades to do better at w/e]

And so on. If someone took my comment as offensive, I do apologies.

P.S. It also didn't seem like anyone in the thread[besides me] pointed out that a Paladin can still swing his sword just as his did before he "fell". So he does not automatically become irredeemably horrible and forced to jump of the cliff so the player can re-roll because the sub plot for his redemption is too long for the party to bare.

P.S.2. **[B]EDIT. Bare in mind, that a fallen cleric is DRASTICALLY less powerful than his/her previous self, as he/she just lost the spells. While Paladin lost his tool belt, Cleric lost his demi-god status. For cleric, a redemption quest takes a great priority and the party does feels completely crippled unless it has another T1-2. If paladin lost his juice, it feels a lot more like a genuine moral redemption for him to get it back, than cleric's frantic "I lost my car keys and its 5 minutes until work starts!" crisis. This alone makes me like RP implications of fallen paladin as its a weird gem of game mechanics making things look more genuine than vise versa**

[Crasical]

Don't forget lethally armed.

P.S. Seriously, there are rules for buying a house in DMG, but have any one EVER tried expanding your WBL to do that? Neither have I, I need that to get me some more shiny things ^^

I only know ONE player who did that.^^

The rest of us are lethally armed hobos. Or adventurers!

**EDIT, there complete quote ^^**
^^

.... Seriously? This is actually news to me.

[Red_Dog]

.... Seriously? This is actually news to me.

As a heart attack ^^ I've played with a guy once who said that in the beginning of the game. I think he meant DMG p.101 Table 3-27 Buildings

Simple house is listed as 1000Gp. Next one is grand house=>5000Gp.

There is perhaps another table? But I think this is the one he meant ^^

He also bought a horse despite being a dwarf... it took the party and the DM 10 minutes to stop the jokes ^^ Thankfully, it was where the house was => in his backstory ^^.

So remember everyone, if you ever have an urge to play a Marry Sue, it won't be complete without leaving the house and become a hobo! ^^
**This was just a joke!^^ Please don't take it offensively ^^**

[Zaydos]

I have to say I liked the paladin's falling mechanics a lot more back in 2e where they were Fighter+ (except a part of me always considered Weapon Specialization better than anything they got) and falling didn't feel so much like a kick in the gut. In 2e a fallen paladin was a sub-optimal fighter (which wasn't that bad), now a fallen paladin is a warrior with the Improved Toughness feat.

I've never had someone play a paladin, and I think I'm the only one who's thought of doing so in any game I've played in since 3.5 came out. Actually the only one I before that, in 3.0, acted as the party rogue's fence and probably should have fallen like a ton of bricks because he instigated at least one plan to murder people to rob them, I really have no idea how he remained lawful good or why he picked paladin.

That said I don't particularly like the mechanics.

Also I've seen players buy houses, I have started saving up to buy a house (back then I was the only person who could DM three sessions in a row without the campaign imploding and we'd start at 1st level never managed it), and I currently have a party planning to buy a detectives' office in the middle of Sigil.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, but in AD&D, falling from intentional acts was permanent. No backsies, atonement was only for evil acts under mind control or similar situations, so you even fell for things that were completely not your fault.
How exactly was this better?:smallconfused:

[Vizzerdrix]

I've played a paladin 3* times, and each time the DM had me fall for some stupid reason or another. Honestly, from a player's point of view being stripped of almost all your class abilities as a free action isn't fun. At all.



*
1st time: I'd spotted an ambush and won initiative against some goblins. I threw a spear and hit one, an immediately fell. Apparently striking first in combat is assault. I played the next 4 levels (from 4 to 8) as a fallen paladin couse I couldn't get an atonement.

The second time, I fell for not going on a murderous rampage in a city of thieves. This time, I got an atonement, but fell immediately for "going against my gods will and not accepting his punishment".

and the last time I'll ever touch the class. We started at level 4. we'd just genned characters and sat down to play. Right after the first combat I went to lay on hands and the DM informed me that nothing happened. He then goes on to inform me that he's edited my falling into my back story and part of my personal quest will be to regain my pally powers. So what do I do? I have the character cut his own throat, and gen up my first wizard.

[kardar233]

Mentieth - As I put it above pretty much all circumstances of "evil teamed up good for its oen redemption" are actually cases of Neutral, often times Good leaning, characters paired up with Good team mates. Those of Neutral alignment can be redeemed, and even if they aren't they never constitute an intentional threat to the degree an Evil character would. An Evil character would be far less responsive to reformation and more difficult to control. See the difference between Frank Abagnale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale) and Gaston B. Means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_Means). Both had done shameless and immoral things and were criminals, but one had boundries and later repented for his crimes, while the later didn't.

A truly irredeemable Evil character is generally quite dull. I've played many evil characters, and I often write "redemption tracks" for them, based on whatever issues and psychological complexes they have, in case someone punches one of their buttons or actually starts trying to redeem them.

In fact, psychoanalyzing (in amateur fashion, I'm not a Psych major) Evil characters is a good way to find their redemption tracks. My most evil character ever massacred villages of non-combatants, flamboyantly decorated his ship with material from their corpses, left unused people in horrifying ways and left them to slowly die and did so because he was bored. Looking back at him (he was in my early days, so I wasn't into this level of complexity yet) I would say that in his drive to attain personal power he empowered a psychopathic facet of his psyche which in turn led him to stop thinking of others as people. His lack of any genuine emotional attachment leads to that somewhat solipsistic point of view, which means he doesn't think he's hurting people.

A redemption track for him would involve having someone he could relate to survive in close proximity with him long enough for him to start forming emotional attachment to them, which would allow him to start considering people other than himself as people.

Where I'm going here is that the concept of taking Evil opponents alive to redeem them is not flawed in that it wouldn't be possible; it's that a) Paladins don't usually have the tools or the empathy to get in the Evil guy's head to redeem him and b) many DMs don't want to psychoanalyze their BBEGs to provide a reasonable redemption track.

This, of course, falls down in the appearance of elemental manifestations of Evil such as demons, devils, yugoloths etc. I don't think I've actually seen (canonically) an actual redeemed demon or devil; we've seen part-demons redeemed (like Aliisza) but I've never seen a redeemed Tanar'ri or Baatezu.

Apologize if I come off as preachy, I'm feeling less amoral than usual at the moment.

[UserShadow7989]

P.S. It also didn't seem like anyone in the thread[besides me] pointed out that a Paladin can still swing his sword just as his did before he "fell". So he does not automatically become irredeemably horrible and forced to jump of the cliff so the player can re-roll because the sub plot for his redemption is too long for the party to bare.

So can an NPC Warrior, and I don't know many people who want to play as one of those. D&D is very much heroic fantasy, and PCs should be able to feel stronger than the average Joe. Being limited in that regard just because you wanted to play a redemption quest, in a way, discourages RPing.

On top of that, you can have an epic quest for redemption without any mechanical prodding. All a 'fall' does is give you less ways to contribute and effectively FORCES such a story; what if you wanted to play some other plot line or develop the character in a direction that doesn't involve a fall and/or redemption? It goes on hold and you become a near liability for the rest of the party in the meantime.

The mechanics shouldn't be the end all be all, of course, but they're still there. D&D has its mechanics so deeply ingrained into it that handicapping a player in a mechanical sense can make sessions far less enjoyable for them. The mechanic is unnecessary, poorly executed (I like the sound of 2e's system, though, and wouldn't mind a cross between that and the Crusader's more specific code, minus the permanent 'no backsies' quality), and provides no opportunities the player wouldn't have anyways.

Edit: @Vizzerdrix: Dang, it sounds like your DM is vindictive and searching for reasons to fall you. Who the heck goes back and rewrites a PC's backstory without permission like that?

[Ravens_cry]

I've played a paladin 3* times, and each time the DM had me fall for some stupid reason or another. Honestly, from a player's point of view being stripped of almost all your class abilities as a free action isn't fun. At all.



*
1st time: I'd spotted an ambush and won initiative against some goblins. I threw a spear and hit one, an immediately fell. Apparently striking first in combat is assault. I played the next 4 levels (from 4 to 8) as a fallen paladin couse I couldn't get an atonement.

The second time, I fell for not going on a murderous rampage in a city of thieves. This time, I got an atonement, but fell immediately for "going against my gods will and not accepting his punishment".

and the last time I'll ever touch the class. We started at level 4. we'd just genned characters and sat down to play. Right after the first combat I went to lay on hands and the DM informed me that nothing happened. He then goes on to inform me that he's edited my falling into my back story and part of my personal quest will be to regain my pally powers. So what do I do? I have the character cut his own throat, and gen up my first wizard.
You have bigger problems than the falling mechanic, friend.
Seriously, that is. . . wow, just wow.:smallmad:

[Malimar]

A lot of Paladin horror stories, both what I read here and what I've heard elsewhere, seem to have more to do with incompetent DMs who don't understand the Code than with the Paladin itself. In particular, the misapprehension that you fall if you break your Code accidentally or under duress seems to be very common.

I guess if something is so very prone to being misunderstood by so many people, something must have gone badly wrong somewhere in the communication process, but I'd still lay the bulk of the fault at the feet of the people who can't read.

Every time I reread the actual text of the Code, I'm surprised at how lenient it is. You only fall if you switch alignments, willfully commit an evil act, or grossly violate the other requirements. If neither the player nor the DM are insane, it shouldn't be all that difficult.

