Paladins are a mistake

[digiman619]

Or rather, they are insufficient as stated.

Ask anyone who isn't a Christian in a Christian-heavy city (like myself), but people who believe that their God is on their side are perhaps the greatest zealots and most implacable foes. Paladins are seen as SO LG, they cannot have any flaws of their character, and that kills roleplaying. To the point that I've seen games that if the Paladin does something that ISN'T selfless and altruistic, they're warned that they are at risk of falling.

I'm not opposed to the concept of Paladins, but we need them to be more than LG. 5th Ed D & D had ideas about that, but since I'm primarily a Pathfinder player, I need this idea to get to Paizo. I don't care if it's an archetype or full alternate class, but we need a version of paladin for CG, LE and TN. Versions for the other neutrals would be nice, but simply put, the other extremes of the alignment chart need to be represented, because if the internet has taught me anything (other than that porn is numerous and strangely varied), it's that practically every viewpoint has vehement defenders.

[Max Caysey]

Or rather, they are insufficient as stated.

Ask anyone who isn't a Christian in a Christian-heavy city (like myself), but people who believe that their God is on their side are perhaps the greatest zealots and most implacable foes. Paladins are seen as SO LG, they cannot have any flaws of their character, and that kills roleplaying. To the point that I've seen games that if the Paladin does something that ISN'T selfless and altruistic, they're warned that they are at risk of falling.

I'm not opposed to the concept of Paladins, but we need them to be more than LG. 5th Ed D & D had ideas about that, but since I'm primarily a Pathfinder player, I need this idea to get to Paizo. I don't care if it's an archetype or full alternate class, but we need a version of paladin for CG, LE and TN. Versions for the other neutrals would be nice, but simply put, the other extremes of the alignment chart need to be represented, because if the internet has taught me anything (other than that porn is numerous and strangely varied), it's that practically every viewpoint has vehement defenders.

IN Unearthed Arcana, there are three evil paladins...

[ExLibrisMortis]

There are paladin variants for CG, LE and CE in Unearthed Arcana.
There are paladin variants for LN, NG, CG, CN and N in Dragon #310.

I think only NE is without a first-party paladin equivalent.

[Zaq]

To be honest? I think it's so deeply entrenched in the existing system that you'd have better luck working with your GM than with Paizo. A GM can loosen/change/waive alignment/RP restrictions just as easily as the developers can—and if the developers loosen some restrictions late in the game (rather than starting with looser restrictions, like 4e or 5e Paladins), there's no guarantee that a GM will even like those rules.

Naturally, you can always find a similar class that you can still roleplay as being "a Paladin with less of a stupid code." Cleric is the obvious choice. If you play 3.P, Crusaders are another obvious choice. But fundamentally, your best bet is to talk to your GM. A GM who wants Paladins to have all their existing RP/alignment restrictions isn't going to necessarily loosen them just because Paizo came out with an ACF/archetype/whatever (the GM wants what the GM wants), and a GM who's cool with loosening those restrictions doesn't need Paizo to tell them to do it. (Yeah, other players might have expectations about what a Pally should and shouldn't do, but those other players don't have the power to make your Pally fall, and it's not appropriate gaming etiquette to demand that a different player roleplay the way you expect them to, barring egregious violations of decorum.)

[darksolitaire]

IN Unearthed Arcana, there are three evil paladins...

Freedom is evil? That sounds like something a LG Paladin would say. :smalltongue:

[Zanos]

Paladin isn't the class fully devoted to a deity. You're thinking of a Cleric. Play a Cleric.

Or warpriest.

[AMFV]

Or rather, they are insufficient as stated.

Ask anyone who isn't a Christian in a Christian-heavy city (like myself), but people who believe that their God is on their side are perhaps the greatest zealots and most implacable foes. Paladins are seen as SO LG, they cannot have any flaws of their character, and that kills roleplaying. To the point that I've seen games that if the Paladin does something that ISN'T selfless and altruistic, they're warned that they are at risk of falling.

I'm not opposed to the concept of Paladins, but we need them to be more than LG. 5th Ed D & D had ideas about that, but since I'm primarily a Pathfinder player, I need this idea to get to Paizo. I don't care if it's an archetype or full alternate class, but we need a version of paladin for CG, LE and TN. Versions for the other neutrals would be nice, but simply put, the other extremes of the alignment chart need to be represented, because if the internet has taught me anything (other than that porn is numerous and strangely varied), it's that practically every viewpoint has vehement defenders.

I disagree with the basic premise here. Paladins are completely allowed to have character flaws, they're just required to work on them. Being lawful doesn't mean that you have the same lawful points as other lawful people. Lawful means that you follow a consistent set of internalized rules. That can be a lot of different viewpoints.

[Morty]

The Paladin Code, or the concept behind it, aren't the problem. Dedicating an entire class to a single philosophy is. That, and designing a rigid code for it that's both overly specific and not specific enough, and tries to police the behaviour of the paladin's entire party.

[GreyBlack]

Or rather, they are insufficient as stated.

Ask anyone who isn't a Christian in a Christian-heavy city (like myself), but people who believe that their God is on their side are perhaps the greatest zealots and most implacable foes. Paladins are seen as SO LG, they cannot have any flaws of their character, and that kills roleplaying. To the point that I've seen games that if the Paladin does something that ISN'T selfless and altruistic, they're warned that they are at risk of falling.

I'm not opposed to the concept of Paladins, but we need them to be more than LG. 5th Ed D & D had ideas about that, but since I'm primarily a Pathfinder player, I need this idea to get to Paizo. I don't care if it's an archetype or full alternate class, but we need a version of paladin for CG, LE and TN. Versions for the other neutrals would be nice, but simply put, the other extremes of the alignment chart need to be represented, because if the internet has taught me anything (other than that porn is numerous and strangely varied), it's that practically every viewpoint has vehement defenders.

Hahahahahaha!

Okay, so, as previously noted, all of the extreme alignments do, in fact, have their own paladins. However, the idea that paladins are flawless is utterly laughable.

Mr. Rogers, Optimus Prime, and Superman are all lawful good. They all fight, in their own ways, for universal human decency. They all express VERY different sides of Lawful Good, though. You can play the compassionate teacher, or the merciless warrior against the forces of evil, or even the martyr who always takes on the burdens of others. All have to walk that thin line, though. You go too far in any one direction, and you fall.

Do you become so obsessed with fostering everyone's rights that you lose sight of the fact that some people will want to abuse that kindness? Then you'll wind up helping someone who honestly shouldn't be helped.

Do you slay evil wherever it lays? What about that poor guy who was turned into a werewolf, and just wants to be left alone? That werewolf is technically evil; do you kill it? What about if you find him in human form?

Do you constantly sacrifice your own desires? You'll never be happy, never be loved, and likely never be thanked for your service. Will you really lay down your life like that?

Lawful Good is far more complex than most people give credit for. Remember that.

[grarrrg]

Mr. Rogers, Optimus Prime, and Superman

*this is the ultimate showdown, of ultimate destiny
good guys, bad guys, and explosions
as far as the eye can see...*

[digiman619]

I'm not saying Lawful Good is cliche, I'm saying that Paladins are SO lock-stepped into LG that, way too often, they're not allowed to be anything but the most extreme perception of their alignment. No other class (other than anti-paladin, of course), has this type of problem. Even monks and druids (who have to be lawful and neutral, respectively) don't have this type of roleplaying ideal set in stone.

[Red Fel]

I'm not saying Lawful Good is cliche, I'm saying that Paladins are SO lock-stepped into LG that, way too often, they're not allowed to be anything but the most extreme perception of their alignment. No other class (other than anti-paladin, of course), has this type of problem. Even monks and druids (who have to be lawful and neutral, respectively) don't have this type of roleplaying ideal set in stone.

