PDA

View Full Version : Paladins: should they be a restricted class?



The Fury
2013-02-23, 02:13 PM
OK, this may be a stale topic, but here goes.
In most groups it's not unknown to have a rule that players can't make evil characters. That said in my group a similar rule pops up depending on who's the DM: No paladins. Now the reason for this has the same aim the no evil characters rule, preserve party cohesion. Some DMs have the concern that a player character paladin would be played like Miko Miyazaki, which I suppose is not entirely unfounded. Maybe the ability to detect evil could be problematic to some campaign plots too. At the very least most DMs that disallow paladins as a base class concede that the idea of a paladin is fine as a prestige class, though sometimes it's an NPC only class.
I admit, I actually like paladins. Typically, when they're disallowed I'll make a lawful good fighter as a compromise. So DMs, do you have any special ruling on the paladin class? Also, Players; have you encountered the no paladins rule? And if so how have you dealt with it.

Synovia
2013-02-23, 02:24 PM
Typically the "no paladins" rule comes from people playing paladins as lawful-***hole.

qwertyu63
2013-02-23, 02:26 PM
I personally allow them, but I make sure my players know 3 things.
1: The Unearthed Arcana variant paladins are in use, so not all paladins are LG.
2: I am not strict about the code. Minor violations are no big deal.
3: Paladins like Miko (i.e. Lawful Stupid) fall very fast. Don't play them.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-02-23, 02:44 PM
2: I am not strict about the code. Minor violations are no big deal.
3: Paladins like Miko (i.e. Lawful Stupid) fall very fast. Don't play them.

Pretty much this. Also, I prefer to emphasize the Good above the Law part-- it's easier to understand, less likely to cause inter-party friction, and helps cut down the drive to play lawful stupid.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-23, 02:54 PM
I would just make the player explain their character's personality and moral code before hand, and make it clear that you expect them to role-play that (or role-play character development that evolves from that), and make sure they understand that neither the game world nor the rest of the party will always work according to their rules and worldview - in short, that they'd better be prepared to lose, sometimes.

ArcturusV
2013-02-23, 02:58 PM
Well, to mimic what others said, it's not the CODE so much that is the problem, it's the OTHER PEOPLE issue which comes up. The rules about associating with Chaotic or Evil characters. It turns the Paladin less from a "Champion of Lawful Good", and more into a tyrant who has to dictate the behavior of all the other party members just to avoid losing powers on a class that is considered generally weak anyway, as I find most people who don't like Paladins suggest just Fighter/Cleric mixing for a more powerful character with less drawbacks.

Dropping that makes Paladins more like Hinjo, less like Miko. Which is a good thing. (HA!)

It's really a combination though of the two factors:

1) Paladin is clearly a weak class. While it has some decent abilities, these generally come online in far too limiting of a fashion (Barely any smites, remove disease on a per week basis, etc).

2) It causes MORE problems than evil characters who aren't played by goobers do, due to it's Other People clauses.

Drop the Other People non-sense... I never liked it. Maybe homebrew some stuff up so Smite progresses more, you can use Smites for other effects if you end up fighting nothing but rats and spiders, etc, and can smite with ranged weapons, and maybe switch their spellcasting stat to Charisma (That way they only really need Strength, Con, Charisma, Int for stat points. Instead of needing everything except Dex).

LibraryOgre
2013-02-23, 03:22 PM
A lot of this becomes an edition question (for example, the 2e Paladin doesn't have ANY smites, but their +2 to saves is pretty significant, as is their effective +1 to AC against any evil enemy), but I think a Paladin (or a Ranger, Druid, or a number of Specialty Priests) is very much a character that, while not restricted, should definitely be something that people think very carefully about.

A paladin player needs to be able to explain the reasoning behind his actions. Not the rationalizations... the reasons. They need to be able to explain why they did what they did, how it favors Good and Law, and why they're not being an obtuse git for personal gain ("Oh, I'm going to go check the borders while you interrogate this guy")... a recent Black Hands strip in Knights of the Dinner Table talked about this, actually.

In 194 (and, really, you should be reading Knights of the Dinner Table, anyway), the Black Hands have managed to gain control of significant natural resources through underhanded tactics... and have a cleric of the Gawd Asaard on their side. As the footnote says



The Gawd of Asaard is associated with truth, honesty and the power of persuasion through unshakeable trust. Clerics of the faith are forbidden to lie, knowingly act in bad faith or deceive. Doing so forfeits all clerical power and abilities. As such, they are highly valued in any situation where trust and negotiations are a factor. For that reason, Clerics of Asaard often find themselves in the role of diplomat, mediator, father confessors and such. Unfortunately, it is common for players of such characters to meta-game them. Fellow party members insulate such characters from any active knowledge of intent to deceive or mislead -- using the trust others bestow on them, the "unwitting" clerics, as an advantage while at the same time benefiting from the character's powers/abilities."

A Paladin is a hard character to play, and a hard one to get along with. It is incumbent upon the player of a Paladin to realize when being a paladin is unfeasible.

However, I think it's also important to realize that a Paladin doesn't necessarily hold everyone to his standard. He won't accept the thief thieving from innocent people, but he's not going to (necessarily) turn into a scold over someone being less than perfectly lawful. He is the guy who sets his cruise control at the speed limit... but he CAN be the guy who gets in the right lane so others can pass him.

A paladin is Superman. There's a lot of variation in how Superman is portrayed... sometimes the scold, sometimes the exemplar... but he's always lawful and always good.

Mando Knight
2013-02-23, 03:28 PM
A paladin is Superman. There's a lot of variation in how Superman is portrayed... sometimes the scold, sometimes the exemplar... but he's always lawful and always good.

And everyone's quick to jump to the misleading covers and mind-control episodes to show others how terrible the character is.

Incom
2013-02-23, 03:40 PM
@Arcturus


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.

Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Paladins only fall for committing evil acts, not for the evil acts of their fellow adventurers. The rest of the code is just there to confuse your DM.

A reasonably wise/charismatic/intelligent (whichever) paladin would adventure alongside and tolerate an evil character for the same reasons Roy travels with and tolerates Belkar: keeping a bloodthirsty killer pointed at things that deserve it (eg fiends) is a good act, as would be subtly acting to make said killer less evil (Shojo giving Belkar a cat, and Belkar's evilness chart from Roy's afterlife arc).

Well, an actual "bloodthirsty killer" might not be the best example and probably would draw the paladin's ire, but someone evil for other reasons (e.g. a thief) could work much better for that.

OTOH, a party of evil adventurers is unlikely to tolerate a paladin unless they have to, for exactly the same reasons a DM might ban paladins.

tl;dr

If you have a problem with paladins, either 1. your group (or at least the last person to play a paladin in your group) is bad at RP, 2. your DM misinterpreted the quote above, or 3. you're running an evil adventure.

Fortuna
2013-02-23, 03:46 PM
Personally, I don't see why anyone would play a paladin instead of a fighter/cleric. The code is essentially a roleplaying consideration, and if you screw it up the punishment should be plain old guilt on your own part and a genuine desire to make amends. If you don't feel that, no problem - if word gets out, your reputation as a paragon of whatever is going to take a beating.

ArcturusV
2013-02-23, 03:51 PM
" a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."

That's the part I was referring to by being a tyrant. And the reason why is mostly word choice. And I do see every DM I've played with interpret it this way if they were playing with the code in tact rather than personal code only as I ran it. It's words like "Never". Which implies an absolute. Which tends to get things happening around the table (As they are afraid of losing their powers due to breaking a NEVER part of their code) of "I can't adventure with Player X/Important Plot NPC Y unless they change. It's me or him!"

Which I've seen happen to often.

oxybe
2013-02-23, 04:23 PM
personally i find the line between paladin and cleric to be rather blurred and simply view the former to be the more militaristic version of the latter. they both need to adhere to the tenets of church they preach to more then anything. but the major distinction, beyond pure mechanics, in a general fluff sense is that they're basically different branches of the church:

-the cleric is generally the "face" of the church, spreading the word of the church through prayer and action.

-the paladin is the foot solider the "sword" of the church, leading the flock in times of trouble and defending them.

-the avenger is the "eyes and ears" of the church, keeping a tab on it's enemies and occasionally doing tasks the former two are untrained or unwilling to do.

-the invoker is the "brains" of the church, he's often helping the various branches manage and helping them do their job.

each church will treat each branch differently and there might be some overlap. God A might hold his paladin caste in higher esteem then clerics as he's more militaristic whereas God B might prefer avenger and invoker castes since they prefer information and secrecy then a more public presence.

i also have the firm belief that alignment can go and [oh my, such rude language!], so my view on good/evil/law/chaos and it's place in classes is rather biased.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-23, 04:30 PM
Actually, most fun I had as a Paladin, I was actually an Artificer.

Drew up a highly religious, front-linesman Artificer with decent combat stats and a strict moral code. He took the whole Crafting thing as a combination of hermetic self-sufficiency, and a way of helping the less fortunate.

Plus, since he was the one making all his own items, he could make them all Paladin-flavoured; snow-white Cloak of Resistance with a prayer embroidered around the hem, shining sword with his own personal oaths worked into the metal, all of that.

I think that the Paladin class is the result of confusing role-playing and mechanics. By role-playing, a Paladin-type character can be great, and interesting, especially in a world of grim pragmatists; but, trying to mash it together with a defined set of mechanics is a mistake.

nedz
2013-02-23, 04:38 PM
I would strongly advise them to play something else — there are plenty of templar style PrCs around, and then there's the Gray Guard.

They only turn up in one group I play with and falling is kind of expected.

Personally I would only make a Paladin fall, if the player agreed with this.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-02-23, 04:44 PM
Well, Paladins certainly shouldn't be allowed to rules lawyers, if that's how they're going to play by the code.

Personally, I like the idea of making Paladin a prestige class.

Grundy
2013-02-23, 05:03 PM
I don't have a problem with paladins as such. I'm actually running one for the first time in years. Then again, our group has a no-evil clause, so I have no particular worry about falling. I RP him as leading by example, and haven't had him chastise PCs any more than any other good character.

scurv
2013-02-23, 05:29 PM
The alignment is Lawful AND Good I remind the players that it is not lawful neutral, it is not lawful chaotic, and it is not lawful draconian. If they fail to be good they are not playing a palidin.

And i know definitions of good are not set in stone, But I will at the onset tell the players to tell me what their definition is, and then i expect them to abide by it.

Lupus753
2013-02-23, 06:13 PM
Other players and GMs hate how Paladins (and Paladin players) are often holier-than-thou people who forbid others from doing certain things or complain bitterly if their demands are not met.

Paladin players hate it when GMs create scenarios like: "Okay, you've come across some slaves in bondage. Slavery is legal in this country, so if you free them you're being unlawful and you lose your divine favor. Not letting them go is an evil act of non-action, so you'd lose your divine favor. Choose carefully."

