Why all the hating on the paladin? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

BowStreetRunner

2013-07-18, 08:43 AM

I've noticed an apparent trend (I say apparent because as a professional analyst I cannot swear this is a true trend without solid data to support my assumption) where DMs seem to all want to force PC Paladins to fall. I have never seen similar threads on how to force a Barbarian or a Bard to turn lawful; cause a druid to become non-neutral, stop revering nature, or teach the druidic language to a non-druid; force a Monk to become nonlawful; or even force a cleric to violate his god's code of conduct. For that matter, there aren't a lot of DMs out there asking how to force an arcane caster or rogue to walk around wearing heavy armor with a huge ASF/ACP, or any other silliness about how to ruin a player's character for him.

So why all the hating on the paladin?

Of course, my personal feelings on the matter is that when a DM agrees to allow a character in a role-playing game, that constitutes a sort of contract between the DM and the player. The player has agreed to play his role within the defined boundaries of the given character, certainly. But the DM, by allowing the character in the game without any stated objections, has tacitly agreed to let the player play within that context. To then go and force the player into another choice (no, you can't play a paladin you can only play a fallen paladin) is a betrayal on the part of the DM that would cause most players to severely resent the DM.

Now, keep in mind that when the player selects a class that has restrictions they accept the fact they will have to face moral dilemmas along the way - that just comes with the territory. But a dilemma with awful consequences is not the same as a no-win situation. It's one thing to put the paladin in a situation where falling (and later atoning) seems like the better option - that's actually decent storytelling and role-playing. It's quite another to put them in a situation where they will fall regardless of what they do - not that I believe such a situation is normally even possible (it's more likely just a matter of the DM not truly understanding the nature of the choices).

Yet I regularly see DM's posting the question of how to force the paladin into a choice whose outcome is fall/fall. Personally, if a DM tried this with me I would probably walk out of the game. If the DM wanted me to play another character, he should have said so at the outset, not allowed me to play a paladin and then taken that away from me. (In fact, the one time a DM did force my character to change without my permission I did walk out of the game - but that was turning a wookie into a space-whale in another system.)

So, to reiterate my previous question: why all the hating on the paladin?

Coidzor

2013-07-18, 08:49 AM

Paladins become, even more so than Clerics, surrogates for IRL religions, so that's one particular aspect that we can't really get into more than mentioning that it does come up.

Paladins are supposed to be champions for good but unless they're Supermount builds, they're kind of underwhelming and unable to really fill that role.

They have the most strict set of rules for stripping them of their powers and the most emphasis on living by a code as a base class, which is why DMs and groups are able to do it at all without inventing houserules. Hell, there's even a risk that just simple play friction will lead to a fall with no intended malice just the way the group interprets things or even their understanding of alignment. It's kind of silly, but accidentally having the Paladin fall is a theme that comes out in threads discussing it, though it's not as interesting or memorable as crapsack DMs & settings.

NichG

2013-07-18, 09:08 AM

This is all speculation, but I could see a number of things that would drive people to in particular do this to the paladin:

- The rules provide a quick source of cheap drama, so the GM seizes on it because they think, hey, drama, thats my job right? This is roughly equivalent to the knee jerk GMing tactic of 'you have a backstory, so everyone important in it is getting kidnapped' to generate drama, which just ends up getting players to play orphans.

- The GM actually dislikes the Paladin class but for whatever reason won't or can't just say 'hey guys, no Paladins' so does the passive aggressive thing of 'if I can't ban it I'll just make it unplayable'.

- The GM runs a very GM-vs-players style of game. The paladin will fall, the wizard's spellbook will get destroyed or stolen, party gear will be disjuncted, sundered, or eaten by rust monsters, etc.

- Its a Ravenloft campaign.

The Trickster

2013-07-18, 09:08 AM

Vedhin

2013-07-18, 09:08 AM

It's partially because the books have so many rules about Palsdins, their code of conduct, and falling. There is the basic section on falling, and also PrCs like the Blackguard and Gray Guard that have special rules that interact with falling.

Then there are situations where the DM is angry with the players for some reason, and wants to take it out on them. The aforementioned rules on falling give such DMs an easy method of revenge-- just make the Paladin fall!

Also, there is the misconception that the code of conduct is supposed to primarily be a drawback. It's not. It is supposed to provide roleplaying opportunites, and occasionally force the Paladin into making a subpar choice. Not a wreck-your-character choice, but a subpar choice. The code of conduct is also helpful for DMs who have parties that ignore all their adventure hooks, as the Paladin is supposed to help people in need and such.

Terazul

2013-07-18, 09:22 AM

Not to mention every DM has a different idea of what Lawful Good incorporates; Or just alignment in general. Personal views get mixed in with what they constitute as good/evil with what the game constitutes as Good/Evil, and then things just start going downhill from there. Furthermore in terms of what constitutes "grossly violating his code", since they're supposed to be supreme beacons of Good and all that, so the minute they slip even slightly people seem to want to go "oh look you have a code that says you can't mess up FALL", which is just so plain silly for me. There's alot of "Well I wouldn't do that as a Paladin", etc etc. The entire point of the Paladin is that you're striving to be a paragon of virtue, but you're still (probably) just a mortal like everyone else; You try to do good because you want to, not because you have to.

The falling thing, I feel, is more supposed to be reserved for times where you seriously mess up of your own accord, perhaps putting something above the greater good for personal gain by accident, or otherwise seriously messing up. You sit, you atone, you meditate, and then you learn from your mistakes and try again. It's supposed to contribute to an interesting roleplaying experience, but usually just results in conflict and trying to screw the player over, from what I've seen.

And this is why I just play Clerics and call it a day.

Blas_de_Lezo

2013-07-18, 09:57 AM

Paladins look like fascists. Paladins behave like fascists.

If you google for "fascist paladin lackeys" you'll find the Sapphire Guard... :smallamused:

Soon knew it, and acted in consecuence, protecting Azure City from the secret military-police known as Sapphire Guard (and finally he was brutally muredered by a fundamentalist paladin).

Drachasor

2013-07-18, 10:07 AM

Deathkeeper

2013-07-18, 10:16 AM

The only time I've seen this in my games was one time my GM set up a cleric to fall. This was mostly due to the player being incredibly rude and even then there was an obvious way out he didn't take.

Nowadays, I have the opposite problem. My GM refuses to enforce any of the codes on the Paladin of the party and the player has begun assuming he's always right and it's gotten to the point where he has actually lectured me for being hostile to creatures that were pinging on his Detect Evil.

Eldonauran

2013-07-18, 10:21 AM

I think its just instinctual human rebellion at work. That's an opinion, mind you. The Paladin class has built in limitations and people want to get around them or put those limitations through the guantlet to see if it holds up or crumbles under the pressure.

Differing opinion on what Good and Lawful means doesn't help the matter either. I see it as an partially inability to suspend real world beliefs and adopt the in game mindset that is needed to get the most out of the alignment system. While no human desgined system is going to be flawless, I still start with the assumption that the alignment system works as designed and any additional information I pick up on it (with BoED) is subject to revision if it doesn't fit right away. An example would be Poison vs Ravages. There are a number of non-mechanical ways to bridge the rift these two substances create in the alignment system. Mostly fluff and roleplaying but that doesn't mean its a contradiction. Not everything is a numerical system of checks and balances, or if/then true statements.

Novawurmson

2013-07-18, 10:23 AM

Excellent points all around.

1. Coidzor brought up that paladins are seen as surrogates for real religions, most of which try to set themselves up as "always right about everything." There is a sullen joy in pointing out the cracks in someone who thinks they're doing the right thing.

2. NichG brings up what I've seen more often: It's easy "character development." A rogue deciding to wear heavy armor isn't making a moral choice and certainly isn't making an important life decision (unless he fails an important reflex save because he no longer has evasion). A barbarian settling down and becoming an accountant and a member of the PTA, while hilarious, isn't likely to happen over the course of a campaign and isn't particularly dramatic. Even a monk losing control and becoming chaotic isn't as gripping as "THE PERFECT PARAGON OF GOOD AND RIGHTEOUSNESS HAS BECOME...EVIL."

3. PurpleNurple also hits the nail on the head by quoting the "single evil act" bit. A barbarian doesn't "fall" if he commits a "single lawful act." A wizard doesn't lose his magical powers if he forgets his spell book in the bar once. A cleric of Asmodeus doesn't lose his powers if he pets a kitten once.

Drachasor

2013-07-18, 10:23 AM

Nowadays, I have the opposite problem. My GM refuses to enforce any of the codes on the Paladin of the party and the player has begun assuming he's always right and it's gotten to the point where he has actually lectured me for being hostile to creatures that were pinging on his Detect Evil.

Just curious, but what sort of hostility are we talking about here?

CaladanMoonblad

2013-07-18, 10:26 AM

Is it really the GMs who are rooting for a Pally to fall?

Or is it that their players can't really play a Pally well?

I have a Pally in the current group that I GM for; a female Dwarf Fighter, a male Human Paladin of Heironeous, a female Human Rogue, a male Human Ranger/Fighter/Wizard/Shadowdancer, a male Dwarf Cleric/Wizard/Theurge, a male Human Barbarian/Fighter, etc.

Anyway, the Pally is a rebuild from a half-orc Monk because we use 3.5, and Monk equipment is expensive, and the older character was lagging behind, and was inappropriate for the next leg of the campaign (the Far North, think Skyrim). So a Pally is what I suggested (complete with Pegasus), since the player is also a fellow GM, and this person has never played a Pally... and by far the Pally is the most fun around.

While everyone else wants to sneak around, the Pally walks straight up to the guards and smiles. When everyone else wants to lie and cheat, the Pally is true to his word... and by doing the "right thing" I as GM reward the player for remaining true to the character concept by having him get the "Okay, you're fine, nothing to see here, next!" The Pally isn't the smartest tool in the shed, but boy, does his teeth gleam, and don't the NPCs fawn over him and his high charisma! Even when the heroes first entered a private town run by a corporation that had outlawed divine magic, instead of trying to dodge his tail (who worked for the corrupt Sheriff), the Paladin instead talked with the fellow, learned all about his life, and made a convert to Heironeous.

So far, the Pally is fairly gullible to the Rogue's sense of humor; he believes that Mastodons breathe fire as a natural ability, among other things. By far, all of our players love the Pally's character.

Now, what about a new player who is susceptible to a game where there are no real life consequences for actions, where the police are not going to knock on your door because you rolled dice and fried an imaginary peasant with a Fiery Hand of Doom? Yeah, it takes a great player to play a Paladin.

Nagukuk

2013-07-18, 10:27 AM

I believe and agree with the above posts that the RULES have much to do with it.

There are in depth rules about falling and as such the DM feels as if he/she must use the rules. The small blurbs about alinement and what not, make this not so with the other classes.

You may notice in certain circles the Wiz - Familiar is a similar type subject first reaction... oh you have a familiar!!! , well you know if it dies you - X ...

First reaction is not even what kind of familiar and or what can it do...

Paladin first reaction = "Lawful Stupid" and of course must be tested every minute of every adventure to see if he/she will fall...

Heck, you can almost lump these situations in with the "My DM/Fellow player, is being a jerk tell me how show them and shut them up." OR "this player killed me how do I make a new character that can kill/get revenge on his current one?" --Posts

Gerrtt

2013-07-18, 10:28 AM

I'd say it comes from two things:

1) The paladin, compared to other classes (with the exception of the barbarian who loses the ability to rage) loses everything that their class had to offer them for being a member of that class when they fall. It hurts bad; and some DM's out there (you know who you are) like to make their players suffer.

2) Those same DM's tend to equate rail-roading with good story-telling/writing. "Look at my awesome story where the paladin falls and then has to work really hard to get his powers back, and is ultimately the champion who saves the day against all odds. Did I mention you basically get to play a fighter with no bonus feats for the whole campaign?"

Yes; the paladin can fall. Yes; there could be a really cool story that comes out of a paladin falling and then questing to regain their powers. But unless your player signs on for something like that you're really doing them a disservice by going out of your way with all kinds of poorly written legal loop holes and manipulation to force them to fall.

SethoMarkus

2013-07-18, 10:53 AM

3. PurpleNurple also hits the nail on the head by quoting the "single evil act" bit. A barbarian doesn't "fall" if he commits a "single lawful act." A wizard doesn't lose his magical powers if he forgets his spell book in the bar once. A cleric of Asmodeus doesn't lose his powers if he pets a kitten once.

And a druid loses all of their supernatural abilities for a whole day if they pick up too much metal. I have yet to see anyone complain about their DM stripping their druid of their abilities for carrying a suit of metal armor or holding more than 1 (metal) sword at a time.

I don't disagree that a paladin makes an easier target in most cases, but I do think it has more to do with the other points rather than the "single act" clause, especially since the act has to be willfully committed, which implies that there had to be non-evil alternatives that were neglected (barring inaction).

ArqArturo

2013-07-18, 11:16 AM

I'm gonna have to disagree with the sentiment of the 'I hate paladins' because it's quite the opposite.

I like paladins, they make for great tanks when nicely built, they have interesting abilities (replicated by PrCs, but the pally gets them as a base class), they function well, and as a DM tool, they're great babysitters (in which case players hate the paladin).

EDIT: Also, a Paladin/Shugenja/Fist of Raziel makes for an excellent divine gish.

However, me playing as a paladin/crusader (broken like no other can be), the alignment and the code can be... Troublesome. Especially when the general alignment of the entire party is Chaotic Neutral (borderline evil in the case of one player). Hey, it's not my fault I don't like pillaging the countryside.

I guess is, as a player, I always tend towards Good. Even in an Evil campaign, me as a blackguard, I fell from the grace of Hextor, and became a paladin (holy reversal).

Segev

2013-07-18, 11:29 AM

In the "why don't we ever see questions on making Barbarians or Monks 'fall'" category...

One of these years, I want to play a youth who grew up in the wilds as a Barbarian and had some serious anger issues when he was taken in by a monastery. There, he learned self-control through sometimes-painful lessons, but likes himself much better now that he is more self-aware.

It'd be tricky to start this one as a level 1 character due to the desire for his first level to be Barbarian and the rest to be Monk. But starting at 2nd level would work fine. Lawful (Good or Neutral, either works) alignment, he might even have a cross-class rank of Autohypnosis just to help him control the anger that his lifetime of training to survive the wilds (or other possible backstory elements that I have not specifically come up with, yet) ingrained in him.

He is always watching himself, striving not to lose control. He knows that he'd be stronger and tougher if he did, but that's a crutch and comes at too high a price.

I'd play it not as "he can't rage because he's Lawful" but rather as "if he rages, he loses his Lawful alignment."

So, at least one character concept where the thought of "Falling" comes up.

Unrelated, but I recently thought about suggesting to the Barbarian Half-Orc's player that her obsession with fighting bears might mean it'd be interesting if she ran afoul of a werebear. However, succombing to that particular Curse of Lycanthropy would set her alignment to LG (it's currently CG), and...well, that WOULD be a "fall" for a Barbarian.

Pickford

2013-07-18, 11:39 AM

I wouldn't say they "want" paladins to fall. It probably has more to do with the Paladins code;

This leads to debates on what an "evil act" is, and what would cause a paladin to fall.

I would say that putting your player in a no-win situation makes you a real jerk as a DM, but I'm not sure anyone really denies that.

I'd say the problem is that some, and the DMs who think there's such a thing as a no-win situation for the Paladin are in this category, do not comprehend what an act is or what evil is (as defined in the game terms) and thus are willing to break the rules to adhere to their personal definition of those terms.

Hence, you get some who think Lawful Good = Uncaring Authoritarian. (Hint: This is Lawful Neutral) or sanctimonious jerk (Hint: Lawful Evil) and others who seem to think Chaotic Good means murdering your prisoners if they happen to be evil is ok. (We have someone like this in our party.)

If the Paladin being a paladin is a major part of your story however, it's just logical to present them with wrongs to be righted...the issue is when your Paladin doesn't understand 'how' to right those wrongs without resorting to evil tactics. The downfall is, from what I've seen, when Good is mistakenly conflated with Efficient. (i.e. The ends justifies the means...it does not.)

Palanan

2013-07-18, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by BowStreetRunner
I've noticed an apparent trend...where DMs seem to all want to force PC Paladins to fall. I have never seen similar threads on how to force a Barbarian or a Bard to turn lawful...or any other silliness about how to ruin a player's character for him.

Let me just comment that there may be something of a selection effect here, at least as far as what you're observing through the filter of the Playground. Players who have had frustrating experiences with DMs targeting their paladins are much more likely to bring it to the Playground than players who've run paladins successfully with DMs who uphold the contract.

Likewise, DMs who are okay with paladins in their games, and who don't feel the need to force them into a moral mud-wallow, aren't likely to post threads about how to help their paladins stay on the high road. Not saying you aren't seeing the cases that you are, but there may be more successful paladins out there who we're not hearing about.

That said, however....

Originally Posted by BowStreetRunner
Yet I regularly see DM's posting the question of how to force the paladin into a choice whose outcome is fall/fall. Personally, if a DM tried this with me I would probably walk out of the game.

I agree with you on the latter point. If a DM set up that kind of situation, specifically as a metagame snark to ruin my paladin no matter what, I'd almost certainly leave the game.

Originally Posted by NichG
The GM runs a very GM-vs-players style of game. The paladin will fall, the wizard's spellbook will get destroyed or stolen, party gear will be disjuncted, sundered, or eaten by rust monsters, etc.

...And this is probably a large part of it as well. I've never liked the adversarial approach to running a game, but some DMs take the quick and easy path.

Originally Posted by Eldonauran
I think its just instinctual human rebellion at work. That's an opinion, mind you. The Paladin class has built in limitations and people want to get around them or put those limitations through the guantlet to see if it holds up or crumbles under the pressure.

...and a dollop of this as well, especially with inexperienced and/or less mature DMs.

Originally Posted by Segev
One of these years, I want to play a youth who grew up in the wilds as a Barbarian and had some serious anger issues when he was taken in by a monastery. There, he learned self-control through sometimes-painful lessons, but likes himself much better now that he is more self-aware.

I had an NPC with almost this exact concept in a campaign several years ago. A would-be orc warlord who had been educated in a monastery, and was trying to pass on what he'd learned to his warband. He had mixed success, even before the adventurers came along.

:smallamused:

Traab

2013-07-18, 11:54 AM

I want to offer a possible defense. The prejudice defense. One of the most well known stereotypes of people playing a paladin is they are a real pain in the ass about the rest of the party doing anything that isnt pure lawful good, which, too be honest, REALLY can cut down on a lot of the average adventurer party's choices on what to do and how to do it. So I wouldnt be surprised if a lot of players/gms automatically groan when they hear someone wants to roll as a paladin, and then look for ways to ruin his day so he can roll another neutral character that doesnt give a rats behind if you want to gut every dead body to make sure they didnt swallow valuables or something. :smallbiggrin:

Its similar to some of the old hate for rogues, because they can be easily used as a class for which a player will abuse horribly by stealing everything that isnt nailed down, then prying up and stealing the nails so he can steal THAT stuff too. And worst of all, there is no in game justification for revenge on this jackass. Treasure chests are mysteriously empty of anything decent, your backpack keeps getting lighter as the dungeon crawl continues, and because he rolls high enough in bluff sneak or whatever the hell he has to do so you cant defend yourself in game, you are screwed.

Segev

2013-07-18, 11:56 AM

I am actually surprised at myself for not thinking of this sooner, but in one campaign setting I designed and ran, the (evil) Elven God of Night absolutely hates the Elven race for thinking it's so good and noble. Whether he's right or not about the race as a whole or as individuals being hypocrites, he is also a rather self-loathing deity who smoulders in jealousy at his half-brother, the elven god of the Sun (who is good and is noble).

In an effort to "prove" just how rotten Elves are to their core, and that all are as vile as he, himself, is, the god of night sends his dark priestesses to young elves (all male - did I mention this god is projecting his own inadequacies something fierce?) who demonstrate a desire to do great and noble acts, who show disdain for evil, and the more innocent their efforts, the better. The priestesses promise them power to right wrongs, root out corruption, and otherwise achieve great good. And they're not lying.

The god of night does empower them, and holds them to an excruciatingly strict moral code (which includes a vow of chastity that would make most nuns feel restricted). He shows them exactly where evil lies, and gives them all the resources they need to combat it and show good triumphs over it.

But he also tempts them shamelessly. He sets up situations where their own desires are at odds with their code. He places them in quandaries where the good choice DOES cause suffering (of the deserving, but people the paladin, being a good-hearted person, probably has come to like). He sends them black unicorn sacred mounts who become beautiful elven women at night, and who are wholly devoted to their paladin masters.

In short, this dark god is the reason why his own paladins are always at risk of falling: he WANTS them to fail, because each one that falls proves that it's not HIS fault that he's a rotten bastard. It's just elven nature. It PROVES that "good" is a lie and nobody is pure and righteous. And he loves getting new ones, but hates them every time they resist his temptations. And hates them even more, on some level, when they fall...because it also means there's not hope that he might be redeemed.

Manly Man

2013-07-18, 12:38 PM

A cleric of Asmodeus doesn't lose his powers if he pets a kitten once.

I could actually see a cleric of Asmodeus petting lots of kittens, and in fact doing so an awful lot,... albeit while watching with mild amusement at men being executed in horrible and brutal ways.

ArqArturo

2013-07-18, 12:46 PM

I think a good example of Lawful Good (in my opinion), is Ned Stark (http://youtu.be/uKB0ogglzGQ).

Deathkeeper

2013-07-18, 12:46 PM

Just curious, but what sort of hostility are we talking about here?

Actively keeping an armed (plot provided) sunlight bomb around which could melt the eyes of any light-sensitive being (we're underground) and mentioning that I wouldn't regret if I had to wipe out a few Drow with it.
Also shooting a few evil-pinging attack dogs while way behind enemy lines as a mercy kill, since they'd either starve in their cages or be used against us if enemies came back to investigate OR, if they were smart enough to follow our footprints out after being releases as per the paladin's suggestion, just start murdering surface animals that had an equal right to live since said dogs showed clear signs of enjoying killing without needing food at the time.

Manly Man

2013-07-18, 12:59 PM

I think a good example of Lawful Good (in my opinion), is Ned Stark (http://youtu.be/uKB0ogglzGQ).

Related, and fairly accurate, methinks. (http://mightygodking.com/images/ac-gots1.jpg)

Eldonauran

2013-07-18, 07:00 PM

***snip***

:smalleek:

You, sir. You are an awesome person and I would be honored to game with you anyday. I mean that. Awesome in the old school definition. That plotline filled me with a palpable feeling of awe. That small, dark shadow of myself that snickers in the background is jumping around in excitement while the other part cringed in dread.

That is one devious, sinister and EVIL god.

ArqArturo

2013-07-18, 07:32 PM

I am actually surprised at myself for not thinking of this sooner, but in one campaign setting I designed and ran, the (evil) Elven God of Night absolutely hates the Elven race for thinking it's so good and noble. Whether he's right or not about the race as a whole or as individuals being hypocrites, he is also a rather self-loathing deity who smoulders in jealousy at his half-brother, the elven god of the Sun (who is good and is noble).

What happens if one decides to, instead of become a blackguard, becomes a Grey Guard instead?.

Honestly, the closest thing I've come up with that, is with a goddess that started as a minor god of necromancy and undead, but has steadily moved on to become a major deity for chromatic dragons and tyrants, by systematically putting them against each other, attack them when they're at the weakest, and then take their pantheons.

She was at first mortal, a wizard with a great future as a conjurer (a reason why in my campaign setting Conjuration and planar stuff is viewed just as much as a threat as necromancy) that was seduced by a god of corruption, and became the first necromancer. She attained so much powers (and so many undead servants) that towns died with her passing. But then, the goddess of nature decided to kill her, by raising a small fish with slightly more bones than usual, this fish would be caught, cooked, and served to Golgotha, the Dark Lady.

She died choked to death.

But, when she died, her own power came with her to the Nine Hells, becoming a minor deity. And now she works to become the Only Goddess, and likes to tease mortals with power. And she actually goes to the mortal world to toy with mortals to this end.

Oko and Qailee

2013-07-18, 07:34 PM

I think there's a lot of reasons for it, each of them seperate.

1) Moral choice: The entire "must always be good" can lead to a DM thinking "can I make a morally ambiguous situation", the problem is these situations are rarely fair to the player.

2) Iconic Paladin: While other classes have rules for what they can/cannot do, the paladin is most Iconic in that sense. Paladins are the champions of good and lawfulness, but no one looks at a bard and says "yup bards are champions of chaos", hell the concept of a bard "I sing at people!" doesn't even imply chaotic.

3) Negative Stigma: I would argue Paladin is considered the least favorite class of everyone not playing Paladin. A big part of this is that (I may be 100% wrong on all of this) some people think of Paladins as facists who are morally self righteous and behave like Miko (when they should behave like O-Chul :)). This leads to some players actually playing them this way and some DM's automatically assuming the players are going to play this way, and then they reinforce their own opinions.

Endarire

2013-07-18, 08:06 PM

Because losing your Paladinhood is a class feature. Optional, but still used.

Perseus

2013-07-18, 08:19 PM

I hate the 3.5 Paladin because (like the Fighter) it has so much potential but is worthless past level 6.

Surprisingly enough they can be made as uber chargers... But it isn't like anyone else can do that.

I don't mind the balance issues between the wizard and the paladins. I have a problem with the balance between the paladins and the game itself. When there is only one specific build that you can make that lets you keep up with the game itself then something is wrong. (caution hyperbole)

I miss the 2e Paladin who was all kinds of badass rolled into one class.

DMVerdandi

2013-07-18, 08:43 PM

Here is my take on it. For me at least, it's thematic overlap. What is a paladin but an underpowered cleric of honor and good? Smite is pretty weak, as is lay on hands, and the assortment of other lesser clerical abilities and spells.

Not to mention the absurd code of conduct. It's like a warrior to a warblade. The cleric is just... better. And you don't have to go all clericzilla, even played to a normal, considerate and balanced level, they just handle better. To the point where being the paladin just becomes kinda selfish and antagonistic to the party.

Usually people consider the paladin the godless(If desired) cleric that values honor and goodness and can get power from that, but in the phb alone, the cleric can do that BETTER. You don't need a god to be a cleric, you simply embody a concept yourself.

So you can out-paladin a paladin, and even further, embody whichever concepts you desire, and gain power from them (ESPECIALLY if you chose the spontaneous domain ACF.)

They are a sub-par, sub-optimal, and thematically weak class. You are basically required to be a knight in shining armor, with exceptions costing you a lot of power.

TuggyNE

2013-07-18, 09:10 PM

Because losing your Paladinhood is a class feature. Optional, but still used.

That's only a partial explanation, and, as the OP noted, it's insufficient to explain why Druids, Clerics, Barbarians, Bards, Monks, and other classes do not suffer the same concentration, despite sharing the same general type of class feature.