Here's the problem, as I see it: It's called the Code of Conduct. Now, there are a lot of loopholes, and they have been discussed at length on this board, but basically, without the Code - or, at least, without it being vigorously enforced - the class becomes more playable, at least from an RP perspective. (It's still weak from a mechanics perspective, but that's another issue.)

It sounds like you're speaking from the position of someone who has seen the Code over-enforced. That is, a DM not only enforcing the Code, but going major steps beyond that. In that situation, I agree that the class has a major problem, beyond any other class. But I note that not every DM does this.

I'm not going to go to the length of saying that "If a DM can fix it, it's not a problem," because that is a fallacy. (Oberoni, to be exact.) Rather, I will acknowledge that Paladins have a problem, but argue that it's not quite as bad as you seem to feel that it is.

Personally, I feel that the entire arbitrary Code of Conduct is both poorly-worded and a mistake. But that's an issue with one aspect of the class, not the class as a whole.

[Max Caysey]

Freedom is evil? That sounds like something a LG Paladin would say. :smalltongue:

He he... So it does! And how true it is! :smallwink:

[zergling.exe]

Here's the problem, as I see it: It's called the Code of Conduct. Now, there are a lot of loopholes, and they have been discussed at length on this board, but basically, without the Code - or, at least, without it being vigorously enforced - the class becomes more playable, at least from an RP perspective. (It's still weak from a mechanics perspective, but that's another issue.)

It sounds like you're speaking from the position of someone who has seen the Code over-enforced. That is, a DM not only enforcing the Code, but going major steps beyond that. In that situation, I agree that the class has a major problem, beyond any other class. But I note that not every DM does this.

I'm not going to go to the length of saying that "If a DM can fix it, it's not a problem," because that is a fallacy. (Oberoni, to be exact.) Rather, I will acknowledge that Paladins have a problem, but argue that it's not quite as bad as you seem to feel that it is.

Personally, I feel that the entire arbitrary Code of Conduct is both poorly-worded and a mistake. But that's an issue with one aspect of the class, not the class as a whole.

Red Fel defending paladins before LoyalPaladin? What is GitP coming to?

[flappeercraft]

For evil paladins im pretty sure blackguards emulate the same thing just for evils

[GreyBlack]

I'm not saying Lawful Good is cliche, I'm saying that Paladins are SO lock-stepped into LG that, way too often, they're not allowed to be anything but the most extreme perception of their alignment. No other class (other than anti-paladin, of course), has this type of problem. Even monks and druids (who have to be lawful and neutral, respectively) don't have this type of roleplaying ideal set in stone.

Imma put on my DM hat for a minute. It sparkles.

A paladin cannot willingly commit an evil act. A paladin also must try to ensure common good, respect legitimate authority, and act with honor. That's it. They also can't have evil companions.

Let's break this down for a minute. Nowhere does it say a Paladin can't be an insufferable, womanizing drunk. As long as everyone involved is cool with his shenanigans, then the paladin is fine. If a cop tells a paladin to knock it off, the paladin must obey as long as the cops aren't corrupt in this town.

Now, if you took an oath of chastity? That's a different story; often paladins take religious vows. However, the quintessential paladin, Lancelot, LITERALLY TOOK OFF WITH KING ARTHUR'S WIFE TO FRANCE. If that doesn't give you an idea of what a Paladin can do, I don't know what does.

Nowhere in the code does it say a paladin has to be a Goody Two-Shoes. Your key class abilities, in order of level you get them, are Smite Evil and Lay on Hands.

[Necroticplague]

Nowhere in the code does it say a paladin has to be a Goody Two-Shoes. Your key class abilities, in order of level you get them, are Smite Evil and Lay on Hands.

You think of those as the key class features of the paladin? I always thought of the main paladin draws as being Divine Grace and Spellcasting (once you get Battle Blessing, of course).

[Âmesang]

Reminds me of wanting to play a paladin with a slight bit of naivety to her, almost like Manwë from The Silmarillion who could not perceive evil; perhaps she fights to understand why bad people do bad things and instead of out-right slaying 'em where they stand (outside of extenuating circumstances) tries to save 'em.

That's why they make manacles, right? Of course eventually you're bound to come across the "he's too dangerous to be left alive" scenario.

There's also the paladins from Ultima dedicated to the virtue of Honor and the principles of Truth and Courage, though it seems weird to have a good character not have a little bit of Compassion, at least. Well, I suppose a D&D paladin would strive to achieve "avatarhood" above aught else.

…

%&#$ alignments.

[digiman619]

You all have valid points, but I worry that unless Paizo makes official alternate paladins, then far too many GMs will continue have the extremely narrow definition of the class.

[AMFV]

You all have valid points, but I worry that unless Paizo makes official alternate paladins, then far too many GMs will continue have the extremely narrow definition of the class.

But there is no rule or concept that is substantial enough to avoid corruption. Not by the truly ignorant.

[Zaq]

You all have valid points, but I worry that unless Paizo makes official alternate paladins, then far too many GMs will continue have the extremely narrow definition of the class.

Who cares what "far too many GMs" feel? There's only one GM who matters, and that's whoever you're playing with at the time.

I mean, if you can't convince a specific GM to see your point of view, then that's unfortunate, but it doesn't need to be your mission to fix the world. Just work with what you've got.

[daremetoidareyo]

Here's the problem, as I see it: It's called the Code of Conduct. Now, there are a lot of loopholes, and they have been discussed at length on this board, but basically, without the Code - or, at least, without it being vigorously enforced - the class becomes more playable, at least from an RP perspective. (It's still weak from a mechanics perspective, but that's another issue.)

It sounds like you're speaking from the position of someone who has seen the Code over-enforced. That is, a DM not only enforcing the Code, but going major steps beyond that. In that situation, I agree that the class has a major problem, beyond any other class. But I note that not every DM does this.

I'm not going to go to the length of saying that "If a DM can fix it, it's not a problem," because that is a fallacy. (Oberoni, to be exact.) Rather, I will acknowledge that Paladins have a problem, but argue that it's not quite as bad as you seem to feel that it is.

Personally, I feel that the entire arbitrary Code of Conduct is both poorly-worded and a mistake. But that's an issue with one aspect of the class, not the class as a whole.

My experience has been that the other players want the DM to enforce more of the code. Because they hate the player of the paladin for choosing a class that actively kills their typical neutral alignment joy. And it's always brought up at the last minute, after most of the players have decided on concepts, one dude is like, I'm going to be...a paladin. Which is fine, whatever, but now the DM has to wedge your 9th paladin in a row into this campaign that was specifically supposed be about outlaws. What is it about paladin players that makes them so flippin loyal to that terrible class?

[Droopy McCool]

What is it about paladin players that makes them so flippin loyal to that terrible class?

[Insert LoyalPaladin joke here.]

McCool

[digiman619]

@daremetoidareyo: Look a TV tropes's definition of Purity Sue to get an idea. Too many people seem to think that since most major laws seem to enforce morals (don't kill, don't steal, etc.), that lawful is good, so LG is DOUBLE GOOD. :smallannoyed:

[Clistenes]

In D&D there is an objetive alignment system. You may believe that Bane is the True God and that eveybody who opposes him is wrong/bad/evil while everybody who follows him is right/good. However, the objetive truth is that Bane is Evil, with capital E, his church is Evil too, most of his clerics are Evil, and most Good creatures oppose him.

Same goes for the Paladins. The are Lawful Good, and if they stop being Lawful Good, they stop being Paladins too, regardless of what they believe.

[Extra Anchovies]

My experience has been that the other players want the DM to enforce more of the code. Because they hate the player of the paladin for choosing a class that actively kills their typical neutral alignment joy. And it's always brought up at the last minute, after most of the players have decided on concepts, one dude is like, I'm going to be...a paladin. Which is fine, whatever, but now the DM has to wedge your 9th paladin in a row into this campaign that was specifically supposed be about outlaws. What is it about paladin players that makes them so flippin loyal to that terrible class?

