PDA

View Full Version : Paladins, How to fix/are fixes needed



eru001
2016-04-25, 11:01 AM
So a common problem in gaming is that of the paladin.

In theory, a paladin is supposed to be a stalwart defender of law and good, and has some degree of responsibility to keep the party's less morally reputable members in check (lest by associating with an evil party the paladin fall and lose all their powers).

In practice, paladins are often the annoying goody two shoes character, and have a tendency towards forcing the rest of the party into very narrow plots and limiting a lot of freedoms for the other players.

Some of the blame for this falls on poor playing
Some of it on poor DMing.

How can this be fixed? Are there alterations that could be made to the class to better encourage players to act like Ochul (who is an example that I'm reasonably certain, for some reason, everyone on this forum is familiar with, and is what I believe a paladin should be.) and discourage the much less fun for everybody Miko-esque (a similarly familiar bad example) behavior?

Xuc Xac
2016-04-25, 11:30 AM
Some of the blame for this falls on poor playing
Some of it on poor DMing.


In general, you can't fix those with rules. A few changes to the class might help good players and GMs avoid slipping, though. Too many seem to take it as a challenge to make the paladin fall. If the rest of the party accepts a paladin at all, then they should want him in the party and not just tolerate him.

I would get rid of the "can't associate with evil characters" rule and make it more explicitly "can't do evil just because your friends are doing evil". How are you supposed to redeem anyone if you don't spend any time around them and show them a better way? And give that shining example a mechanical effect.

Maybe an aura of justice and guilt that automatically buffs anyone near the paladin who tries to follow the example of good behaviour but the bonus turns into a penalty if you commit an evil act. Instead of the other PCs just using the paladin for his "lay on hands" healing and then making him look like an idiot by distracting him every time they want to lie, steal, or torture somebody, they'll actually try to be better people and feel bad about it when they slip up (morale bonus and penalty). If they do something bad, don't blame the paladin for it and take away his powers. The other PCs should have a reason to want the paladin around other than "he's another PC so we have to have him in the party because Larry wants to play another stupid paladin".

OldTrees1
2016-04-25, 11:59 AM
How can this be fixed? Are there alterations that could be made to the class to better encourage players to act like Ochul (who is an example that I'm reasonably certain, for some reason, everyone on this forum is familiar with, and is what I believe a paladin should be.) and discourage the much less fun for everybody Miko-esque (a similarly familiar bad example) behavior?

Scrap the code of conduct. Most codes are poor fits for any particular paladin character and several(3rd D&D for example) dictate the disruptive behavior you want to avoid via fear of falling.

Now rebuild the code. Have the player work with you to describe the ideals that their character is going to be striving to personally be a moral exemplar of.

For mechanics, you will neither punish nor reward the paladin for their allies moral failures/successes. Merely playing someone striving for moral excellence will cause enough opportunity for RP. You don't need or want to incentivize policing the other players. On the other hand you do want to reward the paladin for their own moral successes/progress.

Finally you will want a falling mechanic, however discuss with the player to find what makes the most sense to the both of you. Personally I see 2 kinds of falls: the fall where the paladin embraces their code to a fault and the fall where the paladin drifts from their code. In both cases I have the paladin keep their powers but have society and their alignment react accordingly. Essentially their power source is being corrupted, I would adjust the class benefits to match the kind of corruption (focus on the part they are taking to a fault / change to include the shift in focus).*

So now you have a class that does not dictate the player impose on the other player's agency and it removes the distraction of "falling" by making it so that it is not a crippling unexpected punishment. With the mechanical causes gone, then just work on the Player and DM.

*2 examples:
There were 2 brothers that grew up in a frontier village that suffered terribly from the occasional raiding of the orcs nearby. Both brothers swore they would protect the innocent village (reasons for codes are usually more complex but this is an example). Both brothers fought bravely and defended the village for many years. However as time went on the elder brother's mind focused more and more on the cruelty the orcs would inflict. He would sally forth to try to hurt the orcs long before they could raid. Eventually he focused on the slaughter of the evil orcs. The younger brother stayed in the city and came to know the villages better. As time went on he noticed the villagers were not as innocent and pure as he first thought. He started to prioritize the village defense based upon his judgement of the virtue of the villagers in that area. Eventually he was investigating and testing the villagers to measure their virtue. Both of these are falling paladins. As time went on I would have the elder paladin lose some abilities to make room for more Orc slaying focused abilities while the younger paladin would lose some of those combat abilities in exchange from some inquisition abilities. This would represent the shift in the power source whether it be a different deity or a change in ideals followed.

Red Fel
2016-04-25, 12:03 PM
Some of the blame for this falls on poor playing
Some of it on poor DMing.


In general, you can't fix those with rules.

Start with this. You're asking for a mechanical incentive in response to either an RPing failure or a DMing failure, and that just doesn't fly.


How can this be fixed? Are there alterations that could be made to the class to better encourage players to act like Ochul (who is an example that I'm reasonably certain, for some reason, everyone on this forum is familiar with, and is what I believe a paladin should be.) and discourage the much less fun for everybody Miko-esque (a similarly familiar bad example) behavior?

Here's the problem. You're suggesting that part of the blame falls on poor DMing - that is, a DM having a poor grasp of what a Paladin is or should be. You're then offering as a solution replacing that DM's definition of a Paladin with yours, namely O-Chul. While I think O-Chul is a great model, replacing one arbitrary definition with another really doesn't address the problem, which coincidentally is arbitrary definitions of Paladin.

Yeah. The problem is the term. It's loaded, and generally with bad baggage. Here are several problems with it.
Bad Paladin Players. They see the term as synonymous with "self-righteous" or "stick up the ****." They are overbearing and bossy at the best of times, and actively antagonistic at worst. They make everyone hate to be in a party with a Paladin.
Bad non-Paladin Players. They see the term as "nanny cop." The Paladin exists to end everyone's fun and force them to comply with one character's moral code. It's annoying that the entire party needs to be constrained by a single character's alignment.
Bad DMs. They see the term as "challenge." Specifically, the challenge is to make the Paladin fall. The Paladin is placed in situations where he either has to violate his code of conduct, and thus risk losing class features, or become an annoyance and obstacle for everyone else.
So how do you deal with these?
Bad Paladin Players: Talk to them. A Paladin is a shining beacon of justice, a hero, not a nuisance. A sword that smites Evil is also a shield that protects compassion and goodness. Tolerance can be a thing.
Bad non-Paladin Players: Talk to them. A Paladin is an asset to your party, not a liability. Not every Paladin is an obnoxious jerk you want to punch in his perfect teeth. Show them a Paladin who can be a team player, instead of a team nanny. #NotAllPaladins
Bad DMs: Talk to them. Singling out a class for abuse is just harsh. Yeah, the Paladin's sense of morality should mean something, but not to the extent that every encounter must be designed to punish him. If the rest of the party is willing to have a Paladin along, the DM shouldn't penalize them through him.
Notice a pattern? The big issues with Paladins can be addressed by talking to people, not by changing or adding rules.

That said, there is one thing that can and ought to be fixed - the Paladin's Code of Conduct. This varies between different systems, but at least in D&D, it generally acts as a substantial straitjacket that seems to contradict the Paladin's intended purpose. Allow Paladins to interact with low-level Evil without penalizing them. Get rid of auto-fall scenarios. Allow a Paladin to attempt redemption of his less-than-LG companions, rather than his smite-or-abandon options. Make the Code both more flexible and more personal, as others have suggested. Other classes have few or no RP requirements for the class; mechanical ones are sufficient. The Paladin is one of very few that has an RP requirement coded in; lose or loosen it.

The rest? Just talk to people.

JAL_1138
2016-04-25, 12:37 PM
So a common problem in gaming is that of the paladin.

In theory, a paladin is supposed to be a stalwart defender of law and good, and has some degree of responsibility to keep the party's less morally reputable members in check (lest by associating with an evil party the paladin fall and lose all their powers).

In practice, paladins are often the annoying goody two shoes character, and have a tendency towards forcing the rest of the party into very narrow plots and limiting a lot of freedoms for the other players.

Some of the blame for this falls on poor playing
Some of it on poor DMing.

How can this be fixed? Are there alterations that could be made to the class to better encourage players to act like Ochul (who is an example that I'm reasonably certain, for some reason, everyone on this forum is familiar with, and is what I believe a paladin should be.) and discourage the much less fun for everybody Miko-esque (a similarly familiar bad example) behavior?

Well, there's the 5e paladin, which comes in three variants, only one of which is "Paladin Classic," and even then isn't so strict about the code--a paladin violating one of the tenets of their oath unintentionally doesn't lose their powers, and it takes breaking the oath intentionally and showing no sign of repentance to end up in the Oathbreaker subclass (which is a solid subclass, if you want to go evil).

The 5e variants of the code of conduct are:

Oath of Devotion: Paladin classic. Knight in shining armor and all that jazz. The tenets of this oath are Honesty, Courage, Compassion, Honor, and Duty. Don't lie or cheat; don't be afraid to act (although, as the PHB says, caution is prudent and not the same as cowardice); aid others, protect the weak, and show mercy to foes (but, the PHB says, be smart about it); treat others fairly and do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm; and be responsible for your actions and consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey the orders of those who have just authority over you (unjust authority need not be obeyed).

Oath of the Ancients: These are paladins of life and culture, not ideals of truth and justice. The "green knights." Focuses on Good above Law or Chaos. The tenets of this oath are Kindle the Light, Shelter the Light, Preserve Your Own Light, and Be the Light. Through acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle hope and drive back despair; preserve places where life flourishes against forces that would render them barren, and preserve beauty, love, and laughter against forces of tyranny or cruelty; live and revel in art, beauty, joy, and laughter yourself, in order that you might preserve them in the world; and live as an example or inspiration for others.

Oath of Vengeance: You have a very special set of skills, and you're going to use them to hurt people who have it coming. That's it. None of that goody-two-shoes or happy dancing flower-child crap. Your job is to bring Justice (which is what you named your greatsword) down upon your enemies. The tenets of this oath are Fight the Greater Evil, No Mercy for the Wicked, By Any Means Necessary, and Restitution. When facing a choice between fighting your sworn enemies or a lesser evil, fight your sworn enemies (and there may be times your sworn enemies are the lesser evil); ordinary foes may or may not receive mercy, but your sworn foes never will; do not allow personal qualms to get in the way of killing your sworn enemies; and help those your enemies have harmed.

EDIT: Thus far, in the various 5e groups I've been a player in for home games or Adventurers' League, the reaction to someone saying "I'm playing a Paladin" has been positive every time--a well-armored frontliner who can heal people, buff allies / debuff enemies, and do fantastic damage. Nobody's been worried much about the Oath (other than which oath, since they go with mechanically-different subclasses), or the paladin trying to force everyone else to adhere to it.

goto124
2016-04-26, 01:33 AM
the reaction to someone saying "I'm playing a Paladin" has been positive every time--a well-armored frontliner who can heal people, buff allies / debuff enemies, and do fantastic damage. Nobody's been worried much about the Oath (other than which oath, since they go with mechanically-different subclasses), or the paladin trying to force everyone else to adhere to it.

