OK so how should a Paladin be played?

[Thom]

I've read a lot of the discussions here about Miko, and I can see that it is an impassioned subject with well thought out (and not so well thought out) arguments on both sides of the debate.

So I wondered if I might broach a slightly tangential discussion, and ask that if we assume that Miko is a bad example of how to play a Paladin (I'm not suggesting it is mind you, just assuming it to be so, so that the question can be explored) how should a Paladin be played?

Now I don't know how many of you out there are familiar with an old TV show called "Due South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_South)" but the lead character Benton Fraser is my personal ideal of how a Paladin should be played in a game.


Kind, conscientious, and courteous to a fault.
Fights lawlessness with a high personal standard, and often with little regard to his own safety.
Despite being willing to take chances with his life, he would never put an innocent's life in jeopardy.
Is an inspiration to those around him.


Anyhow that's my take on D&D's holy warrior. Does anybody else have any thoughts on the matter?

Thanks,
Tom (Still new here)

[Setra]

I took a look at the topic title and instantly thought "Big Ears".

Really he is my favorite example of a Good Paladin.

He is willing to risk himself to save his friends, he is a good person, he tries not to attack without reason, but in the end he is still human.. err Goblin, you know what I mean.

I like Paladins who retain their humanity, even with their personal codes, and auras of light and courage.

[BrokenButterfly]

Well, the paladin is a specific type of holy warrior. With so many other classes and prestige classes out there it's hard to say what the right way of playing a paladin is without falling into those other class archetypes.
But surely this whole issue becomes irrelevant when we are talking about drama. As has been mentioned before, the real drama comes from when the characters do something that they shouldn't. We are talking about drama and comedy so do we really want any of our characters to be played as they should be in anything other than abilities and spell use?

[Logic]

I believe you stated my personal opinions on how a paldin should be played very well.

All of my paladin characters respect every other character that is frequently in the ever-changing party.
I believe the most important part of playing a paladin that does not have a stick up its ass (Variant Class Feature) is to actually respect the other characters opinions and motivations.
The chaotic good ranger may give gold to a begger where begging is outlawed, but that does not mean you have to scold the ranger for it.

[Wrecan]

Personally, I like to play paladins like Hinjo.

[headwarpage]

It varies. There's no right or wrong way to play a paladin, unless your DM lets you do things that are patently against the Code. A Miko-type paladin (pre-406) is a perfectly valid character concept, and might be fun to play. It might even be fun for the rest of the players in the group, even though their characters might get rather annoyed.

A better question is how can a Paladin be played to avoid annoying the other characters? The obvious answer is to get out the forceps and remove the class feature. Some guidelines I use:

- Don't expect everybody to live up to your standards. There's a difference between holy and holier-than-thou.
- Respect your party members. Just because you're currently enjoying divine favor doesn't give you the right to boss your friends around. You won't lose your powers if everybody doesn't do what you want.
- For Pelor's sake, laugh once in a while. There's nothing in the code that forbids a sense of humor. No really, I looked.
- But when you find real evil, fight it.That's what makes you a paladin. Just save it for the demon-summoners and lay off the jaywalkers.

Of course, it's really all about character concept. Not all paladins (or any other class, for that matter) need to be easy to get along with. Just realize that you have options, and don't fall into the trap of being a prick just because you're a paladin. Play your character first, and your class second.

[Iranon]

While the qualities in the original post would be close to an 'ideal paladin', I believe the easiest and most effective way to get better played paladins as a DM is to be more lenient towards them.

An example of a similar problem as existed in my groups: In a MUD I used to play, barbarians would randomly enter a berserk rage that would disallow running away from a fight. Makes sense on the surface, but did this encourage gleefully wading into a fray with enthusiasm and recklessness? No, you were practically railroaded into playing them as tremendous cowards because getting into an even fight meant a very good chance of dying.

It is similar with paladins under unnecessarily strict DMs. They are constantly scared of falling unless they follow the DM's interpretation of the Code and go far beyond that because they don't know where the DM draws the line.
The other players become frustrated, ooc squabbles ensue. The other players argue that the controlling attitude of the paladin is a mockery of Lawful Good and mistakenly ask the DM to put the paladin on a 'tighter leash'. DM does so and we have a lovely downward spiral that leaves everyone frustrated and the majority convinced that paladin player characters ruin the game.
The only real way to break out of it lies in the paladin player taking the plunge and risking their class abilities. If the DM is any good, the game will improve from then on, if not... well, sucks to be the pally.

While playing as perfect a paragon of virtue as I possibly can is an interesting exercise for a while, it bores me rather quickly.

A opinionated crusader such as Miko is not a bad choice per se, but I would consider my group before playing such a character and I would have to have a lot of faith in my fellow players.
Having difficult and even unpleasant characters in the party can do wonders for the game if everyone can distinguish between player and character sufficiently. But even experienced roleplayers often prefer harmony within the group which, strangely, doesn't prevent most from squabbling over magical treasure like fisherwomen .

There are countless other choices...

One of my favourite characters ever is a paladin always on the verge of falling. Originally too caring and gentle to be an effective champion of Good, she was eventually traumatised beyond hope of recovery (which involved granting mercy to the wrong individual and suffering in the worst way for it, being betrayed by the weak she was trying to protect, not finding the conviction to face her corrupted mentor until he did a great deal of harm, and living through perceived scorn and ridicule from her peers for her lack of inner strength).
The end result is a bleak paladin with next to no self-worth who regards her existence as a cruel joke and her continuing state of grace almost a curse because it is an obligation to carry on despite having reached the limits of her endurance long ago.
While heavily dependent on a prodigous amount of elven spirits and a small army of on-and-off lovers to keep going, she never ceased to follow her code because her convictions are the only meaningful things left in her life.

The code is a great opportunity for roleplaying if it is used as an opportunity for roleplaying rather than a cage; there are dozens of different character concepts for paladins that would be interesting to explore.

[headwarpage]

That's a great character. Just out of curiosity, did you roleplay the whole thing, or is that backstory, and you started the game once she was already bitter?

[Thom]

Well, the paladin is a specific type of holy warrior. With so many other classes and prestige classes out there it's hard to say what the right way of playing a paladin is without falling into those other class archetypes.

That is so very true, but I was asking the open ended question because I wanted to see the thoughts of other people, especially those who don't ordinarily play Paladins. I want to see how others see the role of a Paladin in both the party and the campaign world. Miko seems to be held by some as an example of a bad Paladin so I wanted to see the contrast that showed this badness.


But surely this whole issue becomes irrelevant when we are talking about drama. As has been mentioned before, the real drama comes from when the characters do something that they shouldn't. We are talking about drama and comedy so do we really want any of our characters to be played as they should be in anything other than abilities and spell use?

Au contraire mon ami. :D

Drama in a story comes from conflict. Whether that conflict comes from either an imposition or limitation put upon a character by others or some sort of self-imposition or limitation the result is the same. Opposition forms, and from the battle of extremes you get drama.

A Paladin to me is an interesting choice for a PC, as a great deal of the character starts in a conflicted state. They are held up as a standard, a touch of the divine and the perfect in an imperfect mortal body existing in a far from perfect world. It's the struggle of doing what's right against what's expedient where the Paladin gets it's dramatic surge. Done right I suspect, a Paladin makes it's own conflict gravy from the story and the world.

I suspect that I may be arguing what you just argued, but I think I'm trying to take it from a general case and you are arguing from a specific one.

Cheers!

[Thom]

Personally, I like to play paladins like Hinjo.

OK. Why do you like to play them like Hinjo?

[chibibar]

A Paladin is tough class to play I think considering the classic Paladin we know of are Lawful Good.