The example you give doesn't exactly fit your point - a Paladin can fit just fine in a party of neutral outlaws. A Paladin can disregard authorities that they don't consider legitimate, and (in Pathfinder) a paladin can ally with evil associates to defeat what they believe to be a greater evil. Even a normal LG Paladin could work just fine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx_4C1cyUZA) as an outlaw.

[nedz]

Here's the problem, as I see it: It's called the Code of Conduct. Now, there are a lot of loopholes, and they have been discussed at length on this board, but basically, without the Code - or, at least, without it being vigorously enforced - the class becomes more playable, at least from an RP perspective. (It's still weak from a mechanics perspective, but that's another issue.)

It sounds like you're speaking from the position of someone who has seen the Code over-enforced. That is, a DM not only enforcing the Code, but going major steps beyond that. In that situation, I agree that the class has a major problem, beyond any other class. But I note that not every DM does this.

I'm not going to go to the length of saying that "If a DM can fix it, it's not a problem," because that is a fallacy. (Oberoni, to be exact.) Rather, I will acknowledge that Paladins have a problem, but argue that it's not quite as bad as you seem to feel that it is.

Personally, I feel that the entire arbitrary Code of Conduct is both poorly-worded and a mistake. But that's an issue with one aspect of the class, not the class as a whole.

this, well almost.
The two problems I usually see with paladin woe stories are either:

Player is a jerk and plays them with a stick up their arse.
The DM makes the Paladin fall for no good reason - or sets them up to fail.


The first point relates to the experience of the rest of the party, whilst the second is more of a Reverse-Oberoni in that "The DM is invited to break it, that's the problem"

It is hard to DM, my own approach:

I had someone ask about playing a paladin recently and the first question I asked them was "Do you intend to fall ?". The player seemed a little bemused until I explained that the only paladins I'd seen played in that group were just marking their time until Blackguard.

I did also point out that I would ask them if they thought their character should fall, should such a situation arise, rather than enforcing a ruling arbitrarily.

I also pointed out that should a no win scenario accidentally arise then I would accept any reasonable effort.

They decided to play something else: I'm not sure if it was because I focussed on the falling points too much ?

[Deophaun]

Personally, I feel that the entire arbitrary Code of Conduct is both poorly-worded and a mistake.

Favorite aspect of the Paladin is that he will never knowingly associate with an evil character, yet there is absolutely positively no consequence if he does so, as A) associating with an evil character is neither intrinsically evil nor chaotic and B) it's not actually part of the Code of Conduct. That covers all the ways a Paladin can fall. The restriction is put forward like it's a law of physics rather than a rule.

[Coidzor]

You all have valid points, but I worry that unless Paizo makes official alternate paladins, then far too many GMs will continue have the extremely narrow definition of the class.

Well, don't hold your breath. Even when material is put out, the people with paladin baggage are going to have paladin baggage, as seen in 3.5.

Paizo doesn't really have this sort of thing as a priority, and the way most of them play conforms to their biases when it comes to system design, reinforcing them.

[Andezzar]

@daremetoidareyo: Look a TV tropes's definition of Purity Sue to get an idea. Too many people seem to think that since most major laws seem to enforce morals (don't kill, don't steal, etc.), that lawful is good, so LG is DOUBLE GOOD. :smallannoyed:That is a misconception. I cannot say how many actually follow that train of thought, but the two alignment components are distinct.


Favorite aspect of the Paladin is that he will never knowingly associate with an evil character, yet there is absolutely positively no consequence if he does so, as A) associating with an evil character is neither intrinsically evil nor chaotic and B) it's not actually part of the Code of Conduct. That covers all the ways a Paladin can fall. The restriction is put forward like it's a law of physics rather than a rule.No go the Dogma route: make an evil character in a group with a paladin, have him associate with your character and the gameworld exsplodes. :smalltongue:

[P.F.]

Everybody approaches a fantasy role-playing game with different fantasies in mind. Some of my friends fantazise above all else of being the very best at something; others fantasize about immortality, or having magical solutions to every problem, or having really, really high numbers, or becoming a god. Some people like to play out the fantasy of being utterly evil and depraved, free from any sort of guilt or consequences. The game includes rules to allow all these fantasies to be played out.

I personally enjoy the fantasy that goodness, purity, restraint, honor, and valor can make a sufficiently devoted character objectively better than a less righteous peer. Literally every step down on the good/evil axis opens up new expediencies to power--from deception, selective hearing, and poison use for good-to-neutral characters, on down to kidnapping, summary execution, and torture for the truly evil. No one doubts that infiltrating and betraying an opposing organization is a more effective tactic than direct confrontation, yet it is this more difficult path which the paladin chooses to follow. In my fantasy, this steadfast devotion to a higher code of ethics grants the paladin a supernatural advantage, allowing good to triumph over evil even in the face of overwhelming odds.

I also appreciate the game mechanic of accepting role-playing / behavior / game choice restrictions in exchange for game play advantages. In the paladin's case, this also follows a risk-versus-reward system, where the potential expense of an atonement balances the potential benefits of the class features. The other system which immediately comes to mind are Sacred Vows, a series of "don't do x/get y" restriction/benefit pairs for the cost of a feat.

However, both the Sacred Vow feat line and the paladin class fall short of the mark, because the benefits/rewards they provide are in every case completely inadequate for the restrictions/risk that the player must accept to get them. The real problem with paladins isn't that they are restricted to a particular alignment, or that they have a strict code of conduct. The problem is that they aren't good enough as a class to warrant the restrictions.

[Necroticplague]

In D&D there is an objetive alignment system. You may believe that Bane is the True God and that eveybody who opposes him is wrong/bad/evil while everybody who follows him is right/good. However, the objetive truth is that Bane is Evil, with capital E, his church is Evil too, most of his clerics are Evil, and most Good creatures oppose him.

Same goes for the Paladins. The are Lawful Good, and if they stop being Lawful Good, they stop being Paladins too, regardless of what they believe.

However, Good and Evil being objective labels also makes the distinction meaningless on a moral level. Yes, bane is Evil. What does that mean*? Looking at the epitomies of Evil represented in the structure of the Lower Planes, this appears to simply mean that he's a strong believer in extreme meritocracy, where one works harder to improve their own station in life, and keeps it only by their continued effort (only thing between any fiend and basically godhood is all the other fiendish competition). This is complicated by the fact that there are some wierdnesses in alignment's objective nature that make doubt possible (All undead ping on detect evil, regardless of their actual alignment, Sanctify the Wicked being basically torture + soul trapping and yet somehow good, poison being evil when there are angels with poisonous bites) that Evil necessarily means bad**.

*=I legitimately have no clue who the heck Bane is, outside of the batman villian.
**=Honestly, I think the names came with way too much baggage. Freedom vs. Order and Ambition vs. Aspiration would have been better ones.

[Andezzar]

*=I legitimately have no clue who the heck Bane is, outside of the batman villian.Bane (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Bane) is a "former" lawful evil greater deity in the Forgotten Realms, Pretty much Hextor for Faerun.

**=Honestly, I think the names came with way too much baggage. Freedom vs. Order and Ambition vs. Aspiration would have been better ones.I agree. Altruism vs Egoism would also be a somewhat suitable replacement for Good vs. Evil.

[Darth Ultron]

The Forgotten Realms has paladins of alignments of other then LG.

A paladin can have all sorts of character flaws, just not the ''classic, over done evil ones''. They can have tons of ''good flaws''. And there are tons of flaws that don't fit into good and evil.

And, as you say, most people play the game of ''lets force the paladin to fall'', but that is not the only way to play the game.

[Andezzar]

The Forgotten Realms has paladins of alignments of other then LG.Are you sure? I thought it only had deities with paladins who shouldn't have paladins e.g. Sune.


A paladin can have all sorts of character flaws, just not the ''classic, over done evil ones''. They can have tons of ''good flaws''. And there are tons of flaws that don't fit into good and evil.Exactly. Being a paladin does not mean being perfect but striving to be perfect.