Suppose someone comes in and says "but that defeats the point of a Paladin! A Paladin isn't about the smites or buffs, but adherence to a holy code despite all the difficulties and temptations to stray away from it!"

"Talk to the X" isn't good enough on its own. Talk about what? Exactly what issues are to be addressed? What we want now, are guidelines (not mechanical rules) on how to RP a Paladin that fits the above paragraph, and still have players happily coming back to RP with said Paladin.

Come to think of it, in such a case, some amount of "Paladin stops party from doing action" might even be necessary. If the point of the Paladin is to see how the Paladin and other part members resolve their differences, friction would have to be there.

That leads to one thing: that the entire group (all the players and GM, OOCly) have agreed to not only play out such IC friction, but also keep that friction IC. It'll also take a tightly-bonded group of friends who understand one another well. It's not for everyone.

Vitruviansquid
2016-04-26, 01:53 AM
1. The DM/Playing problem is that most people consider it the end of the world if a paladin falls. But the mechanic of falling exists as a way to help create story arcs about paladins. Rather than being totally averse to the fall (Players absolutely refusing anything remotely fall-worthy, and making the game stupid with moral and metaphysical debates/ DM's allowing players to get away with murder and not fall due to said moral and metaphysical debates) people should embrace the fact that living up to the paladin code is hard, and sometimes the story is more compelling when you fall. Hell, have the paladin fall and then be redeemed, if you want.

Consider Cu Chulainn. Dude's "code" was that he couldn't eat dog meat. And then he eats dog meat due to some machinations, and he dies because of its resulting "fall." But the point of the story isn't that Cu Chulainn was some kind of idiot for having eaten the dog meat, the point of the story is that he had a situation where he must break the taboo. The point of the story is about the irresistible nature of fate, the elusiveness of invulnerability, the way great men can be laid low. There are some great stories that could be told through a paladin's fall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cú_Chulainn

2. If it would be acceptable to fall, then Falling should not make the game mechanically unfun. For that to work... well, you'd want to be playing your paladin in a system other than DnD 3.5 or Pathfinder, I suppose.

Mastikator
2016-04-26, 02:18 AM
The problem isn't the paladin, the problem is that there is one player who wants to play a paladin and another who wants to play something that is antagonistic to the paladin and they're not willing to compromise.
It would be like having a wizard on the team while also having a barbarian who's hobby it is to destroy all magic objects and burn books. It's just not gonna work out.

What needs to happen is the players need to make their characters together and collaborate to make sure there won't be any natural enemies.

Satinavian
2016-04-26, 03:44 AM
In theory, a paladin is supposed to be a stalwart defender of law and good, and has some degree of responsibility to keep the party's less morally reputable members in check (lest by associating with an evil party the paladin fall and lose all their powers).The idea that the paladin is somehow responsible for keeping other party members in check, is the main problem.

A paladin character doesn't have any authority over the rest of the party. He is not the default leader. He can make suggestions like veryone else and not partake in some actions like everyone else, but that's it. Everything else is not possible for a party of equal adventurers, who, through distincly different abilities and wordviews cancel out each others weaknesses. The idea that the paladin should somehow "police" the party goes against the core assumption what a party actually is.
Yes, somewhere in the early editions you can find the assumption that a party has a leader/speaker and then secondary party members. But that got abandoned for good reasons.



The only mechanical change that is necessary for 3.x-paladins is getting rid of the "associate with evil"-clause which makes certain party compositions literally impossible rulewise and is dumb anyway. 5 doesn' have this clause. The rest is change of expectations.




Maybe an aura of justice and guilt that automatically buffs anyone near the paladin who tries to follow the example of good behaviour but the bonus turns into a penalty if you commit an evil act. Instead of the other PCs just using the paladin for his "lay on hands" healing and then making him look like an idiot by distracting him every time they want to lie, steal, or torture somebody, they'll actually try to be better people and feel bad about it when they slip up (morale bonus and penalty). If they do something bad, don't blame the paladin for it and take away his powers. The other PCs should have a reason to want the paladin around other than "he's another PC so we have to have him in the party because Larry wants to play another stupid paladin". Bad idea.

That is a mechanical incentive for every other character in the group to abandon his own moral code and his own motivations and follow the paladins instead. So other players now have to decide to either playing their characters according true to their concepts and how they envisioned them or to get mechanical benefits that helps the party to achieve their goals.

I can't really think of a scenario where this kind of rule is actually helpful. Outside of theme parties where every characters shares the same moral code anyway.

veti
2016-04-26, 05:04 AM
If I could work my will, I'd make two purely-mechanical changes to the D&D paladin class. (Well, three, because the Code of Conduct is beyond stupid and needs to be trampled by a stampede of giant slugs, but that's already been covered upthread. Here are two more suggestions.)

One: paladin should not be a base class. It's a prestige class, available by invitation only to people who, in the eyes of some competent authority, have proved themselves worthy to take it. This means that the PC has to go through an extended "audition" before they get the funky powers, immunities and whatnot. It would dramatically improve the chances that the PC and DM are on the same page as to how the paladin is supposed to behave.

Two: a paladin's defining characteristic is not "goodness", or "lawful goodness" or any such subjective trickery. It's "loyalty". A paladin's powers derive from the implicit trust of their patron - that they will, at all times and in all circumstances, no matter what the cost, put their patron's interests first. This clarifies the "lawful" part of their alignment: it's nothing to do with "laws", it's about being utterly consistent and trustworthy. "Falling" means breaking that trust.

JAL_1138
2016-04-26, 06:49 AM
Suppose someone comes in and says "but that defeats the point of a Paladin! A Paladin isn't about the smites or buffs, but adherence to a holy code despite all the difficulties and temptations to stray away from it!"

"Talk to the X" isn't good enough on its own. Talk about what? Exactly what issues are to be addressed? What we want now, are guidelines (not mechanical rules) on how to RP a Paladin that fits the above paragraph, and still have players happily coming back to RP with said Paladin.

Come to think of it, in such a case, some amount of "Paladin stops party from doing action" might even be necessary. If the point of the Paladin is to see how the Paladin and other part members resolve their differences, friction would have to be there.

That leads to one thing: that the entire group (all the players and GM, OOCly) have agreed to not only play out such IC friction, but also keep that friction IC. It'll also take a tightly-bonded group of friends who understand one another well. It's not for everyone.

I wasn't clear on this point, which is my error--what I meant was, the Oaths in the games I've been in have been working as RP guidelines that shape character behavior (and provide some potential for drama, as situations arise where that code is tested or straying from it is tempting), but don't make other people groan and worry about the stereotypical "lawful good jerk" forcing the party to behave.
So instead of "Ah, crud, we've got to put up with the Code of Conduct" we go "Ah, a [knight-in-shining-armor / Green Knight / The Punisher] type...who can do X, Y, and Z awesome things for the party." The negative connotations are largely gone. By "nobody's been worried about the Oath," I mean that nobody's been worried about the Oath negatively impacting the game due to the Paladin being encouraged to be a Miko type, not that it's irrelevant as an RP issue.

Probably the biggest help has been losing the "don't associate with certain people" thing, and making it more clear that it should take a more than just one screwup or one no-win scenario of choosing the lesser of two evils to make a Paladin fall. Paladin players aren't constantly paranoid that one slip will make them drop into being a crappy version of a Fighter permanently or until they do some annoying penance or other, and so they aren't as prone to try and make the party act a certain way to preserve their class features.

So, that seems to fit some of the criteria for how to encourage RP, and keep aspects of the "code of behavior" for story and drama, without the strong tendency toward making them a PitA to have in the party.

goto124
2016-04-26, 06:54 AM
You speak of different groups' reactions. This implies a game convention style where strangers play with other strangers on a regular basis.

When RPing with strangers who don't know you well, I can see why loosening up on the RP restrictions can help a lot.

Morty
2016-04-26, 06:55 AM
The root of the problem is that playing a character with a strong, defining conviction and adherence to a code isn't easy. Not everyone can handle it without becoming overbearing and infringing on others' role-playing. The paladin's code isn't much different from any other, here. Maybe even easier than most, really.

The problem was then exacerbated, however, when someone got the terrific idea to write an entire class around a single philosophy, and enshrine its code of conduct in the rules - making it overly specific in some places, while being vague in others. And then it tied the party's behaviour to it as well. Some situations were explicitly referred to as causing the paladin to lose all their powers, thus encouraging the "does the paladin fall from grace from that?" song and dance we all know and "love". The result is that we have an entire core class that brings role-playing considerations no other does.

I think there would be a lot less of a fuss if "Paladin", as in the specific kind of Lawful Good holy warrior with a strict code of conduct, wasn't a class, but a class-agnostic oath anyone whose morality aligns with it can take. That option would come with a caveat that it won't fit into every group - just like any such rigid philosophy.

digiman619
2016-04-26, 07:15 AM
Part of this isn't the Paladin's fault; part of it is the LG alignment itself. There's a faulty playstyle assumption that your LG fighter is by definition more moral, virtuous, and all around 'good' than my CG Barbarian, while the truth of the matter is that, while he certainly can be, it by definition only means he's more lawful.

Vinyadan
2016-04-26, 09:09 AM
Personally, I always saw the 3.5 paladin as something of an outsider from the other divine classes. I don't think it really belongs to the D&D cosmology. The fact that it is an Arthurian (or maybe I should say, Carolingian) knight always gave me the feeling that it had a much different flavour from a cleric of SomeSuch. Of course, this may be just a personal opinion, or the fact that I forgot the part in which it is described that paladins get powers from a certain deity, which I really do not remember, in spite of having divine this and divine that.

I agree on the fact that it would be better if it weren't a class. Personally, I'd like a game in which you have some standard classes on which you can slap some sort of "secondary class" implement, which you can change during the game and is setting-bound. So you have a fighter who wants to protect the weak and so on. He swears and the Powers Of Good bestow upon him a benediction which gives him the Paladin traits, whatever they are. You have a fighter who wants to discover the power of mechanics. He undergoes training at a special institution and he gets the secondary class of "Mechanimer". A Wizard wants to be a paladin? That should work, too. I never understood why, in a world were power isn't raw physical strength, you need to whack people in the head to be a paladin.

So, "paladin" would be some sort of template to add to you character, and people who don't want to be paladins could choose among many other alternatives.

Psyren
2016-04-26, 09:09 AM
Start with this. You're asking for a mechanical incentive in response to either an RPing failure or a DMing failure, and that just doesn't fly.

Rulebooks contain more than just mechanics though. They also contain guidelines, examples, and flavor text to help both the players and GM get a better idea of how something is intended to work. Those first two in particular are intended to have at or close to the weight of law, and good design requires both.

Put another way - yes of course, bad DMing or bad playing are problems the rules can't solve. But I'd wager that the percentage of people who pick up a rulebook and say "I can't wait to completely pervert the obvious intent of this!" is pretty low. If a significant number of people are approaching paladins badly, then the design of the class (or the surrounding trappings, like the alignment system) can be at fault.