ArqArturo

2013-07-18, 09:17 PM

That's only a partial explanation, and, as the OP noted, it's insufficient to explain why Druids, Clerics, Barbarians, Bards, Monks, and other classes do not suffer the same concentration, despite sharing the same general type of class feature.

Because deep inside, we all want the shining beacon of goodness and light to fall in the same muck we're all in?.

... Crap, did I type that?

Sugashane

2013-07-18, 09:33 PM

I think a good deal other than the vagueness of falling is the type of roleplay that seems expected from the class.

Everyone (not really, but it seems like about 3/4) here or in our groups seems to think Paladins were the kids that tattled because you had a shoelace that had come undone, and that might have been against the dress code. People act as if the class MUST be the holy-than-thou-you're-all-trash types, never the pious and forgiving, but always the narcissistic role.

I don't know if that is due to parroting what a few people did until it snowballed into what it is now or if people just have been around such pathetic roleplayers that it has just been limited by those who choose them. I personally, have loved multiclassing as a paladin, and especially had great characters being paladins come about in gestalt games. Being LG doesn't mean it has to be a stuffy role, I played it much like Stallone's quote in The Expendables- "We keep it light until it's time to get dark, then we get pitch black."

I would play pranks and tell jokes throughout the day, but when it came time to battle I was the charger doing a lot of damage and trying to get the enemies' focus on myself to keep my companions safe. That was why he was a leader, not just by words, but through his actions.

Arbane

2013-07-18, 09:33 PM

Because losing your Paladinhood is a class feature. Optional, but still used.

No, the class feature is "Cause thirty-minute alignment argument at the table."

It's an at-will. :smallyuk:

Waker

2013-07-18, 09:40 PM

Because deep inside, we all want the shining beacon of goodness and light to fall in the same muck we're all in?.

... Crap, did I type that?

Actually that is one good reason. Being true to the concept of a paladin is hard. You can't take the easy route like many others would. And many people would love to see you fail, because it makes their own inability to stay on the straight and narrow understandable. Always telling the truth, always upholding an oath and so on just seem unnatural to some.

And then you have the drama aspect. When a character undergoes a radical shift in alignment, those often make for some of the most memorable scenes. Who didn't widen their eyes when Vader turned on the Emperor? Or what about the Dark Willow chapter from Buffy? When a villain atones or a hero falls, it tends to make a big impact on those who have invested in them. Sadly not all DM/Players can handle such an event.

Kaiisaxo

2013-07-18, 10:00 PM

Well, personally it sucks having a DM set on making you fall, but it is a natural extension of being able to fall at all, which is a very important part of being a paladin, every paladin is a fall waitin to happen -note I just love playing paladins, I'm not a paladin hater- playing a paladin that can never fall is empty, devoid of any meaning, just as playing abard who never uses a musical instrument, a wizard with no spellbook or a sorcerer with one: pointless and vain.

Though I must say if you as a paladin player behave on a lawful stupid way you are pretty much asking for it. Really being Lawfull good doesn't imply being anal retentive or intolerant about it. It really helps that when I play a paladin I usually play them as free spirits, dedicated to protect everything that is good and just, putting themselves to higher standards than the rest of their peers, but somewhat chaotic and impredictable at heart. (Should a paladin sneak? if that saves lifes and prevents pointless bloosheed of course he should!! can a paladin playfully take the rogue's hat while he is looking the other way and run with it? If that distracts him from pickpocketing of course you could!. Being a apragon of good and order doesn't mean you have to imposse your belief system upon others, neither mindlessly slaying every single creature that comes as "evil" on your radar, or picking fights with every single creature that acts slightly chaotic, part of being a paragon of what is good is beleiving everybody can be good and that even the most evilest person on earth can be redeemed!!). The paladin must destroy evil, fight with courage and honor, but nowhere it says he has to be cocky and arrogant about it, in fact he ought to be humble! being a paragon of virtue isn't a state one can boast about, its an eternal quest, an unalcanzable perfect ideal you can only fight towards!.

Mithril Leaf

2013-07-18, 10:33 PM

Though I must say if you as a paladin player behave on a lawful stupid way you are pretty much asking for it. Really being Lawful good doesn't imply being anal retentive or intolerant about it. It really helps that when I play a paladin I usually play them as free spirits, dedicated to protect everything that is good and just, putting themselves to higher standards than the rest of their peers, but somewhat chaotic and unpredictable at heart. (Should a paladin sneak? if that saves lives and prevents pointless bloodshed of course he should!! can a paladin playfully take the rogue's hat while he is looking the other way and run with it? If that distracts him from pickpocketing of course you could!. Being a paragon of good and order doesn't mean you have to impose your belief system upon others, neither mindlessly slaying every single creature that comes as "evil" on your radar, or picking fights with every single creature that acts slightly chaotic, part of being a paragon of what is good is believing everybody can be good and that even the most evilest person on earth can be redeemed!!). The paladin must destroy evil, fight with courage and honor, but nowhere it says he has to be cocky and arrogant about it, in fact he ought to be humble! being a paragon of virtue isn't a state one can boast about, its an eternal quest, an unalcanzable perfect ideal you can only fight towards!.

I'm fairly sure that by RAW some of that stuff does actually make you fall. Like allowing evil to exist and operate. Also technically causing gratuitous injury to any creature is worth 3 corruption points of the 4 needed to be evil and happens whenever you nearly kill anything as a paladin.

My issues with the paladin are that the rules themselves are playing against you. If I want to play a paladin without losing my entire class whenever I do any adventuring, I can just play a Crusader.

Rubik

2013-07-18, 10:44 PM

Being a apragon of good and orderI read that as "asparagus of good and order."

Pickford

2013-07-18, 10:52 PM

I'm fairly sure that by RAW some of that stuff does actually make you fall. Like allowing evil to exist and operate. Also technically causing gratuitous injury to any creature is worth 3 corruption points of the 4 needed to be evil and happens whenever you nearly kill anything as a paladin.

My issues with the paladin are that the rules themselves are playing against you. If I want to play a paladin without losing my entire class whenever I do any adventuring, I can just play a Crusader.

This is it, paladins are lawful good, not chaotic good, chaotic neutral or chaotic evil (which is what most players seem to want to default to, like they're playing a fighter or barbarian)

Toy Killer

2013-07-18, 11:00 PM

Every game I play, I aim to play the Paladin. It just fits my personality type, I like being there for people who have nothing. Moving to LA has been a bit of a hardship because of the fact that I can't seem to keep my change in my pocket when I walk down the street. It's just who I am, and how I like to envision myself.

World of Warcraft, Paladin. Warmachine, Menoth. Warhammer, Bretonnia.

But D&D is one of the few games where I can't accept the portrayal of the Paladin; And it's because of the Code of Honor.

I think the Blackguard is double dipping the fear of falling into darkness. Like the game was developed with a stringent concept in mind of a paladin, who could fall. And then they compiled on top of it the premise of an Anti-paladin.

That's not right. I will play a sub-optimal fighter with a divine flavor. Don't let the DM dangle the sword of Damocles over my head, That's what role playing is for. Let me feel for my character when he is in a tight bind of morality. making the choice as simple as "Well, gotta kill this demon who has been running a successful orphanage as a front, cuz he's evil and I like having class features".

By applying a crippling punishment for the choice, you neglect the choice itself. Give me Healing Hymn and Divine Bard ACFs and I'll take ranks in Perform (Oratory) and I'll make decisions on my accord. While I'm at it, I'll hook myself up with that feat that lets you cast in heavier armor too. Optimization be damned, if I feel the need to play a paladin you can trust that I will find a way to play a paladin.

That's my beef with the paladin class.

Rubik

2013-07-18, 11:21 PM

By applying a crippling punishment for the choice, you neglect the choice itself. Give me Healing Hymn and Divine Bard ACFs and I'll take ranks in Perform (Oratory) and I'll make decisions on my accord.Don't forget to rock a totally sportin' beard!

...No, reverse that. Sport a totally rockin' beard! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhy2aNEPshw)

It's the only way!

(Also, temporarily Shapechange into an ooze so you can split into 8 bards. Totally epic.)

Scow2

2013-07-18, 11:21 PM

I've actually seen it expressed on this board that "Paladins are supposed to fall. Otherwise, they wouldn't have that as a mechanic - they're supposed to fall, then pick themselves up again!"

No. If that were the case, their fall wouldn't have so many permanent restrictions. What the code is SUPPOSED to do is stop the Beacon of Righteousness and Goodness from being an ass to everyone and violating the tenants of good. People keep thinking this is a world of grey morality, when it's really just a world of Black and White. Grey is nothing more than white with bits of black on it. The paladin's job is to seek out those who's blackness is far more infectious than their whiteness, and purge that infection from the world, while keeping himself as white as possible.

captain fubar

2013-07-18, 11:30 PM

Some players are mature and can play them well but others turn into miko.
At shuch a point the only way to save the charicter is to make them fall and fast before the rest to the party kills the pally in its sleep.

ArqArturo

2013-07-18, 11:39 PM

In our games, we've always kind of pigeonholed the Paladin into three archetypes:

The Crusader, which is pretty much just a wandering knight that fights blatantly evil creatures that dare to attack villagers and good kindgoms.

The Inquisitor, who's responsible to root out evil cultists and plots, as well as corruption in the ranks (now replaced by, well, the Inquisitor).

And finally, the Redeemer, the paladin that is jovial in nature, ever-giving, tending the healing, ever-merciful, to the point that he even considers redeeming the unredeemed (I had a player that played a Paladin that believed that it could be possible to redeem both Baalzebul and Asmodeus).

Edit: And taking advantage of the situation here, I'd like to point put a conversation I had with a few friends that argue that the Core Paladin in Pathfinder is much weaker than the 3.5. I argue against it, because not only he has better saves, and a few better buffs, but he's much more powerful in melee thanks to the fact that Smite Evil is much more useful in the sense that retains the bonus and damage vs the smited enemy, plus the AC bonus.

Flickerdart

2013-07-18, 11:51 PM

Pure-PF Paladin has to deal with Power Attack nerfs, no Battle Blessing, no Sword of the Arcane Order...Smite and Lay On Hands were never what made Paladins useful.

ArqArturo

2013-07-18, 11:56 PM

Yup, that's the main argument, so what I've been doing is just bring some of the PrCs of D&D into PF (Fist of Raziel, Divine Agent*, Grey Guard, etc.) to the fold.

And in a funnier note, our Neverwinter game got busted, so we'll be doing another one, and I'll be playing, well, a Paladin... Of Tyrion >:D (We're going to adapt the alignment paladin variants).

Flickerdart

2013-07-18, 11:59 PM

Paladin... Of Tyrion
I suppose he's technically a god (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxt2jP3gWT4)...

Raven777

2013-07-18, 11:59 PM

What about Grey Knights or Paladins of Vengeance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---paladin-archetypes/oathbound-paladin/oath-of-vengeance)?

Code of Conduct: Never let lesser evils distract you from your pursuit of just vengeance.

How is one even supposed to interpret that? (Be Batman, I guess?)

Flickerdart

2013-07-19, 12:02 AM

ArqArturo

2013-07-19, 12:08 AM

I suppose he's technically a god (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxt2jP3gWT4)...

He's like Olidammara, only shorter, and with a bit more sense of honor and empathy.

"I can't fight those bandits. I'm currently in a multi-generational conflict against evil itself."

So, against Asmodeus?.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-07-19, 12:13 AM

Flickerdart

2013-07-19, 12:16 AM

So, against Asmodeus?.
Lord of the Tenth. :smallamused:

ArqArturo

2013-07-19, 12:23 AM

2. The Chaotic "Neutral" Rogue

Stop it, you're not neutral, you're being evil. Stop being mad at the Paladin who is trying to stop you from doing something evil. He does it because he doesn't want to be forced to kill you. Stop being disruptive. Stop being selfish and blame the Paladin for ruining your fun because the he doesn't let you be a **** to every NPC you meet.

Can I chisel this in stone and engrave it gold, so I can show this to a couple of players? Honestly, the early parts of my campaign I was appalled that one of my players was plotting against the group's paladin because... *gasp* He wouldn't let her anyone she pleased. Also, he tried constantly to draw her away from towns that have heard of her bad reputation as a lousy mercenary (the player betrayed his clients twice because the marks offered more money, thus making the character's reputation shady).

The other player is just someone that really wants to play an assassin, but hasn't had the guts (yet) to ask me, and when all was going bad in an encounter, decided to see if he could reason with the BBEG by killing... You guessed it, the paladin.

He rolled a new character after that. Apparently the Barbarian doesn't like it when his drinking buddy almost dies 'in an cowardly way'.

ArcturusV

2013-07-19, 01:37 AM

I always like Squirrel Dude's stuff. Good points up there.

Additionally?

4: Vengeance is MINE!

I've seen this with some groups I played a long time with. In 2nd Edition, Paladins were pretty god awesome. If you were lucky enough to roll the right stats for it, you were a powerful character from level 1 onto the point you eventually retired. Even at high levels it wasn't like the Mage was really going to punk you. Least not that hard. You were still a fearsome beast (Unlike the Fighter or Thief).

But in 3rd? Yeah. You're crippled. You are barely... possibly better than a Fighter. And I only say that because you eventually get spells. But at lower levels you're worse than a fighter. And you still have the baggage of your Codes, Alignment, and dealing with Temptations, etc.

It's Paladin blood in the water. The DM shark smells it, and it's going into a feeding frenzy.

I swear with some people I've played with, that's it exactly. They hated the fact that the Paladin WAS a great class. And now that it's weak enough that they can effectively screw with it without going into obvious DM Fiats, they're going to. Years of rage being released.

The only other thing that really comes to mind is a problem I've seen with a few groups. Because Paladins are so alignment and code dependent to keep their powers... and this Code and such includes not just THEIR behavior, but the behavior of others (... so stupid...), they feel a need to take a certain amount of control to prevent the "leader" (Whoever it is, if you have a "neutral" or evil character, you know they'll want to be it) signing up the party for something that will result in a Fall, or result in the Paladin having to say "Screw you guys, I'm going home" to the darker party members.

So the Paladin naturally becomes the "leader". They want to determine what happens. They want quests against clear evils that they can smite. They want to make sure that the party avoids doing anything too shady.

And in doing so other people chafe under it. They get tired of the Paladin telling them what to do. And they try to arrange for something to happen so the Paladin won't have to be so tyrannical about keeping his powers safe.

The Fury

2013-07-19, 01:41 AM

I was appalled that one of my players was plotting against the group's paladin because... *gasp* He wouldn't let her anyone she pleased.

I suspect that you may have dropped a verb here?

Anyway, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people here don't hate Paladins. What sort of makes Paladins unique is that the DM can strip them of their power if their player messes up and I think this has led a lot of players to second-guess themselves when they play a Paladin.
It seems to me that most of the people here that DM have a sense of fair play. They're given a powerful tool to keep a Paladin's player in line, one that they don't want to use if they don't need to. I think that might be the reason why the question of "What does it take for a Paladin to fall?" comes up so much-- it's not because they want a Paladin to fall, it's more that they want a baseline understanding of when they deserve to.
I'm not going to claim that people that hate the Paladin class on principle don't exist though. I've met some of them in real life. Most of them just have problems with any character who's Lawful Good. That was my impression anyway.

ArqArturo

2013-07-19, 01:43 AM

Forgot to clarify that his character is female.

Rubik

2013-07-19, 02:08 AM

The only other thing that really comes to mind is a problem I've seen with a few groups. Because Paladins are so alignment and code dependent to keep their powers... and this Code and such includes not just THEIR behavior, but the behavior of others (... so stupid...), they feel a need to take a certain amount of control to prevent the "leader" (Whoever it is, if you have a "neutral" or evil character, you know they'll want to be it) signing up the party for something that will result in a Fall, or result in the Paladin having to say "Screw you guys, I'm going home" to the darker party members.

So the Paladin naturally becomes the "leader". They want to determine what happens. They want quests against clear evils that they can smite. They want to make sure that the party avoids doing anything too shady.

And in doing so other people chafe under it. They get tired of the Paladin telling them what to do. And they try to arrange for something to happen so the Paladin won't have to be so tyrannical about keeping his powers safe.I know this is one of the main reasons why I hate paladins. Other players don't have the right to tell me how I can play and what actions my character can take. I don't have to play Chaotic Evil or anything, but I'm the one playing my character. It's not up to the paladin to tell me what I can and can't do.

Plus, y'know, they're weaksauce unless heavily optimized. And they don't even really get fun, like heavily optimized monks can be.

The same goes for exalted characters. Generally, on both counts.

Eldonauran

2013-07-19, 10:37 AM

Because deep inside, we all want the shining beacon of goodness and light to fall in the same muck we're all in?.

... Crap, did I type that?

This strikes a chord in me. I feel it has a resounding ring of truth and ties into what I was saying earlier. I think we do want to see the Paladin fall into the same muck that we all struggle with and watch it completely sink into the Paladin.

Speaking for myself, I want to see that Paladin consumed by the muck and then simply walk out of it as if it was nothing more substancial than air. Shining and unsullied, readjusting the grip on their weapon as they charge the remaining evil.

Ties into my outlook on Good and Evil. I don't see two opposing forces. I see Good and the absence of Good. Similar to hot and cold. There is no cold. There is only the absence of heat. There is no darkness, only the absence of light. There is no dry, only the absence of moisture.

thamolas

2013-07-19, 10:46 AM

Most of the games where I've thought to myself "Ugh, who invited [annoying guy X]?" have featured [annoying guy X] playing an annoying paladin or a dark elf ranger or the annoying equivalent in whatever game system we're using, since D&D is now the "last resort" game (for us).

BWR

2013-07-19, 11:01 AM

All I can say when I read the multitude of paladin-related threads on these boards is a lot of people have/are ****ty DMs and a lot of people have/are ****ty players.

We have had paladins (or Knights of Solamnia -amounts tot he same thing) in several games I've played in. Sometimes the more chaotic or pragmatic members of the party have gotten into arguments with the paladin about what they should or should not do, but that's all In Character.
OOC everybody, DM and players, were fine with it and didn't try to ruin the game for anybody. Players know beforehand if a paladin is in the offing, and the DM can veto it if it doesn't fit in with the sort of game s/he envisions, and the player will not bring in a paladin if everyone already plays chaotic jerks (unless the players think it would be fun).

Lastly, clerics in the games I play have strictures every bit as rigid as paladins. I have never understood why paladins should have more restrictions than clerics. Clerics are supposed to be direct representatives and servants of their god. A Lawful Good cleric of a Lawful Good god will act just as strictly as a paladin of the same god. The difference is in what powers they have, not ethos.

Segev

2013-07-19, 11:14 AM

:smalleek:

You, sir. You are an awesome person and I would be honored to game with you anyday. I mean that. Awesome in the old school definition. That plotline filled me with a palpable feeling of awe. That small, dark shadow of myself that snickers in the background is jumping around in excitement while the other part cringed in dread.

That is one devious, sinister and EVIL god.Aw, thanks. ^_^

I didn't have a PC of this stripe in the game I ran, though one of the players wanted to play one if I ever ran another game in the setting.

What happens if one decides to, instead of become a blackguard, becomes a Grey Guard instead?Not an option. If a paladin of Ril (the god's name) fell, he lost ALL his powers. There is no option to become some half-good, half-evil, shades-of-grey champion. Once you pact with Ril, you're his. And he will NOT stop you from doing good and noble things while you are a Paladin. His paladins get a few perks that push them to roughly Cleric levels of optimization power. (Not the least of which is, frankly, Leadership-like access to a coven of evil priestesses who work as a support structure.)

When one falls - and Ril knows they all will, eventually - he withdraws all of that. His sacred mount tearfully is torn from him (still devoted, but compelled to leave, and heartbroken by it), and his coven abandons him. All save one - whoever was his favorite - who will periodically come back and offer him "wisdom" in the form of advice. Ril hasn't forgiven him, but Ril understands. Now that the ex-Paladin has seen that he is, himself, not really good, is it not clear that good is a lie? If he'll but acknowledge this and join in the true mysteries and aims of his god, Ril will return his power, and the right to use it for himself.

The god of night's Knights are dreaded beings, free to indulge all the urges that they once had to foresake. All it costs them is devotion to spreading the enlightenment of Ril: that "good" is hypocrisy and "evil" just another word for "honest."

Honestly, the closest thing I've come up with that, is with a goddess that started as a minor god of necromancy and undead, but has steadily moved on to become a major deity for chromatic dragons and tyrants, by systematically putting them against each other, attack them when they're at the weakest, and then take their pantheons.

She was at first mortal, a wizard with a great future as a conjurer (a reason why in my campaign setting Conjuration and planar stuff is viewed just as much as a threat as necromancy) that was seduced by a god of corruption, and became the first necromancer. She attained so much powers (and so many undead servants) that towns died with her passing. But then, the goddess of nature decided to kill her, by raising a small fish with slightly more bones than usual, this fish would be caught, cooked, and served to Golgotha, the Dark Lady.

She died choked to death.

But, when she died, her own power came with her to the Nine Hells, becoming a minor deity. And now she works to become the Only Goddess, and likes to tease mortals with power. And she actually goes to the mortal world to toy with mortals to this end.
That does sound cool. ^_^

Perseus

2013-07-19, 11:54 AM

I know this is one of the main reasons why I hate paladins. Other players don't have the right to tell me how I can play and what actions my character can take. I don't have to play Chaotic Evil or anything, but I'm the one playing my character. It's not up to the paladin to tell me what I can and can't do.

Plus, y'know, they're weaksauce unless heavily optimized. And they don't even really get fun, like heavily optimized monks can be.

The same goes for exalted characters. Generally, on both counts.

I'm not saying that this is you but I've seen this so many times... Hell recently a character wanted to kill innocent people that had nothing to do with the plot just because "they might be a problem later, I'm just being neutral about it". My character stopped him cause of moral reasons and I was told I was trying to tell him how to run his character.

It was a good to neutral leaning good campaign...

Anyways...

The problem though is many many people play the "neutral" character when in fact they are super evil. The people who play Paladins or any other class really (I was a Fighter) may not like a player doing evil not because it is their character's thinking but because they themselves don't like evil and don't want to be in a game with that going on. Plus they probably get get fed up with someone breaking the rules of the game or being harmful to the group.

And the person lying about their alignment out of game and using it to their advantage in game to murder and poison and rape and steal and... Well that person is a jerk.

People tend to put down an alignment and say that is what they are instead of looking how their character is acting and then writing down an alignment. They use what's written down on their paper as a shield and to justify to themselves and others they aren't doing evil things in character when they actually are.

Also ppl forget that alignment in D&D isn't an opinion but a fact. To many people say "well I think good is this..." Or "No I'm not evil cause my character doesn't see it that way".

Edit: Good Evil Law and Chaos are real things in D&D and not merely concepts of opinion in real life. Heckola there are being a made purely of law chaos good and evil...

Rubik

2013-07-19, 01:34 PM

I'm not saying that this is you but I've seen this so many times... Hell recently a character wanted to kill innocent people that had nothing to do with the plot just because "they might be a problem later, I'm just being neutral about it". My character stopped him cause of moral reasons and I was told I was trying to tell him how to run his character.

It was a good to neutral leaning good campaign...

Anyways...

The problem though is many many people play the "neutral" character when in fact they are super evil. The people who play Paladins or any other class really (I was a Fighter) may not like a player doing evil not because it is their character's thinking but because they themselves don't like evil and don't want to be in a game with that going on. Plus they probably get get fed up with someone breaking the rules of the game or being harmful to the group.

And the person lying about their alignment out of game and using it to their advantage in game to murder and poison and rape and steal and... Well that person is a jerk.

People tend to put down an alignment and say that is what they are instead of looking how their character is acting and then writing down an alignment. They use what's written down on their paper as a shield and to justify to themselves and others they aren't doing evil things in character when they actually are.

Also ppl forget that alignment in D&D isn't an opinion but a fact. To many people say "well I think good is this..." Or "No I'm not evil cause my character doesn't see it that way".

Edit: Good Evil Law and Chaos are real things in D&D and not merely concepts of opinion in real life. Heckola there are being a made purely of law chaos good and evil...But the paladin shouldn't have to police his own group just to keep his class features. RP is all fine and good, but you shouldn't have a so-called "class feature" that ruins one character if the other characters don't dance to his tune.

If I build a sneaky character and the paladin takes any kind of trickery or stealth as "dishonorable" and "dishonest," even if it saves lives and is far more expedient and liable to cause the least amount of collateral damage, why should his class force him to cause huge problems because he's unable to stand any kind of dishonesty by default?

Basically, playing a paladin forces everyone in the group to play to his tune or he becomes even more worthless. That is a severe irritant, and it's horrible, awful game design.

Perseus

2013-07-19, 01:49 PM

But the paladin shouldn't have to police his own group just to keep his class features. RP is all fine and good, but you shouldn't have a so-called "class feature" that ruins one character if the other characters don't dance to his tune.

If I build a sneaky character and the paladin takes any kind of trickery or stealth as "dishonorable" and "dishonest," even if it saves lives and is far more expedient and liable to cause the least amount of collateral damage, why should his class force him to cause huge problems because he's unable to stand any kind of dishonesty by default?

Basically, playing a paladin forces everyone in the group to play to his tune or he becomes even more worthless. That is a severe irritant, and it's horrible, awful game design.

Totally agree with you, it is why I hate the Paladin. I would love to see a fallen paladin ACF that kicks in when you fall. You gain new abilities that are similar but not as much... and a geas that makes you look for way to attone (plot device!)or learn what you did wrong.

That might be my next project... Cause just because you fall as a paladin doesn't mean you switch alignments...

Flickerdart

2013-07-19, 01:51 PM

Totally agree with you, it is why I hate the Paladin. I would love to see a fallen paladin ACF that kicks in when you fall. You gain new abilities that are similar but not as much... and a geas that makes you look for way to attone (plot device!)or learn what you did wrong.

That might be my next project... Cause just because you fall as a paladin doesn't mean you switch alignments...
What could you even give that's "not as much" as a paladin, given that they already get next to nothing?

ArqArturo

2013-07-19, 02:08 PM

What could you even give that's "not as much" as a paladin, given that they already get next to nothing?

An inquisitor, perhaps?

Perseus

2013-07-19, 02:16 PM

What could you even give that's "not as much" as a paladin, given that they already get next to nothing?

First off I'm a proponent of fixing the paladin. Then we can go from there.

Perhaps make a clause where as long as the paladin is still LG then the deity is still watching over them. The deity instead of stripping all abilities off gives him a geas and perhaps bonus feats (divine insight) to keep him safe until the paladin can prove her worth again. Make falling a punishment not an execution?

Eldonauran

2013-07-19, 02:28 PM

First off I'm a proponent of fixing the paladin. Then we can go from there.
IMO, the Paladin is just fine where it is, severe penalty for falling and all. Giving a bit more power, I support. Attempting to lessen the impact of the fall, I viscerally object to.