And, as you say, most people play the game of ''lets force the paladin to fall'', but that is not the only way to play the game.I didn't have that experience. So there are definitely saner groups out there.

[gtwucla]

I honestly think that's a symptom of alignments and the importance put into them. Obviously playgroups can allow for all sorts of flexibility as far as a paladin can 'fall' before they've truly fallen. After all who is deciding this fall. Does the paladin realize they are committing evil acts? From what I understand of zealous people is they have a pretty one track mind. If it starts to veer in one direction it can become completely backwards and about as evil as you can get. It happens in the real world, I don't see how it can't happen in fantasy worlds. I mean have you ever talked to a super religious person? You could craft the most logical of arguments and be me met with unbreakable circular logic. Not a crack in the armor, at all. And this is the age of access to information. Just imagine how fanatical a knight of the templar was when all he's heard over and over is god wants this blah, blah, blah, now kill those sin babies. So I guess what I'm getting at is 'fallen' paladins should really only fall if they are self aware and realize they've strayed from the righteous path. Only in campaign worlds where a third party is making that decision for him would arbitrary 'falling' make sense, but even then would it be immediate or would the deity sit there and count up all his mistakes and then throw it in his face like God in the old testament, then strip the paladin of power (or if its old testament God we're talking about here it also probably involves killing first borns and stoning witches and such).

[Starbuck_II]

There are paladin variants for CG, LE and CE in Unearthed Arcana.
There are paladin variants for LN, NG, CG, CN and N in Dragon #310.

I think only NE is without a first-party paladin equivalent.

They made it in Pathfinder as a Anti-Paladin archetype.

[Andezzar]

@gtwucla: I disagree that paladins should only fall if they are aware of doing something wrong. You even mentioned the one-tracked mind of fanatics (which all paladins are to an extent). So most likely they are not aware that they start committing evil "for the greater good" (cf. Miko from OOTS). Such actions should be punished. On the other hand the DM (or the other players) shouldn't try to catch the paladin in a dilemma.

[digiman619]

Literally every step down on the good/evil axis opens up new expediencies to power--from deception, selective hearing, and poison use for good-to-neutral characters, on down to kidnapping, summary execution, and torture for the truly evil.

That's the problem with paladins in a nutshell: LG is not "more moral" than LN or CG or TN, but you'd never know that because LG is the only alignment that gets a class to itself, and said class has a reputation as being a literal paragon of virtue.

I take that back, CE gets one too, but only to serve as an antithesis to LG!

[Coidzor]

*=I legitimately have no clue who the heck Bane is, outside of the batman villian.

Think "God of Saturday Morning Cartoon Villains" only with the kids gloves off.

[gtwucla]

@gtwucla: I disagree that paladins should only fall if they are aware of doing something wrong. You even mentioned the one-tracked mind of fanatics (which all paladins are to an extent). So most likely they are not aware that they start committing evil "for the greater good" (cf. Miko from OOTS). Such actions should be punished. On the other hand the DM (or the other players) shouldn't try to catch the paladin in a dilemma.

I like to think the Paladin's greatest threat is self-doubt. But to each his own (also very setting/degree of deity involvement dependent).

[LTwerewolf]

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

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

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

So let's go over it bit by bit, because it sounds like over enforcing is running rampant.

Must be lawful good. Easy enough. There are even alignment handbooks, although most not finished, that can help with this. Lawful good doesn't mean one thing just like Chaotic Neutral doesn't mean one thing.

Ever willingly commits an evil act. This is probably one of the biggest points of contention, because it causes an intent vs objective action argument. If it had said knowingly commit an evil act, things would be entirely different. As it is, people seem to be misunderstanding the "willingly" part. Willing means you're ready and eager for the outcome. If the paladin is unaware of the outcome, they're not exactly ready and eager for it, are they? It's the same as if the paladin accidentally drops a rock, which causes a ridiculous rube goldberg effect and the end result is it squishes an orphan. He didn't intend on the result but still did it. Does an accident result in a fall? I didn't think so. Miko falls because she's taking the alignment and code to extremes intentionally. Note that people often talk about how horrible Miko is because Miko is the stick up the ass paladin that everyone hates. THAT is the paladin that falls, not the one that shows genuine mercy and thinks for themselves.

It directly says that they can work with neutral and even evil allies, so long as they're only doing so for the greater good. That's an important bit and it's directly spelled out, yet people seem to love to ignore it.

[Andezzar]

Ever willingly commits an evil act. This is probably one of the biggest points of contention, because it causes an intent vs objective action argument. If it had said knowingly commit an evil act, things would be entirely different. As it is, people seem to be misunderstanding the "willingly" part. Willing means you're ready and eager for the outcome. If the paladin is unaware of the outcome, they're not exactly ready and eager for it, are they? It's the same as if the paladin accidentally drops a rock, which causes a ridiculous rube goldberg effect and the end result is it squishes an orphan. He didn't intend on the result but still did it. Does an accident result in a fall? I didn't think so. That is the crux. It is unclear if a paladin is not supposed to willingly commit an act that is evil, or if he is not supposed to willingly act for an evil goal. I don't think not wanting certain consequences does not absolve someone from wrongdoing, if those consequences can can be predicted.


Miko falls because she's taking the alignment and code to extremes intentionally. Note that people often talk about how horrible Miko is because Miko is the stick up the ass paladin that everyone hates. THAT is the paladin that falls, not the one that shows genuine mercy and thinks for themselves.I couldn't agree more.


It directly says that they can work with neutral and even evil allies, so long as they're only doing so for the greater good. That's an important bit and it's directly spelled out, yet people seem to love to ignore it.Where is that quote from. It differs greatly from what the PHB and the SRD say:
Associates

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

[digiman619]

Pathfinder Core Rulebook pg 64

[Randomthom]

Part of the problem with paladins extends from what I call active/passive alignment.

A rogue who steals is chaotic. They don't steal BECAUSE it is chaotic. Here, alignment is a function of action. Passive.
A paladin pursues good for goodness sake. Here, alignment dictates action. Active.

Far too many people see paladin and play the alignment. It is far more convincing (and fun in my mind) to consider a character who truly believes in these ideals.

The last time I played one, he had his own mini-atonement prayer (not a spell) that he ended each day with. The GM and I agreed that he could make small indiscretions against his code without falling provided he made very few of them and that he specifically acknowledged them in this end of day prayer. E.g. "Forgive me for lying to that man about my identity that he might reveal our enemy's plans". If the GM picked up on something I did outside of my code that I later missed in my prayers then I'd awake the next morning a rather crappy fighter!

Side-note; Falling is fun. Don't play a Paladin who is never in danger of falling, that is less fun & less real. Paladins should get angry about things, especially their code when it prevents them from doing what needs to be done. They should want to smash in that snarky bartender's face for his mocking slurs. They should want to kill the rapist slaver, even after he surrenders. Lying should be a near-constant temptation and backstabbing... they shouldn't do it but they sure as hell should enjoy granting another the opportunity to do it on their behalf.

Don't play the Paladin with the silver spoon up their jacksie. It's easy to look clean when you never go near the mud.

Paladin might have fitted the game better as a prestige class for fighters or clerics.

[digiman619]

Paladin might have fitted the game better as a prestige class for fighters or clerics.

Honestly, I think that next time I DM, I'm going to enforce that. That kinda of devotion to an ideal feels more powerful if it must be earned.

[Necroticplague]

Honestly, I think that next time I DM, I'm going to enforce that. That kinda of devotion to an ideal feels more powerful if it must be earned.

Concept wise, it works out better as well. The type of holy warrior paladin represents, is more narrow than either fighter or cleric, and even more narrow than the overlap between them.

