Paladin are selfish

[Bellmaethorion]

So, something just occured to me, if paladin are played in the way they often are(like Miko, for example) then these paladin are being selfish.
just how many people do they hurt with their "do-goodery"?
how often does their honesty bring trouble for others?
how many people have they hurt themselves, who did not deserve it?

just because they feel like they have to do "good", they hurt others, that's rather selfish, don't you think?

(this explenation is rather simple, as I'm lacking time to fully explain what I mean, I expect some bad comments on this because of what I said, but as I said, I have not fully explained myself, which I will later.)

[Solo]

So why not abstain from posting until later and save us the trouble of getting worked up over this poor post?

[horseboy]

Yeah, cause I'm confused how telling the truth could be considered selfish.

[Talic]

I believe that the point the gentleman is trying to make is that the rigid code that some hold paladins to (including honesty, which I do not always hold paladins to), can sometimes create more hardships for others around them. This disregard for the welfare of others in support of their own personal moral code could be interpreted as selfish.

However, the hardship being brought upon others is being brought not by paladins, but by other less savory individuals. The paladins oppose those individuals, and it is the fault of those people, not the paladin's, that those hardships happen. Thus, the paladin's code doesn't hurt others. It's the evil actions of those who try to force the paladin to act in a similar fashion that hurts others. As long as the paladin opposes that evil, it's all good.

[Zincorium]

If that's the way paladins are played in your group, i.e. without any regard for the overall consequences, I'm sorry.

Doing good = helping (good) people. If a paladin hurts someone who didn't have it coming, either it was in the service of some larger good or they made a mistake. They don't get a free pass, and they shouldn't act when it's unclear whether what they're doing is good overall.

If acting with honor (telling the truth is only an example) gets people in your group hurt, maybe you're the problem. Paladins realize that openness and responsibility for individual actions is the only long term strategy that's going to work. If everyone else is lying, cheating, and otherwise behaving chaotically, then you're sabotaging the paladin's goals, and it's reasonable to assume he'll take steps to show you the errors you've made.

[Talic]

If that's the way paladins are played in your group, i.e. without any regard for the overall consequences, I'm sorry.

Doing good = helping (good) people. If a paladin hurts someone who didn't have it coming, either it was in the service of some larger good or they made a mistake. They don't get a free pass, and they shouldn't act when it's unclear whether what they're doing is good overall.

If acting with honor (telling the truth is only an example) gets people in your group hurt, maybe you're the problem. Paladins realize that openness and responsibility for individual actions is the only long term strategy that's going to work. If everyone else is lying, cheating, and otherwise behaving chaotically, then you're sabotaging the paladin's goals, and it's reasonable to assume he'll take steps to show you the errors you've made.

I don't know... Every now and again, the paladin needs to have his code tested by the villains... Something like, "Kill each of the cute kittens in this basket, and the orphan holding it, or I shall destroy the lives of every soul in the village of Wesahgonnadie... MWAH HAHAHAHAHA"

[Voyager_I]

This seems to stem more from people not knowing how to play Paladin's than a problem with the class itself. Like Miko, for example.

[Ominous]

I tend to avoid paladins and use champions from Arcana Evolved instead. You have less of an alignment issue. The ideologies of champions are flexible and can allow for different alignments.

[Zincorium]

I don't know... Every now and again, the paladin needs to have his code tested by the villains... Something like, "Kill each of the cute kittens in this basket, and the orphan holding it, or I shall destroy the lives of every soul in the village of Wesahgonnadie... MWAH HAHAHAHAHA"

*smites villian while he's laughing*

Seriously, why the heck would a villian even want to do that? It only makes sense from the perspective of a DM tormenting a player. And that's not a perspective I'm familiar with.

[Jothki]

I believe that the point the gentleman is trying to make is that the rigid code that some hold paladins to (including honesty, which I do not always hold paladins to), can sometimes create more hardships for others around them. This disregard for the welfare of others in support of their own personal moral code could be interpreted as selfish.

However, the hardship being brought upon others is being brought not by paladins, but by other less savory individuals. The paladins oppose those individuals, and it is the fault of those people, not the paladin's, that those hardships happen. Thus, the paladin's code doesn't hurt others. It's the evil actions of those who try to force the paladin to act in a similar fashion that hurts others. As long as the paladin opposes that evil, it's all good.

I doubt that everyone would agree with that, especially the more Chaotic types. I could imagine a secret Chaotic Good organization almost entirely devoted to purging Exaltedness from the world, for the good of all.

[Charles Phipps]

Basically, I think it's weird how many people's Real-Life issues with religion come out even in official supplements.

The Complete Paladin's Handbook was literally the worst supplement ever written.

(Wait, that was WOD: Gypsies. This is no. 2.....well, No. 3 after Dirty Secrets of the Black hand)

[Tengu]

Miko is an example of a badly-played paladin, or how paladins look like in the eyes of people whose idea of a cool character is a "badass" spineless CN brooding emo antihero in black leather.

[Mando Knight]

*smites villian while he's laughing*

That's what I was thinking...

[Swordguy]

...or how paladins look like in the eyes of people whose idea of a cool character is a "badass" spineless CN brooding emo antihero in black leather.

Or those who understand that someone telling other people how to run their personal lives is Totalitarianism writ small.

No problems with Pallies who whomp on Evil folks who go out and hurt people, but Pallies who insist on going around smiting simply selfish (evil) people are simply localized tyrants. Nobody has the inherent right to tell somebody else how to live their life, as long as that person isn't actively hurting someone else. The whole idea of a Paladin as commonly played and as inferred in the fluff that they they do, in fact, have that precise right.

"You will behave like we tell you or bad things will happen to you. Why should you listen to us? Because we're Good."

[Talic]

*smites villian while he's laughing*

Seriously, why the heck would a villian even want to do that? It only makes sense from the perspective of a DM tormenting a player. And that's not a perspective I'm familiar with.

You have given the correct decision. Incidentally, the choice of making the hero agonize is documented in stories both classic and new. Whether it's the devil corrupting people or the Green Goblin giving Spidey a tough choice, the thing that really defines the hero is that he charts his own destiny. He doesn't abide by the devil's gambit, such as the one above, and instead makes his own choice.

[SurlySeraph]

I doubt that everyone would agree with that, especially the more Chaotic types. I could imagine a secret Chaotic Good organization almost entirely devoted to purging Exaltedness from the world, for the good of all.

Yes, but they're all dishonest sneaky heretical criminal deviants. :smallyuk:


Or those who understand that someone telling other people how to run their personal lives is Totalitarianism writ small.

No problems with Pallies who whomp on Evil folks who go out and hurt people, but Pallies who insist on going around smiting simply selfish (evil) people are simply localized tyrants. Nobody has the inherent right to tell somebody else how to live their life, as long as that person isn't actively hurting someone else. The whole idea of a Paladin as commonly played and as inferred in the fluff that they they do, in fact, have that precise right.

"You will behave like we tell you or bad things will happen to you. Why should you listen to us? Because we're Good."

SMITE INDEPENDENCE! :smalltongue:

[Rachel Lorelei]

Whether it's the devil corrupting people or the Green Goblin giving Spidey a tough choice, the thing that really defines the hero is that he charts his own destiny. He doesn't abide by the devil's gambit, such as the one above, and instead makes his own choice.

Oh, WOW, was that EVER the wrong thing to reference, given what they've done with Spider-Man lately.

[Talic]

Oh, WOW, was that EVER the wrong thing to reference, given what they've done with Spider-Man lately.

Just because 3 sucked doesn't mean the first movie wasn't pretty good.

[A.Sondergaard]

That wasn't a dig at the movies...

Spoilers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_More_Day_(comics))

[Drascin]

Yeah, if you play them as Miko-style overzealots, they're more selfish than anything, as they cling to their code despite what hurt might come to others.But thing is, a paladin is a paladin becausehe holds to a code, yeah, but holding to that code over helping others and doing good is not paladin-ish, despite what stereotypical portrayals would have you think, and repeated offense might be grounds for holy smiting.

I generally solve it by giving some examples of paladin-y character to my player when they say they want to play paladin. Up to now, only one has taken the challenge after hearing that Paladins are supposed to be like Vash from Trigun, not Miko from OotS :smallwink: . Though the one that did, did it masterfully indeed.

[Cuddly]

*smites villian while he's laughing*

Seriously, why the heck would a villian even want to do that? It only makes sense from the perspective of a DM tormenting a player. And that's not a perspective I'm familiar with.

A fallen paladin is a fighter without the feats. Level the playing field, you know?

[Zincorium]

A fallen paladin is a fighter without the feats. Level the playing field, you know?

That's only leveling the field if they're competing with commoners and the CW samurai.

[Talic]

That wasn't a dig at the movies...

Spoilers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_More_Day_(comics))

Oh, you mean the comic book retcon. Yeahm that was gay, but I was using the movie reference. Most of my arguements appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[KingKoala]

The only reason Paladins take this kind of flak is because their method of messing with NPCs and PCs is the most obvious and overt. The reality is that all character types and classes do the same thing, allbeit on a more subtle level.

For example, the Chaotic Good Barbarian knows that a surprise attack is coming to a small village, and so uses his brute nature to force everyone there out of their homes and to run for the hills, rather than let them defend themselves. The Neutral Good Rogue assassinates a corrupted over-taxing leader, although some of the populace admired him. The Lawful Evil Sorceror causes his party to be outlawed from a major city.

Point being, all PCs impose their will on those around them, forcing them to live their lives differently. The only difference is the Paladin actually tells them "my way or the highway".

[Grey Paladin]

I'd say most Paladins are indeed selfish - but for an entirely different reason - they would never own any magic items, or even armor - a single suit of full plate can feed a population of 2,100 people for a month.

A true Paladin would give away his Holy Avenger without blinking if it meant the saving of another innocent life, a true Paladin would use violence only as a last resort, even against evil, and instead try to convert it - using non-lethal tactics on everything beside "Always X Evil".

[Kioran]

What´s up with all the Miko-bashing? That´s most emphatically not the worst stereotype around, neither is it selfish. High morals might constantly grate, as does their strict enforcement, but chaos often means no grating till there´s a big bang, a catastrophe of unneccesary proportions, or failure because the CG "better solution" actually made things worse because it´s originator misjudged the situation......
Miko didn´t even go around as the smite-machine Paladin. The only one she was out to get was Belkar, and to be honest, it would have been a net gain for the OoTS had she succeeded. And she wasn´t even selfish - sure, she made other people´s lives uncomfortable, but not more so than anyone else. It´s just that she was open about it. She´s preachy and you want to punch her - but you also want to punch Elan becuase he´s stupid, or beat the living bajeezus out of Haley because she cons you out of your stuff or outright steals it.
Give me the overzealous LG any time of the day, thank you.

[Renx]

What´s up with all the Miko-bashing? That´s most emphatically not the worst stereotype around, neither is it selfish.

Eh? She's bad enough. Psychopathic, possibly schizophrenic, delusional and proud of it.


Miko didn´t even go around as the smite-machine Paladin. The only one she was out to get was Belkar, and to be honest, it would have been a net gain for the OoTS had she succeeded.

What? Have we been reading the same comic? She killed her liege lord, attacked her superior officer (also a paladin) in cold blood, as well as Roy.


And she wasn´t even selfish - sure, she made other people´s lives uncomfortable, but not more so than anyone else.

Um yes, yes she was. She was proud and unable to even grasp the concept that maybe she was wrong, ever. Jesus hoppin' christ on a pogostick, she fell as a paladin and thought her gods were wrong. I seriously can't believe all this miko-fanboy love where she apparently was a saint. *sigh*

And on the subject of making peoples' lives uncomfortable, who exactly are you comparing her to? Roy? Haley? Elan? Belkar? Xykon? Hinjo? V? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't add up.


Give me the overzealous LG any time of the day, thank you.

You're welcome to her. Have fun when she rips your head off for using the wrong toothpaste.

---
But still, I must confess, the only reason I started reading this post was that I read the topic as 'paladins are shellfish', a statement I fully agree on :biggrin:

[Farmer42]

But still, I must confess, the only reason I started reading this post was that I read the topic as 'paladins are shellfish', a statement I fully agree on :biggrin:

So, wait...Paladins taste good with butter and a bit of lemon juice, and their consumption is banned by the Bible? Why, oh why most religion and tasty food so disagree?!

[Stephen_E]

The only reason Paladins take this kind of flak is because their method of messing with NPCs and PCs is the most obvious and overt. The reality is that all character types and classes do the same thing, allbeit on a more subtle level.

For example, the Chaotic Good Barbarian knows that a surprise attack is coming to a small village, and so uses his brute nature to force everyone there out of their homes and to run for the hills, rather than let them defend themselves. The Neutral Good Rogue assassinates a corrupted over-taxing leader, although some of the populace admired him. The Lawful Evil Sorceror causes his party to be outlawed from a major city.

Point being, all PCs impose their will on those around them, forcing them to live their lives differently. The only difference is the Paladin actually tells them "my way or the highway".

The CG Barb damn well better not force the villagers out of their homes. That's not CG. He should point out that the attack is coming and offer to help fight them off, or advise them to leave, and help them. But if they decline then he has to make a choice to stand with them anyway or walk away. Forcing his will on them "for their own good" is the darkside of LG. Not CG.

The Paladin sterotype that comes across as selfish, and much as I dislike it, it s a legitimate way of playing Paladins (there are other legitimate takes I prefer) is where they say you'll do what I say because I know what's good for you, and I get to feel righteous about how good I am.

It should be noted as Miko showed, if it falls it's one of the least likely to atone because they have trouble in seeing any fault in themselves. Selfdoubt won't stop you falling, but it makes it easier to fix things.

I do find it funny that by strict parsing of the RAW you don't have to be LG to be a Paladin. You have to start LG, and when you cease to be LG you will fall, but by atoning you regain your paladin abilities and the ability to advance as a Paladin. Atoning doesn't change alignments unless it was caused by a magical effect. So strictly speaking you can atone for ceasing to be LG without actually changing your alignment back to LG. :smallwink:

Stephen

[Baxbart]

I do find it funny that by strict parsing of the RAW you don't have to be LG to be a Paladin. You have to start LG, and when you cease to be LG you will fall, but by atoning you regain your paladin abilities and the ability to advance as a Paladin. Atoning doesn't change alignments unless it was caused by a magical effect. So strictly speaking you can atone for ceasing to be LG without actually changing your alignment back to LG. :smallwink:

Stephen


Hmm... I only just noticed that. The atonement spell lets you reverse the alignment change, OR restore lost class abilities - So I suppose you could remain in your new alignment and get your abilities back, but its a roundabout way of doing things. Personally I'd prefer to just be a Paladin of Freedom, or find a DM who is more lenient with alignments.

I've played a Paladin before who was most certainly LG to start with, but eventually drifted towards NG, and even accepted a necessary evil into the party - a Zhent they had been hunting who was converted by the party Bard

Hell, in that game, the Fighter/Ranger type was far more zealous than the Paladin at most times! I was far more of a Leader-Of-Men type, than a stick-up-yer-backside stereotype Paladin... and it was so much more fun playing a character that didn't quite fit the mould for once.

[Roderick_BR]

As it was pointed out, Miko is Rich's example on how a paladin shouldn't be played, while Hinjo is admired by many readers, even some that usually doesn't play paladins.
Thing is, paladins shouldn't be selfishes. He should refrain from making actions that would keep his group in danger. It's a case of "Evil ancient dragon? He's evil, let's attack now" against "We found an evil ancient dragon. We must warn the king, and find a group strong enough to defeat it" case.

And if they hurt people that doesn't deserve it, they would fall.... :smallamused:

And people get surprised when my paladins always try to talk to people and understand what's goin on before pulling out his weapon to chop people in half...:smallsigh:

[lord_khaine]

I doubt that everyone would agree with that, especially the more Chaotic types. I could imagine a secret Chaotic Good organization almost entirely devoted to purging Exaltedness from the world, for the good of all.
that hardly makes sense when you can be chaotic good and still exalted.


A true Paladin would give away his Holy Avenger without blinking if it meant the saving of another innocent life, a true Paladin would use violence only as a last resort, even against evil, and instead try to convert it - using non-lethal tactics on everything beside "Always X Evil".

that might be your version of the paladin, but the standart paladin is a crusader and a avenger, his job isnt to redeem evil but to smite it.

[ShellBullet]

I think the problems with paladin is that most people don't define what Law/Code/Order takes priority over others in the conflict.

Does Paladin follow the law instead his church teachings, if they are conflicted?

Does he follow his superior orders while good is against law?

It's so easy to create conflict for paladins and it's far easier for paladin to fall, especially the world view of the player and DM is drastically diffrent...

[Kioran]

Eh? She's bad enough. Psychopathic, possibly schizophrenic, delusional and proud of it.
What? Have we been reading the same comic? She killed her liege lord, attacked her superior officer (also a paladin) in cold blood, as well as Roy.

It might have helped that said liege lord endangered her life, and worst of all, made her mistreat good creatures and potential allies (by misinforming her). My LG Characters hate nothing more than to be forced to do unsavory, unjust or similiar stuff by their allies.
Said Liege also dropped her like a hot potato when she came into conflict with his new allies, bending over backwards to accomodate them, despite not being forced to do so. Miko is surely too judgemental and mentally unstable (a sign of mental capacity btw. - Haley or Elan are too stupid to be seriously deluded), and a sane individual wouldn´t have snapped - but quiting the SG and/or urinating on Shojo and his throne would have been perfectly valid after what he did.



Um yes, yes she was. She was proud and unable to even grasp the concept that maybe she was wrong, ever. Jesus hoppin' christ on a pogostick, she fell as a paladin and thought her gods were wrong. I seriously can't believe all this miko-fanboy love where she apparently was a saint. *sigh*

Don´t forget she stayed in the business and continued to fight even after her allies hung her out to dry by sheltering a murderer that, apparently, intended to kill her, compounded by the fact they even let others use lethal force to do so (285) - It´s like being a cop that is shot in the arm by a bystander for trying to take down an armed perp while his partner berates him for being excessive. Yeah.
Had she done the most sensible thing and walked, tragedy could have been avoided, especially for her. Right here, a healthy dose of normal egoism would have been better......


And on the subject of making peoples' lives uncomfortable, who exactly are you comparing her to? Roy? Haley? Elan? Belkar? Xykon? Hinjo? V? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't add up.

LG pisses of people, mainly the L part of it, because it feels a compulsion to interfere, while more neutral or chaotic people would have been more laissez-faire. Do note, however, that even more crusading Paladins don´t necessary terrorize people till they get their way. It sure is annoying, but so are toher traits of chaotic people.

That said - don´t play a smite machine. But yeah, LG can easily fall into conflict against a borderline evil (my current Shackled City party) or chaotic (OoTS) party.

[Hazkali]

I'd say most Paladins are indeed selfish - but for an entirely different reason - they would never own any magic items, or even armor - a single suit of full plate can feed a population of 2,100 people for a month.

A true Paladin would give away his Holy Avenger without blinking if it meant the saving of another innocent life, a true Paladin would use violence only as a last resort, even against evil, and instead try to convert it - using non-lethal tactics on everything beside "Always X Evil".

I disagree on both the points you made. Firstly, the paladin shouldn't give away his expensive magic items. His calling is not to feed and clothe the poor- the Gods have chosen others for that task. The paladin's duty is to defend the weak through martial means, which is perfectly moral in the context of D+D. He cannot fulfil his duty if he has nothing more than a lump of wood when the Orcs come attacking.

Likewise, when the enemy comes attacking, his imperative is the safety of those in his care. Regardless of the alignment qualifier of his enemies, in a world of free will and choice they have ultimately chosen to be evil, or else they are paragons of evil. Even if he could pacify all of the foes nonviolently, there is no guarantee that they will convert to good, and there can be no security that they will not escape and commit more evil. Therefore, his first thoughts should be with the utter destruction of the foes that would seek to spill innocent blood. If they surrender, then he should treat them honourably, and of course the paladin should not use lethal means if he knows his enemies are duped or coerced into attacking. However none of these things mean he should bend over backwards to save his enemy when a good smiting is what he deserves.

Also, I am now damned for contributing to a paladin thread. I hope you're all happy with yourselves. :smallannoyed: :smalltongue:

[Farmer42]

Kioran, you're confusing pragmatism with evil. Yes, she saw things which went against her code, but Miko had to ability to see if what she was doing was right (Detect Evil.) She didn't, and she committed regicide. Oh, that, by the way, is chaotic, not lawful. There are lawful ways to unseat a ruler, and Hinjo was going to use those. In no way, shape or form was Miko justified.

[KoDT69]

I'd say most Paladins are indeed selfish - but for an entirely different reason - they would never own any magic items, or even armor - a single suit of full plate can feed a population of 2,100 people for a month.

A true Paladin would give away his Holy Avenger without blinking if it meant the saving of another innocent life, a true Paladin would use violence only as a last resort, even against evil, and instead try to convert it - using non-lethal tactics on everything beside "Always X Evil".

This is wrong on so many levels. As a previous poster points out, the Paladin's job is to fight evil, not feed the poor. He needs to have the proper things to keep himself and others safe constantly. If he sells his equipment and gives away all of his treasure, the hungry are fed for a while then the food is gone and they are hungry again. Meanwhile an army of undead are marching on the village bolstered by an evil Cleric of Hextor. The Paladin in question is defenseless. Now what? That would make no sense.

I have had quite a few Paladins in my campaigns that were played in all manners of awesome. I guess I'm lucky enough to not have the common misconceptions ruining a flavorful class.

[Starbuck_II]

I don't know... Every now and again, the paladin needs to have his code tested by the villains... Something like, "Kill each of the cute kittens in this basket, and the orphan holding it, or I shall destroy the lives of every soul in the village of Wesahgonnadie... MWAH HAHAHAHAHA"

Why do people like tormenting players that play Paladins... no one does this to other classes?

Anyways, Being selfish is not evil. Good people can be selfish. Being selfish doesn't disclude you from elping others. Afte all, humans have this thing in them that gives happiness when one helps people. So we are all selfish to a degree (even if one ratioalizes it otherwise).



Thing is, paladins shouldn't be selfishes. He should refrain from making actions that would keep his group in danger. It's a case of "Evil ancient dragon? He's evil, let's attack now" against "We found an evil ancient dragon. We must warn the king, and find a group strong enough to defeat it" case.

If you don't get stunned from detecting evil on that dragon, I say it is a safe to assume you can bet it.
If you do get stunned than you warn the king.

[Heliomance]

*smites villian while he's laughing*


*Discovers that the villain has a Contigency to cast Apocalypse from the Sky over Wesahgonnadie in the even of the paladin attacking him*

[Kioran]

Kioran, you're confusing pragmatism with evil. Yes, she saw things which went against her code, but Miko had to ability to see if what she was doing was right (Detect Evil.) She didn't, and she committed regicide. Oh, that, by the way, is chaotic, not lawful. There are lawful ways to unseat a ruler, and Hinjo was going to use those. In no way, shape or form was Miko justified.

That´s not a case of evil, or even smiting evil, killing Shojo was a case of personal retalation first and foremost. Shojo has in fact used her and pissed her off beyond any normal limits. Killing him was selfish, sure, but not chaotic as such(I won´t go into detail as it doesn´t reflect on the OP´s point).
Which brings us to the point - A Paladin shouldn´t have killed Shojo, as it was an act that potentially harmed innocents (aforementioned category not including Shojo). A Paladin would have endured the machinations and insults - which is far from selfish. If this had happened to a NG PC-Fighter, many players I know would have taken revenge or killed him somehow, probably without batting an eyelash.

