DMs should always put paladins to the test. Discuss.

[abadguy]

Not just paladins but any class/PrC/feat with a restrictive code that when broken, result in loss of powers.

Personal experiences from DMs and PCs appreciated.

[Nilehus]

It's the equivalent of stealing the Wizard's spellbook every session, pitting the Fighter against a Rust Golem every encounter, or letting someone play as a Samurai. Strongly against. If it happens in the flow of the story, cool. Forcing it, though, no.

[Cowardly Griffo]

Counterpoint: characters should be put in situations where they face tough choices with real consequences regardless of their class choice. Every character has a code of conduct, regardless of whether or not their class demands one.

Also? A player taking a class with a code of conduct is not a license for the GM to jerk them around and take away their agency, any more than a player taking a class with no code of conduct is an excuse for said to jerk the party around because there are no (mechanical) consequences for it.

[Ravens_cry]

I think it's OK to give a character choices that matter through internal conflict, and this can be one way of doing so, though it's unsubtle to the point of parody. What certainly shouldn't happen, except with player connect, is to create no-win scenario where they are railroaded into falling no matter what.
The kind of DM who creates trap scenarios, or, worse, gets gleeful when the players 'fall' for them is just little fink who should be tossed out into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[Nettlekid]

I agree with the OP and the thread title. Obviously that doesn't mean "Have baby orphans hostage in every encounter and say the Paladin falls if they don't save the babies" or for the DM to actively try to make the Paladin fall, but within a campaign writing in at least one encounter (battle or more likely dialogue/roleplay) which involves a Paladin having to decide between Law and Good, or if the sacrifice of the few can truly be for the sake of the many, is almost essential to the flavor of the character. The Paladin is designed to be a paragon of holy might exactly BECAUSE it makes these decisions, and it gives the player the ability to play up the nature of their character.

I think perhaps the best thing to do would be for a DM to lay out a situation where they do not actually expect the Paladin to fall. A difficult decision that makes the Paladin worry, and has aspect of a good outcome but also some bad things no matter what. The Paladin has to decide what kind of Lawful Good goal they want to pursue, and if they have left something bad in the world as a result of their decision then they can act to rectify that after all is done. But the DM shouldn't make them fall if something bad happens. If they go an entirely other route that really DOES justify falling, then as long as their plan was indeed along the course of Lawful Good (as determined by the DM) then that's where a relatively cheap Atonement comes into play, and you get to use more of the flavor.

[TheOOB]

Nope, the paladin code is a terrible piece of game design, the paladin abilities are not powerful enough to require restrictions/penalties to their use, and balancing mechanical abilities with roleplay restrictions is always a bad idea. Saying "You have to not do this really nebulous and up for interpretation list of things or become the worst character ever, and you don't get anything for it" is terrible.

Think of it like this, there are 3 posibilities:

1) The class is more powerful than classes without RP restrictions

2) The class is as powerful as classes without RP restrictions

3) The class is less powerful as classes without RP restrictions.

3 obviously sucks, 2 sucks because you're taking restrictions for no benefit, and 1 sucks because then everyone has to rp the same to be powerful.

I *can* see a rule not letting you advance in a class when you betray the tenets of the class, or changing the abilities of the class, but even that might be too far.

[jiriku]

Counterpoint: characters should be put in situations where they face tough choices with real consequences regardless of their class choice. Every character has a code of conduct, regardless of whether or not their class demands one.

Also? A player taking a class with a code of conduct is not a license for the GM to jerk them around and take away their agency, any more than a player taking a class with no code of conduct is an excuse for said to jerk the party around because there are no (mechanical) consequences for it.

Agree. Paladins shouldn't be the only characters who have to make tough decisions in the game, and if the DM doesn't create those kinds of situations in absence of a paladin, the DM is missing an opportunity to add depth and substance to the game. Now, not every DM and not every group will want to play a "serious" game like that, but when choices are hard and actions have consequences, the game is more immersive and enjoyable, IMO.

[Diachronos]

Behavior restrictions in order to keep class benefits are okay in theory, but it's ideas like this that make it so nobody wants to play that class. There's nothing wrong with having it come up on occasion, like figuring out what to do with an alleged serial killer who escapes custody and surrenders peacefully when the party corners him, but you run into the problem of jerkish DMs who insist on constantly throwing these kinds of situations at the code-following party member until they either fall or get fed up with things and leave.

[gorilla-turtle]

All characters should be tested and made aware of entirely who they are. Is the rogue so greedy as to let someone close to them die to get paid? How unbreakable truly is the honor of the paladin? How far is the ranger really to go in pursuit of his trade? Is the healer so benevolent as to forgive someone who wronged her personally?

The key element to the test is that there should be an ability to pass it, just as much as there is a chance to fail it. Any dungeon master that thinks it is right to let someone believe they are being allowed to play a class, then go out of their way to make playing that class impossible, should never have been trusted to be dungeon master.

[Gnome Alone]

I'd imagine that "challenge the paladin's ethics" could be done well, but DMs should always do this? Barf barf pass. That would be so boring. "Another tired no-win scenario," is what everyone would end up thinking. Because a lot of the time it really would be such, and other times it would seem so because that is what the players would be used to/expecting.

Also, I do think that the paladin's actual class abilities should be a wee bit less terrible, to make the prospect of losing them through Bad Doings more dire and dramatic - and that'd just be good game design anyway. I feel like paladins are the Most Shafted of All Possible Classes in vanilla 3.5.

(Not counting monks, I guess, but I've always kind of looked askance at monks anyway because I don't quite get how they are supposed to belong in pseudo-medieval fantasy. So, I guess I think that in core 3.5, paladins are the most screwed over of the reasonable fantasy archetypes.)

[Coidzor]

Very few things are absolute to that extent.

Even "never focus in on rape onscreen" can be violated sometimes.

A downside of going with always putting paladin-types to the test as an absolute is that it makes the game become based around the Paladin-type character, even when the narrative would otherwise be focusing on another one of the characters to a greater extent.

[abadguy]

Counterpoint: characters should be put in situations where they face tough choices with real consequences regardless of their class choice. Every character has a code of conduct, regardless of whether or not their class demands one.

Also? A player taking a class with a code of conduct is not a license for the GM to jerk them around and take away their agency, any more than a player taking a class with no code of conduct is an excuse for said to jerk the party around because there are no (mechanical) consequences for it.

This is a great opinion. Just like how a jerk DM trying to make life miserable for the paladin/samurai, a jerk PC can also cause much grief through his actions and/or inactions.


I think perhaps the best thing to do would be for a DM to lay out a situation where they do not actually expect the Paladin to fall. A difficult decision that makes the Paladin worry, and has aspect of a good outcome but also some bad things no matter what. The Paladin has to decide what kind of Lawful Good goal they want to pursue, and if they have left something bad in the world as a result of their decision then they can act to rectify that after all is done. But the DM shouldn't make them fall if something bad happens. If they go an entirely other route that really DOES justify falling, then as long as their plan was indeed along the course of Lawful Good (as determined by the DM) then that's where a relatively cheap Atonement comes into play, and you get to use more of the flavor.

So are you of the opinion that the DM should "occasionally" put the paladin to the test?



The other side of this is:
As a PC, how different would you act if you were a Lawful Good non-paladin as opposed to a LG Paladin? Do you think being a Paladin "enforces" the LG alignment or would you ever think "eh, too much trouble, I'll take an alignment change no biggie"

As a DM, would you reward making the right/alignment-correct choice or do you think it is a "he's a Paladin, he's supposed to do it anyway" scenario? Is being Good supremely more difficult than being Bad?

Class powers aside, from a RP perspective, by choosing a class that has a restrictive code of conduct, don't PCs already mentally prepared themselves to RP the code?

[Prince Raven]

I will always find opportunities to present my characters with moral dilemmas regardless of the existence or non-existence of a Paladin in the party.

[nedz]

I will always find opportunities to present my characters with moral dilemmas regardless of the existence or non-existence of a Paladin in the party.

this, also I will throw a very wide variety of encounters/situations at the party subject to verisimilitude. I will only design encounters designed to nullify a specific character's abilities if that character is ahead of the power curve, and only then I do this to give the other PCs a chance to be more involved. This might include a Paladin. The Paladin will only usually fall if the player cannot justify their actions — so No win: Paladin falls scenarios are fine, but the Paladin will only actually Fall if they don't try to do the right thing.

[Coidzor]

So are you of the opinion that the DM should "occasionally" put the paladin to the test?

If the situation calls for it or the tone of the game calls for such a situation to be created, yes.


The other side of this is:
As a PC, how different would you act if you were a Lawful Good non-paladin as opposed to a LG Paladin?

Do you think being a Paladin "enforces" the LG alignment or would you ever think "eh, too much trouble, I'll take an alignment change no biggie"

Without the CoC or with an altered CoC? No differently, aside from potentially having less HERO personality with non-Paladin-types. With the CoC? As a player it makes me have to second-guess the DM unless I truly trust them, which creates problems with meta-gaming that I don't particularly enjoy.

Paladin's CoC serves as a strait-jacket to stifle players unless they're only playing a Paladin in order to go Blackguard.


As a DM, would you reward making the right/alignment-correct choice or do you think it is a "he's a Paladin, he's supposed to do it anyway" scenario?

Is being Good supremely more difficult than being Bad?

Of course, overcoming a challenge is overcoming a challenge.

In many cases being Good is harder than being bad or even Evil, but I suspect that's already partially taken care of by the extra fights/conflicts that wouldn't necessarily occur if one were neutral or more flexible.


Class powers aside, from a RP perspective, by choosing a class that has a restrictive code of conduct, don't PCs already mentally prepared themselves to RP the code?

Eh. I've seen too much variance in player mentalities going into Paladin to believe that one should presuppose that one has a masochist on their hands. Paladin the concept more shouts HERO and less GIMP to most players, even on these boards, from what I've seen.

[Lord Haart]

Paladins? Nah. It's bards you have to constantly put to the test, for so few of them even remember they can't advance in their class if they turn lawful. Make bad guys enemies of the state. Put an official bounty on their head. Make the goverment secret service stalk the same bad guys as PC's do, offering to cooperate when they learn about each other. And if the bard agrees? TOO BAD. Make the enemy roster consist of thieves, maraudering orcs and gnolls (who are clearly breaking the emigration law!), crazy pyros and an occasional wizard with a habit of setting his shop in the middle of the town and surrounding it with permanent Prismatic Walls so he won't be bothered, while making city guards, paladins and rulers nice and helpful — and if the bard is lawful enough to ally with the later and fight all the former types, clearly he deserves to fall for his badwrong roleplay of his own class.

Then throw a Monk into a conflict between totalitarian, nazistic (the main race should differ from the monk's), spiked-pauldroned Empire fighting a bunch of sympathetic, but quite disorderly rogues who mostly act out of impulse of their hearts and won't have a working command structure for the sake of their lives, and watch him squirm.




The other side of this is:
As a PC, how different would you act if you were a Lawful Good non-paladin as opposed to a LG Paladin? Do you think being a Paladin "enforces" the LG alignment or would you ever think "eh, too much trouble, I'll take an alignment change no biggie"
See, here's one of the misconceptions i often see. There is no special "Lawful Good on steroids" alignment for paladins. In fact, there is a "Good++" kind of thing (Exalted good), and paladins do not have to be it. Other than having a class feature defining additional inconveniences (being immediately inconvenienced for each evil act they do and eventually inconvenienced if they shift alignment normally, plus the vague stuff about not lying, not raping succubi, not flippling off the god of honor and whatever), they have no obligation to try any harder at being Lawful Good than a fighter or a wizard — and LG fighters and wizards are often fine with "just happened to be LG" kind of outlook (it may be perceived as flawed, but that's how lots of people play it). Remember mr. Roy Greenhilt? If he's Lawful Good (and canonically, he is LG somewhat veering off to NG (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) — which, incidentally, would be a perfectly fine direction for a paladin to veer off as long as he doesn't cross the boundary), then he would be just as LG if he was a Paladin instead of a Fighter on his character sheet (which doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't be a LG fallen Paladin — very few evil acts doesn't equal with no evil acts).

[Yue Ryong]

I tend to take the milder view: DMs should always ask Paladin Players if they want their characters tested. If yes... then they ask themselves if they can do it with at least fraction more subtlety and grace than a Chick Tract. If either of these bars can't be passed... then don't do it.

[Morty]

No. Challenging the paladin at every turn is a sure-fire way to make their player feel like they're being punished for playing the class - and to make the other players feel like their characters are just extras in the overreaching story of trying to get the paladin to Fall. It was honestly a pretty awful idea to design a whole class around such a code in the first place, but we don't have to add to the designers' mistakes.

And honestly, call me old-fashioned, but I think that a paladin ought to fall because they willingly betrayed their high ideals out of pride, greed, corruption or bad judgement. Not because the GM put a contrived scenario in front of them and didn't like how they dealt with it.

[VoxRationis]

They shouldn't always put them to the test, and the tests definitely shouldn't be "always-fall" scenarios (there's always going to be some option the paladin can take to at least TRY to be lawful and good in a given situation), but having a code of conduct is meaningless if the code never comes up.

And those who cry out that the paladin is too weak to deserve the code as a balancing factor are missing the point, that this is a role-playing game, and the role of the paladin is that of the chivalrous, honorable questing knight, in the vein of the stories of Charlemagne's Paladins and Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, and the code is there to back that up, not balance out a perceived excess of power.

[Ramza00]

Players story based actions should not have mechanical consequences with which you see changes in their class.

Players story based actions should have story based consequences.

[VoxRationis]

The class in question is defined by being lawful and good, and its class abilities are all in the vein of being lawful and good (smiting and resisting evil, healing the sick, etc.). It is to be expected that a "fall" is possible, given that people have the agency to turn to evil but that the class is about being good.

