quickest loss of paladinhood [Archive] - Page 3 - Giant in the Playground Forums

Rutee

2008-04-15, 08:26 PM

I'm fairly offended by your remark #2.

I cite rules and provide logical backing for my points. Rutee, who has never played a Paladin, who has never played in a group with a Paladin, is indulging in pure theory crafting about how Paladins play in actual games of D&D. None of which she is capable of backing with rules or logic.
Don't even. "It's a rule, so it's good!" "Here's why the rule has problems... <Insert explanation here>" "It's a rule, stupid. It's sacred". Don't even. I have provided quite a bit of logic, and only Crow and Daimbert have really actually even /tried/ to address it. Well, and AKA_Bait and Saph now. Circular logic doesn't really count as logic. Nor does Ad Hominem.

Of course not. It is, however, written following general english formatting concepts. Among those, is the idea that separate subsections of a section of a document are not directly linked unless they explicitally refer to eachother. Also, that subsections of one section of a document are not linked to entirely different sections of that document unless it is explicitally stated that they do.
I am less then convinced, given the unequivocal wording of the Associates page. Nobody else has it in absolute terms. Everyone else's are "Usually don't get along with.." or things like that. The Paladin is "Does not associate". You could say it's just fluff, of course, but.. it doesn't quite feel like it.

I'll give it a shot. Sorry for the confusion. It seemed to me that you were saying a Paladin, because of the code, either forces the group to do everything according to their code or is forced not to take part in what is going on themselves. I felt that was too strong a position.

I was arguing that although the paladin cannot do what the rest of the party is doing, they can still take part in game and have fun. Such as by refusing to be part of the rogues lie and paying for the party after they have passed through.
No worries, and to an extent yes. Your example was short, so there's no real problems of course (I mean it's a gate guard. I don't even think I'd make the players roll past level 5 to bluff him, so the paladin just pays). One of the aforementioned examples was a "Campaign of deceit to defeat an Evil Lich" (By which I took it to mean 'campaign' in an IC sense of 'extended period of in-game time', not the 'the entire campaign is to do this one major task'). This could conceivably be 2 or 3 sessions, possibly a story arc, where the Paladin is crippled. Or the brilliant campaign is abandoned before it can start, because of what this does to the Paladin's player. I think I'd give the Paladin an NPC for the duration... but if they wanted to be an NPC they would have made that NPC. Still, better then nothing..

Kompera

2008-04-15, 10:08 PM

Don't even. "It's a rule, so it's good!" "Here's why the rule has problems... <Insert explanation here>" "It's a rule, stupid. It's sacred". Don't even. I have provided quite a bit of logic [...]
Oh yes, even. Your so called logic is just your attempts to support your opinions with more of your opinions. Not citations of rules, and nothing which could be called logic in any case.

What you have done is consistently misquoted, used straw men, and supported your opinions with more of your opinions.

If you want to say that you hate the Paladin class, that's fine. But don't try to argue that Paladins can't play well in groups. As a person who has never played a Paladin, nor ever played in a group with a Paladin, your opinions don't carry the weight of experience or rationality. You have some theory that Paladin's can't play well in groups, and no amount of others either citing rules which demonstrate how that doesn't have to be the case, or citing their own play experience which shows that not to be the case in practice will change your closed mind.

Your arguments have all the validity of a blind person stating that the colors green and red could never possibly look good together.

Rutee

2008-04-15, 10:23 PM

Oh yes, even. Your so called logic is just your attempts to support your opinions with more of your opinions. Not citations of rules, and nothing which could be called logic in any case.
Citations of rules? I'm discussing the god damn effect of the rules on SOCIAL DYNAMICS. What do you expect me to quote? The rules don't deal with the OOC social situation at all. They don't deal with /any/ social situation well, actually. It doesn't look at the party's dynamics, because it can't as well, for that matter.

What you have done is consistently misquoted
Where?

used straw men
You know what? New rule. Use of the term straw man on GitP forums is a godwin. It is the most horridly abused term on the forums. Where?

and supported your opinions with more of your opinions.
You mean used conjecture? Sure, I've done that.

If you want to say that you hate the Paladin class, that's fine.
If the class is the Code, then yes.

I haven't played in a group with a paladin /because they don't play well with others/. *My* friends looked at it and said "I'd rather not say screw you to the rest of the players, thank you"

[quote]You have some theory that Paladin's can't play well in groups
Which only Saph has even bothered properly debating, and he still has not shown many examples of Paladins, perhaps most importantly, compromising, with a RAW interpretation of the Code.

and no amount of others either citing rules which demonstrate how that doesn't have to be the case
Your arguments on this line have been "The rules do not mandate it; Therefore, it does not happen." By this logic, I can say "The rules do not mandate the existence of Paladins. Therefore, they don't exist"

Actually, yanno what? Forget it. If you'll intellectually compromise this much, you're not worth it. Say hi to EE for me. And before either of you quips about how I do this to everyone who disagrees with me, notice the complete lack of similar towards AKA_Bait (Who has almost always disagreed with me) or Saph.

Mushroom Ninja

2008-04-15, 10:42 PM

I think that the Paladin's Code exists not to cramp your role-playing, but to help it. When I look at the code, I see a code that can be interpreted differently by different paladins. A PC can have their paladin tolerate other PCs minor misdemeanors as long as nobody gets hurt.

Here's the Associates section of the book:

"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."

The part where it says "nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code" doesn't specify exactly what it means by "offends her moral code" means. I suppose a PC who wants to cause strife in their group could take it to mean that the paladin won't tolerate the slightest straying from their path. But, it I would interpret "offends her moral code" to mean seriously offends her moral code. By that interpretation, it doesn't matter if the other PCs use poison or subterfuge to defeat the villains. As long as they don't hurt innocents or torture captured enemies or other such mean and nasty things, the paladin should be able to stick with them.

EvilElitest

2008-04-15, 11:00 PM

Actually, Rutee seems to prefer to blend relativism with absolutism. Basically, if somebody criticizing something, then it is personal option. However in certain cases, your wrong if you disagree with Rutee.

Citations of rules? I'm discussing the god damn effect of the rules on SOCIAL DYNAMICS. What do you expect me to quote? The rules don't deal with the OOC social situation at all. They don't deal with /any/ social situation well, actually. It doesn't look at the party's dynamics, because it can't as well, for that matter.

And here lies the problem of your argument. You are defining social structure through a very narrow perspective. You have

1. Make the claims that the paladin is totally unable to work with social Dynamics
2. You back up this claim with vague generalizations
3. Which you then follow up by claiming the paladin is an extremly limiting on the group as whole
4. However nothing you say is actually backed by evidence other than apparent personal experience with badly played paladins
5. And so you entire argument is a generalization, and like most generalizations wrong.

You know what? New rule. Use of the term straw man on GitP forums is a godwin. It is the most horridly abused term on the forums. Where?

your entire claim that the paladin is unable to be used in a group is irrational, but i wouldn't call it a strawman

You mean used conjecture? Sure, I've done that.
except your logic isn't based upon any other than Personal option, not actually back up fact

If the class is the Code, then yes.

If is one of its defining characteristics

I haven't played in a group with a paladin /because they don't play well with others/. *My* friends looked at it and said "I'd rather not say screw you to the rest of the players, thank you"

So you are arguing something that you and your friends have no experience with. Wow, smooth move that.

Which only Saph has even bothered properly debating, and he still has not shown many examples of Paladins, perhaps most importantly, compromising, with a RAW interpretation of the Code.
I have. But your ignoring me so whatever

Actually, yanno what? Forget it. If you'll intellectually compromise this much, you're not worth it. Say hi to EE for me. And before either of you quips about how I do this to everyone who disagrees with me, notice the complete lack of similar towards AKA_Bait (Who has almost always disagreed with me) or Saph.
Actually, i think this is trodden terrotory (you've ignored Rowan and WG as well.)

Actually, come to think of it, you ignore anyone who actually has the patience to put up with your unbacked claims for long and try to point out what is wrong with your arguments. It seems to be a pattern
from
EE

Dervag

2008-04-15, 11:05 PM

Oh yes, even. Your so called logic is just your attempts to support your opinions with more of your opinions. Not citations of rules, and nothing which could be called logic in any case.Kompera, is it certain that you would be able to tell whether she was merely "supporting opinions with opinions" or using logic? You are obviously fiercely opposed to her opinions. People who are fiercely opposed to another person are unlikely to notice when or if they start using logic.

Given your use of loaded words such as "your arguments have all the validity of a blind person..." and misrepresentations such as "if you want to say that you hate the paladin class," I question your objectivity on this matter.

If the group is acting so bad that the paladin is going to have to leave, or attempt to stop them, then they must be engaging in very evil acts, like torture, murder, rape, slaughter, ect. Would Arguably, persistently being anarchist or robbing merchants' strongboxes will do it. Heinous evils are not required.

Wait, you say to agree to disagree, then don't even define my standard right. By my standard, the action is "Swing mace at Stirge" That is the action the paladin is taking. However the action failed, but the action is Swing at stirge. Please, at least deliver my point correctlyHey, chill. I misunderstood. I thought you meant the action that occured (swing mace at gnome) was the paladin's actions, not the action the paladin intended.

It seems to me that you're defining "action" in exactly the way that it is defined in terms of "declare your action" in D&D combat. Which, again, is perfectly reasonable. I happen to take exception to that because I think that "at stirge" is an intention (something you hope will happen as a result of what you do) rather than an action (something you do).

That said, I'm not sure how I should combine these two ideas. I mean, on the one hand you say that the paladin's action was "swing mace at stirge." On the other hand, we have an uninjured stirge and a concussed gnome at the end of the day. If the paladin's action was to target the stirge, how did he end up with consequences that bear no resemblance to his action?