But even Miko got into her predicament because she hesitated to make a correct selfish decision, not because she was a selfish bitch. Killing Shojo is very much not her ordinary behaviour.

[Learnedguy]

Yeah, if you play them as Miko-style overzealots, they're more selfish than anything, as they cling to their code despite what hurt might come to others.But thing is, a paladin is a paladin becausehe holds to a code, yeah, but holding to that code over helping others and doing good is not paladin-ish, despite what stereotypical portrayals would have you think, and repeated offense might be grounds for holy smiting.

I generally solve it by giving some examples of paladin-y character to my player when they say they want to play paladin. Up to now, only one has taken the challenge after hearing that Paladins are supposed to be like Vash from Trigun, not Miko from OotS :smallwink: . Though the one that did, did it masterfully indeed.

Indeed. Vash the Typhoon is a brilliant example of how a lawful good person behaves. I have to say, he's one of my favorite characters in fiction ever:smallwink:

If you want the perfect paladin, look no further:smallamused:

[Stephen_E]

I don't think there is a perfect paladin, just some legitimate interpretation fit in to parties better than others.

For me one of the major sins of the Paladin is that to often the combination of fluff class features, and style of play, means that parties have to fit themselves around the Paladin. That's OK if they wnated to build their PCs that way, but if they didn't it's something of a drag.

In short it's often the player been selfish, rather than the Paladin PC.

Stephen

[comicshorse]

If they surrender, then he should treat them honourably,

Yep we do that and now the story's got around and every evil SOB surrenders to us at the first sign he's losing :smallfurious:

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Yep we do that and now the story's got around and every evil SOB surrenders to us at the first sign he's losing :smallfurious:Honor may involve jail time. You're lawful, not just good. And prisons in those days were no picnic. Although a redemption attempt is good in theory, there may be reasons it's not practical. And if a LOT of baddies are surrendering, buy manacles and make them carry your stuff. Hell, make the party wizard create a new plane, dimension lock it, and use it as a work-release prison where the baddies grow their own food and craft magic items for your use. Take leadership to get you guards. And then sell the items and use the money to pay a cleric of Heironemous(sp) to attempt to redeem all of them. And claim RP XP. Your DM will cry. :smallbiggrin:

[Voyager_I]

,

Yep we do that and now the story's got around and every evil SOB surrenders to us at the first sign he's losing :smallfurious:

Petrification is a pretty good way of taking prisoners. They're not in any discomfort, the process is entirely reversible, and they don't pose any threat to your party or themselves. To top it all off, you can (respectfully) plop them in your Bag of Holding until you have somewhere better.

Remember, respect and complete incapacitation are not mutually exclusive.

[Eorran]

From what I've seen, a lot of paladins get played as 90% Lawful, 10% Good. Granted, they have a code/standard of behaviour that they're expected to maintain, but the code should be a tool for roleplaying, not a straitjacket that player uses to bludgeon his party, or that the DM uses to beat on the player.
Also, I've DM'd a game where an enemy surrendered. The enemy was an evil cultist, and the party was trying to rescue other innocents from a cult stronghold.
The Paladin deliberated for a while with the party, but having no practical way to pack a prisoner around, and no time to go back to town, executed her. While it shouldn't happen every time, I think it was perfectly justifiable in that case.

[Grey Paladin]

This is wrong on so many levels. As a previous poster points out, the Paladin's job is to fight evil, not feed the poor. He needs to have the proper things to keep himself and others safe constantly. If he sells his equipment and gives away all of his treasure, the hungry are fed for a while then the food is gone and they are hungry again. Meanwhile an army of undead are marching on the village bolstered by an evil Cleric of Hextor. The Paladin in question is defenseless. Now what? That would make no sense.

I have had quite a few Paladins in my campaigns that were played in all manners of awesome. I guess I'm lucky enough to not have the common misconceptions ruining a flavorful class.

In the end, most Paladins would save far more lives by feeding them then they would by fighting evil, unless you are saying that to a Paladin, the destruction of evil is far more important, and innocents can rot for all that he cares?

Above all, a Paladin is the Defender of innocents, Avatar of Good (thus Altruism)- and hunger kills far more easily, quickly, and efficiently then
a Demon.

[ShellBullet]

In the end, most Paladins would save far more lives by feeding them then they would by fighting evil, unless you are saying that to a Paladin, the destruction of evil is far more important, and innocents can rot for all that he cares?

Above all, a Paladin is the Defender of innocents, Avatar of Good (thus Altruism)- and hunger kills far more easily, quickly, and efficiently then

That is debatable.

Evil people can rob you know and Paladin needs his equipment to fight evildoers like that...

So yes, destruction evil is more important, because then there would be no danger for money used for wrong purposes....

[kamikasei]

Miko is surely too judgemental and mentally unstable (a sign of mental capacity btw. - Haley or Elan are too stupid to be seriously deluded)

That is a very strange assertion. She's smart because she's nuts? Haley is stupid? Sure Miko was smart enough to devise rationalizations for her actions, but if she was dumber she'd just accept less intricate justifications.


Don´t forget she stayed in the business and continued to fight even after her allies hung her out to dry by sheltering a murderer that, apparently, intended to kill her, compounded by the fact they even let others use lethal force to do so (285) - It´s like being a cop that is shot in the arm by a bystander for trying to take down an armed perp while his partner berates him for being excessive. Yeah.

If you're referring to the fact that V hit her with a spell - it's more like being shot in the arm by a bystander for trying to shoot an armed perp in the head after you've knocked him out. ...Having been ordered to bring him in alive in the first place, knowing that he was armed.

[Kioran]

That is a very strange assertion. She's smart because she's nuts? Haley is stupid? Sure Miko was smart enough to devise rationalizations for her actions, but if she was dumber she'd just accept less intricate justifications.

Serious delusions which are still sufficiently grounded in reality require mental capacity. High intelligence makes one slightly mentally unstable. Now it might not have been smart, but it was intelligent.


If you're referring to the fact that V hit her with a spell - it's more like being shot in the arm by a bystander for trying to shoot an armed perp in the head after you've knocked him out. ...Having been ordered to bring him in alive in the first place, knowing that he was armed.

She had already brought him in alive - he escaped, killing a guard, and Miko, being ranking member of the SG on site, decided to track him down, whereupon Belkar tried to kill her. After a prolonged fight she has him down for the count and decides to execute him. Since imprisoning appparently didn´t work, her decision to kill him makes a lot of sense.
V attacked her with a spell that can do considerable damage, and the OoTS were quite willing to fight to the death (preferably Miko´s), while her superior ordered her to back down - and let them walk out scot free.

Does anybody apart from me see a Problem with this? Can anybody, sensibly, tell me what you would have done if Miko had been your PC and Belkar the NPC?

[Tokiko Mima]

Indeed. Vash the Typhoon is a brilliant example of how a lawful good person behaves. I have to say, he's one of my favorite characters in fiction ever :smallwink:

If you want the perfect paladin, look no further:smallamused:

Indeed, Vash the Stampede, aka "The Humanoid Typhoon" is a great example of just what a Paladin should ideally be. He has a code he follows to the exclusion of everything else, but it's a humanitarian code and flexible enough that it works to benefit others. Following his code means a great deal of pain will flow to him instead of to innocents, and the scars on his body come from that self-sacrifice. He knows he's not all-powerful or all-knowing, and spends a great deal of time just trying to puzzle out the enigma of how to confront pure evil (in the form of his loving brother) without killing it or letting it destroy others.

In the anime series you even see what happens when he "falls." It's not some disinterested god that strips his power away, it's his own guilt at his failure to obey his personal code. If you want to play a paladin well, that's the kind of character I would shoot for. Any desire for power, glory, to defeat monsters or even to become a paragon of Lawful Goodness, I consider at least a little unbecoming of a Paladin. They should be doing good for the sake of doing good, nothing more or less. :smallsmile:

[Crimson Avenger]

As for feeding the poor...does anyone remember the restriction of 2nd ed?

10 magic items total, and severe restrictions on which ones.
And the reverse tithe, you could only KEEP 10% of your income to keep you in equipment and housing.
And you had to purchase the best quality of everything you could afford.

I don't know about you, but that usually left me leaving rather large sums at every charitable instatution I could find. I never once had a rich paladin.

Vash would have made a fantastic paladin.

[spotmarkedx]

I don't think there is a perfect paladin, just some legitimate interpretation fit in to parties better than others.

For me one of the major sins of the Paladin is that to often the combination of fluff class features, and style of play, means that parties have to fit themselves around the Paladin. That's OK if they wnated to build their PCs that way, but if they didn't it's something of a drag.

In short it's often the player been selfish, rather than the Paladin PC.

StephenQFT. I am pretty excited about the alteration to the alignment system hinted at so far for 4th ed. I seem to remember the race and class preview stating something akin to the warlock using some powers in the aid to a cause that might make the paladin question (but there seemed to be no implication of loss of powers, or party fragmentation)... so it does seem that there is a bit more flexibility with regard to rogue/anti-hero/dark characters being allied with the paragon of virtue that is the paladin.

[Bellmaethorion]

First to explain my posting despite lack of time:
It's quite simple, my mind has more holes than swiss cheese, and I would simply have forgotten otherwise, sorry bout that:smallbiggrin:


On to the Paladin.

I guess I didn't explain what I meant properly in my first post,
Paladin that are played, in the way of for example Miko, are in my eyes selfish, not all Paladin, they can of course be played very well(for example, you can look at Big Ears, over at Goblins. I'm not saying he's perfect, but I would say, better than Miko(note:I'm not trying to stir up arguments about which of the two is better, I'm just giving examples here))

Now, the Paladin that play like Miko, are bad, as I said, because they are so set on following their code(or justifying what they are doing, intentionally or not, with this code) that they are breaking from good.

Selfishness,
there is one explanation of Good and Evil in D&D that has stuck with me, Good is Selfless, Evil is selfish, now of course it's more complicated than this, but in essence, I think this is a great way to at least get the general idea of a character's personality down.

Then there is the difference between Law and Chaos, again, I have a simple way to say it, "works in relatively the same way in relatively the same situation" for Law, and "works differently in relatively the same situation" for Chaos
(note:no-one is fully lawful, fully Good, Fully, Chaotic, or anything else, I know this, but the alignment system isn't built for full personalities, I believe.)

someone who is extremely lawful, could possibly be described as having Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, someone extremely chaotic... bi-polar perhaps?

Paladin, in my eye, should be played, as lawful good, that is to say, Good is more important than lawful.
if they can keep others from being hurt, they should do so, even if this means, going against set laws(by government or themselves), this will hurt them probably, as they need law to function properly(if they do indeed have OCD or something comparable), but it is an act of good, to stop someone else from coming to harm.

However, this is just my take on it, and by all means, disagree, that's fine:smallbiggrin:

(hope this text is a bit clearer than the last, though I fear it might not be either:smallconfused: )

[Tren]

Serious delusions which are still sufficiently grounded in reality require mental capacity. High intelligence makes one slightly mentally unstable. Now it might not have been smart, but it was intelligent.

She's not stupid-- good to know. How is that at all relevant to the morality of her actions? Doesn't make her any less zanier than a fruit basket.


After a prolonged fight she has him down for the count and decides to execute him. Since imprisoning appparently didn´t work, her decision to kill him makes a lot of sense.

A couple things here, does she have the authority to choose to execute a prisoner? It's possible she may, but I think given that Azure City obviously has an established legal system, she most likely does not have the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner. Even if she did, killing a defenseless opponent is not acceptable behavior for a paladin, especially considering the personal satisfaction she was taking in the act, I'd call that a CE act masquerading as LG.

Also, Belkar didn't try to kill her. He did attack her by throwing daggers at her, but for the remainder of their encounter he led her on a Road Runner Wily Coyote chase. At one point he even had her unconscious, and at his mercy. He chose to wake her up to continue the chase because he was bored.


V attacked her with a spell that can do considerable damage, and the OoTS were quite willing to fight to the death (preferably Miko´s), while her superior ordered her to back down - and let them walk out scot free.

Scorching Ray is not a huge spell to someone of Miko's ostensible level-- and that's kinda beside the point, the Power of the Narrative(tm) shows us that obviously it had little effect on her, and V was clearly not trying to kill her. And the rest of the Oots were telling her to back down, none of them made any aggressive action towards her. She struck first before Shojo told her to stand down, lightly reprimanding her, and assured her Belkar would be dealt with in a lawful fashion. And how does she respond? Evil monologue on her way out, praying to her gods for the chance to spill their blood so she can relish it.


Does anybody apart from me see a Problem with this? Can anybody, sensibly, tell me what you would have done if Miko had been your PC and Belkar the NPC?

She would absolutely have a right to be pissed, but a pissed good person might start demanding some answers, not rationlizing contrived and wholly evilly motivated vengeance against a group of people (excepting Belkar) who's innocence was just proven in her court of law (yeah yeah, I know, Roy's dad, but we haven't gotten to that part yet).

[bosssmiley]

Paladins again? *sigh* I thought we got this sorted out three editions ago...

Paladin of Mercy: Galahad or Superman
"The world doesn't need saviours? Then why can I hear them crying out for one every day?"
The classic white knight or 'cape (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCape)' character, perhaps a little too good for this world. Saves the kitten/kiddies/princess/kingdom/world without thought of payment or thanks, simply because it's not in his nature to let decent people suffer.

Paladin of Justice (good > law): Carrot Ironfoundersson
"You have to be pretty complex to seem that simple."
True in thought, word and deed. Doesn't make any of the small, dirty compromises that we do to have a quiet life. What most of us wish we had the courage to be.

Paladin of Vengeance (law > good): Batman, Judge Dredd or Arthas Menathil
"I AM the law!"
The dark knight character. Stoic, relentless and unyielding. A classic determinator (http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Determinator) and probably more than a little bit of an anti-hero. Not an easy person to get on with or to like, but good to have on your side. Runs the risk of turning into a Miko-esque knight templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) and falling into darkness.

The Jerk or P(aladin) i(n) n(ame) o(nly): Early Miko and, let's face it, most PC paladins
"The stick is a class feature."
Knows the code by rote, but doesn't understand it enough to live it. Takes the high ground without earning it. and uses their moral code as a bludgeon against those around them.

The Fallen: Late-arc Miko or Arthas the Death-knight
"You shall know endless torment!"
The dark mirror. What every true paladin is on constant guard against turning into. Puts his own wishes above those of his principles or god, but deludes himself that he has finally seen 'the true way'.

[kamikasei]

Serious delusions which are still sufficiently grounded in reality require mental capacity. High intelligence makes one slightly mentally unstable. Now it might not have been smart, but it was intelligent.

Well, I'll assume you have some basis for the statement that high intelligence makes you mentally unstable, but I still question the assertion that Haley is "too stupid to be deluded".


She had already brought him in alive - he escaped, killing a guard, and Miko, being ranking member of the SG on site, decided to track him down, whereupon Belkar tried to kill her. After a prolonged fight she has him down for the count and decides to execute him. Since imprisoning appparently didn´t work, her decision to kill him makes a lot of sense.

Tren pretty much covers what I would say in response to the rest of this, but to extend my earlier analogy, a cop who's chased down and subdued an armed, escaped convict does not have the right, legal or moral, to shoot that subdued prisoner in the head because incarceration didn't work the first time.

[Diamondeye]

Above all, a Paladin is the Defender of innocents, Avatar of Good (thus Altruism)- and hunger kills far more easily, quickly, and efficiently then
a Demon.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a demon below CR 4 and most of them are above that. The same sort of people likely to be starving to death (commoners) are going to last a few rounds, at most, against even a relatively weak demon.

Starvation, on the other hand, does not kill easily, quickly, or efficiently.

First of all, the human body can go up to several days without water and several weeks without food depending on the state of the person at the time deprivation begins.

Second, starvation rarely means the person has absolutely no food whatsoever. It usually means that there is insufficient food, not none at all, and the body is not getting enough to sustain itself. It can take a very long time to starve when there is a small amount to eat; this is why famines often persist for months or years.

Third, starvation can be a very painful, slow death. Think about how your stomach feels when you haven't eaten in say, 14 hours. Think about that after 140 hours.. and you probably would have at least a week left if there was no food at all in you're in decent health at the beginning.

Fourth, as people die off, the death rate of the remainder slows: Fewer mouths means more food for the remainder. If this brings the quantitys of food back above the level needed for subsistence, no more people starve; if it doesn't, it continues but it takes longer because now they're starving even more slowly.

Starvation is not quick, efficient, or effective especially compared to a demon, dragon, or other overwhelmingly powerful monster. They're the reason paladins exist in a D&D world: Someone needs to defeat them.

Finally, the reason for the starvation is not likely something the paladin can fix by selling his armor for food. What if there's no food to buy with the money? How about if it's caused by an evil sorcerer's curse? The paladin would be better served to put his sword to work on the sorcerer than to sell it to feed people... who are likely to discover when they run out of what food he purchased that not only are they starving again, but now their champion is essentially incapacitated.

A Paladin might donate considerable funds to help the starving, if he had good reason to think it would work, but paladins are men of action, and they are more likely to look for a way to solve the problem, not remove the symptom.

[Roderick_BR]

*Discovers that the villain has a Contigency to cast Apocalypse from the Sky over Wesahgonnadie in the even of the paladin attacking him*
If the vilain has THAT kind of power, it's very likely that the paladin is accompanied by an similarly powerful cleric or wizard to counter that.

[VanBuren]

I don't know... Every now and again, the paladin needs to have his code tested by the villains... Something like, "Kill each of the cute kittens in this basket, and the orphan holding it, or I shall destroy the lives of every soul in the village of Wesahgonnadie... MWAH HAHAHAHAHA"

Doesn't the Paladin have it hard enough without giving the Paladin lose-lose situation with the added "third option" that's really just a huge gamble that could go either way?

[Stephen_E]

She had already brought him in alive - he escaped, killing a guard, and Miko, being ranking member of the SG on site, decided to track him down, whereupon Belkar tried to kill her. After a prolonged fight she has him down for the count and decides to execute him. Since imprisoning appparently didn´t work, her decision to kill him makes a lot of sense.
V attacked her with a spell that can do considerable damage, and the OoTS were quite willing to fight to the death (preferably Miko´s), while her superior ordered her to back down - and let them walk out scot free.

Does anybody apart from me see a Problem with this? Can anybody, sensibly, tell me what you would have done if Miko had been your PC and Belkar the NPC?

How about a reality check as to what actually happened back then. Belkar did not try and kill Miko! Belkar had her unconcious or at least helpless for several rounds and waited till she recovered. It should've been quite obvious at that point that he wasn't trying to kill her. Maybe you're showing the same failure in reality perception that Miko practiced. :smallwink: Belkar tried to make her fall. He tried to make her kill him! in a fit of anger. This was actually quite a clever plan, but foolishly flawed through some things he'd overlooked. But that's Belkar, reasonably high Int and sod all Wis.

Stephen

[SurlySeraph]

Not to turn this into an alignment argument, buuuuut...


It might have helped that said liege lord endangered her life, and worst of all, made her mistreat good creatures and potential allies (by misinforming her). My LG Characters hate nothing more than to be forced to do unsavory, unjust or similiar stuff by their allies.

Uh... too bad?


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Obedience to authority. Lawful people do what their masters say, even when it is not what they want to do. That is the very essence of being Lawful. Besides, Shojo didn't misinform Miko; she thought the OOTS were murderers because the locals had told her about being attacked by a party (the Linear Guild) that matched their description. As for sending her after the OOTS in the first place, well, they did destroy the gate, destabilizing the fabric of the universe. That's not something a Lawful Good group can just ignore, no matter whether or not the destroyers are good or evil.


Said Liege also dropped her like a hot potato when she came into conflict with his new allies, bending over backwards to accomodate them, despite not being forced to do so. Miko is surely too judgemental and mentally unstable (a sign of mental capacity btw. - Haley or Elan are too stupid to be seriously deluded), and a sane individual wouldn´t have snapped - but quiting the SG and/or urinating on Shojo and his throne would have been perfectly valid after what he did.

Shojo didn't "drop her like a hot potato," he just didn't let her kill Belkar or imprison the OOTS. Since Shojo gave her the mission to bring the OOTS in in the first place, he has the right to change the mission. I contest your assertion that Haley is stupid, and I contest your assertion that only smart people can be deluded. Becoming enraged at seeing a matress tag removed seems more unreasoning than delusional to me. I'm going to assume your last point is sarcastic, given that Miko devoted her entire life to the SG and that she appealed to Shojo's honor even when she was convinced he had become evil.


Don´t forget she stayed in the business and continued to fight even after her allies hung her out to dry by sheltering a murderer that, apparently, intended to kill her, compounded by the fact they even let others use lethal force to do so (285) - It´s like being a cop that is shot in the arm by a bystander for trying to take down an armed perp while his partner berates him for being excessive. Yeah.
Had she done the most sensible thing and walked, tragedy could have been avoided, especially for her. Right here, a healthy dose of normal egoism would have been better......

Precisely. That's being a good paladin: you put the needs of your church and of your people high above your own needs. A paladin is not someone who decides he wants to kill as many people as possible until he gets bored and moves on to something else. A paladin is someone who devotes his entire existence to righteousness, giving up his happiness, his freedom, and his life for the cause. Abandoning Azure City would not have been Lawful in any way, and it definitely wouldn't have been good either.

[mostlyharmful]

That's being a good paladin: you put the needs of your church and of your people high above your own needs..

Yeah, but these are dumbass Paladins thatnot only don't go checkup on the other gates because their leader swore a personal oath not to for bogus, lot essential, reasons. They do it cause their long since dead and buried leader got ticked off with his old mates and swore to not care if the big gapeing holes in reality they were sitting on were properly defended because he'd never put any skill points in diplomacy. While their new lord has to scurry around in the shadows trying to keep the world in one piece on the sly. All because someone else got huffy decades ago.:smallyuk: The SG pretty much showed they weren't interested in doing the "right" thing if it cost them face/honour/got-complecated

[Grey Paladin]

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a demon below CR 4 and most of them are above that. The same sort of people likely to be starving to death (commoners) are going to last a few rounds, at most, against even a relatively weak demon.

Starvation, on the other hand, does not kill easily, quickly, or efficiently.

First of all, the human body can go up to several days without water and several weeks without food depending on the state of the person at the time deprivation begins.

Second, starvation rarely means the person has absolutely no food whatsoever. It usually means that there is insufficient food, not none at all, and the body is not getting enough to sustain itself. It can take a very long time to starve when there is a small amount to eat; this is why famines often persist for months or years.

Third, starvation can be a very painful, slow death. Think about how your stomach feels when you haven't eaten in say, 14 hours. Think about that after 140 hours.. and you probably would have at least a week left if there was no food at all in you're in decent health at the beginning.

Fourth, as people die off, the death rate of the remainder slows: Fewer mouths means more food for the remainder. If this brings the quantitys of food back above the level needed for subsistence, no more people starve; if it doesn't, it continues but it takes longer because now they're starving even more slowly.

Starvation is not quick, efficient, or effective especially compared to a demon, dragon, or other overwhelmingly powerful monster. They're the reason paladins exist in a D&D world: Someone needs to defeat them.

Finally, the reason for the starvation is not likely something the paladin can fix by selling his armor for food. What if there's no food to buy with the money? How about if it's caused by an evil sorcerer's curse? The paladin would be better served to put his sword to work on the sorcerer than to sell it to feed people... who are likely to discover when they run out of what food he purchased that not only are they starving again, but now their champion is essentially incapacitated.

A Paladin might donate considerable funds to help the starving, if he had good reason to think it would work, but paladins are men of action, and they are more likely to look for a way to solve the problem, not remove the symptom.