Faily
2016-04-26, 05:55 PM
How to play a Paladin 1:
When your group is making new characters, or you're making a new character, tell them "hey, I think I wanna try a Paladin for my new character". If you game with relatively decent people, they will either say it might be a problem because someone is already playing Evil or "I'm not Evil, I'm Chaotic Neutral", or say "cool, bro, I'll save my idea for an Evil character for the next adventure then". <--- This is how some of my groups have done it almost every time, and it's worked out fine. The Paladin doesn't get on everyone's back, and the others don't make it impossible for the Paladin to find it logical to stay with the group.


How to play a Paladin 2:
Speak with the GM about a Code of Conduct that better suits your Paladin and the religion/culture they come from. One GM wrote up two different Codes of Conduct for two of our Paladin characters, one an Elven Paladin of Corellon, and another a Dwarven Paladin of Moradin. Understandably, the two have very different values and dogmas.

kyoryu
2016-04-26, 06:12 PM
How can this be fixed? Are there alterations that could be made to the class to better encourage players to act like Ochul (who is an example that I'm reasonably certain, for some reason, everyone on this forum is familiar with, and is what I believe a paladin should be.) and discourage the much less fun for everybody Miko-esque (a similarly familiar bad example) behavior?

Talk to the paladin player. Set expectations. Use the rules to guide those - specifically, use Falling as a consequence for Miko-like behavior rather than a bludgeon to set up "oh so clever" paladin dilemmas.

But talk to them. Make it clear what being a paladin is, and with specific examples.



I would get rid of the "can't associate with evil characters" rule and make it more explicitly "can't do evil just because your friends are doing evil". How are you supposed to redeem anyone if you don't spend any time around them and show them a better way? And give that shining example a mechanical effect.

Association rules are great in open-table games, and are freakin' terrible with "the one true party".



The rest? Just talk to people.

This is, of course, the most important bit.

The rest - a Paladin should be *Good*. With a freakin' capital G. That doesn't mean "smite evil". It means that they should be all about self-sacrifice and helping others, even those that are Evil. They'll defend others, sure, but slaying Evil is less of a victory than turning Evil to Good.

I mean, seriously, read the Dresden Files, and use any of the Knights of the Cross as your example. Do they follow very paladin-like codes? Sure. And they often use that fact to their advantage.

And the best way for a paladin to change others? By example. Be so good that others can't help but go "I wanna be like that."

The other thing - make sure that it makes sense for the party to work together. Talk to the players, and make sure everyone is on the same page for what the game is going to be. If everybody wants to do a "let the demons go for a walk" campaign, and one dude wants to play a paladin, that ain't gonna work, any more than the opposite would.

So make sure everyone's on the same page. If you see potential issues between characters, talk about it, as players, up front and make sure everyone's got reasonable expectations.

I mean, it's not hard, so long as you don't play alignments like personality disorders. The Evil guy doesn't have to twirl his moustache constantly and do sadistic things for giggles - in fact, they should be smart enough to recognize the value of having a paladin around, and weigh that into their decisions. Similarly, a paladin should recognize that (barring association rules), sticking around non-good characters is a chance to lead by example and possibly change them, which is a great win for the forces of Good.

SirBellias
2016-04-26, 07:20 PM
The only players I have that decide to play paladins know that there are less and more antagonistic ways of doing it. For some players, I assume that they will have their own code of conduct for their character, and it will be fairly alright. I generally don't make people fall, but murder without cause is a good indicator. If the character is in a position to fall, usually it is through the player's choice, and that's the route they want their characters to take. If not, they more than likely won't fall at my table, because the only ones who play paladins like trying to be as righteous as possible, and their characters are still mortal and have to make choices based on their own intuition.

There's nothing wrong with the concept, and in my opinion people should make their own codes, or strive for what ideals they decide on. Basically, the DM and the players have to trust each other to not be annoying about it.

IntelectPaladin
2016-04-26, 07:24 PM
Well, isn't this a surprise to see.
And now I have quite a few words to say, and it's hard to say them.
Quite a few of these posts give me hope,
and more than a few are giving me a coronary.
I'm here to say what a Paladin isn't. What i'm not.

I'm not here to tell you what to do,
I'm not here to let you do horrible things,

I'm not here to make you not do them,
i'm not here to bend you to my will,
i'm not here to succumb to yours,

I'm not here to tell you what to do,
nor am I here to be told what to do.

I'm not here to sacrifice myself,
nor am I here to just let others die if I can save them.

I am me, not you.
I'm not what you want, when you want it,
be it avenger or be it human shield with medicine.
I am me,
and that comes with all the little complications of being a human being.

Good doesn't work with evil.
Evil doesn't work with good. No in-between,
and no grey. (Just white that's gotten grubby.)

Look, I won't say what a paladin is. But I will state my namesake's story on here.
I'm tired of the conflict, differences of opinion, and even those just who think this is about game mechanics!
Let me tell you the story of Jev the paladin,
and you can choose for yourselves.

Thank you for reading this,
And I apologize for sounding like a young emo female.
I'm just dead tired of this issue.
{Edit:} SirBellias, I couldn't agree more.

kyoryu
2016-04-26, 08:03 PM
I do find it somewhat interesting that this is never called "The Assassin Problem".

Just weird that you get two players with very different ideas on what should be done, and neither of them willing to budge... and yet it's always the players of *one* particular class that gets the finger pointed at them.

Cluedrew
2016-04-26, 08:27 PM
I was thinking, I like the idea of the paladin and all that but there are problems with the image D&D tries to encode, or perhaps the encoding itself. I agree that making them more flexible would defiantly help. Actually one of my favorite paladin originations was a wandering coalition of Chaotic Good fist fighters who resolved internal disputes by punching each other. And yet they still came off like paladins.

How? I thought about it and the one thing for me that connected all the paladin characters I know. The best way I can describe it is "power source". Fighters draw power from there strength & training, Barbarians from rage, wizards from knowledge, clerics from faith, bards from music & charm, rogues from their tricks. A paladin draws strength directly from their will to do good.

Sure all heroes do this from time to time, but it is the primary source for paladins. Take that moment were the loved one's voice reaches the hero, it doesn't seem to happen as often for paladins. I think it is because the paladin already knows and has already stood back up.

Maybe that isn't quite the perfect way to describe it but it seems to fit.

To kyoryu: I believe "the Assassin Problem" aka "the Rogue Problem" aka excessive backstabbing is a different issue.

SirBellias
2016-04-26, 09:14 PM
{Edit:} SirBellias, I couldn't agree more.

Always good to be in accord with a fellow of honor.

Cluedrew makes some good points. Flexibility written into the flavor and presentation would make them much more palatable to those who balk the harsher rules as they stand. A concept written and presented as following convictions that may form a code would be much more versatile than one based on following a code to wall you into convictions. Putting the reason, or "power source," first would be a better way of handling their position and do wonders for their reputation, I feel.

kyoryu
2016-04-26, 09:52 PM
To kyoryu: I believe "the Assassin Problem" aka "the Rogue Problem" aka excessive backstabbing is a different issue.

Why?

Again, the Paladin problem is about one player insisting things be done a certain way. And while I agree that that's a crappy way to play Paladins, it takes *two* people to have that argument. It takes *two* folks insisting that they get their way, not one.

Grek
2016-04-26, 11:46 PM
For all of my homebrew classes and in any game I run, Paladins don't fall. Instead, they periodically get outsiders turning up offering atonement or temptation as appropriate. If they've been murdering people, they get angels turning up asking them to repent and disguised demons offering unholy swords*. If they fall into indolence, they get Hound Archons giving inspirational speeches on discipline and Lilliends offering wine and music. And so on and so forth.

*If they accept the sword, it comes out of their WBL; I adjust treasure to match whatever they pick.

Winter_Wolf
2016-04-27, 12:08 AM
For my money, the easiest fix for paladins is to make it a class that can only be earned in game a la prestige class. And you can't have paladin levels before the game starts. Why? Because it forces the DM and the player to communicate their expectations of the class and how to make them work.

Then again, paladins aren't typically on the whitelist for my games. It's not like they're so different from say a cleric of Heironeous with a martial weapon proficiency in oh, let's say greatsword. Still have a code of conduct, can still play a shining paragon of virtue, just without some of the class features like a special mount or the charisma bonus to saves in 3.P.

Kami2awa
2016-04-27, 02:22 AM
In general, you can't fix those with rules. A few changes to the class might help good players and GMs avoid slipping, though. Too many seem to take it as a challenge to make the paladin fall. If the rest of the party accepts a paladin at all, then they should want him in the party and not just tolerate him.

Something that gets missed a lot is that paladins tend to have high charisma. They are supposed to be likeable, attractive, and good leaders. Rather than forcing the party to do good, they should be inspiring and leading them to do it. The paladin might be the very reason they are together as a party!

Unless the person playing the paladin is a very good actor, this requires a certain amount of buy-in from the other players. However, it could also be represented mechanically, particularly by combining the role of paladin and bard. IMO the paladin should be able to Inspire Greatness, demoralise enemies, or other such enhancements that help out the whole group. (I know they have Aura of Courage, but protection from fear effects is situational at best.)

As for "associating with evil" - yeah that's a silly rule. It restricts the alignment choices of the rest of the party, not to mention being near impossible in practice. Just ignore it.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-27, 07:47 AM
The 5e variants of the code of conduct are:

Oath of Devotion: Paladin classic. Knight in shining armor and all that jazz. The tenets of this oath are Honesty, Courage, Compassion, Honor, and Duty. Don't lie or cheat; don't be afraid to act (although, as the PHB says, caution is prudent and not the same as cowardice); aid others, protect the weak, and show mercy to foes (but, the PHB says, be smart about it); treat others fairly and do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm; and be responsible for your actions and consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey the orders of those who have just authority over you (unjust authority need not be obeyed).

Oath of the Ancients: These are paladins of life and culture, not ideals of truth and justice. The "green knights." Focuses on Good above Law or Chaos. The tenets of this oath are Kindle the Light, Shelter the Light, Preserve Your Own Light, and Be the Light. Through acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle hope and drive back despair; preserve places where life flourishes against forces that would render them barren, and preserve beauty, love, and laughter against forces of tyranny or cruelty; live and revel in art, beauty, joy, and laughter yourself, in order that you might preserve them in the world; and live as an example or inspiration for others.

Oath of Vengeance: You have a very special set of skills, and you're going to use them to hurt people who have it coming. That's it. None of that goody-two-shoes or happy dancing flower-child crap. Your job is to bring Justice (which is what you named your greatsword) down upon your enemies. The tenets of this oath are Fight the Greater Evil, No Mercy for the Wicked, By Any Means Necessary, and Restitution. When facing a choice between fighting your sworn enemies or a lesser evil, fight your sworn enemies (and there may be times your sworn enemies are the lesser evil); ordinary foes may or may not receive mercy, but your sworn foes never will; do not allow personal qualms to get in the way of killing your sworn enemies; and help those your enemies have harmed.