I mean, you'd think that if I were to perform the action "swing mace at stirge," I'd end up with a dead stirge and not a concussed gnome. The presence of a concussed gnome argues that I did not in fact perform the action "swing mace at stirge" but accidentally performed some other action like "hit gnome in head with mace." It seems to me that those would have to be different actions- you can only get a consequence if you perform an action that leads to that consequence.

I don't understand how you can 'perform' an action and yet somehow fail to achieve the results of that action. So I separate what you do from what you intend, because you may not end up getting what you intended.

After all, there's no question the paladin swung the mace. That's a simple matter of fact. It is also true that they swung it in the general direction of the stirge. But they clearly didn't swing the mace directly at the stirge, because then there wouldn't be a concussed gnome lying around. So even though they intended to attack the stirge, it is only true that they attacked the stirge in a very general sense.

Which, again, is why I divide action from intent along a different line from yours. As I see it, the target of an action is part of the intention, not part of the action itself, because an action can utterly fail to affect its intended target while still being the same physical action.

3. And Rutee's justification for what is wrong with the rule isn't based upon fact but long lengthy claims of fact
4. and all of her logic is defeated if you actually consult the rules in question. She is claiming that paladins are an ineffective class, not proving it.Actually, I believe that she is using arguments of no small force. They are not researched with a bibliography, but they are indeed rational arguments.

I'm not sure what you'd call "fact" in this case- statistical studies of parties with paladins? But such 'facts' would be extremely hard to gather and I don't feel she should be blamed for not gathering them.

As a general exercise, I think it would be wise to say what qualifies as factual evidence before condemning someone for not having it. If the evidence in question would be a national poll or a complex computer simulation, it's simply too much work for this kind of debate and arguments about logic and induction have to pick up the slack.

Her argument is not that paladins do not work in a mechanical sense, but rather that they force other characters to behave differently or force the paladin to pay the consequences. Which sucks, even if it does not mean that paladins are not effective characters by themselves.

As I said, a party that can't travel with a paladin would have to be evil enough that they shouldn't be working with him anywaysCould you prove this in a more elaborate way? I do not understand what evidence you use as a basis for this claim. Perhaps I have missed it.

The local rules of war make no difference to a paladin's code. Where in the paladin's code does it say "can't attack foes at night"Under 'act with honor'?

The paladin might not deem it dishonorable to attack at night. But then again, they might. If they're drawn from the cultures that have legends of paladin-like warriors, and that are therefore the source material for paladins, they will.

3. People have to violate the Paladin code for him to get pissed, he can make do if they only offend his personal moralsBut the paladin code requires people to act with honor. Unless we define "honor" very specifically to avoid banning most of the real life things that are considered dishonorable, that's a problem.

1. Thievery is evil if the thief is stealing for personal beneifit. IE, the thief is being a selfish greedy bastard
2. Who says the authority is legitimate (IE good). If the aqnarchist is undermining authority that isn't opressing people and causing harm to innocents, then i can understand the paladin getting upset.What if the anarchist undermines authority regardless of whether it is oppressive, because they believe that all authority is oppressive? What if they're like the peasant in Monty Python ("Oh, now we see the violence inherent in the system!")?

Likewise, what if the thief sometimes uses the money for benevolent purposes (raising the funds to pay the widow's mortgage, hiring an army to take down the Lich King's zombies), but sometimes for selfish purposes (beer, poker, and hookers)?

Those are very realistic examples, I think. Real anarchists tend to dislike all sorts of government, even the ones that aren't very oppressive at all. Real thieves use their money for all sorts of things- and thieves whose friends are in an adventuring party might well use some of the stolen money to forward the party's goals.

EvilElitest

2008-04-15, 11:52 PM

Kompera, is it certain that you would be able to tell whether she was merely "supporting opinions with opinions" or using logic? You are obviously fiercely opposed to her opinions. People who are fiercely opposed to another person are unlikely to notice when or if they start using logic.

Given your use of loaded words such as "your arguments have all the validity of a blind person..." and misrepresentations such as "if you want to say that you hate the paladin class," I question your objectivity on this matter.

To be fair, Rutee has proven to be just as loaded

Arguably, persistently being anarchist or robbing merchants' strongboxes will do it. Heinous evils are not required.

Then the situation comes up where the paladin acts as the voice of morality withing the party (ergo why they have the dude).

Hey, chill. I misunderstood. I thought you meant the action that occured (swing mace at gnome) was the paladin's actions, not the action the paladin intended.

It seems to me that you're defining "action" in exactly the way that it is defined in terms of "declare your action" in D&D combat. Which, again, is perfectly reasonable. I happen to take exception to that because I think that "at stirge" is an intention (something you hope will happen as a result of what you do) rather than an action (something you do).

That said, I'm not sure how I should combine these two ideas. I mean, on the one hand you say that the paladin's action was "swing mace at stirge." On the other hand, we have an uninjured stirge and a concussed gnome at the end of the day. If the paladin's action was to target the stirge, how did he end up with consequences that bear no resemblance to his action?

I mean, you'd think that if I were to perform the action "swing mace at stirge," I'd end up with a dead stirge and not a concussed gnome. The presence of a concussed gnome argues that I did not in fact perform the action "swing mace at stirge" but accidentally performed some other action like "hit gnome in head with mace." It seems to me that those would have to be different actions- you can only get a consequence if you perform an action that leads to that consequence.
If an action is attempted, then fails, that isn't the paladin's fault

For example, a paladin shoots an arrow at a bandit, but misses and accidental hits an invisible mage between them. The paladin doesn't fall because his action (what he was actually trying to do). The paladin couldn't help it if their was an invisible mage and shouldn't be punished for that

however if he shot the invisible mage on purpose (don't ask me how he saw him) because he might be up to something, then that is a totally new problem , the intention is evil and the action is diliberate

I don't understand how you can 'perform' an action and yet somehow fail to achieve the results of that action. So I separate what you do from what you intend, because you may not end up getting what you intended.

I drink my water. Without knowing it, doing so is in fact the final step in an evil ritual that summons the demons of hell. However my action was "drink water" not "Summon demons from hell"

After all, there's no question the paladin swung the mace. That's a simple matter of fact. It is also true that they swung it in the general direction of the stirge. But they clearly didn't swing the mace directly at the stirge, because then there wouldn't be a concussed gnome lying around. So even though they intended to attack the stirge, it is only true that they attacked the stirge in a very general sense.
But their target was the strige, and they aimed their mace at the strige. Ether it avoided the hit, or the paladin is a lousy shot, or the gnome ran in front of him, however that isn't the paladin's fault (in terms of code) he can't be blame for mistakes/incompitence

Actually, I believe that she is using arguments of no small force. They are not researched with a bibliography, but they are indeed rational arguments.

Disagree. The entire premise of her argument stems from an unbacked claim. One that she has certainly elaborated upon, but hasn't actually nurtured beyond a basic claim

I'm not sure what you'd call "fact" in this case- statistical studies of parties with paladins? But such 'facts' would be extremely hard to gather and I don't feel she should be blamed for not gathering them.

The facts would be "What part of the paladin means that they can't work with other party and activity hinder all party progress"

The claims that she has made can only go so far before becoming absurd. A paladin hinders the progess of party's that commit evil acts on a regular basis, but such a group wouldn't likely work with a paladin anyways.

As a general exercise, I think it would be wise to say what qualifies as factual evidence before condemning someone for not having it. If the evidence in question would be a national poll or a complex computer simulation, it's simply too much work for this kind of debate and arguments about logic and induction have to pick up the slack.

I already have. She has ignored me of course, but i already have asked for any examples/rules/limitation to bakc her claims

Her argument is not that paladins do not work in a mechanical sense, but rather that they force other characters to behave differently or force the paladin to pay the consequences. Which sucks, even if it does not mean that paladins are not effective characters by themselves.

Except such a statement is close minded. tehre are plenty of groups that can work great with paladins. If the paladin is going to work with a group, the group can't commit evil deeds. If not, nobody is forcing you to play a paladin. However that doesn't make the idea bad, because it can and has been done well

Considering that Rutee is both a relativist and hasn't had any actual experience with paladins and seems to basing this whole argument off of a sterotype, it strikes me as very unbacked

If you work with a paladin, you can't be really evil. sounds like a fair deal

Could you prove this in a more elaborate way? I do not understand what evidence you use as a basis for this claim. Perhaps I have missed it.

A paladin cannot work with a group that on a regular basis commits evil acts. The paladin is morally obligated to stop them, change them, turn them in, or fight them. however, if such an evil group is around, why are they travelling with a paladin anways? A paladin is willing to stand up against all evil and is unsuited to an evil group, teh same way a druid is unsuited to working with people who destory nature

Under 'act with honor'?

The paladin might not deem it dishonorable to attack at night. But then again, they might. If they're drawn from the cultures that have legends of paladin-like warriors, and that are therefore the source material for paladins, they will.
Misconception

the honor part of the code has nothing to do with attacking at night, or sneaking, or backstabbing. Indivisual paladins might not, but that is the same with any honorable character. However, they won't fall for attacking at night. They might be miffed, but they will not fall or suffer mechancially in any way. Dishonorable actions include
Harming innocents
Killing prisoners
poison
NOt accepting surrender
tolerating slavery, torture, or rape
Torture
Slavery
Rape
Hostages
ect

But the paladin code requires people to act with honor. Unless we define "honor" very specifically to avoid banning most of the real life things that are considered dishonorable, that's a problem.