[Faily]

Another Paladin-thread? Must be a day that ends with Y...




Counterpoint: characters should be put in situations where they face tough choices with real consequences regardless of their class choice. Every character has a code of conduct, regardless of whether or not their class demands one.

Also? A player taking a class with a code of conduct is not a license for the GM to jerk them around and take away their agency, any more than a player taking a class with no code of conduct is an excuse for said to jerk the party around because there are no (mechanical) consequences for it.

Cannot Like this post enough.


Basically, all characters have a "code" they follow, the Paladin's just happens to be more rules-enforced than most other classes (but as mentioned above, Bards cannot be Lawful and Monks cannot be non-Lawful).

I personally look more at the Code of Conduct as a roleplaying-challenge for the player, not as a gift-card for the GM to jerk around. The GM should have more interesting things to play around with (like the main story, or consequences of character actions) than just "oh boy, a Paladin, let's see if we can make them fall today!".

[DarkSonic1337]

I'd be a lot more supportive of a shift to one of the other paladin variants (slaughter, tyranny, and freedom) rather than an actual fall, and actually allow paladin's to have one neutral aspect of their alignment if they want.

[Red Fel]

I wouldn't say "should always." Rather: A DM ought to be prepared, should the appropriate situation arise, to challenge any character's defining traits.

For example, I wouldn't demand the Rogue make stealth checks all the time. But if he's going on an infiltration mission, he'd better make them. I wouldn't require the Wizard to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every spell. But if he plans to identify the elaborate ritual the Evil Necromancer is performing, he'd better have more than just a good Spellcraft check on his side. And I wouldn't constantly throw moral challenges at the Paladin. But if he decides to confront the Drow who has taken hostages, he'd better tread very carefully.

Now, as others have observed, there's a distinction. If the Rogue gets spotted, he's still a Rogue. If the Wizard fails his Spellcraft check, he's still a Wizard. (Until he gets promptly turned into a corpse.) But if the Paladin chooses "wrong" in the hostage situation, he's nothing. He loses everything.

So while "testing" the Paladin may occasionally be appropriate, it needs to be a fairly low-level test. The kind that's hard to actually fail. Not to say it's impossible; a Paladin who goes around axe-crazy is going to fail - and fall - pretty quickly. But, to use the hostage situation example, it's very hard to find a "perfect" solution; there isn't always an easy "right" and "wrong" answer, and sometimes what matters is simply that you honestly tried to do the right thing.

Now, onto various other classes and features with alignment restrictions. Clerics have alignment restrictions - remember that? Within one step of their deity. Shift too far and lose favor. Which sucks for a Cleric, but is manageable. Further, it makes sense. Sure, "test" if they're being incredibly opposite their alignment, but generally it's a non-issue.

My big beef is with Exalted and Vile feats. People forget that they're not free - they have an entire alignment requirement coded in. And we're talking mega-alignment. Not just Good, Ultragood. Not just Evil, Superevil. I've seen people proposing a CE character taking Nymph's Kiss, because Nymph's Kiss is such an awesome feat. It is. It's also an Exalted feat, and a CE character sure as heck doesn't qualify. Your CG Barbarian wants Willing Deformity (Tall) so he can reach further? Tough nuggets, that's a Vile feat. Now, some tables waive the alignment restrictions on things like that, and that's fine; makes sense. Why is twerking a Nymph something only Good characters can do? But if you haven't, and you're taking these feats just because, you'd better have the alignment to match.

That said, am I going to test you? If your LG Monk was stupid enough to take Vow of Poverty, am I going to check your alignment periodically with orphans? Probably not. But I will be scrutinizing your actions more closely.

[qwertyu63]

Not just paladins but any class/PrC/feat with a restrictive code that when broken, result in loss of powers.

Personal experiences from DMs and PCs appreciated.

No. You shouldn't be trying to set them up to fail.

Side note: The writers should not have written them with "a restrictive code that when broken, result in loss of powers".

[Amphetryon]

Not just paladins but any class/PrC/feat with a restrictive code that when broken, result in loss of powers.

Personal experiences from DMs and PCs appreciated.

In my personal experience, a person is playing a paladin in 3.X in large part to explore the moral dilemma inherent in the code of conduct; this is true to a lesser extent of other classes/PrCs/feats with restrictive, breakable and consequential codes of conduct. Because the exploration of the moral dilemma represents a large part of the reason folks are choosing this option, I feel like I'd be doing them a disservice as a DM if I didn't sometimes* put those morals to a legitimate test where falling was a viable option.

*Note key word used. I do not read the OP's question as equating "always" with "constantly," and think such a reading is in error.

[Talya]

Ethical dillemmas for paladins (and just about anyone) = good.

However, they can be done poorly.

The problem is, even when objective morality stated directly in the game rules, Morality is not clear-cut. There is plenty of room for interpretation. The players should not ever have to guess at what the DM thinks is an evil act, or what the better choice for a paladin's morality would be. If the player is surprised when they "fall" -- then you, as a DM, failed. Any moral decisions that result in loss of class features need to be a choice for which the player clearly understood the consequences.

[awa]

I don't see much point to "testing" him i have never played with a paladin who wanted to be tested in every instance they wanted to play a knight in a black and white world, where detect evil might as well be detect enemy. In my experience when players wanted a more nuanced game they played something else. Now i'm not saying there arnt paladins who want to explore morality in meaningful ways just that you should not assume that because some one plays a class with a code that they want that code to be tested.

[SethoMarkus]

Not just paladins but any class/PrC/feat with a restrictive code that when broken, result in loss of powers.

Personal experiences from DMs and PCs appreciated.

No. If a player chooses to play a class with said restrictions, they should place their self into situations where they can apply that dilemma in roleplay. The DM should have nothing to do with that.

[Trasilor]

Having players make tough moral and ethical decisions is just one style of game play. Some players will love this added realism of a "gray" world. Others will be annoyed that real world dilemma's are infiltrating their fantasies.

In other words, by prepping the argument with "always" you are wrong.

If the players (including the DM) want to find their characters in such a world - then yes, as a DM you absolutely should make players face tough decisions.

However, if the players don't want that type of game, you should not include it.

There was a book in second edition (Creative Campaigning IIRC) which talked about this subject specifically. In it, they pointed out that before you, as a DM, introduce this game playstyle, you must discuss it with your players. Springing the whole "what to do with the (now) orphaned baby orcs" on players can result in Rule 000 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrandTabletopRulesList) :smallamused:

[Andezzar]

No. If a player chooses to play a class with said restrictions, they should place their self into situations where they can apply that dilemma in roleplay. The DM should have nothing to do with that.How would they do that if the DM creates no orphans to save, no goblins that surrender etc.?

[Vogonjeltz]

Not just paladins but any class/PrC/feat with a restrictive code that when broken, result in loss of powers.

Personal experiences from DMs and PCs appreciated.

If they never encounter a situation where the opportunity to abandon their code presents itself, what's the point? The most interesting role-playing experiences are the moral quandaries, and seeing what the good answer to them is. So long as the player refers to the Code to determine what would a Paladin do, they can not fall.


Behavior restrictions in order to keep class benefits are okay in theory, but it's ideas like this that make it so nobody wants to play that class. There's nothing wrong with having it come up on occasion, like figuring out what to do with an alleged serial killer who escapes custody and surrenders peacefully when the party corners him, but you run into the problem of jerkish DMs who insist on constantly throwing these kinds of situations at the code-following party member until they either fall or get fed up with things and leave.

BoED states that all characters seeking to be Good (with the capital G) must accept surrender from enemies, no matter how often they turn back to evil. It also gives guidelines to DMs not to do this to players too often, as it becomes wearying. A DM who is a jerk is going to be a jerk regardless of the circumstances.

Every encounter is a potential to fall if the player refuses to actually avoid evil acts.


The problem is, even when objective morality stated directly in the game rules, Morality is not clear-cut. There is plenty of room for interpretation. The players should not ever have to guess at what the DM thinks is an evil act, or what the better choice for a paladin's morality would be. If the player is surprised when they "fall" -- then you, as a DM, failed. Any moral decisions that result in loss of class features need to be a choice for which the player clearly understood the consequences.

I think the rules cover fairly well how to determine if an act is good/neutral/evil/lawful/chaotic. However I full agree with you that there should be no miscommunication. If the DM has made a rule determination that a particular act is aligned a certain way it behooves them to explain that to the players. Even more so when there are alignment dependent classes involved.

[AMFV]

Ethical dillemmas for paladins (and just about anyone) = good.

However, they can be done poorly.

The problem is, even when objective morality stated directly in the game rules, Morality is not clear-cut. There is plenty of room for interpretation. The players should not ever have to guess at what the DM thinks is an evil act, or what the better choice for a paladin's morality would be. If the player is surprised when they "fall" -- then you, as a DM, failed. Any moral decisions that result in loss of class features need to be a choice for which the player clearly understood the consequences.

I disagree very strongly with this stance. Or at least in part, for a Paladin, morality is clear-cut, they aren't moral relativists, at all. That's the point of their code, of being Lawful Good. The problem people run into is that the codes are not encompassing enough, so there are a few options a good DM can use to maintain a sense of objective morality (which is the essence of Lawful Good morality) and not have players be confused, he (or she) could write up very lengthy codes of conduct, which is time-consuming, but can be very,very flavorful and rewarding. The method that I think is best however, being less time consuming, is to have a player explain how their actions in a moral dilemma would have fit with their particular dogma (which isn't even across the board for all Paladins) and then you can discuss it with them, maybe have their character spot an omen if something is wrong with their behavior.

Edit: So to summarize I agree very strongly on the clarity point, but disagree very strongly with the situational morality for Paladins.

[KorbeltheReader]

I think there are a few cases of misinterpretation of "always" here. I'm guessing by "always put paladins to the test" the OP means that every paladin should be tested at least once during their career, not that paladins should be tested in every adventure.

I think the code of conduct is a good thing overall. It's part of the flavor and a great roleplaying tool. It conveys not just LG but a particularly rigid version of LG pretty well. Any LG character might have a problem with ethical shortcuts, but the paladin risks losing the power entrusted to him by his deity if he slips up even once! If the GM doesn't like it, they don't have to use it, and if the player doesn't like it, they can play classes like crusader or cleric that also happen to be more powerful.

Rather than no-win tests, which suck, a good test forces the paladin to take a substantially more difficult path to the goal, miss an opportunity, or face rejection or public ridicule or risk falling.

[OldTrees1]

Yes and No.


Any player that chooses to add a code of conduct to their character is likely to enjoy situations where that choice is justified. This includes both times when following the code makes things easier (Ex: avoiding the prisoner's dilemma) and times when following the code is the hard but right path to take.

However the important thing is the player choosing to add a code to their character. If the player is begrudgingly required to carry a code of conduct due to steps necessary to make mechanics match concept, then they probably will not enjoy exploring this code they begrudgingly carry.


Ex: I enjoy adding codes of conduct to my cleric and "knight" characters. It makes my clerics feel like they are in a relationship with their deity and it gives my "knight"s a higher standard to try to live up to(the impossible dream).

[abadguy]

TO PCs:
If you chose to play a Paladin, would you be disappointed if you were never put to a really tough moral dilemma?

To DMs:
Would the Paladin automatically be the party leader? They are supposed to be shining examples of virtue and heroism, by all accounts most people would expect them to lead. Knowing your players, if the paladin PC is not the type to lead, would you make them do so regardless? A possible scenario: party of four in front of the king, it is not the paladin who addresses but someone else instead. Would that make sense to your NPCs and would they call the paladin out on that?

This is all really good discourse because I'm in a unique position where I'm DMing a game with a paladin AND playing one in another.

[Coidzor]

TO PCs:
If you chose to play a Paladin, would you be disappointed if you were never put to a really tough moral dilemma?

No, or at least, not necessarily, though I suppose part of that depends upon what a moral dilemma is and what makes one tough or really tough. And also just how many different adventures, campaigns, and paladins I was playing and what sort of mood I was in.

I know there are some games I've been in where a really tough moral dilemma would not have fit with the tone of the rest of the game, so I'd have just had to look askance at the DM for making that call.

There are others where everyone's either already had or is currently or is going to face some kind of trial, so not facing one as a Paladin would single me out which would also be fairly weird.

All of the depends, I guess?


To DMs:
Would the Paladin automatically be the party leader? They are supposed to be shining examples of virtue and heroism, by all accounts most people would expect them to lead.

No, having a "party leader" isn't a guarantee in the first place. Being exemplary and having the necessary qualities for leadership are two different things.


Knowing your players, if the paladin PC is not the type to lead, would you make them do so regardless?

I don't see why I or any DM should have to force any given player to lead the others. :smallconfused:

I suppose there's certain scenarios where they'd need to nominate someone to speak on behalf of the party or negotiate for them or otherwise represent them. But a Paladin isn't suited to filling that role in all cases, necessarily, anyway.


A possible scenario: party of four in front of the king, it is not the paladin who addresses but someone else instead. Would that make sense to your NPCs and would they call the paladin out on that?

I wouldn't make a meta-game issue into an in-game issue if I could avoid it, as doing so seems to be one of those cases where it's pretty much a universally bad idea. At least, I haven't encountered any exceptions to the rule yet, not even ones that prove it.

Who it makes sense to take the initiative in a public audience with a ruler is something that is highly context dependent, and without some kind of specific cultural idiosyncrasy where Paladins have to be the ones to speak for a group they're with, I don't really see where it's anyone's place to harangue the Paladin for not hogging the limelight, especially if it's something that another person there could give better insight on(like, say, the guy who actually is a bit of an expert on dragons if dragons are being discussed), so long as no one puts their foot in their mouth and embarrasses the party or gets on the bad side of the ruler.