(But, in fairness, I've never actually had an opportunity to play a paladin as written. The only time I've played one, the DM had me write my own Code. Because that paladin was a 4-int half-ogre monstrosity, her Code wound up losing all the subtlety of the original.)

[Vizzerdrix]

You have bigger problems than the falling mechanic, friend.
Seriously, that is. . . wow, just wow.:smallmad:

That was many moons ago, but it instilled in me a resentment for the falling mechanic (which is sad, as I honestly like the paladin).

[Ravens_cry]

That was many moons ago, but it instilled in me a resentment for the falling mechanic (which is sad, as I honestly like the paladin).
I luckily have not had the nightmares you have had with the class. The Druid class can potentially have it almost as bad, and lose a lot more, but I never hear stories about insane, vindictive DM who make their druid players "Autumn".

[Killer Angel]

I've played a paladin 3* times, and each time the DM had me fall for some stupid reason or another. Honestly, from a player's point of view being stripped of almost all your class abilities as a free action isn't fun. At all.


In your examples, the problem isn't in the falling mechanics, but in the DM.

[absolmorph]

A lot of Paladin horror stories, both what I read here and what I've heard elsewhere, seem to have more to do with incompetent DMs who don't understand the Code than with the Paladin itself. In particular, the misapprehension that you fall if you break your Code accidentally or under duress seems to be very common.

I guess if something is so very prone to being misunderstood by so many people, something must have gone badly wrong somewhere in the communication process, but I'd still lay the bulk of the fault at the feet of the people who can't read.

Every time I reread the actual text of the Code, I'm surprised at how lenient it is. You only fall if you switch alignments, willfully commit an evil act, or grossly violate the other requirements. If neither the player nor the DM are insane, it shouldn't be all that difficult.

(But, in fairness, I've never actually had an opportunity to play a paladin as written. The only time I've played one, the DM had me write my own Code. Because that paladin was a 4-int half-ogre monstrosity, her Code wound up losing all the subtlety of the original.)
A paladin cannot bring an evil being with them in order to persuade that being to stop being evil, nor can they "knowingly associate with" an evil being for that purpose.
A paladin cannot fight against a tyrant who was elected fairly but then took advantage of their power to prevent their legitimate removal from power.
A paladin cannot lie, even if doing so will genuinely be a good thing (soothing a dying man by telling him his loved one is safe).
A paladin must help those in need. So, if there's a family who can't afford to pay for a remove disease spell, the paladin is expected by his Code of Conduct to take funds out of those which are used to protect himself on his quest for the continuation of Good to help them.
A paladin who commits a (nebulously defined) evil act falls.

This is not lenient. The requirements are too strict. They force the paladin into being a violent crusader for good, since it cuts off any possibility of taking the time to redeem beings, and doesn't provide an avenue for fighting a type of person who is somewhat prominent in the real world.


Though, honestly, I have to say, the removal of a falling mechanic was one of my favorite parts of the 4e paladin.
Once you become a paladin, you're a paladin forever. If you're a Lawful Good paladin of Pelor and end up being Chaotic Evil... Still a paladin.
Plus, it allowed for a more morally questionable and human character. Yeah, my group was a bit freaked when my paladin burnt down a church and cut out a priest's eye (it was a very personal vendetta, both in and out of character). But that didn't make him any less the soldier who saw Orcus charging him (at level 7) and responded by readying his shield so he could protect the psychopathic hunter-chef and succubus. And when he sacrificed his paladin abilities to slay a god and was granted one wish, his wish was to, when he died, be brought back to serve as the plane's protector until the end of time.
A good man? Oh, hell yes. He spent almost his entire life helping others to be good. That's why he fit as a paladin.
Did he have a pure heart? Nope. But that's what made him interesting.

[Engine]

In your examples, the problem isn't in the falling mechanics, but in the DM.

Or both.

From SRD:

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

The Code, as presented, is so vague that every DM out there could have a different interpretation of it. Acting with honor, with that "and so forth" could mean so many things that I actually lost count of the many times it raised an argument with my DMs. Respect legitimate authority is another fun one, because in most settings there are evil legitimate authorities that harm and threaten innocents.

I'm not saying that with a good DM the Code couldn't work well. But I feel that the Code has some fault in all the horror stories about Paladins we read on the Internet.

[Killer Angel]

A paladin cannot fight against a tyrant who was elected fairly but then took advantage of their power to prevent their legitimate removal from power.



Respect legitimate authority is another fun one, because in most settings there are evil legitimate authorities that harm and threaten innocents.

The first one is no more a legitimate authority.
The second one harms innocents. The pally is good, he protects innocents and fights evil.
The pally is a champion of good, that acts in a lawful way. A legitimate authority is not legitimate "by laws"... it's legitimate by "lawful good laws".
Otherwise, you'll have a paladin falling for fighting a lawful evil devil.


The Code, as presented, is so vague that every DM out there could have a different interpretation of it.

Vagueness by RAW is not an excuse for DMs. RAI, the code is pretty clear.

Edit: I agree that defining things is subjective and depends on the DM, but (for example) you should have only restrictions more or less rigid on honor. Falling for attacking first, having won initiative, is plainly stupid and it's a DM's failure.

[Engine]

Vagueness by RAW is not an excuse for DMs. RAI, the code is pretty clear.

RAI is clear for you, and well, for me too because I agree on what you said in the first part of your post. But RAI means little when you're at the table and couldn't give the DM an appropriate rebuttal about her interpretation of the Code because, by RAW, is vague and so prone to interpretation (and misinterpretation, too). Sure, part of the fault is on the shoulders of DMs, but vagueness when we talk about rules is a fault on its own. A rule should be clear, and the Code, at least for me, is far from that.


Edit: I agree that defining things is subjective and depends on the DM, but (for example) you should have only restrictions more or less rigid on honor. Falling for attacking first, having won initiative, is plainly stupid and it's a DM's failure.

Oh, but I agree with you. It's stupid. This reminds me of my (never played) Paladin of the Red Knight in a FR campaign who couldn't do anything in combat but charge. Tripping? Dishonorable. Sundering? Goodbye divine powers! Flanking? You brought that on yourself. Being smart? Of course using your brain breaks the Code, why you ask!

But what you could say to such a DM? That she's stupid? Would that work?

[Killer Angel]

RAI is clear for you, and well, for me too because I agree on what you said in the first part of your post. But RAI means little when you're at the table and couldn't give the DM an appropriate rebuttal about her interpretation of the Code because, by RAW, is vague and so prone to interpretation (and misinterpretation, too). Sure, part of the fault is on the shoulders of DMs, but vagueness when we talk about rules is a fault on its own. A rule should be clear, and the Code, at least for me, is far from that.


The first appropriate rebuttal, should be that rules are vague on a lot of other things, so the treatment should be the same.

A cleric who violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features. How many times this happened?
Druid: wild shape. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with. Did the DM defined "familiarity"?
Again druid: A druid who ceases to revere nature becomes an ex-druid. A casting of an Ice Storm in a wooden area, thus damaging the green life, should count. Also damaging any animal for any reason should count, if we apply the same "rigid interpretation" of the Paladin's code.

All these examples are rules unclear, but no DM cares about... only with the paladin, apparently, the Code becomes dramatically important and unavoidable.

[2xMachina]

Hmm... Kind of interesting if: Paladin of Heironeous falls. Hits up Hextor and become a Paladin of Tyranny.

[Rejusu]

The Code, as presented, is so vague that every DM out there could have a different interpretation of it. Acting with honor, with that "and so forth" could mean so many things that I actually lost count of the many times it raised an argument with my DMs. Respect legitimate authority is another fun one, because in most settings there are evil legitimate authorities that harm and threaten innocents.

I'm not saying that with a good DM the Code couldn't work well. But I feel that the Code has some fault in all the horror stories about Paladins we read on the Internet.

The problem is that it should have some sort of priority system embedded into it. For instance the last two clauses should supersede all the others. So that a Paladin may disrespect legitimate authority if said authority is harming the innocents. I think if it followed a tier structure it'd be a lot less ambiguous as well as being a lot more lenient. As it stands it's pretty hard for a Paladin to take action for the greater good (or even the regular good) without insta-falling.



1st time: I'd spotted an ambush and won initiative against some goblins. I threw a spear and hit one, an immediately fell. Apparently striking first in combat is assault.

This is why Lucas changed it.


I luckily have not had the nightmares you have had with the class. The Druid class can potentially have it almost as bad, and lose a lot more, but I never hear stories about insane, vindictive DM who make their druid players "Autumn".

That's because it's a lot harder to get a Druid to "fall". All you have to do is hug a few trees and not teach anyone druidic, as well as staying some flavour of neutral. Which is a lot easier than staying Lawful Good considering that five out of the nine alignments have neutral in them. A DM may be able to make a case for someone not acting Lawful Good enough, but it's hard to say someone isn't being neutral enough. Especially since you can balance it on both the good/evil, chaotic/lawful axis too.

[Occasional Sage]

Hmm... Kind of interesting if: Paladin of Heironeous falls. Hits up Hextor and become a Paladin of Tyranny.

While yes, that would be interesting, there'd have to be something major in between to shift the paladin's morality so drastically. Which takes my brain right back to the"RP vs. dumb crunch" topic.