[ShurikVch]

Dragon #312 have 3 more "Evil Paladins":
Despot (LE)
Corrupter (NE)
Anti-paladin (CE)
Note: Despot is more anti-Chaos than anti-Good, and Corrupter is "secretive Evil cultist" who want to turn Evil everybody around

[Andezzar]

Lying should be a near-constant temptation and backstabbing... they shouldn't do it but they sure as hell should enjoy granting another the opportunity to do it on their behalf.There is no more backstabbing in 3.5 (or pathfinder). Sure an unprovoked attack from hiding might be considered underhanded, but flanking is no more evil when one or more of the flankers know what they are doing than when they don't. You could even argue that once the paladin has decided that killings someone is justified, a clean deathstroke is less of an issue than a death by a thousand cuts in an open confrontation. If the death of the enemy cannot be justified it does not matter how he is killed.

If you mean the metaphorical backstab, that shouldn't be done by any lawful character. From a metagame perspective not all groups are fine with it anyways.


Concept wise, it works out better as well. The type of holy warrior paladin represents, is more narrow than either fighter or cleric, and even more narrow than the overlap between them.Prestige paladin (with cleric base) also gives you a much more powerful character mechanically.

[Albions_Angel]

Didnt OOTS cover this exact thing? I mean, I know they arnt an authority but still.

Here is how I see it. The FALL of a Paladin is a VERY complex process. Divine forces, possibly combine with a ritual of some sort, strip the powers and abilities from a paladin for committing acts against her purpose. No one knows for sure what exactly makes a paladin fall, but the CODE gives a set of guidelines for younger paladins to follow, in an effort for them not to be tempted into things that will endanger them to fall.

In addition, a paladin that is too zealous, that loses sight of what is important, can also fall, even if she never breaks the code, or strays from being good. Hence the OOTS comic with Mika(??)'s fall.

Look, the DM is the ultimate rule book, but as both a player and a DM, I would let paladins make mistakes. Let them be tricked into retrieving foci for evil wizards, because they truly believed they were returning family heirlooms to old widowers, and let them spare vampires who are hurting no one, or who were turned against their will. Suggest to them that maybe they can offer to find a cure, or a peaceful end to their lives, but dont make them fall for not stabbing something evil on sight.

Evil exists in more than just alignment.

Paladins need to be fallible. And there come times when they need to choose the lesser of two evils. If you present them with "Work with the evil rogue to take down the death cultists, or kill/imprison evil rogue on sight, and thus lose the chance to take down the cultists", for gods sake dont make them fall for working with the rogue.

I have stories of paladins in my group doing good acts, truly good acts, that on the face of it seem against the code, but I am about ready to call it here. If you want to hear them, post and I will reply. But paladins, like all classes, are far from black and white.

[Randomthom]

There is no more backstabbing in 3.5 (or pathfinder)...

If you mean the metaphorical backstab, that shouldn't be done by any lawful character. From a metagame perspective not all groups are fine with it anyways.


I meant backstabbing in the literal sense but not in the 2E rules sense. Paladins are meant to uphold the standards of chivalry which includes not attacking an unwary or unwitting opponent.

I'm of the opinion that Paladins are, when played well, possibly the most interesting class for RP reasons. When played poorly they are just moronic Lawful Stupid nut-jobs.

[Florian]

I meant backstabbing in the literal sense but not in the 2E rules sense. Paladins are meant to uphold the standards of chivalry which includes not attacking an unwary or unwitting opponent.

I'm of the opinion that Paladins are, when played well, possibly the most interesting class for RP reasons. When played poorly they are just moronic Lawful Stupid nut-jobs.

I think that is one of those things that are always confused with the Paladin class.
As paladin, you should know what ideals can be attained when working hard enough and having a will to attain them, may that be classic chivalry, a Musketeer-code, being a Samurai and some such things and strive too aim to be a living example for that, so others are inspired to follow in his lead.

But knowing about all that does not in any way mean that this goal has not already been attained and stood the test of time. It mostly means: Survive and try harder next time.

A grizzled Kellid tribesmen wielding a scavenged Rocketlauchner, going on drinking and whoring binges can be an equally great Paladin as long as he holds up to his ideals or keeps trying.

The "Fall" is always about betraying those ideals.

[Randomthom]

I guess I was thinking in the context of a 'vanilla' pseudo-middle-ages-britain-style campaign.

The comparison to the Samurai as warriors with a strict code is in many ways an accurate one though they swear fealty to a man rather than a god.

Regarding the whoring drinking paladin, yes and yes some more. A paladin can be a deeply flawed character and not be outside the rather loose definitions of their code. There will be paladins who 'lawyer' their way around their code as much as possible while others will uphold it in spirit as well as in law.

There are certain things that are nearly universal across most of these examples though, killing in cold blood is usually one of them. Backstabbing, killing an opponent when they are unaware of your presence or intent, would be considered cold-blooded murder in almost any culture. Something few cultures would accept an upholder of good and law to do.

[LTwerewolf]

That is the crux. It is unclear if a paladin is not supposed to willingly commit an act that is evil, or if he is not supposed to willingly act for an evil goal. I don't think not wanting certain consequences does not absolve someone from wrongdoing, if those consequences can can be predicted.

That's assuming the consequences can be predicted. In that case, it's not accidental. When it is entirely accidental, like in one half of all paladin cases because they were put into a gotcha situation, there should be no fall as per the direct definition of the code requiring it to be willing, which expressly involves intent. For those wondering, the other half of the falls are the "no win" situation. Outside those two, I have never heard of someone falling.


Where is that quote from. It differs greatly from what the PHB and the SRD say:

The op was specific that they are a pathfinder player and thus people talking only about 3.5 are being unhelpful.

[Eldariel]

Do you constantly sacrifice your own desires? You'll never be happy, never be loved, and likely never be thanked for your service. Will you really lay down your life like that?

The only path of a true hero. Ladies and gentlemen, presenting Shirou Emiya! It is a lonely life, constantly sacrificing oneself in an attempt to save everybody, only to realize somebody must often be sacrificed to save somebody else.

[digiman619]

I've decided that the Paladin class (not the concept, mind you, just the class) has too much baggage to be viable in my campaign world. As such, I've banned the class detoured the archetype/character type into the following:
If you want to have a warrior with an oath that they hold dear, play a Cavalier.
If you want to have a holy warrior guided by faith, play a Warpriest.
If you want to uphold your faith's traditoins, play an Inquisitor
And if you just want to play a good guy, don't look into class as a way to express that.

[Red Fel]

I've decided that the Paladin class (not the concept, mind you, just the class) has too much baggage to be viable in my campaign world. As such, I've banned the class detoured the archetype/character type into the following:
If you want to have a warrior with an oath that they hold dear, play a Cavalier.
If you want to have a holy warrior guided by faith, play a Warpriest.
If you want to uphold your faith's traditoins, play an Inquisitor
And if you just want to play a good guy, don't look into class as a way to express that.

This is, honestly, not a bad position. I don't entirely agree with your reasons (if anything, I would discourage the class for its mechanical weaknesses instead of its fluff; even in PF, it's still a sub-par class), but I at least agree with the idea that you can accomplish many of the same things, often better, with another class, and that class name does not equal concept.

Again, though, I point out that baggage is what you make of it; if you're in a position to ban the class (i.e. you're the DM), then you're in a position to keep the baggage out. You have the power to waive some of the fluff of the class, to allow a bit more freedom in how a player engages with the character's alignment and code. If you can ban the class, by necessity you can get rid of the baggage without banning the class.

[themaque]

Just a point I thought worth discussing and that's Paladins dealing with the rest of the party. People hear "I wanna play a Paladin" and they get all "grooooan. Now I can't do XXXX or YYYY not that I was going to but now I CAN'T"

What is an example of being a paladin most everyone agrees to? Superman. He's lawful good and strives to do right in his actions. Who is his best friend? Vengeance, The Night, The mother #$%#$ BATMAN.