[AlanBruce]

In my games, unless the paladin voluntarily decides to break her code, then yes, it would be a reason to fall.

Does that mean that scenarios present where her conscience will be put to the test? Absoliutely.

For example, my group has a paladin of freedom (they are immune to compulsions). Earlier in the campaign, said paladin was struck by a necrotic cyst. Currently, the party is sailing to a continent where they believe they can find someone who can remove this cyst (in the setting, it takes someone exceptionally skilled in Chirurgery to remove it).

Cue in the evil wizard who planted the cyst in the paladin. When the rest of the group went on a sidequest in an island, the paladin decided to stay in the ship, fearful that the cyst might trigger necrotic domination, although the party's mage made sure Disobedience was cast every morning, just in case.

However, he forgot to prepare it that morning.

The evil wizard took the paladin with him, now dominated and teleported both to a city, where he had her assassinate a small group of nobles in an alley for unknown reasons (part of his overarching scheme). The group targeted had enchanters with them, so the wizard knew her PoF abilities would come in rather well, explaining to her that because she was domianted and not acting of free will to butcher senselessly, she would not fall, thus finding a loophole.

End result? The paladin's player got some fancy loot (the wizard did not care about it for himself) and XP. He then teleported her back to the party's ship and left her on the crow's nest, where she had been sheltering herself away from the others, telling her that whatever guilt she might endure later for her acts was not from a spell, but from her own actions.

Then, he allowed her to accept the Disobedience spell (part of the domination effect was to resist the party's mage spell every morning so far and drink a potion of glibness to convince him that she was fine, reason why he stopped preparing the spell.) until he had further use for her again.

The player loved the situation because it gave her a chance to develop her character more and establish a clear enemy in the campaign. She is still hesitant to reveal what has happened to her party members and seeks an atonement (even though it isn't necessary- she wasn't in control).

That's how I ran the whole paladin fall scenario and have not had any complaints about it, but it does create a feeling of tension and hurry for the paladin, who wants the cyst removed as fast as possible.

[Morty]

This thread illustrates a problem with the paladin's code of conduct - there's an ever-present risk that it'll hog the spotlight. Suddenly the most important part of the party's relation to the story is whether or not it'll make the paladin fall from grace.

[Killer Angel]

All characters should be tested and made aware of entirely who they are. Is the rogue so greedy as to let someone close to them die to get paid? How unbreakable truly is the honor of the paladin? How far is the ranger really to go in pursuit of his trade? Is the healer so benevolent as to forgive someone who wronged her personally?

That would be fair, but the consequences for the paladin are "you lose your powers", while the consequences for our rogue, are... none.
A test is real when you have something to lose (this doesn't mean that it's impossible, but the DM must work to find something to give the rogue some real thought)

[Prince Raven]

TO PCs:
If you chose to play a Paladin, would you be disappointed if you were never put to a really tough moral dilemma?

I would be disappointed to never have a moral dilemma to deal with regardless of my class.


To DMs:
Would the Paladin automatically be the party leader? They are supposed to be shining examples of virtue and heroism, by all accounts most people would expect them to lead. Knowing your players, if the paladin PC is not the type to lead, would you make them do so regardless? A possible scenario: party of four in front of the king, it is not the paladin who addresses but someone else instead. Would that make sense to your NPCs and would they call the paladin out on that?

Party dynamics are the party's business, not mine, Paladins often make good leaders in my experience but it's entirely up to the group to decide.

[VoxRationis]

This thread illustrates a problem with the paladin's code of conduct - there's an ever-present risk that it'll hog the spotlight. Suddenly the most important part of the party's relation to the story is whether or not it'll make the paladin fall from grace.

That's true for almost all characters. One of the strange things about party dynamics and story in D&D is that it draws from genres typified by single leads, with supporting characters, but the party demands a balance between equal characters (at least in theory). If a DM is trying to make in-depth, personal stories, they will always, regardless of peoples' class choices find it difficult to properly balance everyone's time in the limelight.

[Esprit15]

Random, slightly cheeky point: Why does nobody make the Barbarian or Bard have tough choices? I only ever see stuff for Lawful classes.

More seriously: Paladins should be tested sometimes. The wizard's spell book or component pouch should be stolen, at most, once a campaign, if there is good reason for it. PC's should be challenged in ways that are fitting to them, but there is a difference between challenging a PC and picking on them. Paladins have it toughest because they sometimes end up in what seem like lose-lose situations, but these are situations that any PC should encounter. If the only way you can challenge a PC is by tricky ethical questions, you should re-evaluate your campaign planning abilities.

[VoxRationis]

You only see stuff for Lawful classes because Law vs. Good is easier to set up than Chaos vs. Good. A chaotic person can decide "Oh, well this particular village is doing well enough, I'll just not mess around with it."

[Nibbens]

I'd say no. The rules for a "code of conduct" pit the players against the DM - leaving the DM to specifically punish players for their actions. The DM should't be a person to play against in D&D, but a person to play with. Punishing a players actions is vindictive when it's a "call from the gods," and that's exactly how it's written into the game. 'Tis folly. Players and DM's should work together for the betterment of each players story - pallys should have the chance to fall and atone as a centerpiece for their own personal progression and story with full DM and player approval.

[Amphetryon]

I'd say no. The rules for a "code of conduct" pit the players against the DM - leaving the DM to specifically punish players for their actions. The DM should't be a person to play against in D&D, but a person to play with. Punishing a players actions is vindictive when it's a "call from the gods," and that's exactly how it's written into the game. 'Tis folly. Players and DM's should work together for the betterment of each players story - pallys should have the chance to fall and atone as a centerpiece for their own personal progression and story with full DM and player approval.

Please clarify how the bolded portion happens without any sort of test of the paladin's CoC.

[AMFV]

This thread illustrates a problem with the paladin's code of conduct - there's an ever-present risk that it'll hog the spotlight. Suddenly the most important part of the party's relation to the story is whether or not it'll make the paladin fall from grace.

Well that's only a problem if giving a character the spotlight is bad... and it isn't. Every character will occasionally get more of the spotlight, this gives a tier 5 character a story based spotlight in ways that rarely happen. It's fine for the Paladin to occasionally have the spotlight, just not all the time as a matter of course.


You only see stuff for Lawful classes because Law vs. Good is easier to set up than Chaos vs. Good. A chaotic person can decide "Oh, well this particular village is doing well enough, I'll just not mess around with it."

Well I disagree, Chaotic dilemma exist, they're just different. A chaotic character runs into a dilemma when their gut instinct has caused them to do something that later turns out bad, whereas a lawful character is stuck between good and law in the case of Paladins. I think the other problem is that Paladins have a stringent code.


I'd say no. The rules for a "code of conduct" pit the players against the DM - leaving the DM to specifically punish players for their actions. The DM should't be a person to play against in D&D, but a person to play with. Punishing a players actions is vindictive when it's a "call from the gods," and that's exactly how it's written into the game. 'Tis folly. Players and DM's should work together for the betterment of each players story - pallys should have the chance to fall and atone as a centerpiece for their own personal progression and story with full DM and player approval.

So does combat, social interactions, traveling complications. The DM's job is not to make everything go the way a player wants, it's his job to provide story tension, and some of that should not be the story tension that's expected.

[Prince Raven]

You only see stuff for Lawful classes because Law vs. Good is easier to set up than Chaos vs. Good. A chaotic person can decide "Oh, well this particular village is doing well enough, I'll just not mess around with it."

I would like to direct you to this thread on the same page: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?362415-Moral-crisis-how-to-stay-Chaotic-Good

Also: You're Chaotic Good, and you've just rescued some slaves. However you have recently discovered that they were put into slavery due to being "freedom fighters" whose extreme methods have caused innocent casualties.
What do you do?

[Talya]

I disagree very strongly with this stance. Or at least in part, for a Paladin, morality is clear-cut, they aren't moral relativists, at all. That's the point of their code, of being Lawful Good. The problem people run into is that the codes are not encompassing enough, so there are a few options a good DM can use to maintain a sense of objective morality (which is the essence of Lawful Good morality) and not have players be confused, he (or she) could write up very lengthy codes of conduct, which is time-consuming, but can be very,very flavorful and rewarding. The method that I think is best however, being less time consuming, is to have a player explain how their actions in a moral dilemma would have fit with their particular dogma (which isn't even across the board for all Paladins) and then you can discuss it with them, maybe have their character spot an omen if something is wrong with their behavior.

Edit: So to summarize I agree very strongly on the clarity point, but disagree very strongly with the situational morality for Paladins.

The paladin is most certainly not a moral relativist, but all of real life is, including the DM and players, whether they like it or not.

No matter how much you try otherwise, the DM and the player will have differing ideas of what is "evil," and both will be able to support their points equally by the rules, because "good" and "evil" are not absolute logical concepts that can be reasoned out like math without a direct, specific example saying "This is good," and "This is evil." There is no "by the book" definition of good, evil, law or chaos that will describe even the majority of situations clearly enough for two objective and intelligent people to agree on every point. Obviously, that means the DM becomes the ultimate arbiter of what is Good and what is Evil. However, if the DM expects the players to come to the same conclusions he does and punishes them if they do not, he's a... well. He's an unpleasant person who hasn't thought things through very clearly. The ONLY thing that makes his vision of good and evil the correct one is that he's the DM. Everybody else's is just as valid at any other time, and it's unfair to expect them as real life people to come to the same conclusions that the DM himself did.

[AMFV]

The paladin is most certainly not a moral relativist, but all of real life is, including the DM and players, whether they like it or not.

You are very, very, very wrong. There are large portions of the population that have extremely absolute moral viewpoints. I can't get into it without getting into real world morality but suffice it to say that moral relativism is not accepted by all people.



No matter how much you try otherwise, the DM and the player will have differing ideas of what is "evil," and both will be able to support their points equally by the rules, because "good" and "evil" are not absolute logical concepts that can be reasoned out like math without a direct, specific example saying "This is good," and "This is evil." There is no "by the book" definition of good, evil, law or chaos that will describe even the majority of situations clearly enough for two objective and intelligent people to agree on every point. Obviously, that means the DM becomes the ultimate arbiter of what is Good and what is Evil. However, if the DM expects the players to come to the same conclusions he does and punishes them if they do not, he's a... well. He's an unpleasant person who hasn't thought things through very clearly. The ONLY thing that makes his vision of good and evil the correct one is that he's the DM. Everybody else's is just as valid at any other time, and it's unfair to expect them as real life people to come to the same conclusions that the DM himself did.

Well arguably there are in some circumstances only one right decision, the more dogma we have the better we are able to attain that decision hence my suggestions.

[Talya]

You are very, very, very wrong. There are large portions of the population that have extremely absolute moral viewpoints. I can't get into it without getting into real world morality but suffice it to say that moral relativism is not accepted by all people.

You are very very very much arguing something I didn't say.

I said morality is relative in real life, regardless of what people think. It doesn't matter if they accept it or believe it. There is no objective, logically definable morality that one can prove correct. No two people who have ever lived have shared a 100% common morality, even when they share a common source for their moral values (in the case of a D&D game - that source is the alignment system) so it is ridiculous for a DM to assume that his players must come to the same moral conclusions he does.

[AMFV]

You are very very very much arguing something I didn't say.

I said morality is relative in real life, regardless of what people think. It doesn't matter if they accept it or believe it. There is no objective, logically definable morality that one can prove correct. No two people who have ever lived have shared a 100% common morality, even when they share a common source for their moral values (in the case of a D&D game - that source is the alignment system) so it is ridiculous for a DM to assume that his players must come to the same moral conclusions he does.

I disagree, I don't believe morality is relative in real life. There are subjective different view points and there are people who don't always follow their morality, but there are codes of morality that are not subjective and there are moral systems that have been discussed by committee and given a legal value. Just because not everybody follows these moral systems does not make all morality relative.

For morality to be relative, differing moral viewpoints need to all have equal validity, which is of course an absurd claim, at least to my thinking, there are moral viewpoints that are correct and false ones. You'll find very few people arguing that all moral viewpoints are correct (save for some very serious philosophical relativists). Logically it follows then that if viewpoints differ in correctness then there must be a most correct viewpoint. Therefore morality is not relative, unless all moral viewpoints have equal validity, and I don't think you could argue that.

Now you can argue there is no objective correctness to morality, and that's a much longer argument, but even given a subjective moral system you should be able to interpret what is right and what is wrong in a different context if you are given the parameters of it.

[awa]

and i disagree with you on at least one aspect of that statement therefore disproving your belief in a universal morality. Just think about it for a second if all people 100% had a single idea of what is moral behavior there would be no alignment debates at all we would just look up the big book of ethics and say yup right here that's what a lawful good pc should do since we cant you are objectively wrong.

[Amphetryon]

For morality to be relative, differing moral viewpoints need to all have equal validity, which is of course an absurd claim, at least to my thinking,The fact that you felt the need to qualify this with "at least to my thinking" should serve as an indicator that your viewpoint on this is not a universal one. Given that, can you really claim that folks whose moral viewpoints are different than yours are being "absurd" to ask for equal validity in their views?

[Talya]

I disagree, I don't believe morality is relative in real life. There are subjective different view points and there are people who don't always follow their morality, but there are codes of morality that are not subjective and there are moral systems that have been discussed by committee and given a legal value. Just because not everybody follows these moral systems does not make all morality relative.

The law != morality. (Conflating the two is an appeal to authority and/or popularity, depending on on the source of the law).

All codes of morality are subjective by the very nature of their being more than one of them.

You cannot authoritatively point to ANY moral value and state "This is good, but this is evil" and prove it logically or empirically. You cannot even prove murder is evil. Morality is something we've made up as a means of regulating and controlling society. Every nation, every philosophy (whether secular or metaphysical), everybody has had different ones. Every individual member of that nation or philosophy has had different ideas internal to them. Every generation has caused those moral values to drift.