RedF0x11
2013-02-23, 06:34 PM
I may not be a DM but in the campaign I'm playing at the moment our party has a paladin, which we are actually finding to be a lot of fun, using him to set up loads of roll playing opportunities, because how does a group of morally ambiguous heroes go about managing a knight with a code of rules causing him to fight all evil, and protect the innocent? So far he has caused several bar fights when trying to stop the party's changeling rogue from doing anything sneaky, caused us to go back and kill a whole bandit group that the Cleric had talked us past (more XP :belkar: )

Personally I think that a Paladin should not be run as a action blocking do gooder, but as a challenge to anybody in the party to up their game and create ways to work around the paladin, especially when the DM could easily reward you with more XP. As a final note if you are trying to distract a paladin ranks in knowledge anything can be invaluable, just have a character talk to him about the local architecture, or theology (always a good one) until the rogue is done with the morally questionable acts.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-23, 06:40 PM
Other players and GMs hate how Paladins (and Paladin players) are often holier-than-thou people who forbid others from doing certain things or complain bitterly if their demands are not met.

Paladin players hate it when GMs create scenarios like: "Okay, you've come across some slaves in bondage. Slavery is legal in this country, so if you free them you're being unlawful and you lose your divine favor. Not letting them go is an evil act of non-action, so you'd lose your divine favor. Choose carefully."

This.

There are all kinds of frustrations when a player designs a character that doesn't quite fit into the universe the DM envisions; Paladin's in grey-and-grey morality worlds are just the tip of the iceberg.

I remember once creating an Archivist who was supposed to be sort of a mystic and religious scholar; his whole deal was that he was fascinated by the divine, but disappointed with the gods themselves. He'd been a worshipper of a few different gods in the past, but ultimately decided they didn't have the answers. So, he was sort of a mystic humanist; big into philosophy, religious freedom, self-determination and all of that.

I certainly didn't feel that he was at all a disruptive character; he was lawful neutral leaning good, but believed that ethics and morality were complicated matters, and that everyone had to make their own decisions - so, he was willing to work with anyone, of any beliefs and or alignment.

Problem was, the DM was essentially a misotheist; his whole view of this world had mortals as the unwitting pawns of capricious gods, but that those same Gods really *were* the source of all light and life in the cosmos. To the DM, my character's concept of religious exploration would make him an enemy of the gods - I had to go back and re-do my character's backstory, because his numerous conversions during his youth would have made him a target for divine retribution. This was a high-level, somewhat sandbox-y game, but none of my characters long term goals - fostering a church that encouraged religious exploration over dogma - were acceptable within that universe.

It was frustrating as hell to me at the time, because that was by far my favorite character (and the one I'd put the most work into not being a "Problem" character), but he essentially could not work in the universe as the DM imagined it. It never really came to a head (he wasn't a paladin, so his abilities were not mechanically dependent on role-playing), but it really did highlight some of the difficulties of a game where the setting, and the characters in it, are designed by different people.

Lupus753
2013-02-23, 06:43 PM
To my previous scenario, I believe the correct GM response is: "You think it's better to be good than to be lawful, if no other choice presents itself? Your god agrees and lets you keep your powers."

Urpriest
2013-02-23, 06:48 PM
Disruptive characters and characters who don't stray from silly and outdated stereotypes can be of any class or alignment. Don't ban evil characters, don't ban paladins, just ban juvenile roleplaying.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-23, 07:05 PM
Disruptive characters and characters who don't stray from silly and outdated stereotypes can be of any class or alignment. Don't ban evil characters, don't ban paladins, just ban juvenile roleplaying.

Well, the problem (as I was trying to explain with my last comment) is that disruptive is relative. The same paladin, played in the same way, could be an ideal character in one game, while grinding everything to a halt in another. Partially, it depends on the rest of the party, but partially, it depends on the tone of the setting itself.

ArcturusV
2013-02-23, 07:12 PM
The Archivist there really did sound fun. Quite a shame you never got to use it.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-23, 08:06 PM
The Archivist there really did sound fun. Quite a shame you never got to use it.

Eh, I got to play him some, just... the DM pretty much said that, in this world, he was a delusional idiot. Spirituality is a tough subject for tabletop games, I think.

Grundy
2013-02-23, 08:56 PM
Well, the problem (as I was trying to explain with my last comment) is that disruptive is relative. The same paladin, played in the same way, could be an ideal character in one game, while grinding everything to a halt in another. Partially, it depends on the rest of the party, but partially, it depends on the tone of the setting itself.

Absolutely. Our game's ban on evil characters isn't imposed by the DM, it's something we all want. I expect that if a player wanted an evil PC, we'd just talk it through before chargen. And then the goal would basically BE intra-party conflict, for fun and profit.

Traab
2013-02-23, 09:29 PM
Typically the "no paladins" rule comes from people playing paladins as lawful-***hole.

So the same people who play rogues as "steal everything, rob your team, and laugh at them OOC as you pass all your bluff checks so they cant do squat" And who think chaotic Evil means Chaotic Stupid?

ArcturusV
2013-02-23, 09:31 PM
Pretty much Traab. I usually punch said rogues in the shoulder.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-23, 09:57 PM
So the same people who play rogues as "steal everything, rob your team, and laugh at them OOC as you pass all your bluff checks so they cant do squat" And who think chaotic Evil means Chaotic Stupid?

Heh. I remember the last time we had one of those in our group...

ArcturusV
2013-02-23, 10:01 PM
Which one? Paladins with the 10 foot pole up their backside? Rogues who fleece the party? Or people who think evil means they have to torture, kill, and arson everything they come across regardless of rhyme, reason, or purpose?

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-23, 10:05 PM
Which one? Paladins with the 10 foot pole up their backside? Rogues who fleece the party? Or people who think evil means they have to torture, kill, and arson everything they come across regardless of rhyme, reason, or purpose?

Rogues who fleece the party.

Specifically, Rogues who fleece the party, played by new members of the group whom the DM had an embarrassingly obvious crush on.

The Fury
2013-02-23, 11:47 PM
Eh, I got to play him some, just... the DM pretty much said that, in this world, he was a delusional idiot. Spirituality is a tough subject for tabletop games, I think.

That really is a shame though, that did sound like a cool concept.



Paladin players hate it when GMs create scenarios like: "Okay, you've come across some slaves in bondage. Slavery is legal in this country, so if you free them you're being unlawful and you lose your divine favor. Not letting them go is an evil act of non-action, so you'd lose your divine favor. Choose carefully."

If it were me playing the paladin I'd default to "good" and free the slaves, fall, and not seek atonement on the grounds that I'm not sorry about what I did. Then the DM and the other players would probably insist that I make a new character.
Though if it were feasible to do so, (it usually isn't in theses cases,) I'd buy all the slaves and give each their own ownership papers so they legally own themselves. Afterward I'd escort them all to a country where slavery is not legal thereby being both lawful and good.

ArcturusV
2013-02-24, 12:05 AM
Well, remember when you talk about Lawful alignments... "Law" does not mean "Whatever the local tough who crowned himself emperor says is the law". It means a higher code, personal, spiritual, or otherwise. You're not beholden to uphold whatever local laws there are (Though if they are just laws and you are good, you would). An Unjust Law needs not be upheld by a Lawful Good character.

Urpriest
2013-02-24, 12:26 AM
Well, the problem (as I was trying to explain with my last comment) is that disruptive is relative. The same paladin, played in the same way, could be an ideal character in one game, while grinding everything to a halt in another. Partially, it depends on the rest of the party, but partially, it depends on the tone of the setting itself.

The same paladin played in the same way, sure. But those won't be the same player, or the same game philosophy. In your example, there was one of two problems: either the DM was bad at conveying the tone of the setting because he thought of it as perfectly ordinary and didn't consider how much it would screw over characters, or you knew full well what the setting and intended tone were like and intentionally made a character that would have difficulties with that setting. I'm guessing the former is more likely. Basically, if everyone makes and plays their characters like mature adults, you don't get the sort of conflict that motivates people to ban evil characters and paladins, no matter what alignments people play. Conversely, if you play with people who are inconsiderate or immature then banning specific alignments won't change anything. Your DM (provided I'm interpreting the situation correctly) would have been annoying to anyone with any sort of interaction with the gods because he was overly enamored of ultrapowerful beings interfering with character activities. Your character just happened to provide a clearer example.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-24, 12:34 AM
To me, "Law" is always about how one conducts oneself, regardless of the "Laws" of the world around them. A lawful person is someone who holds themselves to a code of conduct, even if that code is entirely internal; I would say that a "Lawful" character could be a rebel, a criminal, even a liar, so long as they drew their own internal boundaries, and those boundaries were an important part of who they were.

A chaotic character, meanwhile, is one whose actions are governed on a more situational basis. If you're being nice, you would say they don't let arbitrary restrictions limit them from what they know is right (assuming CG); if you're being mean, you would say that they're shallow and easily swayed.

One effect of this is that, as DM, I would never dictate an alignment change along the Law-Chaos axis; it's too personal to the player, and their own conceptualization of the character. I might suggest it once in a while, but I would never force the issue. The same is not true for me of the Good/Evil axis; a "Good" character who routinely commits evil acts should have an alignment shift, regardless of the protestations of the player.

Oh, and for no particular reason, I'm going to end with a poem. Or, rather, a snippet of a poem.


I, loving freedom, and untried
No sport to every random gust
Being to myself a guide
Too blindly had reposed my trust
And oft, when in my heart was heard
They timely mandate, I deferred
The task, in smoother walks to stray
But thee I now would serve more strictly, if I may.

~Wordsworth, "Ode to Duty"

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-24, 12:39 AM
The same paladin played in the same way, sure. But those won't be the same player, or the same game philosophy. In your example, there was one of two problems: either the DM was bad at conveying the tone of the setting because he thought of it as perfectly ordinary and didn't consider how much it would screw over characters, or you knew full well what the setting and intended tone were like and intentionally made a character that would have difficulties with that setting. I'm guessing the former is more likely. Basically, if everyone makes and plays their characters like mature adults, you don't get the sort of conflict that motivates people to ban evil characters and paladins, no matter what alignments people play. Conversely, if you play with people who are inconsiderate or immature then banning specific alignments won't change anything. Your DM (provided I'm interpreting the situation correctly) would have been annoying to anyone with any sort of interaction with the gods because he was overly enamored of ultrapowerful beings interfering with character activities. Your character just happened to provide a clearer example.

I think the problem can arise from a death of communication, without it being the fault of either player or DM. People tend to take their own worldview for granted; one DM may think it's perfectly rational to assume that a strict Paladin's oath is naive and unworkable, while a player may see it as something bold and signifying a depth of character. Neither of them are right or wrong, but if they fail to discuss those assumptions, that paladin could be a disruptive force in that game universe, and put the player in a position of either acting in a way that goes against the character they've built, or causing problems within the game itself.

So, yeah, players intending to play those sorts of fringe characters (in either direction) should talk about it with their DM first - but, I don't think that an "immature" party is required for things to go wrong.

Jay R
2013-02-24, 12:59 PM
A paladin in the party influences the options open to the rest of the party as well as the paladin. Therefore I allow paladins if the other players agree to it.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-24, 01:17 PM
You know... based on all of this, I've come to the conclusion that making Paladins work isn't so much a matter of changing their behavior, as giving more options when they fall.

Right now, as far as I can tell, the only options for Fallen Paladins are the ones who fell in a really big was - Blackguards and other "Evil" options. I would say include some good, interesting choices for Paladins who fell short of their vows, but remained Lawful Good (Or at least Good).