Done. the honor that effect them mechanically is LG honor. IE not acting in an evil fashion

What if the anarchist undermines authority regardless of whether it is oppressive, because they believe that all authority is oppressive? What if they're like the peasant in Monty Python ("Oh, now we see the violence inherent in the system!")?

Then such a person is rather evil and is harming innocent people. The paladin is justified in keeping him under wrapes, through that begs the question on why they were working together in the first place

Likewise, what if the thief sometimes uses the money for benevolent purposes (raising the funds to pay the widow's mortgage, hiring an army to take down the Lich King's zombies), but sometimes for selfish purposes (beer, poker, and hookers)?
The paladin would try to make him
A) only steal from the underserving, or get money in a better way
B) only use honestly earned money for selfish purposes and give the rest to goodness
That isn't moral bullying so much as acting as a moral standard. the same way a general might not tolerate rape in his army

from
EE

Rutee

2008-04-15, 11:56 PM

Under 'act with honor'?

The paladin might not deem it dishonorable to attack at night. But then again, they might. If they're drawn from the cultures that have legends of paladin-like warriors, and that are therefore the source material for paladins, they will.
I'd like to expound on this a little. A lot of it is circumstantial. If Sandwich the Paladin is a Captain in the forces of the Gouda Kingdom, and the kingdom of Gouda and the Dukedom of Cheddam have a standing agreement (Formalized or not; A simple 'gentlemen's agreement would suffice) to not attack each other on Ryeday. Ryeday is, perhaps, taken as a day of leisure. People don't wander around in armor, they drink hookers and sleep with booze, or are in general just not in any form of fighting condition. Therefore, from an objective standpoint of pure military efficiency, gobsmacking Cheddam on Ryeday would be a pretty shrewd move. I also think it'd be fair to say Sandwich would be acting dishonorably to launch a strike on the 91st Cheddam Regiment on Ryeday. In general, willfully reneging on an agreement without proof that the other party is acting in bad faith is probably dishonorable, really. If Sandwich had good reason to suspect that the 91st was going to break the ban first, for instance, I think that would qualify as legitimate suspicion of Bad Faith, and Sandwich could attack on Ryeday without actually being dishonorable.

However! Let's say the Edam Empire shows up on their doorstep, and seems to follow no rules of war, and makes no attempt to broadcast them. Attacking Edam on Ryeday should be totally fine, because they're not respecting any agreement. If at a later time Edam agrees to the Ryeday ban, for whatever reason, and respects it, however, one would again be acting dishonorably to attack Edam on Ryeday. Sure, in the world of Allucaneet, the Paladin's Code doesn't technically prohibit attacking on Ryeday, but I think we can agree that it would be a violation of honor (And thus, the code) for Gouda and Cheddam forces to attack each other on Ryeday.

Not that I'm endorsing the Code, just trying to clarify how a problem can come up with "Acting intelligently" in war.

Saihyol

2008-04-16, 12:13 AM

Thought I'd make one last stab at this before I really duck out of this thread. Back to my earlier points:

Saihyol
Wizard must have a good nights sleep to prepare spells
Paladin must avoid association with people who consistently conflict with his/her code.

You're supposed to do both.

Rutee Response
There's greater emphasis in the description for paladins then there is for other classes. Paladins have multiple paragraphs and a lot of fluff that goes into this.

Emphasis does not change the fact that both are required and ruled.

Saihyol
From an RP perspective you could play a fighter as a 'holy warrior' or a cleric, but it seems you specifically want the Paladin's abilities without the restrictions, fair enough. I'd like a Sorcerer with a higher hit die. They learn spells by nature of their blood, not study, so there's no reason they should be physically weaker, right?

Rutee Response
Theoretically, Sorcerers need lower hit die for balance purposes (They're still imba, unfortunately). A Paladins' code, clearly, is not a balance issue in any sense (Because they're not more powerful). Clearly, balance is not the reason.

And I specifically want the Paladin, in this case (Because really I'd rather have the Crusader in any case; More interesting mechanics, same flavor) because it's intuitive. It's the same reason I would legitimately expect monks to beat things up with their hands; The class is /all about/ punching people. Your logic is similar to saying "You wanna be rogue-y? Pft! Just make a Fighter and put points into the Rogue Skills"

Intuition is a feeling not a fact and clearly several people here disagree with your interpretation of what a paladin should 'intuitively' be.

Not sure where the completely irrelevant rogue comment came from, but if you wanted to play a swashbuckler (when only using PHB) I would not improve/change rogue to have a warrior like BaB because that is your vision of the rogue. You would have to take some Fighter levels.

Rutee
THis doesn't address the other point, that the Code in any interpretation impedes on interesting party dynamics. You could of course, practice light enforcement, but that seems to defeat the purpose of the Code in the first place, and if you think the Code needs to be only lightly enforced, why not implement stricter enforcement of a more liberal Code in the first place?

As I mentioned earlier I've played and seen some interesting party dynamics created simply because of this code, where actually the parties more shady players took great delight in handling the Paladin between them to ensure they all got some 'alone time' to act how they wanted and the Paladin's player took great delight in seeing, reacting to and challenging their attempts. Note all of this was in game IC and all the players were enjoying the tension it created.

I didn't argue for light enforcement, just not the most rigid interpretation you suggested where fall or leave are the only options when another PC breaks the Paladin's code - once.

The code states two specific things I'd like to focus in on:

1) Consistent
2) Conflict

1) This has to be regular or (arguably) frequent or (arguably) all the time - this is based on your interpretation of the word 'consistent'.
'I consistently say yes to second helpings of deserts' - regular.
'I consistently get to work before 9am' - frequent.
'I consistently breathe' - all the time.

2) If the Paladin is unaware, there is no conflict (as far as she/he is aware) therefore the Paladin has no cause to disassociate -the DM (or whatever force monitors these things) would have to be extremely harsh to fall the Paladin for something they are unaware of.

In your bluff past the sentry example why can't the sneaky player simply tell the Paladin 'Give me a few minutes to sort out the bill with him then we can go through' walk away, bluff, intimidate, threaten till they don't have to pay and then wave the party through.

In a game for evil players or a mass need to be sneaky you shouldn't play a Paladin. In an extremely low magic game you shouldn't play a wizard, in a politics and subterfuge game you shouldn't play a barbarian, in a bright heroes and good deeds game you shouldn't play a rogue, in a dead gods game you shouldn't play a cleric.

Now let me stop after these comments and say you shouldn't play these characters in their 'archetypal' forms. A rogue can be played as a 'scout' a wizard can be played as a 'sage' a priest can be played as a 'healer' a barbarian can be played as a 'gladiator'. A Paladin can be played as a 'shining example'.

This is one reason almost everyone I've ever seen DM a good game has asked for time to study character sheets to make sure player concepts work and where they prefer to have players work together on character creation.

Ps. I've seen far more OOC conflicts caused by Rogue (sneak) and Arcane Caster (invisibility) wanting to creep everywhere and take up all the play time because the rest of the party can't and have to sit about cooling their heels.

Rutee

2008-04-16, 12:45 AM

Dammit. I really wish you had just left, rather then leaving on an argument (Even a declaration that you didn't intend to continue, for reasons of annoyance with the debate or whatnot). I don't want to respond, because it feels too much like it's being done for the sake of the last word, but if I don't, I appear to have no legitimate defense. Gao.

Emphasis does not change the fact that both are required and ruled.
I'm not sure what to say to that. You're correct, but it seems like you're ignoring the implications of more emphasis. The more page space you devote to something, the more important you intend to make it, when you're writing something meant for actual people. By giving a blurb to Wizard resting, you are, in a sense, also saying it's not nearly as important to enforce as something with more page space specifically devoted to it.

Intuition is a feeling not a fact and clearly several people here disagree with your interpretation of what a paladin should 'intuitively' be.
If you start with "Holy Warrior", how do the Paladin, Cleric, and Monk classes /not/ figure most prominently into your view, looking at

Not sure where the completely irrelevant rogue comment came from, but if you wanted to play a swashbuckler (when only using PHB) I would not improve/change rogue to have a warrior like BaB because that is your vision of the rogue. You would have to take some Fighter levels.
But such an argument comes from balance. Further, some BAB isn't going to make or break my concept. The Rogue comment comes from the claim that I could just make a Fighter into a Holy Warrior. Sure, theoretically, but nothing in the fighter class really /supports/ it. Paladin has the strongest support, but one really glaring problem with it (AKA Code).

As I mentioned earlier I've played and seen some interesting party dynamics created simply because of this code, where actually the parties more shady players took great delight in handling the Paladin between them to ensure they all got some 'alone time' to act how they wanted and the Paladin's player took great delight in seeing, reacting to and challenging their attempts. Note all of this was in game IC and all the players were enjoying the tension it created.
I consider forcing Party Splits outside of a PbP game to be bad dynamics by default, due to the difficulties that are to be had in the DM running two different games at the same time for the players, whom can devote their full attention to one game.

[qipte]I didn't argue for light enforcement, just not the most rigid interpretation you suggested where fall or leave are the only options when another PC breaks the Paladin's code - once.[/quote]
No, I'm pretty sure another PC can break the code once. The problem is /consistently/, which I will address.

The code states two specific things I'd like to focus in on:

1) Consistent
2) Conflict

1) This has to be regular or (arguably) frequent or (arguably) all the time - this is based on your interpretation of the word 'consistent'.
'I consistently say yes to second helpings of deserts' - regular.
'I consistently get to work before 9am' - frequent.
'I consistently breathe' - all the time.
Well. We know the third definition isn't being used. It can't be. How do you commit evil every 1.4 seconds? Especially with round time being carried out in 6 seconds? Gao. Language. Wish we all spoke Lojban. I'd say the formermost is perhaps the most relevant. "I will regularly solve this problem with <Code Breaker X>." Arguably, even /intent/ to solve the problem with Code Breaker X will force a fall/leave decision, because the character is only being restrained by the circumstance of failing.