For morality to be relative, differing moral viewpoints need to all have equal validity, which is of course an absurd claim, at least to my thinking, there are moral viewpoints that are correct and false ones. You'll find very few people arguing that all moral viewpoints are correct (save for some very serious philosophical relativists). Logically it follows then that if viewpoints differ in correctness then there must be a most correct viewpoint. Therefore morality is not relative, unless all moral viewpoints have equal validity, and I don't think you could argue that.


That doesn't logically follow at all, because individual moralities are only opinions. Its like one person saying blue is prettier than red, and another person saying red is prettier than blue. There is no logically "most correct viewpoint."

This is also true even if one adopts an existing moral construct as objectively true to create a point of accepted common ground. (That's the case in D&D - we accept the alignment system as objective.) The problem is, in almost every possible moral construct, there are an infinite number of variations that will cause individual portions of that construct to come into conflict. Then people must use their own opinion to decide what is good and what is evil. There is no "most right." Hence, why in D&D, you have conflicting (and all equally supported) ideas that murdering evil people is a "good" act; or killing is, at best, neutral (and usually evil), even when killing the evil - mercy and redemption are good. You've got the paladin who must choose between fighting evil and honoring love (both good acts). D&D's morality might be "objective" in the context of the setting, but it's still grossly relative and subjective in the context of the decisions of the players. Giving more examples might help, but it's a never-ending battle, because there is no such thing as a consistent moral principle. If you really want to avoid confusion, you simply need an authority to morally define every possible situation - using principles will only cause confusion and disagreement, not clarify scenarios.

Nitpicking on the last one, and outside the scope of the thread:

Lastly, all moral viewpoints DO have equal validity, since there is only one valid arbiter of good and evil - the individual observer. (I suppose, one could argue - in that context - that there is only one valid morality - that of the individual observer, but since there are over 7 billion individual observers, and I don't fancy making a soliptic argument, I'll ignore that.) Now, that does not mean as individuals or as a society we must accept all moralities. As societies we tend to come up with a social contract that defines an agreed upon morality for the majority of people, and enforce it upon all, for the good of society in general. But that doesn't make it "right" - right is a mark of logical empiricism that is unaffected by appeals to popularity, or consequence, or anything like that.

[AMFV]

and i disagree with you on at least one aspect of that statement therefore disproving your belief in a universal morality. Just think about it for a second if all people 100% had a single idea of what is moral behavior there would be no alignment debates at all we would just look up the big book of ethics and say yup right here that's what a lawful good pc should do since we cant you are objectively wrong.

You're wrong. There you go, there can still be a universal morality... you could just believe something wrong.

Edit: A relative morality system is one where all viewpoints are equally valid, a universal system is one where there is one correct viewpoint, the existence of a universal system does not mandate that people believe it, and furthermore, it's correctness is not from belief but from generally following out universal premises.


The fact that you felt the need to qualify this with "at least to my thinking" should serve as an indicator that your viewpoint on this is not a universal one. Given that, can you really claim that folks whose moral viewpoints are different than yours are being "absurd" to ask for equal validity in their views?

No, my viewpoint is not universal, but it is correct. Naturally I believe it because it is the most correct thing that I have encountered. Which means that inherently I must assume others are less correct.


The law != morality. (Conflating the two is an appeal to authority and/or popularity, depending on on the source of the law).

There are moral codes that are legalistic in nature, for example the code of Hammurabi is not just a legal document but a moral code, as is the Paladin's Code. For me I follow a moral code that is legalistic in nature, I can't get into it without getting into real world morality, but suffice it to say that the guy in charge clearly has the best hat around. As such I don't believe that all moral viewpoints have equal validity to my own, that's what's absurd. If you argue that moral viewpoints are equal then the Nazis are as right as we are, and I don't think that is correct.



All codes of morality are subjective by the very nature of their being more than one of them.

You cannot authoritatively point to ANY moral value and state "This is good, but this is evil" and prove it logically or empirically. You cannot even prove murder is evil. Morality is something we've made up as a means of regulating and controlling society. Every nation, every philosophy (whether secular or metaphysical), everybody has had different ones. Every individual member of that nation or philosophy has had different ideas internal to them. Every generation has caused those moral values to drift.


You can certainly if you involve religion, or a specific values system. If you start from nothing (which doesn't occur as a position then you can't prove much) although Descartes was able to prove quite a bit. Furthermore, prove that morality is invented! That's a very bold claim and one that is not backed up by sociology or anthropology. You assert that there is no objective morality, yet I guarantee that you do not believe that murderers are in the right, so you believe something that is different than what you assert.



That doesn't logically follow at all, because individual moralities are only opinions. Its like one person saying blue is prettier than red, and another person saying red is prettier than blue. There is no logically "most correct viewpoint."

But there certainly can be. Blue does not work as a color for all outfits, and there is a pretty general consensus on which colors are complementary and which are not. Additionally you have again asserted that morality is an opinion, which is an unproven assertion, and one I don't think we would be able to get past, since the basis of our viewpoints is so different. For me morality comes from a religious viewpoint, which means that the values that I involve will be inherently different than yours prompting different conclusions, in my case, the correct ones (or what I believe to be correct), and in yours those which I assume are wrong.



This is also true even if one adopts an existing moral construct as objectively true to create a point of accepted common ground. (That's the case in D&D - we accept the alignment system as objective.) The problem is, in almost every possible moral construct, there are an infinite number of variations that will cause individual portions of that construct to come into conflict. Then people must use their own opinion to decide what is good and what is evil. There is no "most right." Hence, why in D&D, you have conflicting (and all equally supported) ideas that murdering evil people is a "good" act; or killing is, at best, neutral (and usually evil), even when killing the evil - mercy and redemption are good. You've got the paladin who must choose between fighting evil and honoring love (both good acts). D&D's morality might be "objective" in the context of the setting, but it's still grossly relative and subjective in the context of the decisions of the players. Giving more examples might help, but it's a never-ending battle, because there is no such thing as a consistent moral principle. If you really want to avoid confusion, you simply need an authority to morally define every possible situation - using principles will only cause confusion and disagreement, not clarify scenarios.

I disagree, I've had the advantage of being in more than one legalistic religion in my life, and in the military, more details help to clarify things, in general. Now disagreements can arise, but they arise similarly if there is less details, and are less coherent.



Nitpicking on the last one, and outside the scope of the thread:
Lastly, all moral viewpoints DO have equal validity, since there is only one valid arbiter of good and evil - the individual observer. (I suppose, one could argue - in that context - that there is only one valid morality - that of the individual observer, but since there are over 7 billion individual observers, and I don't fancy making a soliptic argument, I'll ignore that.) Now, that does not mean as individuals or as a society we must accept all moralities. As societies we tend to come up with a social contract that defines an agreed upon morality for the majority of people, and enforce it upon all, for the good of society in general. But that doesn't make it "right" - right is a mark of logical empiricism that is unaffected by appeals to popularity, or consequence, or anything like that.

Again we are coming at this from different perspectives. Yours is largely not compatible with mine, in fact we could both be equally logical and very different since our basic premise are so far removed. For you morality is a product of human nature and society, for me it is a product of the way the world is and the divine, we could not come to an agreement from these different positions.

I will concede that if you are correct about the base premises your viewpoint is valid. But I don't think you are, and stating "All real world morality is relative" is taking that assertion and then claiming broadly that it is correct, when there are many people who disagree with that. I just disagree with your premise, and as such it is impossible for us to come to an agreement since neither of us is likely to budge on base premises.

[Millennium]

A good DM shouldn't be afraid of situations that put paladins to the test, but should not go out of his way to put them into the campaign. He also doesn't have to: the normal course of adventuring should provide plenty of tests all on its own. But the biggest problem with contrived dilemmas is that it is all too easy for such a test to become something that some people believe is a no-win situation and others do not, and it boils over into out-of-game philosophical and moral debate that never helps anybody.

Which is kind of like this thread, really.

[awa]

and if you were god presiding over every d&d game always on hand to tell us your divine vision of right or wrong anything you just said might matter since you don't it doesn't.

edit response is to previous post

[Talya]

I will concede that if you are correct about the base premises your viewpoint is valid. But I don't think you are, and stating "All real world morality is relative" is taking that assertion and then claiming broadly that it is correct, when there are many people who disagree with that. I just disagree with your premise, and as such it is impossible for us to come to an agreement since neither of us is likely to budge on base premises.

Ignoring all the stuff where you're very admirably attempting to skirt the line of allowable conversation here, I have to point out a word I used in my previous post...right there beside Logical: "Empirical."

Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge that can be acquired through observation or experimentation. No source of knowledge that comes by decree from an authorititative source is empirical. Empiricism is required for objectivity. Without empirical evidence, one cannot make objective claims.

The problem here is that there is no stated observable logical consequence to "good" or "evil" in real life. Doing evil can have positive results, doing good can have negative results. Nothing one observes can inform them as to the good or evil of a particular action. Morality is expressly NOT empirical -- so it can't be objective. So while your morality may be "right", it's not objectively so, because you cannot provide anyone with empirical evidence that unanimously supports your claim.

Now, within the settings of D&D... morality IS objective and empirical. A paladin can tell evil by detecting it. There are good and evil descriptors on spells - there are observable consequences to aligned choices that declare those choices. The problem is, those are only in the setting. The players don't have access to those methods outside the setting, so despite a system that narratively supports an objective morality, the players are still left to decipher it through subjective means.

[jedipotter]

Ethical dillemmas for paladins (and just about anyone) = good.

However, they can be done poorly.



Agreed. As a DM, I love ethical dilemmas, and all sorts of other dilemmas. They make the game more fun. Much more fun then, kill, loot, repeat.

Though a lot of the time they are done so, so poorly. Way too many times I have seen: DM: ''you see a poor guy on the side of the road'', Player:''Paladin Phil ignores him'' and DM:''Zap! you loose your powers!''

[Vogonjeltz]

TO PCs:
If you chose to play a Paladin, would you be disappointed if you were never put to a really tough moral dilemma?

To DMs:
Would the Paladin automatically be the party leader? They are supposed to be shining examples of virtue and heroism, by all accounts most people would expect them to lead. Knowing your players, if the paladin PC is not the type to lead, would you make them do so regardless? A possible scenario: party of four in front of the king, it is not the paladin who addresses but someone else instead. Would that make sense to your NPCs and would they call the paladin out on that?

This is all really good discourse because I'm in a unique position where I'm DMing a game with a paladin AND playing one in another.

PC: Maybe. I tend to think it's not entirely on the DM to present moral dilemmas, sometimes those will come from suggested actions by your teammates.

DM: That's up to the party. They have face skills and probably the best charisma, so it seems likely. I would certainly expect a Paladin to be assertive, not passive. Remember, character classes don't necessarily wear their class on their sleeves. A Fighter, a Crusader, a Paladin, a Knight, a Samurai, a Duskblade, and a Warblade might all look identical outwardly. So no, I don't think an NPC would expect a particular person to speak up and lead the party unless they were the one who looked the part. (i.e. Drow only respecting females)

[awa]

most parties ive been in spend most of there time trying to circumvent the paladin. I don't think Ive every seen a game where the paladin was the leader.

[AMFV]

and if you were god presiding over every d&d game always on hand to tell us your divine vision of right or wrong anything you just said might matter since you don't it doesn't.

edit response is to previous post

Well my divine vision of right and wrong varies pretty heavily depending on what kind of God I'm representing and roleplaying as. Different Patrons have very different ideas of right and wrong. But no, my players always know what is right and wrong, and I don't arrange traps for them, if a player does something and I'm not sure why they did it, then I have them explain to me how it fits with the dogma they follow, and it works out.


Ignoring all the stuff where you're very admirably attempting to skirt the line of allowable conversation here, I have to point out a word I used in my previous post...right there beside Logical: "Empirical."

Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge that can be acquired through observation or experimentation. No source of knowledge that comes by decree from an authorititative source is empirical. Empiricism is required for objectivity. Without empirical evidence, one cannot make objective claims.

The problem is that what constitutes empirical evidence is highly debatable, depending on your field. In certain branches of philosophy absolutely nothing has ever been proven sufficiently.



The problem here is that there is no stated observable logical consequence to "good" or "evil" in real life. Doing evil can have positive results, doing good can have negative results. Nothing one observes can inform them as to the good or evil of a particular action. Morality is expressly NOT empirical -- so it can't be objective. So while your morality may be "right", it's not objectively so, because you cannot provide anyone with empirical evidence that unanimously supports your claim.


Well of course that's provided that the goal of morality is the results, which is something I don't agree with. One does not behave morally because one will be rewarded for it. One behaves morally because it's the right thing to do. Which sounds really kind of heavy-handed and isn't always strictly true. The problem again is base, for me my morality is the end in and of itself, you don't achieve your goals because of your morality, the morality is the goal itself.



Now, within the settings of D&D... morality IS objective and empirical. A paladin can tell evil by detecting it. There are good and evil descriptors on spells - there are observable consequences to aligned choices that declare those choices. The problem is, those are only in the setting. The players don't have access to those methods outside the setting, so despite a system that narratively supports an objective morality, the players are still left to decipher it through subjective means.

For me at least as far as Paladins go, I generally allow them a lot of leeway provided they can explain their actions to me in context of their dogma. If you've read the previous thread, the Question/Dilemma one (I'm not sure if you responded there, there are too many threads running through my head), you'll note I was defending almost all possible course of action as potentially lawful good. It's because morality is complex, intent matters, action matters, and results do matter in the end (in D&D at least). I feel that a Paladin should fall, from time to time, but it shouldn't be because they were tricked or didn't know right from wrong, because that's not in character for a Paladin, a Paladin falls when they do something selfish, when they kill the child molester they've just arrested, when they start to lie to their wives because coming home is terrible, when they torture somebody to try to save a child. Those are the moments that one can fall, one should never fall and not know why, one should fall (and atone), because of a choice one makes, that is the essence of falling. It's why when I play I houserule away falling under compulsions (also the association rule but for different reasons).