As is, Paladins do offer a pretty good, classic issue for roleplaying, and we don't want to lose that. They're the archetype of the Good Person in a Complex World. How they deal with that - how they reconcile their rigid beliefs with their world and their friends - provides a wealth of role play opportunities.

The issue is, after handing them that question, the game system goes on to say "Oh, and you'd better pick Option A, or we're gonna take away all of your abilities." The player is given a choice of either refusing to yield to pragmatic concerns and the desires of the party, or being mechanically punished; and the only way around it is to go full evil, which would cause just as many problems, in most parties. "I can't reconcile my rigid moral code with a difficult and complex universe; therefore, to hell with it all, Hail Satan!" is a lazy and weak answer.

There should be another mechanical option - something to represent the Paladin that's laid aside their vows but still believes in doing the right thing. Something that would still benefit from Paladin levels, but have a more cynical, pragmatic approach to their LG core.

The Fury
2013-02-24, 01:56 PM
Well, remember when you talk about Lawful alignments... "Law" does not mean "Whatever the local tough who crowned himself emperor says is the law". It means a higher code, personal, spiritual, or otherwise. You're not beholden to uphold whatever local laws there are (Though if they are just laws and you are good, you would). An Unjust Law needs not be upheld by a Lawful Good character.

Oh, absolutely. Though the DM is always the final arbiter in these matters. So if the DM says that a Paladin falls for challenging a local authority, regardless of how unjust it is, then she falls.


You know... based on all of this, I've come to the conclusion that making Paladins work isn't so much a matter of changing their behavior, as giving more options when they fall.

Right now, as far as I can tell, the only options for Fallen Paladins are the ones who fell in a really big was - Blackguards and other "Evil" options. I would say include some good, interesting choices for Paladins who fell short of their vows, but remained Lawful Good (Or at least Good).

As is, Paladins do offer a pretty good, classic issue for roleplaying, and we don't want to lose that. They're the archetype of the Good Person in a Complex World. How they deal with that - how they reconcile their rigid beliefs with their world and their friends - provides a wealth of role play opportunities.

The issue is, after handing them that question, the game system goes on to say "Oh, and you'd better pick Option A, or we're gonna take away all of your abilities." The player is given a choice of either refusing to yield to pragmatic concerns and the desires of the party, or being mechanically punished; and the only way around it is to go full evil, which would cause just as many problems, in most parties. "I can't reconcile my rigid moral code with a difficult and complex universe; therefore, to hell with it all, Hail Satan!" is a lazy and weak answer.

There should be another mechanical option - something to represent the Paladin that's laid aside their vows but still believes in doing the right thing. Something that would still benefit from Paladin levels, but have a more cynical, pragmatic approach to their LG core.

If I'm not mistaken that's basically what the Greyguard is, right?
Though I would actually keep the "losing abilities" aspect but if the world the game was set in really was difficult and complex a paladin would have to do something pretty extreme to lose their abilities. Otherwise, how would there be any paladins running around? For example in one of my favorite games I've played in there was an NPC paladin that was largely a jerk and a bully but didn't lose his abilities until he beat a thirteen-year old girl within an inch of her life and left her to die in a field because he suspected she was working with a necromancer.
Personally I like to think that in a complex fantasy settings gods ought to be able to overlook minor lapses of character but not major breaches of conduct.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-24, 02:15 PM
Oh, absolutely. Though the DM is always the final arbiter in these matters. So if the DM says that a Paladin falls for challenging a local authority, regardless of how unjust it is, then she falls.



If I'm not mistaken that's basically what the Greyguard is, right?
Though I would actually keep the "losing abilities" aspect but if the world the game was set in really was difficult and complex a paladin would have to do something pretty extreme to lose their abilities. Otherwise, how would there be any paladins running around? For example in one of my favorite games I've played in there was an NPC paladin that was largely a jerk and a bully but didn't lose his abilities until he beat a thirteen-year old girl within an inch of her life and left her to die in a field because he suspected she was working with a necromancer.
Personally I like to think that in a complex fantasy settings gods ought to be able to overlook minor lapses of character but not major breaches of conduct.

So, I should probably clarify a few points.

First, when I say "Lost abilities" I actually mean "Objectively suffer, mechanically." Losing specific abilities is fine - I just don't think that the Paladin levels should be wasted.

I'm not familiar with Greyguard. What is it? If it's just a neutral Paladin (which is what the name seems to imply), that's not what I'm describing; what I'm describing would be no less good, and maybe no less lawful, than a Paladin - it would just be someone whose recognized that the specifics of the oath are unsustainable.

As for there not being any Paladins running around... actually, I kind of like that idea. Not having there be none, but having Paladins (especially old Paladins) be very rare. It's not an easy path to walk; I imagine it as something that a lot of young adventurers would start out as, but be unable to maintain.

And then, once in a while, you have a Paladin with the wisdom and depth of character to actually pull it off - someone who's fully come to terms with their own vows, and found a way to reconcile them with the world around them.

I mean, to me, the whole point of Paladins is that they're somehow above and beyond Lawful Good. If I had to define the difference, I'd say that, for a Lawful Good character, "Trying" counts. You could be a Lawful Good coward, for instance, who abandons an innocent to die because the personal threat was too great - so long as you struggle with your own fears, and overcome them when you're able. Similarly, a Lawful Good character is allowed to pick the lesser of two evils, when no other choice presents itself.

For a Paladin, meanwhile, trying doesn't count. They've chosen an oath - and I would let the player write their own oath, so long as it was somewhat restrictive - that defines what they consider "Good" behavior, and they must act on it. A Paladin would be required to save the life of an innocent, or die trying. A Paladin could not accept the lesser of evils; they would have to find another way, or fall (or at least, move closer to falling.)

The issue with this system is, it only works if "Falling" is a real option for the player - not something that renders their character into "Fighter without bonus feats." Otherwise, the player is never going to see it as an option for their character to re-consider their vows, to decide that maybe compromise rally is the best they can do.

ArcturusV
2013-02-24, 02:28 PM
Heard of Grey Guard, never saw it. But from what I've heard it's what you were thinking of FreakyCheeseMan. It's a Paladin who doesn't have restrictive oaths, is allowed to lie, cheat, steal, whatever, for the greater good.

Just like any good villain would. :smallbiggrin: "It's for the greater good that I butcher these 7 priestesses to open a portal to the Abyss and summon forth a Demon Lord in his/her true, terrible form!"

Though apparently not to that extreme.

Though I do wish there was a non-evil way to "Cash out" Paladin levels if you fell and... like most Paladin players who have fallen, refuse to acknowledge you were necessarily wrong. A neutral step that you could cash into, becoming any Neutral Alignment (Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral). Hmm...

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-24, 02:32 PM
Heard of Grey Guard, never saw it. But from what I've heard it's what you were thinking of FreakyCheeseMan. It's a Paladin who doesn't have restrictive oaths, is allowed to lie, cheat, steal, whatever, for the greater good.

Just like any good villain would. :smallbiggrin: "It's for the greater good that I butcher these 7 priestesses to open a portal to the Abyss and summon forth a Demon Lord in his/her true, terrible form!"

Though apparently not to that extreme.

Though I do wish there was a non-evil way to "Cash out" Paladin levels if you fell and... like most Paladin players who have fallen, refuse to acknowledge you were necessarily wrong. A neutral step that you could cash into, becoming any Neutral Alignment (Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral). Hmm...

That sounds close, so long as it lets you maintain benefit from your paladin levels. If it's just a different class, then... no, not really.

Ideally, though, what I'm describing would have a different mechanical feel than Paladins - less of the Divine Might and Right stuff, more of a pragmatic, almost rogue-ish flavor. Maybe a bonus to social skills (to open up more options for resolving situations), and trade Smite Evil with something more like Sneak Attack.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-02-24, 02:37 PM
Though I do wish there was a non-evil way to "Cash out" Paladin levels if you fell and... like most Paladin players who have fallen, refuse to acknowledge you were necessarily wrong. A neutral step that you could cash into, becoming any Neutral Alignment (Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral). Hmm...

Trade paladin levels for crusader levels? Though that actually gives you incentive to fall :smalltongue:

If we're going for a "slightly fallen" paladin, though...

Lose Aura of Good and Detect Evil.
Lose the following spells: Bless Water, Bless Weapon, Protection from Chaos or Evil (whichever direction you fell towards), Magic Circle Against Chaos or Evil, Dispel Chaos or Evil, Holy Sword.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-24, 02:47 PM
Trade paladin levels for crusader levels? Though that actually gives you incentive to fall :smalltongue:

If we're going for a "slightly fallen" paladin, though...

Lose Aura of Good and Detect Evil.
Lose the following spells: Bless Water, Bless Weapon, Protection from Chaos or Evil (whichever direction you fell towards), Magic Circle Against Chaos or Evil, Dispel Chaos or Evil, Holy Sword.


So, the argument I was making was that a Paladin proposes an interesting and significant question from a role playing perspective, one that has two arguably legitimate answers - "Stick to your guns" or "Compromise", where "Compromise" means "Falling." *Not* falling to "Evil", just falling to... a more flexible, pragmatic notion of good.

The problem, as I see it, is that the mechanics punish you for making one of those answers. Instead of getting interesting stories of DMs pushing Paladin players into difficult choices, and the Paladin characters growing, developing and (maybe) ceasing to be Paladins, we get stories of Paladin players being disruptive, and grinding gameplay to a halt when their oaths are challenged. So, punishing them less - just removing some of their spells and class features - isn't really a solution. It's just shooting yourself in the foot with a slightly smaller caliber gun.

From my view, there are two good options. The first is to get rid of "Paladin" as a class, and make it just a roleplay option. The class wasn't that good to begin with. Divorce the roleplay from the mechanics, and let players make their own, more fluid choices.

The second option is to make there be good options for "Fallen" Paladins who are still Lawful Good characters. My first instinct would be something like the Blackguard approach, where the character gains benefits based on their Paladin levels - the higher level Paladin they were, the more cool stuff they get from falling. Another option would be to let them trade Paladin levels for something else, like you suggested.

nedz
2013-02-24, 02:47 PM
Gray Guard is a PrC from CSco. It's very paladin like, except instead of falling you need to atone.

Guizonde
2013-02-24, 09:28 PM
my dnd dm doesn't have a problem with paladins per se, just the fluff surrounding them. for instance, a paladin has to be from a race that has a martial and devout culture. you can optimize a paladin without multiclassing (but yes, compared to some builds around here...), and i legitimately pulled it off for a friend who wanted to play a half-ork undercover paladin masquerading as a fighter/mercenary (the guy is beastly). it works along the atoner trope, and since we're in riddle port, let's just say beacons of good aren't welcomed around here too much.
i'm just banned from mixing halflings and paladins (halflings aren't really a devout race, and they're more a skirmishing race than a really warrior race with a martial culture, like orks, humans, dwarves, and elves).

regarding the lawful good shtick, we all reached an agreement. a paladin has to be one step away at most from the god they worship, like a cleric. in our group, if the guy wants to play a paladin, they won't fall, unless they butcher their rp. hell, my halfling paladin never officially fell. she died and was reborn TN undead with a mindwipe.
also, a paladin is a warrior with a solid grip of tactics, diplomacy, and cunning. you're not a knight templar. you're on a mission, and you will do everything it takes to complete it. sneaking in the sewers? yup. hiding because there's a huge honking dragon and you're level 2? yup.
death may be cheap, but you're more useful to your god alive than dead. a paladin will listen to reason.
also, paladins who berate their teammates is not cool. they're two sides of the same coin. one has a mission to do good, the other is good to do the mission.

what irks me to no end is less lawful-stupid paladins and more kleptomaniacal bards, rogues, rangers, sneaks in general. think of the team! sheesh!