I love the Paladin 5e Oaths, and I'm considering a Folk Hero spear-using Paladin for my next character (torn between Devotion and Vengeance at the moment). They really came through there, although the Oath of the Ancients isn't for me personally I still appreciate that it lets some people play the Paladin they want.

Compare this to 4e where I liked the mechanics but hated how they handled the morality of the class, turning it into a boring 'divine knight).


I do find it somewhat interesting that this is never called "The Assassin Problem".

Just weird that you get two players with very different ideas on what should be done, and neither of them willing to budge... and yet it's always the players of *one* particular class that gets the finger pointed at them.

To me the 'Assassin Probl Problem' is that there's always someone who wants to play one, but interprets it more as 'Assassin's Creed acrobatics and killing everyone who sees me' rather than actually attempting to play it cleverly (although the first game I saw an assassin character in they worked really well, with the big guy sneaking on ledges and hiding in shadows to grapple opponents [it was justified in-character as well, he believed his opponent should die with honour] or engage them in combat while the other one took up a sniping position or kept the other guys surprised). It always goes the same way, with the assassin just being an acrobatic warrior.

goto124
2016-04-27, 08:14 AM
And while I agree that that's a crappy way to play Paladins, it takes *two* people to have that argument. It takes *two* folks insisting that they get their way, not one.

If a Paladin player insists on one mode of action and everyone else follows along because they don't want arguments, does another person deciding to stand up automatically become the bad person?

I suppose this would depend on details such as what sort of actions the Paladin player had been doing, whether the other group members were having fun following the paladin leader, etc.


but interprets it more as 'Assassin's Creed acrobatics and killing everyone who sees me' rather than actually attempting to play it cleverly

"So you're playing an assassin... which kind of assassin?"

By the way, could this be a fault of the system as well? Depending on the system?

Takewo
2016-04-27, 08:41 AM
If a Paladin player insists on one mode of action and everyone else follows along because they don't want arguments, does another person deciding to stand up automatically become the bad person?

No, but it means that there's at least two parts of the problem that should be addressed, not one.

kyoryu
2016-04-27, 08:45 AM
If a Paladin player insists on one mode of action and everyone else follows along because they don't want arguments, does another person deciding to stand up automatically become the bad person?

I suppose this would depend on details such as what sort of actions the Paladin player had been doing, whether the other group members were having fun following the paladin leader, etc.


Again, you're framing behavior that wouldn't work within the paladin code as "normal". The Paladin code is only really strict when it comes to the Paladin. It doesn't demand a lot from his companions apart from "don't be evil".

Morty
2016-04-27, 09:10 AM
For my money, the easiest fix for paladins is to make it a class that can only be earned in game a la prestige class. And you can't have paladin levels before the game starts. Why? Because it forces the DM and the player to communicate their expectations of the class and how to make them work.


Making paladins actually elite, as opposed to a class like any other, would indeed probably solve a great deal of the problem.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-27, 09:13 AM
"So you're playing an assassin... which kind of assassin?"

By the way, could this be a fault of the system as well? Depending on the system?

Yeah, my next game (using Fate) bans assassin's as 'out of genre for steampulp/magical police', although I'm not against the idea of an Assassin's Creed style one as such, I just run more subdued games (e.g. I like Legends of the Wulin, but love Qin: the Warring States), a trait shared by my favourite GM. But if I do ever run a Wuxia or Anima game the 'acrobatic warrior' assassin will be encouraged, as it's in-genre (I mean ridiculously, there's just no question about it).


Again, you're framing behavior that wouldn't work within the paladin code as "normal". The Paladin code is only really strict when it comes to the Paladin. It doesn't demand a lot from his companions apart from "don't be evil".

Also, Paladin codes almost certainly have intentionally placed loopholes (see Sir Osric in Dorkness Rising eventually going to 'fight evil' because the party has to do something he should stop). Paladins also probably have a sense of humour derived from this, and I suspect there will be jokes about 'falling' from pushing in line or taking the last slice of cake.

hifidelity2
2016-04-27, 10:21 AM
In the game I play in Paladins are Holy Knightly Warriors BUT can be of any Faith - i.e. all faiths have Paladins

The DM (and us as players) agree that all have some form of Code of Honour although they will vary from faith to faith

kyoryu
2016-04-27, 10:34 AM
Making paladins actually elite, as opposed to a class like any other, would indeed probably solve a great deal of the problem.

As they were.

I was actually disappointed when 3e came out that Paladins weren't a Prestige Class. They seemed like hte poster child for it.



Also, Paladin codes almost certainly have intentionally placed loopholes (see Sir Osric in Dorkness Rising eventually going to 'fight evil' because the party has to do something he should stop). Paladins also probably have a sense of humour derived from this, and I suspect there will be jokes about 'falling' from pushing in line or taking the last slice of cake.

Dresden Files. Michael Carpenter. He often uses his code as a weapon *against* the bad guys

wumpus
2016-04-27, 10:47 AM
One: paladin should not be a base class. It's a prestige class, available by invitation only to people who, in the eyes of some competent authority, have proved themselves worthy to take it. This means that the PC has to go through an extended "audition" before they get the funky powers, immunities and whatnot. It would dramatically improve the chances that the PC and DM are on the same page as to how the paladin is supposed to behave.


As an aside, the decision not to move Paladin to the "prestige classes" is exactly where the whole idea of "prestige class" changed from a great idea to munchkin fodder.


I do find it somewhat interesting that this is never called "The Assassin Problem".


Evil parties (or even just evil characters in non-evil parties) have enough problems of their own. Also even where assassins lose their powers if they ever become non-evil (2e and before?), they could budge with a single good act as a compromise. Of course, if you have somebody playing an assassin because the can typically pull off a "death attack" on other members of the party your problem player isn't going to be fixed by not playing an assassin. Problem paladin players typically can't pull off "the paladin problem" while playing clerics. "The Paladin Problem" is closely tied with the "DMPC Problem" in that it takes agency away from the rest of the players. Once the assassin likewise removes agency (presumably by killing their characters) of other players, you have a similar problem.

As mentioned, the problem with the paladin lies in the code of conduct. It is far too narrow. The problem comes down to giving the [problem] player [or DM] too many chances to twist a certain option [for the entire party] as the only one allowed by the code. Basically, every major (and sometimes minor) choice comes down to an alignment debate. Use the 5e oaths and the ability to manipulate the party/player [for bad players/DMs] is limited to plot-centric railroading.
You can't have one player [or DM] determining the agency of the entire party. On the other hand, the 5e oaths are a pretty good reason to tell the party "you aren't allowed to ignore the adventure hook I spent hours preparing. Now get in the dungeon already."

KnightOfV
2016-04-27, 11:32 AM
I feel like everything the Paladin needs is right there- and has been from the beginning. Paladins are their ideals. Clerics are just followers of the gods, but Paladins are living Symbols.

The code is there as a challenge for the player, and it's right there in the class. It's not supposed to be an excuse to try to get the DM or party members to screw 'em over. That's basically the same as trying to kill the character.

Every DM I've ever played with loves Paladins. They respect NPCs and take orders from superiors. They keep the quest on track. They won't run off picking pockets, or burning down taverns for giggles. Why the holy crap would you punish them by trying to make them fall?

Players I've played with over the years love Paladins. You WANT these guys on your side. If there is danger ahead, my Paladin will gladly go first. They won't try to rob you in your sleep. They won't kill NPCs for no reasons or get into fights about loot. They will heal you and put your life above their own. That's all there in the code, in the idea of a Paladin. If you take away the code, (like in 4th ed) and you can play a Paladin that can do violent or greedy acts to 'go along' with the party, then they stop being Paladins. Might as well just call them holy warriors, or avengers or something.

The Paladin has always been about living up to a difficult standard. The fact that so many people games have imploded over it actually just makes me think that it is working as intended. They aren't designed to be easy to play, or to fit into every game.

Just my own thoughts of course, from someone playing Paladins for years and years.

goto124
2016-04-27, 12:30 PM
They respect NPCs and take orders from superiors. They keep the quest on track. They won't run off picking pockets, or burning down taverns for giggles.

If there is danger ahead, my Paladin will gladly go first. They won't try to rob you in your sleep. They won't kill NPCs for no reasons or get into fights about loot. They will heal you and put your life above their own.

Implying non-paladin PCs consistently fail to meet these standards? Many of which are basic gaming decency?

Takewo
2016-04-27, 12:47 PM
Implying non-paladin PCs consistently fail to meet these standards? Many of which are basic gaming decency?

Well, there's many groups out there that are just slightly better than a bunch of murder-hobos that will burn down a whole tavern because there was a bad-looking dwarf in it. Or, put it in another way, many groups are violent bandits who make use of burglary and robbery to get into pacific monster's dungeons and despoil them from their honestly-earned goods.

Morty
2016-04-27, 01:56 PM
As they were.

I was actually disappointed when 3e came out that Paladins weren't a Prestige Class. They seemed like hte poster child for it.

Pretty much, yes. Prestige classes were a bit of a resounding failure of game design, but in general terms, a paladin is a fighter (or some other class) + a code that gives them powers as long as they abide by it. Trying to cram them into a separate class was very much a square peg/round hole situation.

SirBellias
2016-04-27, 02:26 PM
Implying non-paladin PCs consistently fail to meet these standards? Many of which are basic gaming decency?

Mine do. Rather annoying, but no one in that group plays paladins. They are still of the mindset of "random = funny." a bit ridiculous in an rpg, bit oh well.

IntelectPaladin
2016-04-27, 05:50 PM
Paladins as a prestige class? Are you kidding me?
I think, perhaps, that this thread has become just another pit of zeitgeist.

I'm sorry, but I cannot go on like this.
You want to know what a paladin is?
Here's a hint: It's not just another magical knight class in an rpg game,
and it's not an attempt at power, or a "prestige class", of all things!

Have we forgotten the value of morality?
of ethics, and just how far they can take you?
I mean, look at the stories on google images, for pity's sake.

Thank you for taking the time to read this,
and I apologize for the seemingly random nature of this post.
Have a nice day today!
And if it isn't one, see what you can do to change that!

Cluedrew
2016-04-27, 06:19 PM
You want to know what a paladin is?
Here's a hint: It's not just another magical knight class in an rpg game,
and it's not an attempt at power, or a "prestige class", of all things!Personally, although the handling of prestige classes have made them "attempts at power", that is not why people are suggesting it be made as one.

You can't start at the panicle of something, you have to strive for that.

And to represent that striving you should have to journey in grow, in the way we represent with levels. You must train you body and your mind. You must take every opportunity to better yourself and to better the world. Only then will you be reach the place you must be.

Turning off the poet in me for a movement; it would also give opportunities to create more variants of the paladin theme that have representations in game. Which would be another way of handling the narrow interpretation problem. Personally I think the modified base class would be a better solution (not that I have evidence for that) but I could see this working as well. Maybe we could do both. Of course I'm probably not going to make the 6e design team... so I don't have to decide.


Have a nice day today!
And if it isn't one, see what you can do to change that!And on this matter, I agree. May this day be better than it would have been without you.