And I am sorry I jumped in on this debate, it's just that by stating that all views are equally correct, you're stating that my view is inherently wrong, and I like most people believe things because I have seen sufficient evidence to myself be convinced of the correctness of them, so when somebody dismisses my viewpoint out of hand it's not very pleasant an experience. And I did do my best not to simply dismiss your viewpoint, I think again the fundamental problem is our difference of base assumptions.

[Pex]

No

It is not the DM's job to target characters.

[Amphetryon]

No

It is not the DM's job to target characters.

How does the DM's role not involve targeting characters, precisely? Any attack made by an adversary targets them. Any complication thrown in front of them targets them. Is it the DM's job to merely throw piles of toothless loot pinatas at the characters until they have all the swag?

[VoxRationis]

There is a difference between maliciously plotting the downfall of characters, with no chance for success, and making an earnest attempt to challenge them. I get the feeling that many here are conflating those two things. When people say "put paladins to the test," they (hopefully) are not meaning the former; they mean the latter. They put the paladins in situations where they could fall, but in which a wise and true-hearted knight would come through.

[JKTrickster]

I think this question should assume a degree of maturity.


Moral dilemmas, by the very nature, are a mature topic. You wouldn't talk to your 8 year old cousin about utilitarianism right? Or make him decide whether to save 1 person, or 5 people (depending on who he wants to sacrifice).

Likewise, you don't challenge players who are immature. They probably want to sit down and hack and slash and be the hero. They want to live in a black and white world where the enemies are totally Evil and they are totally Good (no matter what questionably murderous acts of thievery they might resort to :smalltongue:)

So when you "challenge" your players morally, you should make sure they're mature enough not to flip the table. Out of those who are mature enough, there are some who might really like making those decisions (whether or not they are Paladins).

I think the Paladin aspect is the smallest part of this equation - an immature person might want to play the Paladin to be the Hero! They don't want to think about tough choices - they just want to be something they're not.

Likewise, you might have a player playing the Evil Dread Necromancer. But maybe he still has loved ones he cares about and they're being threatened. The player is mature enough to handle an Evil Character who has Loved Ones that make him vulnerable. That make him seem like a real human being with tough choices to make.

Or whatever, we can just go back to assuming that everyone is immature anyway :smalltongue:

[OldTrees1]

There is a difference between maliciously plotting the downfall of characters, with no chance for success, and making an earnest attempt to challenge them. I get the feeling that many here are conflating those two things. When people say "put paladins to the test," they (hopefully) are not meaning the former; they mean the latter. They put the paladins in situations where they could fall, but in which a wise and true-hearted knight would come through.

Agreed. It doesn't even need to be a hard test either. Ex: Throwing 2 knight characters into the Prisoner's Dilemma. If they stick to their codes then they end up with the best outcome.

[Coidzor]

This thread illustrates a problem with the paladin's code of conduct - there's an ever-present risk that it'll hog the spotlight. Suddenly the most important part of the party's relation to the story is whether or not it'll make the paladin fall from grace.

And that's just not cool, brosephs and brosephettes.

[Pex]

How does the DM's role not involve targeting characters, precisely? Any attack made by an adversary targets them. Any complication thrown in front of them targets them. Is it the DM's job to merely throw piles of toothless loot pinatas at the characters until they have all the swag?

The question is "DMs should always put paladins to the test." Emphasis mine.

That answer is no. Just because the paladin exists doesn't mean he has to be a target of moral dilemma. Just plan the campaign and adventures as you normally would. Players makes their decisions as normal. The player will play the paladin appropriately or not based on his whim, not the DM playing "Gotcha!". It's the player's character. The DM should not punish him for having one.

[Prince Raven]

Am I the only person who doesn't consider the opportunity to develop my character through moral dilemmas to be a punishment?

[Andezzar]

Am I the only person who doesn't consider the opportunity to develop my character through moral dilemmas to be a punishment?The problem is that paladin characters are not developed through moral dilemmas. the character either gets the "right" answer to the dilemma or is rendered useless. Contrary to other characters he won't be dealing with the consequences of his decision, but with the consequences of falling.

[facelessminion]

Questions like these make me so happy that my Mythic Paladin was able to take Beyond Morality this campaign.

[Amphetryon]

The question is "DMs should always put paladins to the test." Emphasis mine.

That answer is no. Just because the paladin exists doesn't mean he has to be a target of moral dilemma. Just plan the campaign and adventures as you normally would. Players makes their decisions as normal. The player will play the paladin appropriately or not based on his whim, not the DM playing "Gotcha!". It's the player's character. The DM should not punish him for having one.

You're reading "ALWAYS" as "CONSTANTLY," which several of us, myself included, indicated earlier appears to be a misreading. Amusingly, your response:


No

It is not the DM's job to target characters.is written in absolutist, binary terms that indicate that a DM who EVER targets characters is failing at his job.

[jiriku]

TO PCs:
If you chose to play a Paladin, would you be disappointed if you were never put to a really tough moral dilemma?

Yes. When I play a paladin, I'm choosing to play a character who has a moral dimension. I want to showcase that moral dimension by choosing Good when it's a hard choice to make.


To DMs:
Would the Paladin automatically be the party leader? They are supposed to be shining examples of virtue and heroism, by all accounts most people would expect them to lead. Knowing your players, if the paladin PC is not the type to lead, would you make them do so regardless? A possible scenario: party of four in front of the king, it is not the paladin who addresses but someone else instead. Would that make sense to your NPCs and would they call the paladin out on that?[/SIZE]

This is all really good discourse because I'm in a unique position where I'm DMing a game with a paladin AND playing one in another.

Definitely not. In our current game, the paladin character is a quiet, reserved guardian. He exercises influence through private conversations with others, but rarely speaks in group settings. There are introvert paladins. Furthermore, the player is the teenaged son of one of the other players, is 10-20 years younger than most of the rest of the group, and has less experience both with roleplaying games and with life in general. No one would expect him to lead the group.

As far as NPCs are concerned, recall that people are individuals. They are not their class. If the paladin is the only noble in a group of undistinguished commoners, he will certainly be the one the king addresses. But if the paladin is a mere knight in the company of a powerful duke, a wizard whose magic has toppled kingdoms, the high priest of an influential church, and an infamous rogue who recently managed to steal away the hand of the king's own daughter in marriage, it's no surprise if the king first addresses one of the more prominent characters.

[Andezzar]

Yes. When I play a paladin, I'm choosing to play a character who has a moral dimension. I want to showcase that moral dimension by choosing Good when it's a hard choice to make.Wouldn't that be true for any character with moral convictions?

The problem for paladins is that due to their code they are penalized more for not doing the right thing. Dilemmas are by definition situations where there is no right thing to do. So the paladin is penalized whatever he does.

[Prince Raven]

It also seems I'm the only person who sees a falling as a Paladin as an excellent roleplaying opportunity rather than a punishment.

[facelessminion]

It also seems I'm the only person who sees a falling as a Paladin as an excellent roleplaying opportunity rather than a punishment.

To be fair, difficult moral choices, and falling, can provide excellent RP opportunities... provided that they come in small doses. I've seen some great stuff happen at a table, with a fellow player's paladin falling in a Scarred Lands game, and outright having the god of LE court them before they returned to Corean's embrace.

But "always test your paladins" does not remotely imply small doses, and too-frequent tests are nothing but a punishment. I have personally had a great deal of RP fun with giving a giant middle finger to morality tests in general, with my paladin breaking so hard after one moral test that he snapped, gained Beyond Morality, and gave his previous celestial benefactor the finger while temporarily serving Asmodeus.

Just like the Cookie Monster has had to learn with his favorite snack, moral tests are a sometimes food.

[Andezzar]

It also seems I'm the only person who sees a falling as a Paladin as an excellent roleplaying opportunity rather than a punishment.If falling worked similar to real world consequences of unapproved actions, I would agree, but unfortunately falling does not mean the revocation of rights and loss of support but the removal of powers. It's like a physician who was found guilty of malpractice would hence be unable (instead of just prohibited) to practice medicine.

[jiriku]

Wouldn't that be true for any character with moral convictions?

The problem for paladins is that due to their code they are penalized more for not doing the right thing. Dilemmas are by definition situations where there is no right thing to do. So the paladin is penalized whatever he does.

That is not the only definition of that word. I choose to use the definition that reflects the obvious intent of the questioner. The definition you are referring to does not make sense within the context of the question that was asked.

[Andezzar]

So what definition are you talking about? If there is a "right" and "wrong" (i.e the one that causes him to fall) choice it is not really a choice for the paladin by RAW. The choice would be to either accept the inconvenient side effects of the "right" choice or become as useless as a warrior. So to fall the paladin would not only make the morally wrong choice he would also make the mechanically debilitating choice. Going that way does not speak for the sanity of the character.

[Prince Raven]

To be fair, difficult moral choices, and falling, can provide excellent RP opportunities... provided that they come in small doses. I've seen some great stuff happen at a table, with a fellow player's paladin falling in a Scarred Lands game, and outright having the god of LE court them before they returned to Corean's embrace.

But "always test your paladins" does not remotely imply small doses, and too-frequent tests are nothing but a punishment. I have personally had a great deal of RP fun with giving a giant middle finger to morality tests in general, with my paladin breaking so hard after one moral test that he snapped, gained Beyond Morality, and gave his previous celestial benefactor the finger while temporarily serving Asmodeus.

Just like the Cookie Monster has had to learn with his favorite snack, moral tests are a sometimes food.

I read "always put your paladins to the test" to mean "every time you run a campaign with a Paladin* you should include a moral dilemma for them", rather than "lol, chuck moral dilemmas at the Paladin until they break". The second is obviously stupid and not deserving of 3 pages of discussion.

* I personally believe you should do it regardless of whether or not a Paladin is in the group anyway.


So what definition are you talking about? If there is a "right" and "wrong" (i.e the one that causes him to fall) choice it is not really a choice for the paladin by RAW. The choice would be to either accept the inconvenient side effects of the "right" choice or become as useless as a warrior. So to fall the paladin would not only make the morally wrong choice he would also make the mechanically debilitating choice. Going that way does not speak for the sanity of the character.

A good binary moral dilemma for a Paladin should have these 2 options:
1. God-approved choice that is somehow unsatisfactory, perhaps the baddies escape punishment, or it may very well cause more harm than good in the long term.
2. The most appealing choice to the character, you get everything you want in option 1, but you also get to capture the baddies or whatever it is that makes option 1 less appealing. However, this option requires you to violate an aspect of your Code of Honour.

Pretty much Lawful vs. Good, Honour vs. Justice, which is more important to the Paladin?

[jiriku]

"A difficult situation or problem"
Quandary. Mess. Predicament. Plight.

That definition seems to fit the question nicely.

Also, I'd point out that if the side effects of choosing to do Good are merely "inconvenient", that wouldn't qualify as a "really tough moral dilemma".

A tough dilemma might include leaving a true friend and adventuring companion to hold off an overwhelming opponent alone so that you can quickly shepherd a sworn charge to safety, or treating a black-hearted knave who's slandered you and stolen from you with honor and courtesy after he's acquitted in a fair trial for lack of evidence. It might mean choosing not to accept an unfair advantage in a duel to the death against an opponent who you believe might defeat you, or choosing to conceal evidence of a treasonous and underhanded plot against the crown because you know in your heart that the king is a despotic tyrant who will be the ruin of his kingdom. A "really tough moral dilemma" is an opportunity for your character to say, through his actions, "I am part of something bigger than myself, and these principles are more important than my personal desires and goals, or even my own life. I have the courage of my convictions; I choose to suffer or die while living by these principles rather than profit by abandoning them." That can be some damn fine roleplaying.

[AMFV]

Wouldn't that be true for any character with moral convictions?

The problem for paladins is that due to their code they are penalized more for not doing the right thing. Dilemmas are by definition situations where there is no right thing to do. So the paladin is penalized whatever he does.

That's not really a dilemma. A dilemma is a situation where the correct course of action is not easy to determine or where the correct course of action is more difficult. There is no such thing as a scenario where there is NO right course of action. As was demonstrated in the other thread, even bringing out an Elder Abomination did not produce a scenario where it was impossible to determine a Good course of action. I posit that there is no such thing as a no-win scenario as far as morality is concerned.

[Andezzar]

"A difficult situation or problem"
Quandary. Mess. Predicament. Plight.

That definition seems to fit the question nicely.

Also, I'd point out that if the side effects of choosing to do Good are merely "inconvenient", that wouldn't qualify as a "really tough moral dilemma".

A tough dilemma might include leaving a true friend and adventuring companion to hold off an overwhelming opponent alone so that you can quickly shepherd a sworn charge to safety, or treating a black-hearted knave who's slandered you and stolen from you with honor and courtesy after he's acquitted in a fair trial for lack of evidence. It might mean choosing not to accept an unfair advantage in a duel to the death against an opponent who you believe might defeat you, or choosing to conceal evidence of a treasonous and underhanded plot against the crown because you know in your heart that the king is a despotic tyrant who will be the ruin of his kingdom. A "really tough moral dilemma" is an opportunity for your character to say, through his actions, "I am part of something bigger than myself, and these principles are more important than my personal desires and goals, or even my own life. I have the courage of my convictions; I choose to suffer or die while living by these principles rather than profit by abandoning them." That can be some damn fine roleplaying.The problem is with the paladin is that with that sort of problems he does not really have a choice. He either takes the high road or he looses his class features.