"Sorry, hundreds of people that are going to die in agonizing pain in the next few days if I don't sell my armor and feed you, you're going to die because I need my armor to save that slightly larger amount of people from the other village from Orcs"

Personally, I think Vow of Poverty should be hardwired into the class.

[Rutee]

I'm going to ignore this Miko debate and simply post my opinion on the OP:

Paladins as characters might be overbearing, but not necessarily selfish, if their goal is still the greater good. In Character. The players, however, if they're genuinely playing some Lawful Stupid Knight Templar straight, and expect everyone else to bend for them? That's selfish. Of course, it's not necessarily the Paladin's province more then other classes, I feel.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

On the OP, Paladins are a bit selfish, simply because they rely on their party making concessions for their class features. (non-association clause) That is just annoying, and I've never had a GM not house-rule it away.

[VanBuren]

"Sorry, hundreds of people that are going to die in agonizing pain in the next few days if I don't sell my armor and feed you, you're going to die because I need my armor to save that slightly larger amount of people from the other village from Orcs"

Personally, I think Vow of Poverty should be hardwired into the class.

Yeah, "Sorry. I can't protect you from the horde of Orcs, because I sold my equipment to give you food and farms that will be taken by the Orcs anyway when you get slaughtered by them, as I am now about as effective as the CW Samurai. Give or take" works so much better.

[SurlySeraph]

"Sorry, hundreds of people that are going to die in agonizing pain in the next few days if I don't sell my armor and feed you, you're going to die because I need my armor to save that slightly larger amount of people from the other village from Orcs"

Personally, I think Vow of Poverty should be hardwired into the class.

I think your view of paladins is more suited to Neutral Good characters. Selling one's possessions to help the poor, actively helping the suffering instead of killing those who make them suffer. The paladin's job is to protect good beings and kill evil beings, and he does that job devotedly and unswervingly.


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

Punishing evil is right there in the paladin's code. Paladins must fight evil, not just help good. While your vision of how a should paladin act is extremely virtuous (perhaps more virtuous than how paladins are required to act by their code), it only is the "Good guy who helps those in need" part, not the "Lawful guy who punishes those who harm or threaten innocents" part. A paladin can often get away with following either of those two requirements, but a really well-played paladin will follow both.

[Woot Spitum]

"Sorry, hundreds of people that are going to die in agonizing pain in the next few days if I don't sell my armor and feed you, you're going to die because I need my armor to save that slightly larger amount of people from the other village from Orcs"That assumes there is food to buy. A typical famine is the result of a lack of food, not a lack of money. Also, defeating the orcish army means an opportunity to grab their food supplies which can then be used to feed the starving village. Really, if a paladin uses his head, he doesn't have to make tough decisions.:smallwink:


Personally, I think Vow of Poverty should be hardwired into the class.Of course if the paladin were forced to take Vow of Poverty, he wouldn't have anything to sell to buy food (although this still assumes there is food to be bought), meaning the village is still in trouble.:smallfrown:

[Grey Paladin]

Vanburen:
An unarmored paladin with a club that feeds one village and does his best to protect the other (even at the cost of his life) will, in the long run, do more then one that only helps a single group.

Surly Seraph:
Agreed, it just seems odd that there are characters more virtuous then Good Made Flesh.

Woot Spitum:
Read the feat, it says that you must *donate* all your Wealth

And in D&D, enough gold can buy anything, go Spells :smalltongue:

[Woot Spitum]

Woot Spitum:
Read the feat, it says that you must *donate* all your Wealth

And in D&D, enough gold can buy anything, go Spells :smalltongue:

Problem is, you have to give away all your wealth as soon as you aquire it (or at least at the first opportunity you have to give it away), so the chances of you just happening to have enough cash on you to feed the people of the village are slim. And you can't simply assume there will be a handy cleric around for create food and water either, especially if this is a small isolated village. Anyway, if the cleric isn't evil, wouldn't he already be burning every available spellslot to feed the people anyway, without payment?

My brother just suggested another good plan to me: feed the people your special mount.:smallbiggrin: Then call a new one and repeat as necessary, after all as you are feeding the starving, surely the powers of goodliness that be can spare a few celestial horses, griffons, and giant eagles (although celestial chickens, sheep, and cattle would be preferred:smallbiggrin: ) can't they? Obviously a druid would be better at this, as he can, per RAW, attract a new animal companion (bison are ideal for this purpose) whenever his current companion is killed.

This still ignores the fact that the orc camp is still probably the closest and most easily obtained supply of food (at least as far as getting DM approval), and if the famine is really desperate, the people could eat any orcs that are killed as well.:smalleek:

[ashmanonar]

I'd say most Paladins are indeed selfish - but for an entirely different reason - they would never own any magic items, or even armor - a single suit of full plate can feed a population of 2,100 people for a month.

A true Paladin would give away his Holy Avenger without blinking if it meant the saving of another innocent life, a true Paladin would use violence only as a last resort, even against evil, and instead try to convert it - using non-lethal tactics on everything beside "Always X Evil".

This reminds me of the Knights of the Sword/Cross in the Harry Dresden series. The Knights may fight evil, but only because they can redeem the evil.

I'd say that the Knight of the Sword/Cross is a good example of the iconic paladin, if I've ever seen one.

[GoC]

A true Paladin would give away his Holy Avenger without blinking if it meant the saving of another innocent life, a true Paladin would use violence only as a last resort, even against evil, and instead try to convert it - using non-lethal tactics on everything beside "Always X Evil".

Unless of course he is currently using that Holy Avenger to hold back the hordes of the abyss and defeat the evil necromancer...
But hey how many Paladins do things like that?:smallwink:

EDIT: Let's see...
The Holy Avenger is worth 120,000gp. That's enough to feed about 100 people for the rest of their lives. So he can save a few hundred people or defeat a Balor capable of killing many thousands and still have his Holy Avenger to go kill a few more invading legions of hell...
Seems like the latter saves more lives.

EDIT2: An unarmored paladin who dies while trying to defend the village he fed from orcs has accomplished absolutely nothing.

[Tren]

This reminds me of the Knights of the Sword/Cross in the Harry Dresden series. The Knights may fight evil, but only because they can redeem the evil.

I'd say that the Knight of the Sword/Cross is a good example of the iconic paladin, if I've ever seen one.

You know I was just thinking that. I think Michael is the best example of what a well-played paladin would like look like.

"So what is he? Some kid of eternal soldier? Maybe a sleeping Arthurian knight woken in this desperate age to battle the forces of evil?"

"As far as I know he's a carpenter."

"Who fights ghosts?"

"He's a righteous man."

"He seemed nice enough to me."

"No, not self-righteous. Righteous. The real deal. He's honest, loyal, faithful. He lives his ideals. It gives him power."

I also like the atheist Knight of the Cross, that always tickled me :smallbiggrin:

[mostlyharmful]

Unless of course he is currently using that Holy Avenger to hold back the hordes of the abyss and defeat the evil necromancer...
But hey how many Paladins do things like that?:smallwink:

Not that many apparently. personally I'm of the opinion that your actions are your own and what you do to benefit others is a good thing that you get the credit for. Mean, nasty things that other moral agents do don't count against you. No matter what they say. If an inannimate object under my control kills someone then it's my fault. If someone else stabs a guy and blames me then it's just noise, and if I'm a Paladin he's getting smited upside the head at the first oppertunity.

[Nerd-o-rama]

You know I was just thinking that. I think Michael is the best example of what a well-played paladin would like look like.

"So what is he? Some kid of eternal soldier? Maybe a sleeping Arthurian knight woken in this desperate age to battle the forces of evil?"

"As far as I know he's a carpenter."

"Who fights ghosts?"

"He's a righteous man."

"He seemed nice enough to me."

"No, not self-righteous. Righteous. The real deal. He's honest, loyal, faithful. He lives his ideals. It gives him power."

I also like the atheist Knight of the Cross, that always tickled me :smallbiggrin:
My personal vision of the ideal Paladin?

Ben Frasier, RCMP. Maybe Paladin/Ranger, but still.

[DrizztFan24]

I've got an answer to the whole thing, PrC grey guard.

[VanBuren]

Vanburen:
An unarmored paladin with a club that feeds one village and does his best to protect the other (even at the cost of his life) will, in the long run, do more then one that only helps a single group.

Right. Because he gets killed by the Orc army, who goes on to kill everyone else. He probably doesn't even get to drop more than a couple, since he probably doesn't have weapon focus in club, and his DEX is probably about 10. 14 if you're being generous.

That gives him an AC of about 12 to get killed with.

So he accomplished absolutely nothing in the long run. They got their food, but were killed by Orcs. Even those that survive don't end up with the food, so essentially by trying to both, he's accomplished neither.

Seriously, we don't need another joke. We already have the Monk. And the CW Samurai, for that matter.

[Grey Paladin]

VoP is enough.

[VanBuren]

VoP is enough.

No. No it isn't. I forgot to factor that into my post, but it still won't change the end result.

[comicshorse]

VoP ? What that ?

[Duke Malagigi]

VoP ? What that ?

Vow of Poverty.

[comicshorse]

Well don't I feel stupid. Yes, obviously sorry.
And Stoopidtallkid and Voyager, thank you both, great ideas.

[ashmanonar]

You know I was just thinking that. I think Michael is the best example of what a well-played paladin would like look like.

"So what is he? Some kid of eternal soldier? Maybe a sleeping Arthurian knight woken in this desperate age to battle the forces of evil?"

"As far as I know he's a carpenter."

"Who fights ghosts?"

"He's a righteous man."

"He seemed nice enough to me."

"No, not self-righteous. Righteous. The real deal. He's honest, loyal, faithful. He lives his ideals. It gives him power."

I also like the atheist Knight of the Cross, that always tickled me :smallbiggrin:

I've got up through Death Masks, so I have to agree. Shiro is kickass too. <spoiler>Poor Shiro :(</spoiler>

[DSCrankshaw]

Hmm. It seems to me that any paladin with a holy avenger probably has enough change that he can help out the starving village.

I think that any well-played paladin who comes across a starving village will immediately think "What can I do to help?" Any DM worth his salt will immediately provide him with several options. Donating money may be one, but it's not really a solution, most of the time. When a village is starving, it's usually the result of some underlying problem. War, drought, plague, raiders, among others. The best solution, even if it involves an arduous quest, is to try to deal with the source of the problem. That is, after all, what a paladin does.

[Xuincherguixe]

I think the Paladin should be more than just some Holy Soldier.

In fact, I think that attaching them to a god limits their ability to do what's right.

What does the Paladin do when faced with a starving populace by oversight? Let's say that bureaucracy is holding up food. The priests aren't helping because they're part of that same establishment, or perhaps there is a law against using "create food" in an effort to keep the prices of food high.

Maybe the agricultural deity has a hang over and isn't performing their duties. Maybe they decided this was the time he won't interfere. Maybe he's a bastard and wants them all to die.

It's not something you'll see in standard D&D, because it seems that the only problems they ever have are as a result of evil arbitrarily deciding to be jerks.


This hypothetical Athiest Paladin is free from having Duty, to some authority be it a god or Priests far removed from consequence. Only one who takes it upon themselves can be an instrument of change.

[VanBuren]

I think the Paladin should be more than just some Holy Soldier.

In fact, I think that attaching them to a god limits their ability to do what's right.

What does the Paladin do when faced with a starving populace by oversight? Let's say that bureaucracy is holding up food. The priests aren't helping because they're part of that same establishment, or perhaps there is a law against using "create food" in an effort to keep the prices of food high.

Maybe the agricultural deity has a hang over and isn't performing their duties. Maybe they decided this was the time he won't interfere. Maybe he's a bastard and wants them all to die.

It's not something you'll see in standard D&D, because it seems that the only problems they ever have are as a result of evil arbitrarily deciding to be jerks.


This hypothetical Athiest Paladin is free from having Duty, to some authority be it a god or Priests far removed from consequence. Only one who takes it upon themselves can be an instrument of change.

Technically, RAW Paladins aren't beholden to a specific deity as they get their powers from Good itself. Some settings, like FR require it however.

[Emperor Demonking]

A lot of you are talking about the armies but what do you think the wizard is for, and really a palladin can afford to loose +1 to hit.

[Hopeless]

So, something just occured to me, if paladin are played in the way they often are(like Miko, for example) then these paladin are being selfish.
just how many people do they hurt with their "do-goodery"?
how often does their honesty bring trouble for others?
how many people have they hurt themselves, who did not deserve it?

just because they feel like they have to do "good", they hurt others, that's rather selfish, don't you think?

(this explenation is rather simple, as I'm lacking time to fully explain what I mean, I expect some bad comments on this because of what I said, but as I said, I have not fully explained myself, which I will later.)

Don't you mean Lawful stupid paladins?

Actually plain stupid played paladins might be more appropriate as one I've seen couldn't play lawful if he tried but thats my view of anyone trying to roleplay a fanatic.

By all rights they shouldn't unfortunately you're depending on a dm who ctually understands the problem and is willing to deal with it without making matters worse when you read a FR novel entitled Thornhold I believe has the most typical of lawful ignorant as stupid fanatic paladin I've ever read.

However perhaps you should provide an example of what you're talking about if you're worried you aren't coming across clearly.

[kjones]

I think a lot of people here are making the fallacy that "lawful" is the same as "obeys the law". While it does include adherence to authority, being lawful has more to do with upholding order, in the larger, abstract sense. So, a paladin would have no problem going up against a corrupt bureaucracy, as long as it was clear that the end result of this bureaucracy was chaos (i. e., starvation, etc).

Think about it: how else would a paladin be able to, say, vanquish tyrants? Otherwise, all they would have to do is pass a law - "No Paladins Allowed in the Kingdom." All the paladins would say, "Aw, shucks," and ride off into the sunset.

[Fawsto]

Save the Kittens, do not play Miko.

I agree with the idea of Vash from Trigun being a nice Paladin. Less Chaos in the mix and he comes to a perfect example of a very nice person who cares for the health and happiness of others and follow a personal code of conduct.

I've never being able of playing a "holyier than thou" Paladin. Never even once. Being nice to others and following the code and helping people should not be a motive to be overzealous and always thinking about the minor aspects that differ good/neutral/evil. It is a motive to be happy and responsible. Like, "Thanks for choosing me my God. From now on I shall help the ones in need and, if they desire, I shall lead them and show them how to be better persons. And be merciful to the ones I shall find trying to hurt or corrupt the inocents.".

Why play overzealous bitches? Why?!

BTW, a Paladin involved in a Crusade to eliminate the evil from the world would not sell his gear just to feed the people. Ok, he could do that, but he knows that the food will save the people for a few months, but taking out the problem that is making the food supplies run out is the key to solve the preoblem forever. Also, selling his gear while he fights the armies of the BBEG is not the smartest thing, since he knows that while he could feed a bunch of people, by loosing to the BBEG (due to lack of gear) the same people he would feed will probably be enslaved or suffer in the hands of the incoming army.

Beware to not DM a loose loose situation to a Player only because you can see only the most obvious thing. Remember, Balance is not a Paladin's class skill.:smalltongue:

[Diamondeye]

"Sorry, hundreds of people that are going to die in agonizing pain in the next few days if I don't sell my armor and feed you, you're going to die because I need my armor to save that slightly larger amount of people from the other village from Orcs"

Personally, I think Vow of Poverty should be hardwired into the class.

Gee, let's see.. there's an orc horde and a famine.. I wonder what might be causing the famine... how about, oh, let's see, maybe orcs destroying the crops?

Famines don't exist in a vaccum. They exist because of some cause, generally one the rest of the Paladin's church could address better than by having their martial champions sell their gear.

There wouldn't be any paladins if they had to sell their gear to feed the hungry. No one would go through the training necessary in order to be completely ineffective at the job anyhow.

As for hardwiring in the Vow of Poverty, it was almost like that in 1E. Suffice to say it serves no purpose but to limit the roleplay options of an already fairly narrow class.

[Fawsto]

As for hardwiring in the Vow of Poverty, it was almost like that in 1E. Suffice to say it serves no purpose but to limit the roleplay options of an already fairly narrow class.

I can agree with that.

[VanBuren]

Gee, let's see.. there's an orc horde and a famine.. I wonder what might be causing the famine... how about, oh, let's see, maybe orcs destroying the crops?

Famines don't exist in a vaccum. They exist because of some cause, generally one the rest of the Paladin's church could address better than by having their martial champions sell their gear.

There wouldn't be any paladins if they had to sell their gear to feed the hungry. No one would go through the training necessary in order to be completely ineffective at the job anyhow.

As for hardwiring in the Vow of Poverty, it was almost like that in 1E. Suffice to say it serves no purpose but to limit the roleplay options of an already fairly narrow class.

Ah, but apparently VoP is enough on its own to help an unarmored, club-wielding Paladin fight off a horde of Orcs.

[Learnedguy]

Why we're still at it, why not add vow of nonviolence and peace? Those two will probably further the paladin cause:smallwink:

(seriously, a paladin with VoP, VoN and VoPe sounds pretty good if played well:smallbiggrin: )

[Grey Paladin]

Not having to handwave the Paladin killing hundreds by non-action is reason enough.

Just because a situation where beating the hell out of something is not the solution to a problem in most D&D games doesn't means it wouldn't realistically occur rather often.

As to VoP being enough to handle a horde of Orcs - yes it is, did you look at Orcs recently? A paladin needs no weapon but faith.

[Sucrose]

Not having to handwave the Paladin killing hundreds by non-action is reason enough.

Just because a situation where beating the hell out of something is not the solution to a problem in most D&D games doesn't means it wouldn't realistically occur rather often.

As to VoP being enough to handle a horde of Orcs - yes it is, did you look at Orcs recently? A paladin needs no weapon but faith.

It seems that someone hasn't read the buildup to the Battle of Azure City. There, it was explained quite well why even high-level (noncasting) characters need to fear hordes. Besides this, orcs can have class levels, you know. If they do, then the paladin needs equivalent gear to stand a decent chance of succeeding (and regardless of whether he'd give up his own life, I hope that you'll at least see that he needs to actually defeat his targets.)

Anyway, as others have explained, it's unfortunate that people are starving, but it's unlikely that selling his gear is the best way for the paladin to deal with the problem. The way that you propose feeds them for a short while (assuming that there's food to be had, and the people with it are right bastards who won't feed the starving, are close enough to deliver it quickly, and somehow don't deserve to get smited). It does nothing to alleviate the long-term cause of the food shortage, so they still die, just a few months later. Meanwhile, the people a day's ride away are all slaughtered, because the paladin wanted to feel all warm and fuzzy.

Buying food will help in the short term, but there are better solutions, even under the (dubious) assumption that there's nothing else that the paladin takes responsibility for (which you're obviously making, as VoP won't be nearly enough against something that's actually a challenge at high levels).

Two off the top of my head:

1.) Lead them somewhere more habitable, possibly having a wizard friend transmute them into stone or something so they survive the trip.
2.) Work out a bargain with the bastards-who-shan't-be-smitten, in which he performs some sort of service, perhaps guarding their town or holdings, in exchange for the peasantry being fed.

[VanBuren]

Not having to handwave the Paladin killing hundreds by non-action is reason enough.

Just because a situation where beating the hell out of something is not the solution to a problem in most D&D games doesn't means it wouldn't realistically occur rather often.

As to VoP being enough to handle a horde of Orcs - yes it is, did you look at Orcs recently? A paladin needs no weapon but faith.

Only spiritual weapons? Yeah, that works real well for the Monk--and he gets bonuses for not using weapons.

[Grey Paladin]

It seems that someone hasn't read the buildup to the Battle of Azure City. There, it was explained quite well why even high-level (noncasting) characters need to fear hordes. Besides this, orcs can have class levels, you know. If they do, then the paladin needs equivalent gear to stand a decent chance of succeeding (and regardless of whether he'd give up his own life, I hope that you'll at least see that he needs to actually defeat his targets.)

Anyway, as others have explained, it's unfortunate that people are starving, but it's unlikely that selling his gear is the best way for the paladin to deal with the problem. The way that you propose feeds them for a short while (assuming that there's food to be had, and the people with it are right bastards who won't feed the starving, are close enough to deliver it quickly, and somehow don't deserve to get smited). It does nothing to alleviate the long-term cause of the food shortage, so they still die, just a few months later. Meanwhile, the people a day's ride away are all slaughtered, because the paladin wanted to feel all warm and fuzzy.

Buying food will help in the short term, but there are better solutions, even under the (dubious) assumption that there's nothing else that the paladin takes responsibility for (which you're obviously making, as VoP won't be nearly enough against something that's actually a challenge at high levels).

Two off the top of my head:

1.) Lead them somewhere more habitable, possibly having a wizard friend transmute them into stone or something so they survive the trip.
2.) Work out a bargain with the bastards-who-shan't-be-smitten, in which he performs some sort of service, perhaps guarding their town or holdings, in exchange for the peasantry being fed.

At the scale where hordes are actually dangerous, the only magic item that is going to save you is either one that casts Wind Wall or makes you immune to critical hits (3 20's being an army's main offense against a high level character alongside spamming Magic Missle)

As to the food hypothesis, I have simply presented an example where, while it is more logical to attempt and solve the problem for good, doing so will cost many innocents their lives - a Paladin who lets an innocent die for the Greater Good sounds dangerously like a zealot to me. Sometimes what causes the food shortage may be simply the whim of a weather god, there are cases where you cannot simply beat up the right long haired pretty boy to solve the problem and there is no conveniently placed plot device nearby.

Feeding them now saves the innocents from death, and gives the Paladin time to form a plan and attempt to execute it, while such a plan of action is more unlikely to succeed then what you have suggested, a Paladin would do anything to protect Innocent lives, for a Paladin if a plan's chance to succeed is not 0 it may as well be a hundred- faith drives these holy warriors in everything they do. this is what separates Paladins and other Lawful Good characters.

[Starbuck_II]

The way that you propose feeds them for a short while (assuming that there's food to be had, and the people with it are right bastards who won't feed the starving, are close enough to deliver it quickly, and somehow don't deserve to get smited). It does nothing to alleviate the long-term cause of the food shortage, so they still die, just a few months later. Meanwhile, the people a day's ride away are all slaughtered, because the paladin wanted to feel all warm and fuzzy.


With the magic Item comprehendruim it can be possible to buy food:
350 gp for 1/day trail rations. Trial rations are enough to feed a meduim person a day (or 2 small).
Assuming a population of 200 meduim (or 400 children): he needs 70, 000 gp.

Or even better, buy in bulk:
Field Provisions Box feeds 15 (has food and water)

He needs 13 of these to feed 200 people: costing 26, 667 gp.

[Grey Paladin]

With the magic Item comprehendruim it can be possible to buy food:
350 gp for 1/day trail rations. Trial rations are enough to feed a meduim person a day (or 2 small).
Assuming a population of 200 meduim (or 400 children): he needs 70, 000 gp.

Or even better, buy in bulk:
Field Provisions Box feeds 15 (has food and water)

He needs 13 of these to feed 200 people: costing 26, 667 gp.

Given the fact that the average peasent is said to make 1 GP a month, if we follow the ration costs no one would ever eat :smallbiggrin:

[snoopy13a]

Ok, let's suppose the paladin sells his equipment to buy food. There are a couple of problems:

1) Who is going to buy his equipment?

2) Who is going to sell him the food?

3) Even if the starving people get the food, what is stopping starving bandits from stealing it from them

Finding a buyer for the equipment could be difficult. The paladin needs to find someone who wants the equipment and can afford to buy it. Chances are that this sort of buyer only exists in a large city. Thus, the paladin may have to travel for a few days before being able to sell it. In a starving village it is doubtful that there is a buyer for a high priced paladin item.