[absolmorph]

The first one is no more a legitimate authority.
The second one harms innocents. The pally is good, he protects innocents and fights evil.
The pally is a champion of good, that acts in a lawful way. A legitimate authority is not legitimate "by laws"... it's legitimate by "lawful good laws".
Otherwise, you'll have a paladin falling for fighting a lawful evil devil.
So the Neutral government doesn't count as legitimate authority unless it provides "lawful good laws"? Also, where is this said in the books while discussing paladins?
Furthermore, a tyrant can't do his thing without himself harming innocents, or actually doing anything to cause people harm beyond not doing something. I won't give examples which I know of because I don't want this to be political, but it can happen.
And the Code doesn't give any leeway for situations like that. If the legitimate authority is harming innocents with some minor abuse of power, and when you try to do something they try to arrest you... You're supposed to respect legitimate authority, and you're supposed to protect innocents. You can only pick one, and you'll be violating the other.

Furthermore, as I noted about evil, "lawful good" is not well defined. Neither "lawful" nor "good" is something which people can be expected to agree upon.

[Gnoman]

Lawful Good, "Crusader"

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.


Hmm. Nothing in there about having to obey any ruler. The "speaks out against injustice" part, in particular, is obviously there for cases when the rulers are not acting properly.

[Ravens_cry]

That's because it's a lot harder to get a Druid to "fall". All you have to do is hug a few trees and not teach anyone druidic, as well as staying some flavour of neutral. Which is a lot easier than staying Lawful Good considering that five out of the nine alignments have neutral in them. A DM may be able to make a case for someone not acting Lawful Good enough, but it's hard to say someone isn't being neutral enough. Especially since you can balance it on both the good/evil, chaotic/lawful axis too.
"Ceases to revere nature", how much more vague can you get?
"Ooh, you slept in town in an Inn? Autumn Ex-Nature Boy"
Also, it's very easy to make a druid hate you for the day. By RAW you slip a buckler in a Druids backpack without their noticing, and they can't use their druidic mojo for 24 hours.

[Killer Angel]

So the Neutral government doesn't count as legitimate authority unless it provides "lawful good laws"? Also, where is this said in the books while discussing paladins?

Furthermore, as I noted about evil, "lawful good" is not well defined. Neither "lawful" nor "good" is something which people can be expected to agree upon.

if the paladin lacks specifications, the alignment is of help.



Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Clearly, the priority for a LG character is fighting unjustice and evil.
Compare it now to the


Lawful Neutral, "Judge"
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

The law comes first.

If a paladin obeys a government only 'cause it's "legitimate", putting goodness behind, he's not acting LG.
At the eye of a paladin, the legitimacy of a ruler, is clearly given by the goodness of such ruler. An evil ruler is a tyrant, that must be fought.

[nightwyrm]

You know, all the stories involving redemption I've seen in movies, literature, TV, manga etc. has the atoner being awesome badasses, especially if they're the protagonist of that story. They tend not to be fighters without bonus feats.

Atoners without badass abilities don't have anything to atone with. They might as well sign themselves up for jail or execution instead of wandering around dispatching demons or saving orphans or whatnot.

[Engine]

The first appropriate rebuttal, should be that rules are vague on a lot of other things, so the treatment should be the same.

A cleric who violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features. How many times this happened?
Druid: wild shape. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with. Did the DM defined "familiarity"?
Again druid: A druid who ceases to revere nature becomes an ex-druid. A casting of an Ice Storm in a wooden area, thus damaging the green life, should count. Also damaging any animal for any reason should count, if we apply the same "rigid interpretation" of the Paladin's code.

All these examples are rules unclear, but no DM cares about... only with the paladin, apparently, the Code becomes dramatically important and unavoidable.

If you feel other vague rules aren't really enforced like the Paladin's Code doesn't mean that the Code is fine. And by the way I never said it's all the Code's fault. I just said the the Code has half the fault, the other half is on the DMs' shoulders.


If a paladin obeys a government only 'cause it's "legitimate", putting goodness behind, he's not acting LG.
At the eye of a paladin, the legitimacy of a ruler, is clearly given by the goodness of such ruler. An evil ruler is a tyrant, that must be fought.

You know what? I fully agree with you.
Unfortunately the Code doesn't specify that, so you'll find DMs that will say that a legitimate authority should be respected, no matter how evil that authority is. I had way too many DMs that enforced the Code on my character about "accepting slavery" or similar nonsense. IMHO, they were absolutely wrong, but the Code isn't of any help here.
As someone else said, prioritizing the duties of a Paladin could be really of help, and that's what I tried to say all along: the Code as is written now is unclear and has part of the fault of the horror stories about Paladins we read on the Internet.

[Lucy Land]

Convince me my opinion is wrong!
Here's why: Players who want to play self-serving mercenary basterds will simply not play paladins. Players who want to play heroes will play heroes, whether they happen to be paladins are not. Hence, the only real effect that the alignment restriction and the code have is to make it impossible to smite evil while being say, NG or CG. Makes no sense.

[Slipperychicken]

If a paladin obeys a government only 'cause it's "legitimate", putting goodness behind, he's not acting LG.
At the eye of a paladin, the legitimacy of a ruler, is clearly given by the goodness of such ruler. An evil ruler is a tyrant, that must be fought.

This one boils down to defining legitimacy. It's a pretty vague (and quite subjective!) term, and opens up all different cans of worms, such as:

What is legitimacy?

How does a government get it?

Can a government lose it?

If so, how does a government lose it?

At what point is a government to be considered legitimate or illegitimate?

and so on. These questions have been around for literally thousands of years. We're not going to figure them out any time soon.

[Particle_Man]

I think the trouble is there are so many variant now that have easier times of it (Knight, Crusader, various prestige classes, etc.) and also Paladins of different alignments (what does it even *mean* for a chaotic character to have to live up to a code?).

I would make the paladin unique, and more powerful too (maybe make the smite power affect every attack the paladin makes, instead of a handful of times a day).

The other problem IME is that the player and DM have to both be on board with what exactly it means to break one's paladin code.

[Killer Angel]

If you feel other vague rules aren't really enforced like the Paladin's Code doesn't mean that the Code is fine. And by the way I never said it's all the Code's fault. I just said the the Code has half the fault, the other half is on the DMs' shoulders.


We're clearly on the same side, but IMO it's unfair to put half of the blame on the Code. It's bad written? of course.
But if we have Code A, Code B and Code C, all bad written, but curiously only the Code A is the favourite target of psycoDMs, then I start believing that the "unclearness" is only an excuse.


You know what? I fully agree with you.
Unfortunately the Code doesn't specify that, so you'll find DMs that will say that a legitimate authority should be respected, no matter how evil that authority is. I had way too many DMs that enforced the Code on my character about "accepting slavery" or similar nonsense.

Which is the reason I picked the alignment's description. "See DM? I'm a paladin, the paragon of lawfulgoodness, and here there are the priorities of a LG character. I'm upholding the good. The code says that i have to respect legitimate authority? IMO that evil authority is no more legitimate, but if you insist... I had to respect it, not obey it. I won't desecrate Erithnul's temple, but I'm going to free the tortured farmers".

[KutuluKultist]

The whole game mechanic is based on accumulation of wealth and power by many means, specifically including serial mass murder. Basically, you are breaking into people's homes, killing them and taking all their stuff. That is hardly compatible with humanistic or contemporary Christian ethics.
The kind of ethics you need for this are warrior ethics that advocate strength, valor and honor, trampling your enemies and hearing the lamentations of the women.

The problem is this: The game mechanics do nothing to reward "good" behavior. In fact, they do everything to punish it. It's like middle management.

[Rejusu]

"Ceases to revere nature", how much more vague can you get?
"Ooh, you slept in town in an Inn? Autumn Ex-Nature Boy"
Also, it's very easy to make a druid hate you for the day. By RAW you slip a buckler in a Druids backpack without their noticing, and they can't use their druidic mojo for 24 hours.

Well it's not impossible, but it's a lot more forced than making a Paladin fall. To get rid of a Druids powers you generally have to make some convoluted reasoning that rarely holds water. Or use some rather ambiguous RAW ruling. A paladin on the other hand you can just wait until they do one of the many things that violates the code.

The difference is that the Paladin code is vague on what's allowable but specific on what's not permissible, where as the Druid code is just vague apart from the alignment, metal, and language restrictions.

A DM can easily state that a Paladin has violated their code by telling a lie or defeating an evil, but legitimate, authority. But they'd have a hard time arguing what constitutes "not revering nature".

That said some DM's are more strict than others. In my last game as a Druid the party ended up killing a Unicorn that was defending it's sacred grove. I then cut out it's heart for safekeeping (the barbarian nabbed the horn dagnabit) before burying the remains. Somehow I think that would have easily constituted not revering nature. But my DM was lenient enough to let me rationalise that it was self-defence, it attacked us after all.

[Particle_Man]

Hmm... Kind of interesting if: Paladin of Heironeous falls. Hits up Hextor and become a Paladin of Tyranny.

Or a Paladin of Wee Jas who falls, becomes a Blackguard or Paladin of Tyranny, and never once wavers in her devotion to Wee Jas.

[Sir_Chivalry]

Now there's a good idea. Create codes of conduct for each deity that change or supplement the core paladin code.

And give the code a spruce up. I think I'll try this.

[nedz]

Now there's a good idea. Create codes of conduct for each deity that change or supplement the core paladin code.

And give the code a spruce up. I think I'll try this.
An excellent idea, but a lot of work. A better idea is to let your player write their own code, for the specific church.


I've played a paladin 3* times, and each time the DM had me fall for some stupid reason or another. Honestly, from a player's point of view being stripped of almost all your class abilities as a free action isn't fun. At all.

