Paladin Problems.

[Gligarman2]

We all know the problems with playing with a paladin, right? Code of laws. "Don't burn those children" "Orcs have minds too." Anyhow, I've got a player in my party who ALWAYS is a paladin. ALWAYS. The entire party hates it. When the GM bans the Paladin class, he is a LG Fighter with a strong sense of (Suspiciously Paladin-like) morals. What to do.....

[Belril Duskwalk]

Helm of Opposite Alignment?

Seriously though, my odds on favorites for dealing with paladins and other excessively lawful types is to A) Lie to them about what you do when you 'scout ahead' OR B) defend your actions while surrounded by multiple (preferably Chaotic) party members. For the purposes of B Chaotic Good is ideal (to at least have some common ground) but any sympathetic non-hyper-Lawful character would suffice. It should be noted that this tactic only works for long if the paladin maintains a distinction between In-Character and Out-of-Character knowledge. It also helps if the paladin's player is a good sport.

Barring that, maybe try something radical. Nudge some boundaries. See about having the GM run a brief Evil campaign.

[DoctorGlock]

Suggest he play a crusader or cleric/crusader/rkv instead and not have to worry about a jackwagon DM making him fall?

[NikitaDarkstar]

Unless you're playing an all-out evil campaign or he's playing the Lawful/Stupid stereotype of the Paladin I'm really failing to see what the problem is. If he has the most fun playing a character who protects the weak and follows a moral code, let him.

{{scrubbed}}

[LikeAD6]

Keep him. As a DM I love paladins; they're the most likely class to be willing to go along with storylines in which the PCs are the heroes.

[Elfin]

It's hard to judge without knowing whether the player likes the paladin class, but feels bound to strictly follow the paladin code; or whether that personality is really the one he likes to play.

In either case, the answer is definitely not to try and force him to play a character he doesn't want. If it's the first situation, then simply have the DM waive the paladin code; that's all that's necessary. Also, suggest that he try playing a crusader.

If it's the second situation, try to work with him. If he's actively disrupting the game, then talk to him about it — tell him what it is he's doing that's hurting the group, and how he can work with you to change that. Try to work out a solution together, one that allows him to play the character he wants to play while still allowing everyone else to have fun.

[Templarkommando]

One option is that when your character walks into the tavern looking to recruit people to go adventuring, you ask them about their religious preferences. If they indicate higher than 67.3% on the paladin-o-meter don't hire them.

A second option is that if you do decide to take them along, if they start acting too high and mighty give him the slip at your earliest convenience. Paladins don't have spot or listen as a class skill (unless it's house ruled in) as I recall.

Both of those are inventive, but aren't very conducive to keeping friends, so I offer this final option: If everyone has seriously had it up to their eyeballs with his play-style, you need to confront him and ask him to consider playing a different type of character.(or at the very least toning it down) You can play good characters that use unconventional methods to solve their problems (as per Batman, Malcolm Reynolds, Han Solo, James Bond etc.) In fact, I could see an argument that a NG rogue can make an excellent foil for a CN, CE, or LE character.

On a personal level I really enjoy the holy-warrior archetype. I frequently do it with fighter though. If you really want good portions of the holy warrior archetype, you can be a cleric of a NG or CG deity, and it would let him get some of his play style, while not upsetting the entire party all the time.

[erikun]

So you have a problem because one of your players enjoys playing LG and treats the campaign world like a world rather than an XP mining farm?


Actually, I'm having a bit of difficulty determining the actual problem. If the paladin player is constantly trying to take over the spotlight and demand how everyone runs the game? If so, talk to them about it OOC. (Please note that roleplaying someone with high moral standards is different than trying to force everyone into a particular playstyle.) Does the paladin's attitude just conflict with the party? If so, talk to them about it OOC. Is the player expecting something wildly different from the campaign setting? If so, let the DM talk to them OOC.

On the other hand, if you just don't like paladins and LG characters, then perhaps someone should talk to you OOC.


To the paladin player: If people insist on no paladins and no LG characters, you might think of a Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker. Or a Paladin of Freedom/Barbarian/Champion of Gwynharwyf.

[dps]

Unless you're playing an all-out evil campaign or he's playing the Lawful/Stupid stereotype of the Paladin I'm really failing to see what the problem is. If he has the most fun playing a character who protects the weak and follows a moral code, let him.

(Also I hate to say it, but the last threads I've seen from you have had a terrible troll smell about them....)