The situation you describe about personal moral code doesn't apply to Paladin. They are just the code. The laws of which the paladin must follow. BUT a Paladin must also know to protect the greater good, which is why there are some mistakes or forgiveness when a paladin slips up (depending on the situation really and the GM)

My personal example of a good paladin (well paladin quality) would be Sturm Brightblade in Dragonlance. He lives up to the code and measure of the Knighthood and follows it ALSO he will "bend" some of the code for the greater good and not personal gain. Unlike his higher rank only believe purely in the code and nothing else can cause a downfall.

[Green Bean]

Personally, I think a well played paladin should hold himself or herself to her own code, but only imposing it on others if it gets close to the edge. For instance, a paladin would not lie to someone's face. However, all they have to do is stand on the back and let another party member do the talking. The paladin description say that he or she will not associate with someone who offends her moral code, not her code of conduct. Just because he or she can't do something, doesn't mean everyone with her or him cannot.

Of course, if your party is made up of CN rogues and one paladin, there probably shouldn't be a paladin in the first palce, because that's just asking for trouble.

[The honest illusionist]

I think a Paladin should be an all around good role model. He (or she) is supposed to represent their benevolent gods.

It's basically acting in a way that you feel everyone should act. Setting a good example.

That's my take anyways.

Edit: An example of this is Miko should have slept in the muddy ditch, regardless of where the order of the stick slept, instead of trying to force them to follow her beliefs. Some of the order would have felt guilty and probably would end up respecting her.

[pedrokraemer]

for one instance, a paladin shoul NOT be played as Miko!!!:smallbiggrin:

although, Miko is a very impressive character, especially on her firsts appearences...

[eof]

Apart from what is said in the PHB...

I personally feel that there is one thing that will greatly benefit paladins (and a lot others, as well): a little bit of humility. Surprisingly much follow from that. You get selfdoubt, compassion, foresight and adaptability, and lose pride, arrogance, linear thinking and stubborness. (This does not, however, mean that the paladin should become a push-over.) This will both let him work better for his goals and also make him more socially acceptable, both to companions and strangers.

Second, a paladin should understand that he leads by example, not by force. He can't win against evil on his own, as he's both lacking in skills and in numbers. A paladin should never falter in his core beliefs for this reason (among others), regardless of what he faces, regardless of how much dirt is thrown in his face, regardless of what he suffers for his conviction. A fallen paladin (in particular if the fall is permanent, although this is less likely in more recent editions) is a blow to the hearts of good men; better, then, that the flesh falls and others take inspiration from the dedication of the paladin. By virtue of setting an example for others, the paladin must hold himself to higher standards than everyone else. And even when everybody else are evil bastards, the paladin should not falter, because even when everyone else refuses to be saved, the paladin can save himself (in a spiritual sense). All in all, the paladin is a rather spiritual class, and should be played accordingly.

And yes, I realize that this is not a failsafe receipe of how to play a paladin and always succeed against evil. There is no such thing; their goals typically actually conflict with the concept of constant success and survival. In AD&D 2nd Ed. it was stated somewhere that the typical life expectancy of a paladin was less than 30 years (don't quote me on that, writing from memory). When it comes to not falling, a paladin needs to understand that (especially after a certain level) there are wills that would know no greater joy than the knowledge that a paladin has fallen, and guard against it. Humility becomes especially important at this time, both as a guard against it and also as a method of recovery, should the worst come to pass (seeking out atonement rather than arguing the righteousness of what happened).

The paladin class should not be seen as either a crutch or a straightjacket for roleplaying, any more than alignment should. Considering the meta-game, a paladin should be played so that he can work with the rest of the characters, or at least so that all players are enjoying the game. If there is no way to accomplish that, the paladin should not be played at all.

[Swordguy]

l. In AD&D 2nd Ed. it was stated somewhere that the typical life expectancy of a paladin was less than 30 years (don't quote me on that, writing from memory). When it comes to not falling, a paladin needs to understand that (especially after a certain level) there are wills that would know no greater joy than the knowledge that a paladin has fallen, and guard against it.

I remember that. AD&D Paladin's Handbook. I still make new players to a class read those brown softcovers for the fluff and feel of the class they want to pick up. They were well done.

[Runolfr]

One thing to keep in mind is that just because a Paladin is Lawful Good, he or she does not necessarily obey the local laws. If a law is unjust, then the Paladin has a moral obligation to not only disobey it, but to actively oppose it.

Example, in a Lawful Evil city, the law says that anyone who criticizes the ruler must be captured and sold as a slave. Should a Paladin obey that law? If you said yes, you have a bizarre idea of how paladins should operate. In fact, the Paladin should loudly and publicly denounce the ruler and attempt to instigate a change of government. The Paladin's goal is to destroy the old order dedicated to evil and replace it with a new order dedicated to good, all the while doing his/her best to protect innocent citizens caught in the conflict.

Paladin's have a hard time being subtle. A deity who sponsors Paladin's wants people who can lead the fight against evil. In a situation like the one above, they may do some initial networking, investigating, and coalition building quietly, but before long they'll have to go public with their campaign to depose an evil ruler. Paladin's don't work behind the scenes for long; they expose evil and confront it.

[The honest illusionist]

But if a lawful evil ruler makes a law that states that a person may not kill anyone without a good reason should that rule be rejected in spite of that ruler?

Just because Shojo was evil (which he wasn't but I'm exploring Miko's thinking) should Miko have rejected all the laws that Shojo had 'rewritten'? Perhaps she should have explored the nature of Shojo's rule in more detail before becoming judge jury and executioner. Something a paladin is not.

[Thom]

One thing to keep in mind is that just because a Paladin is Lawful Good, he or she does not necessarily obey the local laws. If a law is unjust, then the Paladin has a moral obligation to not only disobey it, but to actively oppose it.

Example, in a Lawful Evil city, the law says that anyone who criticizes the ruler must be captured and sold as a slave. Should a Paladin obey that law? If you said yes, you have a bizarre idea of how paladins should operate. In fact, the Paladin should loudly and publicly denounce the ruler and attempt to instigate a change of government. The Paladin's goal is to destroy the old order dedicated to evil and replace it with a new order dedicated to good, all the while doing his/her best to protect innocent citizens caught in the conflict.

Exactly!

There was an episode of "Due South" I remember where Benton came upon a slumlord who was doing everything he could do to get the people to leave, while staying completely inside of the law. Benton then proceeded to move into the building and basically lead the charge against the guy by improving their life in the building. Of course he had to fight some heavies (it was a action/dramatic sort of show), but the big dramatic scene of the show wasn't the typical chase the slumlord and get him to confess moment. Instead it was Fraser who had to filibuster the city council and get them to see that the laws needed to be changed.

It's a delicate balance between knowing when the rules should be obeyed, and they should be broken.

[Glyde]

Keldorn style. "For the good" and all that.

Zealous and smiting of evil. Quick to temper to boot.

Intersting side note: In Keldorn's quest in BG2 you can talk him into killing the person cheating on his wife, talk to him, or take him and his wife to trial. Each of these things don't seem to affect him much.

[Iranon]

That's a great character. Just out of curiosity, did you roleplay the whole thing, or is that backstory, and you started the game once she was already bitter?

Her being slow to judge by paladin standards and letting kindness take precedence over common sense was backstory; the slow descent into a personal hell was played out.
My DM at that time was an evil genius with an amazing talent for improvised drama... I miss her :(

[wrath]

The definition of paladin is a champion of sterling character and courage, a hero who rights wrongs and defends the weak and oppressed. The term comes from the twelve peers of Charlemange. The legendary Song of Roland has been told and retold for centuries as a tale of a pious man fighting for and giving his life to the greatest cause. That is a paladin.

Any who have access to it, should check out the Complete Paladin's Handbook from 2nd Ed. It has a lot of great info on paladins, codes and strictures, personalities, backgrounds, etc.