*
1st time: I'd spotted an ambush and won initiative against some goblins. I threw a spear and hit one, an immediately fell. Apparently striking first in combat is assault. I played the next 4 levels (from 4 to 8) as a fallen paladin couse I couldn't get an atonement.

The second time, I fell for not going on a murderous rampage in a city of thieves. This time, I got an atonement, but fell immediately for "going against my gods will and not accepting his punishment".

and the last time I'll ever touch the class. We started at level 4. we'd just genned characters and sat down to play. Right after the first combat I went to lay on hands and the DM informed me that nothing happened. He then goes on to inform me that he's edited my falling into my back story and part of my personal quest will be to regain my pally powers. So what do I do? I have the character cut his own throat, and gen up my first wizard.
Did your Wizard occasionally suffer from amnesia causing him to forget his spells? Didn't think so.
This is very bad DMing.

[Red_Dog]

Now there's a good idea. Create codes of conduct for each deity that change or supplement the core paladin code.

And give the code a spruce up. I think I'll try this.

Divine Crusader from Complete Divine has an extremely similar mechanic. Your alignment changes to that of your deity and you have to follow the deity's doctrine => effectively speaking you strive to become a paragon for that deity. I very much like that mechanic, but people tend to hate the class though, so you know, ambiguity as always.

to UserShadow7989

I was going to respond much sooner, but than sever was backing up, and than my brain. In any-case =>

I do agree that anyone can go on a redemption quest. This would be similar to visiting a police psychologist after a violent incident. And it is perfectly reasonable. A fighter or a wizard could have guilt too.

However=>

In D&D, a person who is playing a divine servant[paladin, crusader, cleric], is playing a divine servant. A core fluff mechanic associated with a role of a divine servant of this system dictates that you must follow ideals that your role tells you to.

The falling mechanic is there for players who want to play with it. Why play a divine servant if you do not want the core fluff of serving a higher patron?O_o No one is forcing it upon a player to play such a role, as there are plenty of other classes.

If you were playing in a screen play production of [I]"The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice", but disagreed that Othello should murder his wife, and instead take therapy sessions, why would you play in this play? Or play the role in this play that you disagree with?O_o

This is the best RL analogy I could come up with. I am not being sarcastic, I am honestly just trying to explain my position.

P.S. As many people have mentioned, there are a LOT of codes & mechanics[wizards spell book? donning armor?] in this game that can be used & abused AS much as Paladin's code. However most DMs ignore it. That is the DMs fault every time that happens. DM should know when to push a certain button and for how long to keep things interesting, but not to infuriate players. If a payer cries bloody murder for missing his abilities for one session, its a bad player. If this happens every other session, its more than likely a bad DM.

[Siosilvar]

The falling mechanic is there for players who want to play with it. Why play a divine servant if you do not want the core fluff of serving a higher patron?O_o No one is forcing it upon a player to play such a role, as there are plenty of other classes.

Because fluff is mutable. What's the difference between a paladin serving his deity directly and a knight who owes his loyalty to his church and studies their devotions? Both concepts fit all three of the classes equally well, but the concept of a "fall" taking away all their powers only fits one of the characters.

[Coidzor]

Divine Crusader from Complete Divine has an extremely similar mechanic. Your alignment changes to that of your deity and you have to follow the deity's doctrine => effectively speaking you strive to become a paragon for that deity. I very much like that mechanic, but people tend to hate the class though, so you know, ambiguity as always.

It's not so much hatred as recognizing that it's profoundly disappointing and doesn't do its job very well, so it gets overlooked rather than written over like Apostle of Peace, which, IIRC, just doesn't work in a similar manner to Truenamers.

[Engine]

We're clearly on the same side, but IMO it's unfair to put half of the blame on the Code. It's bad written? of course.
But if we have Code A, Code B and Code C, all bad written, but curiously only the Code A is the favourite target of psycoDMs, then I start believing that the "unclearness" is only an excuse.

Truth is, I had problems with the Druid too. Anyway I feel the Druid's Code is less problematic, apart the whole "revere the nature" is kinda clear. And the whole "revere the nature" is, IMHO, less prone to misinterpretation because most of the times people do not have strong opinions about nature and so is easier to come to an agreement.

(By the way I had problems with the Druid with a DM who had really strong opinions about nature and animals.)


Which is the reason I picked the alignment's description. "See DM? I'm a paladin, the paragon of lawfulgoodness, and here there are the priorities of a LG character. I'm upholding the good. The code says that i have to respect legitimate authority? IMO that evil authority is no more legitimate, but if you insist... I had to respect it, not obey it. I won't desecrate Erithnul's temple, but I'm going to free the tortured farmers".

Heh. As already said, I totally agree with you. You're probably the kind of DM (if you're a DM) that cast a shimmer of hope on my roleplaying life, the hope I could one day play my favourite class (The Paladin, of course) without arguments about the Code.

But...
Well, problem is, a DM once told me that my Paladin should accept slavery! Because was enforced by a legitimate - and evil - authority.

Anyway I would say that we agree to agree but we disagree on some details.:smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

Well, problem is, a DM once told me that my Paladin should accept slavery! Because was enforced by a legitimate - and evil - authority.
Ahh, DMs.

But it's not just a DM problem, there's at least one prominent example of a LG Paladin king ruling over a nation which depends upon slavery and managing to avoid falling somehow in the published campaign settings.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Ahh, DMs.

But it's not just a DM problem, there's at least one prominent example of a LG Paladin king ruling over a nation which depends upon slavery and managing to avoid falling somehow.

...Rome? Of course, serfs are pretty much slaves that are given enough to support a family, unless they don't have a family, so England also works.

The main problem is, paladin-emperors don't work in real life (or most games for that matter). Sure, they can go around killing mass murderers and they'll be fine, if seen as dangerous vigilantes, or just working on the ground level of the force as someone with a badge and a gun, but when you get into the world of politics, everything is gray.

[Coidzor]

...Rome? Of course, serfs are pretty much slaves that are given enough to support a family, unless they don't have a family, so England also works.

I've never heard of a member of a civilization of antiquity that people believed to qualify as LG before, not that it's really pertinent, as last I checked Rome wasn't part of any of the published campaign settings for 3.5. I imagine it's mostly because of values dissonance and the difficulty in applying D&D alignments to actual people, especially when we know very little about them.


The main problem is, paladin-emperors don't work in real life (or most games for that matter).

That was part of my point, yes. They don't really work in the game world either. :smallconfused:

[Hiro Protagonest]

I've never heard of a member of a civilization of antiquity that people believed to qualify as LG before, not that it's really pertinent, as last I checked Rome wasn't part of any of the published campaign settings for 3.5. I imagine it's mostly because of values dissonance and the difficulty in applying D&D alignments to actual people, especially when we know very little about them.

I thought you were talking about someone in real life. What example, then?

[Lonely Tylenol]

I hate the Paladin's code because it is far too absolute. If it were a guideline, it'd be fantastic. But the problem is that the Paladin does one thing wrong and they lose their abilities. Not only that, but looking the other way while your ally does something evil? According to BoED, that's an evil act. Goodbye Paladin class features.

As a result, unless the entire party is made up of holy crusaders, the Paladin ends up policing the whole group and telling them what they can and cannot do, because if he doesn't, he loses everything that makes him better than a Warrior. Depending on how good the players are at roleplaying and justifying character actions, as well as how well they plan their characters around each other, this can lead to inter-party conflict.

I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between this (http://shawntionary.com/chainmailbikini/?p=71) and legitimately not knowing what the other players are doing. A player could still, presumably, commit an evil action that the rest of the party is entirely unaware of, be it from splitting briefly from the party (and doing a great job of concealing their misdeeds), or just doing a great job of concealing your misdeeds. In other words, there's a difference between a Paladin (or Vow of Peacenik) leaving the room after interrogating the captured enemy so that his allies can maim, torture, or otherwise dispatch the enemy, and the Paladin (or Vow of Peacenik) leaving after the interrogation with stated orders to his companions to let the man go free, or something of the sort, and the rest of the party deciding after he leaves to simply ignore his wishes, and that is that the paladin's involvement is implicit in the former.

May cause intra-party conflict later on, however.

[Raimun]

Ugh, Paladins...

Mind you, I have nothing against the idea of a Paladin itself and I have played paladins in other games. What I don't like are the D&D-rules and the resulting uninformed and highly subjective arguments about the code and moralities. I'd hate to lose my Paladin powers for either:

A) Rescuing a group of innocent slaves in the name of all that is Good, because I ignored "the rights" of perfectly Lawful (Evil) slavers or

B) Not rescuing the slaves immediately but instead waiting for a better time

Both would be "valid" reasons for a Fall if the DM interpreting the rules were, in fact, a doodoo head. For those reasons, I'll never play one.

However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't play a D&D-character who holds the ideals of Law and Good to a high regard and is the dashing valiant knight on the white horse. You don't really need to be a Paladin, if that's your cup of tea.

[Coidzor]

I thought you were talking about someone in real life. What example, then?

Paladins don't exist in real life in a way that meaningfully connects to the game class. :smallconfused: The most I remember is that it was either Birthright or Forgotten Realms, possibly Mulhorand at one point.

[DeltaEmil]

Mulhorand's godking is/was some kind of avatar of their chief deity, so they're probably just using some kind of exception/divinely-enforced loop-hole/bull**** to allow it.

[Menteith]

Mulhorand's godking is/was some kind of avatar of their chief deity, so they're probably just using some kind of exception/divinely-enforced loop-hole/bull**** to allow it.