Synovia
2013-02-24, 11:19 PM
So the same people who play rogues as "steal everything, rob your team, and laugh at them OOC as you pass all your bluff checks so they cant do squat" And who think chaotic Evil means Chaotic Stupid?

Yeah, same people.

Urpriest
2013-02-24, 11:33 PM
i'm just banned from mixing halflings and paladins (halflings aren't really a devout race, and they're more a skirmishing race than a really warrior race with a martial culture, like orks, humans, dwarves, and elves).


Evidently someone hasn't read the writeup on Yondalla's realm in Manual of the Planes. Halflings may not be predominately martial or devout, but they absolutely have a strong paladin subculture.

Vemynal
2013-02-25, 12:56 AM
Disruptive characters and characters who don't stray from silly and outdated stereotypes can be of any class or alignment. Don't ban evil characters, don't ban paladins, just ban juvenile roleplaying.

This.

I also tend to be lenient on the part of the code that says they can't have followers, etc, that aren't lawful good.

I've allowed an evil PC and a LG paladin PC in the same party before on the condition that the paladin wasn't able to directly assist the evil PC. No healing him or rescuing him in a dire situation. Odd enough it played out like a Pheobie vs. Ross from Friend's situation more than some evil vs good situation

ArcturusV
2013-02-25, 01:00 AM
I wouldn't go that far. I mean you're GOOD. A champion of Good even as a Paladin. Ideally you'd think you should take the high road. Don't punish the Evil guy... I mean it doesn't seem very "Good".

Paladin: Oh... what's that? Sucking chest wound? Negative HP? Need succor? Need healing? Want to repent your evil alignment now? I won't heal you long as you ping evil. Repent! I got a lot of Lay on Hands points waiting here. I could have you on your feet in seconds... long as you renounce Evil and make an immediate Godsworn Oath to Good that will curse you if you do otherwise...

... does that sound like it's "Good"?

Or more like:

Paladin: Oh! You, ally who has helped me vanquish evil, even though I disagree with you on some issues, is dying? I shall heal you, and perhaps you shall learn of the blessings of Good, and that Good shall always see you through. You might want to consider it. *lay on hands* There you go. Back into the fray old chum, we shall conquer this foul beast from the Abyss!

holywhippet
2013-02-25, 01:21 AM
I
3: Paladins like Miko (i.e. Lawful Stupid) fall very fast. Don't play them.

You seem to be using a different definition of lawful stupid than I'm used to. There's an example of "lawful stupid" referred to in the Knights of the Dinner Table strips. One of the player, who both in the game and in real life, has the most cut throat self centered attitude possible. Even when playing a lawful good character he still cheats NPCs (and PCs) out of as much of what they deserve as he possibly can. He considers lawful stupid to be acting in a way where you don't act in your own best interest and give away money where you don't strictly need to.

ArcturusV
2013-02-25, 01:24 AM
I'd call the guy who always gives charity even when it screws yourself "Stupid Good", rather than "Lawful Stupid". "Lawful Stupid" would be the guy in Knight of the Dinner Table where... if I'm remembering the scene right from about 16 years ago... sees a Beggar on the street, dirty, poor, starving, etc. Pulls out his crossbow and puts a bolt in his chest killing him. "Begging is against the law! And I'm Lawful Good so I gotta uphold the law and put you out of your misery at the same time!"

GnomeFighter
2013-02-25, 05:44 AM
Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

This to me is the problem with Paladins. They do have a big problem in that there moral code fundamentaly gets in the way of being an adventurer. If you have a full devine party of the same god, fine, but if you have a murder hobo party that is just out for loot then sooner or later they will upset a paladin. Not just in the murder bit, but in the fact that they will keep loot for themselves, possibly help the higest bidder rather than those most in need, or refuse payment from someone they were helping. How many times will a party put up with "No no. We cannot accept payment. We get all the payment we need from Pelor" when the paladins code says "Help those in need" not "Work for those in need."



Paladin players hate it when GMs create scenarios like: "Okay, you've come across some slaves in bondage. Slavery is legal in this country, so if you free them you're being unlawful and you lose your divine favor. Not letting them go is an evil act of non-action, so you'd lose your divine favor. Choose carefully."

Thats not a problem, unless the player is lawful stupid or the GMing is poor. The law the paladin is required to uphold first and formost is that of there own faith. Local law is secondary to that, otherwise paladins could never enter an evil state.

IMO paladins are a bad idea to play because of the very ridged code which dose not gel with most chaotic charicters never mind evil, which wouldn't be a problem if it wern't for the fact that paladins are also required to not associate with people who go against there ethical code. Unless you are playing a very particular campain with an all holy group going on a quest, in which case they will take the place of the fighter.

There are many things which people may not see as wrong or evil but which may go against a very strict moral code. To me the problem is that the paladin player is forced in to trying to enforce there code on others, therefor forcing other players to play a particular way, which will always annoy them.

This is why the class was changed so much for 4e.

Scorpier
2013-02-25, 11:13 AM
I've ran a Grey Guard. It's a PrC that, as was said, lets you lie, cheat, steal and so on. Eventually you can turn LoH into direct damage and break your vows with no penalty. The premises behind it is that the paladin (now grey guard) is so close to his god, so devoted to the cause, that his or her god has seen fit to let him do things that aren't outright evil, but may be on the bounds of Law and Good. I ran one. Fun as heck.

Usually, when I play paladins (love them) or DM them, I approach the Code of Conduct a little different. Obviously the no outright evil acts applies, but as far as some of the grey-ish area stuff (up to knowingly partying with evil charachters), a lot of it I allow or see if my DM allows. The Code of Conduct is more of a covenant of the paladin with his or her god. If a paladin does something good but may be outside the bounds of a certain law, I ask "What would god do?" Granted, that may not be the best policy, but in my opinion, if you're going to play a paladin, you should have more than basic knowledge of whichever deity you choose and make you decisions on what the paladin's interpretation of god's will is.

And more on adventuring with an evil party...One word: Redemption. Yes, a paladin is a force that should smite all the evils, but if a paladin can instead turn one that was once twisted by evil into good, isn't that much better?

That's my 2 cents, at least.

Telonius
2013-02-25, 02:11 PM
My biggest problem with the Paladin class isn't the mechanics (which are terrible), or the Code (which seems to have been designed to create intra-party conflict), but in how it interacts with the gods.

Paladins can be Paladins of a deity, or of a cause. Okay, with you so far. Paladins are "protected by divine power." Okay... but that kind of implies that a deity is the source of their class features. If that's the case, why would a deity like (for instance) Olidammara or Boccob or St. Cuthbert be giving power to someone specifically Lawful Good? It certainly seems like they ought to be capable of bestowing the same sorts of power that Pelor or Hieroneous would. And if it's not a deity that's granting the power, why wouldn't complete devotion to Evil or Neutrality or Chaos result in the same level of power that devotion to Law and Good would? (I know UA had the Freedom / Tyranny / Slaughter variants, but that's collectively only four alignments out of the nine).

It just doesn't make sense to me, so much so that it breaks verisimilitude.

So, personally: I rework how the Paladin interacts. Any deity may choose a Paladin, and the Paladin has to be an exemplary version of the deity's own philosophy. The code is tailored to the deity. The abilities are tailored to the alignment. In the cases of a Paladin of a cause or philosophy, work with the player to determine which alignment most closely matches the cause or philosophy, and how the code might work. This really fixes most of the "Class Feature: Paladin Stick" problems. The Code makes much more sense, players have a much better sense of expectations of how (and why) they're supposed to do things. The rest of the class's problems are mechanical, which is a whole other discussion.

Mando Knight
2013-02-25, 02:58 PM
My biggest problem with the Paladin class isn't the mechanics (which are terrible), or the Code (which seems to have been designed to create intra-party conflict), but in how it interacts with the gods.

Paladins can be Paladins of a deity, or of a cause. Okay, with you so far. Paladins are "protected by divine power." Okay... but that kind of implies that a deity is the source of their class features. If that's the case, why would a deity like (for instance) Olidammara or Boccob or St. Cuthbert be giving power to someone specifically Lawful Good? It certainly seems like they ought to be capable of bestowing the same sorts of power that Pelor or Hieroneous would. And if it's not a deity that's granting the power, why wouldn't complete devotion to Evil or Neutrality or Chaos result in the same level of power that devotion to Law and Good would? (I know UA had the Freedom / Tyranny / Slaughter variants, but that's collectively only four alignments out of the nine).

It just doesn't make sense to me, so much so that it breaks verisimilitude.

So, personally: I rework how the Paladin interacts. Any deity may choose a Paladin, and the Paladin has to be an exemplary version of the deity's own philosophy. The code is tailored to the deity. The abilities are tailored to the alignment. In the cases of a Paladin of a cause or philosophy, work with the player to determine which alignment most closely matches the cause or philosophy, and how the code might work. This really fixes most of the "Class Feature: Paladin Stick" problems. The Code makes much more sense, players have a much better sense of expectations of how (and why) they're supposed to do things. The rest of the class's problems are mechanical, which is a whole other discussion.

This is one change that 4e made that I think was taken relatively well: Paladins could follow any deity, but had to be of the same alignment as the deity. Sample directives from the deity's dogma are also listed in the PHBs (and Evil ones in the DMG), so a player could pick one that fit their playstyle.

ArcturusV
2013-02-25, 06:29 PM
Not to mention in 4th it also meant there wasn't a "Strictly Superior" choice. Having Positive Energy (Lay on Hands, Cure, Bless, etc) was generally strictly superior to having a Lay on Harm ability like the Lawful Evil variety, Inflict ____ Wounds, Bane, etc.

Interestingly enough when I kitbash paladins, like the Elemental Paladins I'm trying to make, I usually do stick to that ideal. The Elemental Paladins weren't strictly Alignment Based, but based on an ethos related to their source of power, and had freedom to behave however they wanted as long as they kept to that code.

ReaderAt2046
2013-02-26, 12:35 PM
I think the most annoying thing about paladins is actually the "no multi-classing" rule, because it rules out so many interesting combos and character ideas, and unlike the "always Lawful Good" rule, it doesn't seem to have any IC justification.

Starbuck_II
2013-02-26, 12:37 PM
I'd call the guy who always gives charity even when it screws yourself "Stupid Good", rather than "Lawful Stupid". "Lawful Stupid" would be the guy in Knight of the Dinner Table where... if I'm remembering the scene right from about 16 years ago... sees a Beggar on the street, dirty, poor, starving, etc. Pulls out his crossbow and puts a bolt in his chest killing him. "Begging is against the law! And I'm Lawful Good so I gotta uphold the law and put you out of your misery at the same time!"