Superman KNOWS that Batman is a dirty lowdown sneak. He scares people. He hurts people. He's dangerous and NOT a nice man. But there is a TRUST that he won't go over the line. That He does the best he can with the tools he has. And while Batman treads a path that Superman wouldn't chose and wishes his friend didn't, most stories he doesn't try to STOP him either. They trust one another.

Why can't a simple Gaming group work like this as well? My Paladin doesn't like what Justin's rogue is doing, but I know he's not evil, so put my trust in him.

For every Dark Knight or Superman V Batman story out there there are hundreds of Justice League or Trinity, or Worlds Finest where two people on very different paths trust each other for the greater good.

Now if you have an entire group saying "We want to be criminal outlaws! Just no good dirty rotten scoundrels just to mix things up" and he still says "I wanna be a Paladin" he might just be a jerk. Context is key there.

[Red Fel]

Just a point I thought worth discussing and that's Paladins dealing with the rest of the party. People hear "I wanna play a Paladin" and they get all "grooooan. Now I can't do XXXX or YYYY not that I was going to but now I CAN'T"

What is an example of being a paladin most everyone agrees to? Superman. He's lawful good and strives to do right in his actions. Who is his best friend? Vengeance, The Night, The mother #$%#$ BATMAN.

Superman KNOWS that Batman is a dirty lowdown sneak. He scares people. He hurts people. He's dangerous and NOT a nice man. But there is a TRUST that he won't go over the line. That He does the best he can with the tools he has. And while Batman treads a path that Superman wouldn't chose and wishes his friend didn't, most stories he doesn't try to STOP him either. They trust one another.

I'm not sure this is the best example. When we set aside all of the "versus" scenarios, it's not just a case of trust. It's Superman's belief that Batman is the better man. Batman, unlike anybody else in the League, is more or less completely human. Borderline sociopathic, but human. As such, he is the most in touch with what it means to be powerless. While he does have an obnoxious messiah complex, he doesn't think himself so far above humanity that he gets to judge right from wrong. With one notable exception, the Batman does not kill; he has absolute principles that tend to separate him from the rest of the League, to the point where, with the very limited exception of Superman, Batman doesn't trust any of them.

Superman doesn't trust Batman despite the fact that Batman is sneaky. Superman trusts Batman because Batman will uphold his principles, even when the rest of the League forgets them. Superman trusts Batman to never lose track of what it means to be a hero. In some continuities, Superman entrusts Kryptonite to Batman, knowing that if Supes ever goes rogue - which has happened - he would trust the Bat to bring him down.

In that example, Superman is the rest of the party, and Batman is the Paladin.

That said, even if your example is poor, your point is solid - the Paladin shouldn't be the guy who says "no" to the party. He should trust them to do the right thing, and they should trust him not to have a stick up his backside. The problem is when the Paladin's Code forces him to either say "no" or to put on a blindfold. Again, the problem isn't the class itself, but an annoying class feature which in turn is frequently interpreted to an even more annoying degree.

[SimonMoon6]

Here are reasons why I think Paladins are a mistake and should not exist in D&D worlds:

(1) They are based on a Judeo-Christian concept that should not exist in a polytheistic setting.

(2) The guy who can fight really well while being dedicated to his deity's beliefs? That already exists. It's called a cleric. If you want to wear armor, use weapons, and cast spells, you're a cleric. You don't need to be a paladin. You want a horse? Buy one. You want to be better at fighting and not so good as casting spells? Be a multi-classed cleric/fighter.

But then I also sort of think clerics as "people who wear heavy armor, wield maces, and worship... pretty much any deity in any setting" seems a little silly when you move from Judeo-Christian concepts to polytheistic settings.

[Segev]

Historically, Paladins and Rangers date from an edition where there weren't a lot of multiclassing options. They were racially restricted. Paladin was the non-multiclass version of fighter/cleric. Ranger was the non-multiclass version of fighter/druid. Heck, Assassin was the non-multiclass version of fighter/thief! ("Thief" is what editions before 3e called the "rogue.")

[LTwerewolf]

Judeo-christian has very little to do with anything here. They're based on a very old concept of the twelve peers (which there were more than 12 in most stories) of men which were the paragons of chivalry dedicated to the lord of Breton March under Charlemagne. They were considered holy warriors, true enough, but that's not really the focus of the story as much as the chivalry parts were. While the two first parts of the chivalric code include the church, that's also not the focal point of the code either, else people would have the same baggage with the knight class and no one does.

The paladin mechanics are obviously completely borked, but that's an issue with pretty much everyone that's not a full caster when comparing them to full casters. Paladins have it better than most of those though, because they have a pretty decent op ceiling when you combine ACFs and a few feats like battle blessing. I remove the base class entire and use the prestige paladin, and changed the prereqs for it, splitting it into two entries where you must have all of one set of prereqs to enter it. The first is pretty close to the standard, but I raised the knowledge requirement for religion and removing the requirement for the ride skill. The second entry doesn't require the ability to cast spells at all, but requires induction. If entering without spellcasting, you get a level of cleric casting every time it gives +1 to casting. Ends you with everything a standard paladin gets, but with an added 4 levels of something else before that.

[Andezzar]

Paladins are even less tied to deities than clerics. They dedicate themselves to the principle of Goodness and Law. Some worship deities.

[LoyalPaladin]

Sigh. Another one of these.


Here's the problem, as I see it: It's called the Code of Conduct. Now, there are a lot of loopholes, and they have been discussed at length on this board, but basically, without the Code - or, at least, without it being vigorously enforced - the class becomes more playable, at least from an RP perspective. (It's still weak from a mechanics perspective, but that's another issue.)
I'll be the first to admit that the code is very limiting. I think it's something that you and your DM should sit down and discuss at the start of the game. My DM and I have come to an agreement where I adopt my deity's dogma as my code, which really only works if you worship a deity. But of course, this is an at home fix and doesn't help the "out of box" quality of the class.


Red Fel defending paladins before LoyalPaladin? What is GitP coming to?
There is actually a good reason for that. I strictly avoid threads that start with an OP who clearly detests this class. Someone with the name "LoyalPaladin" has an opinion that is less valuable in the eyes of the OP, in my experience. Int might be my dump stat, but Wis is my casting stat, so I'm wise enough to pick and choose my battles.



Buuuut, I dropped in anyways because enough people mentioned me.


My experience has been that the other players [I]want the DM to enforce more of the code. Because they hate the player of the paladin for choosing a class that actively kills their typical neutral alignment joy.
I'm dividing this post into three parts. This is a very negative perspective. There is not a single thing that will convince me that one player's enjoyment of a game is more important than another's. Regardless of class. Players who actively try to make another player miserable having some growing up to do. Which would include any paladins who play a paladin just to spite his party.


And it's always brought up at the last minute, after most of the players have decided on concepts, one dude is like, I'm going to be...a paladin. Which is fine, whatever, but now the DM has to wedge your 9th paladin in a row into this campaign that was specifically supposed be about outlaws.
I have two points to make here. 1) As a DM, it is my job to make sure my campaign accommodates my players, including the guy who historically only plays paladins. 2)As a player, it is your job to gauge the upcoming campaign and not play a character that causes a conflict from the get go.

I would argue, as a DM, that the first point is more important. But that is just my personal opinion.


What is it about paladin players that makes them so flippin loyal to that terrible class?
I'm going to answer this as if it were a question directed towards me.

I thoroughly enjoy this class. I enjoy upholding my code, playing a very diverse selection of paladins, and in general being held to a higher standard of my alignment. Maybe you've encountered some very abrasive paladins, maybe they're all lawful stupid, maybe you just hate the concept in general, or maybe you feel like they limit your ability to goof off and be silly about situations that would be very dire if you were actually in your character's shoes. All of those are valid points, but it doesn't invalidate the class. Sure, a cleric is tier 1 and miles better. But that is sort of the point of a paladin. You don't get an exorbitant amount of spells to cast, giving you the perfect out for any situation. By fluff, you were called to walk a difficult path. You were given just enough to struggle through your journey to bring light into the darkest places, because that is where your light shines brightest.