Ironically, a Cleric makes a lot more sense for that, is more powerful, and doesn't have the restrictions.

[Coidzor]

Ironically, a Cleric makes a lot more sense for that, is more powerful, and doesn't have the restrictions.

99/100 times, yeah.

[Gavinfoxx]

Here's a custom paladin code I worked up with my DM a long time ago:

show kindness to children and others that are weak

never allow the weak to be the victim of the strong

defend hearth and home, family and friends, stranger and ally, and especially defend innocents

once given, a paladin's word is a solemn contract

refrain from abusing or overusing intoxicants

when possible, work for and give to charity

it is an unspeakable act to deny any soul its rightful afterlife

never use lethal poison

respect life, even that of the foe, only kill when necessary, and show quarter if possible

respect the terms of an honorable and fair duel

never willfully commit an evil act, and combat evil whenever possible. This does not mean that it is appropriate to be violent against evil all the time; seek justice tempered with mercy more than a violent solution.

use power to aid and help others, except towards evil ends. do not seek out power simply to have power.

be courteous in all you do, and seek to never be crude

be humble before the forces of light and good

uphold virtuous laws whenever possible

lead by example

respect and hold dear the trust that others place in you

be brave in persuit of goodness

show kindness towards guests

care for and be kind towards your mount

[DeltaEmil]

99/100 times, yeah.


Ironically, a Cleric makes a lot more sense for that, is more powerful, and doesn't have the restrictions.The god-king is/was most likely a paladin because paladins were badasses in editions prior to 3.x. It still didn't really make that much sense to be a paladin while still enforcing slavery and claiming that their country is totally good while their good neighbors hate them (mainly for their slavery), which is probably why they then simply dropped the dragonborn's country over Mulhorand for the 4th edition FR to get rid of them.
But this is another discussion that doesn't really belong here.

[Killer Angel]

Heh. As already said, I totally agree with you. You're probably the kind of DM (if you're a DM) that cast a shimmer of hope on my roleplaying life, the hope I could one day play my favourite class (The Paladin, of course) without arguments about the Code.


:smallsmile:
I'm a DM since AD&D 2nd ed, and I could assure you any paladin is welcome in my groups.
Now that i think about it, you're in Milan and my playing group is in Verbania... you're free to PM me. :smallwink:

Edit: now that we're in argument, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235170)'s my 3.5 paladin quick fix.

[Solaris]

This i the main reason I throw out the LG restriction for paladins and replace it with a written code from each Paladin order. I like the mechanics fine, but the alighment metric is simply too fuzzy for actual play, plus that allows paladisn of Evil gods without using silly classes, Of course, paladins in my games are much more powerful than normal, because I've added a lot of boosts to the class.

I've done this, even though I've never once run into an issue about subjective/objective alignment in my game.
The following line helps with that: "You may have your ideas on what alignment does and how it functions. That's swell. Unfortunately, I am the DM and what I say is how it works in this game."

I'm a paladin player, though, so I'm pretty tolerant when it comes to playing paladins. I generally won't make 'em fall unless they do something genuinely evil. Hit goblins first in combat? Not evil. Not super-good, maybe, but not evil. Steal from a wealthy merchant? Evil, even if you do donate it to charity. You're an adventurer, go take from the dead or loot it from some bad guy who doesn't need it anymore.

I've never had a paladin fall in my game because I'll warn them before they do something that'll make 'em fall - the character generally has a high Wisdom and (usually) a decent Intelligence, he'd know better than to do that. After all, the DM's job is to help make the game fun, not screw the players for the lulz.

[Frozen_Feet]

I don't have a problem with Paladin's Code or falling mechanics. Neither do I see any need to detach their crunch from fluff, because there's little reason to - due to multiple redundancies in the system, you can build a "holy knight" character any which way you like, with or without a code. You aren't forced to play a Paladin. If you do want to play a Paladin, I expect you know and accept what you're getting into. If I suspect you don't, I will spell it out for you.

I also don't buy this crap about Paladin's Code being vague, hard to interpret, or about Alignment being either. If you look at the actual rules of Alignment and the Code, it's simple enough that a kid can understand it.

Problems with those don't come from RAW. They come from people's unwilligness to follow RAW. A lot of time I hear a claim that Alignment is bad/illogical/stupd that has nothing to do with actual holes in the rules, and everything to do with a person having a moral outlook that doesn't fit D&D's criteria for their desired category, and they take this as kind of personal insult. Most of those problems would go away if people accepted it was just a game and just like [Cold] in D&D isn't the same as real-world cold, what's Good and EVil in D&D doesn't have to be the same as good and evil in real life and that's fine.

[Red_Dog]

By the by, all the talk about the current code but no "replacement" solution from my side. So as Gavinfoxx offered a code, =>

So, here in my opinion only, a good replacement for a "lawful good" or at least "good" oath. Comes a favorite movie of mine[exactly ZERO credit goes to me here ^^]=>


"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong - that is your oath. *slap on the face* and that is that you remember it. Rise a Knight!".

Its short, simple, vague enough to allow some things but clearly has some rules. Its also flows very nicely when you say it ^^. All and all, I find it to be quite a nice "ceremonial fantasy code" to replace most codes for "good" alignments ^^. Replace "God" with something more appropriate to the setting like Palor or whatnot ^^.

P.S. There are always God specific oaths. Your experience may vary with those ^^.

[Coidzor]

I don't have a problem with Paladin's Code or falling mechanics. Neither do I see any need to detach their crunch from fluff, because there's little reason to - due to multiple redundancies in the system, you can build a "holy knight" character any which way you like, with or without a code. You aren't forced to play a Paladin. If you do want to play a Paladin, I expect you know and accept what you're getting into. If I suspect you don't, I will spell it out for you.

Really? Your sense of aesthetics isn't offended by something so weak having a code that arbitrarily leads to it falling and losing what little weak abilities it gets unless it was focused on the mount in which case it loses the one good thing it had, and that commonly runs into trouble enough that it's become a meme amongst players of the game? :smallconfused:

[Red_Dog]

By the way Coidzor

I do wonder, if the Paladin's abilities would not be in T5 but say resided where Crusader's are (T3 I presume?), would you or other people have issues with the code? I mean keep the code exactly the same[admitably not fully though thru], but would people have issue with it after paladin's fix?

I like the idea of a T3 campaigns [everything is rebalanced in ONE tier, so the game has a leveled playing field]. In such campaign one can freely choose a number of classes, and is not forced to play with a divine crutch. If he/she chooses to still, is it still an issue?

P.S. Don't read it in too sarcastic of a tone please = ]. Its 90% an actual question, I swear ^^.

[absolmorph]

By the way Coidzor

I do wonder, if the Paladin's abilities would not be in T5 but say resided where Crusader's are (T3 I presume?), would you or other people have issues with the code? I mean keep the code exactly the same, but would people have issue with it after paladin's fix?

I like the idea of a T3 campaigns [everything is rebalanced in ONE tier, so the game has a leveled playing field], would such codes be still unacceptable in such campaigns?

P.S. Don't read it in too sarcastic of a tone please = ]. Its 75% an actual question, I swear ^^.
I'm not Coidzor, but I definitely would. Arranging a character's story so they have a redemption arc can be fun.
Choosing to be temporarily weaker can be an interesting facet of a game. Being forced into it... Not so much.

[Red_Dog]

I'm not Coidzor, but I definitely would. Arranging a character's story so they have a redemption arc can be fun.
Choosing to be temporarily weaker can be an interesting facet of a game. Being forced into it... Not so much.

I hate to repeat myself, but even without great system, we already have such mechanic that is nearly exactly what I described. Yet people ignore it. Its not a meme, that's for sure.

Its an old T1 demi-god cleric. I re-read the mechanic. Its very similar to the dreaded code. Sure the "no poison" clause is technically not there for example, but when your patron is a DM's interpretation of Palor, that "stop poisoning goblins water supply, your alignment shifted towards evil and Palor puts you in time out" is something that should be common. Alignment are not set in stone and can be switched by a single or maybe 2-3 actions. Or am I missing something?O_o And cleric has stuff to loose. A lot of it. So why is Paladin and no other class with codes becomes a meme?

The fact remains, whether a mighty cleric or a lowly paladin, a player chose this role. Even in the imperfect 3.5, -> there are things to choose from in T4, or things stronger, or even weaker. As in plenty of choices! ^^ Yet people choose paladin... and than say its to restrictive...

P.S. That wasn't sarcasm. That's kind of a point I was and am trying to make.

[sonofzeal]

I'd just like to mention that in perhaps 15 years of D&D, I have never once seen a Paladin that did not fall. I've seen plenty of good characters, plenty of Good characters, and even several Exalted characters who retained their status or even improved on it through the course of the campaign. I've even played Vow of Peace to the hilt and gotten away with it myself.

But I've never seen a Paladin who didn't fall. The lucky ones realized what they were doing, and made a conscious decision to break their holy vows for the Greater Good. The unlucky ones.... well.

The idea of taking oaths that bind your character in a meaningful way is a good one. The Paladin is not a good implementation of that idea though.

[Killer Angel]

Its an old T1 demi-god cleric. I re-read the mechanic. Its very similar to the dreaded code. Sure the "no poison" clause is technically not there for example, but when your patron is a DM's interpretation of Palor, that "stop poisoning goblins water supply, your alignment shifted towards evil and Palor puts you in time out" is something that should be common.