A habitually sinning and repenting paladin does not sound particularly paladinesque in my opinion. The fallen paladin just hogs the spotlight and endangers the rest of the party by reducing the overall power of the party.


That's not really a dilemma. A dilemma is a situation where the correct course of action is not easy to determine or where the correct course of action is more difficult. There is no such thing as a scenario where there is NO right course of action. As was demonstrated in the other thread, even bringing out an Elder Abomination did not produce a scenario where it was impossible to determine a Good course of action. I posit that there is no such thing as a no-win scenario as far as morality is concerned.(Nearly) all the solutions you posited to the dilemmas in the other thread were of the kind to use a third option. A dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma) only allows two (equally bad) options. If you are of the opinion that such scenarios do not exist, discussing them is pointless because no DM can inflict them on a PC anyways.

Now concerning those situations where one course of action is more favorable but violates the code of conduct, this course must be vastly more favorable for a paladin to even be considered. In fact it must be so much better to compensate even the loss of the class features. By that point the question is why the character is a paladin at all. IMHO the CoC or more specifically the penalty for violating it, actually removes choice. If the right course of action is not apparent (either through the description of the situation or through magic) then the choice is arbitrary rather than based on roleplaying.

[jiriku]

The problem is with the paladin is that with that sort of problems he does not really have a choice. He either takes the high road or he looses his class features.

Of course he has a choice. You just consider it trivial and annoying. I, on the other hand, think you're missing the whole point. We already know what the paladin will choose. The choice is not the issue. The issue is WHY he chooses and HOW he expresses that choice, and how he LIVES with the consequences. Does he regret his decision? Does it cost him his life? Do former friends and allies turn on him because this narrow road he treads is not for them? There is an enormous potential for DRAMA here. When the most dramatic decision you've made all week was whether to use 14-point type in the headings on your homework, or whether to get diet Coke with your Big Mac, a FUN evening of dramatic roleplaying, full of tough decisions and powerful consequences, is a great way to liven up your week. Who gives a flying manticore's fart about your class features? You're playing a paladin -- you are the poster child for suck and fail no matter what you do. But you're roleplaying the hell out of it, and loving every minute!

[Andezzar]

IMHO how the paladin deals with his choices is much less dramatic because the choice for him is more trivial than for other characters.

The latter part comes close to the Stormwind Fallacy.

[White Blade]

If the right course of action is not apparent (either through the description of the situation or through magic) then the choice is arbitrary rather than based on roleplaying.

That's not really true. If I put a player in a no win situation like, lets say, I put them in a situation where they either kill a little girl or an entire nation will fall into chaos and war (and lots of terrible things that are worse than one little girl). There are still right ways of choosing either option.

If the paladin's player says, "I hope that I have been given the wisdom to see the path. I pause. I breath. I wait. I try to see a way out. But no new paths appear to me. I do the deed with tear-stained eyes. It was necessary, the greatest good for the greatest number, but it was awful" than I expect utility to be a driving factor reflected in even the minutest choices for a paladin.

If the paladin's player says, "I kneel down and pray to the gods. I beg with everything I've got. I scream and yell and rail against the heavens. I try anything that might work to sway them. Then I pick the little girl up and take her home to her father. Let the gods care for the world and its future, I have only been given these two hands and they cannot hold it." That's fine. That's a valid choice. I expect that such a character is ruled and driven by his faith in the gods. I expect that in big and little choices he has a clear sense of which parts of the world are his concern. When he is responsible, he does his best.

There are wrong ways of choosing as well. If the player just sort of shrugs and picks an option, that's not really acceptable. If the paladin asks the little girl her opinion, than he better be prepared to accept either answer and follow it, because if he isn't, he should just DO it and not try to assuage his feelings about the matter. Also if the character just totally changes his modus operandi up to this point, that's also not acceptable. If he's been a hardline Kantian for the past twenty sessions and suddenly butchers a little girl for utility, that's going to take some justification.

If the player finds a way to fulfill the mystical sanctions without killing the little girl, then he gets to be awesome and defeat prophecy and Take The Third Option. Cool. I'm okay with that. If it requires the blood of the innocent stain the blade of the holy warrior before the stroke of midnight and he falls on his own blade, that's great. Good for him.

[Andezzar]

Does the roleplaying become better, because the character will lose his class features if he chooses option 1? Is the quandary any less interesting if the same situation were presented to a LG crusader or warblade?

[White Blade]

Does the roleplaying become better, because the character will lose his class features if he chooses option 1? Is the quandary any less interesting if the same situation were presented to a LG crusader or warblade?

The point of being a paladin is that you are invested with powers by something greater than yourself. If the player wants that aspect, that sense of trust by powers far beyond yourself, there's a lot to be said there for there being consequences when the trust is broken.

A paladin could be a chance to replicate something like Job, a cosmic chew toy who doggedly sticks to their integrity, or Galahad, the Chosen of the Chosen who walks into the Round Table and sits down on the siege perilous. The honor of a paladin is unimpeachable, which is part of the point as to the code and its limitations.

[Pex]

You're reading "ALWAYS" as "CONSTANTLY," which several of us, myself included, indicated earlier appears to be a misreading. Amusingly, your response:

is written in absolutist, binary terms that indicate that a DM who EVER targets characters is failing at his job.

Not "constantly", "must". I say no.

[AMFV]

The problem is with the paladin is that with that sort of problems he does not really have a choice. He either takes the high road or he looses his class features.

A habitually sinning and repenting paladin does not sound particularly paladinesque in my opinion. The fallen paladin just hogs the spotlight and endangers the rest of the party by reducing the overall power of the party.

(Nearly) all the solutions you posited to the dilemmas in the other thread were of the kind to use a third option. A dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma) only allows two (equally bad) options. If you are of the opinion that such scenarios do not exist, discussing them is pointless because no DM can inflict them on a PC anyways.

Now concerning those situations where one course of action is more favorable but violates the code of conduct, this course must be vastly more favorable for a paladin to even be considered. In fact it must be so much better to compensate even the loss of the class features. By that point the question is why the character is a paladin at all. IMHO the CoC or more specifically the penalty for violating it, actually removes choice. If the right course of action is not apparent (either through the description of the situation or through magic) then the choice is arbitrary rather than based on roleplaying.

Actually you're misremembering. Almost all of my responses were explaining why choosing either of the negative actions would not constitute an offense that would cause falling.

[Andezzar]

The point of being a paladin is that you are invested with powers by something greater than yourself. If the player wants that aspect, that sense of trust by powers far beyond yourself, there's a lot to be said there for there being consequences when the trust is broken.Yes, this goes for such characters whether they take the paladin class or not. A crusader, cleric or even a fighter could have the same outlook.


The honor of a paladin is unimpeachable, which is part of the point as to the code and its limitations.I disagree, a character's honor is unimpeachable or not regardless of the consequences for compromising his honor. In fact not having to face the dire consequences of falling makes doing the right thing a lot harder, because often doing the wrong or easy thing usually has more benefits. And that is the quandary that morally guided characters should face.

[White Blade]

Yes, this goes for such characters whether they take the paladin class or not. A crusader, cleric or even a fighter could have the same outlook.

I disagree, a character's honor is unimpeachable or not regardless of the consequences for compromising his honor. In fact not having to face the dire consequences of falling makes doing the right thing a lot harder, because often doing the wrong or easy thing usually has more benefits. And that is the quandary that morally guided characters should face.
Unimpeachable has to do with reputation. So you're just wrong on that front - People know paladins are honest because they have to be, therefore paladins are more unimpeachable than LG fighters. Whether they're more admirable is what you're contesting, which isn't the same thing at all.

And no. The point isn't the outlook, the point is reality. A cleric or crusader or fighter might picture themselves in a similar way but a paladin actually is that way. You play a paladin because you want to play a character who draws his strength from his purity of heart. You should want a stain on that heart to weaken him. It's a breach of verisimilitude for it not function to that way. You might consider that breach acceptable, but I think it weakens the idea. That's what I'm saying. A paladin isn't a Gideon (cleric) or a Lancelot (fighter), he's Galahad. He is defined by his purity.

[AMFV]

A paladin isn't a Gideon (cleric) or a Lancelot (fighter), he's Galahad. He is defined by his purity.

I don't have anything to add, but I just wanted to say that you defined the Paladin class in a way I haven't ever been able to and I applaud you for it.

[jiriku]

Yes, this goes for such characters whether they take the paladin class or not. A crusader, cleric or even a fighter could have the same outlook.

I disagree, a character's honor is unimpeachable or not regardless of the consequences for compromising his honor. In fact not having to face the dire consequences of falling makes doing the right thing a lot harder, because often doing the wrong or easy thing usually has more benefits. And that is the quandary that morally guided characters should face.

Andezzar, I get what you're saying, but this is entirely beside the point. Abadguy didn't ask, "Do you think the fall rule for paladins is good or bad", or "Which classes are best for roleplaying moral dilemmas". He asked "If you chose to play a Paladin, would you be disappointed if you were never put to a really tough moral dilemma". You don't like the fall rule, and that's all well and good. I don't particularly care for it myself. But you're criticizing our relevant, direct responses to his question by invoking an irrelevancy.

The fall rule is not at issue here. If the fall rule didn't exist, I would still want moral dilemmas for my paladin. As a rule, if I roleplay a character of any class with strong moral and ethical convictions, I want them tested. To me, the only reason the choice of class is even relevant to the question at all is because EVERY paladin has strong convictions, while only SOME members of other classes have such.

[Andezzar]

I concede the point about a paladin's reputation, if class levels and their features are known IC. I can't remember if the rules tell us whether this is the case. If it is the case, why don't people then know about grey guard? That knowledge should paint paladins in a different light.


And no. The point isn't the outlook, the point is reality. A cleric or crusader or fighter might picture themselves in a similar way but a paladin actually is that way.How do you know that the cleric, crusader, or fighter are not that way? A character who never wavers from his code of conduct is just as pure as a paladin who has such a code of conduct as a class feature.


You play a paladin because you want to play a character who draws his strength from his purity of heart. You should want a stain on that heart to weaken him. It's a breach of verisimilitude for it not function to that way.Paladins do not draw their power from their own purity. They draw their power from the ideals of law and goodness, if they do not draw their power from personified divine entities. Their purity is the result not the source.


You might consider that breach acceptable, but I think it weakens the idea. That's what I'm saying. A paladin isn't a Gideon (cleric) or a Lancelot (fighter), he's Galahad. He is defined by his purity.If the character is so pure that he would never consider actions that could cause him to fall, the discussion is pointless because then their is no quandary, the paladin will pick the morally right choice. If the character is not that pure he will struggle with the choice whether or not one choice will penalize him mechanically. that one choice comes with that penalty will actually make the decision easier.

@jiriku: IMHO the fall rule makes such quandaries easier to decide. As such I would go as far as saying for paladins (the class) I would not want them, but for paladins in outlook very much so. I would be disappointed if the whole adventure consisted of irredeemably evil foes that give the PCs no choice but to fight them to the death.

[jiriku]

@jiriku: IMHO the fall rule makes such quandaries easier to decide. As such I would go as far as saying for paladins (the class) I would not want them, but for paladins in outlook very much so. I would be disappointed if the whole adventure consisted of irredeemably evil foes that give the PCs no choice but to fight them to the death.

That's a reasonable position to take, and a fair answer to his question. I agree that the game is much less fun when the villains are one-dimensional.

[Amphetryon]

Not "constantly", "must". I say no.

So the DM produces no tests for party in this scenario, since there's no call for him to do so. What, precisely, is the DM's role in this scenario?

[AMFV]

I concede the point about a paladin's reputation, if class levels and their features are known IC. I can't remember if the rules tell us whether this is the case. If it is the case, why don't people then know about grey guard? That knowledge should paint paladins in a different light.


Well Grey Guards are above all rare. And likely not quite accepted by the majority of most Paladin orders, this would require that they are often secret. Since they have a clear theme of infiltration as a fundamental part of their operations secrecy is important, also since they might be removed by certain elements of their order.



How do you know that the cleric, crusader, or fighter are not that way? A character who never wavers from his code of conduct is just as pure as a paladin who has such a code of conduct as a class feature.

Well arguably if a fighter was that pure he'd be called to be a Paladin. Also a fighter can have a much more varied code of conduct, a Paladin has a code of conduct that binds him explicitly to both law and good in ways that fighters don't. Fighters class features are not tied in any way to their behavior.



Paladins do not draw their power from their own purity. They draw their power from the ideals of law and goodness, if they do not draw their power from personified divine entities. Their purity is the result not the source.

But their purity is what allows them to have their power, the Gods give them power because of their purity, or the forces of law and good.



If the character is so pure that he would never consider actions that could cause him to fall, the discussion is pointless because then their is no quandary, the paladin will pick the morally right choice. If the character is not that pure he will struggle with the choice whether or not one choice will penalize him mechanically. that one choice comes with that penalty will actually make the decision easier.

The Paladin will struggle, after all many famous 'pure' characters have had moments of struggle that they had to overcome or were tempted, and that's always one of the best known segments in literature. After all Galadriel is a fairly forgettable character if not for her moment of temptation. The defining moment for Faramir is when he refuses the temptation that consumed his brother. The Tenth doctor is defined by his desire to change time and his later refusal to do so, that's a defining moment for the character.

No, not all Paladins are pure, but they strive to be, in ways that other characters do not, that is why they are defined by it. Their struggle is represented mechanically in that their abilities are tied to their purity. A fighter's entire life is not a struggle to remain pure, but it is a Paladin's life.

[Coidzor]

You're reading "ALWAYS" as "CONSTANTLY," which several of us, myself included, indicated earlier appears to be a misreading.

Has OP stated such? :smalltongue: It's a point that needs to be made, at least sometimes, or so it would appear from what crops up on the board.

Even without Always = Constantly, it's still annoyingly and inappropriately absolutist as far as statements go, so clarifying would be obligatory anyway.