[Thom]

But if a lawful evil ruler makes a law that states that a person may not kill anyone without a good reason should that rule be rejected in spite of that ruler?

If I was the paladin I would like to know what was considered 'a good reason' by the local constabulary. I mean if they have the phrase 'he needed killin' in their legal code, then the paladin should have some things to mull over about due process and the law.


Just because Shojo was evil (which he wasn't but I'm exploring Shojo's thinking) should Miko have rejected all the laws that Shojo had 'rewritten'? Perhaps she should have explored the nature of Shojo's rule in more detail before becoming judge jury and executioner. Something a paladin is not.

I'm confused, did you intend to say "...but I'm exploring Miko's thinking..." here? Otherwise, I'm not certain Shojo thought himself evil.

[chiefwaha]

There is no one way to play a paladin.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15655

This is a game I play where everyone is a paladin, and no two are exactly alike.

[Justinian]

Kind, conscientious, and courteous to a fault.
Fights lawlessness with a high personal standard, and often with little regard to his own safety.
Despite being willing to take chances with his life, he would never put an innocent's life in jeopardy.
Is an inspiration to those around him.Anyhow that's my take on D&D's holy warrior. Does anybody else have any thoughts on the matter?

Well, nothing says a Paladin has to be kind, or courteous. While aptitude in courtly matters is within reach given their class skills (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Knowledge: Nobility), that does not mean that all people deserve to be treated with kindness and courtesy. I guess what I'm saying is that politeness is not part of the code of conduct.

A hard-edged no-nonsense crusader or a courtly knight are both perfectly and equally viable. I've played both types.

[Runolfr]

It's a delicate balance between knowing when the rules should be obeyed, and they should be broken.

Not just broken: changed! Any chaotic character can simply tell people to ignore unjust laws and help them get away with it, but a Paladin will lead the charge to change the law for the better.

[Douglas]

For my favorite example of a truly well done paladin, read The Deed of Paksenarrion trilogy by Elizabeth Moon. It's an excellent series by a very good author, and IIRC was written for the express purpose of demonstrating how a paladin should be played after the author overheard a game of D&D with a poorly played paladin in it.

[Eriol]

I think that Benton Fraser is the PERFECT way to play a Paladin. Great example for anybody who's seen that show. Completely do-right even when he doesn't see the reason why a law is there, but when faced with injustice (outside of any law's definition) he'll do everything necessary, ESPECIALLY willing to put himself at personal risk, to do right.

When I saw that show, I wished all RCMP/cops/whoever were like that. The guy just radiates integrity.


OT: And remember, if you kill an RCMP officer, they'll "hunt you to the ends of the earth." It's an old legend (that's supposedly true) that nobody that has ever killed an RCMP officer has gotten away with it, and MOST of them have ended up dead upon resisting arrest.

[Stormbringer]

To me, I think defining the Paladin as Lawful Good is a mistake. One of the shortcomings of the D20 alignment system really.

As far as what I see the Paladin as, the idea of a just and good pretty much sums it up. To me the Paladin's calling shouldn't be about the law but the concept of justice it's meant to provide. That's what lawful good is supposed to represent, or so I think.

[Holy_Knight]

I've never seen "Due South", but it sounds like something I'd like.

Anyway, a paladin should be a perfect exemplar of virtue, defending the weak and punishing the wicked--and should always remember a few key points:

1) Good comes first, law a distant second.

2) Lead by example.

3) Expect more of yourself than you do of others.

4) Whenever possible, help people become more good themselves in a way that inspires and builds them up, not that demeans and breaks them down.

5) Try to redeem or negotiate with your adversaries if possible.

6) Being a champion of goodness is compatible with being amiable, good-natured, and friendly.

7) Be chivalrous in your dealings with others.

There are more things that could be said, but I'll stop there for now.

Just for fun, I'll talk about the last paladin that I played. He was essentially a cross between Elan and Miko (if you can imagine that)--very good-natured and a bit naive and innocent, but extremely fanatic in the war against actual evil. Despite actively seeking to mete out vengeance upon the truly wicked, he would also go out of his way to try to avoid conflict if he could. This was accompanied by a lot of "creative" uses of the diplomacy skill (meaning that he sometimes used it more like a bluff, and was pretty quick-thinking in general), which got him and his friends out of, and often, into, trouble.

A few of his exploits:

--Convincing a manticore that it wasn't worth the trouble to guard the dungeon from intruders, when he could just go out and eat the large numbers of sheep that were being kept 50 miles to the North instead.

--When the manticore caught up to the characters later on, having flown all the way to the fictional sheep and back, he swung his sword and stopped the stroke right at the manticore's head without striking, and convinced the manticore that they needn't be enemies. The manticore became an ally of sorts. (This particular manticore wasn't evil.)

--Using a musical gemstone and the help of some dryads, he convinced the much larger force of enemies that the entire "Singing Soldiers of Southmarch" were just paces away, causing the enemies to flee.

--In a bar fight, someone pulled a dagger on him, so he pulled out his greatsword to get the guy to back down. The guy did, so he put the greatsword away--so the guy pulled out the dagger again. Realizing that this could go on indefinitely, and not wanting to take an unfair advantage in the fight, he pulled out a dagger of his own and engaged the man in battle.

--Charging a pit fiend head on to save the the lumberjacks it was attacking... when he was level 3. (In my defense, I didn't realize it was that powerful of a monster at the time...) Fortunately, the pit fiend was dispatched by a powerful NPC before anyone got killed.

--Saving the charred leg of a defeated monster, "just in case". Later, he used that leg in two different bluffs--first, as a way to convince a group of soldiers that we were more of a threat than we appeared to be (which proved to be unnecessary). Second, after a merchant stole from us and there was no way to legally get the item or its cash value back, he spun a tale about the defeating of the monster, and with help from the party bard, who sang about it, built it up so much that the merchant paid us a fair amount of gold for just an ordinary monster's leg--thus restoring justice, to at least some degree. (That was a funny encounter.. it even included an offer from the merchant, then my character encouraging the bard to tell him yet more of how impressive was the monster and our defeat of it, which yielded an even better offer from the merchant just so my character and the bard would shut up about it.)

--Temporarily teaming up with a succubus to enact a plan to take down her master--with the idea being that we could eliminate the more evil threat, and because of our help, the succubus might change and become good (hey, I said he was naive...). In case you're wondering, that's a bad idea... the plan technically worked, although her master wasn't defeated--and then even though we had freed her, she turned on us, and kiss-drained my paladin. Fortunately he made his saving throw, and we cut her to ribbons. So, note to self: Do not try to redeem succubi.

That's just a few of the things he did... man that was a fun character, and a good--if unorthodox--paladin, if I do say so myself.

[skreweded]

Stereotypical priest (Realworld) except will fight to protect beliefs.

[Ampersand]

While the qualities in the original post would be close to an 'ideal paladin', I believe the easiest and most effective way to get better played paladins as a DM is to be more lenient towards them.

I don't really know how to play a paladin, and probably never will, but for this Iranon is my paladin-for-the-day.

[Setra]

I like Holy_knights Paladin :smallbiggrin:

[Silverwizard]

Personally I've played some interesting paladins.

One of them was basically a Wild West preacher. Going into the wilds, defending the people, attempting to right wrongs. But at the same time trying to bring people to light, healing, and all in all helping.

This character was not much unlike other PCs. Sure, he didn't let the party associate with evil. He didn't do so himself. But I don't know many parties who do. I mean, you can play a paladin not unlike other classes. It's the most common paladin I've seen. Zealous, but not insane.

Now, after a while and thinking about the Miko problems I got interested in the paladin dilemma, and then chose to play a strange paladin.