Sounds LAWful Dread as Judge Dread, I am the LAW.

Tsriel
2013-02-26, 02:02 PM
OK, this may be a stale topic, but here goes.
In most groups it's not unknown to have a rule that players can't make evil characters. That said in my group a similar rule pops up depending on who's the DM: No paladins. Now the reason for this has the same aim the no evil characters rule, preserve party cohesion. Some DMs have the concern that a player character paladin would be played like Miko Miyazaki, which I suppose is not entirely unfounded. Maybe the ability to detect evil could be problematic to some campaign plots too. At the very least most DMs that disallow paladins as a base class concede that the idea of a paladin is fine as a prestige class, though sometimes it's an NPC only class.
I admit, I actually like paladins. Typically, when they're disallowed I'll make a lawful good fighter as a compromise. So DMs, do you have any special ruling on the paladin class? Also, Players; have you encountered the no paladins rule? And if so how have you dealt with it.

Paladin was the very first class I played in any regard to tabletop RPGs. My DM of the time got a huge kick out of me for not only choosing to be a paladin, but also because I was a complete neophyte. He loved putting me in catch-22 situations just to see how I would react.

For me, I chose to align myself more towards good than law. I think this is key in order to have a paladin that can be dynamic and interesting without being a complete asshat. Granted, there were instances that the party had to decieve me in order to do certain things (such as when the Blood Magus needed a fresh harvest of blood fast), but it wasn't a regular occurance.

With that being said, I allow the class without question, but I do advise anybody that wishes to do so of the challenges they could face. I've only said to a player once that the class wasn't for them (think lawful a-hole archtype). 3.5 mechanics speaking, paladin is one of the weakest in the game. You get great saves, great BAB, and maybe a limited selection of spells (depending on build).

There's Smite Evil, but its useability is far too infrequent to be considered a major boon for the class. The same kinda goes for the Aura of Courage and Lay on Hands. Skill selection is the worst in the game. To add insult to injury, you're the only class that has 4 key stats as opposed to every other class where 2-3 is the norm.

The pathfinder paladin, without question, is the superior paladin class. You get all the above stuff and some extras, like being able to empower your weapon. Lay on Hands is actually very useful and your auras develop new abilities as you level. Best of all, casting ability gets switched from wisdom to charisma, meaning you only need to worry about strength (or dex) and constitution. I defer people interested in playing a pally to the pathfinder class.

LibraryOgre
2013-02-26, 03:23 PM
I think the most annoying thing about paladins is actually the "no multi-classing" rule, because it rules out so many interesting combos and character ideas, and unlike the "always Lawful Good" rule, it doesn't seem to have any IC justification.

That is entirely a 3.x construction.

ArcturusV
2013-02-26, 03:56 PM
And one of the most commonly houseruled out things I see. Strictly written, RAW, it also mens that a Paladin could never take even a paladin focused PrC and go back to leveling up Paladin levels either. Which is just silly.

Starbuck_II
2013-02-26, 04:56 PM
That is entirely a 3.x construction.

But they couldn't multiclass in 2.0 either (only humans can be Paladins and humans can't multiclass) :smallbiggrin:

Lorsa
2013-02-26, 05:07 PM
I Paladin is supposed to act lawful while working towards good, not the other way around. The "code of honor" for a paladin is I believe less strict than people think. It basically means you should be able to trust a paladin. He will tell the truth, he will be true to his word, he won't stab you in the back or knowingly mislead you. This is how he is supposed to be.

A paladin is supposed to work towards good though. Help people, protect the weak and take a stand against evil and oppression. No matter the odds, if some evil big bad needs to be stopped and noone else steps up; the paladin will. A paladin doesn't need to force everyone else to work towards good, that's not what she is about, she is about showing them that there is at least one beacon of hope in the world and by her actions inspire people towards greatness.

So a Paladin in essence is lawful good. The lawful part dictates her actions alone, a code of behavior she must uphold. The good part however is what governs her goals. But that shouldn't be more of a problem with other people in a group than a character of any other class being good would be. A chaotic good character doesn't accept people stealing for personal gain any more than a paladin does. A neutral good character are just as likely to want to give the loot away to those in need as a paladin.

At least, that's how I see it.

Janwin
2013-02-26, 05:39 PM
And one of the most commonly houseruled out things I see. Strictly written, RAW, it also mens that a Paladin could never take even a paladin focused PrC and go back to leveling up Paladin levels either. Which is just silly.

Actually, most of the Paladin-oriented PrCs state in them that if you enter it from Paladin you can continue to level as a paladin afterwards. Gray Guard as an example.

It's usually the very last thing in the PrC entry. They exempt that no multi-classing rule.

How do I know? I recently made a Gray Guard for a campaign that started last night. :smallbiggrin: The character is fun since he can lie and bluff and whatnot, but until they get to level 10 in Gray Guard, they still "fall" and lose their powers just like a normal Paladin. However, when they atone, the cleric casting it can do so for free (doesn't have to pay 500XP). So it's MUCH easier to atone as a Gray Guard. Smite also eventually becomes Smite Anything.

LibraryOgre
2013-02-26, 06:06 PM
But they couldn't multiclass in 2.0 either (only humans can be Paladins and humans can't multiclass) :smallbiggrin:

Yes, but you could dual-class. And multiclassed fighter/clerics could take Paladin kits as demi-paladins, per the Paladin's handbook.

Traab
2013-02-26, 06:33 PM
Originally Posted by Lupus753 View Post
Paladin players hate it when GMs create scenarios like: "Okay, you've come across some slaves in bondage. Slavery is legal in this country, so if you free them you're being unlawful and you lose your divine favor. Not letting them go is an evil act of non-action, so you'd lose your divine favor. Choose carefully."

Personally? I would remind the DM that any god that would punish me for not instantly solving the problem isnt a god worth following in the first place, and start making plans to solve this when I can. Perhaps I will be in a position to remove the ruler of this land, (or he dies due to the storyline) and can set things up where slavery is illegal. Perhaps I can save my money, buy out the slave lots, and free them on the other side of whatever border is closest. There are many ways to go about this particular scenario, and intent should always play a role in whether you fall or not. So long as you do plan to find a way to fix this scenario, and there is no instant consequence to not doing something that moment, you should be fine.

Back to intent. If I were a paladin, and I saw a child in the road about to be run down by a wagon. I run out to save the child naturally, but by doing so panic the horses who proceed to charge off into the wall of a nearby orphanage. Said impact ignites the kegs of explosives being transported and kills everyone there. Should I fall by my actions? Yes people died because of something I did. But it was not done intentionally to cause harm, and instead to save a life. I am pretty sure that by any rational judgement, I would keep my paladin abilities and feel like &^%$^% for the rest of my life.

Frozen_Feet
2013-02-26, 06:39 PM
To me, Paladins have always been an advanced class. This opinion stems from the times they were a *mechanically* restricted class. I also quickly realized they were a big roleplaying challenge. Most players just aren't cut to play such characters any more than they are able to follow chivalry in real life. You just can't play a paladin well if you don't understand where the archetype comes from.

D&D 3.5 went against the spirit of earlier editions and made a huge mistake in making such narrow archetype a base class. It should've been the very template for prestige classes. Later attempts to broaden the class, such as the UA variants, were just god-awful band-aids that just further missed the point.

D&D has always had a militant religious type free for (nearly) all alignments and gods. It's called "Cleric". Making paladin into generic holy warrior is redundant.

Fighter1000
2013-02-27, 12:12 AM
I find something inspiring about Paladins. They're not like most people. To get inside their heads and imagine what life must be like for them is just refreshing when you've had to endure watching so much evil happen in movies, other games, real life, etc.
Limit Paladins to one per party, I say.

ArcturusV
2013-02-27, 12:18 AM
Which used to not be a problem due to the most restrictive stat requirements in the game.

If I remember it was... 14 str, 12 con, 14 wis, 17 cha. In a system where rolling for stats was just what you did, no point buys possible. And had to be human, no stat bonus fixing possible. It was nigh impossible to actually roll up a Paladin honestly (Unless you used the automatic "12 arrays you can roll a d12 for that all qualify for Paladinhood" table in the Paladin's Handbook).

Having 1 in the party was rare. Having 2 was unheard of.

Fighter1000
2013-02-27, 12:24 AM
I agree with you on that, ArcturusV. I've made some paladin characters before, and when it came to the ability scores, it was tough decision time. 14 was the minimum for wisdom, for the spellcasting, even though I don't like that paladins can cast spells. 16 for charisma, and like 14 for con and 14 for strength and 10 for dex and 10 for intelligence was preferable, but not always attainable.

ArcturusV
2013-02-27, 12:30 AM
I never minded the Paladin spells. I just always felt they should have more unique spells. So it felt less like a lesser version of a cleric, and more like it's own thing. Between inferior turning, and a spell list that is almost entirely (But not completely) just what a Lawful Good Cleric could cast it gets unfavorably compared.

Scorpier
2013-02-27, 08:16 AM
I'll admit that paladin falls off mechanically, but they are still my favorite class, might just be from a RP standpoint. I know smites can be a little more useful if you take some if the feats (Ranged smite, Extra Smiting, etc.) and have a DM that acknowledges all the lurvely paladin shortcomings. There's a few PrCs that make paladins fun, one being Gray Guard, which is fun as all hell. Another I ran was Fist of Raziel, in a campaign vs. evil you will be better off than most of your party. I don't agree with making it a PrC all on its own, though.

GungHo
2013-02-27, 10:08 AM
I've always used Paladins as PrCs (or something you dual-class into for 2nd Ed). It's a level of prestige you obtain as opposed to a job you get right out of "Hero College", then again I'm admittedly influenced by the Quest for Glory games from Sierra. While this frustrated new players who wanted the keys to the Beamer right out of the gate, this made them play toward the ideals and got them in the groove, and they enjoyed when the gods sent down an angel to anoint the character as a champion. Sometimes people didn't get what they wanted because they were found wanting, but they always saw the "score sheet", so they knew what was up.

Kane0
2013-02-27, 10:20 PM
I solved this in my rewrite, I changed the Paladin to the Champion, opening up most alignments and creeds. Any problems after that are more or less the character/player more than the class.

Guizonde
2013-02-27, 10:48 PM
after a lengthy and heartfelt conversation with my dm, we've come to the conclusion that as far as my gaming group is concerned, a paladin is free to do as he wishes so long as he follow's his god's tenets to the spirit, rather than the letter.

this means that yes, a paladin can be rogue on the first lookabouts, yet not fall. torture is ok for heironeous and pelor if it means getting the answers to getting revenge and toppling that necromancer (respectively).

on the other hand, if a paladin does something that makes his god frown too much (like saving an orphanage of wights, for the pelor example) weeeeell, then the paladin will get a serious dressing down.

face it: paladins are champions of their deities. litteraly, they're the pawns of the gods, whereas the clerics are the higher ranks. it's these guys gods count on to change the world to their advantage. you could say we see paladins as regular greyguards, but since the rules implicitly forbid paladins to use underhanded tactics, we find that silly since in our games, that condemns paladins to a quick and gory death. call us lenient, but screw it. these guys are paragons of a cause. they by default have enemies. if their code forbids them from using the easiest solution to survive, then that's not much of a code, now is it?

a paladin is more useful to his god alive rather than dead.