Plus it tries to create and obligation which does not exist and just the perception of that obligation existing is a favorite thing for people to hate on around here, as was pointed out by Morty when it came to not wanting to make the game all about the Paladin by making challenging the Paladin more important than any other game element, even if it isn't a constant flood of challenges.

[Pex]

So the DM produces no tests for party in this scenario, since there's no call for him to do so. What, precisely, is the DM's role in this scenario?

Create the campaign and adventures as normal and let the paladin player play his paladin. He makes moral and ethical decision every game day just like everyone else. There's no reason to target that character just because the word "paladin" is on the player's character sheet.

[White Blade]

I concede the point about a paladin's reputation, if class levels and their features are known IC. I can't remember if the rules tell us whether this is the case. If it is the case, why don't people then know about grey guard? That knowledge should paint paladins in a different light.
I mean, Grey Guards are just paladins who get a back in easier if push truly came to shove until 10th level. I don't picture 16th level or higher information as being commonly distributed. But in a world that was more high-powered than FR, sure, definitely. I agree. Really powerful and cunning-seeming paladins would definitely be suspect.


How do you know that the cleric, crusader, or fighter are not that way? A character who never wavers from his code of conduct is just as pure as a paladin who has such a code of conduct as a class feature.
I agree. That's totally true. It isn't a question of purity. It is entirely possible to play someone as righteous as a paladin. But I think there is an element that the player takes up when he plays a paladin of being a knight searching for the holy grail. Part of why you play a paladin is because you want to play a character that is defined by being holy and righteous. The fall mechanic helps provide that experience to players. I can imagine playing a paladin and going through a fall-and-redemption arc. I think there's a small slice of really good options there (I wouldn't want it to "just happen" much like I oppose character death "just happening"), but I think there's a lot of cool in that space, if you seek it out.


Paladins do not draw their power from their own purity. They draw their power from the ideals of law and goodness, if they do not draw their power from personified divine entities. Their purity is the result not the source.
I tend to picture the paladin's power from the perspective that worthiness of vessel leads to divine investiture of power. I think that the paladin's purity is the cup that the gods pour their power into.


If the character is so pure that he would never consider actions that could cause him to fall, the discussion is pointless because then their is no quandary, the paladin will pick the morally right choice. If the character is not that pure he will struggle with the choice whether or not one choice will penalize him mechanically. that one choice comes with that penalty will actually make the decision easier.
Okay, yes, it is easier for a paladin to make the right choice. I think it is also easier for someone searching for the Holy Grail. That doesn't mean those choices aren't still hard. Being pure in heart is about choosing the good over the evil. Sometimes, paladins don't have what it takes to make that choice and pay the price of their sins. I think that adds to the experience. I guess you don't. That's fine.



I don't have anything to add, but I just wanted to say that you defined the Paladin class in a way I haven't ever been able to and I applaud you for it.
:smallredface: Aw shucks.

[AMFV]

Has OP stated such? :smalltongue: It's a point that needs to be made, at least sometimes, or so it would appear.

Even without Always = Constantly, it's still annoyingly and inappropriately absolutist as far as statements go, so clarifying would be obligatory anyway.

Plus it tries to create and obligation which does not exist and just the perception of that obligation existing is a favorite thing for people to hate on around here, as was pointed out by Morty when it came to not wanting to make the game all about the Paladin by making challenging the Paladin more important than any other game element, even if it isn't a constant flood of challenges.

Not disagreeing with your post as such, but I do think that it would be really fun to have a game where all the players played some variation of Paladin and there were dozens of Code tests, and moral dilemma. I've always wanted to run a game like that, you could also then explore how different types of Paladins might solve different moral dilemma.

[Amphetryon]

Create the campaign and adventures as normal and let the paladin player play his paladin. He makes moral and ethical decision every game day just like everyone else. There's no reason to target that character just because the word "paladin" is on the player's character sheet.

Again, as soon as an enemy hits the paladin - or the druid, or the rogue, or the sorcerer - that character is being targeted. You've indicated that a DM who 'must' target a player is somehow committing a faux pas. How does the DM run the campaign given this constraint, without targeting any characters. . . since any targeting will apparently be due to whatever word is written atop the character sheet where 'class' is indicated.

[AMFV]

Again, as soon as an enemy hits the paladin - or the druid, or the rogue, or the sorcerer - that character is being targeted. You've indicated that a DM who 'must' target a player is somehow committing a faux pas. How does the DM run the campaign given this constraint, without targeting any characters. . . since any targeting will apparently be due to whatever word is written atop the character sheet where 'class' is indicated.

And in addition the second the DM puts a trap down he's targeting the rogue explicitly (since that character will most likely have to deal with it). An AMF is likely targeting a spell caster explicitly. One cannot have challenges for all characters equally all the time. In my opinion it is infinitely better to give each character short seconds in the spotlight than it is to try to push them all out of it.

[Coidzor]

Not disagreeing with your post as such, but I do think that it would be really fun to have a game where all the players played some variation of Paladin and there were dozens of Code tests, and moral dilemma. I've always wanted to run a game like that, you could also then explore how different types of Paladins might solve different moral dilemma.

Well, yeah, full disclosure, everyone agrees, and everyone's engaged in the dilemmas. It definitely seems like it could work, though I suspect that you'd need to set up a framework of houserules to prevent the party splitting/murdering one another in an orgy of self-destruction and violence, or at least contingencies for when the party splits ways/decides they want to murder one another over the moral dilemmas they've decided had different answers.


Again, as soon as an enemy hits the paladin - or the druid, or the rogue, or the sorcerer - that character is being targeted. You've indicated that a DM who 'must' target a player is somehow committing a faux pas. How does the DM run the campaign given this constraint, without targeting any characters. . . since any targeting will apparently be due to whatever word is written atop the character sheet where 'class' is indicated.

Does "singling out for special (mis)treatment" please you better than "targeting?"


Am I the only person who doesn't consider the opportunity to develop my character through moral dilemmas to be a punishment?

:smallconfused: Falling isn't exactly an opportunity to develop your character through moral dilemmas, and Paladins don't so much grow as they either pass or fail and fall, as written.

Getting worn down until you fall is something only people with the explicit goal of going blackguard really seem to want when it comes time to discuss such things.

Having to sit with your thumbs up your arse while the game becomes all about the guy next to you and their moral dilemmas which tend to actually be rather clear cut for anyone who doesn't have to deal with their CoC, on the other hand, while not a punishment, per se... It still isn't anything we should really make a habit of, since you generally want less "Super Special Snowflake Time for Jerry, then it's Bob's turn, then it's Mary's, and then Tamsin's before going back around to Jerry" and more everyone being engaged as much as possible.


It also seems I'm the only person who sees a falling as a Paladin as an excellent roleplaying opportunity rather than a punishment.

Yeah, do you houserule that or something? : I know that gradual falling/power loss was a fairly popular houserule at one point... :smallconfused: It's a PITA for the player and the party when the Pally falls for any real length of time and doesn't go straight to Blackguard. Or, worse, the Paladin is basically a yoyo. :smalleek:


I read "always put your paladins to the test" to mean "every time you run a campaign with a Paladin* you should include a moral dilemma for them", rather than "lol, chuck moral dilemmas at the Paladin until they break". The second is obviously stupid and not deserving of 3 pages of discussion.

* I personally believe you should do it regardless of whether or not a Paladin is in the group anyway.

Well, yeah. But the thing is, there's quite a range between one single moral dilemma per campaign and intentionally break them, which is more where you seemed to be operating, as well as what the OP was getting at.

And I still don't really like the idea of thinking people are or should be required to be deeper in it than they want to be.


A good binary moral dilemma for a Paladin should have these 2 options:
1. God-approved choice that is somehow unsatisfactory, perhaps the baddies escape punishment, or it may very well cause more harm than good in the long term.
2. The most appealing choice to the character, you get everything you want in option 1, but you also get to capture the baddies or whatever it is that makes option 1 less appealing. However, this option requires you to violate an aspect of your Code of Honour.

Pretty much Lawful vs. Good, Honour vs. Justice, which is more important to the Paladin?

What's this about Gods and approving choices? Did you forget about non-Faerunian, non-4e(who don't even fall, IIRC) Pallys? :smalltongue:

As for the rest... Ehh... Sometimes you can get Law vs. Good, but Pallys are generally supposed to know to pick Good over Law, anyway. So, there's not much contest there.


A tough dilemma might include leaving a true friend and adventuring companion to hold off an overwhelming opponent alone so that you can quickly shepherd a sworn charge to safety, or treating a black-hearted knave who's slandered you and stolen from you with honor and courtesy after he's acquitted in a fair trial for lack of evidence. It might mean choosing not to accept an unfair advantage in a duel to the death against an opponent who you believe might defeat you, or choosing to conceal evidence of a treasonous and underhanded plot against the crown because you know in your heart that the king is a despotic tyrant who will be the ruin of his kingdom.

You don't fall for doing your duty or finding a way to get everyone out alive or defeating the bad guy. You don't even fall for dying in the course of Paladining. :smallconfused:

Treating someone with honor and courtesy isn't required of a Paladin, and nothing prevents them from doing what is necessary to bring them to justice save temporal powers. In fact, all that scenario does is provide a quest hook to actually get rid of this guy who got off due to a corrupt system that "lost" the evidence.

A Paladin wouldn't be working for a despotic tyrant in the first place, and they have no obligation to unjust rulers simply because they're the ruler.

So I think the only example you really have a point on is an unfair advantage in a formal duel to the death.


You're playing a paladin -- you are the poster child for suck and fail no matter what you do. But you're roleplaying the hell out of it, and loving every minute!

Whereas I'm a fan of not having Paladins be sucktacular cosmic whipping boys by virtue of their class levels in the first place.


Andezzar, I get what you're saying, but this is entirely beside the point. Abadguy didn't ask, "Do you think the fall rule for paladins is good or bad", or "Which classes are best for roleplaying moral dilemmas". He asked "If you chose to play a Paladin, would you be disappointed if you were never put to a really tough moral dilemma". You don't like the fall rule, and that's all well and good. I don't particularly care for it myself. But you're criticizing our relevant, direct responses to his question by invoking an irrelevancy.

The fall rule is not at issue here. If the fall rule didn't exist, I would still want moral dilemmas for my paladin. As a rule, if I roleplay a character of any class with strong moral and ethical convictions, I want them tested. To me, the only reason the choice of class is even relevant to the question at all is because EVERY paladin has strong convictions, while only SOME members of other classes have such.

The Fall rule and Code of Conduct are at the heart of fixating upon moral dilemmas for Paladins(and only Paladins) in the first place. :smallconfused: They're so tangled up, I don't believe you can ever truly detangle them without houseruling some aspect(s) away or significant homebrewing.


(Nearly) all the solutions you posited to the dilemmas in the other thread were of the kind to use a third option. A dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma) only allows two (equally bad) options. If you are of the opinion that such scenarios do not exist, discussing them is pointless because no DM can inflict them on a PC anyways.

Now concerning those situations where one course of action is more favorable but violates the code of conduct, this course must be vastly more favorable for a paladin to even be considered. In fact it must be so much better to compensate even the loss of the class features. By that point the question is why the character is a paladin at all. IMHO the CoC or more specifically the penalty for violating it, actually removes choice. If the right course of action is not apparent (either through the description of the situation or through magic) then the choice is arbitrary rather than based on roleplaying.

It would be out of character for Paladins with the mental faculties for it to not strive for the third option, that's part of HEROing, after all, and it would be quite silly for a DM to never allow such or to strike it down just because they didn't think of a way to prevent it in the first place.


IMHO how the paladin deals with his choices is much less dramatic because the choice for him is more trivial than for other characters.

The latter part comes close to the Stormwind Fallacy.

I agree. Take falling out of the picture and it'd be more interesting because Falling and Blackguarding make Paladins tend to default towards a binary of either Always choosing Good and Right and having an item along just for that purpose or going Baby-eating Evil at the first opportunity. They're simplifying influences that twist things in ways that I don't feel do any favors to one's desire for moral complexity and dealing with tough choices. Sure, you can still try to do it, but it's a bit like playing a blaster wizard who knows better but is blasting just because they feel that's what they're supposed to do.

[Amphetryon]

Does "singling out for special (mis)treatment" please you better than "targeting?"

Isn't attacking the paladin rather than the druid, rogue, or sorcerer "singling [him] out for special (mis)treatment?" After all, you're picking a particular target. . . even if the decision is based on random chance. The argument is that any DM who 'must' target players is straying outside the DM's job description. There was no limiter placed upon this statement other than


No. It is not the DM's job to target characters.

Ergo, any targeting, any singling out, of any player at any time, for any reason, is in violation of this condition.

[aleucard]

Isn't attacking the paladin rather than the druid, rogue, or sorcerer "singling [him] out for special (mis)treatment?" After all, you're picking a particular target. . . even if the decision is based on random chance. The argument is that any DM who 'must' target players is straying outside the DM's job description. There was no limiter placed upon this statement other than



Ergo, any targeting, any singling out, of any player at any time, for any reason, is in violation of this condition.

Quit being a pedantic prick. You know exactly what he's talking about, and that ain't it.

Should a Paladin sometimes find themselves being the first member of the party swung at? Sure, especially since Paladins (especially the Knight in Shining Armor type) are by design front-liners and taking those swings lets the more squishy players last long enough to do what they need to do.

That does NOT mean that the DM has the right and privilege to jackhammer the Paladin into submission every bloody session with pass-fail scenarios designed specifically to screw with the CoC. Once every so often, especially if the Paladin's getting a bit too murderhobo to be comfortable for such a character, isn't that bad, but the only time you as a DM go further than the occasional 'Cart or Demon' scenario (with the knowledge that as long as the player can justify their selection neither are auto-fall choices) is with explicit Player consent to fiddle with their guy that way. Even then, spending more than maybe 1 session out of 5 on it results in 'Special Snowflake Showtime' as described by previous posters, and the campaign where such is a good use of game time is a VERY rare one indeed.