In the world, the goddess of the moon was a good goddess, and an important one. Therefore I chose to make the paladin night based. I wore a black Phantom of the Opera mask (covering half the face). He currently is dark and mysterious. He detects evil on everyone, and trusts few. He doesn't say much and broods. His class is pure outright paladin, and he is completely 100% LG. However he is still a creature of the night. He feels he should emulate the moon, bringing light into the darkness, from within the darkness.

Does this go against the paladin as written? I don't know about the second edition books, or even the 3.5 edition. But I've read the first and third editions and I see nothing in either book. (I am too cheap to update).

The paladin is a much more flexible than most people would have you think. It's a class, nothing more. I feel it is simply a class that must keep a specific alignment, it is nothing else.

[Charles Phipps]

Jedi Knight.

[agentx42]

This has been a terrific thread. Kudos to Holy Knight, Stormbringer, Eriol, Iranon, headwarpage, BrokenButterfly and everyone else here. You guys pretty eloquently summed up the term "Paladin" better than I ever could have.

Years ago I played with a guy who was the living embodiment of Miko; although I think his heart was in the right place, he too frequently confined himself to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it. He never allowed debate and certainly never considered the feelings or opinions of anyone else in the gaming group. In his defense, we're not talking about a bad person, either. In real life he gave ample time to Big Brothers and other various charities. Unfortunately his personality was just too hard-headed all of us in the group wound losing something more important than a game... we lost a friendship.

I guess that's why I feel both frustration and sympathy for Miko's character, although I have to admit no small amount of satisfaction that the gods are saying "you messed up". Still, even an "awful lawful" Paladin is still a Paladin. And this comic just keeps getting better and interesting with every installment.

I can't wait to see what happens next.

BTW Holy Knight, it sounds like it would've be a kick to play with you.

[Sebastian Bux]

There's really no right or wrong way to play a paladin. Sure, the rules will tell you there is a "right" and "wrong" way, but the truth is R&W are very subjective concepts. Right and wrong can differ based on ones own point of view (thank you Obi Wan).

However, a better question to ask might be how should one best keep a paladin a paladin. I think there are two concepts that a paladin needs to keep in mind at all times:

Lawfulness
and
Goodness

Miko was doing fine up until she stabbed Shinjo. I dare say that the Gawds have stripped her of her power not for accusing him, but for murdering him. The law offered him a trial to stand for his "crimes" and she denied him that. In my mind that's a great intrepretation of a time a paladin would fall out of favor and lose their powers.

As long as a paladin is ever mindful of the concepts of law and goodness, a paladin can prosper in his chosen role. So here are some examples I could come up with to say how a paladin might be played in certain situations:

1 - A paladin catches a street urchin stealing an apple from a marketseller.

- Theft is a crime according to the law and is thus wrong. (Lawfullness)
- Is is morally wrong to look the other way while a child goes hungry (goodness)

A paladin could catch the urchin and turn the child over to the law and still be withing their required tennents, but he might also catch the boy and instead ask that he return the apple instead of being turned in. The paladin might also then buy the apple for the child to show compassion. This is a marriage of both the concepts of the paladin allignment and might create the best result.

2 - A man attempts to use necromancy to raise his murdered wife from the dead. All efforts to convince the man otherwise have been in vein and the spell is cast.

- Undead are an abomination and must be destroyed. (Law/Good)
- The man's wife was murdered and the man has acted out of grief (Good)

A paladin cannot just stand by and let an undead creature go free, but this is the man's wife. This paladin is in a tough situation. If in a party, he might ask his fellows to capture and restrain the man and remove him from the undead's presence so that he can deal with the creature as safely as possible. He might then have the man brought to a temple along with the corpse that the priests might ease her passing in the light of the gods.

It doesn't just have to be about holy fire and righteous might. A paladin can be many things, it's just up to the player to decide how best to portray it. Good roleplaying turns the cookie cutter paladin into a well respected knight of justice in the favor of the gods.

[agentx42]

Well said Sebastian!

I'm getting carpal tunnel from typing the kudos to you guys. :smallwink:

[Setra]

Jedi Knight.

Paladin /= Jedi

[clericwithnogod]

My first choice would be like a xylophone on their skeleton, but if they absolutely, positively, can't be dead...

They should be played like Bahzell Bahnakson from the War God's Own series by David Weber. What's not to like about a huge, raging, champion of a deity of war and justice?

[Iranon]

Like a xylophone?? Blasphemy! Everybody knows paladins are wind instruments.

[Bears With Lasers]

Here's a little character study of a paladin (of Sune) a friend played once:

***

She does not pray kneeling.

This is no petty rebellion, not a reluctance of submission to the will of her goddess. Nor is it some sort of aesthetic decision, although she is a vision in rich scarlet, with her head thrown back, midnight curls spilling down onto mocha skin. Her stance is not a whim, it is more than a choice: it is the embodiment of who she is, why she serves Sune.

Love is a complex thing because it is so varied, so different in its myriad incarnations. The mother clasping her child to her, the fervent, short-lived devotion of teenage lovers, the easy comfort of a decades-long pairing, where things no longer need to be said: they are all different, and yet all similar, all Sune's domain--but there are some things love is not.
Belle prays standing because love is not a submissive act. Belle prays with her hands out and extended because love is inviting. Belle prays with her eyes shut because love is blind.

She does not vocalize her morning prayers--Sune knows her heart, and she knows the goddess'. They speak without speaking: love is a knowing and a sharing of the deepest currents, the stirrings of the heart.

She finishes, usually, before most of the others at the temple--such a wordless touching of minds is swift, though no less powerful for it. Aljais, showiest of all the priests, takes the longest almost every day: kneeling, hands raised in supplication, a mystic, crimson light fluttering about his face and streaking his long, blond mane with incarnadine and ruby and a dozen other shades. Tamaren, one of the other paladins, utilizes an old, traditional prayer and posture, ever the champion of formal, courtly love.
Lissa flirts with a mirror, laughing and fluttering her eyelashes, and though she is flighty even for a Sunite priestess, she shares no less than the others her goddess' love.
That's another thing about love. It's infinite, a bottomless sea--there's always plenty to go around.

There's a final truth about love, perhaps the important one: love is fragile, and it must be protected. That's why Belle sar'Darin is who she is and does what she does.

[clarkvalentine]

Here's my oddball paladin concept: the Raving Fanatic.

He lives on the streets, not having any money of his own. He preaches on the streetcorners and in the alleys, angrily ranting against the sinful and decadent lives of the city's wretched nobility. His face is unwashed, his hair is wiry and stringy, his beard is long and untrimmed, his clothing is torn and grimy. Somehow, he manages to avoid succumbing to the pox and plague that infest the lowlifes with whom he associates. Holding a quarterstaff soaked in the blood of more than a few unrepentant sinners in one hand, and his well-thumbed and dogeared holy book in the other, he leads a rag-tag array of angry but holy disciples - guttersnipes, reformed cutthroats, former prostitutes, and other assorted outcasts of society - on a mission to bring down the corrupt and the blasphemous in righteous fury, all in the name of the Savior of the Poor and Shield of the Repentant. For it is written, he says, that the high shall be made low, and the poor are the favored in the eyes of the Most High.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Generally I play a Paladin in a style that matches Sir Samuel Vimes from Terry Pratchett's novels. However, I think Carrot is the best template for a Paladin, but not as interesting.

[Lefty the Drunken Lush]

Simply put, a paladin shouldn't be played.

They are too restrictive for a interesting campaign. It limits the mix of characters that can go into a party. How long can they put up with the doings of the other characters? It limits the storyline. How many times can you rationalize that jumping into the gray areas necessary to get the job done is for the greater good? The plot is either repetative or the paladin is always bending. Not fun for the player.