2) If the Paladin is unaware, there is no conflict (as far as she/he is aware) therefore the Paladin has no cause to disassociate -the DM (or whatever force monitors these things) would have to be extremely harsh to fall the Paladin for something they are unaware of.
I'll agree with the premise that hte paladin can't fall if they're unaware. But if they're unaware of every potential conflict.. they can't conflict. It's still hamfistedly removing intra-PC conflict due to mechanical considerations. Though to be fair, at least that particular method has potential for amusement.

In your bluff past the sentry example why can't the sneaky player simply tell the Paladin 'Give me a few minutes to sort out the bill with him then we can go through' walk away, bluff, intimidate, threaten till they don't have to pay and then wave the party through.
Perhaps the Paladin has reason to distrust the sneaky character. Perhaps not. But if every situation is handled like that.. it's just keeping them int he dark.

In a game for evil players or a mass need to be sneaky you shouldn't play a Paladin.
What if a story arc comes up that does sort of add the need to be sneaky? Or where the players would want to be sneaky?

In an extremely low magic game you shouldn't play a wizard, in a politics and subterfuge game you shouldn't play a barbarian, in a bright heroes and good deeds game you shouldn't play a rogue, in a dead gods game you shouldn't play a cleric.
With the exception of the Barbarian, none of those is a terribly likely temporary story focus. Those are /setting assumptions/. You start play with them, in effect.

Now let me stop after these comments and say you shouldn't play these characters in their 'archetypal' forms. A rogue can be played as a 'scout' a wizard can be played as a 'sage' a priest can be played as a 'healer' a barbarian can be played as a 'gladiator'. A Paladin can be played as a 'shining example'.
Paladins have "Shining Example" hardwired into the class as their only permissible mode. That was what I was referring to earlier, where the Paladin's largest problem, perhaps, is that its /not/ just an archetype of method, but forces a particular belief system and ethical code with it.

Ps. I've seen far more OOC conflicts caused by Rogue (sneak) and Arcane Caster (invisibility) wanting to creep everywhere and take up all the play time because the rest of the party can't and have to sit about cooling their heels.
Yeah, stealth is its own problem in a game. But can you legitimately say that the Rogue will be gobsmacked for not stealthing, period?

Shademan

2008-04-16, 01:10 AM

nobody stays on TOPIC. so i guess i should try:
quickest ive seen s a paladin fall...
well i had a SUSPICION that he was aiming fer blackguard. specially when he cooked and ate a baby...

Saihyol

2008-04-16, 03:44 AM

Okay so I wont leave.

I'm not sure what to say to that. You're correct, but it seems like you're ignoring the implications of more emphasis. The more page space you devote to something, the more important you intend to make it, when you're writing something meant for actual people. By giving a blurb to Wizard resting, you are, in a sense, also saying it's not nearly as important to enforce as something with more page space specifically devoted to it.

Familiars and Domain Spells get more page time that either of these, therefore more important? The complexity of an idea does not make it more important.

I consider forcing Party Splits outside of a PbP game to be bad dynamics by default, due to the difficulties that are to be had in the DM running two different games at the same time for the players, whom can devote their full attention to one game.

If I don't agree that party split ups are a bad thing does that make the Paladin class okay as is?

Well. We know the third definition isn't being used. It can't be. How do you commit evil every 1.4 seconds? Especially with round time being carried out in 6 seconds? Gao. Language. Wish we all spoke Lojban. I'd say the formermost is perhaps the most relevant. "I will regularly solve this problem with <Code Breaker X>." Arguably, even /intent/ to solve the problem with Code Breaker X will force a fall/leave decision, because the character is only being restrained by the circumstance of failing.

The third example was to show how different interpretations could be, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the second. The first is weekly/monthly possibly, the second almost daily.

No intent does not force the leave/fall. their companions have to break the code, not want too.

You also seem to be confusing two styles of play here:

The player who determines character reactions simply on mechanical effects. 'My Paladin will object to that action because he might lose his abilities'. and one who role plays the character 'My Paladin will object to that action because he is a holy warrior and cannot allow the evil/injustice to pass.'

I'll agree with the premise that hte paladin can't fall if they're unaware. But if they're unaware of every potential conflict.. they can't conflict. It's still hamfistedly removing intra-PC conflict due to mechanical considerations. Though to be fair, at least that particular method has potential for amusement.

I don't think it's hamfisted for a thief to not want everyone he knows to know where he was last night when the local guild house was robbed and again the player may not be doing this to avoid mechanical effects.

Perhaps the Paladin has reason to distrust the sneaky character. Perhaps not. But if every situation is handled like that.. it's just keeping them int he dark.

You imply that keeping a character in the dark is incorrect without saying why. A professional thief traveling with an living breathing example of what LG is all about probably is going to want to keep them in the dark (and frankly all the other players too).

What if a story arc comes up that does sort of add the need to be sneaky? Or where the players would want to be sneaky?

See my comments about the party/character creation also the DM controls story arc.

With the exception of the Barbarian, none of those is a terribly likely temporary story focus. Those are /setting assumptions/. You start play with them, in effect.

So you agree that evil/sneaky is a setting assumption that fairly removes the Paladin from play as the others do to other classes?

Paladins have "Shining Example" hardwired into the class as their only permissible mode. That was what I was referring to earlier, where the Paladin's largest problem, perhaps, is that its /not/ just an archetype of method, but forces a particular belief system and ethical code with it.

Paladin - Enforcer - attempts to force other characters to behave at all times.
Paladin - Evangelist - attempts to convert the other characters to his way of seeing the world.
Paladin - Shinning Example - attempts to show the other characters how to live by his example.
Paladin - Martyr - attempts to fix the world by rectifying injustice and evil when encountered.
Paladin - Scourge - Attempts to destroy all evil and chaos.

Five examples of different Paladin templates. Each will have different responses to code breaking actions by his companions and a different manner of interpreting the 'consistently' statement. Enforcer and Scourge are in no way example setting, simply the harsh application of their rules.

Yeah, stealth is its own problem in a game. But can you legitimately say that the Rogue will be gobsmacked for not stealthing, period?

If you told me my rogue could not stealth again period I would be fairly gobsmacked as I view it as a very core part of the rogue skill set.

Ps. That was nerve touching as I love to play rogues. Also I don't tend to play LG characters at all as personally I want more flexibility.

Kompera

2008-04-16, 04:03 AM

Citations of rules? I'm discussing the god damn effect of the rules on SOCIAL DYNAMICS. What do you expect me to quote? The rules don't deal with the OOC social situation at all. They don't deal with /any/ social situation well, actually. It doesn't look at the party's dynamics, because it can't as well, for that matter.

[...]

I haven't played in a group with a paladin /because they don't play well with others/. *My* friends looked at it and said "I'd rather not say screw you to the rest of the players, thank you"

No, Rutee. You are not. You are discussing your theory of the effects of the rules on social dynamics. A theory with which you had zero experience with which to back up your conclusion. Even worse, now you admit that you are basing your belief on the equally uninformed and unexperienced opinions of others.

You aren't willing to listen to the several persons who have actually experienced this social dynamic and who have told you that it doesn't have to work the way you think it has to work.

You are blind, and you are passionately defending your position that red and green should never be used together /because they don't look good together/. But the listener who says "I'm wearing a red and green shirt right now, and it not only does it look fine but I have received compliments on it from others. It's a shame you can't see it for yourself, it's no where near as bad as you claim it must be" is completely disregarded by you. Any listener can see that you have no practical experience from which you have based this opinion, and yet any attempt to explain this to you is also ignored.

And Rutee, don't curse God. If you need to do so to try to make your point, you don't have a point to make. Curse me if you must, but leave God out of it.

Kompera

2008-04-16, 04:21 AM

Given your use of loaded words such as "your arguments have all the validity of a blind person..." and misrepresentations such as "if you want to say that you hate the paladin class," I question your objectivity on this matter.
I have drawn a logical analogy between Rutee's opinion on the Paladin, when she has zero experience with a Paladin, and a blind person with an opinion on color matching. Those aren't loaded words, those are an apt description of how little validity her opinion has.

Were I to opine passionately about the flaws the Ford Mustang has, tell you that I've never driven one, have never seen one drive by in fact, and then when you asked me how I drew my conclusions about the car I tell you that a few friends who also hadn't driven the car nor seen it drive by had read the owners manual and told me it didn't work well with other cars on the road, would you give my opinion any weight at all while doing your car shopping? I would hope that you would laugh off my opinion on the Ford Mustang as being completely unfounded and deserving of no attention or credence being given it at all.

That is another apt analogy to the position Rutee has on how the Paladin class plays in D&D. Do you find those words to be any more or less "loaded" than my prior analogy?

And you need to quote me fully if you intend to claim that I am misrepresenting something. Failing to quote me fully is the only misrepresentation I see here.

Rutee

2008-04-16, 02:02 PM

Okay so I wont leave.
fair enough.

Familiars and Domain Spells get more page time that either of these, therefore more important? The complexity of an idea does not make it more important.
Yeah, I would say that. Familiars and Domain Spells crop up more frequently then a good night of sleep, except when the party goes Narcoleptic.

If I don't agree that party split ups are a bad thing does that make the Paladin class okay as is?
Why are Party Splits good? It's extremely difficult to keep up with, effectively, two seperate campaigns at a rate that can keep the players (Who only have to pay attention to one campaign) interested. It's easy in PbP though, certainly.