[AMFV]

Well, yeah, full disclosure, everyone agrees, and everyone's engaged in the dilemmas. It definitely seems like it could work, though I suspect that you'd need to set up a framework of houserules to prevent the party splitting/murdering one another in an orgy of self-destruction and violence, or at least contingencies for when the party splits ways/decides they want to murder one another over the moral dilemmas they've decided had different answers.


Well Paladins shouldn't be murdering each other over philosophical differences. But I do agree that it would take quite a bit of maturity. I think that if you'd need that heavy network of houserules then you wouldn't be the right group for that.



Does "singling out for special (mis)treatment" please you better than "targeting?"


I think they are functionally the same in this case.


Quit being a pedantic prick. You know exactly what he's talking about, and that ain't it.

Should a Paladin sometimes find themselves being the first member of the party swung at? Sure, especially since Paladins (especially the Knight in Shining Armor type) are by design front-liners and taking those swings lets the more squishy players last long enough to do what they need to do.


Well being the first swung at isn't exactly the thing that we're worried about here... It's having a different moral perspective.



That does NOT mean that the DM has the right and privilege to jackhammer the Paladin into submission every bloody session with pass-fail scenarios designed specifically to screw with the CoC. Once every so often, especially if the Paladin's getting a bit too murderhobo to be comfortable for such a character, isn't that bad, but the only time you as a DM go further than the occasional 'Cart or Demon' scenario (with the knowledge that as long as the player can justify their selection neither are auto-fall choices) is with explicit Player consent to fiddle with their guy that way. Even then, spending more than maybe 1 session out of 5 on it results in 'Special Snowflake Showtime' as described by previous posters, and the campaign where such is a good use of game time is a VERY rare one indeed.

I disagree with this statement in all respects. One, everybody deserves a "Special Snowflake Snowtime", a good DM can work in segments for each player into every session. The thing is that 'Cart or Demon' isn't a good scenario, it doesn't really reveal much about the character's morals. That's not a scenario that reveals anything.

[aleucard]

Well being the first swung at isn't exactly the thing that we're worried about here... It's having a different moral perspective.



I disagree with this statement in all respects. One, everybody deserves a "Special Snowflake Snowtime", a good DM can work in segments for each player into every session. The thing is that 'Cart or Demon' isn't a good scenario, it doesn't really reveal much about the character's morals. That's not a scenario that reveals anything.

#1; We're not, true, but apparently Amp is "Mistaken (tm)".

#2; Having a LITTLE of it is perfectly fine, but devoting more than a little bit of time per session to toot a specific character's horn to the point of nullifying the rest of the party is something that a good DM doesn't do without the expectation of losing players. Also, I was referencing the 'Cart and Demon' scenario because it's the first one to come to mind that someone's tried to pass off as auto-fall regardless of the decision (an assertion that I find to be bulls@#%, but there you go). Since it's relatively minor, has both obvious choices stink to High Heaven for a Paladin, and wouldn't cause a fall regardless of their choice if the DM is anything more than an absolute jerk, the phrase fits.

[Coidzor]

Isn't attacking the paladin rather than the druid, rogue, or sorcerer "singling [him] out for special (mis)treatment?" After all, you're picking a particular target. . . even if the decision is based on random chance. The argument is that any DM who 'must' target players is straying outside the DM's job description. There was no limiter placed upon this statement other than



Ergo, any targeting, any singling out, of any player at any time, for any reason, is in violation of this condition.

No, now you're just being facetious and still completely missing the point that there's a difference between playing the game and being the kind of DM who sets out to make Paladins fall before play has even started.

Yeah, we get it, neither one was a good opening line, but one of them has been clarified and the other hasn't, really.

[Pex]

Again, as soon as an enemy hits the paladin - or the druid, or the rogue, or the sorcerer - that character is being targeted. You've indicated that a DM who 'must' target a player is somehow committing a faux pas. How does the DM run the campaign given this constraint, without targeting any characters. . . since any targeting will apparently be due to whatever word is written atop the character sheet where 'class' is indicated.

That's not targeting, that's playing the game. Targeting the paladin is purposely designing a kobayashi maru or even just become a commanding bridge officer test only because he's a paladin and the PHB says a paladin falls if he willingly commits an evil act. The DM is baiting the paladin player when he wouldn't do such a thing to any player of any other class, to "put the paladin to the test".

[dantiesilva]

I have always been a big paladin player, and in one of my most recent games something like this came into play and I like how the DM played it. A paladin is not allowed to deal with undead, it simply is a no no, breaks their code of conduct. So on so forth. All undead evil, well the DM happened to incoperate an old romance that had vanished years ago with her sister when they marched an army against some unknown threat. 12 years later I end up in the area, and we find out that a necromancer is running the town. I challenge him and his armies (Fortify the town, consecrate, as he stopped the hallow, and many other things) he on the third day sends his army in wazes. First wave we repel with ease. Second wave same thing. By the fifth wave a few had caused some damage, but nothing major. Round 10 finally comes and the figures we saw flying in the distance giving orders now fly foward. 4 are deathk knights (guards) on zombie wyzerns, the other two are the sisters, now vampires under the necromancers control.

When they see it is me, the military like sister offered me the chance to surrender and flee, which I refused as a paladin. However his former lover then called off the battle, having there troops retreat. A little catching up happens, and they part ways after kissing. Now we go into the mountains of the necromancer, and face more of his army after getting the villagers out of their to safty. We kill a good deal of death knights and other undead, however eventually we run into him. Well he happens to have all his generals with him and makes it simple, you entertain me with a gladitor match or I kill you all here and now. We agree. His lich faces our wizard and dragon shaman. I face off against the warrior sister. Use house rules so that they both charge at the same time being honerable and take damage at the same time when they charge. Eventually I get the upper hand, and get her prone, holding the sword to her neck. Necromancer screams to finish her. I refuse (breaking the paladin code), and instead help her up and she surrenders the duel.

In the long run our DM allowed me to keep my paladin powers due to the story behind the character, and how his actions were more heroic and tough then the paladin code itself. Though I eventually dropped paladin all together in the build due to feeling he was becoming more of a druid. All in all, I think if you have a good DM who is not out to get all paladins, the code of condoct is something that can be worked with very easily. Perhaps even you are a paladin trying to fix it.

[White Blade]

I suppose I should respond to the original question with a simple response: Ideally a paladin should be put to the test as often as befits the players' (including DM) tastes. I think there are paladins who it really suits for them to struggle with temptation, I think that some of the time that's what the player wants to focus on. But if I'm running a Job(biblical figure)-Galahad paladin, what I'm mostly driving at is going to be holiness-in-light-of-suffering. For such a character, there are more adequate usages of his screen time, at least in most sessions.

There should always be moments to have your character get the choice between the easy way and the right way. Because, I mean, we need to see what sort of hero they are. A paladin player has just said, "I'm going to pick the right way" in advance.

Also, also: Tinman Paladin would be fun.

[Vogonjeltz]

I think this question should assume a degree of maturity.


Moral dilemmas, by the very nature, are a mature topic. You wouldn't talk to your 8 year old cousin about utilitarianism right? Or make him decide whether to save 1 person, or 5 people (depending on who he wants to sacrifice).

Likewise, you don't challenge players who are immature. They probably want to sit down and hack and slash and be the hero. They want to live in a black and white world where the enemies are totally Evil and they are totally Good (no matter what questionably murderous acts of thievery they might resort to :smalltongue:)

So when you "challenge" your players morally, you should make sure they're mature enough not to flip the table. Out of those who are mature enough, there are some who might really like making those decisions (whether or not they are Paladins).

I think the Paladin aspect is the smallest part of this equation - an immature person might want to play the Paladin to be the Hero! They don't want to think about tough choices - they just want to be something they're not.

Likewise, you might have a player playing the Evil Dread Necromancer. But maybe he still has loved ones he cares about and they're being threatened. The player is mature enough to handle an Evil Character who has Loved Ones that make him vulnerable. That make him seem like a real human being with tough choices to make.

Or whatever, we can just go back to assuming that everyone is immature anyway :smalltongue:

The 1 v 5 dilemma always struck me as the true failure of utilitarianism. The person in question knows nothing of the people on the track, or their future lives, yet is making a pure numbers calculation. *this is no better than flipping a coin to decide what to do.

The correct answer (ie the Good answer) is always to try and stop the train by other means, but never to choose that someone dies.

[AMFV]

The 1 v 5 dilemma always struck me as the true failure of utilitarianism. The person in question knows nothing of the people on the track, or their future lives, yet is making a pure numbers calculation. *this is no better than flipping a coin to decide what to do.

The correct answer (ie the Good answer) is always to try and stop the train by other means, but never to choose that someone dies.

But let's suppose that you can't stop the train by other means. I mean it's a train, they are difficult to stop. So lets say you have only time to decide one of the two options. Now arguably they are both equally good at this point depending on your ethical standpoint. However D&D is fairly explicit, sacrificing a life to save others is not good as per BoED. Therefore that situation should not be a dilemma, the Paladin is not allowed to put people in jeopardy for that sort of thing. However a Paladin is allowed to save one person if there are multiple people already in jeopardy. For example if there are people tied to train tracks equidistant from each other then you could save one of them, but you could not tie another person to the tracks to save another person.

[Coidzor]

But let's suppose that you can't stop the train by other means. I mean it's a train, they are difficult to stop.

Which makes it a horrible analogy for any decisions a Pally should be involved with. :smalltongue:

Also, I still say it's not that difficult to derail them catastrophically if one has unfettered access to the controls and actually has time to make a decision in the first place. (Trains are *fast* or else laughably slow, after all. And if it's slow then you can jump off and rescue one person well before it could squish 'em... If it's fast, by the time the supervillain has explained the situation to you, someone's already dead. Or you have time to actually do something else.)

[AMFV]

Which makes it a horrible analogy for any decisions a Pally should be involved with. :smalltongue:

Also, I still say it's not that difficult to derail them catastrophically if one has unfettered access to the controls and actually has time to make a decision in the first place. (Trains are *fast* or else laughably slow, after all. And if it's slow then you can jump off and rescue one person well before it could squish 'em... If it's fast, by the time the supervillain has explained the situation to you, someone's already dead. Or you have time to actually do something else.)

Equidistant people tied on tracks, you only have time to save one of them. Two injured people, you only have time to get to and stabilize one of them. There are real scenarios where there aren't other alternatives immediately available. I personally think the push a guy onto the tracks to save people scenario is really ridiculous, but it doesn't change the fact that some scenarios don't have a clever solution.

[Anlashok]

Equidistant people tied on tracks, you only have time to save one of them. Two injured people, you only have time to get to and stabilize one of them. There are real scenarios where there aren't other alternatives immediately available. I personally think the push a guy onto the tracks to save people scenario is really ridiculous, but it doesn't change the fact that some scenarios don't have a clever solution.

No clever solution, no. But those scenarios aren't really moral dilemma either.

[AMFV]

No clever solution, no. But those scenarios aren't really moral dilemma either.

It's a moral dilemma if one of them is your family member...

[Darkweave31]

A test, of course. However, it should be a fair test with a clear lesson should that test be failed. A growing experience, never a," haha, you committed evil, no more fun abilities for you." That has a place, but that place is when the player chooses to do something evil, not some moral dilemma or trick of the DM.

Never try to trick a player out of being able to play their character. That just creates out of game conflicts.

That said, if a paladin is abusing their code, I have no qualms stripping them of their powers (generally with some warning beforehand) because then they clearly don't want to play a paladin.

[AMFV]

A test, of course. However, it should be a fair test with a clear lesson should that test be failed. A growing experience, never a," haha, you committed evil, no more fun abilities for you." That has a place, but that place is when the player chooses to do something evil, not some moral dilemma or trick of the DM.

Never try to trick a player out of being able to play their character. That just creates out of game conflicts.

That said, if a paladin is abusing their code, I have no qualms stripping them of their powers (generally with some warning beforehand) because then they clearly don't want to play a paladin.

But real world moral dilemma are not like that. They aren't always clear. Now I'm not saying that "Gotcha" traps are okay, in fact I argue that those aren't possible, but there shouldn't always be a clear right answer, because these are complicated matters. I once posted a thread with multiple Paladin situations that had dozens of answers that were all likely as Good, but correct for different reasons. Moral dilemma should not be simplified if they are going to be part of the game.

[Coidzor]

It's a moral dilemma if one of them is your family member...

No, it's just the DM being a ****. :smalltongue: Precisely what you want to avoid with playing with Paladins anyway.


But real world moral dilemma are not like that. They aren't always clear. Now I'm not saying that "Gotcha" traps are okay, in fact I argue that those aren't possible, but there shouldn't always be a clear right answer, because these are complicated matters. I once posted a thread with multiple Paladin situations that had dozens of answers that were all likely as Good, but correct for different reasons. Moral dilemma should not be simplified if they are going to be part of the game.

I'm sorry, are we playing real life where our parents are slowly dying of cancer and diabetes or are we playing some mother-loving Dungeons and Dragons over here? :smalltongue:

[AMFV]

No, it's just the DM being a ****. :smalltongue: Precisely what you want to avoid with playing with Paladins anyway.

No, that's a real life moral dilemma, and that could happen in a game. Real world EMTs and Medics have had to deal with choosing their friends or a stranger to save. It happens. Of course the DM could be a ass about it and then punish you if you pick either option, but the point remains that this is a moral dilemma, I don't think that there's a good answer to it, and I don't think that either answer would cause a fall, although they might cause a lot of internal angst.