[clarkvalentine]

Simply put, a paladin shouldn't be played. ... They are too restrictive for a interesting campaign.


That is far from my experience. Our group has had paladins for years, it's never been an issue, and the campaigns have been amazing.

- Clark

[sun_tzu]

Personally I've played some interesting paladins.

One of them was basically a Wild West preacher. Going into the wilds, defending the people, attempting to right wrongs. But at the same time trying to bring people to light, healing, and all in all helping.

This character was not much unlike other PCs. Sure, he didn't let the party associate with evil. He didn't do so himself. But I don't know many parties who do. I mean, you can play a paladin not unlike other classes. It's the most common paladin I've seen. Zealous, but not insane.

Now, after a while and thinking about the Miko problems I got interested in the paladin dilemma, and then chose to play a strange paladin.

In the world, the goddess of the moon was a good goddess, and an important one. Therefore I chose to make the paladin night based. I wore a black Phantom of the Opera mask (covering half the face). He currently is dark and mysterious. He detects evil on everyone, and trusts few. He doesn't say much and broods. His class is pure outright paladin, and he is completely 100% LG. However he is still a creature of the night. He feels he should emulate the moon, bringing light into the darkness, from within the darkness.

Does this go against the paladin as written? I don't know about the second edition books, or even the 3.5 edition. But I've read the first and third editions and I see nothing in either book. (I am too cheap to update).
Sounds like a religious version of Batman:smallwink:

[Baxter Konrad]

My personal view is this...


A Good Warrior knows what is right, and aspires to do what is right, but ultimately accepts that sometimes you have to do "evil" in order to do Good.

A Paladin knows what is right, and aspires to do what is right.


Missing out that last line means a lot, believe me.


Let me give my own "Enter the Paladin" encounter. My Eldritch Knight, Baxter Konrad, was leading his party in a military campaign. At the head of an army, they travelled to the city of Melten, the only crossing point of the Godswrath Gorge for a hundred miles. His army was to face the armies of The Horde, yet upon arrival they realised their enemies hopelessly outnumbered them.

Baxter, being the "leader" of the Party, made a decision. He ordered his men to destroy the Bridge, thus condeming thousands to death at the hands of the Horde, but buying enough time for the kingdom they were defending to rally an army, head north to the next crossing, and ultimately win the biggest military clash in history.


Now, Baxter is/was a Lawful Good Eldritch Knight. He remained Lawful Good because, though condeming thousands was an act of extreme Evil, it was countered by the fact that he saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, by sacrificing those civilians. He made a tough choice, and it paid off.

If Baxter had been a Paladin, however, he would have Fallen, and Fallen hard. Why? Because he condemned thousands of innocents to death.


This is the destinction between a "Good Character" and a "Paladin". A Good Character can sacrifice lives for the greater good, a Paladin cannot.


The alternative was, of course, to stand and fight. Baxter did not do this as it was suicidal, but where he a Paladin, it would have been his only option; any other course of action would involve abandoning helpless people, and with an army under his command that would be an Evil act. Even if the entire Kingdom was destroyed because he tried to save those few innocents, he would not fall.



Paladins, in short, always have to do the right thing. They can never choose the "lesser of two evils", unless there really is no other option.

[Charles Phipps]

Simply put, a paladin shouldn't be played.

They are too restrictive for a interesting campaign. It limits the mix of characters that can go into a party. How long can they put up with the doings of the other characters? It limits the storyline. How many times can you rationalize that jumping into the gray areas necessary to get the job done is for the greater good? The plot is either repetative or the paladin is always bending. Not fun for the player.

That's assuming that Paladins are the party moral police, which they aren't. One of the rules a Paladin follows in my game is the fact that A paladin has only the obligation to stop evil deeds when he finds them, he has no obligation to stop unlawful ones in the course of a greater good. A paladin may offer his counsel but in the service of a higher cause he may associate with rogues and other scum.

To point out the Jedi influence. I'm reminded of Obi Wan Kenobi traveling into Mos Eisley Spaceport. He's aware that the majority of the people there have lived extremely hard lives and the system of the Empire isn't fair. They're smugglers and scum but he doesn't attempt to clobber them all before tossing them over to the stormtroopers. It's only when he comes across a sadistic bully that tries to kill Luke that he disarms (pun intended) one of them.

Obi Wan also recognizes that Han Solo may be a thief and a crook but he's not necessarily evil or a bad person. Obi Wan gladly takes Luke onboard the man's ship so they can serve the needs of the many. He throws sly remarks Han's ways that chide him for his atheist existence along with lack of a belief in the Force but he doesn't attempt to convince him to change his lifestyle since that would be the height of hypocrisy. Another Jedi might be rigidly lawful but Obi Wan is wise enough to know that exceptions are occasionally needed....Han is perhaps even better as a rogue than a law abiding citizen would be because the Empire is evil.

A Paladin's first obligation to discipline is himself because that's the only person that he can really control. He leads by example rather than attempting to force others to follow his code. The paladin recognizes that compelled obediance is ultimately meaningless since that serves not the interests of good.

[Eriol]

Now, Baxter is/was a Lawful Good Eldritch Knight. He remained Lawful Good because, though condeming thousands was an act of extreme Evil, it was countered by the fact that he saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, by sacrificing those civilians. He made a tough choice, and it paid off.

If Baxter had been a Paladin, however, he would have Fallen, and Fallen hard. Why? Because he condemned thousands of innocents to death.

(snipped by Eriol)

Paladins, in short, always have to do the right thing. They can never choose the "lesser of two evils", unless there really is no other option.
That's contradicting yourself. Cutting the bridge and condemning thousands to death to save hundreds of thousands is NOT an evil act at all, and they did NOT have another choice. A hard choice? Yes. A "damnit I hate having do do this" choice? Of course. But it was still the GOOD choice. The consequences are as important as the act itself. Only a very select few acts are evil themselves, regardless of consequences, and most times, killing is NOT one of those "inherently evil" acts. Who, why, for what purpose, IS the determinant of evil, not that it was done at all (otherwise all "good" characters would have to be pacifists by definition).

We definitely disagree on the definitions of good and evil, not that Paladins are overly-restrictive to play.

[Runolfr]

Jedi Knight.

Ummm... according to Yoda, if you have reason to fear that someone you care about is going to die, you should just learn to stop caring. Jedi were about duty to the state and following a code, but it didn't necessarily involve working for the good of others. I don't think that's a very Paladin-like attitude.

[Charles Phipps]

Ummm... according to Yoda, if you have reason to fear that someone you care about is going to die, you should just learn to stop caring. Jedi were about duty to the state and following a code, but it didn't necessarily involve working for the good of others. I don't think that's a very Paladin-like attitude.

Anakin? Is that you?

Yoda was trying to say that one shouldn't fear death because it is only a gateway to a higher realm. If a person has terminal cancer then the best thing to do is accept it rather than trying to pursue a cure that doesn't exist and appreciate the remaining time that you have left. He didn't understand what Anakin was asking because the man didn't share any specifics. If he's "I fear my wife is going to die because of a vision." Then Yoda might have, after his initial surprise said, "Well then maybe you should wait and see what will happen and see if you can figure some way to alter the future without accidentally bringing it about."

As Mace Windu showed, as soon as they realize that Palpatine was an evil dictator, they were ready to do whatever was necessary to overthrow him. They were even conducting an investigation just when they thought he was corrupt. They're not interested in serving the law, only the Force.

[kamikasei]

Now, Baxter is/was a Lawful Good Eldritch Knight. He remained Lawful Good because, though condeming thousands was an act of extreme Evil, it was countered by the fact that he saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, by sacrificing those civilians. He made a tough choice, and it paid off.

If Baxter had been a Paladin, however, he would have Fallen, and Fallen hard. Why? Because he condemned thousands of innocents to death.