Finding a seller of food could be difficult as well if there is a general famine going around. It may be impossible to buy such a large quanitity of food (i.e. the rulers of towns and villages have seized all the food and are rationing out to all the people). Even if the paladin can find a place to buy food, it is likely to be at least a few days journey. Again, in a starving village it is unlikely for there to be a food merchant and if there was, the people would have already stolen all of his food.

Once the paladin gives the villages food, the word will get out that village X has plenty of food. This will likely attract bands of brigands who will try and steal the food to either consume for themselves or sell it back to the people they stole it from. It may even draw posses from neighboring starving villages who simply want to take the food so they don't starve. The paladin may be able to hold them off and protect the town... oh wait, he sold all of his equipment :smallwink:

[Grey Paladin]

1) SAW, Sigil
2) ^
3) Fine then, Bandits hear that there's a lone man in a suit of Fullplate who wields metal weapons and is rumored to have magical items, all the bandit clans in the area band and snipe the poor Paladin down, who stands no chance against such numbers- gear or no - and divide his equipment between them, earning more in a single day then they did in the last year.

Bias can go in two directions.

[Diamondeye]

At the scale where hordes are actually dangerous, the only magic item that is going to save you is either one that casts Wind Wall or makes you immune to critical hits (3 20's being an army's main offense against a high level character alongside spamming Magic Missle)

So only defensive equipment is useful against a horde? How about offensive weapons?

How about the Paladin being part of a party or maybe an army to deal with the horde? He's not necessarily alone to be spammed with magic missiles, and paladins do not customarily come with neon signs saying "shoot arrows and magic missiles here."


As to the food hypothesis, I have simply presented an example where, while it is more logical to attempt and solve the problem for good, doing so will cost many innocents their lives - a Paladin who lets an innocent die for the Greater Good sounds dangerously like a zealot to me.

So, the paladin should do the less logical thing and should ignore the greater good because it sounds like zealotry to you?

With all due respect, it sounds to me like you are imposing your own problems with certain forms of real-world morality on the game. For one thing, a Paladin who allows many innocents to die to pursue the greater good is probably not pursuing the greater good at all, unless he's stopping even more innocents from dying. What you're describing is delusion, not zealotry.

Furthermore, you are making huge assumptions in your scenario:

1) You are assuming there is someone to buy the Paladin't gear
2) You are assuming there is food to purchase
3) You are assuming the food shortage is not due to some other threat
4) You are assuming that when the food purchased runs out, whatever caused the shortage will be gone.
5) You are assuming there are no other unrelated threats the Paladin might need to deal with
6) You are assuming that the threat to people from famine is necessarily as great as that from an enemy; a very odd assumption in fantasy worlds with an unending supply of hostile monsters
7) You are assuming the paladin will have no future need for his gear to end some other threat
8) You are assuming there is no one else to deal with the famine; other character classes may be able to do so more efficiently.


Sometimes what causes the food shortage may be simply the whim of a weather god, there are cases where you cannot simply beat up the right long haired pretty boy to solve the problem and there is no conveniently placed plot device nearby.

If it's the whim of the weather god, then presumably there is no food to buy, so selling his gear will produce no useful result. Furthermore, when a fantasy diety is inflicting famine, that's generally a clue that there's a quest to appease him. Selling gear to buy food is not fun. Doing quests is fun.

Furthermore, in this casem why doesn't a cleric just cast control weather?


Feeding them now saves the innocents from death, and gives the Paladin time to form a plan and attempt to execute it,

How's he supposed to execute it without any gear?


while such a plan of action is more unlikely to succeed then what you have suggested, a Paladin would do anything to protect Innocent lives,

He will do almost anything, but what he will not do is undertake ineffective and futile short-term solutions that hinder his solving the long-term problem.


for a Paladin if a plan's chance to succeed is not 0 it may as well be a hundred- faith drives these holy warriors in everything they do. this is what separates Paladins and other Lawful Good characters.

Faith drives them but it does not make them behave like utter morons.

[snoopy13a]

1) SAW, Sigil
2) ^
3) Fine then, Bandits hear that there's a lone man in a suit of Fullplate who wields metal weapons and is rumored to have magical items, all the bandit clans in the area band and snipe the poor Paladin down, who stands no chance against such numbers- gear or no - and divide his equipment between them, earning more in a single day then they did in the last year.

Bias can go in two directions.

1+2) ???????

3) A traveling paladin will be tough to jump as he is on the move and by the time the bandits hear of him, he may be gone. Food in a village isn't going anywhere.

In tough times, people can become brutal. A starving village that suddenly has food will become a target by surrounding villages that are starving. It may not even be bandits, it may be your next-door neighbor who simply wants food for his children.

[Fawsto]

My group's theory: After you hit lvl 6 you start to run away from fame as a need, since a lvl 10 Paladin poses a threat to almost any evildoers around they will probably torment him every day of his life if he don't hide and fight them without getting famous.

So a Paladin that walks around spaming Magic Items is ought to be slaughtered. As any class around that does the same thing will be killed by greater evildoers that decide to cut the good down the root.

Back to the problem. I had this discussion yesterday, but yet I put Exalted on the line. My DM insists that if my Pally encounters a famine somewhere he is ought to sell his gear to feed the starved and AFTER selling his gear he is ought to go there and solve the problem. All this to stay exalted. Well, news happens to be that you only loose your exalted status if you commit evil acts. Being rational and using his money (the Gold he keeps in his pockets) to feed the hungry untill he can solve the problem for good and forever seems enough to be a Lawful Good Paladin that would, without doubt, sacrifice himself in order to feed the Hungry, since he is "Paying the Hungry so he can go out there risking his life to slay the Dragon that is burning the crops".

Imediatism does not saves lifes or bring happiness. It only solves the problem for now and stops the Paladin from solving the problem for good, since he will probably die during his quest to stop the famine due to lack of gear and will die Exalted, but the people will still die in a month or two.

Loose Loose situation. Not fun for the Paladin Player.

[Grey Paladin]

Fwasto: Not fun, but realistic.

Diamond Eye:
Even if he has his gear, what makes you think he won't just die to the orc horde and end up saving none?

You are forgeting one incredibly important thing: Adventurers survive by sheer lack and the benelovence of the DM, gear or no gear makes little difference in a realistic scenario - but such situations aren't created to make the game fun - if we are discussing a campaign, then yes, selling your loot makes no sense as there will always be a (often hidden) "fix this up" button nearby, if we are discussing Paladins within the format of a story (and inner logic) I find it odd that a paragon of heroism, who wouldn't really stand a chance if not for plot armor/the gods, would chose to keep his gear and let these he is trying to protect die instead of taking one of the other countless leaps of faith he had taken before and fight with a club simply because, optimally, no good guys would have to go down.

You must remember that like all Adventurers Paladins are f'd up in the head, it takes an epic amount of courage/stupidity/fatalism to take the career of an adventurer, it takes at least twice that amount and unearthly idealism in order to become a Paladin.

[Diamondeye]

Diamond Eye:
Even if he has his gear, what makes you think he won't just die to the orc horde and end up saving none?

Obviously that's a possibility, but it's far from certain, especially since Paladins rarely face such enemies alone.

Besides, if he dies to the Horde he won't have saved any by buying them food, either, will he?


You are forgeting one incredibly important thing: Adventurers survive by sheer lack and the benelovence of the DM, gear or no gear makes little difference in a realistic scenario

Obviously they survive by the benevolence of the DM. However, that's true of every class. I didn't forget it; it has nothing to do with the question. The player isn't going to say "well, my Paladin is going to sell his gear to feed the hungry because the DM might throaw an unbeatable enemy at him." This is preposterous metagaming.

As for a "realistic scenario", yes, gear does make a difference. That's why one of the major goals for 4E is reducing how much gear makes a difference.


- but such situations aren't created to make the game fun

DMs don't create scenarios to be fun? Those are some pretty poor DMs then.


- if we are discussing a campaign, then yes, selling your loot makes no sense as there will always be a (often hidden) "fix this up" button nearby,

We are discussing a campaign. You said "Vow of Poverty should be hardwired into the class." That's a discussion of game mechanics. As for a "fix this up button", that's using loaded language to describe questing or otherwise solving the famine - which, by the way, is generally the point of roleplaying games.


if we are discussing Paladins within the format of a story (and inner logic) I find it odd that a paragon of heroism, who wouldn't really stand a chance if not for plot armor/the gods,

There is no "plot armor" in the internal logic of the game. That's part of the campaign. As for "not having a chance without the gods" that is completely untrue. How do less religiously-inclined classes survive then?


would chose to keep his gear and let these he is trying to protect die instead of taking one of the other countless leaps of faith he had taken before and fight with a club simply because, optimally, no good guys would have to go down.

He's not "letting those he's trying to protect die", he's using his resources to try to prevent that in an intelligent way. He would not take a leap of faith to fight naked with a club because he knows that the optimal situation is not likely to happen, and is even less likely if he fights underequipped.

Furthermore, you keep presenting this false dilemma that the paladin has to either fight the horde or whatever, or feed people. People don't starve to death very quickly. There's no reason he can't defeat the enemy then deal with the famine.


You must remember that like all Adventurers Paladins are f'd up in the head, it takes an epic amount of courage/stupidity/fatalism to take the career of an adventurer, it takes at least twice that amount and unearthly idealism in order to become a Paladin.

No, I don't have to remember that. That's your impression of a paladin, not to mention other adventurers.. It's also your conclusion, so you can't use it as an argument. We call that circular logic.

[Grey Paladin]

. . .
1) Realistic situations where the player would have no chance aren't created because such situations aren't fun.

2) My reference to the "fix it" button criticizes the fact that most adventures have solutions written into them.

3) Plot armor refers to the BBEG, for example, not sending his strongest minions right away, heck, Plot armor is the player characters even standing a chance against the BBEG, or facing level appropriate challenges, its a part of every D&D campaign and most stories out there.

4) In a realistic situation, at best, a level 20 Paladin is the equivalent of 500 man, while useful to have on your side in a large scale conflict medieval armies are still much larger and more useful.

5) I have brought this up example as an hypothetical example, much like the countless "two buttons" dilemmas, to make a point, such a situation is unrealistic.

6) I will not argue with you on the insanity of adventurers, I just think that no sane person would possibly wake up one day and think "Y'know, I should find a group of equally insane people, buy a suit of armor and a weapon, and head out into deadly ruins full of traps and monsters"

[Diamondeye]

. . .
1) Realistic situations where the player would have no chance aren't created because such situations aren't fun.

Obviously. This, however, does not explain why the paladin should sell his equipment.


2) My reference to the "fix it" button criticizes the fact that most adventures have solutions written into them.

Why, exactly, would you want to cricticize the fact that adventures have solutions? what's the point of writing one with no solution?


3) Plot armor refers to the BBEG, for example, not sending his strongest minions right away, heck, Plot armor is the player characters even standing a chance against the BBEG, or facing level appropriate challenges, its a part of every D&D campaign and most stories out there.

I know what plot armor is. However, if you want to discuss the actions of the paladin within the internal logic of the setting, plot armor is not a valid reason for anything. The characters are not aware it exists.


4) In a realistic situation, at best, a level 20 Paladin is the equivalent of 500 man, while useful to have on your side in a large scale conflict medieval armies are still much larger and more useful.

Do you have any actual backup for this number, or did you pull it out of the air? Do you have any explaination as to how it is relevant?


5) I have brought this up example as an hypothetical example, much like the countless "two buttons" dilemmas, to make a point, such a situation is unrealistic.

A hypothetical example of what? And how is it unrealistic? We don't actually have hordes of orcs, magic, or fierce supernatural monsters in real life to compare to, so how do you know what is realistic? What basis of comparison are you using? Any, or are you just assuming it is because it seems that way?


6) I will not argue with you on the insanity of adventurers, I just think that no sane person would possibly wake up one day and think "Y'know, I should find a group of equally insane people, buy a suit of armor and a weapon, and head out into deadly ruins full of traps and monsters"

In our world, obviously not. In a world where such monsters were a real threat, it might be vital to the survival of society that they do so.

You are aware that perfectly sane people undergo things that fit pretty much into what you're talking about. What do you think mountain climbers, Navy SEALS, or other real-world adventurers do? That's right, subject themselves to ridiculous dangers.

[Fawsto]

I am playing D&D for fun. If I'd play D&D to make a perfect mirror of the real world, why the hell would I play it anyways?

My point: The Paladin, while not selling his gear in order to feed the hungry, is not being sellfish or less exalted if he desires to keep his gear to survive the battle that will extinguish the evil causing the famine. Paladins want to make the right thing. Any Paladin would throw himself into the outmost mortal dangers only to save one's life but that doesn't mean he should do that with drastically lower chances to survive.

A Paladin is not being less good or less exalted by thinking. Who is hungry is in a haste? Well I ought to say that after the money is expended the people will suffer again and the Paladin will not have done nothing to solve the problem. He is, for sure, taking the easiest way to solve it if he thinks that expending everything he gets will ever solve the problem forever.

Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Exalted... Neither of their descriptions says "Suicide" or "Maniac". Im my point of view the Paladin can try and solve the problem first, using a part of his money to tend the problem for a small duration and going full geared to fight the evil that poses a threat against the commoners. If the Commoners are dying it is not the Paladin's fault. He can give his money, loot and unused gear to the Commoners so they can buy food. But if he desires to be a greater good in the world, he needs his gear and he knows that.

Paladins knows that the fiercest spawns of evil are resistant to mundane weapons, that they could tear any mundane armor into pieces or even use abilities that could slay a unprotected man in one hit. They know they need their gear, they know that loosing it is the same as retiring from a life of adventure if his allies cannot provide him gear.

Paladins are not more sellfish than any other good character. Also they are the best exemples of utterly exalted people, if well roleplayed, of course.

[Alex Knight]

Ok then, there's a famine and I have a paladin with magical gear. What do I do?

First: Find out what's causing the famine. Is the cause magical or supernatural? If so, direct action time, and I need my gear to deal with the demon/crazed wizard/ancient curse/ravaging hordes.

If it's caused by natural conditions, well crud. Need to find help. May need to organize trade caravans of food from a non-affected area, or get people to move to a non-affected area. Either way, simply selling my gear isn't likely to solve the problem.

[Idea Man]

If you're an adventuring paladin, I would think you'd go a) find the famine's source/cause and fix it, b) go loot a not-to-far-away ruin, dungeon, fortress-of-evil, or dragon's horde so as to aquire the funds to afford some manner of relief, or c) set off to the local lord or ruler to request aid on the village's behalf. Selling your equipment is almost ludicrous, although concievable as a last resort, but you would try every other option first. The only way I can see that as selfish is not alleviating the suffering of the locals immediately, although you certainly have the ability. However, just because you can save the villagers by pawning off your holy avenger, doesn't make it the best (or only) choice of a selfless paladin. Risking your life works too.

Now, according to the OP, a paladin playing by his moral code is obligated to point out inconsistencies (tell truth, prevent lies) and destroy evil and corruption wherever he finds it (Shojo comes to mind).

It's very easy to play this way, but wisdom is useful for more things than extra spells. Paladins shouldn't go around setting every fact straight, as this can cause more harm than good. Ideally, they should hold comments to themselves in any situation that doesn't immediately harm someone, then seek the truth. Ideally. As if they have nothing better to do.

Stopping evildoers and the corrupt seems like a righteous task, but carelessly ignoring the ramifications of you actions can be just as bad. Now, again, this falls under an ideal mentality, but looking at the big picture is essential to preventing a catastrophy (again, see Shojo).

Now, it's not realistic to play a paladin quite that smart. Not seeing the whole picture makes for better, more involved stories anyway. In a way, it is selfish to impose your morality on others, so you don't have to deal with anything that could make you fall from grace. It's hard not to be a little selfish when all it takes is one slip-up too many and you lose all your cool class features (assuming you have a reasonable DM).

[Kioran]

Okay, took ma a while, but, in general, I see Paladins this way:

They are the Warriors of good. Their strength comes not through their training, or talent, but through divine Favor and conviction. As thus, the main Pillar of any Paladin´s life must be his unbroken faith in good and himself, in fact a confidence that he represents good. The reason for any Paladin´s fight is the fact that his fight is good and just.

Now we all know no one is always right - so the Paladin is also constantly charged with upholding that claim to justice, meaning policing himself. He has principles, which he is striving to uphold to the best of his ability. That is the lawful part of the alignment. These, to me, come in different Tiers:

Fundamental Principles: Don´t harm innocents, Never further the cause of evil,
Major Principles: Be a paragon and role model, encourage others to pick up your cause, be appropriate in your use of power and violence, never violate trust or betray allies
Minor Principles: Be honest and fortright, don´t be wasteful, be mercyful, be polite

These are not all of them, and maybe only an example, but it is the same for all Paladins - don´t violate any of your principles if possible. You may occasionally break the minor ones, and you may break, after consideration, principles of a lower order to uphold the fundamental principles.

You can, if you can reasonably expect to defeat the orcs/remove the source of the famine, keep your gear - even if you´re not exactly mercyful or a role model by letting the villagers suffer, you halt the spread of evil and suffering. And in case you are the only thing standing between evil and victory, selling your gear might actually be a violation of your code, since you enable the victory of evil.
Now, if there´s no other way to combat suffering then to sell your gear to help the villagers, any Paladin would have to consider it. Regardless, two different Paladins might decide differently, even in the same situation. LG doesn´t mean totally inflexible.

But the fact remains that a Paladin has to keep up that certainty of purity, and yes, that means he cannot adventure with evil people. This is not some random restriction in a black and white world, but a direct derivative of the Paladins code - traveling with evil companions might very well force you to support their evil deeds - for example by saving Belkar from Miko.......they covered his evil and let him go unpunished. Had Roy been a Paladin, he´d have fallen so hard he´d have left a crater. A Paladin should never willingly create a conflict of his principles - if he does it out of expedience, he´s not made out to be Paladin.
In the end, Paladins cannot travel with people who consistently offend his code because that would force him to betray them or himself. And that means

However, a classical (think Haley) Thief Rogue or an Amok Character of any other flavor is just as bad - they force the other player to cover their bacon for things they find abhorrent. So they´re not team players either. It´s more a question of finding a party style and sticking to it - the single Paladin in a gray party will stick out, but so will a CE "kickahss Wolock" in any good/heroic party - or even that CN Thief.

Concerning Miko:

Her obligation to the Sapphire guard and Shojo, is out of pure necessity, of elss importance then her duty to good and her personal code. If Shojo consistently doesn´t play by their rules (i.e.: violates their code), you would not only be right, but morally obliged to walk out on him. A Paladin will never put his worldly master above his god or ideals, and if there´s a conflict, walk. Them´s the breaks. If you employ Paladins, make it possible for them to serve you without disgracing themselves. If you constantly deceive them, keep them in the dark, and needlessly risk their lives, you are giving them precious little to work with. If they have no real reason to trust in you serving good, they can leave your side if they think it´s prudent and serves good better.

And no, Miko had no way of knowing Belkar wasn´t out to kill her (she was unconscious at the time - nevermind it´s impossible by RAW and would have provenly by a victory by plot). So it´s perfectly reasonable to assume he was out to kill you if he put you on fire, through daggers at you and killed other people before. It´s also justifiable to kill him if you think he´s going to get away and do more evil if you don´t kill.
Shojo has made Miko break her principles. That is one of the cruelest things you can do to a Paladin who has nothing but his Faith (A fallen Paladin is an NPC class). It should happen for a very good reason. It didn´t. And in fact, Hinjo has been toeing the line rather closely in being lenient with Belkar and the other convicts.

[Fawsto]

Almost... Hinjo had the feeling that the use of a Mark of Justice was enought as punishment. It has been working.

Also, I guess that Hinjo also felt that being with Roy, Belkar would do less damage than he would if he scaped from prison. Something that Belkar surelly could do. Hinjo could also had the feeling that Belkar could use a seccond chance. This, however requires a excelent motive that has not yet been shown in the comics.

We are starting to go somewhere. Good.

[Sir Iguejo]

ok
so we have this:

Some village is short on food, by some random higher power (orcs, dragon, angry deity, w/e)
Paladin is full equiped and aware of people suffering
Possible COA:
-> Paladin go with his gear and finish the problem source (Kill the dragon, fulfill some angry deity quest, exterminate orcs) but some people die from starvation in the process.
-> Paladin sells all his stuff to buy some time to the commoners and go naked to the dragon dungeon/orc city/whatever to try to end the souce of famine. High chance of pally's death



lets bring the situation down to numbers

1) DMG says that you can survive quite well spending 2GP per month, if you dont work at all. Lets say a commoner can survive in hard times with a bit less than that, for simplicity's sake, 1GP/month
2) Since Holy Avenger was called, lets say we are dealing with a 18th level paladin
3)NPC pally has 30500 GP, Cloak +2, Ranged +1,melee +5 (or Holy Avenger),ring +2, amulet +1,Heavy steel shield +4, full plate +4. (DMG pg 120). Bring this to GPs and you have nearly 156.628 Pieces (DMG pg 54).


So, if a 18 paladin sell EVERYTHING he has, he can sustain 4 or 5 Metropolis (30.000~40.000 people) for 1 month, or a single Metropolis for 4 or 5 months.
If the pally gives the gold he has in his pockets (30500GP) he can sustain a Metropolis for 1 month. Remember that we started talking about a Village

Conclusion:
If I were the paladins player in question, I would give my 30.000gold pieces to buy some time to the village and then go kill dragon/orc/whatever.

LG? Yes
selfish? No
Commoners dead? zero
Gear? Everything

[Sstoopidtallkid]

But where do you find the food?

[Wulfram]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Kill the River Orcs so he can go fishing himself, and you feed him for a lifetime.

[Khanderas]

Selling his gear and buying food for the starving hits several snags.

1. Somone with enough money to buy a high level paladin's gear. Not easy. PC's carry absurd amount of value on their persons in the form of gear.

2. Someone must have food for sale. What good is all the money in the world if you have nothing to buy ?

3. Transport of said foodstuff, not to mention keeping it edible.

4. If somone has food, and will not share, the obviously he is evil and the gods ment for you (the paladin) to kill him. :miko:

5. A paladin is supposed to be a holy warrior, righting the wrongs so that others can do their job for the betterment of the (good) community. In other words, you kill the orcish horde that slaughters the countryside so the farmers can do their gloryless job.

[Fawsto]

Those are being my points since the begining. If there was a Good Cleric or a Good Monk, PEHAPS they would sell the gear, provided that the Cleric cannot use his magic to help/create itens to sell and the Monk has gear to sell.

As stated, Exalted or not (even though I think "not Miko" Paladins are already exalted), the Paladin's duty is to protect the people as a holy warrior. This is his first major duty. The motive why he has being training and has chosen the path of purity. Since the day he decided to be a Pally he has decided to sacrifice something much more worthy than his gear to protect the people and fight the armies of evil: his Life. And he knows that geared or not geared he has a good chance of dying in the hands of whatever is causing the problem. And yet he would fight it without fear if they need him.

That's the Paladin's way.

[Sir Iguejo]

Those are being my points since the begining. If there was a Good Cleric or a Good Monk, PEHAPS they would sell the gear, provided that the Cleric cannot use his magic to help/create itens to sell and the Monk has gear to sell.

As stated, Exalted or not (even though I think "not Miko" Paladins are already exalted), the Paladin's duty is to protect the people as a holy warrior. This is his first major duty. The motive why he has being training and has chosen the path of purity. Since the day he decided to be a Pally he has decided to sacrifice something much more worthy than his gear to protect the people and fight the armies of evil: his Life. And he knows that geared or not geared he has a good chance of dying in the hands of whatever is causing the problem. And yet he would fight it without fear if they need him.

That's the Paladin's way.