THis is what i believe:
A cleric who violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features. It's very vague... yes, there is a code, but a psychoDM doesn't have too much to use against a player, apart the position "I rule that your god's code of conduct is such and such".
Paladin's code, while vague, offers more "excuses" to the psychoDM, with all those things requiring "no lies, act with honor, respect legitimate authority".

RAI, paladin's code is pretty clear, but a bad DM can abuse it more easily than other codes. I also suppose that the paladin, champion of good and righteuosness, it's the perfect target for the sense of frustration of some DMs...

[UserShadow7989]

Divine Crusader from Complete Divine has an extremely similar mechanic. Your alignment changes to that of your deity and you have to follow the deity's doctrine => effectively speaking you strive to become a paragon for that deity. I very much like that mechanic, but people tend to hate the class though, so you know, ambiguity as always.

to UserShadow7989

I was going to respond much sooner, but than sever was backing up, and than my brain. In any-case =>

I do agree that anyone can go on a redemption quest. This would be similar to visiting a police psychologist after a violent incident. And it is perfectly reasonable. A fighter or a wizard could have guilt too.

However=>

In D&D, a person who is playing a divine servant[paladin, crusader, cleric], is playing a divine servant. A core fluff mechanic associated with a role of a divine servant of this system dictates that you must follow ideals that your role tells you to.

The falling mechanic is there for players who want to play with it. Why play a divine servant if you do not want the core fluff of serving a higher patron?O_o No one is forcing it upon a player to play such a role, as there are plenty of other classes.

If you were playing in a screen play production of [I]"The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice", but disagreed that Othello should murder his wife, and instead take therapy sessions, why would you play in this play? Or play the role in this play that you disagree with?O_o

This is the best RL analogy I could come up with. I am not being sarcastic, I am honestly just trying to explain my position.

P.S. As many people have mentioned, there are a LOT of codes & mechanics[wizards spell book? donning armor?] in this game that can be used & abused AS much as Paladin's code. However most DMs ignore it. That is the DMs fault every time that happens. DM should know when to push a certain button and for how long to keep things interesting, but not to infuriate players. If a payer cries bloody murder for missing his abilities for one session, its a bad player. If this happens every other session, its more than likely a bad DM.

The delay is fine; stuff happens, and I don't expect you or anyone else to prioritize a forum discussion above all else. You've been perfectly civil and patient, so it's only right I be so in return.

I think Siosilvar put it best. Fluff is mutable and can be twisted; certain parts modified, played with, or discarded. A character is more than their class. What if the Paladin is closest of the three to the character concept I want to play, but the fall mechanic contradicts it?

For example: The Cleric has a stronger focus on spells, and Knight has no spells whatsoever. So if I want a heavily martial character who can call upon the strength of his own belief in himself/his ideals, a Paladin would be closer than the other two. However, such a character would be unlikely to be shaken or lose faith in themselves over a single mistake (or simply channel it into further resolve to avoid making the mistake again), so a fall mechanic contradicts that, forcing me to settle on something else and jump through hoops in order to get the crunch to match the envisioned fluff.

What if I love the idea of a knight sworn and trained to battle evil and therefore want the smite evil class ability and the slant towards martial over magical, but want him to be Chaotic Good (focusing on upholding people's freedoms) rather than Lawful Good? What if I want to downplay the divine connection in favor of it being the character's confidence in themselves or a specific ideal itself, or have a divine connection be to a non-Lawful Good deity or creed?

The Othello metaphor is also a bit flawed; the play has existed for a long time, and is a story long since set in stone and written by someone else entirely. I'm the writer of my character, who is part of a story that is still developing between me and the group of friends I play with. Othello is a predefined story with predefined roles. My character and their role is defined by my own choices, as well as what happens around them; not by the word on the line labeled 'class'.

However, I do have to agree with you on the fall mechanics being pressed far too often compared to things like the Wizard's spell book and such. I believe it (and the Paladin class itself) wouldn't be anywhere near as reviled if it weren't being used and abused so often. I can appreciate having an actual set of rules on the subject for use and how many options that can bring to the table. I just think that it would be better if it was a variant rule or offered a few different ways to implement it instead of the single, vague version that has been given.

[Frozen_Feet]

Really? Your sense of aesthetics isn't offended by something so weak having a code that arbitrarily leads to it falling and losing what little weak abilities it gets unless it was focused on the mount in which case it loses the one good thing it had, and that commonly runs into trouble enough that it's become a meme amongst players of the game? :smallconfused:

My sense of aesthetics is offended by many things about Paladin's design (usch as the fact they though such specific role makes for a good base class, when it'd make more sense as a feat or PrC. *yuck*), but that wasn't the topic. :smalltongue:

Choosing to play Paladin is a roleplaying decision to stay on the straight and narrow. If it's a trap, it's one in plain sight, and if you jump in it, it's your decision. Atonement is there for a reason.

You don't want to deal with that? Then you really don't want to play a Paladin. Go play something else. You want to be a holy warrior? Be a Cleric & stop whining.

[Solaris]

I'd just like to mention that in perhaps 15 years of D&D, I have never once seen a Paladin that did not fall. I've seen plenty of good characters, plenty of Good characters, and even several Exalted characters who retained their status or even improved on it through the course of the campaign. I've even played Vow of Peace to the hilt and gotten away with it myself.

But I've never seen a Paladin who didn't fall. The lucky ones realized what they were doing, and made a conscious decision to break their holy vows for the Greater Good. The unlucky ones.... well.

The idea of taking oaths that bind your character in a meaningful way is a good one. The Paladin is not a good implementation of that idea though.

And in fifteen years of D&D, I've never seen one who did fall.

Might the problem be more in the player/DMs than the rules?

[sonofzeal]

And in fifteen years of D&D, I've never seen one who did fall.

Might the problem be more in the player/DMs than the rules?
All different players, several different DMs. One was for summarily beheading a fugitive who had just surrendered willingly, one was for quite literally stabbing a friend in the back (he'd been guarding a cursed blade fueled by innocent blood, long story), one was for permitting the wholesale slaughter of goblinoid civilians.

Admittedly, three is not a large sample size. But then, most people avoid the Paladin class; it might be the least-played class in Core, all told. Even Monks come up more often.

[Killer Angel]

Choosing to play Paladin is a roleplaying decision to stay on the straight and narrow. If it's a trap, it's one in plain sight, and if you jump in it, it's your decision. Atonement is there for a reason.

You don't want to deal with that? Then you really don't want to play a Paladin. Go play something else.

:smallconfused:
Elaborate, please, unless you mean that it’s fair game for a DM to say that a paladin falls ‘cause slavery is legitimate, and if the player objects is a whiny loser...
The problem is not following the code, but sadistic and abusive DMs.

[Rejusu]

Well here is my attempt (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237657) at fixing the code. Let me know what you think.

[Armand]

I hate falling mechanics... Though, I only fall once, when I was playing a Pelor Paladin who also a prince of some country. It was very like Arthas theme from warcraft.
There was some kind of world's end scenerio, I was need to check an ancient temple which builded for sealing a demon lord.
Anyway, we went to temple with very little time in our hand for stopping the demon lord's awakening inside there.
I saw a crippled, dying cleric of pelor there (who we send with a team here before everything become more clear about situtation, long story...) with no legs and arms (cutted off and eated while he is still alive by the creatures inside the temple), After my heal attempt dm told that cleric cant be healed with our resource (no regeneration), and if we want that poor guy alive, we should get him back to city immediatly via teleport. Sadly, I think that letting go my team's sorcerer with crippled cleric guy to town is too much to risk at the moment. Also after that I learned our sorcerer can only cast one teleportation spell for that day. (last spell for that spell level... damn spell per day mechanics)
So for putting him out of his misery and pain I sliced this throat. And BAM! My dm told me that I lost my paladin powers.
So, he propably do that because he wanted me too feel 'the evil' inside the temple, and 'fear' (you know, no immunity to fear anymore) and after we complate the mission, temple give me free atonement spell (with no duty or quest, he even joked that because I'm a prince there is no need for a long quest for atonement xD but... I was a fallen paladin until I complate the quest, save the world and speak with arch priest guy of the our church)

Using holy power as a paladin is kick ass, specially with some class alteration and nice paladin spells, but its damn too dependent to some 'greater force' then I like(Though, I even dont like playing a cleric without using a concept which I specialy create, like 'Because I have the power' theme), plus its even more strict.
At my last game (we was using gestalt characters and Scion theme) I pick paladin for one of my class, very altered class features and few extra spell access (spells like overland flight, lightning or even chain lightning, [I was son of Zeus xD] yes tier1 and 2 classes was forbideded, we think that it could ruin the theme) and that was hell of fun =)

[Dairuga]

A paladin cannot bring an evil being with them in order to persuade that being to stop being evil, nor can they "knowingly associate with" an evil being for that purpose.
A paladin cannot fight against a tyrant who was elected fairly but then took advantage of their power to prevent their legitimate removal from power.
A paladin cannot lie, even if doing so will genuinely be a good thing (soothing a dying man by telling him his loved one is safe).
A paladin must help those in need. So, if there's a family who can't afford to pay for a remove disease spell, the paladin is expected by his Code of Conduct to take funds out of those which are used to protect himself on his quest for the continuation of Good to help them.
A paladin who commits a (nebulously defined) evil act falls.