...

The alternative was, of course, to stand and fight. Baxter did not do this as it was suicidal, but where he a Paladin, it would have been his only option; any other course of action would involve abandoning helpless people, and with an army under his command that would be an Evil act. Even if the entire Kingdom was destroyed because he tried to save those few innocents, he would not fall.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What?

I've gotta say, I think that's insane. There is such a thing as triage. It's not an evil act to destroy the bridge there any more than it's an evil act to, say, defend a lifeboat that's full to capacity from people left aboard a sinking ship. In my view, allowing a large number of people to die just so you don't have to be partly responsible for the deaths of a smaller number is itself evil.

[Charles Phipps]

Yeah, I go with the fact that Paladins are allowed to make HARD choices. On the other hand, I also come down on the fact that the "gray area" is still pretty black and white.

You won't find Paladin Baur torturing a terrorist for information or killing his boss to save the city.

[Tokeloshe]

Think of everything you think of as being good. Not cool, just good.

Everything you just thought of? That is how you play a paladin.

[Runolfr]

The alternative was, of course, to stand and fight. Baxter did not do this as it was suicidal, but where he a Paladin, it would have been his only option; any other course of action would involve abandoning helpless people, and with an army under his command that would be an Evil act. Even if the entire Kingdom was destroyed because he tried to save those few innocents, he would not fall.

I'll have to argue with your "only alternative".

True, Baxter could not simply abandon the innocents on the other side of the bridge if there was a chance of saving them.

If those civilians were on the way to the bridge, he could fight a holding action to buy them time to get across, sacrificing himself and possibly some volunteer soldiers to allow the civilians to escape. A force would need to be standing at the bridge ready to destroy it if the enemy reached it, of course, just to be safe.

If there is no way to get those people across the bridge before the enemy took it, then destroying the bridge immediately is the right thing to do. For bonus points, he could stay on the enemy side of the bridge and do what he can to help innocents caught behind enemy lines. He might even be able to organize an effective group of partisans.

The point here is that he doesn't have to make the choice between completely abandoning thousands of civilians or exposing millions to attack; he should do what he can for both.

[Charles Phipps]

On the other hand, I also think that Paladins aren't meant to be everything good in the universe either.

Another conversation I had in game was the fact that Paladins aren't Christ or Buddah, they're a bunch of holy warriors that have a very specific job for their god. The only difference between a Paladin and a Lawful Good Cleric is the fact that a Paladin is more likely to be a militant warrior while a Cleric is more interested in conversion.

Then again, I used to play a LG Cleric/Fighter and I got the same looks as Nale did when folk asked if I was being needlessly complex.

[Runolfr]

Anakin? Is that you?

Ever read "The Darth Side"?


Yoda was trying to say that one shouldn't fear death because it is only a gateway to a higher realm. If a person has terminal cancer then the best thing to do is accept it rather than trying to pursue a cure that doesn't exist and appreciate the remaining time that you have left. He didn't understand what Anakin was asking because the man didn't share any specifics.

Yoda didn't ask for specifics. As far as he was concerned, the Jedi Order existed to serve the Republic. The problems of individuals were not their concern.


If he's "I fear my wife is going to die because of a vision." Then Yoda might have, after his initial surprise said, "Well then maybe you should wait and see what will happen and see if you can figure some way to alter the future without accidentally bringing it about."

Maybe. Given specifics, Yoda might have been more inclined to help, but Yoda would probably have also told him he'd breached the code, ruining his dreams of becoming a Jedi Master.

Anakin should have been willing to make the sacrifice, but I still don't see how the Jedi qualify for Paladin-like morality


As Mace Windu showed, as soon as they realize that Palpatine was an evil dictator, they were ready to do whatever was necessary to overthrow him.

Because they were servants of the Republic, and they did not see allowing Palpatine to take over the government as being in the Republic's best interests. Furthermore, they knew that destroying the Jedi Order would be near the top of the list of a Sith Lord's goals.


They were even conducting an investigation just when they thought he was corrupt. They're not interested in serving the law, only the Force.

No, they were interested in serving the Republic. If Palpatine had indeed stepped down as promised when Grievous was killed -- effectively ending the civil war -- then the Jedi would have had no further problem with him, politically speaking (there would still be the whole Sith Lord seeking to destroy the Jedi thing to deal with).

[Tokeloshe]

On the other hand, I also think that Paladins aren't meant to be everything good in the universe either.


No, that much is true, but they should be trying to be paragons of virtue. I disagree with "One evil act and you are out" but I do believe a paladin should be trying to be good. A paladin should be your platonic self, the self you are a bit too self conscious to let out much. That they don't always prove perfect, well that is up to the quirks of what each player considers good.

It is basically this: When playing a good paladin, as opposed to a theme paladin, think of everything you would like in a friend and give it to him. Ever played a party animal paladin? They work surprisingly well.

[TreesOfDeath]

Personally, I like to play paladins like Hinjo.
Qouted for truth

[headwarpage]

The alternative was, of course, to stand and fight. Baxter did not do this as it was suicidal, but where he a Paladin, it would have been his only option; any other course of action would involve abandoning helpless people, and with an army under his command that would be an Evil act. Even if the entire Kingdom was destroyed because he tried to save those few innocents, he would not fall.

Paladins, in short, always have to do the right thing. They can never choose the "lesser of two evils", unless there really is no other option.

I agree, this wasn't really an evil choice. A paladin should always be ready to sacrifice himself if there's something to be gained from it. If his death would gain nothing, though, he shouldn't sacrifice himself - he can do more good alive. Sometimes, a paladin has to accept that he's powerless in a situation - something bad will happen regardless of what he does. In that case, he has to do what he can - which you did.

Now, should that paladin feel guilty as hell afterwards? Absolutely. Should he lay awake at night wondering if there was anything he should have done? Sure. Should he question whether he's still fit to serve his god? Probably. But he shouldn't actually fall for that act.

[Machelle]

Sparhawk 'the Diamond Throne' David Eddings.

Best Paladin EVER!

Due south and Paksanareian close second

Old school Jedi -nope nope nope not even close too involved in 'higher purpose' and not enough in the people they were serving-

Luke type Jedi -in books after falling and coming back- Much better but still 3rd.

Also I agree the knight at the head of the army should have taken some volonteers or at least asked for some to get the civilians acrossed or at least tried to find some other way of doing so... gurilla fighters anyone?

[Kraydak]

1) There is no guarantee that a Good action will always be available (i.e. Good isn't guaranteed victory).
2) If one can act, and knows how to act, then inaction is a deliberate choice, whose outcomes weigh as heavily as those of action on the soul. (Note that very, very few people are able to accept point 2 in the presence of point 1. Paladins do not have the luxury of ignoring #2).

These 2 strictures mean that a Paladin can be forced to take Evil actions if no Good actions are available. So we include point 3:

3) Saying that the ends don't justify the means is as stupid as saying that the ends don't include the means.

This results in paladins who are frequently forced to do local evil for global good. They *cannot* stand aside and do nothing if improving the situation is possible, even if acting for good requires doing some evil. They accept that most people are unable to shoulder that kind of responsability, but their's is a higher calling. Most fallen paladins then are those who are unable to bring themselves to do what is needed, followed by those who are broken by the knowledge of their sins and become innured to doing evil and cease to seek for the best possible outcome.

(Believing the above is part reason of why I should never, ever play a paladin or DM for one. Nor am I personally strong enough to follow #2, however much I believe it to be true.)

[Charles Phipps]

No, they were interested in serving the Republic. If Palpatine had indeed stepped down as promised when Grievous was killed -- effectively ending the civil war -- then the Jedi would have had no further problem with him, politically speaking (there would still be the whole Sith Lord seeking to destroy the Jedi thing to deal with).