The third example was to show how different interpretations could be, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the second. The first is weekly/monthly possibly, the second almost daily.
The first is more probable, simply put. The second is a grammatically correct reading, but isn't really a restriction at all (And therefore, not worth mentioning).

No intent does not force the leave/fall. their companions have to break the code, not want too.
Really? Intent doesn't matter? So if you go through the motions of honor, you count as acting honorably, even if it's ultimately for dishonorable purposes?

You also seem to be confusing two styles of play here:

The player who determines character reactions simply on mechanical effects. 'My Paladin will object to that action because he might lose his abilities'. and one who role plays the character 'My Paladin will object to that action because he is a holy warrior and cannot allow the evil/injustice to pass.'
Actually, I wasn't concerned one bit about the Paladin's reaction. I was concerned about the other characters. It's much harder, in my opinion, to say "My character will do this, despite the adverse negative effect this will have on another player's fine" then "My character will do this despite the adverse effect it has on my character's mechanical abilities". The former is part n' parcel, I feel, with playing with concern for the other players' fun as well as your own fun. It also is entirely rational to occur to any non-pure-IC player. And it's the largest part of why I endorse playing in a not-fully-IC manner.

I don't think it's hamfisted for a thief to not want everyone he knows to know where he was last night when the local guild house was robbed and again the player may not be doing this to avoid mechanical effects.
I think it's hamfisted that it's forced by the mechanics. It's the same reason I object to Paladins' mechanical inability to compromise their code. I have no problem with an individual character being incapable of compromise, but I have every problem with a class feature mandating it.

You imply that keeping a character in the dark is incorrect without saying why. A professional thief traveling with an living breathing example of what LG is all about probably is going to want to keep them in the dark (and frankly all the other players too).
I have stated why, actually. It's improper for mechanics to force it on penalty of mechanical gobsmack. The action itself isn't.

See my comments about the party/character creation also the DM controls story arc.
The GM doesn't control story arc; The players do (Which includes the GM). And that falls under the "Changing group behavior by default" bit that is why Paladins are a problematically designed class. Picking a story arc a player can't reasonably participate in, by default, is bad (though it's so easy to do in DnD, considering how restrictive the class setup is).

So you agree that evil/sneaky is a setting assumption that fairly removes the Paladin from play as the others do to other classes?
...No. Sneaky is not a setting assumption. It's a story focus that can be temporary with relative ease, and that shuts out the paladin. Evil, while not a setting focus, is more probably a long term story focus that shuts out a paladin, and you'd rationally expect a holy class to be shut out.

Paladin - Enforcer - attempts to force other characters to behave at all times.
Paladin - Evangelist - attempts to convert the other characters to his way of seeing the world.
Paladin - Shinning Example - attempts to show the other characters how to live by his example.
Paladin - Martyr - attempts to fix the world by rectifying injustice and evil when encountered.
Paladin - Scourge - Attempts to destroy all evil and chaos.
All of these have to behave as a shining example or Fall, by the code.

If you told me my rogue could not stealth again period I would be fairly gobsmacked as I view it as a very core part of the rogue skill set.
You are demonstrably wrong. Stealth is 3 skills (Move Silent/Hide/Disguise). The only class features in the rogue class that synergize with Stealth are Sneak Attack and by extension, Crippling Strike. The rogue has a plethora of other skills, and the two class features that synergize with Stealth function fine without it. I'll agree that it's entirely reasonable to expect to Stealth, of course, as a rogue, and that if you were going to pick a class that could stealth, Rogue would be the best choice, but I can demonstrate that it's not a core part of the class' ability set.

Ps. That was nerve touching as I love to play rogues. Also I don't tend to play LG characters at all as personally I want more flexibility.

LG can be flexible. Paladins can't be.

AKA_Bait

2008-04-16, 03:29 PM

I am less then convinced, given the unequivocal wording of the Associates page. Nobody else has it in absolute terms. Everyone else's are "Usually don't get along with.." or things like that. The Paladin is "Does not associate". You could say it's just fluff, of course, but.. it doesn't quite feel like it.

No one else is expected to play a paragon of goodness either. Really though, the fact of the matter is that it does not say that you fall for associating. It is in a different subsection than the code itself and a different section from Ex-paladins. Considering that it the association clause is not explicitally part of the the code, and it is also not on the list of the things that make you fall in the Ex-paladin section it would seem to me that the RAW interpretation would be that the association clause does not make you fall.

However, it's still a poorly written section since it dicatates particular behaviour on the part of the pc (universally bad in my view) but does so without any explicit mechanical penalties for ignoring that RP imperitive.

No worries, and to an extent yes. Your example was short, so there's no real problems of course (I mean it's a gate guard. I don't even think I'd make the players roll past level 5 to bluff him, so the paladin just pays). One of the aforementioned examples was a "Campaign of deceit to defeat an Evil Lich" (By which I took it to mean 'campaign' in an IC sense of 'extended period of in-game time', not the 'the entire campaign is to do this one major task'). This could conceivably be 2 or 3 sessions, possibly a story arc, where the Paladin is crippled. Or the brilliant campaign is abandoned before it can start, because of what this does to the Paladin's player. I think I'd give the Paladin an NPC for the duration... but if they wanted to be an NPC they would have made that NPC. Still, better then nothing..

Well, in that example, yeah I would say that the Paladin is probably in pretty bad shape. However, if the campaign of deciet is the only way to defeat the lich then really, this is the DM's fault for boxing the party into a position where the Paladin will be no fun to play. I'd not though, if those other options are there, there really isn't any more of a problem than if there was some other very principled character in the party who flatly refuses to use some particular means to justify a good end. Yes, in this case there are class features involved and in most, but not all, cases there would be no mechanical penalty for taking an extended course of action the character would find repugnant but a Paladin played as the class is intended would refuse those actions anyway, even if it didn't carry a mechanical benifit to do so.

Of course, I'm not arguing that the Paladin class is well designed (far from it) or that the mechanical restrictions on RP inherent in the class are a good thing. I pretty much always use Paladin's of other alignments variants and am pretty loose about the code in games I run. I'm just saying that it's not quite as group dynamic destructive as you seem to be saying. I admit to having a sneaking suspicion that you don't either but that because the level of invective this thread has aquired pushed things in a more extreme direction.

You know what? New rule. Use of the term straw man on GitP forums is a godwin. It is the most horridly abused term on the forums.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Not only is it frequently used in cases where it does not apply, it is also often used a a pejorative and belittling manner.

And before either of you quips about how I do this to everyone who disagrees with me, notice the complete lack of similar towards AKA_Bait (Who has almost always disagreed with me) or Saph.

We agree sometimes... like above... and... well... there was a thread about a book or something right? :smallwink:

No, Rutee...

Although I agree with you that one would be well served to have played a class or played in a group with someone else playing that class would help solidify an opinion as to its value, it is not the only qualifier, nor does it mean that the arguments made from those who have not played it have no support or value.

If a class is designed mechanically (or described) such that players look at and say 'ye gods I wouldn't want to do that to my friends' then there is a problem with that class. The fact that folks will activley avoid playing a Paladin for fear of the potential conflicts which, honestly, it often does have a hand in creating, is a black mark against the class regardless of if the class can be used well with the right group and the right interpretation. In my games (both as player and DM) the Paladin class is definatley the least popular of the PhB base classes in part because of concerns about how the character will interact with the rest of the party.

And Rutee, don't curse God. If you need to do so to try to make your point, you don't have a point to make. Curse me if you must, but leave God out of it.

Relax, it was a figure of speech. Can we all just calm down a little and try to make our points in fluffy happy language?

Also, technically, that phrase is calling upon God to damn something, the abigious 'it'. It is asking God to curse a thing, not cursing God. I suppose it could be 'taking the Lord's name in vain' but that is still distinct from cursing God.

nobody stays on TOPIC. so i guess i should try:

I wish I had some on topic joke to put here. Maybe about a Paladin with boots of speed or some such but really, I got nothing.

Saihyol

2008-04-16, 07:08 PM

Why are Party Splits good? It's extremely difficult to keep up with, effectively, two seperate campaigns at a rate that can keep the players (Who only have to pay attention to one campaign) interested. It's easy in PbP though, certainly.

I wasn't advocating two simultaneous campaigns simply the opportunity for some time apart. Possibly even a few minutes in real time that provides a character who wants to do something in conflict with the Paladin's code a little space to do so. Wizards who want to research new spells spend a long time doing so away from the other players, but this takes but moments in real time.

Really? Intent doesn't matter? So if you go through the motions of honor, you count as acting honorably, even if it's ultimately for dishonorable purposes?

Please do not misquote. I did not say intent didn't mater, simply that it did not break the code. Acting honourably even if you don't mean it will satisfy the Paladin code (I think you've been arguing that this is the problem with the code).

All of these have to behave as a shining example or Fall, by the code.

Not so, and this may be my fault for not being clearer on what I meant be shinning example.

From the SRD
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.

Example:
CN Sorcerer wants to bluff/intimidate a gate guard to let them through without paying and declares this to the group.

Enforcer - physically restrains the sorcerer (Milko as she starts)
Evangelist - enters an impassioned debate with the sorcerer about why it is un-just to avoid the fees of the local lord or intimidate the guard
Shining Example - walks up and pays for everyone
Martyr - pays after the group has entered
Scourge - strikes down the Sorcerer for such unjust intentions (Milko as she ends)

Assuming the evangelist fails to convince the Sorcerer and that we assume making up for it on the Martyr's behalf still counts as a break of the code, there are still three different ways to handle this.