The Fury
2013-02-27, 11:35 PM
I find something inspiring about Paladins. They're not like most people. To get inside their heads and imagine what life must be like for them is just refreshing when you've had to endure watching so much evil happen in movies, other games, real life, etc.
Limit Paladins to one per party, I say.

I find them inspiring too, which is why I have a certain fondness for them. Them and characters that are Paladins in spirit. Though I sort of wonder about a one-Paladin limit. Paladins require a certain roleplay mindset that not everyone is willing to try and pull off, for that reason alone it's rare to see more than one in a party. That said, if there were more than one Paladin in a party maybe the party would generally be more inclined towards good than usual? Hard to say, group dynamic would account for a lot here.



on the other hand, if a paladin does something that makes his god frown too much (like saving an orphanage of wights, for the pelor example) weeeeell, then the paladin will get a serious dressing down.

Sorry, an orphanage of wights? Was this an orphanage built for undead monstrosities or something? I'm really genuinely curious.



face it: paladins are champions of their deities. litteraly, they're the pawns of the gods, whereas the clerics are the higher ranks. it's these guys gods count on to change the world to their advantage. you could say we see paladins as regular greyguards, but since the rules implicitly forbid paladins to use underhanded tactics, we find that silly since in our games, that condemns paladins to a quick and gory death. call us lenient, but screw it. these guys are paragons of a cause. they by default have enemies. if their code forbids them from using the easiest solution to survive, then that's not much of a code, now is it?


I guess so, I would argue that a code is fine as long as you have a number of viable options for survival. That said a code with only a single tenet as simple as "Always help the defenseless," can bite you in the backside sometimes. I would argue that a code only really becomes too restrictive when it undermines a Paladin's ability to do the right thing.

Guizonde
2013-02-28, 07:27 AM
I find them inspiring too, which is why I have a certain fondness for them. Them and characters that are Paladins in spirit. Though I sort of wonder about a one-Paladin limit. Paladins require a certain roleplay mindset that not everyone is willing to try and pull off, for that reason alone it's rare to see more than one in a party. That said, if there were more than one Paladin in a party maybe the party would generally be more inclined towards good than usual? Hard to say, group dynamic would account for a lot here.
somehow, i doubt that. i honestly don't think that'd happen in my group, but hey, they're all sneaks, on top of the pragmatic sundae. i'm... not sneaky (the dice hate me when i try). pragmatic enough, though. so far, in our games, i've played cleric and paladin (both of pelor), a friend in PF plays a paladin of sarenrae, and the group isn't more inclined to do good... just hide it, actually.




Sorry, an orphanage of wights? Was this an orphanage built for undead monstrosities or something? I'm really genuinely curious.

0.o... it was late when i posted, ok?
this is like, the perfect dm-fiat-paladin trap! orphanage. full of undead. burn it? you fall. don't burn it, you fall...
i say we don't think about it too much:smalleek:


I guess so, I would argue that a code is fine as long as you have a number of viable options for survival. That said a code with only a single tenet as simple as "Always help the defenseless," can bite you in the backside sometimes. I would argue that a code only really becomes too restrictive when it undermines a Paladin's ability to do the right thing.

true enough. bit looser than our definition, but it's the same spirit, if not the letter :smallsmile:

Scorpier
2013-02-28, 08:12 AM
this means that yes, a paladin can be rogue on the first lookabouts, yet not fall. torture is ok for heironeous and pelor if it means getting the answers to getting revenge and toppling that necromancer (respectively).



I'm not sure about all that. If you do it that way, it seems to me that it leans more towards Lawful Good fighter than paladin. Being a paladin is about being the paragon of good and law in a word of chaos and evil. They are to be a stalwart beacon of hope that shows to others: You CAN live without succumbing to the many temptations of evil and not-good. They don't have to bend the rules of what's right and wrong.


if their code forbids them from using the easiest solution to survive, then that's not much of a code, now is it?


Well, that's part of being a paladin. You don't choose paladin because you want things easy. It's part of the challenge.

Say an old woman wants a brooch back from her ex-husband who stole it, then left her. The evil and neutral (and maybe even good) characters will most likely track the husband down then kill him or steal the brooch. The paladin, however, will go to the husband, first find out his side of the story, then go on any number of other errands to see that justice is done, often without bloodshed.

Being barred for the normal conventions of lying, torture, stealing, etc is, in my opinion, what makes a paladin a paladin.

Scorpier
2013-02-28, 08:16 AM
I've always used Paladins as PrCs (or something you dual-class into for 2nd Ed). It's a level of prestige you obtain as opposed to a job you get right out of "Hero College", then again I'm admittedly influenced by the Quest for Glory games from Sierra. While this frustrated new players who wanted the keys to the Beamer right out of the gate, this made them play toward the ideals and got them in the groove, and they enjoyed when the gods sent down an angel to anoint the character as a champion. Sometimes people didn't get what they wanted because they were found wanting, but they always saw the "score sheet", so they knew what was up.

I allow Paladin from level one, but to make sure the players understand the commitment I'll throw a few tests the paladin's way, though nothing as stupid as a no-win scenario or a situation with the only options being morally gray decisions. I'll throw a few early on just so they get the idea, and if they figure it out and play it right, I have no qualms.

Now if the player forgets they're playing a paladin...well, that's another story.

Lorsa
2013-02-28, 08:38 AM
Say an old woman wants a brooch back from her ex-husband who stole it, then left her. The evil and neutral (and maybe even good) characters will most likely track the husband down then kill him or steal the brooch. The paladin, however, will go to the husband, first find out his side of the story, then go on any number of other errands to see that justice is done, often without bloodshed.

I'm not sure the evil character would care much of the old woman at all. Either they would kill both of them and rob them, or otherwise extort them for money or if that was too difficult simply walk away. A good or neutral person might care about theft though.

Pandoras Folly
2013-02-28, 10:38 AM
It really really really depends on the player. For example, thr campaign im in right now has the first player i've ever experienced that has run a chaotic neutral well. I was wary of him at first, but he has done excellently, think dwarf belkar that jist likes to **** with people rather than kill them. He's pretty funny and very useful in combat.

hamishspence
2013-02-28, 10:40 AM
I'm not sure the evil character would care much of the old woman at all.

Depends on the evil character. If the old woman is of the same species- and the character is evil through being extremely xenophobic and acting on that xenophobia, they may be willing to do things for members of their own species that they wouldn't for a member of a different species.

Lupos
2013-02-28, 11:01 AM
Other players and GMs hate how Paladins (and Paladin players) are often holier-than-thou people who forbid others from doing certain things or complain bitterly if their demands are not met.

Paladin players hate it when GMs create scenarios like: "Okay, you've come across some slaves in bondage. Slavery is legal in this country, so if you free them you're being unlawful and you lose your divine favor. Not letting them go is an evil act of non-action, so you'd lose your divine favor. Choose carefully."

Point number one is just idiocy on the part of the player. The Paladin is not some whiny little *word not found*, the Paladin is a Knight in Shining Armor, a Messiah type, or, if you're really good at roleplaying, a Knight in Sour Armor(my personal favorite)

Point two is stupidity on the GMs part. Just because something is legal never means it's lawful. So long as the Paladin holds to the Code of the Paladin and can justify the means to the end as right according to the Code or the Greater Good, the Paladin is hardly restricted for that choice. The only clear one is to free them, which is Good act and far from unlawful. A paladin is not required to adhere to the laws of man(or what have you), merely respect Legitimate authority while following the laws of Good and Justice. On that note, Mercy is only for the repentant and those not beyond redemption. Take a raping murderer who has taken lives beyond count. Should the paladin defeat him and he claim to wish to repent, the paladin can kill or spare him as the Paladin sees fit. Killing him is an act of Justice, repayment for the sins he has visited on others, life for life. Sparing him can lead to many things, such as he truly repents, or he escapes and continues his spree, potentially causing the fall of the Paladin, or just about anything else.

In short, People need to learn how to actually play a Paladin from the Roleplaying stand point. The class it self is not that bad, but a lot of them could be so much better depending on game/edition.

ArcturusV
2013-02-28, 12:08 PM
One thing that got mentioned earlier, which kinda irked me. The idea that a Paladin isn't allowed to run away. This doesn't just not make sense, it's even false according to some resources. I recall explicit rules about it in the old Paladin's Handbook, which pointed out that a Paladin is not expressly forced to Fight To The Death anytime something evil comes around.

I know people still like to rule it. Hardass DMs want to make you Fall if you show such "cowardice" like my level 2 Paladin running away from a Balor. But it doesn't make sense. Shouldn't even require some sort of "Grey Guard" exception to the rules for you to run away if needed.

"Paladin... not stupid..." a Paladin is going to know if they can't win a fight. If they can't win a fight (Or effect an enemy long term enough to matter in it's eventual downfall), then all that throwing his/her own life away is going to do is guarantee the Paladin can no longer do good. His/her code might require something like not trying to trip the party rogue so that the Rogue is the "last one" there and getting munched on while everyone else is getting away. It might even require that the Paladin fights a temporary rear guard action to make sure that a crippled ally gets enough of a lead to be able to escape. But the Code shouldn't mean Suicidal. You can't do a lot of good if you're in the belly of some Ancient Red Dragon that you happened to run into when you were level 1.

snoopy13a
2013-02-28, 12:45 PM
I find something inspiring about Paladins. They're not like most people. To get inside their heads and imagine what life must be like for them is just refreshing when you've had to endure watching so much evil happen in movies, other games, real life, etc.
Limit Paladins to one per party, I say.

I actually have the opposite view. My take is that paladins should only be played in groups that overall can be described as "lawful good." This way, all of the players have similiar motivations and intra-party conflict will be minimized. The wizard and the paladin won't have as many arguments if they share similiar worldviews.

The Fury
2013-02-28, 01:54 PM
One thing that got mentioned earlier, which kinda irked me. The idea that a Paladin isn't allowed to run away. This doesn't just not make sense, it's even false according to some resources. I recall explicit rules about it in the old Paladin's Handbook, which pointed out that a Paladin is not expressly forced to Fight To The Death anytime something evil comes around.

I know people still like to rule it. Hardass DMs want to make you Fall if you show such "cowardice" like my level 2 Paladin running away from a Balor. But it doesn't make sense. Shouldn't even require some sort of "Grey Guard" exception to the rules for you to run away if needed.

"Paladin... not stupid..." a Paladin is going to know if they can't win a fight. If they can't win a fight (Or effect an enemy long term enough to matter in it's eventual downfall), then all that throwing his/her own life away is going to do is guarantee the Paladin can no longer do good. His/her code might require something like not trying to trip the party rogue so that the Rogue is the "last one" there and getting munched on while everyone else is getting away. It might even require that the Paladin fights a temporary rear guard action to make sure that a crippled ally gets enough of a lead to be able to escape. But the Code shouldn't mean Suicidal. You can't do a lot of good if you're in the belly of some Ancient Red Dragon that you happened to run into when you were level 1.