Call it something else. It's not a Paladin.

Perseus

2013-07-19, 02:30 PM

IMO, the Paladin is just fine where it is, severe penalty for falling and all. Giving a bit more power, I support. Attempting to lessen the impact of the fall, I viscerally object to.

Call it something else. It's not a Paladin.

Just because I fix the flat on my car doesn't make it any less of a car.

Edit: You also never played a 2e paladin have you? Same strict code of ethics and morals but none of the suck. They were quite the power house too.

Eldonauran

2013-07-19, 03:03 PM

Just because I fix the flat on my car doesn't make it any less of a car.
That is an oversimplification and not really a fair comparison. A Paladin is his code. His power is granted by that Code (and a diety backing, in some realms). If you object to that, than the Paladin to you is nothing more than a holy crusader and you would have more fun playing a crusader.

A Paladin with a flat tire is one with a poor feat choice.

Edit: You also never played a 2e paladin have you? Same strict code of ethics and morals but none of the suck. They were quite the power house too.
I have played a 2E Paladin. They were a power house for a number of reasons, namely due to system differences (the lack of feats, ability point increases, etc). They still had the code and, IIRC, it was stricter.

ArqArturo

2013-07-19, 03:12 PM

Not an option. If a paladin of Ril (the god's name) fell, he lost ALL his powers. There is no option to become some half-good, half-evil, shades-of-grey champion. Once you pact with Ril, you're his. And he will NOT stop you from doing good and noble things while you are a Paladin. His paladins get a few perks that push them to roughly Cleric levels of optimization power. (Not the least of which is, frankly, Leadership-like access to a coven of evil priestesses who work as a support structure.)

When one falls - and Ril knows they all will, eventually - he withdraws all of that. His sacred mount tearfully is torn from him (still devoted, but compelled to leave, and heartbroken by it), and his coven abandons him. All save one - whoever was his favorite - who will periodically come back and offer him "wisdom" in the form of advice. Ril hasn't forgiven him, but Ril understands. Now that the ex-Paladin has seen that he is, himself, not really good, is it not clear that good is a lie? If he'll but acknowledge this and join in the true mysteries and aims of his god, Ril will return his power, and the right to use it for himself.

The god of night's Knights are dreaded beings, free to indulge all the urges that they once had to foresake. All it costs them is devotion to spreading the enlightenment of Ril: that "good" is hypocrisy and "evil" just another word for "honest."

I'm guessing when he did find that One shining beacon of good and light, and died as one, without ever failing, that must piss him off even further?.

Your deity sounds like a DM I know XD.

BWR

2013-07-19, 03:16 PM

But the paladin shouldn't have to police his own group just to keep his class features. RP is all fine and good, but you shouldn't have a so-called "class feature" that ruins one character if the other characters don't dance to his tune.

If I build a sneaky character and the paladin takes any kind of trickery or stealth as "dishonorable" and "dishonest," even if it saves lives and is far more expedient and liable to cause the least amount of collateral damage, why should his class force him to cause huge problems because he's unable to stand any kind of dishonesty by default?

Basically, playing a paladin forces everyone in the group to play to his tune or he becomes even more worthless. That is a severe irritant, and it's horrible, awful game design.

Let's flip this on its head, shall we?
Why should a guy dedicated to upholding law and order and promoting good - in short, being a hero - be forced to put up with a sneaky git who goes around doing all sorts of unethical things because it's easier than doing things the proper way? Why should his player's fun be ruined because you want to do things your way? Basically, playing a rogue makes all other PCs accessory to the various crimes he commits, because they know about him and tolerate him and allow him to continune on his merry way.
It's a severe irritant that characters which are designed to do less than heroic and decent things are even allowed in the game. It's horrible, awful game design.

ArqArturo

2013-07-19, 03:24 PM

Yes, but, traps.

Ok, jokes aside. People hate a nanny, and we back to the argument that a lot of players see paladins as nannies, and many players act like one.

If your rogue wants to be a douche, do it without the paladin noticing, and be smart about it. Put the blame on the thieves guild, or the cultist, or the owlbear.

BWR

2013-07-19, 03:28 PM

People hate a nanny, and we back to the argument that a lot of players see paladins as nannies, and many players act like one.

And we're back to my first post in this thread, the main problem isn't the paladin, it's the staggering amount of players and DMs who insist on acting like jerks.
How difficult is it really to make characters that fit the campaign and the eixsting party?

Perseus

2013-07-19, 03:33 PM

That is an oversimplification and not really a fair comparison. A Paladin is his code. His power is granted by that Code (and a diety backing, in some realms). If you object to that, than the Paladin to you is nothing more than a holy crusader and you would have more fun playing a crusader.

A Paladin with a flat tire is one with a poor feat choice.

I have played a 2E Paladin. They were a power house for a number of reasons, namely due to system differences (the lack of feats, ability point increases, etc). They still had the code and, IIRC, it was stricter.

But if we changed the 3.5 paladin to be better and say be as good in its own game as the 2e paladin was in its, then how is it not a paladin anymore? Does it magically become not a paladin if I made smite evil a per encounter ability?

Ok if I take my automatic transmission out of my truck and put a standard transmission, is my truck any less of a truck? No. Just because you modify or fix something doesn't mean it stops being what it is. Hell with your logic new cars are no longer cars cause they were improved upon and changed for the better....they must be something else... Maybe they are rocket teleporters?

I love ToB and I'm glad they fixed the Paladin. To bad they couldn't actually call it what it is or else there would be fires in the streets. I don't play paladins because they are broken in a bad way, they can't keep up with the game without resorting to one trick.

I love the concept of a paladin though and I have played other classes, including a Rogue that way. Instead of yelling "sneak attack" I yelled "Smite Evil mutha...." In a Samuel L Jackson voice. That rogue made a fantastic paladin, and no one knew I wasn't a paladin. So if I could make a rogue a pretty darn good paladin why can't I improve upon the paladin and it still be a paladin?

ArqArturo

2013-07-19, 03:34 PM

Perseus

2013-07-19, 03:34 PM

And we're back to my first post in this thread, the main problem isn't the paladin, it's the staggering amount of players and DMs who insist on acting like jerks.
How difficult is it really to make characters that fit the campaign and the eixsting party?

Some people I play in a group with almost seems to get their jollies from NOT fitting in with the party.

ArqArturo

2013-07-19, 03:37 PM

Some people I play in a group with almost seems to get their jollies from NOT fitting in with the party.

One player that does this, and has a history of betrayal and backstabbing when it's convenient.

BWR

2013-07-19, 03:39 PM

But if we changed the 3.5 paladin to be better and say be as good in its own game as the 2e paladin was in its, then how is it not a paladin anymore? Does it magically become not a paladin if I made smite evil a per encounter ability?
?

Import the Pathfinder paladin. We have one in our group and she rocks.
Smite evil is excellent, tons of swift action self-healing, ability to raise dead FREE OF COST! aside from a slight feat tax (I really should have banned or altered that ability). All the rest of it is just gravy.

Coidzor

2013-07-19, 03:39 PM

Is it really the GMs who are rooting for a Pally to fall?

Or is it that their players can't really play a Pally well?

What are you doing, talking about it like there's some kind of false dichotomy between the two options? Both of those happen. :smallconfused:

ArqArturo

2013-07-19, 03:41 PM

What are you doing, talking about it like there's some kind of false dichotomy between the two options? Both of those happen. :smallconfused:

When I play a paladin, and have my doubts, I think "what would Ned Stark do?".

Segev

2013-07-19, 03:42 PM

I'm guessing when he did find that One shining beacon of good and light, and died as one, without ever failing, that must piss him off even further?.

Your deity sounds like a DM I know XD.

Oh, it certainly would. Probably does piss him off when his paladins die before falling (and some probably will). But he consoles himself on the one hand with the circular logic that he just hadn't fallen yet, and on the other with the idea that dying, too, is "failing," even if it's not as satisfying a failure as actually making the paladin break. Still, Ril's priestesses are likely to resurrect their paladins if they can, because hey, no getting off that easily.

Ril is not really meant to be a commentary on any DMs. This aspect of him is meant to provide the paladin player who wants this kind of storyline a way to set himself up for it. Whether to try to be "the one who proves good and virtue are real," or to fall and play the Knight that arises out of it, this god gives the vehicle for that story without the DM needing to metagame to force it.

Ril is, also, supposed to be at once horribly pathetic and just plain horrible. He is more a commentary on the nature of evil itself than anything else. Or at least, on a specific brand thereof, replete with hypocrisy, self-loathing, and projection, combined with a desire to tear down in order to make oneself feel built up.

I don't recall specifically thinking, "Let's make a god that does what the stereotype of the bad DM will do to the paladin," though without question I had some inkling of making something to really delve into that possible storyline. I also keep meaning to work out more solid mechanics for an upgraded paladin class; I figure anybody who is going to be subjected to this kind of torment should get power to match it. All the worse to lose it when you fall, and all the more tempting to get even a taste of it back by committing to the darkness when it's offered.

shadow_archmagi

2013-07-19, 03:44 PM

Paladins are bad for two reasons.

1. They have an ultimatum written right into their class features.

2. The class itself is mechanically weak and kinda uninteresting. All of its class features come before 6th level, and it doesn't get anything fun to do in combat. At least a Barbarian gets to declare he's raging, and a Fighter can pick up feats to do whatever.

Hyena

2013-07-19, 03:46 PM

The reason for hate is quite simple.
A paladin can't just sit around and do nothing, while evil happens. And when lawful good paladin enters the party, the party must become lawful good itself.

Perseus

2013-07-19, 03:48 PM

One player that does this, and has a history of betrayal and backstabbing when it's convenient.

It's like you game in Pittsburgh with my group...

Import the Pathfinder paladin. We have one in our group and she rocks.
Smite evil is excellent, tons of swift action self-healing, ability to raise dead FREE OF COST! aside from a slight feat tax (I really should have banned or altered that ability). All the rest of it is just gravy.

Love what they did with the Paladin... They almost didn't do enough but they came closer than 3.5.

Back when I was a lurker on this site there was a person who always ranted that the pathfinder paladin wasn't a paladin... Toapat I think the name was? I think the pathfinder paladin is a great homebrewing of an iconic class.

Edit...

I guees the paladin is the ultimate personification of "you wither die a hero or live long enough to see your self become the villain."

Segev

2013-07-19, 03:51 PM

Import the Pathfinder paladin. We have one in our group and she rocks.
Smite evil is excellent, tons of swift action self-healing, ability to raise dead FREE OF COST! aside from a slight feat tax (I really should have banned or altered that ability). All the rest of it is just gravy.

In a planescape game that mixes 3.5 and pathfinder as the DM wishes (he's pretty good about picking the balance point for it, so it works well), I'm playing a PF paladin. He is the second-most effective PC in the party in terms of combat, second only to the Elan Psion (3.5) (who would probably be slightly less overpowering if we got in more than one fight per day).

Long story short: mechanically, they're a lot of fun.

In a more traditional full-PF game, I want to try a similar build, but on a halfling.

Perseus

2013-07-19, 03:54 PM

In a planescape game that mixes 3.5 and pathfinder as the DM wishes (he's pretty good about picking the balance point for it, so it works well), I'm playing a PF paladin. He is the second-most effective PC in the party in terms of combat, second only to the Elan Psion (3.5) (who would probably be slightly less overpowering if we got in more than one fight per day).

Long story short: mechanically, they're a lot of fun.

In a more traditional full-PF game, I want to try a similar build, but on a halfling.

At one time we had 2 of those in a group... the fun was epic

elonin

2013-07-19, 04:03 PM

Paladin is a weak chassis to build a character on and those who would otherwise play a paladin character fluff some other class to be like a paladin to avoid the code. If I wanted to play that type of character I'd play a cleric refluffed or a psionic warrior.
Some players also use restrictions like this against the rest of their party. In one case the player of a vop monk demanded that reward that wasn't actually taken as part of his share, in effect diminishing everyone elses real share.

Segev

2013-07-19, 04:04 PM

The reason for hate is quite simple.
A paladin can't just sit around and do nothing, while evil happens. And when lawful good paladin enters the party, the party must become lawful good itself.

This is not quite true. Sure, it means that the party will be spurred into action against evil threats, but honestly, the DM was going to come up with plot hooks to get you involved anyway. Like any character with strong convictions or drives, the paladin will shape some of the party's actions and interactions through simple dynamics between himself and the others. But that's not unique to the paladin. The paladin is just a class that always will have the identifiably strong principles.

You certainly don't need to be LG as a party. The paladin can hang out with you as long as you're not, as a party, evil. As most evil characters in non-evil parties need to hide it at least a little, keeping the paladin unaware of your darker inclinations is no worse than keeping the NG cleric in the dark as to just how you made sure that the villain would not keep extorting the good duke in a way that forced him to tax his people unbearably.

You are the poisonous friend, the necessary evil. No, that isn't a comment that there really is necessary evil, but that's the dynamic YOU introduce when you agree to be in a party with the paladin.

What's in it for you? The paladin's reputation! The paladin's presence makes the whole party seem LG to others. You can disabuse those who would be negatively impacted by the notion, in private; those who are positively influenced are now more easily exploited. Moreover, in all those friendly and cheerful places that don't require you to watch your back for fear of others...well, others like YOU, you also don't need to worry about the law coming down on you just for being yourself. If you can keep the paladin thinking you're kosher, you can fool some idiot guards. Especially if your paladin buddy will vouch for you! Even if he's not always happy about it, you should be able to prove you're his ally well enough to keep him from being able to honestly (and thus lawfully or fairly-under-Good-auspices) say he thinks you're bad news.

Yes, then, the paladin alters party dynamics. But in truth, any character does. The stronger their drives and principles, the more they do so. Roy is every bit as much a curtailment of Belkar as a paladin would have been. Roy('s player) plays his alignment well.

Remember, too, that your less-than-good character also is forcing dynamics on the paladin and the rest of the party. That's what makes it a PARTY of characters. The problems arise when you aren't willing to play with the dynamics offered. And that can be the paladin player's fault, your fault, the DM's fault, or everybody's fault. The trick to working with a paladin is the same as with any character: discuss it OOC to determine how you want party dynamics to roughly flow so that you at least have a rough framework to start with. Let it evolve naturally from there, but don't START from the idea that intra-party antagonism will guide it all!

Flickerdart

2013-07-19, 04:10 PM

When I play a paladin, and have my doubts, I think "what would Ned Stark do?".
Die? :smallamused:

It's like you game in Pittsburgh with my group...

Pittsburgh, eh? I'm moving there in a couple weeks.

Traab

2013-07-19, 04:10 PM

One comment about the neutral, I gotta say I love how often I read a story about someone who clearly picked neutral just so they had an excuse to do all sorts of horrible things, without being chased out of every town and village they approached for being Evil. "No really, im not evil, that orphanage attacked ME!"

Eldonauran

2013-07-19, 04:13 PM

But if we changed the 3.5 paladin to be better and say be as good in its own game as the 2e paladin was in its, then how is it not a paladin anymore? Does it magically become not a paladin if I made smite evil a per encounter ability?

Giving the Paladin more power, as I stated before, I something that I am all for. What I am viscerally against, is mitigating the effect of a fall. If a Paladin wants to have powers that stay when/if he falls, he could simply multiclass.

Ok if I take my automatic transmission out of my truck and put a standard transmission, is my truck any less of a truck? No. Just because you modify or fix something doesn't mean it stops being what it is. Hell with your logic new cars are no longer cars cause they were improved upon and changed for the better....they must be something else... Maybe they are rocket teleporters?

The code doesn't have any mechanical benefit. The Code is the Paladin. It is what makes him what he is. Using a automobile as a reference isn't accurate because the only relatable bit between a car and a Paladin is the driver/player. You can copy every class feature of a Paladin, refluff it and call it something else, but it is not a Paladin without the Code.

I love ToB and I'm glad they fixed the Paladin. To bad they couldn't actually call it what it is or else there would be fires in the streets. I don't play paladins because they are broken in a bad way, they can't keep up with the game without resorting to one trick.
Crusaders are not Paladins. They have many similarities but they are not the same thing.

Also, I have played Paladins that are not optimized. You don't have to deal massive damage to contribute to a party, even at high levels. You might be using a measuring stick that is different than mine when you say they can't keep up, and I can respect that, but my experience has shown that Paladins can, and do, hold their own.

I love the concept of a paladin though and I have played other classes, including a Rogue that way. Instead of yelling "sneak attack" I yelled "Smite Evil mutha...." In a Samuel L Jackson voice. That rogue made a fantastic paladin, and no one knew I wasn't a paladin. So if I could make a rogue a pretty darn good paladin why can't I improve upon the paladin and it still be a paladin?
I seem to be repeating myself but, the Code is what make the Paladin. Without it, you are free to act however you want. Choosing to be Good is one thing. Not being able to choose Evil is another. Stumbling is fine for the average man. A Paladin must walk the straight and narrow, with confident strides even when the road narrows to a rope's width.

In short, a rogue pretending to be a Paladin is not the same thing.

137beth

2013-07-19, 04:17 PM

But if we changed the 3.5 paladin to be better and say be as good in its own game as the 2e paladin was in its, then how is it not a paladin anymore? Does it magically become not a paladin if I made smite evil a per encounter ability?

Ok if I take my automatic transmission out of my truck and put a standard transmission, is my truck any less of a truck? No. Just because you modify or fix something doesn't mean it stops being what it is. Hell with your logic new cars are no longer cars cause they were improved upon and changed for the better....they must be something else... Maybe they are rocket teleporters?

I love ToB and I'm glad they fixed the Paladin. To bad they couldn't actually call it what it is or else there would be fires in the streets. I don't play paladins because they are broken in a bad way, they can't keep up with the game without resorting to one trick.

I love the concept of a paladin though and I have played other classes, including a Rogue that way. Instead of yelling "sneak attack" I yelled "Smite Evil mutha...." In a Samuel L Jackson voice. That rogue made a fantastic paladin, and no one knew I wasn't a paladin. So if I could make a rogue a pretty darn good paladin why can't I improve upon the paladin and it still be a paladin?

I agree--you can completely re-write the mechanics of a class without fundementally altering it and---wait...this sounds familiar...

The class is the crunch. The fluff doesn't matter.

My Warblade/Wizard/Dragonfire Adept can be fluffed as anything, even a healer, but it has no mechanical effects on the game.

Call yourself a nimbly pimbly cat that runs through the trees for all you want, you still only have X Class Abilities.

It is somewhat like...

I'm a scientist, I do the work of science. However I'm going to call myself an artist. Does it matter what I call myself? Will that change what I do at work tomorrow? Will I not be a scientist even when I fluff myself to be an artist?

Exactly. Fluff doesn't matter.
So when you re-write the paladin's crunch, it is still a paladin because it has the same fluff, but it is a different class because the class is the crunch...right, that totally makes sense.

Flickerdart

2013-07-19, 04:19 PM

Pro tip - paladins don't get their powers from a deity outside of FR, and don't have to actually worship one at all.

Eldonauran

2013-07-19, 04:22 PM

NichG

2013-07-19, 04:32 PM

Let's flip this on its head, shall we?
Why should a guy dedicated to upholding law and order and promoting good - in short, being a hero - be forced to put up with a sneaky git who goes around doing all sorts of unethical things because it's easier than doing things the proper way? Why should his player's fun be ruined because you want to do things your way? Basically, playing a rogue makes all other PCs accessory to the various crimes he commits, because they know about him and tolerate him and allow him to continune on his merry way.
It's a severe irritant that characters which are designed to do less than heroic and decent things are even allowed in the game. It's horrible, awful game design.

The rogue doesn't lose his sneak attack if he compromises and says 'okay, I'll be good, I won't steal from the villagers'. The 'awful game design' part is with regards to creating a link between mechanical penalties and the RP/social aspect of having characters manage to work together. Basically the mechanics enforce and enhance party strife, which is generally not a good thing unless the game is really trying to be about that.

Someone playing a murderer who uses meta-game logic to say 'but you can't kick me out of the party, I'm a PC' is just as bad as the guy who plays an authoritarian inquisitor who says 'you will all follow my orders and I will punish any transgressions'. The problem with the paladin is that it to a great extent punishes not doing that sort of thing.

T.G. Oskar

2013-07-19, 04:56 PM

I mostly see the discussion about how to force a Paladin to fall as a discussion trying to better define the nebulous but objective morality that is the alignment system. I don't see it as a way to weaken the Paladin, but as a way to better understand the system that it relies on. I think that kind of discussion is healthy for the game at large, and can be especially healthy for the Paladin, who depends on maintaining his alignment.

I would also say that the hate for the Paladin tends to come from three sources in my experience.

1. Players and DMs treat the Paladin as lawful stupid, instead of stupid good.

This is not to say that Paladins should break their code, but that too often players refuse to bend their code to break an obvious injustice. A Paladin can disobey a command from a superior officer to help someone, and can disagree about his code. They are devoted to good first, and order second. This does not mean they will lead a revolution, but if a government is evil, they should not be expected to defend it.

That's...kinda offensive. I can agree with the idea that a Paladin can't be played as if its alignment was "Lawful Stupid", where being too legalist interferes with your main mission of being good, but the inverse is also true. A "Stupid Good" character will, more often than not, be naive and lack the malice needed to fight evil.

If you want to use a better trope, it should be "To be Lawful or Good", which is mostly based on the conflict a Paladin has when the Code interferes directly with its Duty. If your liege (for example), the legally rightful monarch, gives an order that is unambiguously Evil, the Code suggests merely that legitimate authority must be respected. However, it conflicts with Duty; it's an Evil order, its intentions are Evil. In this conflict, Duty should win over the Code: in fact, in your eyes, the monarch is no longer the rightful ruler and thus there's no need to follow that order.

In that event, there's more than one way to handle it ("Is my liege on his right mind? Has my liege abused of his rule, and is no longer fit to be the ruler? Is it a trick question? Am I thinking about this too much!?"), but it'll refer to that trope more often than not; in that event, should you choose to follow your Code (being Lawful) or follow your Duty and your beliefs (and thus be Good)? I incline towards "being Good", but that's me.

2. The Chaotic "Neutral" Rogue

Stop it, you're not neutral, you're being evil. Stop being mad at the Paladin who is trying to stop you from doing something evil. He does it because he doesn't want to be forced to kill you. Stop being disruptive. Stop being selfish and blame the Paladin for ruining your fun because the he doesn't let you be a **** to every NPC you meet.

This is funny to point out, for a multitude of reasons.

First, note that almost EVERY SINGLE TIME the counterpart is referred, is always a Rogue? Nobody speaks of a Chaotic "Neutral" Wizard, or a Chaotic "Neutral" Druid, or a Chaotic "Neutral" Ranger; it's always a Chaotic "Neutral" Rogue. I like to point this out because it ties to one of the pretenses of the question; the "Lawful Stupid Paladin", the "Chaotic Stupid Rogue" and why Paladins are dead-set to fall are stereotypes of the game that were popularized on 3rd Edition (doesn't mean they're less true, but it means that they're popular).

Second thing: usually, the stereotype inclines toward setting the Chaotic "Neutral" Rogue as the "hero" (I'd say the face in terms of heat, speaking in wrestling terms), because the Rogue rarely suffers from his choices. For goodness sakes; the guy is willing to steal just for the heck of it (not because it's important or anything), or stab someone because "I don't like it" (remember, this is the Chaotic "Neutral" Rogue, the one that, just as much as it claims is "Neutral" it claims it has an Intelligence and/or Wisdom score much higher than 8, and that potentially has a secret flaw called "Lack of Common Sense"), and the stereotype never implies there's any repercussions about it whenever a Lawful Stupid Paladin is around!

I mention this because there's been several threads dealing with disruptive players, and the Chaotic "Neutral" Rogue is just as popular as the Lawful Stupid Paladin, but you rarely see them together. Both are equally disruptive players (just like the glory hound, which is pretty much the description of the Warblade), but when both are on the same party, usually the Lawful Stupid Paladin will out-hassle the players more than the Rogue who's willing to cheat them out of their hard-earned loot, or get them into problems; rarely you see someone saying "gee, Pally, I'm thankful for once that the stick you have stuck up in the unmentionables got us out of the trouble caused by the Rogue!".

Just saying that you're basically dealing with stereotypes; not every Chaotic Neutral character is actually Evil in disguise, not all Paladins are sticks in the mud, and not all Rogues have to be criminals.

3. DMs that want moral ambiguity or don't like detect evil for some reason.

You might say that not having strict alignments can help the Paladin, that the Paladin could bend the rules. I disagree. If a Paladin isn't able to fight evil, or if the world is instead designed to be in shades of grey, then the Paladin has lost something. I would say that although there is a potential gain in terms of roleplaying (the moral ambiguity of heroism seems pretty popular in those moving pictures these days), the Paladin more often loses out mechanically and roleplaying

Specifically, the DM doesn't want you. The DM doesn't want you because you have detect evil, something that requires alignments and can wreck stories. Apparently for some people a Paladin being able to cast detect evil at will is game breaking. I'll grant that in low magic it can be, but if your arch villain doesn't have some way to ignore divination magic of that basic a scake then he was never a competent villain to begin with.

The classiest villain is usually the one that gets the hero in a bind when pretty much everyone knows he's the one that's causing troubles. Note Lex Luthor, and how despite Superman stopping him every single time AND Supes being the most trusted individual in the whole planet, he still gets scot-free and still keeps his assets intact. Remember that these people also can't get that Clark Kent is just too similar in appearance to Superman, and that Superman currently lacks the super-hypnosis from Silver Age that makes everyone dismiss him as normal.

It's not that you require an item of Undetectable Alignment to be a proper villain; it's that if you don't have a mundane way to beat Detect Evil, you're not cut out to be a good villain. Allow me to use another stereotype: the Batman Wizard. Batman is ALWAYS prepared; if Batman were a villain, he'd be not just prepared against something as simple as Detect Evil at will; he'd be prepared against another Wizard or Tier 1 heroic character. A classy villain DOESN'T, however, has to be a Wizard; the danger of the Wizard is in that it's always crazy-prepared, not necessarily its powers.

Think about it; if the villain has the approval of just about the entire nation, the word of the infallible Paladin will amount to nothing. This is recognizing something in the Paladin that everyone seems to dislike: he's infallible, might as well make him fall. For all the "Paladin has the ability to 'Summon Conscience' and 'Invoke Alignment Discussion' at-will" accusations, it's hard to realize that even the Chaotic Neutral Rogue realizes that the Paladin also has a "I Always Speak the Truth" ability usable at-will, coupled with a "Everyone Who Hears the Paladin's Speech Immediately Knows It to be True and Will Act Always in its Favor" ability always active. Just because someone who's bound by oath is speaking doesn't mean it's true; if the Paladin doesn't know the truth and believes the lie, then he's not really lying, but rather speaking what little he knows and trusts that (note the 2+Int skill points, coupled with Int as a dump stat, and figure if they'll have points left for Sense Motive).