Yes, because Palpatine would have removed himself as a threat to what's good in the galaxy. They preserve the greatest number of lives and serve the greatest amount of good by helping the many through the government.

The Jedi have a long association with the Republic but if you think they serve the Republic over the Force then I think we fundamentally disagree about what the Jedi are about.

And I like my Jedi much more.

(Plus, Yoda would sort of be right to ruin Anakin's chances at being a Jedi Master since he sort of killed a lot of people and lied for 3 years to their faces)

Edit: But that still doesn't change the example I was using with Obi Wan in Mos Eisley.

[Baxter Konrad]

Sorry I couldn't reply earlier...

The point of my example is that a Paladin cannot turn around and say "The ends justify the means".

This is not to say a Paladin has to be an idiot, only that so long as there is hope that "Good" will succeed, they have to stick with Good. To use the example I gave before, if I were playing a Paladin in that situation, I'd have held the bridge 'til grim death, then ordered it destroyed at the final moment just as the enemy started to cross.

The reason for this is not just because you could save more innocents, not even because there's a slight chance you could break the enemy army...

No, I'd do it because it's right! A Paladin is iconic, and there is no better embodiment of "Paladin" that I can think of beyond a shining hero, bathed in white light, standing against a numberless tide.

[kamikasei]

To use the example I gave before, if I were playing a Paladin in that situation, I'd have held the bridge 'til grim death, then ordered it destroyed at the final moment just as the enemy started to cross.

The example you gave was misleading, then, since you framed it in terms of destroying the bridge or not destroying the bridge, rather than doing it now or holding off for as long as possible.


The reason for this is not just because you could save more innocents, not even because there's a slight chance you could break the enemy army...

No, I'd do it because it's right! A Paladin is iconic, and there is no better embodiment of "Paladin" that I can think of beyond a shining hero, bathed in white light, standing against a numberless tide.

Careful! A paladin is not bound to do what looks impressively heroic. Morality is not decided by what's most photogenic. A paladin who can do much to help a war effort should not throw himself into battle against overwhelming odds for meager returns just because it looks good. He has to make a hard-headed analysis of how he can achieve the best effect for his efforts. To do otherwise is to indulge in vanity.

It looks impressive and heroic and iconic as all get-out to die in battle against evil fiends. That is no argument for every new paladin to immediately storm the Abyss.

[Kraydak]

Sorry I couldn't reply earlier...

The point of my example is that a Paladin cannot turn around and say "The ends justify the means".

This is not to say a Paladin has to be an idiot, only that so long as there is hope that "Good" will succeed, they have to stick with Good. To use the example I gave before, if I were playing a Paladin in that situation, I'd have held the bridge 'til grim death, then ordered it destroyed at the final moment just as the enemy started to cross.

The reason for this is not just because you could save more innocents, not even because there's a slight chance you could break the enemy army...

No, I'd do it because it's right! A Paladin is iconic, and there is no better embodiment of "Paladin" that I can think of beyond a shining hero, bathed in white light, standing against a numberless tide.

And if there was another course of action you could take and knew about, that would have had a far better outcome, but involved innocent blood on your hands, how can you justify the innocent blood on your hands from the hopeless course of action you choose.

In a perfect world, where there always was a "right" way to act, sure. But that way does not always exist, sadly. Far, far too often, a paladin will have the choice of innocent blood on his hands or innocent blood on his hands. Perhaps in one case it will be because he stood back and let evil happen without acting, but a paladin does not have the luxury of standing aside and saying that he was not involved. To do that is moral cowardice (a common form, and one that many if not most people need to indulge in for their sanity's sake, but cowardice nontheless).

[Talya]

Lots of good stuff here, but something I didn't see mentioned (unless I'm blind) is one of the major themes of Good vs. Evil in D&D:

Redemption. One of the prime tenets of "Good" is the belief that all can be redeemed, that killing is an unfortunate last resort when dealing with evil. Yes, sometimes it is necessary, but redemption is always the ultimate goal. Justice & punishment may be necessary, as the lawful part of the alignment often emphasizes, but Good believes the best about all people, and regrets the taking of lives, no matter how evil or necessary. Mercy, compassion, and forgiveness are essential to the allignment. A paladin who is all judgement and punishment without these other qualities, "all smite and no heal," is going to eventually cross the line and lose their abilities, if not through an outright evil act, then through a long pattern of lawful neutral behavior that eventually forces an alignment change on them.

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."~J.R.R. Tolkien

[Silverwizard]

Sounds like a religious version of Batman:smallwink:y

Almost, however there are issues with that. While I admire the Batman concept he is clearly CG. He commits crimes, he does things by codes no one else will follow, he is the anti-criminal.

Where as the paladin does not enter into the slums and then use the tactics. A paladin becomes an example of why you do not have to. The paladin will rely their own powers to feed and clothe themselves, and will appeal to the courts.

My dark paladin went on missions for the church, even hundreds of years after his own death (YAY divine resurrection, yes good reasons). He was very "King and Country", almost in a James Bond type way.

James Bond/Batman?

Superman would make a nice paladin while on the superhero theme. Truth! Justice! And the American Way! So... very... lawful.... good...

[Eriol]

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."~J.R.R. Tolkien
I'm like 90% positive that's a misquote, so I'm going to look it up when I get home (pretty sure it's in Gandalf's talk to Frodo in the 2nd chapter of FotR, regarding Frodo commenting on how Gollum deserves to die, and yes, I've read it far too many times, and no, it wasn't after I heard a movie was announced, but FAR before that, in elementary school in fact).


And I agree with both the compassion and redemption themes being necessary for Good. You can work for Good outcomes without them, but you are not embracing every aspect of the alignment (and can definitely slip away from it much more easily) if you don't possess them. Though, it occasionally leaves you open to attack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html). The balance is necessary, between leaving the opportunity for forgiveness and redemption, but also not being easily manipulated by the false proclamation of such. It's a thin line.

[Justinian]

Essentially, Baxter's Paladin ethics dillemma is misleading, but frankly, the DM frequently is going to present a situation and then a player or a DM-controlled character are going to invariably express options, sometimes neither of which are good options. On that same note, sometimes, neither of them are Good options, if you get my drift.

A Paladin should not pick the lesser of two evils. If presented with a binary choice of evil or evil, a Paladin should say "to hell with those options" and make a third way forward.

[Hopeless]

I ran a Paladin based on the Buffy series who ended up being reduced from 15 Con down to 10 purely because the dm running the gme under 2nd edition rules believed that when a character goes below 0hp they are effectively dead so even when healed back to 1hp+ they lose 1 Con point and that was back when the character was first level in a party of characters whose lowest level member was about 5th!
That character died from dragon breath under conditions that was pretty much dm fiat even though it wasn't necessary and i don't want to bog this thread down that route.

By the by the same dm ran a Paladin under 3.0 rules in a Greyhawk campaign where he persuaded the dm to let him use 1st edition rules for noble born Paladin initial money so he had enough money for a suit of full plate and a masterwork greatsword which didn't stop him snatching a ring of protection offered to the monk by my character a halfling sorceror and then claiming nobody else wanted it!
He ran the character pretty much as a fanatic with no respect for the rest of the party and after my character saved his character's life and then tried to point out he needed to watch what he was doing since he had committed numerious acts of evil and I do not mean chaotic all of which the dm glossed over but when my character was attacked he stood by and then afterwards used it as a basis to say my character should know better than to belittle his deity, no sign of humility, no attempt to show what a Paladin should be exemplary for, merely a vain egotistical alpha wolf in need of neutering...
Sorry but had the dm for that game hadn't decided to take a break from the campaign and by that he stated he wouldn't run that game for what will apparently be a few years I was about to have my character turn from NG to N in response to what was the revelation that the so-called LG Paladin was actually LE!
(And I'm not joking about that!)