Morty
2016-04-27, 06:33 PM
Paladins as a prestige class? Are you kidding me?
I think, perhaps, that this thread has become just another pit of zeitgeist.

I'm sorry, but I cannot go on like this.
You want to know what a paladin is?
Here's a hint: It's not just another magical knight class in an rpg game,
and it's not an attempt at power, or a "prestige class", of all things!

Have we forgotten the value of morality?
of ethics, and just how far they can take you?
I mean, look at the stories on google images, for pity's sake.

Thank you for taking the time to read this,
and I apologize for the seemingly random nature of this post.
Have a nice day today!
And if it isn't one, see what you can do to change that!

The point behind the suggestion of the paladin becoming a prestige class - or some other class-agnostic thing that hopefully isn't as hilariously non-functional as prestige classes are - is to fix its being watered down into a "magical knight" class.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-27, 06:38 PM
Paladins as a prestige class? Are you kidding me?
I think, perhaps, that this thread has become just another pit of zeitgeist.

I'm sorry, but I cannot go on like this.
You want to know what a paladin is?
Here's a hint: It's not just another magical knight class in an rpg game,
and it's not an attempt at power, or a "prestige class", of all things!

First off, the idea of a Paladin as a prestige class comes from the idea of it being something to strive towards. My favourite treatments of the Bard and Paladin to be released are the Unearthed Arcana Prestige Class versions, which actually sacrifice power in comparison to what the character could have by going for almost any other PC, the idea being you have to prove you are worthy of the title of Paladin.


Have we forgotten the value of morality?
of ethics, and just how far they can take you?
I mean, look at the stories on google images, for pity's sake.

Quite the opposite. We think that the Paladin should be a class that demands the character work towards it. Paksenarrion and O-Chul, the two best models I know of for the Paladin, began as fighters.

I actually think the Blackguard works better than the Paladin. It's not overly strong, it's a collection of abilities go add to your warrior with the idea that you lose them if you break your code (which is admittedly looser than the Paladin's). At some point I might expand the idea to 9 'Divine Knight' Prestige classes, with the Paladin and Blackguard as the LG and LE versions.


Thank you for taking the time to read this,
and I apologize for the seemingly random nature of this post.
Have a nice day today!
And if it isn't one, see what you can do to change that!

Kind of hard to make it a nice day, as it's nighttime :smalltongue:

Cluedrew
2016-04-27, 08:36 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot to say this in my last post:


Cluedrew makes some good points.Thank-you. It is also reassuring because the time I finished writing that I wasn't sure if I was talking crazy or not. Paladin-ness can be kind of hard to pin down.


[About the paladin problem.]I was just making a joke that assassins case all sorts of other problems (if handled incorrectly... kind of like the paladin I guess) and so that name was taken.

digiman619
2016-04-28, 01:27 AM
I personally have two fixes. a) have the paladin's code be his god's creed; anything that would make a cleric of said deity need atonement makes the paladin fall, and b) point them to classes without loosely defined 'fall' mechanics, but still keep the concept; i.e, Warpriest, or Cavalier. That way, they get all the roleplaying goodness of Paladin-style virtue without effecting what the rest of the party can or can't do (or at least no more than the guy playing a ranger or sorcerer can).

Broutchev
2016-04-28, 08:34 AM
I re-read the PHB entry for the paladin in 3.5 and found some odd things that never bothered me before.
Mainly it's just poorly thought.

Requirements to keep the powers;
-LG
-Code of conduct;LG (again), no evil acts willingly (sounds black and white to me), respect legitimate authority, act with honor (no lying, cheating, stealing, not using poison and so forth...), help those in need, punish those who threatens
-Never knowingly associate with someone evil, or continue association with someone that offend it's moral code

LG is fine and all, where the problem starts is the code: No evil acts willingly, if I'm stuck in between 2 evils without a third option, am I to wait it out and stop people from going for the lesser one since, you know, I can,t associate with evil? Maybe striving for Greater Good, or deity's ''what would Jesus do'' would be better. Then we get rid of Oh so clever Dm conundrums.

Legitimate authority is fine if you are good above lawful, a tyrant may be a ruler but he is not legitimate in the sense of good/your deity. (My vision)

act with honor (no lying, cheating, stealing, not using poison and so forth...) I don't think a character who is LG can't be stealing, I.E. Rogue stealing world shattering artifact from BBEG before it is used... But the paladin can't so I guess it goes with the fluff. Also it only says HE can't do it, not the party can't. So again Lying or Cheating for Greater good is possible. Still again clash whit the black and white aspect. The only problem is the ''and so forth''. Given in some DM hands, you're basically hogtied.

For association, people discussed it, I agree, but make sure OOC around the table everyone is on par.

Furthermore, in the background section, it says ''No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin's nature by an act of will''

So how exactly as a first character class does it work, if the paladin as no deity? Also it is way more oriented as a PrC in terms of proving your worth and having a Deity or association of paladin notice you. For deity oriented paladin it sound way more like a calling from the deity itself, but does it mean that this class is the only one that you need to ask for the DM to play it since the calling is DMs portfolio?



All this to make me wonder: Would it be better to have a Base Class akin to a paragon with traits defined by each alignment, LG gets something and etc. and PrC paladin of ''deity's name for Good deity'', antipaladin of ''you get the concept''.

Paladin means holy warrior, can you be a holy warrior of Ehlonna like you can be a priest of her?

Takewo
2016-04-28, 09:54 AM
I re-read the PHB entry for the paladin in 3.5 and found some odd things that never bothered me before.
Mainly it's just poorly thought.

Requirements to keep the powers;
-LG
-Code of conduct;LG (again), no evil acts willingly (sounds black and white to me), respect legitimate authority, act with honor (no lying, cheating, stealing, not using poison and so forth...), help those in need, punish those who threatens
-Never knowingly associate with someone evil, or continue association with someone that offend it's moral code


act with honor (no lying, cheating, stealing, not using poison and so forth...) I don't think a character who is LG can't be stealing, I.E. Rogue stealing world shattering artifact from BBEG before it is used... But the paladin can't so I guess it goes with the fluff. Also it only says HE can't do it, not the party can't. So again Lying or Cheating for Greater good is possible. Still again clash whit the black and white aspect. The only problem is the ''and so forth''. Given in some DM hands, you're basically hogtied.


Interpretations may differ here, but I understand the sentence "continue association with someone that offend the paladin's moral code" as precluding having a party member in charge of stealing and cheating for the grater good.

goto124
2016-04-28, 09:58 AM
for the grater good.

New paladin idea.

Red Fel
2016-04-28, 10:20 AM
for the grater good.

Not trying to mess with you, typos happen, but did anyone else suddenly picture an uprising by kitchen utensils against their food product oppressors?

"Rise up alongside me, peelers and knives! For the grater good!"

Takewo
2016-04-28, 10:53 AM
Not trying to mess with you, typos happen, but did anyone else suddenly picture an uprising by kitchen utensils against their food product oppressors?

"Rise up alongside me, peelers and knives! For the grater good!"

lol! It took me a while to realise what was wrong with that. It's so funny I'm not even going to correct it.


This, by the way, made me think of:

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/if-the-english-language-could-stop-inventing-words-thatd-be-grate.jpg

BWR
2016-04-28, 01:47 PM
did anyone else suddenly picture an uprising by kitchen utensils against their food product oppressors?

"Rise up alongside me, peelers and knives! For the grater good!"

Yup. That and wielding cheese-graters on their opponents' faces.

Vinyadan
2016-04-28, 01:53 PM
Is Grater Shredder's honourable twin?

Red Fel
2016-04-28, 02:07 PM
Yup. That and wielding cheese-graters on their opponents' faces.


Is Grater Shredder's honourable twin?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La-FSCfQEsk

This is the friendship among vegetables...

Elderand
2016-04-28, 02:26 PM
you magnificent bastard. that video almost killed me with laughter.

AMFV
2016-04-28, 03:07 PM
Interpretations may differ here, but I understand the sentence "continue association with someone that offend the paladin's moral code" as precluding having a party member in charge of stealing and cheating for the grater good.

Well it probably depends on how the Paladin interprets the code. Which I always have be largely order dependent. Paladins are lawful, so they understand things like precedence and exceptions to the law. Different Paladin orders probably take very different stances on those type of things. As another sidenote stealing isn't evil, only chaotic. So you might not even need to worry about it, the Paladin isn't prohibited from association with thieves when necessary for Good. In fact if the alternative to that is evil, then he must, even if he doesn't like it.

Takewo
2016-04-28, 03:30 PM
Well it probably depends on how the Paladin interprets the code. Which I always have be largely order dependent. Paladins are lawful, so they understand things like precedence and exceptions to the law. Different Paladin orders probably take very different stances on those type of things. As another sidenote stealing isn't evil, only chaotic. So you might not even need to worry about it, the Paladin isn't prohibited from association with thieves when necessary for Good. In fact if the alternative to that is evil, then he must, even if he doesn't like it.

Again, this is an issue of interpretation and people may think differently. But in my humble opinion, if the code of honour forbids the paladin from lying and stealing, somebody who is continuously stealing and lying offends the code. It's a completely different matter if a party member steals something once or twice, but I don't think it allows association with people who are specialists on this sort of stuff.

Also, I'm basing it on Broutchev's explanation of the code, I haven't got access to the books right now.

obryn
2016-04-28, 03:42 PM
So a common problem in some editions of D&D is that of the paladin.
What I think you meant. :smallwink:


In theory, a paladin is supposed to be a stalwart defender of law and good, and has some degree of responsibility to keep the party's less morally reputable members in check (lest by associating with an evil party the paladin fall and lose all their powers).

In practice, paladins are often the annoying goody two shoes character, and have a tendency towards forcing the rest of the party into very narrow plots and limiting a lot of freedoms for the other players.

Some of the blame for this falls on poor playing
Some of it on poor DMing.

How can this be fixed? Are there alterations that could be made to the class to better encourage players to act like Ochul (who is an example that I'm reasonably certain, for some reason, everyone on this forum is familiar with, and is what I believe a paladin should be.) and discourage the much less fun for everybody Miko-esque (a similarly familiar bad example) behavior?
I have no idea what those examples are, but that's okay. Yes, in short, there are alterations that can be made. (1) You can open up Paladins to all alignments/deities so that a player has some choice if they want the mechanical benefits. D&D 4e and 5e do this, and 3e flirted with it in at least one dragon article. (2) You can make it so that a 'falling' arc isn't hard-coded into the rules, and make sure it's a collaborative venture with a player who wants to tell an interesting story. (3) You can swap around the 'stick' of falling and instead add in a 'carrot' for fulfilling your code.


If a significant number of people are approaching paladins badly, then the design of the class (or the surrounding trappings, like the alignment system) can be at fault.
Come on, though. Like 80% of bad gaming stories involve paladins somehow. :smallsmile:

IntelectPaladin
2016-04-28, 03:44 PM
Come on, though. Like 80% of bad gaming stories involve paladins somehow. :smallsmile:

Why did you smile at that... That's it.
I've had enough.

I'm not angry. I'm just numb.

obryn
2016-04-28, 03:51 PM
Why did you smile at that... That's it.
I've had enough.