The problem of this thread is:

Is a paladin supposed to sell all his stuff to save people?

ignore such problems as food transport or someone having enough food in their pockets to help an entire city

I think not. A LG character (not only the pally) is supposed to find the source of famine and finish it. By the power of weapons, if needed. If some of the commoners die in the process, its not PC's fault. They did what they could.

BUT

If you are talking about an exalted player (paladin or not), I think he should help people by sacrificing himself. An exalted player wont allow a single soul to die.

Personal Sacrifice (BoED, page 6)

A good character doesnt gelp others or fight evil when its convenient for him to do so. Even the most generous altruism, when it comes without sacrifice or even serves one's self-interest, is neutral at best. A character committed to the cause of good champions that cause in any circumstance, often at great personal risk or cost.
(...)
Voluntarily donating money, goods, or even magic items to a temple, charitable institution, or other organization is another financial sacrifice often practiced by good characters.
(...)
True heroes of righteousness ,all too often, sacrifice their own lives to save the lives of others.


And fawsto, if you think that every not-miko paladin is exalted, im sorry to disagree. You should read BoED again if you do not change your mind. Especially the first 10 pages.

[Fawsto]

I've read it from the beginning to the end. Personal sacrifice, yes I know what that means. But I think when the Paladin says "I am going out there to risk my life to stop the orcs from raiding your crops" he is sacrificing himself a lot. He could die in the process geared or not. He has just better chances with his gear. What stops a lucky orc to score a nice x3 great axe crit on him? What stops a High Level orc priest with the destruction domain to score a desintegrate on him? Perhaps a big number of orcs could pin him down and kill him. I don't know. Fighting monster is risky no matter how you face it. Gear is supposed to allow the character to minimize those risks or even make it possible to the character to overcome a challenge. A canion that the character must cross is impossible or very hard to overcome if you can't fly. Lycanthropes can be a pain in the ass if you don't have silver weapons. Etc. Gear is important in D&D. Hiting a character's gear is one of the most feared punishments around, but this is not what this topic is about.


True heroes of righteousness, all too often, sacrifice their own lives to save the lives of others.

The Paladin is already putting his life on the line. Also he Knows taht with the minimum gear required his chances to succeed are bigger so he will probably save more and more people than if go out there with his mundane long sword and without armor so he can die quickly in the hands of usually chaotic evil orcs that don’t give a damn to the villagers or to the Paladin's Diplomacy attempts. Yes, he is dying exalted, but he dyed a poor death since he has done no good. Saved a bunch of people from dying today so they can die tomorrow. The problem is not solved. Probably now the orcs are pissed with the villagers because they "hired" someone to try to kick their asses and will arive in the village to rid the world from those poor people.


A good character doesn’t help others or fight evil when its convenient for him to do so. Even the most generous altruism, when it comes without sacrifice or even serves one's self-interest, is neutral at best. A character committed to the cause of good champions that cause in any circumstance, often at great personal risk or cost.

It is not quite convenient to fight the orc raiders for the Paladin. He is doing it because he wants. He is not gaining anything selling or not the gear. He has not asked money, he has not asked fame or glory. He is there saying "No matter what happens, I am here to save you even if I have to be killed in the process. <Although I would desire to keep my "frontline equipment" so I could really deal with the problem>."


Voluntarily donating money, goods, or even magic items to a temple, charitable institution, or other organization is another financial sacrifice often practiced by good characters.

I understand that, but there is a "often" there. Not a "always". First: That means that not every exalted character has necessarily to donate his gear to the church, much less donate ALL his gear. Second: That is probably talking about one's unused equips. Those that the character knows that he wont use and he wont need in the future, so instead of selling this unused gear and stay with the money he will probably donate it since his heart will fill in joy knowing that someone will benefit of his old gear.

There is probably much more between Soon and Miko than my poor philosophy can understand. What I mean is that there are several shades of good between the Poorly Played Paladin (from now on if referred again: "PPP") Concept that Miko represents and the Exalted Paladin one. That's ok. I just mean that, perhaps with the wrong words I admit, every Paladin that understand why Miko's a Bitch and wants to avoid becoming like her is in the right path to the greater goodness. Every not PPP has a shard of exaltedness in her soul. Got it?

- Faws

[Diamondeye]

You can't ignore the problems of food availability or transport.

A good, even an exalted good, character will not sell their gear to feed the poor unless that is, in their estimation, the best possible solution. If this character also has a low Intelligence, they might not think of problems such as food availability, but we cannot assume that the paladin is stupid.

A Paladin who is intelligent enough to grasp that there is no food to be purchased, or that other problems prevent its use to relieve the famine, but goes ahead and sells his gear to buy it anyhow, is, at best, flailing ineffectively, and at worst is more concerned with the appearance of his actions to others rather than their effectiveness.

I don't consider concern with appearing good over actually combatting evil to be a particularly good thing. This sounds to me more like a neutral character concerned with his public image than a paladin.

[Tren]

You can't ignore the problems of food availability or transport.

A good, even an exalted good, character will not sell their gear to feed the poor unless that is, in their estimation, the best possible solution. If this character also has a low Intelligence, they might not think of problems such as food availability, but we cannot assume that the paladin is stupid.

A Paladin who is intelligent enough to grasp that there is no food to be purchased, or that other problems prevent its use to relieve the famine, but goes ahead and sells his gear to buy it anyhow, is, at best, flailing ineffectively, and at worst is more concerned with the appearance of his actions to others rather than their effectiveness.

I don't consider concern with appearing good over actually combatting evil to be a particularly good thing. This sounds to me more like a neutral character concerned with his public image than a paladin.

I'm not sure if you're responding to Fawsto here, but he's agreeing with you entirely. I think the only person claiming the paladin would be obligated to sell his gear is Grey Paladin.

[Diamondeye]

I was responding to the poster above him who mentioned ignoring food availability.

Fawtso must have made his post after I began my reply; it wasn't there when I started typing it.

[Diamondeye]

I was responding to the poster above him.

[Grey Paladin]

I'm not sure if you're responding to Fawsto here, but he's agreeing with you entirely. I think the only person claiming the paladin would be obligated to sell his gear is Grey Paladin.

It seems my overuse of my hypothesis has derailed the thread from the real question I attempted to present:

Is it ever right for a Paladin to sacrifice innocents for whatever cause?? even, if in the long run, by doing so the Paladin is far more likely to save a greater number of innocents then the one he sacrificed?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Yes, but he's standing on the slippery slope when he does so, and needs to RP the conflict. If he gets too obsessed with saving others at any cost, he has to start trading in those levels for blackguard ones.

[Citizen Joe]

No. Do no harm. It doesn't matter if someone else is going to kill many more later if you don't. That's blood on his hands. And THAT is why a paladin is selfish.

[Tengu]

Is it ever right for a Paladin to sacrifice innocents for whatever cause?? even, if in the long run, by doing so the Paladin is far more likely to save a greater number of innocents then the one he sacrificed?

Only if those innocents are willing to sacrifice themselves. If they aren't, and the paladin knows that by sacrificing them he surely will save a much greater amount of innocents who'd die otherwise, then maybe. But after that, a paladin would probably be in grief and seeking atonement, and I do not mean the spell.

[Citizen Joe]

There will always be evil in the world and people will always die, always need food, always need money... a paladin cannot solve these problems. All he can do is NOT cause these things directly.

People starving? Did the paladin take the food from their mouths? No? Well then suckit starving commoner!

Thousands will die later if the paladin doesn't kill some people now? Will the paladin be the one killing the people later? No? Then let the thousands die to some other source. People die all the time.

Peasant needs a few coppers to buy food for his starving wife and kids? Get a job, loser!

A paladin doesn't have to DO good, he just has to NOT DO evil.

[Tengu]

You're one of those "all paladins are hypocrites" people, aren't you? Just because the class description does not force the paladins to perform good deeds does not mean they aren't doing so.

[Fawsto]

Wait there...

Leting inocents die is never a good act. Neutral at best.

The Paladin is ought to try to save them all. Save the inocents now and save th other ones later. This is never simple.

If the Paladin has to kill 10 to save 10.000 he wont do it. He will seek ways to save the 10.010 at the best he can until the bitter end. And if that end comes to be it is not the Paladin's fault. Itis simply a loss for everyhting that is good in the multiverse. Probably the only thing to blame is the lack of other champions of good that could have helped to save everybody. But the Paladin stands with his hands clean. Probably dead.

You know why he wouldn't kill 10 to save a 10.000 or 100.000? Because killing/sacrificing them is the same as letting evil prevail, the very thing that the Paladins had vowed to never let happen.

You know, in the Brazilian law we have an institute called "self defense". Probably 90% of the world's countries have a similar institute by other names if not every country in the world. This institute says that whenever one must defend her life she can kill others if that means that she is assuring that she will live. In other words, while this institute may seem cruel it guarantee that one's life has no price. It is invaluable. It is simply impossible to measure it. It is infinite.

The real Paladin knows that. The life of one is priceless. As the Lifes of thousands is equaly priceless. So he has no authority to measure them. His function is simply to protect those lifes the best way he can. When the Paladin begin to think that he can "choose the worthy lives" he is starting to dye his armor pitch black.

It is not that they are selfish. Is that they know that they can not choose it. And whenever he is forced to do so he will regret forever from the depths of his soul.

EDIT: Jezz... You got it all wrong Joe... It is not like that. Not that simple.

[Tengu]

Very good post, Phoenix Wright. I agree.

[Citizen Joe]

I'm not saying that's how they should be, I'm saying that the mechanics of the class only stipulates NOT to do evil (and/or chaos).


Code of Conduct

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

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

Associates

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

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.


It doesn't once say that you have to meet a "Good deed quota". The closest thing they got is the becoming non-lawful good. So continuous non-caring may eventually slip you to neutral. But it is easy to go out and kill evil stuff to make up the difference. You are also required to punish those who threaten or harm innocents... it says nothing about protecting them. Some thief puts a knife to the throat of some hostage... attack immediately. Eventually, word will get around and they'll stop taking hostages. Until then, the blood is on their hands, not yours.

My big issue with paladins is that, mechanically, they are focused on evil not good.

[Tengu]

You know, non-paladin good characters don't have any restrictions that force them to help innocents. And yet they do so as well. It's a fluff thing, not a crunch one.
Not to mention that "refuse to help someone who asks you directly" sounds like a non-LG act in my book.

[Citizen Joe]

Not to mention that "refuse to help someone who asks you directly" sounds like a non-LG act in my book.
It is a non-act. See also 'teach a man to fish' and 'who am I to play god' and 'I gave at the office' and 'how do I know you won't spend this on booze?' and 'gods help those who help themselves' and 'stoves are hot'. There are many reasons to NOT help someone that are for their own good. Non-paladins are allowed to make mistakes. A paladin cannot or he falls. Thus a paladin has to follow his strict code to the letter so that he doesn't risk his class... Ergo, Paladins are selfish.

I think you guys are confusing clerics with paladins.

[Hallavast]

Not to mention that "refuse to help someone who asks you directly" sounds like a non-LG act in my book.

Eh? Consider the following:

12yr old: Hey, mister. Would you please buy some beer for me and my friends?

:smallconfused:

[Jimblee]

1)Selfishness is defined as caring only for oneself.
2) Paladins are required to force their opinions on others, be it evil creatures requiring slaying, redemption, or simply spreading the word of their god. It just the nature of holy men, just as clerics and druids do it.
3) Paladins may do this either because they do not wish to lose their paladin status, or because they honestly believe the direction of their gods.
4) Paladins are defined largely by the gods they serve; if they do not serve that god, then they are no longer a part of this argument. They serve, and are in all ways an extension of this deity. Therefore, caring about one's god is also caring about one's own self.
5) Paladins are defined by how they represent their deity; they care only about representing his or her standards. Good typically concerns itself with caring for others, therefore the paladin cares for others. It is reasonable to assume that the paladin does this out of duty to their god, ie, "Pelor wishes for me to be kind to these folk".

- It may be good to note that the direction of their gods may be defined as "good" by DnD standards, but opinions of good are largely based on just that; opinions. An evil creature may call a good god a bad god, and vice versa (simply put, it all breaks down to opinions).


(2-4)Paladins work for their gods
The gods work through Paladins
Therefore, Paladins work for themselves

(1)Selfishness is defined as caring only for oneself
Paladins care for themselves
Paladins are selfish

(2-3)Paladins, by definition, force their beliefs on others
Forcing yourself on others means you do not respect the opinion of others
Paladins do not care for the opinions of others

Those that do not care for the opinions of others care for the opinions of themselves
Paladins do not care for the opinions of others
Paladins care only for themselves

Hardly any of this makes any sense at all, but its a fun thought to shove in there

[Fawsto]

Since I am trough it... Another Brazilian law fact: Non-action that allows crimes to happen when you CAN stop the crime makes you a criminous in some cases, like when you are a cop and you let the bank robers get away or when you are a lifeguard and you let someone drawn to death just because you don't feel like arresting/helping them. This means that when you are supposed to act, when people are trusting that you will act, when the law says you should act, non-act is crime itself. The Paladin fits in a very similar scenario in D&D. He is the "cop", the "lifeguard", the one that should act. It is his moral duty to act whenever inocents feel the power of evil acts. So whenever they neglect and turn their heads away they are as guilty as the evildoers.

- Faws

[Mike_Lemmer]

The problem of this thread is:

Is a paladin supposed to sell all his stuff to save people?

I would say No, and here's why:

Equipment is an investment.

1. The better an adventurer's equipment, the more treasure he can acquire (in the paladin's case, from evil monsters).
2. Assuming there isn't massive inflation, a paladin could save the same # of lives by donating his current equipment later as he would by donating his current equipment now.
3. He will accumulate more treasure in the time between now & later if he has his current equipment than if he doesn't.

Imagine the Church entrusts a Paladin with 20,000 gold to "reduce hunger"; the only caveat is he can't spend it on himself. Would it be better to focus on:
1. Buying food for everyone?
2. Using it to improve the farms and raise crop yields?

The former choice keeps everyone from starving for now, but really doesn't do anything to help the problem. The latter choice leaves some people to starve right now, but sets up a long-term solution which will do much more to alleviate hunger.

Demanding a paladin sell his equipment now for immediate relief is a similar scenario. A few things to keep in mind:

1. Most short-term solutions aren't permanent solutions.
2. Demanding excellence is good; demanding perfection is disastrous.
3. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I would argue that if a paladin has to sell his equipment for charity, it should be saved for when he retires (thus letting the investment build as long as possible).

[Citizen Joe]

Since I am trough it... Another Brazilian law fact: Non-action that allows crimes to happen when you CAN stop the crime makes you a criminous in some cases, like when you are a cop and you let the bank robers get away or when you are a lifeguard and you let someone drawn to death just because you don't feel like arresting/helping them. This means that when you are supposed to act, when people are trusting that you will act, when the law says you should act, non-act is crime itself. The Paladin fits in a very similar scenario in D&D. He is the "cop", the "lifeguard", the one that should act. It is his moral duty to act whenever inocents feel the power of evil acts. So whenever they neglect and turn their heads away they are as guilty as the evildoers.

- Faws
Those are 'Good Samaritan Laws'. Seinfeld made fun of them in the series finale. Paladins are tasked with punishing those that threaten or harm innocents. It is a punitive system not a preventative system. But I never said they shouldn't let criminals go through inaction, I argued quite the opposite. I stated that he should not help the starving because it might get in the way of him stopping the criminals. You want charity? Go to the church. That's where all his money is anyway.

Think about this... Robocop was the perfect paladin.

[Roderick_BR]

It seems my overuse of my hypothesis has derailed the thread from the real question I attempted to present:

Is it ever right for a Paladin to sacrifice innocents for whatever cause?? even, if in the long run, by doing so the Paladin is far more likely to save a greater number of innocents then the one he sacrificed?
Technically, all characters are doing that already. The problem is that calling the paladin selfish because he needs to leave people behind to fight the monsters is a bit excessive. The paladin is already risking himself to defeat whatever is causing people's problems. After that is finished, the paladin will what can be done later.
Maybe the paladin could tend to wounded people before fighting a monster, even if it means sacrifying some of his healing, and use whatever treasure he finds later to help rebuild the place, but he won't put himself at a greater risk, especially if it means to fail his mission to help these same people.

[Tengu]

Eh? Consider the following:

12yr old: Hey, mister. Would you please buy some beer for me and my friends?

:smallconfused:

That's not asking for help - the kid is not in a perilous situation.

[The_Blue_Sorceress]

That's not asking for help - the kid is not in a perilous situation.

To true.

On the other side, buying beer for a twelve year old in a medieval society probably wouldn't be considered inappropriate. Now, if you take that same kid and all his buddies and pay for them to have a fine time at a brothel, that would probably get your paladin in trouble with their moms.

-Blue

[Starbuck_II]

Those are 'Good Samaritan Laws'. Seinfeld made fun of them in the series finale. Paladins are tasked with punishing those that threaten or harm innocents. It is a punitive system not a preventative system. But I never said they shouldn't let criminals go through inaction, I argued quite the opposite. I stated that he should not help the starving because it might get in the way of him stopping the criminals. You want charity? Go to the church. That's where all his money is anyway.

Think about this... Robocop was the perfect paladin.

Is the name "Good Samaritan Law" tongue in cheek? As the normal idea of good samaritan is you aren't punished if you help (if not Doctor).

Forced being good makes it nuetral.

[VanBuren]

Is the name "Good Samaritan Law" tongue in cheek? As the normal idea of good samaritan is you aren't punished if you help (if not Doctor).

Forced being good makes it nuetral.

Possibly. But I think it's far more likely that it's a reference to the intent of the law, specifically to encourage people to look out for other people in the circumstances defined.

Of course, then we get into the debate on whether or not the modern usage of "Good Samaritan" misses the point of the parable almost entirely, which is another debate.

[Fawsto]

That's the point, a Paladin exists because he, someday, decided that he would be the responsible guy. The one that vowed to protect the people in need without asking nothing in return. The Paladin is the knight in shiny armor that comes from time to time to aid the needed.

The metaphore I stated was just to take an example. The Paladin is not bound to any especific law that says he must be a good guy, he just seems fit to take this path so he can help people and rid the world of the evil guys. Simple like that. Far from egoistic, paladins are altruistic.

Even if they decide to bow to a deity, he is simply saying that he will take the commands of that good deity because he has enough faith to believe that his God will do the right thing. There is no such thing as a Paladin that worships a God just because he will have an excuse to do what he does. They follow their God's ideals but they still have opinions of their own. They are as divine as the Cleric, but they do it a little different. While a Cleric must be a worshiper before entering the class, the Paladin is a Paladin in the day he "receives the call" and decide to accept it and be a good in the world, he may after that become a worshiper of some good deity, but one thing is not necessaraly bound to the other.

[horseboy]

As for feeding the poor...does anyone remember the restriction of 2nd ed?

10 magic items total, and severe restrictions on which ones.
And the reverse tithe, you could only KEEP 10% of your income to keep you in equipment and housing.
And you had to purchase the best quality of everything you could afford.

I don't know about you, but that usually left me leaving rather large sums at every charitable instatution I could find. I never once had a rich paladin.

You're getting your editions mixed. The best quality thing was in first edition UA cavalier, of which the paladin was a sub set of. Pretty much where the Pompous A--hat paladin started.
2nd edition you couldn't have magical ranged weapons, and you could only take what wealth you could carry. Of that you donated 10%. So the smart paladin took the gems and jewelry for his share of the loot, along with some beer money, cause getting change for a beer out of an emerald is a pain.

I think a lot of people here are making the fallacy that "lawful" is the same as "obeys the law". While it does include adherence to authority, being lawful has more to do with upholding order, in the larger, abstract sense. So, a paladin would have no problem going up against a corrupt bureaucracy, as long as it was clear that the end result of this bureaucracy was chaos (i. e., starvation, etc).

Think about it: how else would a paladin be able to, say, vanquish tyrants? Otherwise, all they would have to do is pass a law - "No Paladins Allowed in the Kingdom." All the paladins would say, "Aw, shucks," and ride off into the sunset.
Indeed, a lord bogarding food would be in violation of his oath of fealty to his subjects. Continued depriving the peasants will require that the paladin over throw the evil lord, through one way or the other.

But no, a paladin would not think of selling their gear to buy food, he'd do the Lawful thing. He'd work the system to get food there. Be it by sending a message to his order so they can bring in the wagons and wagons of food needed, contacting the local druids to get needed rain, greasing the wheels of the local lords and or guilds to get it there and get it faster (they do have diplomacy for a reason). That's one of those parts of "Lawful" that gets forgotten. No problem ever got solved just by throwing money at it.

All this is of course, if he's alone and/or there's no party cleric.
It seems my overuse of my hypothesis has derailed the thread from the real question I attempted to present:

Is it ever right for a Paladin to sacrifice innocents for whatever cause?? even, if in the long run, by doing so the Paladin is far more likely to save a greater number of innocents then the one he sacrificed?
Well, given my enjoyment for 15th century Italian Romanticism, I'd say yes.


Is the name "Good Samaritan Law" tongue in cheek? As the normal idea of good samaritan is you aren't punished if you help (if not Doctor).
Forced being good makes it nuetral.No, it's a term, much like a "blue" law. If you are a doctor/paramedic/medically trained and you drive by an accident and not stop they can cart you off to jail.

[Cuddly]

The Holy Avenger is worth 120,000gp. That's enough to feed about 100 people for the rest of their lives. So he can save a few hundred people or defeat a Balor capable of killing many thousands and still have his Holy Avenger to go kill a few more invading legions of hell...
Seems like the latter saves more lives.

Let's not forget:

Treasure:
Standard coins; double goods; standard items, plus +1 large vorpal longsword and +1 large flaming whip

At CR 20, that's going to be a lot of $$$$.

[Cuddly]

I'm not sure I'm following the discussion- when did orc invasion become a necessary and sufficient condition for starvation?

In any big city that is capable of defending itself, there will be a starving underclass.

[horseboy]

I'm not sure I'm following the discussion- when did orc invasion become a necessary and sufficient condition for starvation?

In any big city that is capable of defending itself, there will be a starving underclass.Yes, and the Temple of Pelor of the area would be running a little soup kitchen in the back. The paladin drops off his 10% there. After all they're in a much better position to do more good for that problem than he is.

[Sir Iguejo]

Wait there...

Leting inocents die is never a good act. Neutral at best.

The Paladin is ought to try to save them all. Save the inocents now and save th other ones later. This is never simple.

(...)

You know why he wouldn't kill 10 to save a 10.000 or 100.000? Because killing/sacrificing them is the same as letting evil prevail, the very thing that the Paladins had vowed to never let happen.

(...)

The real Paladin knows that. The life of one is priceless. As the Lifes of thousands is equaly priceless. So he has no authority to measure them. His function is simply to protect those lifes the best way he can. When the Paladin begin to think that he can "choose the worthy lives" he is starting to dye his armor pitch black.

It is not that they are selfish. Is that they know that they can not choose it. And whenever he is forced to do so he will regret forever from the depths of his soul.




Ok, now you are so close to understand my point of view.

only one question

letting those innocents die from starvation, even by inaction, is a good act?
when you turn your back to the village carrying 300.000 GP in equips while they starve: is THIS a good action? people are goint to die because you cant get rid of your holy avenger: this is Selfishness


One's life has no price. It is invaluable. It is simply impossible to measure it. It is infinite.

I totally agree with you. You brough down BoED in one line. But havent you said that, with his gears, the paladin could save thousands later, even if some die now?