Actually a bluff (we're working on behalf of the town- is potentially true even if no-one in authority knows it) or intimidate (let us through immediately, it is likely you will be dead before the end of the day if we are not able to pass - again may be true even if the guard reads it as a threat) here is not a dishonorable -stated in the SRD as lying, cheating, using poison- the 'so forth' gives room for a whole raft of debate) or evil action. Therefore no fall or dis-associate is necessary.

Let's try something a bit more complex:

Example:
CN Thief sees an enemy fleeing the field and wants to shoot him as he runs.

Enforcer - Seizes the thief and forces his shot wide.
Evangelist - Shouts to the foe to stop or he will be struck down and that there may yet be a chance for redemption.
Shining Example - Stands directly in front to take the arrow.
Martyr - Shields/heals the foe
Scourge - Joins the thief in striking down the evil and cowardly foe

Okay so I'm starting to see that the Martyr is not playable as it is too reactive and needs to allow the code breaking.

In this example though we have a few 'types' that could go either way. Enforcer (aka Bully) and Shining Example assume the desire not to strike a fleeing foe. Evangelist could take the view that if the foe continues to flee they are proving themselves evil beyond repair and condone the strike. The Scourge takes the view that fleeing does not negate the death you earned as punishment for harming the innocent.

I know at this point the 'honour' of striking down a fleeing foe will come up. Honour can mean a wide range of things to different cultures and in different situations.

Someone already mentioned seppuku as an honourable means of making up for a mistake/failure does this mean Paladins should kill themselves every time they fail?

I actually would not consider certain lies dis-honourable in some situations. When a guy's girlfriend asks if she looks fat and he says no (even though he perhaps thinks she could loose a pound or two) is a lie, dis-honourable? I think not.

EvilElitest

2008-04-16, 10:27 PM

I'd like to expound on this a little. A lot of it is circumstantial. If Sandwich the Paladin is a Captain in the forces of the Gouda Kingdom, and the kingdom of Gouda and the Dukedom of Cheddam have a standing agreement (Formalized or not; A simple 'gentlemen's agreement would suffice) to not attack each other on Ryeday. Ryeday is, perhaps, taken as a day of leisure. People don't wander around in armor, they drink hookers and sleep with booze, or are in general just not in any form of fighting condition. Therefore, from an objective standpoint of pure military efficiency, gobsmacking Cheddam on Ryeday would be a pretty shrewd move. I also think it'd be fair to say Sandwich would be acting dishonorably to launch a strike on the 91st Cheddam Regiment on Ryeday. In general, willfully reneging on an agreement without proof that the other party is acting in bad faith is probably dishonorable, really. If Sandwich had good reason to suspect that the 91st was going to break the ban first, for instance, I think that would qualify as legitimate suspicion of Bad Faith, and Sandwich could attack on Ryeday without actually being dishonorable.

However! Let's say the Edam Empire shows up on their doorstep, and seems to follow no rules of war, and makes no attempt to broadcast them. Attacking Edam on Ryeday should be totally fine, because they're not respecting any agreement. If at a later time Edam agrees to the Ryeday ban, for whatever reason, and respects it, however, one would again be acting dishonorably to attack Edam on Ryeday. Sure, in the world of Allucaneet, the Paladin's Code doesn't technically prohibit attacking on Ryeday, but I think we can agree that it would be a violation of honor (And thus, the code) for Gouda and Cheddam forces to attack each other on Ryeday.

Not that I'm endorsing the Code, just trying to clarify how a problem can come up with "Acting intelligently" in war.

however all of those concepts of honor are moral social ones, they have nothing to do with the code. Personal honor has nothing to do with hte code, which is like the paladins concepts of good and evil, objective

Dammit. I really wish you had just left, rather then leaving on an argument (Even a declaration that you didn't intend to continue, for reasons of annoyance with the debate or whatnot). I don't want to respond, because it feels too much like it's being done for the sake of the last word, but if I don't, I appear to have no legitimate defense. Gao.

You don't have any legitimate defense anyways, you don't base your arguments on actually facts, you ignore evidence, and you don't even have any experience with the class in question. Ignoring the fact taht you, well ignore (both through the function and the refusal to understand other points of view) any argument opposed to yours, you really don't have anything on this argument other than hot air.

I'm not sure what to say to that. You're correct, but it seems like you're ignoring the implications of more emphasis. The more page space you devote to something, the more important you intend to make it, when you're writing something meant for actual people. By giving a blurb to Wizard resting, you are, in a sense, also saying it's not nearly as important to enforce as something with more page space specifically devoted to it.
Quality over Quantity. The fact remains that the code is a tied in part of the class feature, much like the Druid's oath or the Wizard's limitations

I consider forcing Party Splits outside of a PbP game to be bad dynamics by default, due to the difficulties that are to be had in the DM running two different games at the same time for the players, whom can devote their full attention to one game.
However a party split would only occur if the party was itself activity evil.

With the exception of the Barbarian, none of those is a terribly likely temporary story focus. Those are /setting assumptions/. You start play with them, in effect
However the theory still holds true, a paladin shouldn't be working with evil characters.

Paladins have "Shining Example" hardwired into the class as their only permissible mode. That was what I was referring to earlier, where the Paladin's largest problem, perhaps, is that its /not/ just an archetype of method, but forces a particular belief system and ethical code with it.
Sure, that is why you'd only play one if you enjoyed that archtype. No ninjas are going to force you to play the paladin, there isn't any rule making you play one. If you like them, play them, don't like them. don't play them. That doesn't make the concept bad.

And aren't you a relativist? Or does that not apply when the subject is something you don't like?

If a class is designed mechanically (or described) such that players look at and say 'ye gods I wouldn't want to do that to my friends' then there is a problem with that class. The fact that folks will activley avoid playing a Paladin for fear of the potential conflicts which, honestly, it often does have a hand in creating, is a black mark against the class regardless of if the class can be used well with the right group and the right interpretation. In my games (both as player and DM) the Paladin class is definatley the least popular of the PhB base classes in part because of concerns about how the character will interact with the rest of the party.

If people are being closed minded, or don't think themselves able to play the admittance difficult and complex role of the paladin, good for them. However any class can be played badly. Paladins are just the easiest to play badly, that doesn't make the class bad, just the people playing the class have to be ready to play it right

from
EE

quiet1mi

2008-04-16, 10:40 PM

quiet1mi

2008-04-16, 10:42 PM

*After opening Pandora’s box, I decide to hide in my Counter response capsule....*

EvilElitest

2008-04-16, 10:52 PM

All this talk of Morals has caused my dead brain to melt...

was not the thread about {stories} of how a paliden lost his palidenhood...

They should be funny not make me think about the evil of the world or the violence that is inherent in the "system".

I like the idea of a baby cooking and eating a baby to lose a paliddenhood... priceless, tender meat....yum!

This thread was derailed by page two actually

Um, quickest way i've seen paladinhood lost was this

The party passes through a peasant village, on their way to heading to a great war. the peasants are nervous about the war because they are most likely going to suffer from the following famine. One of the peasents mentions this and asks if the paladin could help him with his grief. the paladin cuts his head off. When i (the Dm) go WFT, he says

"well my job is to make people happy. His life sucked and it was going to get worst, so i killed him. Now he is in heaven and he is happy"
from
EE

Rutee

2008-04-16, 10:57 PM

I wasn't advocating two simultaneous campaigns simply the opportunity for some time apart. Possibly even a few minutes in real time that provides a character who wants to do something in conflict with the Paladin's code a little space to do so. Wizards who want to research new spells spend a long time doing so away from the other players, but this takes but moments in real time.
And what about when Sir Paladin's code mechanically prevents him from doing something that the other player's would like to do, and that /doesn't/ take a few minutes?

Please do not misquote. I did not say intent didn't mater, simply that it did not break the code.
And therefore, intent doesn't matter in this context. I don't see how that's a misquote at all.

Acting honourably even if you don't mean it will satisfy the Paladin code (I think you've been arguing that this is the problem with the code).
How? If you're only acting honorably to set up for, for example, a much greater dishonor (Pretending you're a chivalrous and kind hero as part of some plot to get close to, and assassinate, the king, for instance) the entire thing, arguably, is dishonorable.

Not so, and this may be my fault for not being clearer on what I meant be shinning example.
The fact that every single one of those has to want the same thing doesn't say anything at all to you? Nothing whatsoever?

Example:

Actually a bluff (we're working on behalf of the town- is potentially true even if no-one in authority knows it) or intimidate (let us through immediately, it is likely you will be dead before the end of the day if we are not able to pass - again may be true even if the guard reads it as a threat) here is not a dishonorable -stated in the SRD as lying, cheating, using poison- the 'so forth' gives room for a whole raft of debate) or evil action. Therefore no fall or dis-associate is necessary.
Hah. You're arguing that it's not lying based on a strict interpretation of a lie. That's LN, not LG. Taken as a common recourse, that's technically fall worthy on its own, as it's a consistent tilt towards LN.

Example:
CN Thief sees an enemy fleeing the field and wants to shoot him as he runs.

Enforcer - Seizes the thief and forces his shot wide.
Evangelist - Shouts to the foe to stop or he will be struck down and that there may yet be a chance for redemption.
Shining Example - Stands directly in front to take the arrow.
Martyr - Shields/heals the foe
Scourge - Joins the thief in striking down the evil and cowardly foe
This might actually qualify as an example, since they /actually are working towards different ends/. But you still pretty much default to uber-good, for different values of good, as the only possible methods.

Okay so I'm starting to see that the Martyr is not playable as it is too reactive and needs to allow the code breaking.
Messiahs in a true sense of the word aren't generally playable in DnD, no.