Ah yes, this reminds me of a time years ago when my group had discovered a city which was recently abandoned. Certainly alarming but not as much as the snowstorms in and around the city in the middle of summer. Our party decided to hole up in the ground floor of one of the abandoned buildings for the night but keep watches like you do when your party camps out in the wilderness. During the Paladin's watch she spots more Dretch demons than she can count prowling the streets, the DM offered the paladin a chance to hide but she refused and ended up giving away the party's position. When fighting the demons started to go badly the paladin told the rest of the party to retreat while she fight the demons, the party did so except for the Druid who for some reason wanted to stay and fight some demons too. Eventually the Dretches overwhelmed and killed the paladin and the druid both.
At the time this happened it really upset me because it forced the party into an encounter that we were poorly prepared for and at a huge disadvantage and cost us both healers. I told the Paladin's player that choosing to hide and quietly moving the party to somewhere safer would probably been a lot smarter. The player said that while that's true, doing so would be cowardly and therefore against the Paladin's code. After that I probably said some things in the heat of the moment that I really should apologize for.

Elvenoutrider
2013-02-28, 02:28 PM
Ive had more problems with druids than paladins

"Oh this plot in no way endangers my own forest, thanks Im going to go do my own thing"

followed by them getting mad that my adventure , that they knew the setting of and characters in advance, was not completely tailored to them.


Make characters that can be motivated to contribute to an adventure

Grod_The_Giant
2013-02-28, 03:35 PM
Make characters that can be motivated to contribute to an adventure

This deserves repetition as a hugely important piece of roleplaying advice. I'd add "and work with the rest of the party" to the end, which would honestly cover so many issues.

Guizonde
2013-02-28, 04:49 PM
One thing that got mentioned earlier, which kinda irked me. The idea that a Paladin isn't allowed to run away. This doesn't just not make sense, it's even false according to some resources. I recall explicit rules about it in the old Paladin's Handbook, which pointed out that a Paladin is not expressly forced to Fight To The Death anytime something evil comes around.

I know people still like to rule it. Hardass DMs want to make you Fall if you show such "cowardice" like my level 2 Paladin running away from a Balor. But it doesn't make sense. Shouldn't even require some sort of "Grey Guard" exception to the rules for you to run away if needed.

"Paladin... not stupid..." a Paladin is going to know if they can't win a fight. If they can't win a fight (Or effect an enemy long term enough to matter in it's eventual downfall), then all that throwing his/her own life away is going to do is guarantee the Paladin can no longer do good. His/her code might require something like not trying to trip the party rogue so that the Rogue is the "last one" there and getting munched on while everyone else is getting away. It might even require that the Paladin fights a temporary rear guard action to make sure that a crippled ally gets enough of a lead to be able to escape. But the Code shouldn't mean Suicidal. You can't do a lot of good if you're in the belly of some Ancient Red Dragon that you happened to run into when you were level 1.


... great, now i wanna roll a guerilla paladin. it's not running away: it's called prolonged battle. it's not fear: it's called reverse psychology. it's not hiding: it's called an ambush...

and let's kit him out in something completely out there. like a ranger's battle garb, with camo cloak and everything. give him a dour personnality (possibly deadpan snarker), and a russian accent? spanish? yiddish? something really hilarious when compared to the serious of the paladin.

why shouldn't paladins enjoy hit and run tactics? it could be really effective too, especially as a warband leader. :smallsmile:

ArcturusV
2013-02-28, 04:58 PM
There's no reason why it couldn't work. :smallbiggrin: I did similar things before with a mounted combat Paladin who was entirely based off skirmish and harrassment tactics. He didn't just blindly charged he, he harried and wore down the enemy until they were tired, weak, and having trouble keeping up, where he'd finally put the lance into them.

Incom
2013-02-28, 06:19 PM
"Guerrilla tactics are the most effective way to destroy evil, obviously. Repeat after me: I'm a paladin, not an idiot. I'm a paladin, not an idiot. I'm a paladin..."

Coidzor
2013-03-01, 02:06 AM
why shouldn't paladins enjoy hit and run tactics? it could be really effective too, especially as a warband leader. :smallsmile:

I believe that's, what, 9/10ths of smallfolk paladins. The other 1/10ths are the halflings riding around on supermounts.

Scorpier
2013-03-01, 11:50 AM
One thing that got mentioned earlier, which kinda irked me. The idea that a Paladin isn't allowed to run away.
Agree completely. However, I ran one when the party was attacked by a young red dragon. Not a pushover for where they were at, but nothing impossible, either. So, the paladin runs away from a red dragon, leaving the party to fight. (The party had a ship about a mile away with a full crew of soldiers) Granted, he had the fastest movement speed at the time, but my problem was that he, as the paladin, should be leading the fight on the dragon, not running to warn the others. He didn't fall for that, but he was in poor standing afterwards. Truth be told he was bad as a paladin and ended up falling anyway.

Joe the Rat
2013-03-01, 01:28 PM
It makes sense for the fastest one to get help, and he was best suited to it - but it's not the kind of thing a Paladin should consider as first course of action. They don't have to be stupid about what they do, but they should be the first in if that is what is needed. (And a mile away? That's a lot of combat rounds for a round trip.)

It sounds like the consensus is not limiting them in terms of mechanics, but of player ability. It can be a challenging class to play. Not everyone is up to the challenge. I don't think I am.


... great, now i wanna roll a guerilla paladin. it's not running away: it's called prolonged battle. it's not fear: it's called reverse psychology. it's not hiding: it's called an ambush...

and let's kit him out in something completely out there. like a ranger's battle garb, with camo cloak and everything. give him a dour personnality (possibly deadpan snarker), and a russian accent? spanish? yiddish? something really hilarious when compared to the serious of the paladin.

Sounds a bit like Sanya from the Dresden Files series. DourRussian pragmatic paladin-type with a holy sword, troubled past, and automatic weapons. Also an atheist. (I'd add snarky, but for that setting he's slightly below the snarks-per-line average).

ArcturusV
2013-03-01, 01:35 PM
Depends on situation particulars too. If whatever was left behind was enough to hold off (but not defeat) the enemy, then running for reinforcements, and sending the fastest one so there's less possible time for the situation to change decisively against your team makes sense.

It also makes sense if the Paladin takes the frontline to hold off the enemy and distract it as long as possible so the team can withdraw... then the Paladin withdraws under long range cover from the team, etc. So everyone goes back to the boat.

I mean so many of those things are so situational (And detail) specific.

Lord Torath
2013-03-01, 02:33 PM
One thing that got mentioned earlier, which kinda irked me. The idea that a Paladin isn't allowed to run away. This doesn't just not make sense, it's even false according to some resources. I recall explicit rules about it in the old Paladin's Handbook, which pointed out that a Paladin is not expressly forced to Fight To The Death anytime something evil comes around.

I know people still like to rule it. Hardass DMs want to make you Fall if you show such "cowardice" like my level 2 Paladin running away from a Balor. But it doesn't make sense. Shouldn't even require some sort of "Grey Guard" exception to the rules for you to run away if needed.

"Paladin... not stupid..." a Paladin is going to know if they can't win a fight. If they can't win a fight (Or effect an enemy long term enough to matter in it's eventual downfall), then all that throwing his/her own life away is going to do is guarantee the Paladin can no longer do good. His/her code might require something like not trying to trip the party rogue so that the Rogue is the "last one" there and getting munched on while everyone else is getting away. It might even require that the Paladin fights a temporary rear guard action to make sure that a crippled ally gets enough of a lead to be able to escape. But the Code shouldn't mean Suicidal. You can't do a lot of good if you're in the belly of some Ancient Red Dragon that you happened to run into when you were level 1.

When I rolled well enough to create a Paladin character (under the watchful eye of my DM), my DM explicitly said that part of my Code was valuing my own life. You can't help anyone if you're dead. He also constantly encouraged me to be clever and canny in dealing with opponents. He told me that they would be quite devious, and I would need to do more than step forward and challenge them in the middle of an open field.

Seriously, how many times do I need to go over the "Good, not Dumb" thing? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html)

hamishspence
2013-03-01, 02:36 PM
When I rolled well enough to create a Paladin character (under the watchful eye of my DM), my DM explicitly said that part of my Code was valuing my own life. You can't help anyone if you're dead.

Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a) says something similar.


Should a paladin sacrifice herself to save others? In the broadest sense, yes, since doing so is the ultimate act of good. However, she must also have enough respect for her own life and ability to make sure that her sacrifice brings about a significant benefit for others. A paladin who holds the only key to saving the world should not sacrifice herself needlessly against an orc horde. As long as the paladin keeps the greater good in mind, she is adhering to her code.

Deepbluediver
2013-03-01, 03:09 PM
My groups always played with the rule that the DM had to approve all character concepts prior to game-start, so just because something was book-legal didn't mean you'd get to use it in the game.

I know that the appeal of D&D is that your options are (supposedly) limitless and you can do whatever you want, but even then there need to be reasonable limits if you want to tell a coherent story.
and not have the rest of the table pelt you with dice :P

From this, I tend to promote the idea that any player who wants to game as a paladin (or other roleplay-heavy class) should discuss it first with the DM (who represents the in-game de facto gods), so that both sides have some idea of what to expect from the other. In that sense, yes, it should be restricted to players who the DM thinks can handle the roleplaying aspects responsibly, and the player understands how tightly they will be bound to their oath and how easy it is to fall/avoid falling.


Plus, I've always supported the idea that "good" dieties understand things like kindness, mercy, justice, forgiveness, etc, so they don't go around purposefully yanking on the chain of their sworn servants. So for example, none of the "you fled from the thousand-strong orc horde, which was a totally logical move, but since paladins never flee, you fall" gotcha-crap.

Now evil dieties on the other hand....well, lets just say that there is good reason why the idea of an evil "paladin" would get you weird looks from just about any NPC in any game I ever ran.

Scorpier
2013-03-04, 08:05 AM
Depends on situation particulars too. If whatever was left behind was enough to hold off (but not defeat) the enemy, then running for reinforcements, and sending the fastest one so there's less possible time for the situation to change decisively against your team makes sense.

It also makes sense if the Paladin takes the frontline to hold off the enemy and distract it as long as possible so the team can withdraw... then the Paladin withdraws under long range cover from the team, etc. So everyone goes back to the boat.

I mean so many of those things are so situational (And detail) specific.

As I said, the player wasn't the best at playing a paladin, and it showed (from almost attacking a captive to challenging one of the archpaladins of the order on something he knew little about.

As for the fight itself, well, the party was far from outmatched. Sending someone back wouldn't have been a horrible plan, but the party also had a druid who could have sent a message back, or even gone himself. The paladin (It was a paladin of Torm, Faerun campaign) didn't even say anything, the player just said "I run in the direction of the ship." This player isn't the most creative when it comes to role play, but that's more a personal issue than a class issue of the Paladin.

Synovia
2013-03-04, 09:36 AM
I wouldn't have any problem with that. He decided what he thought was the greater good (getting help), and acted on it.

Scorpier
2013-03-06, 07:47 AM
I wouldn't have any problem with that. He decided what he thought was the greater good (getting help), and acted on it.

How about attacking an unarmed captive?

Synovia
2013-03-06, 08:08 AM
How about attacking an unarmed captive?

I think that would be pretty tough to justify.