IMO, going away to solve the problem (full equiped) knowing that some people are going to die is a Neutral act: Allowed for LG characters, but denied for exalted ones

[Demented]

Really now...
Can't you just ask them to make survival checks? They can even move to a more suitable area while doing so. Not to mention that you can feed quite a few people on the proceeds from selling a decent potion. No need to get all crazy with selling your Holy Avenger. (Besides, where are you going to find a merchant willing to buy 60,000gp's worth of sword-that-only-works-for-paladins?)

And frankly, once their basic survival is assured, any more help is encouraging selfishness on the part of the villagers. Not to say that encouraging selfishness will make the paladin selfish, unless he thinks that counts as his Lawful Good act of the day, but it's still not a good thing to do.

That said, nothing wrong with a paladin whose personal goal is to supply every family with a Sustaining Spoon.

[Roderick_BR]

only one question

letting those innocents die from starvation, even by inaction, is a good act?
when you turn your back to the village carrying 300.000 GP in equips while they starve: is THIS a good action? people are goint to die because you cant get rid of your holy avenger: this is Selfishness

I disagree. Inaction would be to turn his back to these people, and walk away. If he is going to face a greater evil, he's not doing inaction.
If he does sell his gear (to who?) to buy food (from where?), and the very next day the orc army enter the town and kills everyone, since there's no one equiped enough to keep them away, that would be worse.
People is not going to die because you can't get hid of your Holy Avenger. You are using your Holy Avenger to save lives, by risking your life. That's NOT being selfish. Now, If doing so would save lives both in short AND long terms, then yes, a paladin could do it, like giving a big treasure to help restore a town devastated by a war. Like in the Might and Magic games, where when you find a treasure chest, you can keep it, or give it to the poor, to gain experience points.

[VanBuren]

Ok, now you are so close to understand my point of view.

only one question

letting those innocents die from starvation, even by inaction, is a good act?
when you turn your back to the village carrying 300.000 GP in equips while they starve: is THIS a good action? people are goint to die because you cant get rid of your holy avenger: this is Selfishness

But what good would that do? It's been said that famine does not exist in a vaccum. Why is it morally better for the Paladin to cripple himself and provide a short-term solution than to address the source of the issue at his maximum efficiency which, for all anyone knows, may require his maximum power.


IMO, going away to solve the problem (full equiped) knowing that some people are going to die is a Neutral act: Allowed for LG characters, but denied for exalted ones

But the problem is, if you cripple your ability to solve the problem and save people in the short term you're increasing the risk of failure. If you fail then that short term solution becomes moot and even the people you saved will die from the famine. At this point it's a gamble of saving the many and risking the few or saving the few and risking everyone, including the few.

[Citizen Joe]

IMO, going away to solve the problem (full equiped) knowing that some people are going to die is a Neutral act: Allowed for LG characters, but denied for exalted ones
There is no such thing as a neutral act... there are unaligned acts... there are good acts... there are evil acts.

If you deny these so called 'neutral acts' then all exalted people die. Why? because eating lunch is a 'neutral act'. 90% of the stuff you do on a daily basis has nothing to do with good or evil.

[Mando Knight]

It would indeed be selfish to keep your Holy Avenger to yourself when the peasants are starving... if it's not being used for the greater good.

A Paladin who will not help the peasants with his Holy Avenger one way or another is a selfish Pally, but one who recognizes that his skills in combat are his gift from the gods, a gift given to him to protect weaker beings and defeat evil, will know that he can put his skills to better use by killing the orc armies than he would if he sold his gear.

If a hundred peasants die because of starvation while the Paladin stops the root problem, but a thousand more live, then that is far greater a deed than saving the hundred by selling his gear and allowing the root problem to kill him and the thousand peasants.

[Fawsto]

Mando got it. Remmembering that the Paladin is not quite leting them die or making them die. They are loosing their lifes because some greedy orcs decided that they need all the food to feed their warband so they can raid other villages. The Paladin's duty is to stop this evil act. In the head of the Paladin as soon as he finishes the orcs the people will be free to live their normal lives once again. He should and would, after getting the orcs, sell their equipments (in fact, so he can restore the status quo, since somehow the food "has been turned" into more men and more equipment for the orcs) and be there to give a hand while the villagers rebuild their crops...

Actually this would be a perfect scenario. Given the fact that fighting those orcs would be a an adventure that could raise the Paladin's level, so he can spend the next weeks helping the villagers and training while he goes from lvl X to lvl Y.

Selling his gear to feed people... Subpar choice in the real life, even more subpar choice in the D&D universe.

- Faws

[Grey Paladin]

Mando got it. Remmembering that the Paladin is not quite leting them die or making them die. They are loosing their lifes because some greedy orcs decided that they need all the food to feed their warband so they can raid other villages. The Paladin's duty is to stop this evil act. In the head of the Paladin as soon as he finishes the orcs the people will be free to live their normal lives once again. He should and would, after getting the orcs, sell their equipments (in fact, so he can restore the status quo, since somehow the food "has been turned" into more men and more equipment for the orcs) and be there to give a hand while the villagers rebuild their crops...

Actually this would be a perfect scenario. Given the fact that fighting those orcs would be a an adventure that could raise the Paladin's level, so he can spend the next weeks helping the villagers and training while he goes from lvl X to lvl Y.

Selling his gear to feed people... Subpar choice in the real life, even more subpar choice in the D&D universe.

- Faws

Point taken,

Now, what if there were no orcs, and the famine was caused soley by the whim of a cruel weather god?

Let us assume that while free help can be found, if the Paladin doesn't feeds the poor at least a few hundreds will die by the time the Paladin shall return.

Should the Paladin still avoid selling his gear to feed the starving when a danger may or may not appear in a few months? a danger that may or may not wipe out even more people?

[Woot Spitum]

If the paladin needs money now, couldn't he just take out a loan? :smallconfused:

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Well, since we are assuming he can find food in the middle of a drought, he buys a bunch of 10ft ladders, chops them in half, and sells them. Congratulations, he can now feed the city, and he's richer for it.

[Frosty]

The Paladin would promisea food vendor that he'd pay him back with interest if the food vendor would give the village food *now* The gold the Paladin gets from his next adventure will pay back the food vendor.

Seriously, if there's a famine, who are you going to buy food from anyways?

[Grey Paladin]

The Paladin would promisea food vendor that he'd pay him back with interest if the food vendor would give the village food *now* The gold the Paladin gets from his next adventure will pay back the food vendor.

Seriously, if there's a famine, who are you going to buy food from anyways?

Magnificently selfish spellcasters?

[Fawsto]

Before selling his gear he would go down to the nearest Capital and say "Hey King, your people is starving to death in X. This is a curse held down by the Evil God Y. Would you help them?" Depending on the answer and on the reasons of the aswer someone there is not a legitimate authority... Otherwise, problem solved.

Or. King answers "Yeah, I know... I can't help them now. Many other cities have been cursed in the same way... Food is in short supply everywhere. But hey, you are a Paladin, wouldn't you take a quest to cease the Evil God Y influence on this lands?" Paladin says "Of Course, my Liege. I am here to serve the rightful ruller of the poor starving people."

Or. King Answers "Seriously?! I've had not heard of it yet! Thank you, Sire. This information is very important. Wouldn't you carry those extra supplies to the city while I consult my Clerics in order to know why Evil God Y is trying to corrupt our lands." Paladin says "It is my duty to help you. I will do it gladly."

Or. There is no King or Capital Around of this very far village. Paladin goes to nearest town and find a food seller. "Hey, sir Merchant, can't you spare some food for a village named Town A that is in need?" Merchant "Unfortunatly not. To spare so much food would be to risky for my business... I have a family to feed, understand?" Paladin "Quite... I know... Sorry to bother. If you find any merchant that can help me, please contact me at Tavern Z. Have a Good day." Merchant "Wait. I see by your armor that you are and advenurer of sorts. That Holy simble of yours... Perhaps a Cleric, Right? Well there is a certain band of Gnolls that is ruining this town Merchant's business raiding their supply caravans. Perhaps if you could rid this land of the Gnolls the Merchants would help you. What you think?" Paladin "Hmmm... I can help you. Thank you for the Information good sire. I will be on the move right now. Oh yes, but please, take this spare money, sir Merchant, I want you to take all food this money can buy and deliver it to the Town A, so they can wait for me to return with the food supply. Thank you very Much, may Good Deity B bestow his blessings upon you." *Businees finished*. Paladin "Ok, now it is time to defeat an evil cult of sorts... I must know what is happening to this land so I can lift this curse!"

No equip selling. Paladin status: 100%.

Well, this are the courses of action I'd take. These and a few others that I can imagine, like asking a church for blessings and "Summoning Food" Clerics.

[Grey Paladin]

^


'Let us assume that while free help can be found, if the Paladin doesn't feeds the poor at least a few hundreds will die by the time the Paladin shall return.'

[Fawsto]

They would die anyway... If he has to go from point A to point B to find food, even by selling his gear in the process, it takes time. Someone will die in this time. The Paladin can do nothing, it is beyond his powers. He cannot stop the time as some broken spells let wizards do. :smalltongue:

[Grey Paladin]

They would die anyway... If he has to go from point A to point B to find food, even by selling his gear in the process, it takes time. Someone will die in this time. The Paladin can do nothing, it is beyond his powers. He cannot stop the time as some broken spells let wizards do. :smalltongue:

'Magnificently selfish spellcasters?'

He can find help, for a cost.

[Kioran]

'Magnificently selfish spellcasters?'

He can find help, for a cost.

In that case, I think the Paladin would have to - but he´d also tell the magnificiently selfish spellcasters what he thinks of such dealings in no uncertain terms. In a sense, they can help with a far smaller sacrifice, and refuse to. Again, they are forcing the Paladins hand. Let´s hope they give him or her no other reason for aggravation....
But yeah, the Paladin would have to sell part of his gear, if strictly necessary and unavoidable. It´s also something that, despite all the bashing, Miko would have probably done, and the OotS wouldn´t. Food for thought.......

And yes, I think that most Paladins, by their nature, are already semi-exalted. They do not need to go an extra yard for good every time, but they cannot slip up, even once. If they do, they fall. That is a lot tougher than most other LG or NG chars lot, and a good step further towards Exalted, allthough not quite there.

[Woot Spitum]

'Magnificently selfish spellcasters?'

He can find help, for a cost.How many magnificently selfish spellcasters is the average village of one hundred likely to have? Create food and water (provided it is even on said spellcaster's spell list) can only feed so many people per casting. Assuming three meals a day, that is still not a lot of food to keep one hundred people from starving. Some people are still going to starve.

[Demented]

So, this "magnificently selfish spellcaster" insists that the paladin must give him the Holy Avenger, or innocent people will die?

You can probably see where I'm going with this... :smallwink:
Though Kioran hinted at it.

[horseboy]

So, this "magnificently selfish spellcaster" insists that the paladin must give him the Holy Avenger, or innocent people will die?

You can probably see where I'm going with this... :smallwink:
Though Kioran hinted at it.
Then screw him, go to a holy order, get a candle of invocation, bring in a titan/solar and wish for food for the town. Proceed to lecture the "magnificently selfish spellcaster" on the cost of greed.

[Fawsto]

If all sorts of argumentation fail, and the Wizard is the last hope around... The Paladin may yet not force him to help. Force someone to help is not good. He would have to convince the wizard to help. As far it goes a little money could help it, but it may not. Pehaps the Wizard simply can't help. The Paladin must go out there and find someone else.

Now... For those Sellfish spellcasters, not a good reason not to help... Being faced by people suffering starvation and still not helping for pure sellfishness and greed? A NN Wizard is now very close to a Neutral Evil Wizard there. Since the greed is the motive why he is not helping, pehaps now a little "persuasion" can put this guy's mind in the right place... Maybe.

Anyway we are talking about a full caster there... The Paladin stands no chance. :smalltongue: (Kidin)

- Faws.

[Khanderas]

Ok, now you are so close to understand my point of view.

only one question

letting those innocents die from starvation, even by inaction, is a good act?
when you turn your back to the village carrying 300.000 GP in equips while they starve: is THIS a good action? people are goint to die because you cant get rid of your holy avenger: this is Selfishness



I totally agree with you. You brough down BoED in one line. But havent you said that, with his gears, the paladin could save thousands later, even if some die now?

IMO, going away to solve the problem (full equiped) knowing that some people are going to die is a Neutral act: Allowed for LG characters, but denied for exalted ones

Walking away with 300K gold in equipment is denied for übergood ?
Before we even begin to tackla that ethical problem:
Is there someone who can BUY the mentioned equipment ?
Transporting 300k gold to someone who HAS the food (and for sale).
Transporting the food back AND distribute them to the needy (not a one man job let me tell you).

Assuming the famine is due to rampaging orc tribes. Weaponless how will you stop the Orcs from raiding your 300 k gold / 300 k gold worth of food transport ? Heck this applies to all evil induced famines (evil wizards / Liches damning the farmlands, highway robbery of goods. Nobles overtaxing.

Natural disasters then, normal blights from bad weather. The paladin would still be better serving the people letting caravans from areas that did not get hit by that though. Plenty of highwaymen in a starving rural area.

To have a Paladin sell all his stuff to feed the hungry would be like setting a house on fire because its cold. It is overreactioning, helps for the moment and afterwards you are worse off then you were from the start.

[Kioran]

Okay, screw all the tlk about orcs or whatever.Let´s shut it about holy avaengers, which, to be honest, I haven´t ever seen in any campaign I played in.

What it boils down to is this: The Paladin has rigid principles which he, for all intents and purposes cannot easily break. That means you can force his hand.

Tough for the Paladin, but it´s called the straight and narrow for a purpose. If there is a problem that cannot be solved through head-bashing or diplomacy, a real Paladin will not attempt to do so if he is aware. Sure, Paladins need not be perfect, and can make errors in judgement as long as they do not become evil.
But if a Paladin knows he or she must make a sacrifice to help someone, he will probably make a sacrifice - as small as possible, as large as necessary, as long as the Pala can walk away from it. It´s totally irrelevant if it´s the ZOMGtastic Holy Avenger, or the Paladin lvl 2´s master Scimitar found on his last outing.

If a Paladin can survive it, and it does improve the situation (as in no "OMG Orcs will pillage and rape and stuff as soon as the Paladin sells his shoelaces"-hyperbole), a Paladin should make that sacrifice. It might rarely happen in an ordinary campaign, but there it is. Sometimes, in the life of a Paladin, there are no Orcs to kill to solve the problems, the magnificently selfish spellcasters are bastards but do not give you sufficient reason to smite them (even if they deserve it) and life is generally unfair. Well, suck it up. You´re serious LG, not some CG wuss who backs out halfway.

Still, that Paladin is probably going to be pissed. One can force a Paladins hand. Doesn´t mean they have to like it. For obvious reason, a Paladin´s job gets much tougher without a plot shield.......

[Grey Paladin]

I think Kioran nailed it.


Then screw him, go to a shop, get a candle of invocation, bring in a titan/solar and wish for food for the town. Proceed to lecture the "magnificently selfish spellcaster" on the cost of greed.

GG :smallbiggrin:

[horseboy]

What it boils down to is this: The Paladin has rigid principles which he, for all intents and purposes cannot easily break. That means you can force his hand.

Tough for the Paladin, but it´s called the straight and narrow for a purpose. If there is a problem that cannot be solved through head-bashing or diplomacy, a real Paladin will not attempt to do so if he is aware. Sure, Paladins need not be perfect, and can make errors in judgement as long as they do not become evil.
But if a Paladin knows he or she must make a sacrifice to help someone, he will probably make a sacrifice - as small as possible, as large as necessary, as long as the Pala can walk away from it. It´s totally irrelevant if it´s the ZOMGtastic Holy Avenger, or the Paladin lvl 2´s master Scimitar found on his last outing.

If a Paladin can survive it, and it does improve the situation (as in no "OMG Orcs will pillage and rape and stuff as soon as the Paladin sells his shoelaces"-hyperbole), a Paladin should make that sacrifice. It might rarely happen in an ordinary campaign, but there it is. Sometimes, in the life of a Paladin, there are no Orcs to kill to solve the problems, the magnificently selfish spellcasters are bastards but do not give you sufficient reason to smite them (even if they deserve it) and life is generally unfair. Well, suck it up. You´re serious LG, not some CG wuss who backs out halfway.

Still, that Paladin is probably going to be pissed. One can force a Paladins hand. Doesn´t mean they have to like it. For obvious reason, a Paladin´s job gets much tougher without a plot shield.......
Then the player is fully allowed to smite the DM with his +1 holy PHB for excessively heavily railroading. There's no time that that would be feasible.

[Kioran]

Then the player is fully allowed to smite the DM with his +1 holy PHB for excessively heavily railroading. There's no time that that would be feasible.

What about a DM that railroads you towards finding a bunch of NPCs, taking their **** and bringing them to your questgiver, so they can become his new right hands in your stead? How about these NPCs constantly offending you, when some of them are not busy, to all appearances, trying to kill you? What if that DM makes you these NPCs b***h?
Well, you´re a Paladin. Sometimes you lose, because you have principles. That´s one the cornerstones of the trope - being good and correct to a fault. If want an easier time, don´t play a Paladin, because it´s not conducive to some gaming styles. Well, and if you play one, sometimes you have to suck it up. You know what happens if you don´t?

[Grey Paladin]

Then the player is fully allowed to smite the DM with his +1 holy PHB for excessively heavily railroading. There's no time that that would be feasible.

This is not railroading, The Paladin has chosen to impose these restrictions upon himself when he accepted the Call.

[kamikasei]

It's not a paladin's role or responsibility to right every wrong in the world in the order that he encounters them. A paladin takes on the duty of battling evil to protect the innocent. The arguments you guys are making about holy avengers and full plate apply to every single piece of wealth a paladin gains from level one and before it. If the standards you describe held, then anyone Good enough to be a paladin would never acquire any equipment at all but would be working in a soup kitchen and counselling broken marriages because he'd be unable to leave the iniquities around him unaddressed long enough to move on to bigger threats. And that's assuming that things like magical armour and holy swords are viewed as liquidizable assets rather than gifts from the gods entrusted to their servants to aid them in their divine missions.

[comicshorse]

This is not railroading, The Paladin has chosen to impose these restrictions upon himself when he accepted the Call.

It's still railroadingwhen the g.m. creates situations that are just designed to screw over the Paldin because of the restrictions the same as if a G.M. who has a problem with the party's wizard decides to set the rest of the campaign in a dead magic area

[Learnedguy]

There's really nothing in the fluff that says that a paladin can't be a bit selfish. As long as he do generally good acts he's in the clear. You don't have to sell your holy avenger (not to mention that this whole argument is "strawmanish"). Sure, the paladin might want to do it, or, he might think that keeping the sword is a better idea.

It's really a matter of personal choice. Reasonable selfishness is not evil and against "the code". Unless the code is the Communist manifesti. Then selfishness might be against "the code".

[Sir Iguejo]

Okay, screw all the tlk about orcs or whatever.Let´s shut it about holy avaengers, which, to be honest, I haven´t ever seen in any campaign I played in.

What it boils down to is this: The Paladin has rigid principles which he, for all intents and purposes cannot easily break. That means you can force his hand.

Tough for the Paladin, but it´s called the straight and narrow for a purpose. If there is a problem that cannot be solved through head-bashing or diplomacy, a real Paladin will not attempt to do so if he is aware. Sure, Paladins need not be perfect, and can make errors in judgement as long as they do not become evil.
But if a Paladin knows he or she must make a sacrifice to help someone, he will probably make a sacrifice - as small as possible, as large as necessary, as long as the Pala can walk away from it. It´s totally irrelevant if it´s the ZOMGtastic Holy Avenger, or the Paladin lvl 2´s master Scimitar found on his last outing.

If a Paladin can survive it, and it does improve the situation (as in no "OMG Orcs will pillage and rape and stuff as soon as the Paladin sells his shoelaces"-hyperbole), a Paladin should make that sacrifice. It might rarely happen in an ordinary campaign, but there it is. Sometimes, in the life of a Paladin, there are no Orcs to kill to solve the problems, the magnificently selfish spellcasters are bastards but do not give you sufficient reason to smite them (even if they deserve it) and life is generally unfair. Well, suck it up. You´re serious LG, not some CG wuss who backs out halfway.

Still, that Paladin is probably going to be pissed. One can force a Paladins hand. Doesn´t mean they have to like it. For obvious reason, a Paladin´s job gets much tougher without a plot shield.......

Someone finally understood my point of view. Thank you. And you explained it in a better way than I did. Hope that everyone can see this way too.


It's still railroadingwhen the g.m. creates situations that are just designed to screw over the Paldin because of the restrictions the same as if a G.M. who has a problem with the party's wizard decides to set the rest of the campaign in a dead magic area

No, thats not railroading in any point. When the paladin player chooses to be paladin, he should know that he's going to get involved in situations like the famine one. Where sacrifices are demanding. Most of the DMs prefer not to put the pally in this lose-lose situations because they think the players will get pissed. I think the DM should put the PCs in that situations. Paladins must have their paladinhood proved sometimes. If the PC dont deserve to be a pally, the DM shall punish him. A mature player would understand and search for atonement. A childish player would start to cry and call it railroading


When the wizard choose the path of arcane magic, he knew he could fall into a Dead Magic Zone. What to do? Roleplay. Try to fing the cause of this particular DMZ and neutralize it in any way. If you get bored, try RP a ranger or a Rogue.

[horseboy]

What about a DM that railroads you towards finding a bunch of NPCs, taking their **** and bringing them to your questgiver, so they can become his new right hands in your stead? How about these NPCs constantly offending you, when some of them are not busy, to all appearances, trying to kill you? What if that DM makes you these NPCs b***h?
Well, you´re a Paladin. Sometimes you lose, because you have principles. That´s one the cornerstones of the trope - being good and correct to a fault. If want an easier time, don´t play a Paladin, because it´s not conducive to some gaming styles. Well, and if you play one, sometimes you have to suck it up. You know what happens if you don´t?
Yes, that guy doesn't get DM privileges any more since he can't run anything not on rails.

A paladin never looses because he has principles. He gains strength from them.

This is not railroading, The Paladin has chosen to impose these restrictions upon himself when he accepted the Call.
"There's only one way you can solve this problem. Nope, none of the other solutions you've proposed will work. Nope, I'm completely breaking any since of verisimilitude until what I want done gets done." That's the definition of railroading.

[Kioran]

Yes, that guy doesn't get DM privileges any more since he can't run anything not on rails.

A paladin never looses because he has principles. He gains strength from them.

Poor Mr. Burlew, because that´s more or less what happened to Miko......sometimes strict adherence to principles hurts. That´s the price for the awesomeness of the Determinator (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Determinator). If one wants to be the indomitable badass, one has to go on when it hurts - yes, even when it hurts most players (and by extension their PCs) weakest spot - their wallet.
Seriously, Paladins are not incredible mechanical powerhouses, so I´d think you play them for flavor. Ignoring that flavor when it goes against you is somewhat pointless

[Woot Spitum]

No, thats not railroading in any point. When the paladin player chooses to be paladin, he should know that he's going to get involved in situations like the famine one. Where sacrifices are demanding. Most of the DMs prefer not to put the pally in this lose-lose situations because they think the players will get pissed. I think the DM should put the PCs in that situations. Paladins must have their paladinhood proved sometimes. If the PC dont deserve to be a pally, the DM shall punish him. A mature player would understand and search for atonement. A childish player would start to cry and call it railroading.It's railroading because it isn't a realistic scenario. If the spellcaster is really that selfish, he will most certainly accept the solemn oath of a paladin to pay him for the food with interest at a later date rather than take the paladin's gear now, which he will then have to sell at a reduced price on the black market (which will take a lot of time and trouble) and gain the ire of the paladin and his order. Unless of course, the spellcaster's ultimate goal is to see the villagers starve, in which case nothing the paladin will do will convince him to help the people. The spellcaster might demand that the paladin turn over his gear now only to teleport away with the gear without upholding his end of the bargain. The paladin starves along with the villagers, the spellcaster raises him as a death knight, and gets a gold star from the evil deity of his choice. These are the most realistic scenarios.