I know at this point the 'honour' of striking down a fleeing foe will come up. Honour can mean a wide range of things to different cultures and in different situations.
Actually I wasn't going to say a thing. That pretty much falls under "Is there a reasonable expectation about this sort of thing", and doesn't need further mention.

I actually would not consider certain lies dis-honourable in some situations. When a guy's girlfriend asks if she looks fat and he says no (even though he perhaps thinks she could loose a pound or two) is a lie, dis-honourable? I think not.
As honor connotes honesty, I'm going to have to say it is, in fact, dishonorable. Of course, well. Honor. That and 8 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

No one else is expected to play a paragon of goodness either. Really though, the fact of the matter is that it does not say that you fall for associating. It is in a different subsection than the code itself and a different section from Ex-paladins. Considering that it the association clause is not explicitally part of the the code, and it is also not on the list of the things that make you fall in the Ex-paladin section it would seem to me that the RAW interpretation would be that the association clause does not make you fall.

Perhaps. Is that the Interpretation often seen in a game? I somehow doubt it. Given that ti's got strong support on a board that typically shows pmassive love towards RAW, which in my experience isn't a condition that you can expect in most games (The love of RAW I mean), it would be less then surprising if the common interpretation was "The Association Clause applies". But that's conjecture.

Well, in that example, yeah I would say that the Paladin is probably in pretty bad shape. However, if the campaign of deciet is the only way to defeat the lich then really, this is the DM's fault for boxing the party into a position where the Paladin will be no fun to play. I'd not though, if those other options are there, there really isn't any more of a problem than if there was some other very principled character in the party who flatly refuses to use some particular means to justify a good end. Yes, in this case there are class features involved and in most, but not all, cases there would be no mechanical penalty for taking an extended course of action the character would find repugnant but a Paladin played as the class is intended would refuse those actions anyway, even if it didn't carry a mechanical benifit to do so.

A Paladin played as the class is intended, however, very clearly /must/ take the absolutist stance on everything. It's at least less problematic if it's not mechanically enforced though. But, I don't even think the GM would mandate such a thing (As I said somewhere around there above, the players all determine game direction, optimally), and the other players may have wanted that. Again, but for the Paladin. Hm. I wonder if it'd be easier to swallow not playing the character (Temporarily) if the absolutist stance wasn't dictated to the player by the mechanics. People usually find truly self-inflicted castigation a /lil/ easier.. But then again, not playing your character is not playing your character.

EvilElitest

2008-04-16, 11:13 PM

And what about when Sir Paladin's code mechanically prevents him from doing something that the other player's would like to do, and that /doesn't/ take a few minutes?

You mean the way he stops them from raping, murdering, torturing, enslaving or brutalizing people. yeah, why are they even with a paladin again?

And therefore, intent doesn't matter in this context. I don't see how that's a misquote at all.

Meh, somewhat. A paladin who saves somebody to obtain their gold isn't being a good paladin

How? If you're only acting honorably to set up for, for example, a much greater dishonor (Pretending you're a chivalrous and kind hero as part of some plot to get close to, and assassinate, the king, for instance) the entire thing, arguably, is dishonorable.

As i said, honor in D&D for hte paladin is relevant to his paladin code, personal honor is a different purpose

Hah. You're arguing that it's not lying based on a strict interpretation of a lie. That's LN, not LG. Taken as a common recourse, that's technically fall worthy on its own, as it's a consistent tilt towards LN.

Paladins don't fall form lying

Messiahs in a true sense of the word aren't generally playable in DnD, no.
why not might i ask? Can somebody actually answer why you can't be a matyr or a messiah?

A Paladin played as the class is intended, however, very clearly /must/ take the absolutist stance on everything. It's at least less problematic if it's not mechanically enforced though. But, I don't even think the GM would mandate such a thing (As I said somewhere around there above, the players all determine game direction, optimally), and the other players may have wanted that. Again, but for the Paladin. Hm. I wonder if it'd be easier to swallow not playing the character (Temporarily) if the absolutist stance wasn't dictated to the player by the mechanics. People usually find truly self-inflicted castigation a /lil/ easier.. But then again, not playing your character is not playing your character.

On everything? No the paladin does not need to take an absolutist stance. He has to be good, but nothing forces you to play him
from
EE

Kompera

2008-04-17, 05:29 AM

LG can be flexible. Paladins can't be.

Paladin's can be flexible. Rutee can't be.

There's nothing in the Paladin code preventing them from working and playing well with others, given that those others are not evil or deliberately (because it is a choice) and consistently offending the Paladin's moral code.

Starbuck_II

2008-04-17, 07:42 AM

This thread was derailed by page two actually

Um, quickest way i've seen paladinhood lost was this

The party passes through a peasant village, on their way to heading to a great war. the peasants are nervous about the war because they are most likely going to suffer from the following famine. One of the peasents mentions this and asks if the paladin could help him with his grief. the paladin cuts his head off. When i (the Dm) go WFT, he says

"well my job is to make people happy. His life sucked and it was going to get worst, so i killed him. Now he is in heaven and he is happy"
from
EE

Wait, you made him fall for that?!
He only did what he thought was a good deed. It was'nt like he was trying to be evil.
I'd tell him that killing people so hey go to a happy place is not a good act (if you felt so). Since this was a disagreement in what was good: you should';nt punish him. It isn't like you laid out what you thought a Paladin means to you (since DM has Reins over falling).

He equated Paladin with making others happy: to let him live would be letting him suffer which he assumed was evil. Really, in a sick way, he was being as good Paladin though misguided. Miko like (she didn't fall).

AKA_Bait

2008-04-17, 09:16 AM

Wait, you made him fall for that?!
He only did what he thought was a good deed. It was'nt like he was trying to be evil.
I'd tell him that killing people so hey go to a happy place is not a good act (if you felt so). Since this was a disagreement in what was good: you should';nt punish him. It isn't like you laid out what you thought a Paladin means to you (since DM has Reins over falling).

He equated Paladin with making others happy: to let him live would be letting him suffer which he assumed was evil. Really, in a sick way, he was being as good Paladin though misguided. Miko like (she didn't fall).

Either my sarcasam-o-meter is broken or you just blew my mind. So, you wouldn't make a paladin fall for decapitating peasants who are asking for help?

Now, normally, I'm all for warnings and discussions before the loss of Paladin powers or an alignment shift. I'm all for discussion and laying out what is the code but come on. Now he will be in heaven is so absurd as a justification for murder (which that was) that unless my player was around 6 years old he would drop like a rock (or at least be given the option to not take that action with the warning that if he proceeds he will drop like a rock).

Frosty

2008-04-17, 11:00 AM

Agreed. The player either takes back the action, or the Paladin falls. If the Paladin truly believed in his actions, he'd be insane and not fitting to be a PC. If the player believes that, then the player is either insane or very, very young. You don't kill someone unless he asks you to kill him and there is a good reason.

hamishspence

2008-04-17, 12:48 PM

Don't kill someone unless he asks you to and there is a good reason:

Interestingly, the short story in Quintessenial Paladin II ends with exactly that: the evil blackguard Abaddon, who has gathered a Horde of undead, monsters, and a fiendish dragon, chooses to destroy the horde personally. His former captive, a paladin, offers him the last rites, but Abaddon insists on being destroyed, fearing that he could be resurrected by necromancers and used as the spearhead for a new army. and the main reason the army cannot beat him is that their spells and weapons are designed to kill good guys.

Daimbert

2008-04-17, 12:52 PM

We would say, with complete (colloquial) accuracy, that they consistently break the law. Probably with a snarky grin because we know it's just a misdemeanor offense that they constantly break, but it'd be completely accurate.

It's said with a snarky grin because it isn't really them consistently breaking the law, but it can be said to be so based on an overly literal interpretation of the words.

Any evidence that this overly literal interpretation is what we should use for the paladin class description's comment about "consistently offends the paladin's moral code"? We don't take it that way in real life in any meaningful way, so why would it matter here? Especially since we BOTH agree that taking it that strongly is problematic.

Of course, let's take it with another misdemeanor, possession of controlled substances like pot. You (The generic you, not you specifically) would say, sans the snarky grin, "They constantly break the law" because they constantly break that one misdemeanor. And in the eyes of the law, it's (Generally) about as serious as the misparked car (Arguably, the misparked car is more serious. I don't think possession dings your driving record, whereas a non-moving violation still can)

I wouldn't say that either, because there are thousands and thousands of laws that they do not break and may -- and we should assume so for the purposes of this discussion -- even deliberately and consistently FOLLOW. In short, my view is that in this case they would consistently follow the law because it seems to me that if I looked over their actions for a particular day, the vast majority of their actions would be in accordance with the law, and that would hold for almost every day that I would care to examine. Which is generally how I interpret "consistently" in those contexts.

Your reading works grammatically.. but it's completely counterintuitive. Even /you/ did not consider it until you attempted to justify the code as a mechanic that functions under stringent inspection, without alteration.

Actually, the first time I noted the "consistently" qualifier was in this discussion, and my first immediate thought was to see what it would mean for someone to consistently violate my moral code. So I decided to think about when I would say that someone else was violating my moral code consistently. And it seemed to me that I wouldn't say that someone was violating my moral code consistently just because they happened to always do something that I didn't approve of, especially if that action came up fairly infrequently. It seemed to me that the way I'D judge that would be to look at how OFTEN they violate my moral code. So, as I said above, if every day out of 10 actions they take more than 5 of them violate my moral code, and this proceeds for several days, then they consistently violate my moral code; it isn't just one day, and it isn't just one action. Sure, if they were a kleptomaniac there might be days where most of what they did that day was steal, but that would simply be a very bad day for them. If they conformed in every other way, chances are that on most days we'd do very similar things ... or, at least, what they'd do would be acceptable to me.