Really? Does the Rulings explicitly state that they cannot "Bring an evil being with them in order to persuade that being to stop being evil"? The rulings do state, yes, that they cannot "Associate" with evil characters. But what if the evil character has done a lot of bad things; but is trying to turn a new leaf? Is that still "associating with evil characters"? What if there is nowhere for the evil character to go, and the least harmful way would be to have him manacled at the back of the party, with the Paladin holding the leash? Bam! Evil guy talking wtih the paladin, they are associating, instant fall?

If nothing, I would think that redeeming people and turning them good would be a good, act.

[Ravens_cry]

@Dairuga:
Yeah, that's my complaint as well. Thank you for putting it so well.

[Coidzor]

By the way Coidzor

I do wonder, if the Paladin's abilities would not be in T5 but say resided where Crusader's are (T3 I presume?), would you or other people have issues with the code?

There'd still be issues, but it wouldn't be the embarrassing pile of stupid on the part of the designers. There was a code to "balance" Paladins in earlier editions, I hear, and while I disagree with that philosophy entirely as invalid and outmoded, Paladins were actually somewhat powerful for their role and if they fell they were still about as relevant as a Fighter, at least, from what I've heard.

A trap option is a trap option regardless of how many other options there are, and so I'd still have problems with it on that front, to say the least.

[Fatebreaker]

If I want to roleplay a descent/redemption story, I don't need a falling mechanic to make that happen.

If I don't want to roleplay a descent/redemption story, a falling mechanic only impedes the story I do want to tell.

Simple as that.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You don't want to deal with that? Then you really don't want to play a Paladin. Go play something else. You want to be a holy warrior? Be a Cleric & stop whining.

Except the cleric isn't presented as a holy warrior! It's presented as some guy who protects through magic, not skill at arms! A holy warrior should be as skilled with his weapon as a basic NPC warrior of his level, with spells to augment his skills.

Then there's the fact that with CChamp, paladins are great for the archetype of "buffs and heals while fighting", with the feat Battle Blessing so they can buff and heal while fighting. SpC also makes them even better, with paladin-only spells like Draconic Might. They get enough unique stuff with splat support that they're actually a good option.

[Mikeavelli]

You don't want to fall? Go Grey Guard.

You fall anyways because your solution to every problem consists of figuring out who to murder, and murdering them? Just admit you're evil and go Blackguard.

You fall because your DM has this bizarre fixation with making you fall, either by arbitrarily declaring it, or presenting you with constant no-win situations? Go Blackguard and burn the world to the ground!

[Lord_Gareth]

I tend to prefer the 'ascribe to a better-written code' solution, especially given some weird presences and absences in the code-as-stands. For example, paladins are required to punish those that harm or threaten the innocent. They are not actually required to protect those innocents, however. Does that seem odd to you?

[Starbuck_II]

You don't want to fall? Go Grey Guard.

You fall anyways because your solution to every problem consists of figuring out who to murder, and murdering them? Just admit you're evil and go Blackguard.

You fall because your DM has this bizarre fixation with making you fall, either by arbitrarily declaring it, or presenting you with constant no-win situations? Go Blackguard and burn the world to the ground!

Dont you mean become a Paladin of Tyrrany and be as Paladin-like as you wish. As long you can reason why you are doing it, you can do it. DM's got nothing.

[Frozen_Feet]

:smallconfused:
Elaborate, please, unless you mean that it’s fair game for a DM to say that a paladin falls ‘cause slavery is legitimate, and if the player objects is a whiny loser...
The problem is not following the code, but sadistic and abusive DMs.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. With the addendum that the GM has to be upfront of what is and is not legal from the start. Trolling your players by omitting details just so you can go "Ha! Gotcha!" is just impolite. Sadistic and abusive GMs are not a problem with mechanics. One will screw over your PC, regardless of mechanics.

If you choose to play a character with Paladin's Code and Falling mechanics, or any similar constuct, it suggests you are actually want to roleplay it out. If you don't, then it raises the question what you exactly want to play?

It's about conflict between what the player thinks they want to play and what they actually can or want to play. I've seen a lot of players who state they want to play a hero but end up playing sociopathic genocidal hobos nonetheless. If you're faced with a scenario leads to falling, it's time for your character (and maybe you as well) to reconsider if they actually can or want to be a paladin. That's part of the character archetype. Part of being a good player is to learn how to be a graceful loser and accept when you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Slavery being legitimate or not is a tangent. There are legitimate ways for a Paladin, or any Lawful character, to go around changing or opposing laws they don't like. It just takes more thinking than knee-jerk "This is morally wrong according to my view of Good! Boo! Hiss!" Which is why I steer my players away from Paladins if they aren't ready to think deeply about moral and ethical issues. Paladins are not the simple "I bash evil" characters they are sometimes caricatured as. Sometimes, you are not skilled enough as a player to succesfully play under voluntary Hard Mode that the various Codes and Alignment restrictions represent, and it's better for you to play a similar character without such restrictions.

And like said, the Atonement spells are there for a reason. Sometimes, you're doomed if you do and doomed if you don't and the game acknowledges that - that's why there is an out.

[Telonius]

I don't like the current "Falling" rules for a few reasons.

- The Code is vague, contradictory, and occasionally impossible to fulfill.

- There's a major discrepancy between alignment in most of the rest of the game (alignment being a general descriptor of how a character will act in a given circumstance) and alignment in the context of a Paladin (here, alignment describes an action and not a person). This is a hopeless mishmash of logic and has spawned thousands of arguments.

- If a Paladin wants to keep from Falling, this will often result in him pressuring or coercing other members of the party to act in a certain way. This can be very interesting when played with really mature gamers, but can also be a recipe for disastrous group conflict.

- The existence of the Phylactery of Faithfulness means that Falling shouldn't even be an issue for any Paladin above level 3 or so. (So, you care enough about your alignment to take a Paladin's Oath, but didn't spend a measly 1000gp to get a Holy Cheat Sheet for when the questions get hard? Really?) At least to me, this cheapens both the Falling mechanic and the roleplaying of the Paladin.

[Coidzor]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. With the addendum that the GM has to be upfront of what is and is not legal from the start. Trolling your players by omitting details just so you can go "Ha! Gotcha!" is just impolite. Sadistic and abusive GMs are not a problem with mechanics. One will screw over your PC, regardless of mechanics.

If you choose to play a character with Paladin's Code and Falling mechanics, or any similar constuct, it suggests you are actually want to roleplay it out. If you don't, then it raises the question what you exactly want to play?

If the DM is not supposed to be a jerk about it, then it raises the question as to why exactly they were written as they were. :smallamused:

Most Paladin players either are completely new and don't pay attention to the falling mechanics and are like, yeah, hero time and more experienced paladin players want something inbetween joe schlubb and phenomenal cosmic power. As has been said many, many times, the falling mechanics are unnecessary for redemptive quests and frequently are just onerous in the middle of things that they ought not to interfere with, stealing the spotlight from other story elements.

[Frozen_Feet]

You realize the spirit of your advice boils down to the same thing as mine - play something else than a Paladin? Your preferred solution just is "fixing" the class, while I see no point in doing that when the system has loads of classes or combinations of classes to fill the exact same role. There's hilarious amounts of redundancy in D&D 3.5.

Want to play divinely empowered knight in shining armor riding an awesome beast? Be a Cleric with War Domain, worship local Deity or Saint of Chivalry, adhere to Scout laws and summon a celestial warhorse or something.

[hamishspence]

- There's a major discrepancy between alignment in most of the rest of the game (alignment being a general descriptor of how a character will act in a given circumstance) and alignment in the context of a Paladin (here, alignment describes an action and not a person). This is a hopeless mishmash of logic and has spawned thousands of arguments.

It isn't just the paladin- in the section on Turning and Rebuking Undead, it says "even if the cleric is Neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act, and channelling negative energy is evil"

BoVD continued the theme of "what's an evil act", as did BoED and Fiendish Codex 2.


Really? Does the Rulings explicitly state that they cannot "Bring an evil being with them in order to persuade that being to stop being evil"? The rulings do state, yes, that they cannot "Associate" with evil characters. But what if the evil character has done a lot of bad things; but is trying to turn a new leaf? Is that still "associating with evil characters"? What if there is nowhere for the evil character to go, and the least harmful way would be to have him manacled at the back of the party, with the Paladin holding the leash? Bam! Evil guy talking wtih the paladin, they are associating, instant fall?

If nothing, I would think that redeeming people and turning them good would be a good, act.

Dragon Magazine, toward the end of its print run, had mini handbooks for each class- and for the paladin, it made clear that they can associate with an evil being as long as the intent is to redeem that evil being.

Before that, in Defenders of the Faith, it discussed association- and says that the paladin should weigh the risks of being personally corrupted vs the rewards of achieving the overall goal, and/or redeeming the evil being.

[Telonius]

It isn't just the paladin- in the section on Turning and Rebuking Undead, it says "even if the cleric is Neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act, and channelling negative energy is evil"

BoVD continued the theme of "what's an evil act", as did BoED and Fiendish Codex 2.



Channeling the energy is singled out as an evil action. The problem is, one instance of it has no mechanical effect on the character doing it. It's only the repeated and regular use of it that can affect alignment. That says more about the general way a character will act, than it does about any particular action. Only serious, irredeemably evil single acts (like becoming a lich, grossly violating a deity's code, and the like) are ever treated as profoundly affecting the mechanics. Except with the Paladin.

Even with at least three additional books continuing the subject, there's still controversy. (Honestly, BoED caused as much alignment silliness as it solved).