When the wizard choose the path of arcane magic, he knew he could fall into a Dead Magic Zone. What to do? Roleplay. Try to fing the cause of this particular DMZ and neutralize it in any way. If you get bored, try RP a ranger or a Rogue.Technically, dead magic zones don't exist in core, vanilla D&D. They exist in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting; they might exist in some other campaign settings as well, but not in regular D&D.

[Grey Paladin]

The Paladin has a choice to make, and not all choices are easy ones ,lose-lose situations should happen as often as win-win ones.

Though notice that selling your gear may not produce the best result, orcs *may* attack the next day, or in a month, in striking distance.

In my games I do not offer solutions, I write the world and a timeline (which is effected by the previous actions of the players) and present a problem, figuring out a solution is up to them, my world is neutral- this results in many many unused locations, NPCs, and adventures, but produces a far more realistic game.

[horseboy]

Poor Mr. Burlew, because that´s more or less what happened to Miko......sometimes strict adherence to principles hurts. That´s the price for the awesomeness of the Determinator (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Determinator). If one wants to be the indomitable badass, one has to go on when it hurts - yes, even when it hurts most players (and by extension their PCs) weakest spot - their wallet.
Seriously, Paladins are not incredible mechanical powerhouses, so I´d think you play them for flavor. Ignoring that flavor when it goes against you is somewhat pointlessMiko pulled an Anakin, that's why she fell.
I'm going to go with a Canonical example. Priam Agrivar and the lesson taut to him by Murilanathanathies the Bronze Dragon. Priam was actually in a bad spot, not some poorly railroaded DM prick-fiat problem. Someone/some thing was going around killing the most powerful of all the different colors of dragons. All the dragons were at council and he had to sit by while a red dragon lobbied for a dragon flight against the other races to be sure the offender was and the good dragons considered the proposal. He attacks the red, the red wins and Priam's life is saved by the "being" attacking the dragons "teleporting" the dragon's head off it's body and into it's pack. Priam quits the quest in disgust.
That night he comes across a mountain lion surrounded by wolves. He go in and defeats the wolves to save the mountain lion. The lion follows it along for a short while then chases down and kills a deer. Priam looks at the situation realizes the Aesop and then walks away wiser, ready to renew the quest. "Muri" of course, then resumes his dragon form. Priam did not save the lion only to damn the deer. The blood of the deer is not on his hands. Just like the blood of anyone that died from starvation in the village isn't on his hands while he seeks to solve the problem. The blood is on the hands of the person responsible for the situation. Or so Jeff Grubb said.
A paladin would quest to resolve the problem. Throwing money at a problem does not solve it. THROWING MONEY AT A PROBLEM HAS NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD EVERY SOLVED A SINGLE PROBLEM!!!

[Grey Paladin]

THROWING MONEY AT A PROBLEM HAS NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD EVERY SOLVED A SINGLE PROBLEM!!!

In what homebrewed world do you live in? :smallconfused:

[VanBuren]

In what homebrewed world do you live in? :smallconfused:

He's not that far off, actually. Generally money hides the problem and does not make it go away.

Incidentally, I question the ability of any DM who decides to put a PC Paladin in a situation where the only two options are fall and... fall.

[Tren]

He's not that far off, actually. Generally money hides the problem and makes it go away.

Incidentally, I question the ability of any DM who decides to put a PC Paladin in a situation where the only two options are fall and... fall.

Or fall or die unarmed against a horde of orcs. Sure it might be realistic for such a scenario to arise on occasion, but it's definitely not fun for the player. Also, if all other options thought up by the player are miraculously infeasible, and the only way he can progress is to throw away all the cool trinkets he as a player has acquired, that's railroading to a T.

Someone else mentioned it already, but this railroading scenario assumes that the Paladin even views his Holy Avenger as something he has the authority to sell. It's a divine charge, in a way, a symbol of faith and the power of Good, it's a blessing bestowed upon you. So assuming you could even willingly sell it without falling, or perhaps be under a Compulsion to not let go of it-- it's useless to the wizard, +1 cold iron longsword then, right? Why would he want it? It's not unreasonable to be concerned that anyone trying to procure the sword from you intends to use it for evil purposes, perhaps a demon that gains power from the metaphysical act of surrendering one's faith-- or even just wants the sword out of the world so it can no longer do good.

[horseboy]

Not to mention what does the sword think? I know my swords would flat refuse to be sold.

[Demented]

On the other hand, your swords would probably love it if you had to plunge them into a volcano to seal it from erupting all over a small village.

Unless your best friend is a Druid. ("Don't mess with the volcano! It's natural!")
Then you're royally screwed.

[comicshorse]

The Paladin in my current game regards his equipment as on-loan to him from his church. When he falls in battle it will be returned to the church to be carried with honour by the next generation of Paladins.

[Fawsto]

Tren also got an important idea. It would be quite frustrating for any player to be denied ALL his gear out in a single blow. When you are denied a single important part of your equip it already hurts, imagine to have to sell everything you have and know that even if the DM is planing to give it back later it still hurts because no one likes to not be able to do nothing around.

It evens get worse in those scenarios where the Paladin would lose his class features if he decides to keep his gear. Wow, what a nice and fun decision isn't it?

Whenever the DM cuts any plausible ways to solve the problem, that's railroading.

I have done it today when I railroaded a CN Bard and a CN Rogue to the Prison because they tryed to steal the Heironeus church reliquary (well, tehy caused it... The campaing focus wasn't quite that Btw...) and they got caught due to magic and a little smart metagaming from my part (the DM; I used alarm in the reliquary locker; the grand priest held the investigations with zone of truth and had spell focus to increase the power of his magic since he was also the town's Judge. The Bard failed the Will save by one point). It was kind of necessary for this point of the game, but as a result I am not preventing the use of skills/equips/class features for any of the two. They will probably be in jail for a couple of gameplay minutes (perhaps at a maximum of 5 minutes, while they make a small contract with the church in a way to attone for the crime. This involves a lot of GP so they will probably accept it...) while they are hooked to the campaing focus. I could see in the face of the Players how hard it was just to railroad them in a light manner, I decided I will not do it again.

- Faws

[horseboy]

Tren also got an important idea. It would be quite frustrating for any player to be denied ALL his gear out in a single blow. When you are denied a single important part of your equip it already hurts, imagine to have to sell everything you have and know that even if the DM is planing to give it back later it still hurts because no one likes to not be able to do nothing around.

It evens get worse in those scenarios where the Paladin would lose his class features if he decides to keep his gear. Wow, what a nice and fun decision isn't it?Except he would NEVER loose his class features for not selling his gear because that would NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM!


Whenever the DM cuts any plausible ways to solve the problem, that's railroading. Look, if you don't want him to have his gear just say "Sorry I screwed up, I need to tone down your gear." Don't try and cover it in some goofy railroading shenanigans about "oh it's a moral delama," so you can screw over the player simply because you don't like his class.

[Grey Paladin]

So now having starving people in a city without any saints who would agree to help feed them all for free is railroading? because if so RL God is a horrible DM.

Horse Boy:

It would indeed fail to solve the problem in the long run, it would, however, save some lives- unless the Paladin is ready to sacrifice these lives for a long term solution which is more likely save even more lives.

About money: You have money, you hire mercenaries, they stab the problem until it stops moving, problem solved. I'd say this is a pretty realistic example.

About this being a technique to remove the gear from a Paladin: When such a situation actually occurred in my game, they just stumbled upon this city, they could've went to 3 others, while the PCs are the center of the story, they are not the center of the world - it is persistent.

[Dan_Hemmens]

He's not that far off, actually. Generally money hides the problem and does not make it go away.

Incidentally, I question the ability of any DM who decides to put a PC Paladin in a situation where the only two options are fall and... fall.

It's a common problem with "moral dilemmas". They invariably involve the DM slapping you in the face with some kind of "aah, do you see" nonsense and then complaining whichever option you take.

[Kioran]

It's a common problem with "moral dilemmas". They invariably involve the DM slapping you in the face with some kind of "aah, do you see" nonsense and then complaining whichever option you take.

I hope not. I´ve killed a few PCs as a DM, imprisoned them, robbed them, but all in good spirits. They lose some, they win some, as the story dictates. WBL
and CR are guidelines, to be used, but not slavishly adhered to - as far as I see this. Sometimes, my players bypass 3/4 of the encounters in my adventure due to clever planning, sometimes thes have they entire city watch on their tails because they screwed up. And hopefully, all in all, the screwups and unexpected victories even out. Even the distribution of ecnounters by CR suggests the same thing - some easy, some difficult ones and a few normal ones in between. The going should be rough sometiems, and the players never exactly aware what might happen next.
If you have that kind of campaign, I think it´s perfectly okay if you make the Paladin sweat or bleed a little for his code or morals. He´s a Paladin, and has areputation to uphold. But if that reputation is well earned, what keeps you from lending him the aid of the Royal guard on a critical mission, or a stipend from the high temple of Heironeous for a particularly ardorous task?

Moral Dilemmata and the Paladin code are not the DM messing with the Player, but parts of the Character and plot hooks. It´d be a shame not to use them......

[Lady Tialait]

ScoutPaladin Law

TRUSTWORTHY
A ScoutPaladin tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.

LOYAL
A ScoutPaladin is true to his family, ScoutPaladin leaders, friends, school, and nation.

HELPFUL
A ScoutPaladin is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for others without pay or reward.

FRIENDLY
A ScoutPaladin is a friend to all. He is a brother to other ScoutPaladins. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.

COURTEOUS
A ScoutPaladin is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get along together.

KIND
A ScoutPaladin understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not hurt or kill harmless things without reason.

OBEDIENT
A ScoutPaladin follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.

CHEERFUL
A ScoutPaladin looks for the bright side of things. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.

THRIFTY
A ScoutPaladin works to pay his way and to help others. He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.

BRAVE
A ScoutPaladin can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at or threaten him.

CLEAN
A ScoutPaladin keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.

REVERENT
A ScoutPaladin is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

erm....there you go.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I hope not. I´ve killed a few PCs as a DM, imprisoned them, robbed them, but all in good spirits. They lose some, they win some, as the story dictates. WBL

It's that "as the story dictates" which I have issues with. If your story is dictating what happens to the PCs, what are the players even there for?

But this isn't about challenges, it's about "moral dilemmas".


Moral Dilemmata and the Paladin code are not the DM messing with the Player, but parts of the Character and plot hooks. It´d be a shame not to use them......

It depends very much on how it's handled. All too often a "moral dilemma" is something completely lame like "the orcs attack you, but if you kill them you're a racist" or the current example: "you could sell all your weapons and armour in order to feed some starving people". That's not a moral dilemma, it's a cheap attempt by the DM to force the player to do something stupid.

[Kioran]

It's that "as the story dictates" which I have issues with. If your story is dictating what happens to the PCs, what are the players even there for?

But this isn't about challenges, it's about "moral dilemmas".

The story is the water in which the PCs swim, to use a metaphor. It might have a current that sweeps them along, it might be tranquil, but more often then not, they do not have total freedom. Of course they can sulk in a tavern, kill the gouvernor or whatever, but if there´s a war brewing, for example, it might very well happen that they cannot avert it and become embroiled, one way or the other, whether they like it or not.
Or they could find a clusterf**k of a situation when they get somewhere, so they´re faced with it even if they´re not responsible. It´s called a living, breahting world. The PCs can influence it, but it´s there nontheless, and will sometimes act on it´s own.

If the workd isn´t larger than the PCs and occasionally forces them to act, one can do away with the rules entirely. If it´s not, then sometimes the PCs faces some situations which they do not have total control over, simply by virtue of not being Pun-Pun. And that´s no railroading, it´s part of the game


It depends very much on how it's handled. All too often a "moral dilemma" is something completely lame like "the orcs attack you, but if you kill them you're a racist" or the current example: "you could sell all your weapons and armour in order to feed some starving people". That's not a moral dilemma, it's a cheap attempt by the DM to force the player to do something stupid.

The PCs are, at least in most cases, no Black-ops operatives. Of course they´ll sometimes be forced to do stupid things, because they have principles or motives aside from maximum efficiency or great awesomeness. These situations are why you have the power at all, so you can plow through despite facing less than optimal conditions. It´s the makings of a great story.

Some of our best stories were being entombed in an underground dungeon without climbing gear or a source of light, no Darkvision because our orc fell to his death, and being hunted down by an entire tribe of troglodytes - and narrowly escaping. As a monk and sorceror. The orc died a rather meaningless death, true, but survival through ingenuity and "Deflect Arrows" against all odds made it all the sweeter.
That´s the kind of awesome that only comes through random events and can´t be preplanned. The rules and our characters capabilties forced us along. Was it railroading that we couldn´t climb back out after people cut our ropes behind us? Hardly. The DM played these creatures like they wanted to kill us, and we had precious little options.
We Improvised, by letting the Raven familiar call for help from a nearby village, but still - our survival wasn´t preordained. But all the more awesome when we actually made it.

[Thane of Fife]

The problem with the situation of the famine is the manner in which the spellcaster is being played, such that the paladin can only solve things by ditching his gear.

Simply because, for some, arbitrary reason, the spellcaster deems it better to have the paladin's gear, which assumably is not particularly useful to him, rather than have the paladin promise a service.

For example, which seems more reasonable, "I'll feed the people if you give me that Holy Avenger you're carrying which I'll never be able to use," or "I'll feed the people if you give me your word that, afterwards, you'll bring me the Artifact of Wizard Enhancement, which will"?

If there was more than one unpleasant way to help the spellcaster, then it would be a more acceptable situation.

[Kioran]

The problem with the situation of the famine is the manner in which the spellcaster is being played, such that the paladin can only solve things by ditching his gear.

Simply because, for some, arbitrary reason, the spellcaster deems it better to have the paladin's gear, which assumably is not particularly useful to him, rather than have the paladin promise a service.

For example, which seems more reasonable, "I'll feed the people if you give me that Holy Avenger you're carrying which I'll never be able to use," or "I'll feed the people if you give me your word that, afterwards, you'll bring me the Artifact of Wizard Enhancement, which will"?

If there was more than one unpleasant way to help the spellcaster, then it would be a more acceptable situation.

True. However, the Spellcaster could also be a Favored Soul of a god of greed and demand the Paladins cloak of charisma, which has much the same effect, or want the Paladins ring of protection. It´s not about Holy Avengers specifically, but about being forced to make a sacrifice and enlist the help of an unsavory figure.

[Dan_Hemmens]

The PCs are, at least in most cases, no Black-ops operatives. Of course they´ll sometimes be forced to do stupid things, because they have principles or motives aside from maximum efficiency or great awesomeness. These situations are why you have the power at all, so you can plow through despite facing less than optimal conditions. It´s the makings of a great story.


Again, bolding mine for emphasis.

It's your use of the word "forced" that bugs me. PCs may *choose* to do stupid things, but that's not the same as being *forced* to do something stupid.

The problem with presenting a Paladin with a "moral decision" is that it's not really a moral decision at all, it's just using the Paladin's code as a stick to beat them with.

There are plenty of good reasons *not* to kowtow to J Random Wizard's demands, regardless how how many lives could theoretically be saved *if* the guy keeps his word and *if* the solution he offers to the problem is anything but temporary.

Any situation in which a Paladin stands to lose his powers is not a moral dilemma, it's a threat. You might as well just say "do this, or the gods will strike you with 5D6 lightning damage".

[Dan_Hemmens]

True. However, the Spellcaster could also be a Favored Soul of a god of greed and demand the Paladins cloak of charisma, which has much the same effect, or want the Paladins ring of protection. It´s not about Holy Avengers specifically, but about being forced to make a sacrifice and enlist the help of an unsavory figure.

Again, the issue here is the idea of being *forced* to make a sacrifice. If you're forced to make it, it isn't a sacrifice.

[Malachite]

Had to comment on this:



[spoiler](2-4)Paladins work for their gods
The gods work through Paladins
Therefore, Paladins work for themselves

Police work for the government. The government stops crime through the police. Police are not working for themselves.

(1)Selfishness is defined as caring only for oneself
Paladins care for themselves
Paladins are selfish

Caring for yourself does not equal caring only for yourself. Where did that twist of logic come from? To illustrate: Dogs are mammals. I am a mammal. That does not make me a dog.

Paladins, by definition, force their beliefs on others
Forcing yourself on others means you do not respect the opinion of others
Paladins do not care for the opinions of others

The police enforce the law. Are they forcing their beliefs on others? And if so, why should they not be able to stop criminals enforcing their beliefs in "fluid ownership" on citizens?






letting those innocents die from starvation, even by inaction, is a good act?
when you turn your back to the village carrying 300.000 GP in equips while they starve: is THIS a good action? people are goint to die because you cant get rid of your holy avenger: this is Selfishness
...
IMO, going away to solve the problem (full equiped) knowing that some people are going to die is a Neutral act: Allowed for LG characters, but denied for exalted ones

You are not killing those left behind, you are doing the utmost in your power to save as many as possible. Creating a short-term solution but long-term disaster results in more death, so you're putting your own fuzzy feelings above the lives of others. THAT is selfish.

[hrpatton]

A DM of my acquaintance once dubbed the question under discussion the "Abraham and Isaac." The devout paladin is presented with a situation in which his duty seems clear but the consequences are dire. If he feeds the peasants, he'll be powerless to defend them (or others) against evil.

If this situation crops up for real, one of three things is happening:

1.) The DM has an alternative solution in mind. Find it.
2.) The DM is screwing you. Find a new DM.
3.) The DM -- er, I mean, your deity -- is testing you. Do what your code dictates, even if it has bad consequences, and trust that God is righteous.

With respect to option #3, the divine warrior who throws common sense to the wind and puts his faith in God is a trope of literature, folklore and mythology. Depending on your paladin's particular code, it might even be required. Like God staying Abraham's hand at the last moment, the DM may be waiting for his opportunity to reward your devotion.

... or not. See option #2.

[horseboy]

So now having starving people in a city without any saints who would agree to help feed them all for free is railroading? because if so RL God is a horrible DM.Oh yes, if only, off the top of my head,the millions and millions of $ worth of materials, labour and Underwriting that Lowe's has given Habitat for Humanity; Panera's donation of their daily left over bread to the local soup kitchens; Bill Gate's half a billion $ worth of donations to various charities to help Africa; Oprah Winfrey's extensive workings; and groups like the Red Cross that are supported by regular people giving what they can, it's now clear to me that nobody EVER throws money at a problem to solve societies ills. If only there were more people to throw money at the problem then surely t would be fixed.
Yes, not finding ANYONE in a city willing to help out would break my sense of credibility in the setting.


Horse Boy:

It would indeed fail to solve the problem in the long run, it would, however, save some lives- unless the Paladin is ready to sacrifice these lives for a long term solution which is more likely save even more lives. Once again, the Paladin is not responsible for those that die in the interim. Those people's deaths are the fault of that which caused the problem, not the paladin.


About money: You have money, you hire mercenaries, they stab the problem until it stops moving, problem solved. I'd say this is a pretty realistic example.
Lol

About this being a technique to remove the gear from a Paladin: When such a situation actually occurred in my game, they just stumbled upon this city, they could've went to 3 others, while the PCs are the center of the story, they are not the center of the world - it is persistent.Elaborate please. This makes no sense.

[kamikasei]

3.) The DM -- er, I mean, your deity -- is testing you. Do what your code dictates, even if it has bad consequences, and trust that God is righteous.

You know, I'm inclined to say that in a D&D world where Gods can in fact be evil and fall to evil and evil beings can, indeed, deceive people and impersonate their deities... a paladin should put service to good above service to his deity and refuse to do his deity's will against his conscience. Of course, this kind of breaks with the whole archetypical holy warrior schtick.

[hrpatton]

You know, I'm inclined to say that in a D&D world where Gods can in fact be evil and fall to evil and evil beings can, indeed, deceive people and impersonate their deities... a paladin should put service to good above service to his deity and refuse to do his deity's will against his conscience. Of course, this kind of breaks with the whole archetypical holy warrior schtick.

Yeah, it's really a paradigm question. Do you read the paladin as a champion of a good deity, or a champion of Good (tm)?

I tend to lean toward the latter, but most players of paladins I've encountered have preferred the former.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Yeah, it's really a paradigm question. Do you read the paladin as a champion of a good deity, or a champion of Good (tm)?

I tend to lean toward the latter, but most players of paladins I've encountered have preferred the former.

As I understand it the RAW are very clear on this. The Paladin description says a whole mess of stuff about Goodness and very, very little about a deity.

[Grey Paladin]

Stuff

Money: The keyword is "all", also, in a world where enough money can reweave the threads of reality it is even more feasible.

Fault: Why the hell would it matter who's fault it is? the Paladin is given the ability to save lives, but won't because "its not his fault"?

Details: When I write the campaign, I write the areas/NPCs (some of which the players may never reach), and I write a timeline assuming the PCs wouldn't exist, things happen by the timeline as time progresses(=PCs do stuff) as long as the PCs do not effect the source of these events directly or indirectly, if they do, I make the appropriate adjustments.

This results in a persistent, highly "realistic" world and a lot of freedom.

On the downside such campaigns take a ridiculous time to write, and the time between sessions is, at the least, two weeks.

[VanBuren]

Fault: Why the hell would it matter who's fault it is? the Paladin is given the ability to save lives, but won't because "its not his fault"?

Nope. That wasn't the argument. The argument was that the Paladin would do the best he could to stop the problem. He wouldn't fall because of the people who died, because it wasn't his fault but the famine-causer and that if the Paladin were so obsessed with creating a short-term solution that would save those people, he would be shooting off his own foot when it came to saving everyone long-term and stopping the famine.

But then, I suppose even without his armor and Holy Avenger, a Paladin should have no trouble stopping anything with his Vow of Poverty, right?

On a less sarcastic note, I really do like the sound of your campaign writing style. It sounds like the world advances with or without the PCs, though they can still affect the way it unfurls given the right circumstances.

[Grey Paladin]

I didn't say the Paladin will fall, either, I said it wouldn't be right- not everything right in the world is covered by The Code.

And I also agree with you that this is an idealistic solution, which is, in the long run, more likely to cause more harm then good, but then again try telling to the knight in shining armor that he should let that one family starve for the greater good.

VoP: I've seen some pretty good homebrews :smalltongue:

Campaign Style: I personally think its the best, but it takes a high amount of effort&time, so much many will say it is not worth it.

[VanBuren]

I didn't say the Paladin will fall, either, I said it wouldn't be right- not everything right in the world is covered by The Code.

And I also agree with you that this is an idealistic solution, which is, in the long run, more likely to cause more harm then good, but then again try telling to the knight in shining armor that he should let that one family starve for the greater good.

I see it as a choice that that the Paladin would end up making, albeit very relunctantly and with a great deal of remorse. Then again, I tend to envision the really great Paladins all going through a short period of extreme self-doubt at some point or another so we may be clashing on style here.


VoP: I've seen some pretty good homebrews :smalltongue:

Homebrew can change anything, but RAW VoP is only useful for Monks, and even then not really.


Campaign Style: I personally think its the best, but it takes a high amount of effort&time, so much many will say it is not worth it.

You could always localize it, I guess. I mean, have a general idea in your head and flesh things out as it becomes relevant.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Homebrew can change anything, but RAW VoP is only useful for druids, and even then not really.
Fixed. Filler.