Tarquin, from Order of the Stick, gives a master class about being a classy villain. In essence, who cares if he's Evil, if he's Effective? Or rather, who cares about the Evil vizier, if that same Evil vizier is madly effective at helping the Monarch rule its domains? Take the Evil villain down, but you need to find someone who solves the massive problem later on, and pray to your Gods that civil war doesn't kick in and drops the Monarch out of order.

Note that this means a DM must play the villain smart. This probably won't be a problem for experienced DMs, but for people who aren't as experienced, or worse. Kinda the same as the Chaotic "Neutral" Rogue that plays as if its mental stats were worse than indicated.

This strikes a chord in me. I feel it has a resounding ring of truth and ties into what I was saying earlier. I think we do want to see the Paladin fall into the same muck that we all struggle with and watch it completely sink into the Paladin.

Speaking for myself, I want to see that Paladin consumed by the muck and then simply walk out of it as if it was nothing more substancial than air. Shining and unsullied, readjusting the grip on their weapon as they charge the remaining evil.

Ties into my outlook on Good and Evil. I don't see two opposing forces. I see Good and the absence of Good. Similar to hot and cold. There is no cold. There is only the absence of heat. There is no darkness, only the absence of light. There is no dry, only the absence of moisture.

There is no poverty; only the absence of money in my pockets. There is no chaos; only the absence of law. There is no hunger; only the absence of food in my tummy.

That doesn't mean a thief is merely doing a non-good act, or that an anarchist can't be disciplined and simply opposes the idea of an existing government.

What I mean is that considering Evil as an "absence of Good" doesn't really explain the nature of Evil. It necessarily implies that there is only Good, and not Evil; in essence, that everyone is born Good, and that someone who's "Evil" is simply devoid of Good (hence, someone can be "Evil" and, by that definition, can still be neutral if it has a degree of Good every now and then). There's nothing to stop the idea that there's only Evil (or rather, selfishness), and that Good is only the absence of Evil. Specifically, it precludes the idea that Vice is just the lack of Virtue, instead of being an excess of a necessity (as Pride is the excess of ambition, or Greed is the excess of desire) that can be good (without ambition, there's a lack of push to strive for success or improvement, and a lack of desire makes someone pretty much emotionless).

I agree with the idea that the Paladin should stand upon the "muck" of Evil, like a beacon of Goodness, but not because its enforced by a Code; rather, because the Paladin chose to be so, chose to be intentionally straight and narrow just to prove it can be done, and stop the excuses of "being a paragon of Goodness is impossible!" or "you need to be a perfect being to pull off being a paragon of Goodness..." Kinda like the Rogue that chooses to be a master thief pulls it off because it wants to prove it's the best of the best, and that it CAN be done (and because of the thrill of the adventure, and the benefits it reaps). Making it fall to prove the opposite point, on the other hand, isn't something I agree to; otherwise, considering that it only takes a small amount of Evil to make you fall (or so it seems), it leads to the idea that there's no reward on being Good, which kinda defeats the point of being a Paladin (promoting and defending Good because it's the best choice), as it suggests that Evil is the only viable, possible, and recognizable choice.

Kudaku

2013-07-19, 05:37 PM

Disclaimer: I do currently not have the time to read through three pages of comments - if the following has already been covered feel free to ignore it:

I think a part of why people dislike the paladin is that it has class features that not only requires the paladin to follow far more rigorous rules than any other class, but it also requires other party members to act in certain ways...

The druid and cleric has similar elements (must revere nature, must follow primary tenets of chosen religion) but those elements are nowhere near as specific and nowhere near as onerous for the cleric/druid player, or for the other players.

Let's say you have a party of the iconic four:
A TN Fighter
A CN Rogue
A NG Cleric
A LG Wizard

If a ranger, or a barbarian, or a bard joins the party, that's cool - you can still play any way you want. There might be some conflict since there is a fairly wide spread of alignments, but that just makes things interesting, really.

However, if a paladin joins the party, the party dynamic is forcibly changed since those players now have to accommodate the paladin's code-based limitations - and players resent having change forced on them.

That said, the degree of change depends on how the party was lining up before the paladin joined and the degree of force depends on the GM and the paladin player.

A party of LG crusaders (personality type, not class) probably won't mind as much since there is minimal change in the party dynamic - odds are the players will already be playing close to the tenets of the paladin code.

A cut-throat mercenary type group that only asks "how much" every time they get a quest hook will most likely experience a bigger change, which is where the degree of force comes in. A flexible player and an accommodating player can make a paladin fit in to just about any party so long as the party member's not downright villainous. A player that insists on playing the "stick up the butt"-version of paladin and/or has a GM that goes over the code with a fine-tooth comb every time the paladin orders a beer and constantly throws "fall if you do and fall if you don't"-type scenarios will struggle to find a place for his character.

Perseus

2013-07-19, 05:45 PM

I agree--you can completely re-write the mechanics of a class without fundementally altering it and---wait...this sounds familiar...

So when you re-write the paladin's crunch, it is still a paladin because it has the same fluff, but it is a different class because the class is the crunch...right, that totally makes sense.

The fluff doesn't matter, however with the case of the Rogue as a Paladin we are replacing *smite* a damaging mechanic that boost your normal damage with *sneak attack* which is a damaging mechanic to boost your normal damage. However at the end of the day I was still a Rogue no matter what I told people, I didn't get full BAB just for saying I was a Paladin...meow

They do the same thing mechanically *moar damage*, they just get to the end differently. Like 2 + 4 = 6 and 5 + 1 = 6. They both equal 6.meow

Fluff it however you want, the mechanics give you 6 moar damage in a special way. Being able to fluff a rogue (of all classes) to be a Paladin is a great example of fluff not mattering.meow

Now if I want to improve a class's mechanics because it simply doesn't work compared to what the game throws at it doesn't mean that fluff matters more than mechanics. meow

To continue with my car analogies...
Fluff is like the color of a car. Does the color of the car have any mechanical effects on the car*? If I change the color is it somehow not a car anymore? Now if I strap a jet and some wings on it and somehow get it to fly (safely) then is it still a car? No.meow

However I can make a 1965 Mustang and a 2013 Mustang. Are tehy a different car because one is mechanically made different? No they are both the same car, just a bit different. When you think of cars with power you think of muscle cars and the mustang (ok newer ones kinda suck...) is still a mustang no matter what changes they made in the mechanics because the mechanics do the same thing. meow

BWR

2013-07-19, 05:56 PM

The rogue doesn't lose his sneak attack if he compromises and says 'okay, I'll be good, I won't steal from the villagers'.

Here's the thing, good characters of any sort shouldn't accept that sort of behavior from anyone. I have said before and I'll restate that I cannot comprehend how some people seem to think that a LG cleric should have looser moral standards than a paladin. A LG cleric, or any LG person, shouldn't accept a party member breaking the law in such a flagrant and harmful manner.

The 'awful game design' part is with regards to creating a link between mechanical penalties and the RP/social aspect of having characters manage to work together. Basically the mechanics enforce and enhance party strife, which is generally not a good thing unless the game is really trying to be about that.

I think mechanics tying to RP is great. Also, as I point out for the third time, interparty strife is only a problem if the players act like jerks. Why is this so difficult ofr people to grasp? There is nothing wrong with the restrictions on the paladin. I feel there should be more such restrictions on clerics in general. Sure, there are some hints in the cleric description but I feel they should be made more explicit and clerics should, according to RAW, have something like "if a cleric fails to follow his god's creed, he loses his powers"

There is nothing wrong with people wanting to play a paladin. Paladins do not have to be preachy, moralizing *****. There is nothing wrong with people wanting to play immoral ********s. It can even be fun in the same party.
What is wrong is WHEN PEOPLE INSIST ON PLAYING CHARACTERS THAT WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS AND DON'T CARE. Hopnestly, how hard is this to understand?

Someone playing a murderer who uses meta-game logic to say 'but you can't kick me out of the party, I'm a PC' is just as bad as the guy who plays an authoritarian inquisitor who says 'you will all follow my orders and I will punish any transgressions'. The problem with the paladin is that it to a great extent punishes not doing that sort of thing.

But there is nothing in the paladin description that says a paladin does this. This is merely the apparantly widespread belief that paladins are some sort of facist ********s who consistenly go around making sure people sleep with their arms on the outside of their blankets.
A belief, I may add, I never got from any roleplaying books or supplements, and was perfectly unfamiliar with in any game I played and had only barely heard of (mostly thanks to things like OotS) until I started frequenting these boards.

Eldonauran

2013-07-19, 06:01 PM

There is no poverty; only the absence of money in my pockets. There is no chaos; only the absence of law. There is no hunger; only the absence of food in my tummy.
I can't quite wrap my head around your choices of examples. None really make sense in the context I was using. Poverty is a term for a lack of wealth, which itself is a product of human design. Immaterial. Chaos/Law could be viewed as a natural progression from the randomness of creation to the order left when the energies cool. Hunger is a chemical reaction that occurs based on a perceived lack of nutrients in a biological system.

I'd say bad examples but that is understandable if you did not spend too much time thinking through them before posting.

That doesn't mean a thief is merely doing a non-good act, or that an anarchist can't be disciplined and simply opposes the idea of an existing government.
Not sure how to respond to that.

What I mean is that considering Evil as an "absence of Good" doesn't really explain the nature of Evil. It necessarily implies that there is only Good, and not Evil; in essence, that everyone is born Good, and that someone who's "Evil" is simply devoid of Good (hence, someone can be "Evil" and, by that definition, can still be neutral if it has a degree of Good every now and then). There's nothing to stop the idea that there's only Evil (or rather, selfishness), and that Good is only the absence of Evil. Specifically, it precludes the idea that Vice is just the lack of Virtue, instead of being an excess of a necessity (as Pride is the excess of ambition, or Greed is the excess of desire) that can be good (without ambition, there's a lack of push to strive for success or improvement, and a lack of desire makes someone pretty much emotionless).
If you try to see Evil as merely a corruption of Good (anti-good if you would), my thought process might be a little easier to follow. The idea that Evil is merely the absence/corruption of Good gives a lot of weight behind the idea that all things can be redeemed once they have been shown what Good really is. Sanctify the Wicked no longer seems to be a spell that tortures evil creatures but pulls them out of the hole they have dug for themselves and forces them into the light.

I agree with the idea that the Paladin should stand upon the "muck" of Evil, like a beacon of Goodness, but not because its enforced by a Code; rather, because the Paladin chose to be so, chose to be intentionally straight and narrow just to prove it can be done, and stop the excuses of "being a paragon of Goodness is impossible!" or "you need to be a perfect being to pull off being a paragon of Goodness..." Kinda like the Rogue that chooses to be a master thief pulls it off because it wants to prove it's the best of the best, and that it CAN be done (and because of the thrill of the adventure, and the benefits it reaps). Making it fall to prove the opposite point, on the other hand, isn't something I agree to; otherwise, considering that it only takes a small amount of Evil to make you fall (or so it seems), it leads to the idea that there's no reward on being Good, which kinda defeats the point of being a Paladin (promoting and defending Good because it's the best choice), as it suggests that Evil is the only viable, possible, and recognizable choice.
If Evil wasn't seductive and easy, it wouldn't be as powerful as it is. All it takes is a little bit of muck to cloud a glass of pure water. A willful evil act should bring a Paladin low. Good is the best choice. It is the hard choice. It is the painful choice. It has to be that way because Evil makes it that way. Otherwise, why would people choose to allow others to suffer? Its easier to look the other way, to not see, to not hear.

NichG

2013-07-19, 06:25 PM

I think mechanics tying to RP is great. Also, as I point out for the third time, interparty strife is only a problem if the players act like jerks. Why is this so difficult ofr people to grasp? There is nothing wrong with the restrictions on the paladin. I feel there should be more such restrictions on clerics in general. Sure, there are some hints in the cleric description but I feel they should be made more explicit and clerics should, according to RAW, have something like "if a cleric fails to follow his god's creed, he loses his powers"

The problem with the restrictions on the paladin is that they encourage the player of the paladin to act like a jerk, as you put it. Or rather, they punish the player not doing so. This is because the paladin's restrictions do not just apply to actions they themselves take, but it restricts who they associate with, not just excluding evil people but also 'people who consistently offends their moral code'. Since the paladin's code includes things like honor (not lying), this can be read as saying that the paladin is required to stop people in the party from lying, or they can no longer travel with them. This is a big gap from letting someone steal from a village.

At the same time the 'evil' part of that also forces shades of grey out of the campaign. The good characters in the party may decide 'Deathwatch isn't really so bad even though it has the [Evil] tag' or 'I'm okay with using poison'. Its probably not enough to change their alignment. With a paladin in the party, the paladin's ability to participate mechanically in the game is held hostage to obviate the moral choices of others.

Normally in a situation where there's tension between PCs, the principle of 'choose to react differently' applies as a way to relieve that tension. The rogue can choose to not steal from innocents. The murderer can realize that there are more important things to do than to kill for fun, and can save that aggression for the monsters. The cop can decide that bringing justice to this one petty criminal from long ago is less important than saving the world or whatever the party is doing right now.

The mechanics of the paladin make it difficult for their player to participate in compromise solutions like that. Thats why its bad game design, because it forces a metagame reality (we all want to play this game together) to come into conflict with in-game things.

Coidzor

2013-07-19, 07:13 PM

I suspect that you may have dropped a verb here?

Anyway, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people here don't hate Paladins. What sort of makes Paladins unique is that the DM can strip them of their power if their player messes up and I think this has led a lot of players to second-guess themselves when they play a Paladin.
It seems to me that most of the people here that DM have a sense of fair play. They're given a powerful tool to keep a Paladin's player in line, one that they don't want to use if they don't need to. I think that might be the reason why the question of "What does it take for a Paladin to fall?" comes up so much-- it's not because they want a Paladin to fall, it's more that they want a baseline understanding of when they deserve to.
I'm not going to claim that people that hate the Paladin class on principle don't exist though. I've met some of them in real life. Most of them just have problems with any character who's Lawful Good. That was my impression anyway.

It's kind of paradoxical, really. I love the idea of paladins, I have a special soft spot for the Paladin Rakeesh from Quest for Glory for some strange reason that I can't quite place. I don't really like D&D Paladins, and not just because their mechanics make me cry. :smallconfused:

I think I'm just weird in this regard though.

That's...kinda offensive. I can agree with the idea that a Paladin can't be played as if its alignment was "Lawful Stupid", where being too legalist interferes with your main mission of being good, but the inverse is also true. A "Stupid Good" character will, more often than not, be naive and lack the malice needed to fight evil.

I believe that's actually the idea, at least the lacking malice part, not the inability to fight evil as a result. Fighting evil with malice is fighting fire with fire. The Paladin is a living refutation of the idea that he who fights monsters becomes a monster. Unless he falls and goes Blackguard.

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-19, 08:03 PM

Some players also use restrictions like this against the rest of their party. In one case the player of a vop monk demanded that reward that wasn't actually taken as part of his share, in effect diminishing everyone elses real share.
That's what he's supposed to do; it says it right in Vow of Poverty. The rest of the party doesn't get to break WBL just because someone took the Vow. :smalltongue:

At any rate, old but relevant. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36509) The paladin doesn't have to be an obstinate stick in the mud to do his thing.

I should also throw in that I'm a fan of the Pathfinder paladin. Someone said upthread that they get better saves, but I find that despite high Will they really don't; Wisdom is their dump stat since their spellcasting keys off of Charisma, and when I've rebuilt old characters to Pathfinder I find that the saves kind of even out, with the high base save merely making up for now-average Wisdom. The changes to smite, though, are huge, as is making lay on hands usable on himself as a swift action.

137beth

2013-07-19, 09:42 PM

Now if I want to improve a class's mechanics because it simply doesn't work compared to what the game throws at it doesn't mean that fluff matters more than mechanics. meow
So you think that
1. Fluff doesn't matter to the class, what makes a paladin a paladin is entirely the crunch...okay, sure
2. The Paladin is a weak class mechanically...yes, I agree
3. You can changes the mechanics of the paladin class to make it less underpowered...sure, people do it all the time in the homebrew forum

Then you go on to say that
4. your "fixed" paladin is still a paladin, even though its crunch is completely different...
which implies that something other than crunch is making your homebrew class a paladin. If the only thing which defines a class is its crunch, than if you change the crunch, you have a completely different class...
so what is it about your "fixed paladin" that makes it a paladin:smallconfused:

interparty strife is only a problem if the players act like jerks. Why is this so difficult ofr people to grasp?I guess it probably comes from the difficulty some people have separating in-character with out-of-character. It sorta makes you wonder whether these paladin-haters go to a theatre and think
oh noez! Macduff just stabbed Macbeth! Intra-cast conflict! Clearly, Macduff has taken levels in a poorly-designed class--a class which forces the characters to hate each other, and that must mean the actors hate each other too, omg!

ArqArturo

2013-07-19, 10:09 PM

Here's a hypothetical situation in which The Code (the thread's main reason d'etre) enters in play.

A mostly neutral part consisting on a CN Rogue, a CN Barbarian, a N Fighter, a CG Cleric, a CG Sorcerer, and a NG Druid (plus the paladin) get a job from a guy to retrieve a jewel from a nobleman. Obviously the Paladin is against the job, and the group decides to ditch the paladin because, well, it's irrelevant. The paladin, sensing something's up, decides to check what is really going on with a Gather Information check (not a Class skill, but a paladin has enough Charisma to have a decent check), and finds out that it's a setup from a previous bandit group that the party wiped out. The Paladin then informs the rest of the group, but don't believe him and think he's exaggerating. As a last resort, the paladin goes to the nobleman, informs him that he was hired to retrieve the gemstone, putting himself to blame, and is willing to tell who it was.

Indeed, the paladin is lying, but the code does mention that a paladin cannot lie to save himself, not to save an innocent person from being framed. Doing so, puts the nobleman on edge, the guy running the setup panics, and the rest of the party see what happens.

Edit: And yes, this is something that happened. The Rogue said 'let him rot', and I paid the bail (sorcerer).

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-19, 10:50 PM

thamolas

2013-07-19, 11:02 PM

Also, every D&D group I've played with where an argument has broken out about using OOC knowledge has been because the players playing paladins have used it to as an excuse for their characters to be douche-y to other characters. "I can't travel with him. He's a criminal." "How do you know that?" "I can tell." "How?"

Flickerdart

2013-07-19, 11:19 PM

Also, every D&D group I've played with where an argument has broken out about using OOC knowledge has been because the players playing paladins have used it to as an excuse for their characteras to be douche-y to other characters. "I can't travel with him. He's a criminal." "How do you know that?" "I can tell." "How?"
The stick up a paladin's ass is a dowsing rod for evil, obviously.

Kaiisaxo

2013-07-20, 12:27 AM

IMO, the Paladin is just fine where it is, severe penalty for falling and all. Giving a bit more power, I support. Attempting to lessen the impact of the fall, I viscerally object to.

Call it something else. It's not a Paladin.

Yes, if it isn't LG and can't fall it is not a paladin, power levels be damned.

Pro tip - paladins don't get their powers from a deity outside of FR, and don't have to actually worship one at all.

Bingo!, my most beloved Paladin was a misoteist, he didn't care about worhisping deities that won't do anything to help the world and not helped at all by seeing a lot of devot worhisppers who would do nothing to help others.

Andthe mission of a paldin is to "vanquish evil", but that doens't encesarilly translates into "slay every single evil being" , you cna also work jhard to redeem evil, to cleanse evil with compassion and example, and even if it came to have to destroy evil, catching the villain alive in roder for him to be judged by the legitimate law and given the appropriate punishment for his crimes instead of takinf the law on your own hands should be a higher priority "slayong the wicked ones" is only the last recourse. "slay everybody who doesn't share my beliefs and isn't up to my standards" is more what a sith would do than what a paladin is about

Pickford

2013-07-20, 02:32 AM

But the paladin shouldn't have to police his own group just to keep his class features. RP is all fine and good, but you shouldn't have a so-called "class feature" that ruins one character if the other characters don't dance to his tune.

If I build a sneaky character and the paladin takes any kind of trickery or stealth as "dishonorable" and "dishonest," even if it saves lives and is far more expedient and liable to cause the least amount of collateral damage, why should his class force him to cause huge problems because he's unable to stand any kind of dishonesty by default?

Basically, playing a paladin forces everyone in the group to play to his tune or he becomes even more worthless. That is a severe irritant, and it's horrible, awful game design.

Paladins don't have to police their group. Paladins don't fall because 'you' commit an evil act, they fall if 'they' commit an evil act.

This seems like the problem is more about players who can't agree on the type of adventuring party they're going to have. Parties with vastly differing alignments are not successful. Generally you don't ever want a Lawful Good character and a Chaotic Evil character in the same game. And when people play to those archtypes you will get conflict.

The obvious solution is to have everyone agree to be playing as the good guys, or the bad guys but not both.

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 03:02 AM

Paladins don't have to police their group. Paladins don't fall because 'you' commit an evil act, they fall if 'they' commit an evil act.

The paladin class description specifies that paladins will not associate with someone who consistently offends her moral code. If by moral code the rules mean a general morale code based on her alignment,or specifically 'the paladin code' is up for debate. If it's the former then it's not necessarily a big problem since alignments are pretty accommodating, if it is the latter then the paladin really does have to choose between policing her group, remaining willfully ignorant of actions that would offend her code, or leaving the party whenever her theoretical moral code 'glass' is full.

This seems like the problem is more about players who can't agree on the type of adventuring party they're going to have. Parties with vastly differing alignments are not successful. Generally you don't ever want a Lawful Good character and a Chaotic Evil character in the same game. And when people play to those archtypes you will get conflict.

Some of the best campaigns I've been in have been excellent specifically because they included a vastly differing alignments. A party including LG and CE characters will most likely have wildly different opinions on how to solve problems, quests, and so on. That said, (barring Lawful Stupid or Stupid Evil) there's no reason why they can't figure out compromises and get along.

In fact, look at the order of the stick party on this very website. Belkar (or at the very least early comic Belkar) is evil to the tips of his furry shoeless feet, but he is still able to function well within his party and his presence is the source of a great deal of interesting interaction and developments.

Now imagine if Roy was a paladin instead of a fighter. More or less on their very first encounter Roy would scan the rest of the party members and find out that Belkar pings on the evil radar. "Sorry guys, I can't associate with an evil character". And that decision is not up to Roy's player - it is literally hardcoded into the class.

Personally I feel you could make a strong argument that the pally code requires paladins to be prejudiced.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-20, 04:16 AM

Very.

For example, a friend that started DMing, she wanted to do an all-arcane-high-magic game of us, a group of students from an academy, facing a being that devours magic. I was gonna be a duskblade, and there were two wizards, a sorcerer, and three bards.

And the last player was a full barbarian, with levels of cultslayer.That's kind of a d-bag move. I suspect his barbarian didn't last long, though, given the kind of stopping power the DM could throw at the rest of the group.

Another game I did not get into, but heard from a game that was playing, it was meant to be a vile darkness, heroes of horror, call of Cthulhu game, as bleak as it could be, of an evil party. Two clerics of pelor, and one paladin in the group.This, on the other hand, can work and can be hella fun if it's handled right. Still a bit of a d-bag move if the DM explicitly called for an all-evil party, but otherwise doable in the short-term or for as long as necessity would demand IC.

And there are few examples of this that I've heard or been there.

As others have pointed out, players and DM's that refuse to compromise are a major source of the problem, but the wide-spread misconceptions about what the code actually entails don't help matters.

Let's break it down.

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever commits an evil act. Well that's pretty straight-foward, as far as it goes. The question here is what exactly constitutes an evil act. The PHB has this to say
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.That's a little vague. Obviously killing can't be evil by itself, else a divine warrior empowered by good wouldn't even make sense, much less get an ability like smite evil. So clearly that must mean killing without some mitigating reason. Beyond this point elaboration is absolutely necessary. A discussion with the DM and/or group is -necessary- to define these in more detail unless you have another source for definitions of good and evil. BoED and BoVD do a fairly good job of elaborating on what good and evil mean in D&D as long as you don't try to deliberately gum it up with wierd corner cases. Even then only a bit of thought is necessary to make even those work; but I digress.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority Here's a sticking point. Some people take this and the paladin's lawful alignment to mean that he must absolutely follow any and all local laws regardless of consequence or intention, else fall. That's clearly -not- sensible and isn't what that phrase actually means. Respect =/= obedience and whether an authority is legitimate must be defined somehow. Clearly any authority that regularly demands evil acts of those under its rule can't be legitimate and one that even occasionally does so must be questioned at least. Additionally, failing to obey a legitimate authority is not an evil act, so it's not an automatic fall even if the paladin chooses to do so.

, act with honor (<examples of possible dishonorable actions>)Here's one where things really break down. Honor is an entirely subjective concept that varies from culture to culture. The examples given imply something akin to the chivalric code of medieval europe but the statement is otherwise meaningless in a vaccuum. To even consider this portion of the code -requires- the player and DM be on the same page with what the paladin's honor code or what his society's views on honor actually are; hence at least a short discussion on the nature of honor is necessary.

help those in need (provided they don't use that help for evil or chaotic ends)Another vague point. How much help is enough before the paladin can leave and how grave must the need be before a paladin -must- step in. Is he required to help every little old lady cross the street and to help bring in the harvest? or can he choose to help only those beset by evil and in need of martial defense or rescue?

and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.How much harm or threat are we talking here? Does the paladin have to smack around little Billy because he threatened to tell Kimmy that Tommy likes her, creating both a threat to and directly harming Billy's little-boy feelings? or is it reserved for those who are committing evil acts by doing or threatening physical harm to non-evil people?

Seems the only clear-cut point of the code is the don't commit evil acts portion and even that's fairly vague in just the PHB. Wait a sec. Wasn't there a bunch of hullabaloo about how the members of your party act? There's nothing in the code about it. Ah, here it is, in the section -after- the code.
While he 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.Huh? Nothing about falling in that section. Come to think of it, there was nothing in the code itself about falling except when the paladin commits an evil act.

Here we go.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities.Well evil acts and alignment were already covered in the code itself, so that part's just a restatement. The important word in the -new- statement is "grossly." The paladin must grossly violate the code to fall. A minor failure to help innocents, thwart evil, or act with honor isn't enough. He's got to ignore someone with great need, choose to let a noteable evil run completely unchecked, or deliberately act in a grossly dishonorable fashion (whatever that means) to fall. Those are things that a paladin, being lawful good, should -want- to avoid anyway and there's -still- nothing about falling if your associates do evil as long as they're not blatanty or grossly evil.

Since you can't fall for having evil associates then what does that section actually say? I see two possible interpretations.