This is why I used the example I did. If they were generally good people, petted puppies, were nice to kittens, gave to charity, etc, etc most of their actions in a given day will align nicely with the paladin's moral code. One disagreement wouldn't trump that. And that's what it would mean to me to say that someone violates my moral code consistently.

And I think it's really quite intuitive if we actually go through and THINK about how it would work without taking the paladin and the debate into question. And for me, this is the key: I don't know how I managed it, but I'm arguing (and I'll get back to the other side later, but pasting from multiple posts takes time) that a) a stringent interpretation of the association rules DOES result in the behaviour you argue against but b) the rules don't have to be interpreted that stringently. Basically, I'm arguing both sides [grin].

There are less ambiguous and more clear methods of phrasing oneself in that fashion. For instance, "A paladin may not associate with someone whom violates most of the tenets of the paladin's code".

But, as you should see from the above comments, that isn't how I'm interpreting it. But I admit that I was unclear in my earlier posts.

Easily. You're deliberately constructing the situation and more importantly, the character reactions in such a way as to make it so that the character can justify bringing the Paladin along. It's nowhere near the same thing as playing completely IC, where the only thing considered is the character's reactions. And again, that's not really a bad thing, but it doesn't serve your point.

Character A isn't a Paladin. Character A has no inherent reason to care about the Paladin's wellbeing or their travelling along. Character A can find a replacement. The paladin is frankly behaving in an unsettling and demanding fashion, which isn't the most convincing of methods in addition. Character A is still bending to the Paladin's demands.

My construct assumed one thing: that there is an IC reason for Character A and the paladin to be the same party and journeying together. If there is no such reason and if Character A really feels that they can replace A PC that easily, then there is something wrong with the campaign. How many campaigns are run with the party members having no reason to actually travel together and feeling that they could replace any party member at any time if they wanted to?

I will concede that in such a party, your point holds and the paladin is not the best choice for a party member. However, I will add that chances are such a party is already more of a tactical simulator than an actual roleplaying campaign or scenario.

I also listed many ways in which a DM can give a reason for the paladin to be in the party, which I would suggest the DM do in most cases, paladin or not.

Tsk tsk. I'm refering to playing completely IC, as if your character were completely divorced from you. I don't /like/ it at all, but it's a perfectly valid way to play, not as if you were out to tell a story. And it's entirely reasonable for characters, particularly neophytes, to not know just how badly a Paladin plays with others.

I find it hard to believe that in most cases the other party members (all of them) are so inexperienced that they do not know about the paladin's moral code and how stringently they follow that moral code. At least one person should know enough about the world to know that in most campaigns; paladins are not exactly a secret organization [grin]. But even if they don't, then it's up to the DM to give the party a reason to journey with the paladin even when they find out that the paladin is incredibly annoying ... which might be required for any party with conflicting viewpoints and personalities.

And my comments WERE based entirely on playing as if my character was not me. It only assumed that my character had a reason to want the paladin around, which is easy to provide from the DM.

As for story, any campaign that's going to do any roleplaying will have a plot. That means that it will have a basic story, which should include why these characters would travel together and what they are trying to achieve. If there is no reason why THIS SET of characters is important to that goal, you immediately take a hit in story, and it also means that any character could choose to "bow out" at any time.

Rutee

2008-04-17, 01:20 PM

It's said with a snarky grin because it isn't really them consistently breaking the law, but it can be said to be so based on an overly literal interpretation of the words.
Oh for god sakes. You can't literally interpret "Break the law". There isn't just one law. It's said with a snarky grin because it's true, but so minor it's unimportant (If you break one law, you 'break the law'. Since he consistently breaks one law, he 'consistently breaks the law')

Any evidence that this overly literal interpretation is what we should use for the paladin class description's comment about "consistently offends the paladin's moral code"? We don't take it that way in real life in any meaningful way, so why would it matter here? Especially since we BOTH agree that taking it that strongly is problematic.
Except if you don't take it strongly and strictly, /it's not a restriction/. That sounds good, definitely, but then why bother with it at all? Better to take a stricter enforcement of a significantly looser code then it is to take an loose enforcement of a strict code (Especially since loose enforcement encourages whimsy..)

I wouldn't say that either, because there are thousands and thousands of laws that they do not break and may -- and we should assume so for the purposes of this discussion -- even deliberately and consistently FOLLOW. In short, my view is that in this case they would consistently follow the law because it seems to me that if I looked over their actions for a particular day, the vast majority of their actions would be in accordance with the law, and that would hold for almost every day that I would care to examine. Which is generally how I interpret "consistently" in those contexts.
I disbelieve you. I feel that if this debate never happened, with you deliberately looking for a way to twist the word "Consistently", you'd definitely say "He consistently breaks the law". It's the single most accurate way to interpret that phrase, frankly; "He consistently breaks one law". Breaking /every/ law would more accurately be "Consistently breaks laws", or "Consistently breaks every law", not "Consistently breaks the law".

Actually, the first time I noted the "consistently" qualifier was in this discussion, and my first immediate thought was to see what it would mean for someone to consistently violate my moral code. So I decided to think about when I would say that someone else was violating my moral code consistently. And it seemed to me that I wouldn't say that someone was violating my moral code consistently just because they happened to always do something that I didn't approve of, especially if that action came up fairly infrequently. It seemed to me that the way I'D judge that would be to look at how OFTEN they violate my moral code. So, as I said above, if every day out of 10 actions they take more than 5 of them violate my moral code, and this proceeds for several days, then they consistently violate my moral code; it isn't just one day, and it isn't just one action. Sure, if they were a kleptomaniac there might be days where most of what they did that day was steal, but that would simply be a very bad day for them. If they conformed in every other way, chances are that on most days we'd do very similar things ... or, at least, what they'd do would be acceptable to me.
That's again, grammatically accurate, contextually wrong. The Paladin Code is very "One Strike, you're out". We can surmise that the Code, while it does allow for occasional slip ups by companions, doesn't grant that much leeway to them that they have to break /most/ of it, /every day/. That's simply not a realistic interpretation of something that's supposed to be a legitimate restriction. The Anarchist might devote every waking second in a town to destroying the town's leadership, but presumably, they still adventure. By your interpretation, because he doesn't try to destroy the leadership of the civilized world while in a dungeon, he doesn't "Consistently try to undermine legitimate authority", when it's more logical to point out that he does, but right this second, he doesn't exactly have a legitimate authority to point out.

And I think it's really quite intuitive if we actually go through and THINK about how it would work without taking the paladin and the debate into question. And for me, this is the key: I don't know how I managed it, but I'm arguing (and I'll get back to the other side later, but pasting from multiple posts takes time) that a) a stringent interpretation of the association rules DOES result in the behaviour you argue against but b) the rules don't have to be interpreted that stringently. Basically, I'm arguing both sides [grin].
The code is too specific to take as anything but stringent. If you want a loose code, write a loose code. Don't argue that the Paladin's Code is supposed to be loosely enforced. It's pretty clearly written to be "One strike and you're out".

My construct assumed one thing: that there is an IC reason for Character A and the paladin to be the same party and journeying together. If there is no such reason and if Character A really feels that they can replace A PC that easily, then there is something wrong with the campaign. How many campaigns are run with the party members having no reason to actually travel together and feeling that they could replace any party member at any time if they wanted to?
You had one reason to keep him, and several to dump his ass. Especially the highly damning "This guy is going to grate on every member of the party, all the time", which you may not have realized at the time of hiring. People get fired in real life, despite demonstrating exceptional ability and perhaps long term service, if they constantly antagonize the rest of the work force. I don't think it's any less rational to dump them /quickly/ if they haven't demonstrated exceptional ability and long term service (To the group).

I will concede that in such a party, your point holds and the paladin is not the best choice for a party member. However, I will add that chances are such a party is already more of a tactical simulator than an actual roleplaying campaign or scenario.
They're a tactical simulator for behaving completely in character? What?

I also listed many ways in which a DM can give a reason for the paladin to be in the party, which I would suggest the DM do in most cases, paladin or not.
Ah yes, I should by default force the Paladin on the party because the Paladin's not going to get along with them. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "No, try a class that doesn't have "Stick up the Ass" as a class feature"?

I find it hard to believe that in most cases the other party members (all of them) are so inexperienced that they do not know about the paladin's moral code and how stringently they follow that moral code.
You don't, and you have OOC knowledge. I don't know why the characters automatically would, unless it's a Paladin of the same church the cleric belongs to.

At least one person should know enough about the world to know that in most campaigns; paladins are not exactly a secret organization [grin].
"I've heard they're real buzzkills, but it's just a rumor I heard."

But even if they don't, then it's up to the DM to give the party a reason to journey with the paladin even when they find out that the paladin is incredibly annoying ... which might be required for any party with conflicting viewpoints and personalities.
No, it isn't always required for any party with conflicting viewpoints and personalities. It's only required when someone is mechanically mandated to never compromise.

And my comments WERE based entirely on playing as if my character was not me. It only assumed that my character had a reason to want the paladin around, which is easy to provide from the DM.
One reason to keep 'em, several to dump 'em. IF the reason to dump them outweighs "This guy is a total ass", and the paladin is the same level as you, then the GM is effectively forcing you, via the reason to keep him, to keep him.

As for story, any campaign that's going to do any roleplaying will have a plot. That means that it will have a basic story, which should include why these characters would travel together and what they are trying to achieve. If there is no reason why THIS SET of characters is important to that goal, you immediately take a hit in story, and it also means that any character could choose to "bow out" at any time.
Yeah, any roleplay will have a plot, dear. That doesn't make it a focus.