I'm not angry. I'm just numb.
I think your posts may, unintentionally, be illustrative of the 'paladin problem' the OP was referring to. You've put a lot of words towards insisting that your viewpoint on paladins is the only valid one and working to redirect discussion.

In this case, we're talking specifically about the character class in D&D which goes back to the OD&D Greyhawk Supplement and has regularly been at the center of Bad DM stories and Intraparty Strife stories.

Red Fel
2016-04-28, 03:52 PM
I think your posts may, unintentionally, be illustrative of the 'paladin problem' the OP was referring to. You've put a lot of words towards insisting that your viewpoint on paladins is the only valid one and working to redirect discussion.

In this case, we're talking specifically about the character class in D&D which goes back to the OD&D Greyhawk Supplement and has regularly been at the center of Bad DM stories and Intraparty Strife stories.

Don't worry. I've lit the Paladin Signal.

LP should be here shortly to save the day. We'll soon have this sorted out.

Flickerdart
2016-04-28, 04:05 PM
The problem isn't paladins. The problem is a character forcing the player to say "we must."


The party's paladin will lose his powers if we kill the BBEG? We must avoid lethal attacks.
The party's rogue will get steamrolled in a straight-up fight? We must avoid straight-up fights.
The party's wizard ran out of spells? We must rest.



In all of these cases, an issue with one class limits what the party as a whole is capable of.

Why is the paladin worse than the wizard and the rogue? Because when the others close a door, they open a window. The rogue is garbage at combat, but he's really freakin' good at sneaking. So the party has a new, alternative way to solve problems. The wizard needs rest, but he can take everyone to his extradimensional pleasure palace to do that, where unicorns heal their wounds and feed them seedless grapes.

The party has a reason to want to sneak, and a reason to want to rest.

The party has no carrot to avoid unpaladinly things, just a stick. The things the paladin wants to do put the party at a disadvantage for no reason.

To fix that, we have to do two things, which can be mechanical.

Incentive to Do Good
When the paladin wants everyone to spare the prisoner, or avoid an ambush, or whatever, the "because" is "because it would make me sad otherwise." A paladin with mechanical incentive to do Good would have the party nodding along. If we willingly give up an ambush because the paladin blows his trumpet to announce us, we get a +2 inspire courage effect! If we tell the truth, the paladin gains a diplomacy bonus to convince the king not to murder us all! If we avoid this evil action, the paladin gets a bunch of heal spells he can cast on us!

Opportunity to Compromise
+2 inspire courage and diplomacy bonuses and heal spells are all good, but the rogue sometimes needs to enter combat, the wizard sometimes needs to make do with empty spell slots. Similarly, the paladin needs an out, the ability to say "yeah, doing it my way sabotages the situation, let's try something else." A character insisting that his way is the only way things can proceed isn't being a good roleplayer, he's suffering from My Guy syndrome.

Cluedrew
2016-04-28, 04:34 PM
On Compromise: "Just that perfection is impossible is no excuse not to strive for it." -The Paladin

On the surface this quote seems to say that one should never compromise, but read a different way it is actually saying that a paladin must compromise. As perfection is impossible we must except good enough some times. Well that is not quite right, we should still try as hard as we can but we should still accept that less than perfect solutions will come up.

I bring this because to me this is the most paladin-y quote... ever... there are some other very good ones but this one is a step beyond all others I have seen.

oxybe
2016-04-28, 04:37 PM
Honestly the problem with the paladin, IMO, is that the class mechanically fits a niche somewhere between cleric and fighter (divine martial weapon user, mix of innate skill + divine buffs) but requires a specific playstyle (the code/forced lawful good), something that no other class is particularly held to and to no real additional benefit for doing so.

The fact of the matter is, every character can technically hold themselves to the paladin's code and would receive no more benefit for doing so then what the paladin does, with the exception that that non-paladins don't lose their class features for failing to do so.

So I say divorce the forced fluff, the code/lawful goodness/etc..., and leave it as character background akin to "wandering swordsman" or "hermit" or "man in a funny hat who yells LIGHTNINGBOLT while hurling projectiles at people" that any character can aspire to.

kyoryu
2016-04-28, 04:55 PM
Yeah, I don't really think the paladin is the problem.

The problem is playstyle, and the fact is that playing a paladin implies a certain type of heroic playstyle. And there are playstyles that are simply incompatible with each other.

I mean, I've run into the "paladin problem" playing a character who was definitely morally grey, but did have certain lines he wouldn't cross (like murdering innocent women to get a neat shiny power). Because there are some people who want to play to be able to do whatever they want, and *any* line is unacceptable.

And there's nothing wrong with that playstyle, either. But the two ain't compatible. It's not the fault of the "paladin" any more than it's the fault of the other people. What it does is serve to highlight the importance of making sure you understand what the game is, and is not, before you start.

LoyalPaladin
2016-04-28, 05:18 PM
Don't worry. I've lit the Paladin Signal.
Never fear. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm#auraofCourage)
https://66.media.tumblr.com/9dcb936ffbdda23379d8a45d5820126e/tumblr_n4ehynhAvk1su78bpo1_500.gif
Paladin's here.


So a common problem in gaming is that of the paladin.
I'd roll up my sleeves, but I'm wearing full-plate. Let's toss the whole "paladin's a problem" right out the window, shall we? If your paladin is a constant problem for you, than I'd venture to say they aren't being very paladin-like.


In theory, a paladin is supposed to be a stalwart defender of law and good, and has some degree of responsibility to keep the party's less morally reputable members in check (lest by associating with an evil party the paladin fall and lose all their powers).
Ah! A perfect example. A paladin's job is not only to be the moral compass of your party, it is to be the guiding light to those in the dark. For your light to shine brightest, you must take it into dark places.


In practice, paladins are often the annoying goody two shoes character, and have a tendency towards forcing the rest of the party into very narrow plots and limiting a lot of freedoms for the other players.
If you're playing the paladin correctly, the good members of the party should be happy, the neutral members should be mildly inconvenienced, and the evil members should be feeling convicted (see definition 3 for clarity (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/convicted)).


How can this be fixed? Are there alterations that could be made to the class to better encourage players to act like Ochul (who is an example that I'm reasonably certain, for some reason, everyone on this forum is familiar with, and is what I believe a paladin should be.) and discourage the much less fun for everybody Miko-esque (a similarly familiar bad example) behavior?
Now, let's be fair. There are good and bad examples of every class. Miko is a great example of how not to play a paladin. She was, at best, lawful neutral. Her adherence to the code was that of an A+ student. But anyone in showbiz will tell you that performing something to letter doesn't get you very far if you don't "do it with feeling". This is where paladins can fall short. You are not just an exemplar among mortals, as a paladin you are also a warrior of passion. You have to genuinely believe in the cause, not just the rules.


Scrap the code of conduct. Most codes are poor fits for any particular paladin character and several(3rd D&D for example) dictate the disruptive behavior you want to avoid via fear of falling.
The code of conduct is not well written. But! The code of conduct is not horribly written. It is the primary instigator of the age old habit where players create a character and then promptly stick a pole up their you-know-where. But it could definitely be worse. It is cleaned up a little bit under the "Ex-Paladins" section.


"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies)."
Notably, a paladin falls for committing and evil act, not a chaotic one. You also don't fall for associating with evil creatures, as that is listed under the "associates" section.

You do, however, fall for ceasing to be Lawful Good. How is this different from falling for a chaotic act? Shifting into Neutral or Chaotic from Lawful would require either a lot of unlawful acts or a very serious one.


Now rebuild the code. Have the player work with you to describe the ideals that their character is going to be striving to personally be a moral exemplar of.
Personally, I prefer to use a paladin's deity's dogma. It usually directs the paladin's efforts in a more constructive fashion.


Essentially their power source is being corrupted, I would adjust the class benefits to match the kind of corruption (focus on the part they are taking to a fault / change to include the shift in focus).*
I am not opposed to this... but I'm also not opposed to falling. After all, some of the greatest tales a paladin can be involved in, are the tales of redemption.


Just talk to people.
Right again, friend. Just talking to your group can solve 99% of all problems at the table.


Well, isn't this a surprise to see.
And now I have quite a few words to say, and it's hard to say them.
Quite a few of these posts give me hope,
and more than a few are giving me a coronary.
I'm here to say what a Paladin isn't. What i'm not.

I'm not here to tell you what to do,
I'm not here to let you do horrible things,

I'm not here to make you not do them,
i'm not here to bend you to my will,
i'm not here to succumb to yours,

I'm not here to tell you what to do,
nor am I here to be told what to do.

I'm not here to sacrifice myself,
nor am I here to just let others die if I can save them.

I am me, not you.
I'm not what you want, when you want it,
be it avenger or be it human shield with medicine.
I am me,
and that comes with all the little complications of being a human being.

Good doesn't work with evil.
Evil doesn't work with good. No in-between,
and no grey. (Just white that's gotten grubby.)


Look, I won't say what a paladin is. But I will state my namesake's story on here.
I'm tired of the conflict, differences of opinion, and even those just who think this is about game mechanics!
Let me tell you the story of Jev the paladin,
and you can choose for yourselves.
Chipper up there, pala-friend. Otherwise you'll start to sound like the Knight in Sour Armor (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightInSourArmor)! The paladin's life isn't meant to be easy and full of acceptance, otherwise we'd have full spell casting and be called a cleric! Courageous in the face of danger, stalwart when such a trait is needed, and friendly when someone needs help getting back up. That's a paladin. You lead by example, not with words.[/QUOTE]


I'm just numb.
Come back! Don't be numb! A paladin's greatest tool is feeling! How can you make someone feel as though they've done wrong if you yourself cannot feel either!

Morty
2016-04-28, 05:37 PM
I have no idea what those examples are, but that's okay. Yes, in short, there are alterations that can be made. (1) You can open up Paladins to all alignments/deities so that a player has some choice if they want the mechanical benefits. D&D 4e and 5e do this, and 3e flirted with it in at least one dragon article. (2) You can make it so that a 'falling' arc isn't hard-coded into the rules, and make sure it's a collaborative venture with a player who wants to tell an interesting story. (3) You can swap around the 'stick' of falling and instead add in a 'carrot' for fulfilling your code.


The best solution, I think, is to take a little from the column A and a little from the column B. Let there be a class (or combination of classes, whatever) that represents a generic "divinely-empowered warrior". And a paladin is a specific subtype of that, with much more stringent requirements in terms of behaviour. That, or make the paladin code a template that can be applied to any character. After all, who said smiting evil can't be accomplished by a duellist, archer or sorcerer?

Both would be better than building a class around a narrow, elite concept and expecting it to work, really.

oxybe
2016-04-28, 07:03 PM
So a 4th-style theme / 5th-style background that can be applied across the board to any character?

kyoryu
2016-04-28, 07:04 PM
The best solution, I think, is to take a little from the column A and a little from the column B. Let there be a class (or combination of classes, whatever) that represents a generic "divinely-empowered warrior". And a paladin is a specific subtype of that, with much more stringent requirements in terms of behaviour. That, or make the paladin code a template that can be applied to any character. After all, who said smiting evil can't be accomplished by a duellist, archer or sorcerer?