[hamishspence]

Books in which alignment plays a part (discussing whether evil acts can be balanced with good intentions, discussing which personality traits tend to correspond to particular alignments, and so forth):

Book of Vile Darkness
Book of Exalted Deeds
Eberron Campaign Setting
Champions of Ruin
Champions of Valor
Heroes of Horror
Fiendish Codex 2
Exemplars of Evil

All of these tend to have something interesting to say somewhere.

"Repeated evil deeds tends to be the mark of an evil character" comes from Champions of Ruin.

"It is possible for a character to balance evil deeds with good intentions and remain solidly Neutral" is from Heroes of Horror.

The "one act and you lose all your supernatural powers" idea the paladin's saddled with is a bit problematic, it must be said. Other classes and PRCs exist with the same issue- but they tend to be inspired by the paladin.

[Coidzor]

You realize the spirit of your advice boils down to the same thing as mine - play something else than a Paladin? Your preferred solution just is "fixing" the class, while I see no point in doing that when the system has loads of classes or combinations of classes to fill the exact same role. There's hilarious amounts of redundancy in D&D 3.5.

Want to play divinely empowered knight in shining armor riding an awesome beast? Be a Cleric with War Domain, worship local Deity or Saint of Chivalry, adhere to Scout laws and summon a celestial warhorse or something.

The way I see it, my mentality is to recognize a flaw and desire to see it either be expunged by taking a pair of kitchen sheers to the PHB or rectified in some form or fashion.

Yours seems, to me, to be to recognize and accept the jerkishness inherent in the system and keep everything but putting a cigarette out in the eye of the player.

So basically the fundamental difference is that you seem to soft ban and I'd hard ban, yeah.

[absolmorph]

Really? Does the Rulings explicitly state that they cannot "Bring an evil being with them in order to persuade that being to stop being evil"? The rulings do state, yes, that they cannot "Associate" with evil characters. But what if the evil character has done a lot of bad things; but is trying to turn a new leaf? Is that still "associating with evil characters"? What if there is nowhere for the evil character to go, and the least harmful way would be to have him manacled at the back of the party, with the Paladin holding the leash? Bam! Evil guy talking wtih the paladin, they are associating, instant fall?

If nothing, I would think that redeeming people and turning them good would be a good, act.
That is exactly what I was saying the paladin isn't allowed to do by his code.
And I agree with your assessment of the act.
And that is (one of several reasons) why I think the code is absurd.

[Rubik]

Really? Does the Rulings explicitly state that they cannot "Bring an evil being with them in order to persuade that being to stop being evil"? The rulings do state, yes, that they cannot "Associate" with evil characters. But what if the evil character has done a lot of bad things; but is trying to turn a new leaf? Is that still "associating with evil characters"? What if there is nowhere for the evil character to go, and the least harmful way would be to have him manacled at the back of the party, with the Paladin holding the leash? Bam! Evil guy talking wtih the paladin, they are associating, instant fall?

If nothing, I would think that redeeming people and turning them good would be a good, act.Yes, that's associating (unless the evildoer is bound and gagged and they're unable to communicate), and yes, trying to convert a heathen to the Light Side will cause the paladin to fall, RAW.

The only way a paladin can knowingly interact with Evil is to smash it, even if it's required to save the universe, since there are no possible exceptions to the rules without houserules.

[rollforeigninit]

Having played Paladins a few times but never (oddly) having DM'd one, I have had a few issues with the code. We do tend to lighten it up some and the choice of deity does make a huge difference. We make up a short list of rules they have to follow. We also make clerics, druids, priests, or any representative of a divine power do the same. GROSS violations result in a fall for any of them but otherwise it's usually based on Alignment shift to an inappropriate alignment at which point they fall as well.

Having a paladin fall because he picked the least evil situation among his or her options is akin to having a druid or ranger fall for not killing anyone he meets that eats meat..... or vegetables......... or uses wood..... or leather..... or cotton....

One is Lawful Stupid, the other is Neutral Stupid.

Someday I want to see an Antipaladin played to the hilt with EXACTLY the opposite Code. :smallwink:

[Killer Angel]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. With the addendum that the GM has to be upfront of what is and is not legal from the start. Trolling your players by omitting details just so you can go "Ha! Gotcha!" is just impolite. Sadistic and abusive GMs are not a problem with mechanics. One will screw over your PC, regardless of mechanics.

If you choose to play a character with Paladin's Code and Falling mechanics, or any similar constuct, it suggests you are actually want to roleplay it out. If you don't, then it raises the question what you exactly want to play?


Maybe I wasn't clear. I like paladin's falling mechanics.
I don't like DMs that abuse of such mecanichs and make paladins fall 'cause it amuses them.
Abusive DM will screw somehow your character regardless, but it's decisely rarer to see an abusive DM making a cleric lose its spells, or a druid falling for not revering nature, while paladins are often a favourite target.

[Frozen_Feet]

The obvious conclusion is that such GMs are Evil and have a beef with goody-two-shoes characters. :smalltongue:

[Killer Angel]

The obvious conclusion is that such GMs are Evil and have a beef with goody-two-shoes characters. :smalltongue:

So... can I Smite 'em with the players' handbook? :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Yes, that's associating (unless the evildoer is bound and gagged and they're unable to communicate), and yes, trying to convert a heathen to the Light Side will cause the paladin to fall, RAW.

The only way a paladin can knowingly interact with Evil is to smash it, even if it's required to save the universe, since there are no possible exceptions to the rules without houserules.

That seems to me to be an overly wide definition of "associating" and several D&D sources suggest otherwise.

Not to mention that, while "paladins do not associate with Evil characters" the list of things that causes paladins to Fall does not include "associating with Evil characters".

Leaving it up to the DM which tack to take.

[Frozen_Feet]

Let's look at the dictionary definition, shall we? (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/associate)

The first definition, "To join as a partner, ally, or friend", is clearly what the rules intend, and is hardly problematic. If you imprison an evil-doer, you aren't any of those no matter how much you happen to talk with him. Looking through the list, you'll notice that most definitions carry connotations of partnership, equality or joining forces, and it makes sense a Paladin should stray away from holding Evil people as his partners or equals.

Problems come from the definition "To spend time socially; keep company". This is extremely broad, to the point of excluding all social interaction with evil-doers (even interrogating them, for example).

But why would you use such overly broad definition that precludes the Code from making sense, when there is a narrower definition you can use that does makes sense?

[Gwendol]

I don't see an issue with the paladin's code, only with rather strange interpretations of it be it from players or DM's. As always, it is better to lay out the rules and expectations beforehand (should a player want to play a paladin), and to keep a dialogue going during the game on possible moralic implications of a course of action rather than suddenly drawing a line.

The code, moreso than other alignement restrictions, makes playing a paladin a unique experience, and as so many others have mentioned it is in plain view of the player; go with the program or choose to play another class.

[Rejusu]

You realize the spirit of your advice boils down to the same thing as mine - play something else than a Paladin? Your preferred solution just is "fixing" the class, while I see no point in doing that when the system has loads of classes or combinations of classes to fill the exact same role. There's hilarious amounts of redundancy in D&D 3.5.

Considering the amount of poorly designed or executed classes in 3.5 that redundancy pretty much has to exist if you ever want to realise the concept of a character without playing a terrible class to do so.

[Frozen_Feet]

Uh... no. That redundancy mostly exists for the same reason those poor classes exist: poor and inelegant design. Some option appeared half-assed to someone, so they gave their own (often just as half-assed) effort to fix it. The result is a patch-work system where there are often several ways of varying effectiveness to model the same thing. Count, for example, how many different mechanics there are for "you surprise your enemy and strike gap in their defense when they're at their weakest". I can count at least four. At least three are so similar to each other it begs the question why one mechanic didn't suffice.

But while that redundancy is there, might as well exploit it. Cherry-picking the mechanics that work best is very good option. You'll likely never be able to use all material released for D&D 3.5 in one game anyway, so might as well cut it where it's good.

[Coidzor]

But why would you use such overly broad definition that precludes the Code from making sense, when there is a narrower definition you can use that does makes sense?

Because you don't know what the designers were going for because they're ridiculously obtuse 99/100 times. Because you're a lazy human being and go with the general definition of association that you know of and encounter in your general life because the game didn't clarify? Because one is a jerk?

There are many possible reasons is what I'm getting at.

Also, y'know, ye olde platitude about how if you got everyone and their mother into a room you would find that you'd have that many plus 10 opinions on alignment.


I don't see an issue with the paladin's code, only with rather strange interpretations of it be it from players or DM's.

That means in and of itself that the code failed to communicate itself clearly to players and DMs. That means the code as written by the designers is a flawed construct. :smallconfused: How then can you continue to place blame on the people being communicated to when it is a failure to communicate on the part of the designers?

Now, if these were isolated incidences rather than an endemic problem that's been around and known about for over a decade now, there'd be a bit of room to argue that they're just all deliberately wrongheaded or something, but as it stands, the simplest explanation is that the code isn't clear or well-written enough for how seriously it is taken.

[Frozen_Feet]

Because you don't know what the designers were going for because they're ridiculously obtuse 99/100 times.

Uh huh. It's under heading "associates", which means "partners or colleagues". It's obvious from the contents under it.

I'd say it's players (GMs included) being obtuse here, as applying the problematic definition of "associate" to the the paragraph "associates" requires equivocating two very different meanings of the word.

A police officer who catches and interrogates a criminal is associating [socializing] with the criminal, but he is not his associate [partner, ally or friend] as is not associating [joining forces, allying] with him. The fallacy is clear the moment you open the dictionary or spend a second thinking about this real-world example.