So why do I play it? Because I enjoy it. At the end of the day, D&D is just a game, and having fun is all the matters.


Judeo-christian has very little to do with anything here. They're based on a very old concept of the twelve peers (which there were more than 12 in most stories) of men which were the paragons of chivalry dedicated to the lord of Breton March under Charlemagne. They were considered holy warriors, true enough, but that's not really the focus of the story as much as the chivalry parts were. While the two first parts of the chivalric code include the church, that's also not the focal point of the code either, else people would have the same baggage with the knight class and no one does.
You get +1 lore point, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood paladin.

[digiman619]

You get +1 lore point, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood paladin.

Great. Now I can't get the image of Spider-Man in armor on a horse out of my head.

Seriously, thank you guys for a) listen to me bitch about my grievances for people who use the class as an excuse to be sanctimonious, and b) showing me ways to make the class concept work. LoyalPaladin's idea that a paladin can use their god's creed as their code is genius.

As a side note, I have one last thing to say about playing paladins: While playing it as a sanctimonious Lawful Stupid fool is bad, there's a flip side: Don't play your paladin as perfect paragons of virtue. Don't be selfless and altruistic at every turn, as it rings false. While people who really ARE that good and giving, they still have hopes and desires for themselves. They have things they love that have noting to do with their beliefs. DON'T play them as perfect beings, play them as people. People who truly BELIEVE in their creed, and that helping people and fighting back the darkness is a worthy goal. People who make mistakes, who have regrets. People who can fail. Because is they DO make mistakes, DO fail, it makes them getting up again and sticking to their creed all the greater.

[LoyalPaladin]

Great. Now I can't get the image of Spider-Man in armor on a horse out of my head.
You're welcome.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/djf--raq0dM/hqdefault.jpg


Seriously, thank you guys for a) listen to me bitch about my grievances for people who use the class as an excuse to be sanctimonious, and b) showing me ways to make the class concept work. LoyalPaladin's idea that a paladin can use their god's creed as their code is genius.
Any day. Always glad to offer assistance to people who need it.

It's an unpopular decision, but the table I play at prefers paladins to be devoted to a deity (this allows for diversity among paladins, since all deities are worlds apart) and for the crusader to assume the "warrior devoted to a cause". Knight also fulfills that role, but not as well.


As a side note, I have one last thing to say about playing paladins: While playing it as a sanctimonious Lawful Stupid fool is bad, there's a flip side: Don't play your paladin as perfect paragons of virtue. Don't be selfless and altruistic at every turn, as it rings false. While people who really ARE that good and giving, they still have hopes and desires for themselves. They have things they love that have noting to do with their beliefs. DON'T play them as perfect beings, play them as people. People who truly BELIEVE in their creed, and that helping people and fighting back the darkness is a worthy goal. People who make mistakes, who have regrets. People who can fail. Because is they DO make mistakes, DO fail, it makes them getting up again and sticking to their creed all the greater.
It sounds like you would like the Powder Keg of Justice (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice).

I think that a paladin doing their best to be altruistic and selfless is what makes the class great. No one is perfect. Not even a paladin. :smallsmile:

[Segev]

The last paladin I played initially was an insecure liar. He'd stumbled into the Planes from an unspecified world and proceeded to claim to be a prince in his homeland, for reasons which were never quite clear (except, perhaps, to avoid having to discuss his home with strangers). He was actually a very CONVINCING liar.

He was also genuinely kind, if in over his head with this whole "there are other Planes and they're filled with monsters" thing. He was starting to exhibit bravery by the time he obtained immunity to fear. This immunity bothered him, as he recognized it was...not normal. But he was grateful for it, because it let him analyze risks clearly.

Then the party stumbled onto a world that seemed to be created by a glitch in reality...and he was stunned to meet a family he only just now suddenly remembered, and that he was the crown prince of a kingdom in this world. His lie...had somehow ceased to be a lie. And he remembered both lives.

Nevertheless, he strove to be a good friend and ally, and a good person to his people. He wanted to secure his retroactive homeland's future as it opened up to the Planes, and was perhaps a little over-eager to take in refugees from places the party rescued from evil beings.

He was, in general, a lot of fun. :smallsmile:

[LoyalPaladin]

He was, in general, a lot of fun. :smallsmile:
That sounds fun! Another well developed character to pin to the paladin board.

[nedz]

It's an unpopular decision, but the table I play at prefers paladins to be devoted to a deity (this allows for diversity among paladins, since all deities are worlds apart) and for the crusader to assume the "warrior devoted to a cause". Knight also fulfills that role, but not as well.

Hmm, well I have done that before. But you can do this anyway just by building your character out of other classes than Paladin.

[LoyalPaladin]

Hmm, well I have done that before. But you can do this anyway just by building your character out of other classes than Paladin.
I didn't mean that other classes couldn't do that. I meant that that's how we view those classes in particular.

[nedz]

I didn't mean that other classes couldn't do that. I meant that that's how we view those classes in particular.

Sure - that's how we used to view them back in the days of 2E. But there are so many Templar type PrCs in 3.5 that you really don't need to now. There is no reason why you couldn't then create a suitable code for your character, appropriate to the deity, and then just role-play to that. Falling shouldn't be an issue really - if you role-play the character properly.

[LoyalPaladin]

Sure - that's how we used to view them back in the days of 2E. But there are so many Templar type PrCs in 3.5 that you really don't need to now. There is no reason why you couldn't then create a suitable code for your character, appropriate to the deity, and then just role-play to that. Falling shouldn't be an issue really - if you role-play the character properly.
I see what you're saying. I'm the only paladin guy at the table really, so we very rarely see other "holy warrior" archetypes. We've seen it before! (See the Solamnic Knights.) But for the most part, at our table, it hasn't had to be addressed outside the paladin haha.

Totally for anyone wanting to be a holy knight with me. :smallwink:

[themaque]

Our table also interprets the Paladin Code a shaded by the god in question. The Paladin of Sarenrae is a lot more open and forgiving than the Paladin of Iomedae. We found Pathfinder did that as well in their books going more deeply into different religions often tweaking the code.

[LoyalPaladin]

Our table also interprets the Paladin Code a shaded by the god in question. The Paladin of Sarenrae is a lot more open and forgiving than the Paladin of Iomedae. We found Pathfinder did that as well in their books going more deeply into different religions often tweaking the code.
One day I'll play a Paladin of Freedom/Heartwarder. One day...

[rahimka]

Paladins are not that common in my gaming groups. But two of the favorites I've ever seen were total subversions of the stereotypical idea of what they "have" to be like.

The first was my own character, Oran Morholt. He was actually mostly a Bardic Archer with a 2 level dip in Paladin for flavor and mechanics (HELLOOOO Divine Grace and Smite Evil). He was my first Lawful character when I started playing a few years ago, and I kind of meta-gamed his RP as somebody inclined towards Chaotic Good (he wants adventure, glory, and freedom), but choosing to be LAWFUL (living by a code of honor, always keeping his word, and considering his responsibilities to others) because he aspires to the examples set by the legendary heroes spoken of in bardic lore. I had a lot of fun writing out his backstory (having come of age during Andoran's revolution for democracy) and figuring out who this guy was once I had that basic concept. He was introduced mid-campaign, but his whole "lead by example" approach to LG actually WORKED and the party eventually started turning to him as the leader-by-default (it helped that he was the party Face too).