Both would be better than building a class around a narrow, elite concept and expecting it to work, really.

The best solution is don't play in a game where you have very differing opinions on what behavior is acceptable.

OldTrees1
2016-04-28, 07:23 PM
The code of conduct is not well written. But! The code of conduct is not horribly written. It is the primary instigator of the age old habit where players create a character and then promptly stick a pole up their you-know-where. But it could definitely be worse. It is cleaned up a little bit under the "Ex-Paladins" section.

I have studied the Philosophy field of Ethics, I do consider the Paladin code to be horribly written from the higher standard I apply towards the writing. This is one of the primary reason I support the greater coherence and consistency of player made codes (just look at what you yourself would write as a code).




I am not opposed to this... but I'm also not opposed to falling. After all, some of the greatest tales a paladin can be involved in, are the tales of redemption.

I agree! Tales of fall & redemption fall into 2 categories, those with depowerment and those with the power turned to different ends. Both are great stories.

kyoryu
2016-04-28, 07:46 PM
I have studied the Philosophy field of Ethics, I do consider the Paladin code to be horribly written

I'm guessing you lean Utilitarian?

OldTrees1
2016-04-28, 10:29 PM
I'm guessing you lean Utilitarian?

Deontological actually, but I could critique the PHB code from Virtue Ethics or Utilitarianism too. (Decreased coherence and consistency is a common problem with multiple authors contributing to the same code)

kyoryu
2016-04-28, 10:53 PM
Deontological actually, but I could critique the PHB code from Virtue Ethics or Utilitarianism too. (Decreased coherence and consistency is a common problem with multiple authors contributing to the same code)

Ah, okay. I find D&D alignments make more sense from a generally Deontological viewpoint, so I find most alignment critiques (and bad dilemnas) to be Utilitarian-based.

obryn
2016-04-28, 11:02 PM
The best solution is don't play in a game where you have very differing opinions on what behavior is acceptable.
Yes, but might as well have rules discourage jackassery, too.

8BitNinja
2016-04-28, 11:03 PM
I actually reconstructed the paladin code on an older thread, if I find it, I will post it here

digiman619
2016-04-28, 11:12 PM
Also worth remembering; class =/= concept. I can have my faithful, religious. virtuous paladin character built on a ranger chassis.

Satinavian
2016-04-29, 03:57 AM
Have we forgotten the value of morality?
of ethics, and just how far they can take you?
I mean, look at the stories on google images, for pity's sake.
Morality andd ethics are important thing that can make really good stories.

But... you don't need to be a paladin to have a moral code or a view on ethics. You can do all of the same stories, the same moral choices the same themes without paladins. The only exception is the paladin-falls-story. Which is often not a particularly interesting one.

With a paladin you don't get more morals into the game. And a really poorly written code of conduct linked to class abilities doesn't help either. If that code would require the paladin to be just a really good and just person it would be no more of a problem than the clerics "only one step from the diety"-rule is. But unfortunately the code is not really about trying to be good and just. It's about avoiding every single evil act (so far so good) and about who the paladin can work with (pretty bad). Oh, and about an exremely vague honor system.

What exactly is a RAW-paladin supposed to do, if a party member is evil/slides into evil or if the party itself is ok with using methods that don't make them evil but also don't conform with the honoer code ? What is the paladin supposed to do, if his lawful and legitimate superior is evil or gives greyish orders ?
The "can't associate clause" forces him to walk away - leaving party and campaign behind. Which is not really an option in an RPG.



That said, i don't agree with the prestige class thing. That wouldn't change anything because prestige classes have to be built for early on and it is still a "magical knight".



Ah! A perfect example. A paladin's job is not only to be the moral compass of your party, it is to be the guiding light to those in the dark. For your light to shine brightest, you must take it into dark places."moral compass" is not a job you can get with taking a certain class. The moral compass of the group is the character which has a morality which aligns with most of the group, has enough common sense, intelligence and foresight to make good decisions based upon those moral principles, is per experience recognized as being able to do so and has the personality and arguments to persuade the other PCs.

Nothing of that comes to a PC by the way of his player writing "LG" on the character sheet or taking a level in paladin. Which is the reason, why most moral compasses over all the groups are not the paladin, even if there is one present.

I have even seen evil PCs being a moral compass of a good group doing majorly good things and it worked. That is how incomplete and overly simplified the alignment system is and how bad it is at describing more complex morality ans motivations and predicting character interactions.


But way to many players make paladins and think, they have to be the moral compass of the group. Even if the player is not particularly good with guessing likely consequences of their actions. Even when their plans prove to be bad ones again and again and nobody is willing to follow them. Even if the party doesn't share the paladins moral outset and is more interested in following other moral guidelines and goals. Even if the player is not very good at moral philosophy and can't even give guidance r advice without being contradicting and unhelpful.

Many paladin players have some near perfect idea what a paladin is but don't actually have the player skills to make their character a wise leader. Which leads (naturally) to a paladin-PC who is far from the ideal.
But now we have a problem with the code of conduct. Can the paladin follow someone else with differing moral opinions ? Can he compromise for a common goal ? If the player fears to loose class abilities, he often won't compromise.

digiman619
2016-04-29, 04:18 AM
"moral compass" is not a job you can get with taking a certain class. The moral compass of the group is the character which has a morality which aligns with most of the group, has enough common sense, intelligence and foresight to make good decisions based upon those moral principles, is per experience recognized as being able to do so and has the personality and arguments to persuade the other PCs. Nothing of that comes to a PC by the way of his player writing "LG" on the character sheet or taking a level in paladin. Which is the reason, why most moral compasses over all the groups are not the paladin, even if there is one present. Bravo. This is what I mean when paladins come up; a single class choice does not a character make.

goto124
2016-04-29, 07:12 AM
Why is the paladin worse than the wizard and the rogue? Because when the others close a door, they open a window. The rogue is garbage at combat, but he's really freakin' good at sneaking. So the party has a new, alternative way to solve problems.

Does the paladin not have class abilities that make "honorable fight" a viable tactic, or maybe even more viable than sneaking up first?

kyoryu
2016-04-29, 10:34 AM
Yes, but might as well have rules discourage jackassery, too.

What jackassery?

Saying "no, we will not murder innocents" is only jackassery if the group insists that murdering innocents is hunky dorey. Again, the real problem is that player A wants to play a game where murdering innocents is totally cool, and player B doesn't. Rules don't solve that.

IntelectPaladin
2016-04-29, 10:07 PM
Come back! Don't be numb! A paladin's greatest tool is feeling! How can you make someone feel as though they've done wrong if you yourself cannot feel either!

Thank you for picking me back up, Loyal. I appreciate it.

I again apologize for all miscellaneous, non-thread-topic posts.
(I had been up for nearly 24 hours at the time).

So,
in the interests of making a positive contribution,
I'd like to ask a single question:
What would you like to do, As a paladin,
To take on industrialist-levels of cruelty and evil done by
groups like the Necroranchers?

How would you take them on,
And what needs to be fixed to let a take-on be possible?

Thank you for reading this,
And I hope you have a better day!
If it isn't, Headlock it into a better one!

The Fury
2016-04-29, 10:45 PM
The party's paladin will lose his powers if we kill the BBEG? We must avoid lethal attacks.



I know you probably didn't intend for me to pick out a single example from your list, though if I were the Paladin in this scenario I'd break it down like this:

Pros-- Campaign villain is permanently defeated and can no longer threaten anyone ever again. Depending on the kind of threat the campaign villain poses, I might very well have saved countless lives.

Cons-- I lose my powers.

...I'm actually OK with this. Sure, I'd fall and I'll have no more fancy Paladin abilities but if that's what I need to do to save the day, then so what? My character can learn to live with what she did later on.

As for my own opinion on whether Paladins need fixes-- No, I don't think they do. Within the rules, you can be the stereotypical, self-righteous, humorless twit if you wanted. If Paladins do have an actual problem, it's that they have that stereotype for some reason.

kyoryu
2016-04-29, 10:55 PM
I know you probably didn't intend for me to pick out a single example from your list, though if I were the Paladin in this scenario I'd break it down like this:

Pros-- Campaign villain is permanently defeated and can no longer threaten anyone ever again. Depending on the kind of threat the campaign villain poses, I might very well have saved countless lives.

Cons-- I lose my powers.

I'm still not clear why killing the BBEG would result in falling, anyway.

It's like people simultaneously complain that paladins go around murdering people for petty crimes, but are somehow prohibited from stopping huge schemes of mass death and murder.

Honest Tiefling
2016-04-29, 10:59 PM
I think that the paladin needs to be adjusted for the group, and for the setting. I personally think that the paladin code is badly worded and thought out (Poisons are now evil? Really?), but why not adjust the code to make it appropriate to the setting? I don't want a cookie cutter paladin, I want a paladin for the game I am currently playing! I don't care what someone thought would be a good idea for Greyhawk, we're in Not-China!

Also, if someone likes the mechanics and not the flavor, consider paladins of other alignments. If paladins are at all effective, why not add in paladins of different alignments? Stealing is the best part of being Chaotic!

The Fury
2016-04-29, 11:29 PM
I'm still not clear why killing the BBEG would result in falling, anyway.

It's like people simultaneously complain that paladins go around murdering people for petty crimes, but are somehow prohibited from stopping huge schemes of mass death and murder.

Yeah, I don't know either. I'm just going with it because that's the scenario presented.

Honest Tiefling
2016-04-29, 11:37 PM
I'm still not clear why killing the BBEG would result in falling, anyway.

It's like people simultaneously complain that paladins go around murdering people for petty crimes, but are somehow prohibited from stopping huge schemes of mass death and murder.

Do you know how many times I've heard DMs tell me that they just love to throw paladins into unwinnable scenarios where they lose their powers no matter what? And I don't even play paladins! So honestly if someone actually did this it would surprise me about as much to find out that rain is wet.

I do wonder what people believe is honorable combat. Personally, I could see saying sneak attacks are valid against combatants because if they didn't want to be sneak attacked, they wouldn't enter into a war and that is just basic tactics.

Alberic Strein
2016-04-30, 04:37 AM
Weirdly enough in my entire (admittedly not that impressive) experience with good and bad games, among which some truly headdesking experiences, it was never the paladin's fault. There was tension between the paladin and the necromancer once, but after some roleplaying it died down rather easily.

Now admittedly whenever versions give the paladin order a code, and if you somewhat break it just once you're mechanically screwed for at least some time, those versions are just asking for troubles and encourage bad behaviour around the table. Always trying to save innocents is cool, telling your rogue pal that he can't do jack sh*t ever -depending on the versions and the reading thereof- is bad. It also enforces one single personality on paladins and lock out roleplaying opportunites. Bad.