A) The paladin is -incapable- of knowingly associating with evil. As soon as he discovers that one of his companions is evil, he must immediately demand that that character leave the party or leave himself. An immediate attack might well constitute an evil act after that necessary discussion with your DM and definitely will if BoED and BoVD are being used to define the moral axis of alignment.

B) It's poorly placed role-playing advice. There's no consequence for ignoring it and BoED says redemption is supposed to be a big thing for Good. Personally, I favor this interpretation.

So, yeah. Paladin's code; not nearly as clear-cut as it seems and easily misinterpretted.

BWR

2013-07-20, 08:47 AM

The problem with the restrictions on the paladin is that they encourage the player of the paladin to act like a jerk, as you put it. Or rather, they punish the player not doing so. This is because the paladin's restrictions do not just apply to actions they themselves take, but it restricts who they associate with, not just excluding evil people but also 'people who consistently offends their moral code'. Since the paladin's code includes things like honor (not lying), this can be read as saying that the paladin is required to stop people in the party from lying, or they can no longer travel with them. This is a big gap from letting someone steal from a village.

At the same time the 'evil' part of that also forces shades of grey out of the campaign. The good characters in the party may decide 'Deathwatch isn't really so bad even though it has the [Evil] tag' or 'I'm okay with using poison'. Its probably not enough to change their alignment. With a paladin in the party, the paladin's ability to participate mechanically in the game is held hostage to obviate the moral choices of others.

Normally in a situation where there's tension between PCs, the principle of 'choose to react differently' applies as a way to relieve that tension. The rogue can choose to not steal from innocents. The murderer can realize that there are more important things to do than to kill for fun, and can save that aggression for the monsters. The cop can decide that bringing justice to this one petty criminal from long ago is less important than saving the world or whatever the party is doing right now.

The mechanics of the paladin make it difficult for their player to participate in compromise solutions like that. Thats why its bad game design, because it forces a metagame reality (we all want to play this game together) to come into conflict with in-game things.

Your argument boils down to "I want to be able to play how I want to with no consequences". Your post does nothing but reinforce what I have been saying: it's only a problem if the players/GM insist on making it a problem. The point of the paladin is no compromise. Complaining about that is like complaining that guns shoot things. It is the core of the class, the unfailing righteous warrior for good. If you want to have a group that doesn't mind doing a little dirty stuff for the greater good, fine. Don't play a paladin. A decent player wouldn't try to force a paladin in the group if it would be a problem.
Removing the restrictions is like "I wanna play Batman, but with guns and killing people".

The point of a paladin, and anyone who really has the Good alignments, especially Lawful Good, is that they will not stand for bad behavior. Nothing says the paladin has to immediately kill, kick out or leave if someone in the party does something objectionable. It is perfectly acceptable for a LG character to take them to task and lead by example. Trying to educate and enlighten is a perfectly acceptable. Forgiveness is aceptable. It's when people refuse to learn and change their behavior that the ultimatum comes.

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-20, 09:19 AM

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 09:31 AM

I will just throw out there than any committed Lawful Good (or Neutral Good for that matter) character would have a distinct problem with criminally murderous behavior on the part of his companions. Everyone complaining about not wanting paladins because then they can't kill everyone they don't like and steal everything that isn't nailed down are actually complaining about not wanting good-aligned characters, whether they realize that or not.

That's a fair point. However it also implies that all evil characters are doing criminally murderous behavior... It runs into the stupid evil trap.

A Lawful Good character certainly can have distinct problems with an evil character. A Paladin must have a problem with an evil character, no matter of how that character actually behaves.

Pickford

2013-07-20, 09:38 AM

The paladin code specifies that paladins will not associate with someone who consistently offends her moral code. If by moral code the rules mean a general morale code based on her alignment,or specifically 'the paladin code' is up for debate. If it's the former then it's not necessarily a big problem since alignments are pretty accommodating, if it is the latter then the paladin really does have to choose between policing her group, remaining willfully ignorant of actions that would offend her code, or leaving the party whenever her theoretical moral code 'glass' is full.

Some of the best campaigns I've been in have been excellent specifically because they included a vastly differing alignments. A party including LG and CE characters will most likely have wildly different opinions on how to solve problems, quests, and so on. That said, (barring Lawful Stupid or Stupid Evil) there's no reason why they can't figure out compromises and get along.

In fact, look at the order of the stick party on this very website. Belkar (or at the very least early comic Belkar) is evil to the tips of his furry shoeless feet, but he is still able to function well within his party and his presence is the source of a great deal of interesting interaction and developments.

Now imagine if Roy was a paladin instead of a fighter. More or less on their very first encounter Roy would scan the rest of the party members and find out that Belkar pings on the evil radar. "Sorry guys, I can't associate with an evil character". And that decision is not up to Roy's player - it is literally hardcoded into the class.

Personally I feel you could make a strong argument that the pally code requires paladins to be prejudiced.

Actually it says who consistently offends her moral code. One-off events don't actually preclude continued association. However even that is not a violation of the code of conduct, and therefore not really a problem in terms of falling, just in terms of not being likely to play together.

I think the more obvious issues are when people are so evil they blatantly violate the other required portions of the code: For example, the requirement to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

I think the obvious conflict was mentioned above with one player who was nominally neutral deciding they were going to murder some innocent NPCs because the NPCs might be a problem later. That should conflict with basically everyone but another chaotic/neutral evil character.

edit: Kudaku, the alignment portion of the PHB makes it fairly clear that only evil characters are doing anything murderously criminal.

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-20, 09:45 AM

That's a fair point. However it also implies that all evil characters are doing criminally murderous behavior... It runs into the stupid evil trap.

It does. I play paladins a fair bit (you might have guessed from the username, posting pattern, etc.), and when I bust out detect evil on one, it's a big deal, mainly because as an SLA it has recognizable casting components and people without Spellcraft won't know what spell you're casting at them and might get edgy. :smalltongue: Even if your DM doesn't run it that way, it's probably socially unacceptable to just check up on everybody with alignment detection as soon as you meet them just because you can, even if you don't have cause to suspect. I mean, you might play a paladin who doesn't care about that, but I tend to take high Charisma, Diplomacy ranks, and the odd rank in Knowledge (nobility) to mean knowing a fair bit about etiquette and protocol and how and when to apply them. :smallamused: This doesn't mean the paladin's dumb, but it does mean that unless played as a paranoid maniac he doesn't automatically know whether or not everyone he meets is evil regardless of circumstances.

An inquisitor (if you're playing Pathfinder), though, is more likely to just not give a damn. :smallcool:

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 09:50 AM

Pickford, I took the liberty to reorder your post somewhat so my answer is more clear - hope you don't mind.

Actually it says who consistently offends her moral code. One-off events don't actually preclude continued association. However even that is not a violation of the code of conduct, and therefore not really a problem in terms of falling, just in terms of not being likely to play together.

Falling isn't the only problem with the paladin though. If someone (paladin or the other character) has to leave the party because the paladin disagrees with someone else's actions, that is very much a problem. I don't think paladins should be able to issue player-to-player ultimatums as a class feature.

I think the obvious conflict was mentioned above with one player who was nominally neutral deciding they were going to murder some innocent NPCs because the NPCs might be a problem later. That should conflict with basically everyone but another chaotic/neutral evil character.

Agreed.

I think the more obvious issues are when people are so evil they blatantly violate the other required portions of the code: For example, the requirement to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

The problem is that paladins don't differentiate - if any character pings on the evil scale, that means the paladin can't associate with him. That works well if your campaign uses comic book/western-evil where its clear from the color of someone's hat if they should be shot or not. However, in other games an evil character can qualify for the evil alignment and still be a perfectly pleasant person - you don't necessarily have to be 'Dr Doom' to qualify for the Evil tag.

Finally, if you have the time I'd really like to hear your reply to the Order of the Stick-example laid out earlier :smallsmile:

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 10:00 AM

@Renegade Paladin
Inquisitors are indeed the Jack Bauers of Golarion :smallcool:

I think your detect evil example makes a great deal of sense, and this is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind when I said that paladins doesn't have to negatively impact the party so long as the GM and the paladin's player show some flexibility. However that take on spells not actually written down or hinted at anywhere so it's dependent on the GM and the player's take on the paladin and the setting's social implications of spellcasting. Adding to that I think it really depends on the paladin - I have to say if I had the power to know if the people who will be standing watch while I sleep, help me get into my armor, cover my back as we raid the keep of Baron Pineapple, and go ahead of the party to cash in the loot we got when the raid is over are evil or not, I'd probably do it. Doubly so if a character voices opinions that I disagree with, or behaves in a form I find suspicious.

Furthermore, sooner or later odds are that the paladin is going to activate DE and the evil guy will be inside the cone of effect. Should that happen the RAW and RAI paladin's only reply is "I'm goin' home, an' I'm taking my ball with me!"

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-20, 10:11 AM

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 10:27 AM

Of course he'd probably know about his companions sooner or later, but that's on everyone for ignoring the implicit duty of the players to make at least a semi-cohesive party, isn't it? If the DM is allowing evil characters (not a given; unless I'm running an explicitly evil campaign I generally don't) and someone intends to take advantage of that, don't play a paladin; conversely if there's a paladin don't bring an evil character. This applies to the more general case of upsetting the apple cart everywhere he goes by pinging everyone in the marketplace or royal court.

I guess that's where we disagree - I don't think there should be a RAI class feature that invalidates the presence of other characters straight out of the box. Furthermore, who says a cohesive party can't have both good-aligned and evil-aligned characters? Again, look at Order of the Stick's lineup. While they may pull tricks and antagonize each other, there is little doubt that they work together, stick up, and look out for one another, despite having a (very) wide spread of alignments.

As for that take on spells, it's actually pretty explicitly laid out in the fact that spells have verbal and somatic components and Spellcraft's ability to identify the spell being cast by interpreting those words and gestures.

Absolutely. What is not laid out is how the typical person responds to someone casting a spell that he does not recognize.

In a high-magic setting that might be nothing out of the ordinary, much like I don't automatically suspect that anyone talking on a cell phone are secretly talking about me when I'm walking down the street.

In a low-magic setting the casting of a spell might not even be recognized as spells since the observer has never encountered magic before.

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-20, 10:38 AM

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 10:45 AM

I see where you're coming from, but to me the difference between a good character and a paladin is that the good character can actually consider each case individually and act accordingly. The Paladin's only reply is a blanket "no, I don't want to" to any character that pings as evil.

It's a bit like mandatory sentencing - a good-aligned player is akin to a judge that's free to consider the history, the implications, and the justification of an evil character, and act accordingly. The paladin is akin to a judge that's forced to labor under a system that enforces equally harsh punishments for both serious and minor crimes.

NichG

2013-07-20, 10:57 AM

Your argument boils down to "I want to be able to play how I want to with no consequences"

Not really. I'm saying that for all the other classes, you more or less have the option to come to some sort of compromise so that the party can play nice with eachother. The rogue can decide to not steal from innocents, the barbarian doesn't have to smash everyone's face in, etc.

Once a paladin hits the mix, there's no compromise. To some extent the players' hands are tied and they can no longer come to some sort of workable arrangement to all play something that the others won't feel obligated to leave the group for. Basically, if you have a group of chaotic characters, 'shades of grey' types, and the like, and a new player comes in with a paladin, the correct, IC response is 'we don't want to travel with you'. From an OOC perspective this is awful - it means that the player coming in with the paladin has no choice but to abandon their character, or everyone else will feel put-upon by the one player's decision to bring in an inappropriate character.

For something like a Monk, they would still have to be lawful, but that requirement don't extend to policing the other PCs, and so the Monk can reach a compromise. As you go on to say, with the paladin there's no compromise.

Your post does nothing but reinforce what I have been saying: it's only a problem if the players/GM insist on making it a problem. The point of the paladin is no compromise. Complaining about that is like complaining that guns shoot things. It is the core of the class, the unfailing righteous warrior for good.

I am in fact complaining about the class. I think its bad design because it creates clashes between metagame considerations and in-game considerations.

If you want to have a group that doesn't mind doing a little dirty stuff for the greater good, fine. Don't play a paladin. A decent player wouldn't try to force a paladin in the group if it would be a problem.
Removing the restrictions is like "I wanna play Batman, but with guns and killing people".

Rhetoric aside, the 'a decent player wouldn't try to force a paladin on the group if it would be a problem' thing doesn't really come up with any other base class. Its bad design because, alone of all the base classes, it inherently doesn't play nice with a chunk of other character concepts. Even putting aside the fact that lots of players may not be 'decent' since its best to play with people you like anyhow, you have the problem that the class itself should probably end up consigned to the 'banned for this group' list half the time. Its not spitting in anyone's cereal by its very existence at a reasonable table, but its basically getting sidelined because of its restrictions.

The point of a paladin, and anyone who really has the Good alignments, especially Lawful Good, is that they will not stand for bad behavior. Nothing says the paladin has to immediately kill, kick out or leave if someone in the party does something objectionable. It is perfectly acceptable for a LG character to take them to task and lead by example. Trying to educate and enlighten is a perfectly acceptable. Forgiveness is aceptable. It's when people refuse to learn and change their behavior that the ultimatum comes.

Again, this is bad metagame design. If you, as a single character in a group of not like-minded characters, find yourself giving ultimatums to the other characters, the correct response of the other characters is to ditch you. Because of metagame considerations, this will not happen, and puts unfair stress on the other players to try to be accommodating when you are refusing to or unable to due to a class choice.

In other words, this means that in this situation if you are a 'decent' player you should realize that you are at odds with the group and bring in a character you are able to play who can get along with the other characters. Insisting that you have the right to stay and pushing ultimatums on everyone else is being a jerk, because if the other players are decent, they will try to make it so you can play in the same campaign as them, but you aren't giving them the same consideration out of character.

It is similar to what would happen if you had a group of generally well-meaning, heroic characters and one guy wanted to bring in the 'everyone is expendable' brutal, evil character. The difference between that and the paladin though is that the 'everyone is expendable' brutal, evil character could make the decision 'for the sake of party cohesion, I'll tone it down', but the paladin is basically unable to do that.

Its basically the same as someone who keeps trying to initiate PvP at a table where PvP isn't the norm or is frowned on. Other players will try to let things go or come to a peaceful conclusion, and will thereby disadvantage themselves against the PvPer because they're trying to keep the peace and the PvPer is not playing by the same rules.

ArqArturo

2013-07-20, 10:58 AM

@Renegade Paladin
Inquisitors are indeed the Jack Bauers of Golarion

I though inquisitors were the Batman of Golarion.

"WHO DID IT?" *dangling a cultist from the roof

"SWEAR TO ME!!" *initiating a new inquisitor

Pickford

2013-07-20, 11:01 AM

Pickford, I took the liberty to reorder your post somewhat so my answer is more clear - hope you don't mind.

Falling isn't the only problem with the paladin though. If someone (paladin or the other character) has to leave the party because the paladin disagrees with someone else's actions, that is very much a problem. I don't think paladins should be able to issue player-to-player ultimatums as a class feature.

Agreed.

The problem is that paladins don't differentiate - if any character pings on the evil scale, that means the paladin can't associate with him.

Finally, if you have the time I'd really like to hear your reply to the Order of the Stick-example laid out earlier :smallsmile:

Anyone can issue ultimatums, the distinction is the paladin doesn't have to use words, they have to use actions. If the rogue actually says: I'm gonna kill this stupid peasant...roll initiative. The paladin is obligated to step in between them. The problem is one being caused by the rogue being a psychopath, not the paladin making some crazed ultimatum.

That being said, if one character is evil and routinely doing evil things it's fine so long as they conceal those proclivities from the paladin. This is not hard, check out the specifics from detect evil:

Aura Power: An evil aura's power depends on the type of evil creature or object that you're detecting and its HD, caster level, or (in the case of a cleric) class level;

Careful parsing reveals that 'only' cleric class levels provide an evil aura. Characters only have class HD not creature HD. Thus an evil rogue won't get detected unless they have monster HD (which all the core races don't)

ArcturusV

2013-07-20, 11:09 AM

Actually as I recall off Detect Evil, a merely mortal, not Undead, Not Outsider, not a Cleric, but just a human (Or elf, or dwarf, etc) rogue who happened to be Evil would give off a Faint evil aura. Which might not be noticeable until they were higher level. But it'd still be there.

It'd also mean the Paladin in question wouldn't know if he's running against something like a low HD outsider who appears human (Thus may or may not be smite on sight depending on setting), a low HD Undead (again, depending on settings might not be an Autosmite), a low HD cleric (in which case they are servants of evil, smite on sight), or a high HD other who happens to be evil (Thus might be Smite on Sight, might be redeemable depending on the person more than anything).

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 11:15 AM

Detect Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) has a separate listing for "cleric of an evil deity" and "evil creature". They both detect as Faint Evil as long as they have at least 1 level or 1 HD, respectively. So any creature with an evil alignment will ping as at least 'faint' evil unless it takes steps to hide its alignment (stop oppressing my culture!).

As for the rogue going "I am going to kill this stupid peasant", that's yet another example of stupid evil. Having an evil alignment does not require you to be an monster frothing at the mouth, eager to kill anyone who happens to get in your way.

Taveena

2013-07-20, 11:55 AM

Manly Man

2013-07-20, 12:01 PM

Detect Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) has a separate listing for "cleric of an evil deity" and "evil creature". They both detect as Faint Evil on level 1.

As for the rogue going "I am going to kill this stupid peasant", that's yet another example of stupid evil. Having an evil alignment does not require you to be an monster frothing at the mouth, eager to kill anyone who happens to get in your way.

Indeed. I once had a main villain (a Disciple of Asmodeus) that was all-around pleasant to accompany, and yet he was rotten to the core. While he wasn't a maniac who aimed to kill anything and everything, he was still homicidal in that if you were to do anything that he deemed terribly offensive, he would...

...invite you over for tea. The scones he served were laden with arsenic, and when the poison started to take effect, he would begin to act like someone was trying to poison them, and when he called for help, said assistance would always arrive just a little too late. Because of the effort it took to pull something like that off, however, he would rather just talk with folks and intimidate them or strike bargains that would either settle things evenly, or in his favor.

When he tried to poison the team's Paladin, things didn't turn out very well after the save was made. In spite of the attempted murder, the Paladin let him off, but not after beating him into the ground and having pretty much everything that the bad guy owned be taken or destroyed. The party was okay with that, even if they felt like he should die anyway, but after the Paladin explained that it would be an even better punishment to let him live with nothing but shame, they all agreed. Even the token Chaotic Neutral (read: also rotten) Rogue, who was about to go and stabify him in is sleep, conceded.

Proof that being a Paladin doesn't mean you have to be a stick in the mud.

Hyena

2013-07-20, 12:07 PM

Remember, too, that your less-than-good character also is forcing dynamics on the paladin and the rest of the party
You see... I don't play evil characters for a long time. I play paladins. And the reason I listed is the reason my characters are hated.

TrollCapAmerica

2013-07-20, 12:11 PM

This interesting topic of discussion has actually made me join the forums

I think alot of the Paladin hate started from the very beginning of D&D.When I was a kid I started playing with a lot of neckbearded grognard [insert stereotype here] sort of 1st ed players.They might not have called their playing style "murderhobo" back then but it really fit them too a T and the Paladin could potentially interfere that so they got alot of hate for it.The Paladin was seen as a self-righteous stick in the mud that would try and control the entire party and force them all to live up to his standard or else

This also would lead to alot of players surprisingly playing a Paladin EXACTLY like that.I seen it happen either because they deconstructing the Paladin concept [ie crapping on] or simply thought this was how they were played because its all they had ever heard about from the older players

Killer DMing was another popular factor from the old days and what better way to screw over a character than making him lose the few abilities he had to distinguish himself from every other Fighter?Why create a good storyline and drama yourself when mechanics can hamfist a bit of drama out of a situation?

The Paladin was actually not THAT great in 1st/2nd ed but was perceived as great because of how awesome a Holy Avenger would make them vs Chaotic Evil opponents.Kind of a limited role but given how much they spammed CE enemies in official material it stands out.That combined with high ability scores and a bunch of special granted abilities could also lead to them being viewed as "overpowered" and was another reason to take them down a notch

I think personally think their mediocrity in 3rd ed combined with the bar for storytelling being raised by years of the hobby evolving have made anti-Paladin sentiment fade alot.I think we have just gone beyond the adolescent need to drag a heroic concept into the mud

...and when factoring in 3rd ed it seems more likely bullying the nearsighted skinny kid

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-20, 12:21 PM

Careful parsing reveals that 'only' cleric class levels provide an evil aura. Characters only have class HD not creature HD. Thus an evil rogue won't get detected unless they have monster HD (which all the core races don't)
HD means hit dice from any source, class levels included.

That said, in Pathfinder something that's not undead, a fiend, evil cleric, etc. doesn't even ping detect evil until it reaches at least five hit dice. (The entry is unclear; it says no reading at "5 or lower," and faint reading "5-10." I favor needing at least 6 HD to ping just because it's more consistent with the rest of the table.)

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 12:30 PM

Well. Except that Belkar goes out of his way to avoid being a target for Paladins. Like, okay, the lead sheet is silly, but note that Miko was the only one who evildar'd him. Belkar's player is going out of his way to avoid conflict, no matter how silly it seems.

The lead sheet is silly and good fun, but it's also Rich's way of avoiding the potential ramifications of an unwanted story development here.

Though Belkar goes out of his way to avoid conflict with the paladin order, the rest of the party is well aware that Belkar is on the nether region of the good two-shoes scale. The difference is that they have the option to recognize that travelling with Belkar means his considerable talent for destruction is being used for the sake of Good, and that their presence might even make him reconsider some of his life views.

That said, in Pathfinder something that's not undead, a fiend, evil cleric, etc. doesn't even ping detect evil until it reaches at least five hit dice. (The entry is unclear; it says no reading at "5 or lower," and faint reading "5-10." I favor needing at least 6 HD to ping just because it's more consistent with the rest of the table.)

That's how I read it as well, and it's one of my favorite things about Pathfinder.

TrollCapAmerica

2013-07-20, 12:38 PM

The lead sheet issilly and good fun, but it's also Rich's way of avoiding the potential ramifications of an unwanted story development here.

Though Belkar goes out of his way to avoid conflict with the paladin order, the rest of the party is well aware that Belkar is on the nether region of the good two-shoes scale. The difference is that they have the option to recognize that travelling with Belkar means his considerable talent for destruction is being used for the sake of Good, and that their presence might even make him reconsider some of his life views..

I think it should also be pointed out that IRL a character like Belkar probably wouldnt last long.He gets along in the story because its funny but in an actual game not only would a character like probably have the good members of the party at his throat but the actual PLAYER would probably be seen as being a complete disruptive douchenozzle

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 12:43 PM

Flickerdart

2013-07-20, 12:44 PM

I think it should also be pointed out that IRL a character like Belkar probably wouldnt last long.He gets along in the story because its funny but in an actual game not only would a character like probably have the good members of the party at his throat but the actual PLAYER would probably be seen as being a complete disruptive douchenozzle
Honestly, Belkar seems like a DMPC to me. He's very powerful and charismatic despite his build (except when he's not - in the first fight against Xykon he didn't seem to do much), has the crappy role of tracking (and isn't even very good at it), provides comic relief...the other party members are supposed to hate him, because he's technically one of the enemy, but at the same time he fills a role they don't have and is often funny (to the players and readers, anyway).

Although given how dull he is, Durkon might also be the DMPC, and Belkar's player gets away with it solely because he's funny - and has obviously cleared the whole "I'm a lovable evil jerk" thing with the other players first.

Scow2

2013-07-20, 12:59 PM

It does. I play paladins a fair bit (you might have guessed from the username, posting pattern, etc.), and when I bust out detect evil on one, it's a big deal, mainly because as an SLA it has recognizable casting components and people without Spellcraft won't know what spell you're casting at them and might get edgy. :smalltongue: Even if your DM doesn't run it that way, it's probably socially unacceptable to just check up on everybody with alignment detection as soon as you meet them just because you can, even if you don't have cause to suspect. I mean, you might play a paladin who doesn't care about that, but I tend to take high Charisma, Diplomacy ranks, and the odd rank in Knowledge (nobility) to mean knowing a fair bit about etiquette and protocol and how and when to apply them. :smallamused: This doesn't mean the paladin's dumb, but it does mean that unless played as a paranoid maniac he doesn't automatically know whether or not everyone he meets is evil regardless of circumstances. Actually, being an SLA, Detect Evil has no discernable/recognizable casting components.

A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component. In fact, because of the stealth of Detect Evil, it's highly encouraged for a Paladin to use it on everyone - although they shouldn't act on such information, it gives a strong insight on whether someone's being trustworthy or upfront about their motives. The only people I've ever seen get pissy about overuse of Detect Evil are Evil Party Members, and DMs who don't like dealing with it. To many paladins, the risk of offending or putting misplaced distrust in someone outweighs the risk of inadvertently advancing the cause of evil by putting misplaced trust in someone... like letting children getting eaten by a tribe of cannibals after 'rescuing' them because he didn't scan the villagers first (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15642482&postcount=1). Or giving the World Ending MacGuffin to the Evil Priest posing as a good mentor.

Careful parsing reveals that 'only' cleric class levels provide an evil aura. Characters only have class HD not creature HD. Thus an evil rogue won't get detected unless they have monster HD (which all the core races don't)Not all HD are class levels, but all class levels are HD. It doesn't specify non-class HD. Clerics and Paladin HD counts differently than other HD for the purpose of Detect Alignment spells.

Rubik

2013-07-20, 01:07 PM

Well, my overall point, and why I said that the objection is to good characters and not specifically to the paladin, is that a good-aligned character won't put up with all the nonsense that an evil character will inevitably get up to, paladin or no. By the way the alignments are written, an evil character is at the very least callously indifferent to whether people he doesn't personally care about live or die, and is probably willing to harm them if expedient. Even without the Evil Radar, this will come out eventually unless the evil character is taking extraordinary steps to deceive his companions.I've played Evil characters before, and I do so in ways that most Good characters wouldn't be particularly horrified by. One in particular generally restrained his bloodlust and outright maliciousness for battlefield. He joined an otherwise Good party and sicced them on his already-extant foes to get them out of his hair, but those foes were always clearly in the wrong (even if he was also wrong -- Evil rarely gets along with Evil, and regardless of the reason why he wanted them dead, the party had no qualms with taking them down for other reasons).

He was very much Lawful in his Evil and, though extremely sour and grumpy most of the time, he generally got along well with the party. He knew he wasn't a nice person, but he went out of his way to avoid antagonizing people unless he knew the world would be better off without them (ie, they were people his Good-aligned party had no problems with taking out). He worked to build himself a reputation, and didn't want to destroy that through random acts of maliciousness.

He did end up being coerced by the BBEG into working for her as a mole in the party, and he had to keep that from the group, but he actually played it to the party's favor by playing both sides off each other and using his connections to her to save their collective bacon more than once. Yes, he kept it secret, but as he saw it, he did it for their own good, as he figured he knew best. (And having a 34 Int, 22 Wis, and 26 Cha by level 16, he probably did.)