[VanBuren]

Lemme guess, it works when Wildshaped?

[Entar]

Yeah, it's really a paradigm question. Do you read the paladin as a champion of a good deity, or a champion of Good (tm)?

I tend to lean toward the latter, but most players of paladins I've encountered have preferred the former.

The paladin receives his power directly from the god he worships, so the relationship between him and the deity is probably quite close. His code is based on the will of his god, and the paladin assumes it to be good without question. The paladin is a champion of the deity, because the deity is good and through serving the deity he thinks he can do good. At least this is how I think it should go - if the god is merely a tool for your purposes, how can you truly dedicate yourself to the god's will and be a holy champion of the deity's cause?

I'm personally opposed to the whole idea of telling people how to play paladins. People say Miko is an example of a paladin one shouldn't play. Who knows, maybe a character like that would stress a real gaming situation. I've never played DnD so I can't tell. I understand though that Miko was a common, unimaginative way to play paladins, or something like that. People say paladins force their ideals on people around them, but telling someone they're playing their paladin wrong is about the same thing.

Paladins should differ. People interpret the tenets of their faith (and more importantly, how they should affect their lives) differently. Motivations to do good differ, too, and they usually aren't as simple as doing it for the sake of it or for personal glory, but are usually mixed. Whether a paladin is selfish or not depends on the character.

Paladin is probably one of the most difficult classes to roleplay, but you can't tell someone they aren't playing it right. Paladins have the potential for great stories and interaction. For example, Miko made an excellent story about following the letter of law over its intent, sin and redemption and I could go on and on about it if I read way too much into the comic. More than I am already, anyway.

[VanBuren]

The paladin receives his power directly from the god he worships, so the relationship between him and the deity is probably quite close. His code is based on the will of his god, and the paladin assumes it to be good without question. The paladin is a champion of the deity, because the deity is good and through serving the deity he thinks he can do good. At least this is how I think it should go - if the god is merely a tool for your purposes, how can you truly dedicate yourself to the god's will and be a holy champion of the deity's cause?

Paladins actually get their powers from Good itself IIRC, and only require gods in some settings.

[Sir Iguejo]

He's not that far off, actually. Generally money hides the problem and does not make it go away.

Incidentally, I question the ability of any DM who decides to put a PC Paladin in a situation where the only two options are fall and... fall.

DM ability has nothing to do with this. Paladins often fall. The problem is that players are used to win-win options. They get pissed if they die or fall.

BREAKING NEWS: Death is not the end! Raise Dead! Losing class powers is not the end!!! Atonement!!!

come to think of it: Your DM sets some quest where the ending options are Death or Fall. What to do? Is he a bad DM?I say that you are a bad player. I would die in glory trying to save innocent lifes rather than falling.


What if the paladin fall? Congratulations: you get a solo adventure!
This may be a very good one, if the player is mature enough to do it. Lots of RPing options an non-combat quests for atonement. If a paladin fall because he is selfish or addicted to his gear, I would create an adventure where the pally learn that material goods (even his holy avenger) ain't worth someone's life.

Just remember that the PCs often lose battles, die and fall. S*** Happens. just continue playing: when you get your powers back and smite the BBEG that screwed you earlier, it will be 10x funnier

[Lady Tialait]

I always see Paladins are supernatural boy scouts...if you didn't notice from my other post. They must follow those rules. if in a place they cannot follow those rules. They usally break down and pray. As that is part of their rules.

It is simple..

Damned if you do and Damned if you don't....

Most peaple = get damned...the cool way.

Paladin = Try my best and trust in my god.

Souls like a supernatural boy scout to me...

[Kelson]

Personally, I see this one as a question of campaign tone. If one wants a more cynical/realistic campaign where sticking to a set of principles causes more harm than good, than one probably should either A) not allow paladins, B) change the class requirements or C) at the very least warn players away from the class. If one wants a more fantastic/idealistic campaign, then this sort of question shouldn't come up in the first place.

[horseboy]

DM ability has nothing to do with this. Paladins often fall. The problem is that players are used to win-win options. They get pissed if they die or fall.

BREAKING NEWS: Death is not the end! Raise Dead! Losing class powers is not the end!!! Atonement!!!

come to think of it: Your DM sets some quest where the ending options are Death or Fall. What to do? Is he a bad DM?I say that you are a bad player. I would die in glory trying to save innocent lifes rather than falling.

What if the paladin fall? Congratulations: you get a solo adventure!
This may be a very good one, if the player is mature enough to do it. Lots of RPing options an non-combat quests for atonement. If a paladin fall because he is selfish or addicted to his gear, I would create an adventure where the pally learn that material goods (even his holy avenger) ain't worth someone's life.

Just remember that the PCs often lose battles, die and fall. S*** Happens. just continue playing: when you get your powers back and smite the BBEG that screwed you earlier, it will be 10x funnier
Your players must be amazingly passive, to let the DM write the endings, or to never come up with alternate ideas. That or they're used to just riding the rails, watching the scenery pass by. And no, the paladin would never fall over something so stupid.

[Sir Iguejo]

Your players must be amazingly passive, to let the DM write the endings, or to never come up with alternate ideas. That or they're used to just riding the rails, watching the scenery pass by. And no, the paladin would never fall over something so stupid.



The Bottom Line

You're in charge. This is not being in charge as in telling everyone what to do. Rather, you get to decide how your player group is going to play this game, when and where the adventures take place, and what happens.That kind of bein in charge.


The paladin that made a wrong decision will fall. Even if this wrong decision was fruit of the DM powers. Good and mature players know that if the DM did that, he had some motives. Some quest hook, a new powerful item the pally is going to get after he atone (eg Holy Avenger), et cetera.

The paladin is an example of goodness and kindness: not perfection

Also:
A good DM uses the PCs background and current deeds to boost the campaign world. Players have much more fun when they realize that they are important. Their deeds change the world and the world changes them. This gives flavour tho the world and to the PCs.

[VanBuren]

If the DM makes a lose-lose scenario with the intent of a sub-quest for a no penalty redemption, then that's forgivable. But if a DM wants to turn a Paladin into a Fighter-without-bonus feats because he wants to come up with a poor illusion of a "moral dilemna", then that's a DM that just hates his players.

And not the good kind, either.

[Dan_Hemmens]

DM ability has nothing to do with this. Paladins often fall. The problem is that players are used to win-win options. They get pissed if they die or fall.

BREAKING NEWS: Death is not the end! Raise Dead! Losing class powers is not the end!!! Atonement!!!

Death is not the end, roll up a new character. A TPK is not the end, everybody roll up new characters. Nothing *forces* you to stop playing, but a great many things might convince you that playing with a particular DM is kind of pointless.


come to think of it: Your DM sets some quest where the ending options are Death or Fall. What to do? Is he a bad DM?I say that you are a bad player. I would die in glory trying to save innocent lifes rather than falling.

Ah yes, the good old "ability to put up with crap from their DM" definition of a "good player".

We're not talking about "dying in glory". We're talking about dying totally ignominiously because the DM was a **** and insisted that your Paladin's "code" required him to screw himself over in order to "help innocents" in exactly the way the DM wants him to.


What if the paladin fall? Congratulations: you get a solo adventure!

Since I play roleplaying games because I'm actually interested in other people, that's not much of an incentive for me.


This may be a very good one, if the player is mature enough to do it. Lots of RPing options an non-combat quests for atonement. If a paladin fall because he is selfish or addicted to his gear, I would create an adventure where the pally learn that material goods (even his holy avenger) ain't worth someone's life.

So what you're saying is that if a Paladin makes a choice you don't agree with, you would set up an adventure where he "learns" that he should have made the choice you wanted him to make.

A depressing number of DMs seem to think that arbitrarily punishing the player for doing stuff they don't like constitutes a "roleplaying opportunity". The "opportunity" to "learn" that the DM was right to make you lose your powers for not being an idiot isn't a roleplaying opportunity, and it certainly isn't a sign of "maturity".


Just remember that the PCs often lose battles, die and fall. S*** Happens. just continue playing: when you get your powers back and smite the BBEG that screwed you earlier, it will be 10x funnier

I don't. Life's too short to waste time on DMs who think it's funny to screw players over arbitrarily.

[Dan_Hemmens]

The paladin that made a wrong decision will fall. Even if this wrong decision was fruit of the DM powers. Good and mature players know that if the DM did that, he had some motives. Some quest hook, a new powerful item the pally is going to get after he atone (eg Holy Avenger), et cetera.

That's not being a good player, that's being a totally passive player. Contrary to popular belief, the DM is not in fact God (or even Albus Dumbledore). There is no implicit virtue in having Absolute and Unswerving Faith in Him.

DMs are fallible, they can, in fact, do things wrong. It is not the mark of a good player to just go along with whatever the DM says.


The paladin is an example of goodness and kindness: not perfection

Given this, how is it remotely justifiable to have a Paladin fall just because they didn't pick the option which you had arbitrarily decided was right?

[VanBuren]

The main issue here is when the DM gives you two options, and they're either

A) Fall or die
B) Fall or fall
C) Die or Die

[Dan_Hemmens]

The main issue here is when the DM gives you two options, and they're either

A) Fall or die
B) Fall or fall
C) Die or Die

But a *mature* roleplayer will *relish* such a choice as a *roleplaying opportunity*.

[VanBuren]

Yeah, an opportunity to be weaker than a Fighter. I mean, I know RP >>> Powergaming, but there's limits.

[Demented]

If the DM makes a lose-lose scenario with the intent of a sub-quest for a no penalty redemption, then that's forgivable. But if a DM wants to turn a Paladin into a Fighter-without-bonus feats because he wants to come up with a poor illusion of a "moral dilemna", then that's a DM that just hates his players.

And not the good kind, either.

Forgiveable if the DM realizes he made a mistake and plans not to do it again. Habitually frustrating your players and then rewarding them (ultimately so they won't leave, though that motivation probably won't come immediately to mind) is the action of a poor DM.

A good DM will avoid such scenarios.

An excellent DM (with epic writing skillz) can probably get away with anything, including punishing and abusing his players without redemption, because he knows how to tune it so that even the worst of failures is enticing, if not enjoyable, for the players. Suffice it to say that you never see excellent DMs; they're too busy writing the next hamlet.

[Tren]

The paladin that made a wrong decision will fall. Even if this wrong decision was fruit of the DM powers. Good and mature players know that if the DM did that, he had some motives. Some quest hook, a new powerful item the pally is going to get after he atone (eg Holy Avenger), et cetera.

It's still railroading in the extreme if despite his well thought out plans and search for alternatives the options come back down to "Die or Fall." And that can be highly frustrating and not fun for the paladin player, regardless of maturity. It's also rampant metagaming to assume the DM will then reward you for paying along, something I'd not consider the mark of a mature role player.



The paladin is an example of goodness and kindness: not perfection

I agree with Dan_ on this, if you believe this to be true how can the paladin possibly fall for making the difficult choice that leads to longterm relief for the suffering people?


Also:
A good DM uses the PCs background and current deeds to boost the campaign world. Players have much more fun when they realize that they are important. Their deeds change the world and the world changes them. This gives flavour tho the world and to the PCs.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but this certainly is no basis for DM fiat forcing a paladin to either fall or die.

[Mando Knight]

I agree that a DM forcing a Paladin into a fall-or-die situation is bad... how many players would be angry when their wizard lost his spellbook with a horde of expensive spells written in it... and spellbooks are extremely rare in the given campaign world?

A good Paladin player should always have a third option in a fall or die scenario: screw with the DM's campaign by using the powers of Truth, Justice, and the Paladin Way... or else using unconventional tactics...

If Orcs are raiding your homeland, and the only way your DM gives you to keep your Paladin powers is to rush them head-on and die by the endless hordes, sneak around and destroy the miscreants' supply chains, take as many weapons from their cache as possible, and then rally the local militia to aid him in destroying the now poorly armed and supplied horde! There's nothing in there that would violate the Paladin Code of Honor, just the Idiot Paladin's Code of Bad Tactics...

[Starbuck_II]

If the DM makes a lose-lose scenario with the intent of a sub-quest for a no penalty redemption, then that's forgivable. But if a DM wants to turn a Paladin into a Fighter-without-bonus feats because he wants to come up with a poor illusion of a "moral dilemna", then that's a DM that just hates his players.

And not the good kind, either.

Wait, there are good kinda of DMs that hate their players... :smallconfused:

[Fawsto]

In my view:

A Paladin who will not help the starving because he is not going to sell his equipment and will not try to solve the problem in any other ways: Fighter without bonus feats.

A Paladin that sell his gear because this is the fastest solution: Good guy, still Paladin but quite stupid, because now he denied himself the opportunity to solve the problem and keep adventuring.

A Paladin who finds another way to solve the problem without selling his gear because he is being wise and inteligent: The wise Hero. Bonus for the Player, because he could think of something far more effective to solve the problem and roleplay his LG allign.

A DM who says that there is no other option but to sell one's gear, even if the player has good ideas on how to help the people: a Railroader.

Being good does not deny you from being clever, even the book of exalted deeds says that. One possible solution? C'mon, the value of the scenario is starting to sink.

Equipment denial has never been a pleasant thing. It hurts more and more as you gain levels. Since you, the Player, know that trying to adventure in higher levels without gear is ridiculous. Reading a few monsters from Monster Manual after some game levels show that right away. Trying to fight things that will probably hit you all the time while you have no armor is suicide. Trying to fight them without decent weapons mean that you will hardly damage them.

Also, I always keep a warm place in my heart for all my characters. I don't like seeing them dead. I don't like to think that I will have to start a new character because my last one is dead; I always hope for the best that they will succeed and become powerful adventurers. It is a part of me not taking character obliteration in a light way. I simply can't.

- Faws

[Mando Knight]

New idea to deter "fall or die" DMs...

Smite Evil!

Good is not by definition dumb, nor is Lawful. If I felt like being a DM who's out to get Paladins, I'd make them fall if they were being stupid. Charging against a BBEG who has an army of several thousand and himself is several levels higher? Fall for not thinking this through. Sell your gear because the peasants are starving due to a massive enemy army sitting on their farms? Fall... he hastened both his death and the peasants' by weakening the town's defense force by an entire PC in return for a bit of food.

I'm also pro-Pally... it's too bad that they're somewhat underpowered as is. I'd remove the multiclassing restriction, give them bonus feats or better spell progression, and allow their levels to stack with Fighter levels for feats like Weapon Specialization... but I'm not much of a homebrewer, and try to do things by RAW so that I'm consistent...

[horseboy]

The paladin that made a wrong decision will fall. Even if this wrong decision was fruit of the DM powers. Good and mature players know that if the DM did that, he had some motives. Some quest hook, a new powerful item the pally is going to get after he atone (eg Holy Avenger), et cetera.Pffft! Next you'll be telling me that "good and mature players" play under the desk (with Perkins no less). A "good and mature" DM creates situations in which the PLAYERS define their character's character, not punishes them for not playing their characters the DM wants them played.


The paladin is an example of goodness and kindness: not perfection

Also:
A good DM uses the PCs background and current deeds to boost the campaign world. Players have much more fun when they realize that they are important. Their deeds change the world and the world changes them. This gives flavour tho the world and to the PCs.So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Demented]

So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Well, if a character isn't doing anything to the price of tea in China, then he's probably not very important to the setting and should probably be written out before he becomes a useless annoyance, no? ;)

[Kioran]

So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

You´re insinuating this comment is unrelated and useless. It isn´t. Being clobbered with your own backstory remains a valid tool, even if it shouldn´t be used as often.

I mean what´s the difference between forcing the Pali´s hand with the suffering of innocents or ransoming the rogue´s younger sister or what have you? If you overdo it, it sucks, to be sure. But occassionally, it´s okay. And it´s not like one chosses a Paladin for easy decisionmaking.

[kamikasei]

I mean what´s the difference between forcing the Pali´s hand with the suffering of innocents or ransoming the rogue´s younger sister or what have you?

The difference is between "the villain has kidnapped your sister! He's demanding you surrender your weapons and hand over the MacGuffin before he'll release her! What will you do?" and "the villain has kidnapped your sister! These are his demands (acceding to which would be evil)! Whatever you do, you will either lose all your Sneak Attack die and Evasion, or die pointlessly because you have no weapons or leverage! ...No, of course you can't rescue her."

There's also the fact that Iguejo basically tried to portray the criticism people were leveling at his DMing style with criticism of an immersive game which draws on characters' backstories and/or tries to make them feel involved and significant in the world... which is a bit cheap.

[Lady Tialait]

...I feel like a really loose DM...I have had three paladins punch the leader of their order...and they didn't fall. treat the badguy like a sh-bag. I get Judge Dread with Detect Evil....now i realize...i'm just way to loose about it...


*goes off to cry*

[VanBuren]

The difference is between "the villain has kidnapped your sister! He's demanding you surrender your weapons and hand over the MacGuffin before he'll release her! What will you do?" and "the villain has kidnapped your sister! These are his demands (acceding to which would be evil)! Whatever you do, you will either lose all your Sneak Attack die and Evasion, or die pointlessly because you have no weapons or leverage! ...No, of course you can't rescue her."

There's also the fact that Iguejo basically tried to portray the criticism people were leveling at his DMing style with criticism of an immersive game which draws on characters' backstories and/or tries to make them feel involved and significant in the world... which is a bit cheap.

It's like saying, "would you rather become a gimped Fighter or a gimped Monk?"

[Grey Paladin]

While I agree that perhaps selling your equipment for food is foolish, a Paladin that avoids doing so *kills* a bunch of innocents by inaction - you keep ignoring this - the fact that the Paladin should/not fall for this is not the point of debate (or at least not my point) how ethic is sacrificing innocents for the greater good is what I am asking (and none beside VanBuren has answered)

[kamikasei]

While I agree that perhaps selling your equipment for food is foolish, a Paladin that avoids doing so *kills* a bunch of innocents by inaction - you keep ignoring this - the fact that the Paladin should/not fall for this is not the point of debate (or at least not my point) how ethic is sacrificing innocents for the greater good is what I am asking (and none beside VanBuren has answered)

No he doesn't! You seem to be ignoring the many, many responses in this thread saying that a paladin happening upon a famine is not killing anyone. That the people are starving is not his doing and while he certainly should see if he can do something about it the blood of those who die is not on his hands. Nor is he sacrificing anyone, he's failing to save them. Sacrificing people is killing them to appease the rain gods, or feeding them to the dragon so he'll let the grain through, or just killing them so there are fewer mouths and enough food to go around.

If a paladin could save more people by keeping his gear and solving the root cause of the problem, then what are you saying, that he should fall for not feeding everyone he can with the sale of his gear, and also fall for not saving the larger number he's thrown away the chance to help?

What you're advocating is a broken system of morality that has as its logical endpoint a sort of ethical paralysis in which - since people will suffer and die and bad things will happen no matter what any single person does - a paladin is effectively incapable of either doing anything or taking no action, because for anything that he does, he's giving up the chance to do some other thing that might have saved someone's life. That doesn't work.

[Grey Paladin]

No he doesn't! You seem to be ignoring the many, many responses in this thread saying that a paladin happening upon a famine is not killing anyone. That the people are starving is not his doing and while he certainly should see if he can do something about it the blood of those who die is not on his hands. Nor is he sacrificing anyone, he's failing to save them. Sacrificing people is killing them to appease the rain gods, or feeding them to the dragon so he'll let the grain through, or just killing them so there are fewer mouths and enough food to go around.

If a paladin could save more people by keeping his gear and solving the root cause of the problem, then what are you saying, that he should fall for not feeding everyone he can with the sale of his gear, and also fall for not saving the larger number he's thrown away the chance to help?

What you're advocating is a broken system of morality that has as its logical endpoint a sort of ethical paralysis in which - since people will suffer and die and bad things will happen no matter what any single person does - a paladin is effectively incapable of either doing anything or taking no action, because for anything that he does, he's giving up the chance to do some other thing that might have saved someone's life. That doesn't work.

I am actually claiming he shouldn't fall in either case.

But is a doctor refusing to treat a victim dieing from a disease which he could have easily cured innocent?

He can save them, but that will likely do more harm then good, so the logical course of action will be letting them die for the greater good- AKA sacrifice them for it.

[Thane of Fife]

I would disagree - if the paladin has the opportunity to save people, and he doesn't, then he is committing an act which comes uncomfortably close to evil. If he is carrying something which is absolutely necessary for some other quest, he would not need to sell that (say, he has the one sword capable of destroying the entity of cosmic evil about to destroy the world), but only because it's necessary. If the town was being plagued with lycanthropes, he wouldn't need to sell his silver weapon. But he must be willing to continue onwards with as little gear as necessary.

(Note: this assumes that 1) there is a source of food in town that is, for whatever reason, only available via money, and 2) that whatever quest the paladin is currently on can be completed without requiring every bit of gear he owns. The paladin would not need to forgo his quest so as to trek across the continent in order to find some artifact capable of feeding people.)

As an example, there is a relatively old published adventure called The Apocalypse Stone. In it, the world is faced with destruction, and the PCs are faced with trials to see if they're Heroes, which determines if they get the chance to save it. (Yes, the premise is bizarre).

Anyway, one of these trials is as such: In it, a small shrine in a small village is used to keep two behirs locked in a deep slumber by burning magic items. To pass the trial, the characters are required to give generously of their equipment, even though they're questing to save the world. Even if the PCs wait around to fight the behirs instead of giving magic, they still fail, because they're letting the village be damaged in order to keep their magic.

[kamikasei]

I am actually claiming he shouldn't fall in either case.

...so then what are you arguing?


But is a doctor refusing to treat a victim dieing from a disease which he could have easily cured innocent?

He can save them, but that will likely do more harm then good, so the logical course of action will be letting them die for the greater good- AKA sacrifice them for it.

"Do no harm" isn't quite "do no evil", but the concept of triage is relevant. There are indeed circumstances where doctors will let people die of ailments they could easily have cured - because if they took the time to help person A, persons B and C would die. This is not "sacrificing for the greater good". This is saying, "I can only do so much. What of the actions I can take will accomplish the most good?" And yeah, I don't doubt that any doctor who has to exercise triage feels absolutely terrible about it afterwards - but it would in fact be a breach of medical ethics for them to do otherwise.

Or did you have some other circumstance in mind where a doctor would withhold treament "for the greater good"?

[horseboy]

Ior a gimped Monk?"
Isn't that kinda redundant? :smallwink:

[Diamondeye]

But is a doctor refusing to treat a victim dieing from a disease which he could have easily cured innocent?

He can save them, but that will likely do more harm then good, so the logical course of action will be letting them die for the greater good- AKA sacrifice them for it.


First of all, how does saving a person from a disease, in and of itself, do more harm than good in the long run?

Second, the analogy is not accurate. A doctor who rushes into a burning building to drag one person out while five other burn victims are laying outside is doing the wrong thing. He's a doctor; his job is to treat the injured. A fireman's job is to drag people out of the burning building.

In the same way, the paladin should not be trying to buy food with his gear for a famine. Something is causing the famine; the paladin should be worrying about that. Clerics can worry about feeding people in the short term; there are generally more of them anyhow, not to mention other good-aligned people.

As to the doctor scenario, triage occurs in real life. If for example, you have four seriously injured soldiers, one more who is lightly wounded, and one who is likely to die in the next 10 minutes and there is only space for four on the MEDEVAC helicopter, the four seriously injured go. The lightly wounded one doesn't need to be rushed to the aid station, and the one likely to die is not likely to live long enough for the helicopter to get him to a doctor.

The moral of the story here is that you can only do what you can do. You should not cripple your ability to do good in order to provide a temporary solution to an immediate problem with no regard to the cause of the problem.