The rest of the issues mostly come from Lawful Good. As someone summarized, we're all showered in tales of "proper" heroes, LG characters all around, so when we discover that we can play and enjoy playing neutral/evil people, many have the tendency to deride LG as the no-fun-allowed alignment. On top of that, not so many classes can lose class abilities, and paladins are the one class in most versions that not only can, but through one single act. It's part of the class and it's clear bait for GMs to try and make the paladin fall, sometime through dubious means.

While in effect, when some editions' paladin's code is not enforced, all the paladin has to do is be good, behaving like a knight or another heroic figure. Bandits attacking a carriage? Kill bandits. If some surrender, let them, if not, then kill them. You technically have to follow the law, but if you come to the conclusion that the law is evil (as in, having working in the mine mandatory for children, and being separated from their families) then everything goes. As long as you can, in a sentence reasonably justify your actions as being for Good, you're golden.

And honestly, most parties I've seen are usually pretty sold on the whole "defend the widow and the orphan, then ask for a reward, and if they can't spare anything, it's okay." bit. Being refused the right to smoke their pipe, drink their alcohol, or spend some quality time with their girlfriend is what usually causes issues. And "don't be a jerk" should be the basis of many, many paladins.

Hell, Robin Hood, which is often cited as an example of Chaotic Good could actually be an archer paladin, at least in the stories where he immediately bends the knee to the rightful king and returns to his law abiding life.

So yeah, if you really had to fix paladins and their rules, scrap the paladin's code, make the "falling" bit a way smaller part of the class, and you're pretty much done.

Outside the rules, make sure the DM has no bone to pick with lawful good or paladins, and make sure the paladin player is not preparing a power trip and knows that his way is not the "right" way outside of his mind.

Satinavian
2016-04-30, 06:16 AM
What jackassery?

Saying "no, we will not murder innocents" is only jackassery if the group insists that murdering innocents is hunky dorey. Again, the real problem is that player A wants to play a game where murdering innocents is totally cool, and player B doesn't. Rules don't solve that.
It's not necessarily about slauthering inncocents. (Which would be a problem with far more characters than only paladins)

I have seen the "don't associate with evil"-clause get in the way of diplomatic solutions. When a live-and-let-live option can't be pursued because one party member insists on bloodshed because he fears to loose class abilities otherwise, even a predominantly good group can get pretty annoyed.




Do you know how many times I've heard DMs tell me that they just love to throw paladins into unwinnable scenarios where they lose their powers no matter what? And I don't even play paladins! So honestly if someone actually did this it would surprise me about as much to find out that rain is wet.I have never actually seen this and don't know any DM who would try to make a paladin fall (except for cases where the player wants a redemption arc).

kyoryu
2016-04-30, 10:03 AM
Do you know how many times I've heard DMs tell me that they just love to throw paladins into unwinnable scenarios where they lose their powers no matter what? And I don't even play paladins! So honestly if someone actually did this it would surprise me about as much to find out that rain is wet.

A GM who does that is A ****, and will likely try to screw you in other ways, as well. Solution: Don't play with **** GMs.


And "don't be a jerk" should be the basis of many, many paladins.

It really should be the basis of just about any character with 'good' in their alignment.


So yeah, if you really had to fix paladins and their rules, scrap the paladin's code, make the "falling" bit a way smaller part of the class, and you're pretty much done.

Yeah, I really have to go back with the fact that I've never encountered these "screw the paladin with forcing them to do evil" folks. If I saw a GM pull that crap, I completely would not play with them. But, again, the problem is that the GM's A ****, not necessarily a paladin problem.


Outside the rules, make sure the DM has no bone to pick with lawful good or paladins, and make sure the paladin player is not preparing a power trip and knows that his way is not the "right" way outside of his mind.

Right. In other words, make sure that neither the GM nor the paladin player is A ****. (I'd add in, make sure the rest of the party is down with being a generally good party).


It's not necessarily about slauthering inncocents. (Which would be a problem with far more characters than only paladins)

You'd be surprised with how many people/characters it's *not* an issue with.


I have seen the "don't associate with evil"-clause get in the way of diplomatic solutions. When a live-and-let-live option can't be pursued because one party member insists on bloodshed because he fears to loose class abilities otherwise, even a predominantly good group can get pretty annoyed.

Again, I have to find it pretty funny that the complaints i've heard have ranged from "The paladin won't let us kill the BBEG!" to "The paladin won't let us NOT kill the BBEG!" Kinda weird.

I've never really seen the association rules as being about casual contact or even negotiations, but rather continued association, like, ya know, in an adventuring party. I *suspect* this was to stop the kind of misaligned expectation problems that will tend to happen if you've got a paladin in a party with an assassin. I mean, if you look at the rules, the only times that 'falling' is mentioned is if you either willfully commit an evil act, or if your alignment shifts away from LG. Negotiating with an evil person does not meet either of those standards.

Also, it seems fair that a paladin would know what would be 'good' or 'evil' and should be able to query the GM if the expectations are not clear up front. Being super paranoid because you're afraid the GM will take away your powers seems like, again, dealing with A **** GM.


I have never actually seen this and don't know any DM who would try to make a paladin fall (except for cases where the player wants a redemption arc).

Yeah, me neither. I mean, I don't doubt they exist, because I've seen some pretty Dickish behavior, and that's a clear handle for people to be ***** about.

Templarkommando
2016-04-30, 10:10 AM
I actually play fighters frequently to avoid having this argument. In addition, I've never been all that enamored of paladin abilities.

When I DM, I generally try to leave my paladins alone in this regard unless there's something just glaringly obvious. Part and parcel of the Paladin mythos is the idea of an Arthurian dilemma which is usually a catch-22. I try to not put moral questions up that if answered wrongly could cause a fall. While it's cool in literature, I find that it just doesn't translate well into RP. The story of the Green Knight gets several pages to explain the dilemma and why Gawain makes the choices that he does. As a player, you generally don't have that luxury.

Elderand
2016-04-30, 10:15 AM
Really I'd advise people to read the complete paladin handbook fro adnd 2nd edition. Not the whoel thing of course, but it has a substantial section about the paladin code that is much more detailed than the pitiful thing given in 3.5.

Really the problem with the paladin is that the code in later edition isn't detailed enough.

Satinavian
2016-04-30, 11:21 AM
Again, I have to find it pretty funny that the complaints i've heard have ranged from "The paladin won't let us kill the BBEG!" to "The paladin won't let us NOT kill the BBEG!" Kinda weird.Which kind of shows how bad the code actually is. People have lots of strange and often contradicting views about what a paladin can and can't allow. It's a contradicting mess. And that further sources push both the image of uncompromising divine punisher on one hand and the person trying to redeem everyone on the other doesn't help either.

It is rarely about the party doing glaringly obvious vile things which hurt people. Partys of that kind usually don't have paladins to begin with. It is the party of generally decent adventurers which should work, where suddenly the players interpretation of the paladin code is ad odds with what the party wants to do..

I've never really seen the association rules as being about casual contact or even negotiations, but rather continued association, like, ya know, in an adventuring party. I *suspect* this was to stop the kind of misaligned expectation problems that will tend to happen if you've got a paladin in a party with an assassin. I mean, if you look at the rules, the only times that 'falling' is mentioned is if you either willfully commit an evil act, or if your alignment shifts away from LG. Negotiating with an evil person does not meet either of those standards.That is probably what they intended. But if you arrive at some arrangement with an evil force that further lives nearby as your neighbor and doesn't hurt anyone in the furure it can still be seen as "associate". And if you temporarily ally with a lesser evil to fight a greater one, it is without question an "associate". Even if you interact with someone who is evil but not a criminal but an important member of your society, it might be seen as "associate".

Also, it seems fair that a paladin would know what would be 'good' or 'evil' and should be able to query the GM if the expectations are not clear up front. Being super paranoid because you're afraid the GM will take away your powers seems like, again, dealing with A **** GM.I never said the fear of falling was justified - most GMs are pretty relaxed about it. But the paladin players tendencies to self-police and try to follow the stupid code to the letter is still very much present. Throw in soime of the stranger interpretations of the code and you have your problems.

The Fury
2016-04-30, 12:38 PM
I never said the fear of falling was justified - most GMs are pretty relaxed about it. But the paladin players tendencies to self-police and try to follow the stupid code to the letter is still very much present. Throw in soime of the stranger interpretations of the code and you have your problems.

If the DM does have a fairly relaxed attitude about the Paladin Code they could say as much, or better yet demonstrate it. In one of my favorite campaigns there were two NPCs-- one was a narcissistic, dogmatic thug; another was a goofy old guy that made clever use of Obfuscating Stupidity. Both of them were Paladins. I think the former may have been created more as a parody of Paladin stereotypes, but both character do imply that both characters satisfy the requirements of following the Code.

kyoryu
2016-04-30, 01:24 PM
Or you could also tell the players, "hey, since I'm the final arbiter of what's Good and Evil, and you can't read my mind, but your Paladin is pretty clued in to that stuff since they're all Paladin-y, how about if I tell you if actions you take are bad for your alignment?"

Seems pretty reasonable.

OldTrees1
2016-04-30, 02:43 PM
Or you could also tell the players, "hey, since I'm the final arbiter of what's Good and Evil, and you can't read my mind, but your Paladin is pretty clued in to that stuff since they're all Paladin-y, how about if I tell you if actions you take are bad for your alignment?"

Seems pretty reasonable.

Yes, that sounds reasonable regardless of whether the Paladin has divine knowledge, a student of Ethics/Morality, or even just an idealist with good intentions. That solution works even for the story of a Paladin that unknowingly slips into immoral behavior.

kyoryu
2016-04-30, 04:59 PM
Yes, that sounds reasonable regardless of whether the Paladin has divine knowledge, a student of Ethics/Morality, or even just an idealist with good intentions. That solution works even for the story of a Paladin that unknowingly slips into immoral behavior.

Absolutely. As a GM, in the general case, I consider it my duty to inform players of things their characters would know, beyond even alignment boundaries.

Honest Tiefling
2016-04-30, 05:02 PM
Absolutely. As a GM, in the general case, I consider it my duty to inform players of things their characters would know, beyond even alignment boundaries.

I hope clerics or druids also get this information as well. But overall, I tend to agree, even in the case of forgetful players.

kyoryu
2016-04-30, 05:22 PM
I hope clerics or druids also get this information as well. But overall, I tend to agree, even in the case of forgetful players.

Of course. That's why I said "in the general case."

So if character would know the appropriate manners for something, as GM, I'll make sure the player has that info as well.

Winter_Wolf
2016-04-30, 09:32 PM
Or you could also tell the players, "hey, since I'm the final arbiter of what's Good and Evil, and you can't read my mind, but your Paladin is pretty clued in to that stuff since they're all Paladin-y, how about if I tell you if actions you take are bad for your alignment?"

Seems pretty reasonable.

Totally agree. Sadly I've known players who get pissy about that kind of thing. I don't even know why. I'm all for knowing in advance.

digiman619
2016-05-01, 01:02 AM
I think it's generally well agreed that a-hole players can be a-holes regardless of their class, and a-hole GMs will be a-holes regardless of your class. But the fact cannot be denied that paladins, more than any other class, have the problem in that it draws the attention of a-holes on both sides of the screen.