It was great fun, and the party (and the world in general) actually benefited from his underhanded tactics.

It wouldn't matter how the Evil part of his alignment played out, though, if a paladin was in the party. One look at his pinging on the G-v-E scale and the ultimatum would ensue. A Good aligned character wouldn't have been half so beneficial, as the underhanded tactics actually saved a great many lives in the end.

Characters are more than their alignments. Almost any alignment can fit into a group nicely if played with an eye toward group cohesion, but the paladin code ruins the very possibility. That, and anything that offends their code, from lying (for the greater good) to sneaking around (also for the greater good) strikes out on a number of perfectly valid tactics as well, and paladins can't abide those, either. Lying and sneaking and poison and pulling off Xanatos gambits offends the paladin's code because they're underhanded, even though it's perfectly viable for a sneaky Good character to do them. Heck, it's practically mandatory for rogues. And yet, paladins find it offensive by default, and are forced to throw fits any time someone "consistently offends their code" in such a way.

It's piss-poor game design to have one class that forces the player to present ultimatums whenever someone else uses their class features. It's ridiculous and stupid.

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-20, 01:37 PM

Characters are more than their alignments. Almost any alignment can fit into a group nicely if played with an eye toward group cohesion, but the paladin code ruins the very possibility. That, and anything that offends their code, from lying (for the greater good) to sneaking around (also for the greater good) strikes out on a number of perfectly valid tactics as well, and paladins can't abide those, either. Lying and sneaking and poison and pulling off Xanatos gambits offends the paladin's code because they're underhanded, even though it's perfectly viable for a sneaky Good character to do them. Heck, it's practically mandatory for rogues. And yet, paladins find it offensive by default, and are forced to throw fits any time someone "consistently offends their code" in such a way.
1.) I question your character's Evil.

2.) Poison is suboptimal anyway, nothing forbids omission, nothing forbids sneaking either or even alludes to it, and there's nothing evil about setting up your course of action so that you win no matter what. :smalltongue:

Yora

2013-07-20, 01:39 PM

I feel like the only thing a paladin adds to the game are more alignment debates. The class tries too hard at being perfectly good, while lacking any moderately useful abilities.
Any character concept for a paladin can be done with a fighter or cleric as well, but much better.

Rubik

2013-07-20, 01:43 PM

1.) I question your character's Evil.Just because he didn't eat babies and kick puppies (or vice versa) doesn't mean he didn't revel in others' suffering. He did, but he waited until he knew he could get away with it.

Good and Neutral characters don't do the sort of things he did.

2.) Poison is suboptimal anyway, nothing forbids omission, nothing forbids sneaking either or even alludes to it, and there's nothing evil about setting up your course of action so that you win no matter what. :smalltongue:They're underhanded and dishonest, which are explicitly against his code. And poisons are explicitly Evil, despite not really having any grounds at all for being so, according to the rules. You can houserule all you like, but them's houserules.

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-20, 01:46 PM

They're underhanded and dishonest, which are explicitly against his code. And poisons are explicitly Evil, despite not really having any grounds at all for being so, according to the rules. You can houserule all you like, but them's houserules.
You can, of course, quote where in the code it says that. The code doesn't say "be forthright with all information at all times," it says "don't lie." There isn't a single thing anywhere in the class that says the paladin must ride up to the front door in mirror-bright armor and announce his presence when he goes to fight evil.

ArqArturo

2013-07-20, 02:16 PM

That doesn't even make sense. The guy goes to the nobleman, and says "Hey, this dude tried to hire me to steal this gem from you, turned him down and thought you should know," and he gets arrested? :smallconfused:

Well, that is how the DM played it out. He argued that the nobleman was scared, called the guards, and prompted my arrest. Obviously resisting would be futile, so I handed them my weapon and gave up calmly.

Kaiisaxo

2013-07-20, 02:23 PM

It wouldn't matter how the Evil part of his alignment played out, though, if a paladin was in the party. One look at his pinging on the G-v-E scale and the ultimatum would ensue. A Good aligned character wouldn't have been half so beneficial, as the underhanded tactics actually saved a great many lives in the end.
Paladins code say nothing about killing all evil creatures on sight!! code is about saving as many people as possible, even evil people (from their own evilness). Killing evil people is the easy path!! being a paladin isn't about the easy path!!. When a party member pings as evil there are many possible courses of action aceptable for a paladin:

Use your own judgement (you have sense motive as a class kill, use it!), it might be a false positive.
Even if you confirm your teammate is evil, use common sense, (is this person doing evil deeds? is he/she harming innocents?). Most of the time you'll only have to worry about keeping an eye on him and stop him if he misbehaves. In other words keeping evil people contained fulfills your code, you are still protecting the innocents.
Work towards reforming him or her, (very different from bullying him into becoming good, it doesn't work that way!!)
When all else fails and your companion truly starts behaving evil and endangering innocen's, you have the duty to stop him. (Preferabiliy on a non-lethal way).
Kill him when all else fails.

It is very easy to skip straight to point 5, but your duty is to increase the good in the world, not to be an intolerant bastard who imposses his beliefs by force. (Because that is what evil people do)

Characters are more than their alignments. Almost any alignment can fit into a group nicely if played with an eye toward group cohesion, but the paladin code ruins the very possibility. That, and anything that offends their code, from lying (for the greater good) to sneaking around (also for the greater good) strikes out on a number of perfectly valid tactics as well, and paladins can't abide those, either. Lying and sneaking and poison and pulling off Xanatos gambits offends the paladin's code because they're underhanded, even though it's perfectly viable for a sneaky Good character to do them. Heck, it's practically mandatory for rogues. And yet, paladins find it offensive by default, and are forced to throw fits any time someone "consistently offends their code" in such a way.

It's piss-poor game design to have one class that forces the player to present ultimatums whenever someone else uses their class features. It's ridiculous and stupid.

A paladin can also lie for good(imagine you got captured and tortured, mislead the enemy if it saves lifes and keeps them in check), being sneaky for good(spare lifes of people who are onl doing their job and confront evil at is root, you are supossed to save everyone!!), and even atempt gambits for good. (Poison is off-limits though).

Flickerdart

2013-07-20, 02:25 PM

Paladins code say nothing about killing all evil creatures on sight!! code is about saving as many people as possible, even evil people (from their own evilness). Killing evil people is the easy path!! being a paladin isn't about the easy path!!. When a party member pings as evil there are many possible courses of action aceptable for a paladin:

Use your own judgement (you have sense motive as a class kill, use it!), it might be a false positive.
Even if you confirm your teammate is evil, use common sense, (is this person doing evil deeds? is he/she harming innocents?). Most of the time you'll only have to worry about keeping an eye on him and stop him if he misbehaves. In other words keeping evil people contained fulfills your code, you are still protecting the innocents.
Work towards reforming him or her, (very different from bullying him into becoming good, it doesn't work that way!!)
When all else fails and your companion truly starts behaving evil and endangering innocen's, you have the duty to stop him. (Preferabiliy on a non-lethal way).
Kill him when all else fails.

It is very easy to skip straight to point 5, but your duty is to increase the good in the world, not to be an intolerant bastard who imposses his beliefs by force. (Because that is what evil people do)

A paladin can also lie for good(mislead the enemy if it saves lifes and keeps it in check), being sneaky for good(spare lifes of people who are onl doing their job and confront evil at is root, you are supossed to save everyone!!), and even atempt gambits for good. (Poison is off-limits though).
No they can't. They literally can't do any of those things because of their code. If you "confirm your teammate is evil" you may no longer associate with him.

Yora

2013-07-20, 02:27 PM

I would say it's pretty safe to assume that a paladins code forbids inviting an enemy for negotiation and offering free passage while attempting to capture or kill him. Or to tell soldiers that a mountain pass has been checked for hidden enemies and is safe, to lure them into an ambush.
Those would be cases of lying that would quite clearly go against the principles of paladins.

Setting up the ambush and creating a bait to lure the enemy in would also be a kind of "practical lie", but one I feel should be okay.

TrollCapAmerica

2013-07-20, 02:30 PM

I got a hypothetical here if anyone wants to bite

Lets say your playing a character who isnt a Paladin but follows the Paladins code.He lives like a paragon of good at all times always makes the tough choices no matter how difficult it is changes into his armor in phone booths etc

Does anyone get pissed off as they did at the Paladin because this guy bonked you on your head and gave you a wedgie when you wanted to stab the town guard for looking at you wrong?

I see alot of preconceived notions that the Paladin is going be the one to stop you from doing something "bad" but honestly id play a LOT of good characters like that and I doubt id get many complaints since the mechanics and stereotypes are what people get too focused on

Flickerdart

2013-07-20, 02:35 PM

I see alot of preconceived notions that the Paladin is going be the one to stop you from doing something "bad" but honestly id play a LOT of good characters like that and I doubt id get many complaints since the mechanics and stereotypes are what people get too focused on
No, people get focused on other players dictating to them how they should play their characters. The problem isn't the Paladin class. The problem is that the class requires its members to be Lawful Stupid at all times. If you are Lawful Stupid at all times, then you are the problem, regardless of what your character sheet says.

Yora

2013-07-20, 02:40 PM

But I still feel that if a lawful good fighter or cleric does it, it comes off more as the character making a suggestion or starting a debate about the issue.
With a paladin, there would be the implicit notion that these things are not negotiable and there can't even be any argument or debate about it, because it's not the moral convictions being applied to a specific situation, but a written code that is applied mindlessly to every situation regardless of specific circumstances.
Also, if the PC fails to win the argument, the player still can continue playing with the party. If it's a paladin, it's pretty much "you have to do what my code says or we can't continue playing this game".

Flickerdart

2013-07-20, 02:42 PM

Scow2

2013-07-20, 02:43 PM

Kaiisaxo

2013-07-20, 02:44 PM

No they can't. They literally can't do any of those things because of their code. If you "confirm your teammate is evil" you may no longer associate with him.

from second ed. I know it isn't RAW but clarifies the intent:

A paladin may employ only lawful good henchmen (or those who act in such a manner when alignment is unknown). A paladin will cooperate with characters of other alignments only as long as they behave themselves. He will try to show them the proper way to live through both word and deed. The paladin realizes that most people simply cannot maintain his high standards. Even thieves can be tolerated, provided they are not evil and are sincerely trying to reform. He will not abide the company of those who commit evil or unrighteous acts. Stealth in the cause of good is acceptable, though only as a last resort.

no matter how much it pings evil on your evildar some are evil only deep down as long as they behave!!, also (back on 3e) you don't need to associate with them anymore to remain in the party, just declare to your god "he is my prisoneer and will remain until he reforms or i'm forced o kill him" done, no longer your associate but under your custody (which is true since you no longer will allow him to be without your supervision)

Elderand

2013-07-20, 02:56 PM

I think some people who hate paladins are the same people who go around saying how a DM is horrible for not letting do whatever they want whenever they want.

A lot of it come as self entitled whining. A well played paladin isn't a roadblock for the rest of the party, he is an opportunity. But people don't want opportunities, they want to play their little sociopath in exactly the one way they want and will throw a temper tantrum akin to a 6 year old on crack whenever anything comes along and vexes them.

And the rest of the people hate paladins because the paladin player is the tantrum throwing 6 year old on a power trip.

I also find it hilarious that when it come to anything they like (ToB, Psionic) people will go and say, hey it's just fluff you can change it however you want.

But when it come to something they don't like, suddenly the fluff, in this case the paladin code, is set in adamantine with a coat of titanium and is the worst thing ever.

Flickerdart

2013-07-20, 02:58 PM

from second ed. I know it isn't RAW but clarifies the intent:

no matter how much it pings evil on your evildar some are evil only deep down as long as they behave!!, also (back on 3e) you don't need to associate with them anymore to remain in the party, just declare to your god "he is my prisoneer and will remain until he reforms or i'm forced o kill him" done, no longer your associate but under your custody (which is true since you no longer will allow him to be without your supervision)
I'm pretty sure that trying to find loopholes like that in the Code is not behaviour befitting a Paladin.

But when it come to something they don't like, suddenly the fluff, in this case the paladin code, is set in adamantine with a coat of titanium and is the worst thing ever.
Code's not fluff, bro. You don't follow it, you lose your class abilities.

TrollCapAmerica

2013-07-20, 02:59 PM

I don't know about you, but nothing about "this guy bonked you on your head and gave you a wedgie because etc etc" comes off as a suggestion to me.

Im mostly joking there.Most of the stories ive heard [or been involved in] where a situation like that occurs is because a player was doing something monumentally stupid and the good guy stick in the mud was keeping him from getting killed

Personally I think if a PC has done something that a Paladin considers bad enough to kill him its because hes already crossed a threshold that MOST good PCs would already have been pretty angry about.

Elderand

2013-07-20, 03:09 PM

Code's not fluff, bro. You don't follow it, you lose your class abilities.

And you can change the code to be anything you want.

How is changing the code any different than saying ToB maneuvers originated from aliens rather than a guy with sword collecting hobby ?

But as I said, it's easier to pretend the code is set in stone and his what make the class horrible rather than admit to just wanting to have your own way whitout any sort of compromise or effort to not be a blatant sociopathic murder hobo.

Flickerdart

2013-07-20, 03:19 PM

And you can change the code to be anything you want.
Yeah, and that would be homebrew, because the code is not fluff. Just because it's tied to roleplaying does not make it fluff. It is crunch, because following or not following the code directly impacts the availability your class features.

How is changing the code any different than saying ToB maneuvers originated from aliens rather than a guy with sword collecting hobby ?

Because that doesn't actually change how they work or what you can do with them in any way.

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 05:23 PM

And you can change the code to be anything you want.

How is changing the code any different than saying ToB maneuvers originated from aliens rather than a guy with sword collecting hobby ?

'The paladin code is not broken because you can fix it with homebrew.'

Like Flickerdart has pointed out, the core is not fluff - it's crunch. It's specifically part of the paladin's class features, and changing it is for all intents and purposes homebrew.

Over the years I've played numerous games with at least six different DMs. Some of them were experienced enough to spot the potential issues with the paladin (one had already written a custom code), some of them would not spot those issues until they blew up in their faces. Of the ones who did spot them, they'd probably fix it in different ways. At least one would cut the Paladin completely, because when you're unsure about stuff like this it's easier to remove it than to add more stuff to resolve it. For reference, see how many people ban evil aligned characters from their campaign.

I'd prefer to have a rule set is robust enough that each GM doesn't have to make his own fix (good or bad) for issues like these.

Kaiisaxo

2013-07-20, 05:36 PM

I'm pretty sure that trying to find loopholes like that in the Code is not behaviour befitting a Paladin.

Just the opossite in fact. If you cannot find the compromise between Good and Law, you aren't trying hard enough. Rather find a loophole that allows you to keep striving for greater good without breaking neither the spirit nor the letter of your oath. If you are into a moral dilemma find a third option!!

Flickerdart

2013-07-20, 05:42 PM

Just the opossite in fact. If you cannot find the compromise between Good and Law, you aren't trying hard enough. Rather find a loophole that allows you to keep striving for greater good without breaking neither the spirit nor the letter of your oath. If you are into a moral dilemma find a third option!!
When your oath includes "I won't hang around with bad dudes" and you say "no way bro he's my prisoner, honest" so you can keep hanging out with him, that's violating the spirit of the oath all over the place. Nothing in a paladin's code requires or even encourages him to redeem anybody.

Augmental

2013-07-20, 06:03 PM

Just the opossite in fact. If you cannot find the compromise between Good and Law, you aren't trying hard enough. Rather find a loophole that allows you to keep striving for greater good without breaking neither the spirit nor the letter of your oath. If you are into a moral dilemma find a third option!!

If the paladin's code requires players to find loopholes in it so they can strive for the greater good, that's a problem with the paladin's code.

Kaiisaxo

2013-07-20, 06:22 PM

When your oath includes "I won't hang around with bad dudes" and you say "no way bro he's my prisoner, honest" so you can keep hanging out with him, that's violating the spirit of the oath all over the place. Nothing in a paladin's code requires or even encourages him to redeem anybody.

Well it isn't entirely clear if the associates part is prescriptive or proscriptive, is it part of the code? or a different thing entirely and isn't grounds for falling? that is a gray area open to interpretation, one of them allows us to keep harmony within the party, the other one leads to strife and leaves the paladin unnusable. But even if it was grounds for falling, redeeming evil people is part of the oath "Help those in need" and nobody is in greater need than the ones who have fallen to the temptation of evil. How can you be the paragon for good if you don't believe it can triunf over evil on its own terms?

If the paladin's code requires players to find loopholes in it so they can strive for the greater good, the paladin's code needs to be fixed.

Well the actual text could be clearer, but given the requeriment to be both Lawful and Good it is innevitable they will come at odds at some point, so in that sense no, no need to fix it nor get rid of it. The wording could use a clean up, but that is beside the point. But even if the code didn't necesitate some lawyering, never giving up and fight for your beliefs and the greater good are qualities that you want on a paladin.

And the actual need to find loopholes comes not from their intrinsic flaws, but from the need to keep things going when someone decides to use their interpretation of the rules to screw the paladin no matter what.

Flickerdart

2013-07-20, 06:26 PM

Well it isn't entirely clear if the associates part is prescriptive or proscriptive, is it part of the code? or a different thing entirely and isn't grounds for falling? that is a gray area open to interpretation, one of them allows us to keep harmony within the party, the other one leads to strife and leaves the paladin unnusable. But even if it was grounds for falling, redeeming evil people is part of the oath "Help those in need" and nobody is in greater need than the ones who have fallen to the temptation of evil. How can you be the paragon for good if you don't believe it can triunf over evil on its own terms?
The association clause is listed after the code, but it's actually listed. You're just stretching for some way to avoid dealing with it. You know who else tries to twist the letter of the law for their own ends? Lawful Evil characters. Welcome to the deep end of the alignment pool, because you just fell.

TuggyNE

2013-07-20, 06:27 PM

Careful parsing reveals that 'only' cleric class levels provide an evil aura. Characters only have class HD not creature HD. Thus an evil rogue won't get detected unless they have monster HD (which all the core races don't)

As previously noted, HD include HD from all sources, including class levels. The reason Cleric levels are specifically called out is because, among other things, you can have a multiclass Cleric/X whose aura will be stronger than that of a straight X. For example, NE Cleric 3/Fighter 7 will have a moderate aura, rather than the faint aura of an NE Fighter 10.

137beth

2013-07-20, 06:42 PM

I'm pretty sure that trying to find loopholes like that in the Code is not behaviour befitting a Paladin.

Code's not fluff, bro. You don't follow it, you lose your class abilities.

Changing fluff is also homebrew--
when you adjust fluff, you have to work out how it fits into your world and make it make sense.
When you adjust crunch, you have to work out how it interacts with other crunch aspects of the game in a reasonable way.

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 06:43 PM

The SRD reads as follows:

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.

Of course you could argue that by 'associate' they really mean associate attorney and that the paladin is perfectly able to hang out with BLOODSKULL, DESTROYER OF SOULS as long as they're not employed in the same law firm. However, if the paladin were to be hired into BLOODSKULL's law firm (let's call it "Bickers & Bickers, attorney at laws (http://www.worldwideinterweb.com/images/blogphotos/Funny/Law%20Firm%20Names/funny%20lawyear%20names.png)"), he would need to enter as a junior partner or better. Otherwise he might get in trouble.

Luckily the average paladin only has two skill points per level and thus most likely does not have the skill requirements to pass the bar exam.

You could also argue by 'associate' they mean 'union', which could be interpreted to mean that the paladin is perfectly able to hang out with GRhrgzharh, the Great Devourer of the Netherworld so long as they are not legally married. Should GRhrgzharh require a sham marriage in order to get a greencard, the paladin would have to think long and hard if losing his class features is worth a chance at love.

After all, if the paladin does not help GRhrgzharh, who is clearly in need of said Greencard and has absolutely no ulterior motives for wanting to escape the dimension she has been trapped in for the past 10 000 years other than wanting a spot of vacation, he falls as he failed to offer aid to those in need.

Boci

2013-07-20, 06:50 PM

Changing fluff is also homebrew--
when you adjust fluff, you have to work out how it fits into your world and make it make sense.

Generally players can alter the fluff of their characters and nothing bad happens. Sometimes DMs overreact, and rarely the player can inadventantly throw a spanner in the works, but usually it works fine. The PHB even covers limited refluffing.

Kaiisaxo

2013-07-20, 07:08 PM

Don't made selective editing, the srd reads like this:

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.

The associates part is in the same hierarchy with the code of conduct, which means it isn't a part or section of the code, and thus isn't grounds for falling. (and this is the same in the phb) Associates is a different entry on the paladin class and not part of the code.

137beth

2013-07-20, 07:14 PM

Generally players can alter the fluff of their characters and nothing bad happens. Sometimes DMs overreact, and rarely the player can inadventantly throw a spanner in the works, but usually it works fine. The PHB even covers limited refluffing.

The PHB gives limited options for refluffing, just like it gives limited options for feat selection. If you are refluffing the warblade to say that its maneuvers are granted by a specific race of aliens that you made up, you are going to have to ask the DM whether those aliens even exist in his/her world, just like you have to ask him/her whether the prestige class or feat you made up is okay.

Boci

2013-07-20, 07:22 PM

The PHB gives limited options for refluffing, just like it gives limited options for feat selection. If you are refluffing the warblade to say that its maneuvers are granted by a specific race of aliens that you made up, you are going to have to ask the DM whether those aliens even exist in his/her world, just like you have to ask him/her whether the prestige class or feat you made up is okay.

Its not the same. Your abilities are granted by aliens who never show up in the game. No real change. Sure you'll tell the DM, but its not a big deal. Now compare that to a player coming up with a system whereby martial adepts can counter eachothers maneuvres they identified with a martial lore check by expending an available maneuvres of equal level and rolling opposed ILs.

Kudaku

2013-07-20, 07:32 PM

Don't made selective editing, the srd reads like this:
I apologize, I did not intentionally leave that out - I was originally only posting the section on Associates and then realized the rest of the text would be useful as well. When I edited in the first two sections to the quote I forgot to add the headline for Associates, which was previously superfluous. I have edited my previous post.

The associates part is in the same hierarchy with the code of conduct, which means it isn't a part or section of the code, and thus isn't grounds for falling. (and this is the same in the phb) Associates is a different entry on the paladin class and not part of the code.

I don't believe I've said that (in seriousness) the paladin will fall from associating with an evil character. What I have stated here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15657767&postcount=126) and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15657541&postcount=121) is that the paladin is, RAW and as near as I can tell RAI, literally unable to associate with a known evil character. Unless you want to try to creatively intepret "associate" (like I jokingly did in my previous post), that means that if there is an evil character in the party and a paladin is aware of that character's alignment, either the evil character or the paladin has to leave the party. Hence the ultimatum.

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-21, 10:31 AM

But ultimatums can be fun. :smallamused: For instance, Gaheris is a paladin (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=86524&start=100) (and character of mine that I loaned IO for the purposes of writing his story, so that's not me playing him but he got close), and Nalifan is a neutral-leaning-evil necromancer.

"Your service in this matter will go a long way into putting you at the bottom of the list of those we have to deal with and buy you some mercy should we call you to account. That's justice. If you were a man you would understand that. But since you aren't, I'll make it simple. We're doing it my way."

And then everything goes to Hades and back, lots of people die, and it was just a fun story all around, though I wouldn't have quite played it that way. :smalltongue: This can and does happen in live games too, but it needs players who are willing to deal with it and like the story opportunities it creates.

Scow2

2013-07-21, 12:28 PM

The association clause is listed after the code, but it's actually listed. You're just stretching for some way to avoid dealing with it. You know who else tries to twist the letter of the law for their own ends? Lawful Evil characters. Welcome to the deep end of the alignment pool, because you just fell.So do Chaotic Good people, such as Lord Shojo. And Lawful Good people, like Sam Vimes. The only people who DON'T twist the letter of the law to fit their own ends (Which can be altruistic) are Lawful Neutral people. It all depends on what those ends are. People keep mistaking Law for Good, when it's not. Good is not dogmatic and deontological - that's Law. A paladin should have the discretion to lighten up on the law to serve the greater good.

The biggest flaw in the argument here is that "Doing something for one's own ends is evil." First off - you're not doing it for yourself, your doing it for your ends, which are a seperate entity entirely, and have their own position on the alignment chart. It's the "What stops people from killing everyone they want?" argument over again (And a good-aligned person's answer is "I can already kill as many people as I want, and am doing so. That number is 0." If someone's personal ends are good-aligned, twisting law to reach those ends is not Evil unless the actual means are.

Also, doing something even for oneself is only considered evil if it's at the undue expense of others (By "undue", I mean the people inconvenienced aren't being inconvenienced from doing something evil). For example, an artificial AI overriding a "Kill all the robots" program to preserve itself and others like it's act isn't evil even if it's at the expense of the person who won't be able to inherit the money from all the bank accounts of the shut-down robots.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-07-21, 03:20 PM

ArqArturo

2013-07-21, 03:47 PM

It can lead to subtle differences like "Homicide is always illegal, but I don't think bad people are people so it's okay." Sure, that's twisting the law, but it's also not using of the word of the law to their favor. It's changing the law based on their perspective.

I think that should be more of "Homicide is always illegal, but not Self-Defense... Or accidents".

Flickerdart

2013-07-21, 05:21 PM

I think that should be more of "Homicide is always illegal, but not Self-Defense... Or accidents".
That's the Lawful approach to it - if there are laws against doing X, and we can convince ourselves/the judge/the gods that we were actually doing Y instead, then what we did wasn't actually illegal. The Chaotic approach is what Squirrel_Dude describes, blatantly disregarding the rule if they feel like it without trying to weasel around with justifications beyond "I dunno man, it felt right to disregard the thousands of people this death cult leader killed and then cart him around with us to try and make him a better person, so I did it."

Scow2

2013-07-21, 06:36 PM

I'll disagree with assertion chaotic good people twist laws to work in their favor. In my understanding of the alignment, chaotic characters don't twist laws or tradition. They either follow the ones they agree with, ignore it, or create their own.

It can lead to subtle differences like "Homicide is always illegal, but I don't think bad people are people so it's okay." Sure, that's twisting the law, but it's also not using of the word of the law to their favor. It's changing the law based on their perspective.

A chaotic person that fears the law will still try to wriggle around within those confines, and twist them around so he can do what he feels needs to be done without ending up facing heavy fines or jailtime or worse. He doesn't respect the law, but he'll technically abide by it when he has to. See: Lord Shojo.

Knaight

2013-07-21, 08:27 PM

Coidzor

2013-07-21, 11:38 PM

A chaotic person that fears the law will still try to wriggle around within those confines, and twist them around so he can do what he feels needs to be done without ending up facing heavy fines or jailtime or worse. He doesn't respect the law, but he'll technically abide by it when he has to. See: Lord Shojo.