The other one is my friend's current character, played as a very "Good is Not Nice" dark-avenger/total-a$$hole. He's rude and insulting to the point where the rest of the party has to constantly apologize for his behavior or insist he let others do the talking when we need to play nice with an NPC. He's not the judgmental Miko-esque stick-up-his-butt type, he just sharp-tongued and impossible to please, always looking for something to criticize or complain about (the inn's food, his ally's body odor, his enemy's skill with a blade, etc). Its a lot of fun to watch the actually-very-friendly-and-nice player get into character, and he's been really enjoying the RP challenge of keeping this guy's cynical outlook working with the Paladin Code and alignment. He'll stealth around (so he can better discover what evil-doers are up to and then punish them) and obfuscate the truth if necessary (without directly lying), but rather than coming off as the player trying to get around the Code, its RPed as the character himself deciding to push the limits of acceptable conduct regardless of how others think he should behave.

In both these cases, we took our time to really think out and define for ourselves (and spell out for the other players at the table) what the Code meant to the character. I think that first part is really essentially to playing a Paladin well (while the second helps avert the bad PR others associate with the class)

[SimonMoon6]

Historically, Paladins and Rangers date from an edition where there weren't a lot of multiclassing options. They were racially restricted. Paladin was the non-multiclass version of fighter/cleric. Ranger was the non-multiclass version of fighter/druid. Heck, Assassin was the non-multiclass version of fighter/thief! ("Thief" is what editions before 3e called the "rogue.")

Yeah, I was there for all of that. I even remember the craziness of being a bard (you have to switch classes three times before figuring out what you really are... fighter and druid and thief (maybe not in that order, I don't remember).

But the point is, there is absolutely no need for Paladin as a class these days. And, as you point out, there's not really a need for a ranger class either. ("But... but... that half-elf (not really) guy from LotR!" Yeah, whatever.)

[Segev]

Yeah, I was there for all of that. I even remember the craziness of being a bard (you have to switch classes three times before figuring out what you really are... fighter and druid and thief (maybe not in that order, I don't remember).

But the point is, there is absolutely no need for Paladin as a class these days. And, as you point out, there's not really a need for a ranger class either. ("But... but... that half-elf (not really) guy from LotR!" Yeah, whatever.)

Ah, yes, 1e AD&D Bard...the original PrC.

[LTwerewolf]

1st edition bards were OP AF though.

[Aleolus]

LP, its good you showed up when you did. Red was doing such a good job defending Paladins he was in danger of an alignment shift! :biggrin:

[LoyalPaladin]

LP, its good you showed up when you did. Red was doing such a good job defending Paladins he was in danger of an alignment shift! :biggrin:
:smallconfused: *uses detect evil* It's going to take a lot more than some paladin defense to shift that alignment...

[LTwerewolf]

Someone cast cure blindness on LP, that aura must have been so very overwhelmingly bright.

[Aleolus]

Someone cast cure blindness on LP, that aura must have been so very overwhelmingly bright.

It should be alright, I don't think Red is 5 or more levels higher than LP, so the aura should be manageable for him

[LoyalPaladin]

It should be alright, I don't think Red is 5 or more levels higher than LP, so the aura should be manageable for him
Red and I sit on the opposite sides of the scales that balance the universe. If either of us became unbalanced, you would all die. Though we oppose each other, we are forced to work together and occasionally drink some tea.

[LTwerewolf]

But we've got akuma at the CE and no CG.

[Red Fel]

LP, its good you showed up when you did. Red was doing such a good job defending Paladins he was in danger of an alignment shift! :biggrin:

You watch your dirty-


:smallconfused: *uses detect evil* It's going to take a lot more than some paladin defense to shift that alignment...

Ah. Yes. Quite right.


Red and I sit on the opposite sides of the scales that balance the universe. If either of us became unbalanced, you would all die. Though we oppose each other, we are forced to work together and occasionally drink some tea.

True enough. Care for a sandwich?


But we've got akuma at the CE and no CG.

... right. No CG. Never had any, in fact.

*wipes mouth with napkin*

Another sandwich, anyone?

[LoyalPaladin]

True enough. Care for a sandwich?
Don't mind if I do!

[Segev]

Red and I sit on the opposite sides of the scales that balance the universe. If either of us became unbalanced, you would all die. Though we oppose each other, we are forced to work together and occasionally drink some tea.

Nonsense. You're both Lawful.

Though this discussion does remind me of the CG and CE dragon siblings I made in the past for Bahamut and Tiamat, just to fill out the corners.

[LoyalPaladin]

Nonsense. You're both Lawful.
You're right. That's exactly why it works. You see, while all the chaotic folk are running about, we make sure the scale stays balanced. You try keeping all the little chaotic psychopaths on their respective end of a scale, this is hard work and chaos doesn't have the attention span to do it.

[ComaVision]

You're right. That's exactly why it works. You see, while all the chaotic folk are running about, we make sure the scale stays balanced. You try keeping all the little chaotic psychopaths on their respective end of a scale, this is hard work and chaos doesn't have the attention span to do it.

You guys are too focused on stuff that doesn't matter. LN is where it's at.

[Segev]

You're right. That's exactly why it works. You see, while all the chaotic folk are running about, we make sure the scale stays balanced. You try keeping all the little chaotic psychopaths on their respective end of a scale, this is hard work and chaos doesn't have the attention span to do it.

Nah, the chaotic ones still congregate over there. It's their nature. Just like you don't have to give a top-down instruction to water to make it flow to the lowest point. Each molecule will do its best on its own to get there.

[Aleolus]

You're right. That's exactly why it works. You see, while all the chaotic folk are running about, we make sure the scale stays balanced. You try keeping all the little chaotic psychopaths on their respective end of a scale, this is hard work and chaos doesn't have the attention span to do it.

Hey! Not all of us are psychopathic, and I'll have you know I have a very good Hey! Shiney!

[Elderand]

You're right. That's exactly why it works. You see, while all the chaotic folk are running about, we make sure the scale stays balanced. You try keeping all the little chaotic psychopaths on their respective end of a scale, this is hard work and chaos doesn't have the attention span to do it.

Now, not all of us chaotic people are acting like magpies on amphetamin high I'll have you know. Some of us deal with chaos as force of change and/or studying things man was not meant to know. The cylopean abyss of unbridled potential peering at you from a green acid sky with a damnably cephalopoïdan eye. Softly squirming tentacles playing the music of the outer sphere with gently arythmic swaying that induces madness and terrifying suggestion of empty vistas of consciousness. The softly shredding atters of your soul used as scouring instrument of the metaphysical excretion of freakish perpexlity.

I mean, really, the world need scholars of square root of fish.

[Segev]

See, I was all ready to defend the chaotic end of the spectrum, and then they have to go and get pretentious about it.

I'll stay at my nice, pragmatic Neutral Evil.

[Coidzor]

Say, is anyone reminded of that meme floating around attributing the quote "Anime was a mistake" to Miyazaki?

Now the real question is if it'd be Charlemagne, Roland, or, like, Gygax or Arneson saying the equivalent for Pallys.


Hey! Not all of us are psychopathic, and I'll have you know I have a very good Hey! Shiney!

Giant Frog?


Nonsense. You're both Lawful.

Though this discussion does remind me of the CG and CE dragon siblings I made in the past for Bahamut and Tiamat, just to fill out the corners.

The real question is if you made them kiss.

[Extra Anchovies]

http://i.imgur.com/ulBnSi7.jpg

ETA: Settled on Gygax because he was one of the writers of the original Greyhawk supplement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyhawk_(supplement)), which introduced the Paladin as a D&D character class.

As an aside, Supplement I: Greyhawk had some pretty rad cover art. Get a load of that beholder:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nsveHvHy1F4/Tz_Ue5sg03I/AAAAAAAAAN4/lIeun6hEiOY/s1600/Blog+Greyhawk+Supplement+I.jpg

[Metahuman1]

One day I'll play a Paladin of Freedom/Heartwarder. One day...

I have so much love for Paladin of Freedom. Seriously, that was one of the few things Pathfinder missed and really needed for it's Paladin update. If it had gotten that I might have gone Hardcore Paladin Fanboy in that edition.

[Coidzor]

Extra Anchovies:Thank you.

That is one sullen looking Beholder, though. Must have had his nap interrupted to drag him to get illustrated.