[warmachine]

Recently, I created a paladin character for the first time. The character was initially created as the antithesis of a previous character: a mercenary fighter who fought for money on the evil side and left when he had enough. Thus, the paladin fought for justice and order on the losing side and escaped before her church was purged.

I don't know about the right way to play a paladin but she's going to be a mother-clucking hen. Telling others to behave themselves, watch their language and be tolerant of each other. I've barely played the character so far but she is also compassionate to the enemy. When the party was attacked by mercenaries, who lost, one was still alive. He was healed, allowed one weapon and given one day's ration as he left. Being in the front line, deliberately attracting the magical attacks to protect the others is standard, paladin behaviour, of course.

[Leather_Book_Wizard]

How should a Paladin be played? Not at all.

[vbushido]

Almost, however there are issues with that. While I admire the Batman concept he is clearly CG. He commits crimes, he does things by codes no one else will follow, he is the anti-criminal.

Where as the paladin does not enter into the slums and then use the tactics. A paladin becomes an example of why you do not have to. The paladin will rely their own powers to feed and clothe themselves, and will appeal to the courts.

A soft reminder that lawful in D&D does not just mean "follows the law." Lawful means one follows a strict moral or mental discipline and respects the law that the individual recognizes as authority. "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos) This is why monks also require a lawful alignment. Batman strikes me as lawful neutral and a monk (excellent physical fighter, never uses guns, never kills). Officially, the police can't fully condone his actions, but they appreciate the fact he does it to protect innocents and suppress crime. And I agree, Superman is an example of a paladin in behavior. :smallwink:

-----
The average woman would rather have beauty than brains because the average man can see better than he can think

[teratorn]

Personally, I like to play paladins like Hinjo.

Bu Hinjo hasn't done anything yet on this strip except telling jokes and making a few remarks to his uncle. We haven't seen him bumping uglies yet.

[walkerhound]

3) Saying that the ends don't justify the means is as stupid as saying that the ends don't include the means.


or another way of putting it: the ends don't justify the means, but the means don't invalidate the ends.

Couple that with the knowledge that the Law is a tool used (ideally) to further the cause of good and i think ya would have a well played paladin.

The idea the paladins are working from: the best way to achieve a truly Good (and well ordered society) is by following well written and just legal code. However the “legal” aspect is only desirably in so much as it serves the just/Good aspect.

[Serenity]

Best paladin I've ever encountered was played by my friend Aaaron in a short-lived Eberron campaign. Tusk of the Talenta Plains, a halfling who took up the path of the paladin after witnessing a paladin fall in battle with a hag in a cursed part of the Talenta Plains that he had guided her to but feared to venture into with her. He was rather naive--i.e. cleaning his blade on the train--and illiterate to boot. His catchphrase was 'But that would be wrong!' When we were attacked by dolgrims, he insisted on giving the bodies a proper burial...

[Silverwizard]

A soft reminder that lawful in D&D does not just mean "follows the law." Lawful means one follows a strict moral or mental discipline and respects the law that the individual recognizes as authority. "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos) This is why monks also require a lawful alignment. Batman strikes me as lawful neutral and a monk (excellent physical fighter, never uses guns, never kills). Officially, the police can't fully condone his actions, but they appreciate the fact he does it to protect innocents and suppress crime. And I agree, Superman is an example of a paladin in behavior. :smallwink:


I'd agree with most of that, however the Batman I know who stayed in the No Man's Land Gotham turned into and other crazy things like that is a very chaotic guy. I would definitely place him on the good end of things, since I wont doubt he's good (sorry), but he's done some very chaotic and questionable acts.

He follows a moral code, but it's mostly "criminals killed my father, to stop that pain, I will stop them all". That's a good act, preventing the pain of others, but I would argue against it being a lawful act, since really it's not well established as a codified list.

[War]

Paladins, in short, always have to do the right thing. They can never choose the "lesser of two evils", unless there really is no other option.
Joining in with the disagreement on this. I'd say it's impossible to never choose the lesser of two evils -- there will always, always be moral conflicts, and every time you pick the greater good you're screwing over the lesser one. In your example you implied that defending the bridge, despite it being hopeless, is the morally right decision, but why? That's dooming thousands more people when you could have lessened the damage. You defend either the group in front of you at the expense of the rest of the kingdom, or the kingdom at the expense of the others, but either way, someone loses. That's life. Your job is to do the best you can with what you've got.

If the moral code of the paladin in question says that the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few, the decision is already made. For others, perhaps it doesn't say that, but instead says you should never ignore death and suffering that occurs in front of you. If a respected superior gave the paladin specific orders in full knowledge of the circumstances, that helps too. And of course, in reality there are ways to compromise with any course of action, as you later said. These are the exact same decisions that anyone of any other alignment would have to make, just for different reasons.

I do agree that the paladin should feel regret for the people who, inevitably, die as a result of his decision. That too is a fact of life as long as there isn't a perfect solution to every problem. And that might be the bigger distinction between LG and CG -- the latter, believing the ends justify the means, feels that her choice was the obvious right way to go, even if it wasn't pleasant. If you're really dedicated to good, often all you can do is to soften the blow. If you're a paladin, your whole existence is essentially packing peanuts.:smallbiggrin:

I also think a paladin can try to influence others... and minimize the collateral damage done by the party, without preaching. There's a difference between demanding that others adhere to your ideals and encouraging them to do so, and further there's actively helping them to do better, often at your own expense. If I were playing a paladin who saw a partymate steal something, of course she's obligated to do something about it, but before calling the guards, she'd be obligated to say, "Hey, please don't do that. I'll give you money to buy that thing if you want, but you know if you steal I'm going to have to call down the law on you, and I don't want that any more than you do." (If they just like stealing for the thrill of it, or if they're inclined to start bilking my pally out of money by threatening to steal, then the time in jail will probably do them more good than I can.) Respect and loyalty to others is also a virtue.

In the place where begging is illegal? I'd ask to buy some nearby worthless object from the beggar. Or try to get them a job.

[neriana]

And I agree, Superman is an example of a paladin in behavior. :smallwink:

Actually, Superman has murdered or attempted to murder Lois Lane multiple times, treated Jimmy Olsen callously, taken over the world as a brutal dictator, and generally jerked around his friends on a regular basis. Then there's that whole thing about lying to everyone around you, especially the woman you love, about who you are.

[The honest illusionist]

What? Are you sure that's cannon? Alternate realities, brainwashing and bizarro clones don't count.

[the_tick_rules]

paladins should be all supermanish but still have the ability to understand the gray areas in right vs. wrong, good vs.evil, and so forth. As well as understand how did roy put it, something like the intent of the law and not just follow the writing of the words.

[Setra]

Superman, is probably CG or NG.

In any case he does lie a lot, AND in his VERY early days(ie. Before he was popular) he has killed people, and not taken them to trial. I don't think Paladin's are supposed to lie, or do that.

Regardless, I don't like Superman, he is too... omnipotent.

If I had to compare a Paladin to a Superhero, maybe one of the Green Lanterns?

[Renegade Paladin]

There is no one right way to play a paladin, just like there is no one right way to play a fighter, wizard, or any other character class. There are multiple wrong ways due to the alignment restriction, but the same goes for monks, bards, and barbarians.

[Demented]

The thread is based on this presumption:

So I wondered if I might broach a slightly tangential discussion, and ask that if we assume that Miko is a bad example of how to play a Paladin (I'm not suggesting it is mind you, just assuming it to be so, so that the question can be explored) how should a Paladin be played?

Most of the opinions aren't so absolute on there being only one way, but it's a perfectly acceptable response anyway, given the thread subject.