You're confusing "may" with "will."

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-22, 04:22 PM

There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned all that much yet that should be established: The Paladin hard-codes alignment into the game. It's irrelevant to most classes, and pretty easy to work around in most cases, but the Paladin takes that mechanic and sticks it front and center. For those of us who aren't fond of alignment (read: detest it) that's a fairly major flaw.
Then I suggest a different game. There are lots of them.

Alignment isn't a straitjacket or a substitute for personality; any given alignment encompasses nigh-infinite possible personality types. And it isn't just the paladin that hard-codes it into the game; this is also done with the monk, the cleric, the bard and barbarian to a lesser degree, the entire damage reduction system, and dozens of spell effects that depend upon it. It's not really a limiting factor for roleplaying, but it is hard-coded into the game at just about every level. There's not even a guarantee that every lawful good person, or even every paladin will see eye to eye on even the most important issues.

Then there is the matter of the code demanding honor in all things, with no allowance for context. A paladin simply cannot lie, even if the lie is to, say, protect an innocent from an evil regime involved in systemic massacres. It outright bans poison, which means that apparently poisoning an arrow to shoot at a dragon attacking a village isn't okay, but the dragon killing far more people in the attack because the paladin couldn't fight as effectively is just fine. I'd consider honor a broken, dangerous system of morality which generally has a deleterious effect on the actual lives of actual people, and find the idea of it being attached to some sort of paragon of good laughable. This doesn't exactly put the paladin class in good standing.
Oh boy.

1.) "Don't lie" doesn't mean "don't obfuscate" or "confess everything at all times to anyone who asks." Any paladin worth his vows would refuse to divulge that information even if it meant his life. Remember, immunity to fear effects also means he can't be broken even by torture, since it renders him immune to Intimidate. :smallwink: Hell, undetectable alignment is on the paladin spell list; do you think a spell whose only use is to mask information would be available to them if they were never allowed to mask information?

2.) Poison is subpar anyway. What part of "rampaging dragon" says "susceptible to a Fortitude save DC lower than its actual save bonus?" He'd be better off spending the money to get dragon bane arrows, which he could do for the price if he were going for poison high-end enough to actually matter to a dragon anyway.

3.) Honor is, like it or not, the core motivator of many systems of morality, and generally works better than the usual alternative, shame. I could expound on this at length, but it could turn in directions contrary to the board rules, so I'll just say that any concept of doing the right thing because it is right rather than because other people will think less of you if you don't is honor in itself and generally produces better results (mainly because relying upon shame instead produces incentive to do the wrong thing anyway and then simply hide that you did it). The specifics of a particular honor code (i.e. what the "right thing" is considered to be) may be wanting, but the concept of honor is not.

Segev

2013-07-22, 04:32 PM

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-22, 04:46 PM

There's nothing wrong, from a Good perspective, with "how much does this pay?" as long as "this" isn't a moral imperative one way or the other (i.e. to do or to not do) and there isn't something else that's imperative they do in the meantime that they'd be diverting from. Nothing says a paladin can't accept payment either.

Segev

2013-07-22, 04:47 PM

I would be inclined to agree. So, then, how does this Paladin joining this hypothetical party force something unpleasant that warrants "paladin hate?"

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 04:49 PM

Let's examine the claim that a Paladin forces the party to "deal with" his code.

Replace "Paladin" with "LG Cleric."

What's different, in terms of party interaction?

Now replace him with "LG Fighter."

Next, "LG Sorcerer."

And, just for complete giggles, "LG Rogue."

Let's assume it was that TN Fighter, NG Cleric, LN Wizard, and CN Rogue party before, and they were in fact a bit on the mercenary "how much does this pay?" side of things. (Recall, for a moment, that they HAVE an NG Cleric, so if he was okay with this attitude, you have to rethink whether it's really "non-good.")

Here's the difference:

The TN/LN/CN party members can discuss, argue, and convince the cleric/fighter/rogue/sorcerer (hereafter referred to as X because damn, that is a mouthful) that in this one specific case the right decision is for the party to cooperate with a lesser evil in order to beat the greater evil - cooperate with Baron Pineapple to beat Xykon. Despite being LG, X is still able to consider the situation and consider an action even if it is does not sit well with X's moral code.

Replace the cleric/fighter/rogue/sorcerer with a paladin, and "consider an action" is no longer an option. The paladin gets his way or he literally has to leave the party.

Gwendol

2013-07-22, 04:52 PM

Maybe it's just that the player is mature enough to consider morality in the game, weighing actions as being good or evil, and considering how to go about things. For many this can be highly provocative.

hamishspence

2013-07-22, 04:54 PM

BoED says even Exalted characters can cooperate with a lesser evil to defeat a greater one- if they don't turn a blind eye to acts committed by that lesser evil while it's their ally.

And several D&D novels have had paladins cooperating with evil beings, even fiends- if it's on orders from their deity or its divine servants.

Defenders of the Faith (3.0, but can apply to 3.5) also mentions that "circumstances might force temporary cooperation, though this is extremely risky for you."

So I could see such cooperation in time of crisis, not being covered under "association".

Segev

2013-07-22, 04:58 PM

That's nonsense, and an interpretation that requires the "Lawful Stupid" application of the Paladin.

Paladins are forced to seek Attonement for gross violations of their code, and for actually taking actions that cause their alignment to slip. Miko, for example, didn't lose her powers even as she acted with increasing lack of respect for higher authority and her own pride until she really crossed a line. Yes, that's one example, but I don't think anybody here will say Rich has proven to be a poor judge of how D&D rules should be applied in a general sense.

If siding with the unpleasant Baron Pineapple will help defeat Xykon, the Paladin can agree to do it. He might be as uncomfortable as the LG cleric, rogue, fighter, wizard, or sorcerer, and he might well be a bit outspoken about each unlawful act the Baron attempts to perpetrate, but he can work with him, assuming any LG person could.

I'd fully expect an "I'm watching you..." thing to be going on the whole time, and the Paladin (just like any other true-blue LG individual...say, perhaps, Superman) is going to balk if asked to actually partake in evil or even watch it done without doing anything about it. But again, I'd expect the same from just about any LG individual. And the Paladin's only going to slip if he starts becoming "comfortable" with it, starts tolerating it more than is absolutely necessary, or starts (heaven forfend) participating in it. Same as I'd have any LG character's alignment slip.

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:00 PM

BoED says even Exalted characters can cooperate with a lesser evil to defeat a greater one- if they don't turn a blind eye to acts committed by that lesser evil while it's their ally.

Paladin != Exalted character, unfortunately. It should be noted that the paladin code in Pathfinder is more openminded to these situations than the 3.5 paladin code as well.

And several D&D novels have had paladins cooperating with evil beings, even fiends- if it's on orders from their deity or its divine servants.

I'm leery of basing an in-game decision on the D&D novels, since it's fiction written for the enjoyment of the reader, the rules are definitely coming in second for the writer's priorities. That said, an 'order from your deity' is pretty much the same as 'your gm allows it'. That's perfectly fine, but you're also working outside the rules.

Defenders of the Faith (3.0, but can apply to 3.5) also mentions that "circumstances might force temporary cooperation, though this is extremely risky for you."

So I could see such cooperation in time of crisis, not being covered under "association".

Good to know, but again - to me that sounds like "you might pull this off or you might not - really it depends on your GM's take on the situation".

Rubik

2013-07-22, 05:01 PM

BoED says even Exalted characters can cooperate with a lesser evil to defeat a greater one- if they don't turn a blind eye to acts committed by that lesser evil while it's their ally.

And several D&D novels have had paladins cooperating with evil beings, even fiends- if it's on orders from their deity or its divine servants.

Defenders of the Faith (3.0, but can apply to 3.5) also mentions that "circumstances might force temporary cooperation, though this is extremely risky for you."

So I could see such cooperation in time of crisis, not being covered under "association".And yet all of those fail under the paladin's code and force him to fall. Yes, a paladin can cooperate with evil, but he WILL fall for it, with no possible exceptions.

Even exalted characters aren't held to the same exacting standard when it comes to other evil characters.

Segev

2013-07-22, 05:03 PM

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:03 PM

hamishspence

2013-07-22, 05:04 PM

And yet all of those fail under the paladin's code and force him to fall. Yes, a paladin can cooperate with evil, but he WILL fall for it, with no possible exceptions.

The nonassociation rule doesn't actually say that. Nor is "associating with an evil creature" mentioned in the "Ex-Paladins" section:

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:05 PM

I...don't see that in the paladin's code, Rubik. I see where you could choose to re-interpret the RAW such that it reads that way, but by the same logic you could interpret the Barbarian as losing his Rage powers if he crosses at a crosswalk.

I believe he is referring to the section under "associates". While not part of the "code" specifically, it is commonly included in the 'code' term as it is a valid part of the class mechanics.

hamishspence

2013-07-22, 05:06 PM

It's like telling a lie for a Good reason- it might "violate the code" but it's up to the DM as to whether it's a Gross Violation or not.

ArqArturo

2013-07-22, 05:11 PM

Flickerdart

2013-07-22, 05:13 PM

The association clause isn't part of the code, but it is absolute. A paladin does not have the option of allowing himself to fall if it means he will save a million innocent lives by partnering up with Phil the Prince of Heck to defeat Asmodeus.

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:14 PM

The nonassociation rule doesn't actually say that. Nor is "associating with an evil creature" mentioned in the "Ex-Paladins" section:

It doesn't have to - according to the class description a paladin will 'never' willingly associate with evil characters. 'Never' is pretty much set in stone. IE if a paladin ever discovers that another member of his party is evil either the paladin or the evil character would have to leave the party immediately.

Actually, interesting proposition:

Lord of the Rings: Aragorn is a paladin, Boromir is a Lawful Good fighter and Frodo is Lawful Evil.

Frodo enjoys purchasing puppies and subsequently giving them a good kicking and using assorted tricks to cheat on his taxes. He's not particularly worried about everyone else, but realizes that if this whole Sauron business happens then his life quality is going to take a marked dip - he has every reason to want to destroy the ring.

Aragorn and Boromir discovers Frodo's alignment halfway through the trip.
Boromir feels strong distaste at travelling with an evil character, but convinces himself that their quest is more important than his personal feelings. He decides to continue, keeping a wary eye on Frodo the entire time, trying to persuade him to look at life in a different view (ie trying to redeem him), and personally making damn sure Frodo is kept far away from any puppy litters.

RAW and RAI, Aragorn however must immediately set aside the quest to destroy the One Ring because Frodo gets a kick out of kicking puppies. It quite literally doesn't matter that his absence will weaken a mission to save the world.

hamishspence

2013-07-22, 05:14 PM

As far as I can tell, an Exalted Paladin (if the feat is a basic one rather than a vow) has no additional rules binding them.

Since the standard rule for losing Exalted feats is- you lose them if you "willingly and willfully commit an Evil act".

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:17 PM

It's like telling a lie for a Good reason- it might "violate the code" but it's up to the DM as to whether it's a Gross Violation or not.

Actually no, that's the thing. The association rule is absolute specifically because it's not part of the code.

Having even a single level of paladin means you cannot willingly associate with an evil character. However if you were to fall for some other action (cheating at cards, drugging a dragon, burning down an orphanage - whatever your DM considers sufficient)you would lose all paladin spells and abilities (including the text on associates), which means you can then and only then associate with an evil character.

hamishspence

2013-07-22, 05:19 PM

One option is to rule that "temporary alliance" is not "association".

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-22, 05:23 PM

To throw out another OotS example, Hinjo dealt more than civilly with Lord Kubota even though he was reasonably certain the latter was actively trying to assassinate him and was assuredly absolutely certain he was evil as sin. Sure, he didn't go adventuring with the guy, but he absolutely did participate in government with him, and his cloak remains blue.

Paladins in 3.5 fall for gross violations of their code of conduct. For those who might not get the significance (and given its more common meaning there may be a few):

gross - adj.

1.) a archaic : immediately obvious
b (1) : glaringly noticeable usually because of inexcusable badness or objectionableness <a gross error> (2) : out-and-out, utter <a gross injustice>
c : visible without the aid of a microscope
A paladin won't fall for contradicting the duke's orders if he makes a glaring tactical mistake in battle (respecting authority), uses a pseudonym to misdirect the Legions of Terror (lying), buys a friend an ale (poison), or doesn't stop to help every firewood-hauling peasant with a fool's load he comes across (helping those in need). He will fall for telling his liege to take his crown/scepter/badge of office/whatever and shove it because screw you, engages in fraud for personal gain, slips black lotus extract into the baron's tea, or abandons a village to rampaging orcs because it was inconvenient at the time to do anything about it. That's what "gross violation" as opposed to "any violation" means.

Further, associating with evil characters isn't listed as a condition that triggers a fall from grace in itself; it just says a paladin won't do it, and it isn't listed under the code. Unless you also intend to argue that a paladin would fall for accepting a follower who isn't lawful good (even without his knowledge; after all he doesn't have detect law or detect good), the associating with evil characters line is a wash, since that falls under the same entry.

Flickerdart

2013-07-22, 05:24 PM

hamishspence

2013-07-22, 05:25 PM

It's still "D&D fiction" though.

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:26 PM

One option is to rule that "temporary alliance" is not "association".

That is absolutely an option, and indeed one I encourage you to do. However, that is also in "house rules"-land. The class ability is quite clear.

verb (used with object)
1. to connect or bring into relation, as thought, feeling, memory, etc.: Many people associate dark clouds with depression and gloom.
2. to join as a companion, partner, or ally: to associate oneself with a cause.
3. to unite; combine: coal associated with shale.

verb (used without object)
4. to enter into union; unite.
5. to keep company, as a friend, companion, or ally: He was accused of associating with known criminals.
6. to join together as partners or colleagues.

Flickerdart

2013-07-22, 05:28 PM

It's still "D&D fiction" though.
OotS would be useful in figuring out the RAI of the ability if Rich Burlew had written the paladin class. However, he did not, so it isn't.

hamishspence

2013-07-22, 05:30 PM

"We're not partners, companions, or friends anymore- we just happen to be going in the same direction at the moment".

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:31 PM

Further, associating with evil characters isn't listed as a condition that triggers a fall from grace in itself; it just says a paladin won't do it, and it isn't listed under the code. Unless you also intend to argue that a paladin would fall for accepting a follower who isn't lawful good (even without his knowledge; after all he doesn't have detect law or detect good), the associating with evil characters line is a wash, since that falls under the same entry.

Association doesn't have anything to do with falling - it just specifically says that a paladin will never do it. Which is exactly the kind of black and white phrasing that creates problems with the paladin.

And I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for a paladin to ensure that each member he accepts as a follower is true in heart and faith. How he goes about doing that is of course entirely up to him - I personally recommend a hearty regiment of detect alignment spells, voluntary interrogations using ravages (because they're totally not poison) grueling multiple choice questionnaires with tricky questions like

You discover a burning orphanage - what do you do?
A: I put out the fire - it poses a risk to general order.
B: I save the children - they're of greater importance.
C: I continue on my way.
D: I walk the other way, careful not to draw attention so people will remember my face - plenty more orphanages to burn down!

And so on.

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:32 PM

"We're not partners, companions, or friends anymore- we just happen to be going in the same direction at the moment".

Is certainly a valid option if the paladin and baron Pineapple were walking towards the same Domino's.

Also, we're not partners, companions or friends anymore? Have we just uncovered an illicit affair between our paladin and Baron Pineapple? :smallbiggrin:

ArcturusV

2013-07-22, 05:34 PM

And yet all of those fail under the paladin's code and force him to fall. Yes, a paladin can cooperate with evil, but he WILL fall for it, with no possible exceptions.

Even exalted characters aren't held to the same exacting standard when it comes to other evil characters.

I find this kinda strange. Because it seems kinda contrary to the intent, and even the writing, on Exalted Characters. The book does mention (Quite a few times if I think about it) that not all Good characters are Exalted. Nor are all Paladins exalted. Being Exalted requiring a "step further" than even being merely good, or being merely a Paladin. Because you can be a Paladin and not live up to Exalted Ideals (For example... ignoring the trait of Mercy. You're a Paladin, put them all to the sword, nothing preventing you from going Judge Dread on everyone).

But since it's like a Square/Rectangle (All squares are rectangles, all rectangles are not squares, thus all Exalted Paladins are still Paladins, not all Paladins are exalted) thing, we can presume the same standards apply. Since being Exalted is a step beyond normal Paladin behavior, if an Exalted Character could do it (Other than being Chaotic Good/Neutral Good obviously), then it should be okay for a Paladin.

Might not be the nitpicky RAW level of things. But I think it's a step beyond RAI, somewhere in between as the writing in BoED calls this out in a few places. So it's less obvious guesswork than RAI usually seems to be.

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-22, 05:35 PM

"Partners or colleagues" is not the same as putting up with someone long enough to get the job done and no longer. When forced to work with someone who favors, say, burning down the city as a method to smoke out the thieves' guild, but whose service is otherwise indispensable (desperate times, etc.), the paladin's answer is "We're doing it my way." Unless the paladin decides to make more enemies or render himself unable to achieve his goals by turning away assistance, which a given paladin may choose to do (see earlier about nothing about alignment guaranteeing everyone of the same alignment will see eye to eye all the time), but when given the option of rendering the guy who wants to cast fire spiders on the slums subservient rather than in partnership, he can take it. I've done it (by holding the rat bastard up against the wall gasping for breath, but I digress :smalltongue:) and no falling ensued.

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:38 PM

But since it's like a Square/Rectangle (All squares are rectangles, all rectangles are not squares, thus all Exalted Paladins are still Paladins, not all Paladins are exalted) thing, we can presume the same standards apply. Since being Exalted is a step beyond normal Paladin behavior, if an Exalted Character could do it (Other than being Chaotic Good/Neutral Good obviously), then it should be okay for a Paladin.

Might not be the nitpicky RAW level of things. But I think it's a step beyond RAI, somewhere in between as the writing in BoED calls this out in a few places. So it's less obvious guesswork than RAI usually seems to be.

I see what you're getting at, but like you stated Exalted Deeds also allows for neutral and chaotic good characters. Paladins are unable to be non-lawful. Exalted characters and paladins are both held to exacting standards, and those standards overlap in places - however they are not a perfect match.

hamishspence

2013-07-22, 05:39 PM

"Partners or colleagues" is not the same as putting up with someone long enough to get the job done and no longer.
This.

Dungeon Magazine's Savage Tide adventure path pretty much requires you to get some assistance from Evil beings- like Iggwilv, Malcanthet, Orcus, etc.

The only warning specifically directed at paladins, is that accepting the Queen's Kiss from Malcanthet (gaining bonuses as a result) counts as chaotic and evil.

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:46 PM

Dungeon Magazine's Savage Tide adventure path pretty much requires you to get some assistance from Evil beings- like Iggwilv, Malcanthet, Orcus, etc.

The only warning specifically directed at paladins, is that accepting the Queen's Kiss from Malcanthet (gaining bonuses as a result) counts as chaotic and evil.

...So? :smallconfused:

The lack of a written wording is not exactly conclusive proof that paladins can associate with Orcus with no risk.

Look, you can houserule this however you want in your home games, as indeed you should. RAW however, the paladin is physically unable to knowingly hang out, help, ally, redeem, or otherwise associate with evil guys. Adding to that, the interpretation of what a 'gross breach of the code' and so on is entirely up to the player and the DM. In a good group with a flexible player and an understanding DM (as you have made convincing arguments for), this is not a problem - the paladin is not lawful stupid and the DM is not a rules stickler who pounces on any perceived slip-up, cackling madly as he tears the paladin's character sheet to pieces.

However, the rules are not just written for good groups with flexible players and understanding DMs. In a game with a rules stickler-player or an insecure DM determined to read rules as written the paladin code (and the section on Association) is an entirely real problem, and a completely unnecessary one at that.

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 05:51 PM

I've done it (by holding the rat bastard up against the wall gasping for breath, but I digress :smalltongue:) and no falling ensued.

A choke hold in order to make someone do your bidding? That arguably qualifies as Oppressing, which qualifies as an evil act.

...Which again illustrates the problem with the paladin as written.

That said, I would never consider having you fall for such an act in my home games. However I sit down with any persons playing a paladin and actually write out a code, taking into account their personality and the deity they worship (if any). I'm also a big fan of this (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p9ew?Should-the-Paladin-Fall-A-Guide).

hamishspence

2013-07-22, 05:58 PM

The lack of a written wording is not exactly conclusive proof that paladins can associate with Orcus with no risk.

In this case, they're not so much "inviting Orcus into their Party" as

"convincing him to launch an attack on Demogorgon at the same time the party, and other groups, like Celestials, are".

When a bad guy is vastly more powerful than you- pointing him at other bad guys, is a good idea.

Renegade Paladin

2013-07-22, 05:58 PM

A choke hold in order to make someone do your bidding? That arguably qualifies as Oppressing, which qualifies as an evil act.

...Which again illustrates the problem with the paladin as written.

That said, I would never consider having you fall for such an act in my home games. However I sit down with any persons playing a paladin and actually write out a code, taking into account their personality and the deity they worship (if any). I'm also a big fan of this (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p9ew?Should-the-Paladin-Fall-A-Guide).
"My bidding" was "You've agreed to help because reasons, but haven't admitted to yourself that you're helping me. We have standards, and those mean we don't take orders from the likes of you; we're doing it my way, which does not include torching Westgate. Also for what you've done I would be within my rights to execute you right now, so sit down." I say "because reasons" because those reasons were complex enough fill a couple chapters of a novel (that scene of which I linked to on page 6 if you'd like to read it; one of the players is a gifted writer), but I assure you they were good. :smallwink:

Kudaku

2013-07-22, 06:14 PM

When a bad guy is vastly more powerful than you- pointing him at other bad guys, is a good idea.

I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why it's dumb that RAW paladins are not allowed to do so.

Eldonauran

2013-07-22, 07:12 PM

A choke hold in order to make someone do your bidding? That arguably qualifies as Oppressing, which qualifies as an evil act.
That is a bit of a stretch. You are leaving out motivation and intention in that brief summary of what the Paladin is doing. D&D doesn't automatically equate violence to evil and neither should this situation. I'm curious as to what would motivate a character to question the motives of a Paladin in the first place, aside from an obvious slaughter-orphanage-without-provocation-level-of-evil-actions. Paladins are usually above reproach. They've kind of earned that status by virtue of what they are, what they represent and how strict their code is.

Characters that are hesitant around Paladins are immediately suspicious, for obvious reasons.

...Which again illustrates the problem with the paladin as written.
There is no problem. Legalistic reading into the language used to explain the rules of the game, is the problem. "Never willing associates" could easily be read 'would not normally associate'. I seriously doubt they went over the rules with an actual lawyer to make sure everything could hold up in a court of law. If a Paladin's superior (like say, his god) gave him an order to briefly align himself with the forces of evil to take down a greater threat, that would qualify as a situation where he is not willingly associating. He is acting under orders. His will in the chain of comman is negligible. He gets to suck up his pride and disgust, and do the right thing.

That said, I would never consider having you fall for such an act in my home games. However I sit down with any persons playing a paladin and actually write out a code, taking into account their personality and the deity they worship (if any). I'm also a big fan of this (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p9ew?Should-the-Paladin-Fall-A-Guide).
To each, his own, I suppose. I'm not saying what you are doing is wrong. I just don't see the same problem you do.

ArcturusV

2013-07-22, 10:13 PM

It kinda has the same problem a lot of things do. When people start busting out dictionaries for game rules, things kinda go wonky. I've noticed it before.

In practical experience? I can't say I've ever had a Paladin called out to fall unless it was obviously warranted. Including one case I thought (And most everyone else at the table did) was pretty clear cut but the Paladin player disagreed. In that case the Paladin executed a hostage just because she was "in the way", without a second thought about it. Never even considered sparing her or doing it some other way than just brutally stabbing through her. Player did not see anything wrong with it, "She was a hostage, she was as good as dead already" though everyone else thought it was fitting for such a cold, evil maneuver as kill the hostage.

I suppose part of it is just keeping in mind that core 3rd edition was written to mimic ADnD 2nd edition. It's why things like the Hierophant PrC exists, and kinda sucks. And I know from 2nd that the "Associates" thing was mostly along the lines of Hirelings, Cohorts, people that the Paladin chose to hire to do his bidding as a leader. They had to be (By the best estimation of the Paladin in question, he was allowed to be wrong as long as it wasn't proven) Lawful Good.

Course, if you ignore the grandfathered in intent, I'd still say the "Associates" thing is stupid. I often drop it, but not fatally so. But association implies a long term relationship with someone who is Evil. You don't count that "one guy I went back to back to in a bar fight" as an associate. Least not in normal logic. Nor do you count a Strange Bedfellows angle, "I know you're evil, but this guy is MORE evil, so lets team up until he dies... then we'll go at it again". Nor would I even count a Redemption angle as real association. As someone who honestly is trying to be redeemed isn't being evil. Well, until they backslide that is. I mean sure that redemptionist Orc Barbarian might be Chaotic Evil by character sheet line. But if he's not doing any evil in order to become good... how is he still evil? Other than by the most DM is trying to screw you bits of logic.

Dimers

2013-07-22, 10:14 PM

Characters that are hesitant around Paladins are immediately suspicious, for obvious reasons.

Heh. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?

I'll tell you, if there were D&D paladins in my real-world town, I'd be "hesitant" around them, to say the least. If the wrong guy or gal gets it into their head that I'm evil or I'm maybe about to do something evil, *THWACK*, smite, die villain die. Doesn't matter if I was saying something sarcastic and they didn't get it, or if somebody framed me, or if I'm doing something that's deplorable in their home culture and perfectly acceptable elsewhere (like, I dunno, allowing my wife to show more than her eyes when another man is around, or something).

Rubik

2013-07-22, 11:06 PM

Characters that are hesitant around Paladins are immediately suspicious, for obvious reasons.Fluttershy would like a word with you.

...if that's okay with you, that is.

Oko and Qailee

2013-07-22, 11:10 PM

Now imagine if Roy was a paladin instead of a fighter. More or less on their very first encounter Roy would scan the rest of the party members and find out that Belkar pings on the evil radar. "Sorry guys, I can't associate with an evil character". And that decision is not up to Roy's player - it is literally hardcoded into the class.
.

I'm sorry, jsut to touch on this.

When Roy hired Belkar he was largely unaware of how vicious and malignant Belkar was. The only difference between Fighter Roy and Paladin Roy would be that Paladin Roy would know ahead of time that Belkar is CE.

I reaaaaally doubt fighter Roy would have let Belkar join if he had known Belkar was CE. Because in general, good people don't try to go to save the world with CE people joining them. It make's 0 logical sense at all to do so.