Running for reinforcements though? Without a doubt.

elliott20
2013-03-06, 11:27 AM
The problem with the paladin is really one of conflict resolution. The point of playing a paladin is to be paragon of truth and justice. You're supposed to be inspiring others to be better. You're supposed to be trying your best to do good. It's SUPPOSED to be challenging. The problem is that most players are not adept enough at conflicting resolution to persuade others to follow their lead. Most of us, after all, do not have an 18 charisma. So the paladin now has to lead by force, which is a terrible way of doing it. Someone brought up Superman as an example of a paladin-like morals. that's actually a really good example to look to, both good and bad. Anybody remembers Superman in Kingdom Come by Alex Ross? In an effort to quell the super human battles across the land, he ends up running a fascist regime as a result. That's EXACTLY what happens to paladins.

And yet ironically, it is that moral struggle that is supposed to make paladins fun to play. You have the ability to lose your paladinhood PRECISELY so you can at some point lose it and either regain it or become something else. GMs who decide to use that as a punishment rather than as a tool for more plot ideas is wasting a great opportunity here.

This is, in the end, all about how you handle conflict within the group. It's not just about maturity, though that is a big part of it. It's about finding a way for the player who doesn't actually have the 18 charisma to BE charismatic. It's about giving guidelines to players on HOW their morals guide them and how they can use that to justify their actions. And it's about not shying away from interparty conflict, but giving people guidelines how to resolve it.

Games like Burning Wheel have duel of wits mechanics for this precise reason. It's an in-game negotiation mechanism between players to figure out how to compromise their character actions. (Or failing to do that, escalate the conflict) But the premise of the whole thing is that the game assumes that interparty conflict is OK as long as people can resolve it.

ArcturusV
2013-03-06, 02:59 PM
I've never been a fan of breaking out dice for PC to PC interactions. I mean if someone is really at a loggerhead and that just cannot resolve it any other way, sure. But it's not how it tends to get used in my experience. What it does tend to do is the one character who is really invested in those skills (Or the guy with the really lucky dice) uses those skills to basically bully the rest of the party into doing what he says in a "more acceptable" fashion. Or at least one that he can lord over them in more concrete terms than "But we all agreed!".

It's been such a problem in my games that I had to rule out PC on PC social skills with the caveat "Unless it is strictly for the good of both PCs". Which most of them didn't really understand but was a loophole I allowed so that, say a "Face" type character could take a creature which was shaken or under a fear effect and Intimidate them back to action "YOU GET BACK IN THERE OR I'LL KILL YA MYSELF!" sort of inspiration to overcome the fear effect, or inspiring greatness with Leadership skills, etc.

The one thing I didn't want happening is the one thing that always ended up happening when the guy with the social skills realized he could use it on PCs. "I use my Diplomacy to make that other PC give me his super special awesome loot in such a way he gladly hands it over to me for nothing."

:smallsigh:

mangosta71
2013-03-06, 03:17 PM
This is one of the things I like about 4e - paladins aren't restricted to LG; rather they have the same alignment as the deity they serve. I houserule 3.5 games the same way. This means there's a fairly extensive list of class features that may receive minor alterations to fit the theme of the deity that the paladin serves, but overall I think it makes the class more interesting and fun for my players.

elliott20
2013-03-06, 06:55 PM
I've never been a fan of breaking out dice for PC to PC interactions. I mean if someone is really at a loggerhead and that just cannot resolve it any other way, sure. But it's not how it tends to get used in my experience. What it does tend to do is the one character who is really invested in those skills (Or the guy with the really lucky dice) uses those skills to basically bully the rest of the party into doing what he says in a "more acceptable" fashion. Or at least one that he can lord over them in more concrete terms than "But we all agreed!".

It's been such a problem in my games that I had to rule out PC on PC social skills with the caveat "Unless it is strictly for the good of both PCs". Which most of them didn't really understand but was a loophole I allowed so that, say a "Face" type character could take a creature which was shaken or under a fear effect and Intimidate them back to action "YOU GET BACK IN THERE OR I'LL KILL YA MYSELF!" sort of inspiration to overcome the fear effect, or inspiring greatness with Leadership skills, etc.

The one thing I didn't want happening is the one thing that always ended up happening when the guy with the social skills realized he could use it on PCs. "I use my Diplomacy to make that other PC give me his super special awesome loot in such a way he gladly hands it over to me for nothing."

:smallsigh:
Well, that's only an issue if the system you're using was put together poorly for it AND if the players in questions are willing to be total jerks about it.

You have to remember, this is social conflict mechanics, not mind control. As such, you can't just FORCE the other characters into social conflict in the same way you force someone into combat. In most games that handles social conflict well, there is generally ways in which you can avoid social conflicts. i.e. in Burning Empires, in order to enter a social conflict, both sides have to agree to it first. In order to do so, both sides need to be able to have an upside for it. And if the terms are not agreeable, one side can simply say no and walk away, or you can escalate. i.e. if you were eyeing my loot and you start trying to goad me into a social conflict, I have two options. 1. put up stakes that is so ridiculously one sided in my favor you risk losing a lot or 2. I say, "dude, quit bugging me about this or I will punch you" or 3. pick up my stuff and walk away.

Granted, this still requires a certain level of social contracts to be in place, but no more than any normal D&D game.

Devonix
2013-03-06, 07:41 PM
One of the differences between Paladins and other classes is that you cannot choose to become a paladin, you are chosen.

You cannot train for it, you cannot become go to a monistary and become one the way you can become a cleric.

either a diety or force grants you paladin hood or you don't become one. That has certain things you need to uphold.

FFKonoko
2013-03-08, 05:53 AM
"a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."

I've always wondered about that, because people act like this is a big thing specifically about paladins. But if you're roleplaying someone as lawful good, of any class, and there's another guy in the group that consistantly offends your morals with evil actions, there'd have to be a damn good reason why you still hang out with them when you know they're just going to be wantonly murdering innocents in front of you or such. So, it's not "oh, they stole something, I must roll attack or leave", but a consistant, persistant series of actions that are morally reprehensible to your characters alignment.
Times to say "Hey, I don't like it when you do that" and "This is wrong". If the other character just HAS to do the stuff that the paladins code doesn't approve of, then the paladin isn't the only one that's being played rigidly.

I would have said that the other key word, is knowingly, so there is no reason why one couldn't actually expect the rogue to recognize that there is a paladin in the group and try to be sneaky about it and do it so the paladin doesn't know. Though, detect evil could potentially quash that.

elliott20
2013-03-08, 10:37 AM
Isn't detect evil supposed to something that is considered an incredible invasion of privacy though? I imagine that people who know that paladin is actively scanning them would come to distrust the paladin for it.

hamishspence
2013-03-08, 10:39 AM
In 2nd ed certainly.

I'd probably go with it applying in 3rd ed as well- with paladins taking the approach that they need a very good reason- they can't just go around Detecting at the drop of a hat.

elliott20
2013-03-08, 10:44 AM
Yeah, this was something I brought up in last nights game. (My first D&D game in close to 10 years!) Basically, one of the paladins is trying to root out potential traitors of an empire within the palace, so he went around trying to detect evil left and right. I told him that it was a grave invasion of people's privacy and that while they would not stop him from doing so (he was given the title of inquisitor general before), they were incredibly uncomfortable with it, resulting in a nice -2 to his diplomacy checks for the remainder of the session. (And this will continue until he does something to fix his reputation in the palace)

Guizonde
2013-03-08, 11:57 AM
In 2nd ed certainly.

I'd probably go with it applying in 3rd ed as well- with paladins taking the approach that they need a very good reason- they can't just go around Detecting at the drop of a hat.

i didn't know that was gone in 3.5. i cast detect evil willy nilly with my cleric mostly to see if we're surrounded or if enemies are nearby, but i got called on it when i cast it on the newest party member, who's got black dragon lineage. when my dm asked why, i said it was completely normal for my character who was fast becoming paranoid, and seeing black scales i felt justified to cast it (turns out he's LN)... however, just casting it at him made for the entire tavern to flee as the barkeep attacked us, trying to hide his secret...

with great snooping comes great responsibilities i guess. must be a pretty common houserule from dm's who got started on 2nd edition

hamishspence
2013-03-08, 12:24 PM
It's more that 3.5 book don't specifically call out Detecting Evil without provocation as highly offensive.

Plenty of room for the DM to do so, though.

Synovia
2013-03-08, 01:26 PM
You don't really cast detect evil on something though... there's really no way someone would know you had it up if they didn't see you cast it.

Lord Torath
2013-03-08, 05:04 PM
Yes, Detecting Evil Intent is not an elaborate ritual. All you (the Paladin) need to do is concentrate on someone for about a minute (2nd Edition, anyway). There are no verbal or material components, and the only somatic component is to direct your eyes at your target for 1 round. If someone else is doing the talking, you can freely use it on anyone around you without arousing suspicion. Unless, of course, you're eyes are supposed to be directed at a particular person (if everyone else is watching the king, you probably should be too).

I think something important to remember (for those playing Paladins) is that Being Evil is not a crime. There is no law against having an evil alignment. You can't kill someone just because they ping "evil". You can certainly kill someone in the middle of an evil act (depending on the level of evilness, of course), but you can't walk around offing people because your EvilDar went off. Even in D&D, you (and others) are judged for Actions, not Thoughts.

Guizonde
2013-03-08, 09:07 PM
Yes, Detecting Evil Intent is not an elaborate ritual. All you (the Paladin) need to do is concentrate on someone for about a minute (2nd Edition, anyway). There are no verbal or material components, and the only somatic component is to direct your eyes at your target for 1 round. If someone else is doing the talking, you can freely use it on anyone around you without arousing suspicion. Unless, of course, you're eyes are supposed to be directed at a particular person (if everyone else is watching the king, you probably should be too).

I think something important to remember (for those playing Paladins) is that Being Evil is not a crime. There is no law against having an evil alignment. You can't kill someone just because they ping "evil". You can certainly kill someone in the middle of an evil act (depending on the level of evilness, of course), but you can't walk around offing people because your EvilDar went off. Even in D&D, you (and others) are judged for Actions, not Thoughts.

the way we play it, if they see you cast it, they know it. so for my cleric (stupid ban on paladins for me...), in one session i had to discreetly cast it (1 roll), then scan the tavern (like 4 discretion rolls). it was less to get the drop on the evil guys rather than sense where danger could be coming from. yes, it was a cthulu-esque session in terms of paranoia. i (unbelievably) aced my rolls, and found that we were both surrounded by evil (predictable), and that no one in the tavern was about to attack us. however, something that pinged was that all our alignments had been reversed (i was CG, i became LE, etc). thus the plot thickened.
perhaps it's me and my gaming group, but we see "detect evil" more as a warning spell than an offensive spell. it's mandatory if you've got spare slots, even if it's to blanket your immediate surroundings, which is most likely homebrew, seeing as it's at least a 24 minute [3minx8directions] casting period, but if it's for roleplay reasons, no sense letting just the skillmonkeys have a real eye look if you can have a divine eye on things.

elliott20
2013-03-08, 10:23 PM
well, the fluff text is not very clear on the matter. The way we handled it, we assume that using the paladin's detect evil ability involves some displace of divine energy. It might not be elaborate, but it's visible.