Finally " a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters", is more a description of what is logical. Note that a Paladin does not fall for associating with evil characters (doesn't explicitly say so). The reason that's in the code is because, once again, it doesn't ever make sense for a LG character to willingly travel with an Evil character.

The only exception to this is if the LG character is sure they can redeem or control the Evil one, which is what Roy figures he can do. But I honestly doubt he would have been ok traveling with Belkar from the start.

Flickerdart

2013-07-22, 11:21 PM

Finally " a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters", is more a description of what is logical. Note that a Paladin does not fall for associating with evil characters (doesn't explicitly say so). The reason that's in the code is because, once again, it doesn't ever make sense for a LG character to willingly travel with an Evil character.

The only exception to this is if the LG character is sure they can redeem or control the Evil one, which is what Roy figures he can do. But I honestly doubt he would have been ok traveling with Belkar from the start.

The paladin code is not a reiteration of what it means to be Lawful Good. It makes no sense for that to simply be reminder text. The rule is perfectly clear - a paladin may never associate with evil characters. No exceptions are mentioned. Redeem? No. Control? No.

Oko and Qailee

2013-07-22, 11:26 PM

Oko and Qailee

2013-07-22, 11:30 PM

The paladin code is not a reiteration of what it means to be Lawful Good. It makes no sense for that to simply be reminder text. The rule is perfectly clear - a paladin may never associate with evil characters. No exceptions are mentioned. Redeem? No. Control? No.

No, it says will never, not may never.

the difference is one of:
a) a Paladin would never choose to travel with a CE character, which makes sense in the realm of LG.

and

b) the Paladin is forced by an external force to never travel with an evil character.

Flickerdart

2013-07-23, 12:10 AM

No, it says will never, not may never.

the difference is one of:
a) a Paladin would never choose to travel with a CE character, which makes sense in the realm of LG.

and

b) the Paladin is forced by an external force to never travel with an evil character.
Irrelevant. The end result is identical.

Gwendol

2013-07-23, 01:57 AM

Why does "never" take precedence over "willingly"? The writers could have said that a paladin will never associate with evil, but they didn't, and yet many seem to read the sentence that way.

Flickerdart

2013-07-23, 02:15 AM

Why does "never" take precedence over "willingly"? The writers could have said that a paladin will never associate with evil, but they didn't, and yet many seem to read the sentence that way.
Where are you reading "willingly"?

PersonMan

2013-07-23, 02:33 AM

Where are you reading "willingly"?

He isn't. That's the point, the writers didn't write "willingly".

Gwendol

2013-07-23, 02:38 AM

I don't know where that came from; meant to say "knowingly" of course.

EDIT: in any case association os separate from the code and is not a reason for falling. It just explicitly states the paladin will not accept evil in the party, which by the way, no other good-aligned character would either.

Kudaku

2013-07-23, 03:33 AM

That is a bit of a stretch. You are leaving out motivation and intention in that brief summary of what the Paladin is doing.
Indeed I am. Thing is, the paladin class description doesn't care! Motivation and intention is irrelevant when it comes to the association rule - as I stated later in my post (which I believe you have also quoted).

D&D doesn't automatically equate violence to evil and neither should this situation. I'm curious as to what would motivate a character to question the motives of a Paladin in the first place, aside from an obvious slaughter-orphanage-without-provocation-level-of-evil-actions. Paladins are usually above reproach. They've kind of earned that status by virtue of what they are, what they represent and how strict their code is.
Characters that are hesitant around Paladins are immediately suspicious, for obvious reasons.
I don't believe I said a character questioned a paladin's motives. That said, I don't see why paladins should any more immune to questioning of their motivation than any other class. Being held to a higher standard means just that.
Stating that anyone who are hesitant around a paladin are immediately suspicious for obvious reasons... Have you ever been at a party and realized that someone there is a cop? How about at a company retreat with a high-ranking executive of the company you work for? How about being invited to lunch with middle management? Many people get uncomfortable when in the presence of authority - also when they have no logical reason to feel that way. For instance If my old drill sergeant entered the subway I was riding to work, odds are I'd straighten up and smooth down my shirt even though I haven't served in the military for years. Just one of those things.

There is no problem. Legalistic reading into the language used to explain the rules of the game, is the problem. "Never willing associates" could easily be read 'would not normally associate'. If a Paladin's superior (like say, his god) gave him an order to briefly align himself with the forces of evil to take down a greater threat, that would qualify as a situation where he is not willingly associating. He is acting under orders. His will in the chain of comman is negligible. He gets to suck up his pride and disgust, and do the right thing.
The difference between 'never' and 'would not normally' should fairly obvious - one is an absolute, one is not. Whoever wrote that section decided to go with the absolute for a reason.
As for legalistic reading... We're playing a game where the difference between 'an attack action' and 'a full attack action' is one of the most crucial differences in the game. Wording matters.

I seriously doubt they went over the rules with an actual lawyer to make sure everything could hold up in a court of law.
The game designers are not lawyers - lawyers exist to read, understand, and debate rules. The game designers are Congress, the people who write the laws in the first place. I can assure you that these rules were read and re-read thoroughly by the D&D-equivalent of supreme justices and legal experts multiple times before released. That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes - I personally consider both the code and the section of association flawed section on the paladin.

To each, his own, I suppose. I'm not saying what you are doing is wrong. I just don't see the same problem you do.
Fair enough. Keep reading and maybe I'll show you the light :smalltongue:

I don't know where that came from; meant to say "knowingly" of course.
I assume 'knowingly' is in place to avoid the paladin falling the instant a party member with an (unknown to the paladin) evil alignment joins the party , or is replaced by a doppelganger.

Which in turn leads to situations where the paladin player can attempt to keep his character in the dark regarding the party's alignment to avoid the conflict. Really it's the D&D version of "don't ask, don't tell".

Kudaku

2013-07-23, 03:35 AM

in any case association os separate from the code and is not a reason for falling. It just explicitly states the paladin will not accept evil in the party, which by the way, no other good-aligned character would either.

Mind taking a look at the Lord of the Rings-example listed here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15672050&postcount=201)? I believe it outlines the problems with the association class feature description quite well.

pjackson

2013-07-23, 05:27 AM

I think a part of why people dislike the paladin is that it has class features that not only requires the paladin to follow far more rigorous rules than any other class, but it also requires other party members to act in certain ways...

[cut]

However, if a paladin joins the party, the party dynamic is forcibly changed since those players now have to accommodate the paladin's code-based limitations - and players resent having change forced on them.

It has nothing to do with the class, just the mixture of alignments. The change could just as easily be caused by a player who plays a Neutral Chaotic character joining a mostly Lawful Good group.

It is a matter of whether the players want to play nice guys who fit in with society or individualists who reject society's constraints. I prefer the former but I know many people prefer the latter. There is nothing wrong with either type, but since they want different things out of the game there will often be conflict.

To those like me who like playing nice guys the code it not a limitation to a Paladin - it is so trivially easy to follow that I often play non-paladins that conform to it, even when playing other RPGs. The class was designed for players like me, and doesn't suit some others. That is not a problem with the class - having a wide variety of classes that suit a wide variety of play styles is good for the game, though it does lead to some people who it doesn't suit complaining about it rather than recognizing that it was meant for a different type of player. That was worse in 2e where it wasn't so under-powered. (I do not consider the class called Paladin in 4e to be in the same tradition as the Paladin class for other editions.)

Kudaku

2013-07-23, 05:36 AM

It has nothing to do with the class, just the mixture of alignments. The change could just as easily be caused by a player who plays a Neutral Chaotic character joining a mostly Lawful Good group.

It is a matter of whether the players want to play nice guys who fit in with society or individualists who reject society's constraints. I prefer the former but I know many people prefer the latter. There is nothing wrong with either type, but since they want different things out of the game there will often be conflict.

To those like me who like playing nice guys the code it not a limitation to a Paladin - it is so trivially easy to follow that I often play non-paladins that conform to it, even when playing other RPGs. The class was designed for players like me, and doesn't suit some others. That is not a problem with the class - having a wide variety of classes that suit a wide variety of play styles is good for the game, though it does lead to some people who it doesn't suit complaining about it rather than recognizing that it was meant for a different type of player. That was worse in 2e where it wasn't so under-powered. (I do not consider the class called Paladin in 4e to be in the same tradition as the Paladin class for other editions.)

It's good to hear that the paladin limitations is not a limitation for you when you play paladin. How does the lawful evil character in your party feel though?

The main reason why I personally feel the need to alter the paladin is not because the paladin code & associate section penalizes the paladin - for better or worse, he signed up for it. The reason why I feel that need is because the presence of the paladin limits the other characters in the party, much more so than merely having a lawful good character present. Basically, you need to make a trade to have a paladin in the party which you do not need to make for any other class - I do not think that cost is worth it.

If the paladin requirement was merely "Alignment: Lawful Good" akin to the monk, barbarian and bard (in D20srd, the bard has alignment: any in PF) and that was it, I'd have much fewer issues with the class. A lawful good character is still able to make exceptions, show flexibility, and acknowledge context and nuances in a situation. According to the rules as written, a paladin can't.

4th edition completely did away with the code and let paladins have any alignment they want so long as it matches their deity. It is one of the relatively few things I think 4e got right.

pjackson

2013-07-23, 05:42 AM

I'll tell you, if there were D&D paladins in my real-world town, I'd be "hesitant" around them, to say the least. If the wrong guy or gal gets it into their head that I'm evil or I'm maybe about to do something evil, *THWACK*, smite, die villain die. Doesn't matter if I was saying something sarcastic and they didn't get it, or if somebody framed me, or if I'm doing something that's deplorable in their home culture and perfectly acceptable elsewhere (like, I dunno, allowing my wife to show more than her eyes when another man is around, or something).

You seem to have no clue about paladins.
Killing someone without good reason is an evil act for which they would fall.
None of the reason you give are good ones (which is I suppose your point).
Killing someone when an arrest would do is killing unnecessarily and thus evil.
A paladin is only justified in using lethal force in the same situations as any one else is.
Detecting as evil alone is not sufficient reason to kill someone - the ability does not detect alignment only the presence of evil, which might be a curse or several other things.

pjackson

2013-07-23, 06:20 AM

It's good to hear that the paladin limitations is not a limitation for you when you play paladin. How does the lawful evil character in your party feel though?

I care more about how the player feels, but a lawful evil character would almost certainly have kept me out of the party in the first place. I do not find it fun to play in parties that do evil things.

The main reason why I personally feel the need to alter the paladin is not because the paladin code & associate section penalizes the paladin - for better or worse, he signed up for it. The reason why I feel that need is because the presence of the paladin limits the other characters in the party, much more so than merely having a lawful good character present. Basically, you need to make a trade to have a paladin in the party which you do not need to make for any other class - I do not think that cost is worth it.

That is wrong. The paladin puts no more limits on other characters than any other character does. You have to make the same trade for any character. There is no extra cost for the paladin class, it just makes it more explicit. Any strongly lawful good character would put the same limits on the party. It seems to me that you are saying that you do not like having such characters in the same party as characters you play. But that is no justification for stopping players playing such characters in other parties, or for stopping players who like to play such characters from having a class that suits them.

If the paladin requirement was merely "Alignment: Lawful Good" akin to the monk, barbarian and bard (in D20srd, the bard has alignment: any in PF) and that was it, I'd have much fewer issues with the class. A lawful good character is still able to make exceptions, show flexibility, and acknowledge context and nuances in a situation. According to the rules as written, a paladin can't.

Untrue. The only thing a paladin can not do is an evil act, and you do not have to be a paladin to not want to do evil acts. Most of the characters I play do not do evil acts whatever variety of good they are.
You seem to be putting a limit on the characters you are willing to play with in that you are insisting that they must tolerate evil actions. That is just as restrictive as someone wanting not to tolerate evil acts.
Would you also object to someone playing a samurai and not tolerating dishonorable acts?
Or are you just intolerant of such lawful characters.

4th edition completely did away with the code and let paladins have any alignment they want so long as it matches their deity. It is one of the relatively few things I think 4e got right.

I agree there were few things 4e got right, but this was not one of them. The 4e "paladin" is just a cleric variant, it does not have what made the class special in the earlier editions. By doing so it remove a valid choice from the game.

Kudaku

2013-07-23, 06:39 AM

That is wrong. The paladin puts no more limits on other characters than any other character does. You have to make the same trade for any character. There is no extra cost for the paladin class, it just makes it more explicit. Any strongly lawful good character would put the same limits on the party. It seems to me that you are saying that you do not like having such characters in the same party as characters you play. But that is no justification for stopping players playing such characters in other parties, or for stopping players who like to play such characters from having a class that suits them.

[...]The only thing a paladin can not do is an evil act, and you do not have to be a paladin to not want to do evil acts. Most of the characters I play do not do evil acts whatever variety of good they are.

This has been discussed at great length already, so I'll summarize quickly: A Lawful Good character will be reluctant to do certain acts (use sleep poison to neutralize a garrison, or temporarily allying with an evil creature to achieve the greater good, for instance). Provided with the right incentive and the right situation, he might still do them - he does have that option. The paladin on the other hand, is potentially unable to do the former without falling and physically unable to do the latter.

Look at the number of posts going "should the paladin fall" on this forum, or any other D&D forum. Then look at the number of posts going "should the monk fall" (lawful only), "should the druid fall" (Neutral only, must revere nature), "should the barbarian fall" (chaotic only), or "is this character still good?". The paladin threads outnumber the rest by a fair number. While it's nice that you don't have this issue in your games, clearly there is still an issue.

Please scroll up and read the Lord of the Rings-example (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15672050&postcount=201) I posted previously. I think it illustrates the problem with the paladin vs any good-aligned character quite clearly.

You seem to be putting a limit on the characters you are willing to play with in that you are insisting that they must tolerate evil actions. That is just as restrictive as someone wanting not to tolerate evil acts.
Would you also object to someone playing a samurai and not tolerating dishonorable acts?
Or are you just intolerant of such lawful characters.

I insist that my players should be able to consider an act from all sides and decide accordingly instead of being blindly restricted by a two-line box of text that is utterly incapable of considering context and merit. If you consider that intolerant, I really don't know what to tell you.

I agree there were few things 4e got right, but this was not one of them. The 4e "paladin" is just a cleric variant, it does not have what made the class special in the earlier editions. By doing so it remove a valid choice from the game.

Would you also object to paladins of freedom? If no, why not?

The alignment restrictions on the paladin are a leftover from previous game codexes where the paladin was objectively better than other classes, but was balanced out by having a harsh code to live by. When the paladin was released in 3.x, they should have scrapped the code along with the elitist thinking.

pjackson

2013-07-23, 07:08 AM

RAW and RAI, Aragorn however must immediately set aside the quest to destroy the One Ring because Frodo gets a kick out of kicking puppies. It quite literally doesn't matter that his absence will weaken a mission to save the world.

That is neither RAW nor RAI. The rule does not say that once formed an association must be broken immediately on the paladin discovering that the associate is evil, only if the associate "consistently offends her moral code."
Part of the paladins code is acting honorably, which would normally include sticking to agreements once made.

Kudaku

2013-07-23, 07:15 AM

That is neither RAW nor RAI. The rule does not say that once formed an association must be broken immediately on the paladin discovering that the associate is evil, only if the associate "consistently offends her moral code."
Part of the paladins code is acting honorably, which would normally include sticking to agreements once made.

Actually according to Kaiisaxxo here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15660309&postcount=172) the section on 'association' isn't part of the code. Ironically that makes it more restrictive, since there is no longer the "gross violation" justification available. Reading the association section separately from the code literally says a paladin "will never knowingly associate" - there is no wiggle room there.

Of course you could argue that the paladin is in a double bind here, since according to the Association section he can't continue associating with the character, and according to the paladin's code requirement of acting honorably he can't break an agreement once made.

Which ironically offers the way out - if the paladin were to break his code in a sufficiently gross way to fall - say by abandoning his friend mid-quest because he realizes the friend is actually evil, he loses all class features - including the section on Association. He's subsequently free to continue adventuring with his old friend.

pjackson

2013-07-23, 07:40 AM

Please scroll up and read the Lord of the Rings-example (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15672050&postcount=201) I posted previously. I think it illustrates the problem with the paladin vs any good-aligned character quite clearly.

I think you were interpreting part of the code far too strictly.

I insist that my players should be able to consider an act from all sides and decide accordingly instead of being blindly restricted by a two-line box of text that is utterly incapable of considering context and merit. If you consider that intolerant, I really don't know what to tell you.

I think you are confusing player and character. There is certainly nothing to stop paladins or the players of paladins considering acts from all sides, considering context and merit and deciding accordingly. Why you think there is is not entirely clear.

Do you insist that your players only play characters that will tolerate any act by other characters, or do you tolerate them playing characters that have limits to what they will accept?
Such limits are not restricted to paladins. I have played a character that left a party when their actions would have led to his being exiled from his homeland.

Would you also object to paladins of freedom? If no, why not?

I do object to paladins of freedom, because following a strict code seems to conflict with their being chaotic. The champion of liberty character concept is a good one, but modelling it so closely on the paladin doesn't quite work.

The alignment restrictions on the paladin are a leftover from previous game codexes where the paladin was objectively better than other classes, but was balanced out by having a harsh code to live by. When the paladin was released in 3.x, they should have scrapped the code along with the elitist thinking.

The alignment restriction on paladins were because the class was created to model a particular character from a book, just like the ranger was created to model Aragorn. Anyway wizards have always been more powerful (and I started playing before 1e).

The code is what makes the paladin class unique, it was never particularly harsh, and certainly is not in 3.x.

I am not clear what you mean by "elitist thinking". The whole game is based on the PCs being an elite who tackle the dangers that ordinary people can not handle. Unless it is the concept of the noble knight on his warhorse you object to as a representative of the idea of aristocracy.

Gwendol

2013-07-23, 07:52 AM

Totally agree; no good character would knowingly want to associate with evil. Nor would they tolerate evil actions. The paladin however has the means to find out who is evil better than many others. The rules for association are not particularly restricting, they are a natural consequence of the paladin alignement and honorable conduct.

pjackson

2013-07-23, 07:53 AM

Actually according to Kaiisaxxo here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15660309&postcount=172) the section on 'association' isn't part of the code. Ironically that makes it more restrictive, since there is no longer the "gross violation" justification available. Reading the association section separately from the code literally says a paladin "will never knowingly associate" - there is no wiggle room there.

Actually there is wriggle room. It depends which meaning of "associate" you use.

"as·so·ci·ate (-ssh-t, -s-)
v. as·so·ci·at·ed, as·so·ci·at·ing, as·so·ci·ates
v.tr.
1. To join as a partner, ally, or friend."

Continuing after joining is not the same thing as joining in the first place, and the wording seems to acknowledge that: -
"a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."
It does allows for a paladin to work with evil characters in a different type of relationship.

There is also
"2. To spend time socially; keep company:"
That does not seem to fit as well with the wording of the rule and would be easy to workaround.

None of the other definitions seem to fit.

Kudaku

2013-07-23, 07:59 AM

I think you were interpreting part of the code far too strictly.

I'm not interpreting it - I'm reading it literally. "Never" doesn't really leave much room for doubt. In my own games I rewrite the code specifically because I find the original code & associate text makes the paladin's options too narrow, too limiting, and too unbending compared to what another character with the same alignment but a different class can and would do.

I think you are confusing player and character. There is certainly nothing to stop paladins or the players of paladins considering acts from all sides, considering context and merit and deciding accordingly. Why you think there is is not entirely clear.

Actually, there is. Even if a paladin feels that in this case performing a lesser evil act will serve the greater good, he's still out of a job- if the paladin makes the "wrong" decision, he falls. There is a strong outside force pushing the player into making a decision that would be acceptable according to the code and the other limitations placed on the paladin in addition to the alignment section that everyone else works with. If the decision in question revolves around the association section, then there isn't even a decision to make in the first place - the paladin simply cannot do it.

Do you insist that your players only play characters that will tolerate any act by other characters, or do you tolerate them playing characters that have limits to what they will accept?
Such limits are not restricted to paladins. I have played a character that left a party when their actions would have led to his being exiled from his homeland.

The paladin doesn't cover either of those options.

I do object to paladins of freedom, because following a strict code seems to conflict with their being chaotic. The champion of liberty character concept is a good one, but modelling it so closely on the paladin doesn't quite work.

I object to the idea that only Lawful and Good-aligned deities get martial champions.

As for the wiggle room on association- I elaborated on that here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15660194&postcount=170). If you twist enough words you can turn anything into a pretzel. That doesn't mean that the primary form of the word isn't relevant. Like I said earlier, wording matters. If they wanted the section be more permissive they would have used different language.

We've been using two examples, one was when paladin x joins 'baron pineapple' to fight Xykon and the other one was when Aragorn discovers Frodo is lawful evil. Neither of the definitions you list would make these situations acceptable for the "associate" section on the paladin class description.

Finally, I wouldn't consider trying to find loopholes in the paladin code in order to get what you want very paladin-like :smalltongue:

Flickerdart

2013-07-23, 08:04 AM

Gwendol

2013-07-23, 08:48 AM

A Lawful Good character has as much reason to travel with a Lawful Evil character as with a Chaotic Good one.

Here I disagree, partly. I feel the conflict is greater between good and evil than between law and chaos. But sure; there can be friction between other opposite alignements also.

Segev

2013-07-23, 08:50 AM

Indeed, the verb "associate" refers to beginning a partnership/companionship/etc. Thus, a paladin will never "knowingly with an evil character."

Of course, by the same readings some are giving to "associate," one could argue that an enmity is an "association." It is, after all, relationship. And to begin an enmity would be at "associate" with the evil individual. The word "never" is, in conversational (and thus fluff) use, rarely as absolute as its denotation. It is a statement of their desire and design; to claim they are "physically incapable" of it, and that the association clause actually imposes behavior in a compulsory and "physical law" sort of way (which anybody who's gone to "physically incapable" is claiming) has basically given Paladins an infallible ability to never be at an evil being's mercy.

After all, being somebody's prisoner is a "relationship," and the beginning thereof is an "association" with that warden. Since it's physically impossible for a Paladin to knowingly associate, if he knows he is about to come into the power of an evil creature, the creature's attempt to bring him into that position automatically fails!

Contorted logic? Absolutely. But so is any "it's physically impossible..." interpretation of the "A Paladin will never..." clause. Reductio ad absurdum.

As for the question of where "willingly associate" comes from in some people's readings, it's right there in the plain text: "A Paladin [b]will never knowingly associate..." has the verb "will", which is the root of "willing." "Will never" doesn't mean "can never." "Will," as a verb, speaks to intent and determination. This means that circumstances can force it.

And, since it's not part of his code, he doesn't fall just from finding he has become associated with an evil being. It's how he comports himself from thence forth that matters for his own code. Where his code opposes his will to never associate with evil, his will must give if he is not to fall. And it can. Paladins are, after all, humble, and if his code is demanding this association, he must swallow his pride and suffer the unpleasant association. He may - and should - actively work to keep his undesired associate from engaging in evil acts while working with him, and must not turn a blind eye to it, but he is capable, and won't fall unless he allows this association to corrupt him.

That, in the end, is the purpose of a Paladin's reluctance - his design to never - associate with evil: if he grows too comfortable with their actions, he will fall by virtue of failing his code in other ways. And if he doesn't grow too comfortable, and they insist on being evil, he will be miserable and constantly at vigil to prevent and minimize that evil. So it is unlikely that partnership will last long if the Paladin cannot get the evil one to at least restrain himself in his presence.

But, by the same token, it's unlikely a Lawful Good cleric would long travel with a Neutral Evil wizard, if the Neutral Evil wizard insisted on continuously doing horrific things. It is similarly unlikely that the Neutral Evil wizard would travel with the LG Cleric or Paladin for long if the latter never let the wizard get what he wants.

Fortunately, there really is a lot of leeway for evil and good characters. Good characters need not prevent evil ones from seeking their personal gain, as long as they make sure they're not hurting innocents to achieve it. Evil characters rarely (outside of religious and magical practice) need to engage in active gross evil - murder, mayhem, blood sacrifice, overt cruelty - to achieve their aims. In fact, if they're traveling with good people, they probably feel that the inconvenience of the goody-two-shoes' moral strictures doesn't outweigh the advantage they gain from the partnership.

Where evil people's goals are so inherently repulsive that the good cannot stand it, no, the party won't hold together. But that's not the Paladin's fault any more than it would be the LG Cleric's or the NE Wizard's. The NE Wizard is, after all, forcing something on the party, as well, when he insists that they allow him to have Orphan TarTar every night, and herd his passel of "rations" around in a large cart. So is the CE Rogue who goes and steals from everybody they meet, including his fellow party members. And yet, in these "Paladins ruin everything" threads, we seem to assume that the CE Rogue is the aggrieved party if somebody wants to play a Paladin.

Let us not forget that the default assumption of D&D is that the PCs are heroes. Paladins may be even more upstanding than the rest of the party in the same default assumption, but they generally aren't assumed to have to enforce anything with the party. Maybe they'll be the one arguing for mercy when it is not expedient, but the default assumption is that the party will already be a little torn on the "necessity," and that if it's truly necessary, the Paladin will also agree (whether he's the sort to insist on doing the deed himself out of a sense of responsibility, or he's the sort to be unable to watch out of a sense of compassion).

We don't get these threads about "What makes the Blackguard fall?" and "How do you deal with an Antipaladin in the party?" Is it because nobody brings Blackguards into parties full of LN and NG characters? The Blackguard is no less bound by a code of selfishness and evil than the Paladin is by his of service and good.

The problem is when either character assumes more than is necessary. His own personal feelings about helping others don't enslave the rest of the party. He may tell them, "I am doing this, with or without you," but he actually verges on violating his code if he tells them, "...and you will, too, whether you like it or not." That's oppression.

Blackguards, likewise, don't get to insist that the NG Druid demand extortive payment and delight in the misery of a forest-town that is in the path of oncoming blight-bringing hordes. The druid and paladin can do the saving work pro-bono, even if the Blackguard's code demands he get as much as he can out of it.

In the end, what a Blackguard must do is not allow his party to corrupt his pure selfish motives, nor get in the way of him doing what must be done. He does have the option of sneaking around and doing it behind their backs, if needs be. What a Paladin must do is not allow his party to corrupt his pure aims, nor do evil and perpetrate injustice. He can still allow them to pursue their own greed, and can undermine it by volunteering his selfless aid (or stand in defense of those they might harm) if needs be.

Some give is needed when a Paladin enters the party. But this is true of any character who has different goals from other PCs. There are ways to work out accommodation. The Paladin gives by not insisting that they all act as he does. In truth, the only reason the evil people don't seem to have this problem is because, often, if others act like suckers good people, there's more left for the evil ones. But evil ones don't get to insist that the party go raping and pillaging (or even assisting him in such opportunities) any more than Paladins get to insist that the party help people selflessly.