Given the bit about, "The entire party hates it", my best guess would be that the Paladin player is the type that thinks because his character has to follow a strict code of conduct, he has the right and even duty to impose that same code on the rest of the party. But that's speculation on my part--the OP doesn't come out and say it.

[Averis Vol]

im actually very similar to your "problem" player, if i can do it ill be a paladin (in low power game) or i'll be an at least LN character. this is because i'v always lived being a man of high moral values and we already have a really shady guy in our group.

but it did come to a point where i had to adapt, this point was when my paladin was murdered in the middle of the night by the rest of the group and i will be honest, i was mad, but after that i figured it was time to adjust my play style since i obvious caused enough trouble to warrant my group killing me .

but yea it might take something drastic like that to get him to change his style. or he might throw the MASSIVEST pissy fit, your 50/50 there.

[SamBurke]

We all know the problems with playing with a paladin, right? Code of laws. "Don't burn those children" "Orcs have minds too." Anyhow, I've got a player in my party who ALWAYS is a paladin. ALWAYS. The entire party hates it. When the GM bans the Paladin class, he is a LG Fighter with a strong sense of (Suspiciously Paladin-like) morals. What to do.....

If he's ticking the other players off for a reason, talk to him.

If it's the players being Stabby McMurderson and hating the fact that he's pointing the legal natur of murder out to them, then I'd talk to the other players.

[Bastian Weaver]

What's the problem anyways? There's nothing wrong about playing a paladin. Is this guy a bad player? That could be a problem, but I doubt it has anything to do with his playing character of choice.
If the whole party hates it so much, you can just tell him "Sorry, dude, this game we're going to play? It's just not your style. We know that you love playing a paladin, but the rest of us - we want to try something new. Of course, you can play if you're willing to try another approach to the game, or maybe you just skip this session, and next time we'll play something more paladin-like, kay?"

[Killer Angel]

(Also I hate to say it, but the last threads I've seen from you have had a terrible troll smell about them....)

Let me guess... "I'm a munchkin, help me break the game?"
I avoided it carefully.

If the whole party hates it so much, you can just tell him "Sorry, dude, this game we're going to play? It's just not your style. We know that you love playing a paladin, but the rest of us - we want to try something new. Of course, you can play if you're willing to try another approach to the game, or maybe you just skip this session, and next time we'll play something more paladin-like, kay?"

Indeed, if the pally's player is one of the kind that want to force their PoV upon the rest of the group, this is the most practical solution.

[Mastikator]

"Today we're going to do something different, today everyone has to play something they've never played before, something they're unfamiliar with. This is to help everyone learn how to step out of their box."

You should never play the same character over and over. No matter what character that is.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Mandatory link to Rich Burlew's article on proper role-play. Highly suggest reading it and handing out copies to your players. And making them read them out loud to you whenever they choose to play paladins.

[hewhosaysfish]

The OP gives "Don't burn those children!" as an example of rules a paladin must abide by. This suggests to me that the other PCs are wanting to play Gratuitously Evil/Chaotic Stupid characters.

So either:
1) Someone rolled up a paladin knowing that there were going to be GE/CS characters in the same party, no-one (including the DM) indicated anything was amiss when they realised and then everybody was surprised and dismayed when intra-party conflict broke out.
2) Someone decided to play a GE/CS character despite knowing that there was going to be a paladin in the same party, no-one (including the DM) indicated anything was amiss when they realised and then everybody was surprised and dismayed when intra-party conflict broke out.
3) Everybody made characters without talking to eachother, no-one (including the DM) indicated anything was amiss when they realised the one person had a paladin and one or more others had GE/CS characters and then everybody was surprised and dismayed when intra-party conflict broke out.

Conclusion:
*facepalm*

To prevent this problem in future, I would recommend that either:
1) Everyone makes characters that a paladin could work alongside.
2) Everyone makes characters that won't be too put out by their colleagues setting children on fire.
3) Everyone accepts that the party are qucikly going to come to blows and tries to enjoy it.

But which ever solution the group decides to go with the most important consideration is to make sure that the whole group is trying the same solution - because is one guy tries solution 1 while another guy is trying solution 2 then you're going to end up with exactly the same problem again.

EDIT: Editted to reduce level of sarcastic snideyness. Snidiness? Snidieness? Whatever.

[Gligarman2]

Unless you're playing an all-out evil campaign or he's playing the Lawful/Stupid stereotype of the Paladin I'm really failing to see what the problem is. If he has the most fun playing a character who protects the weak and follows a moral code, let him.

(Also I hate to say it, but the last threads I've seen from you have had a terrible troll smell about them....)

Yeah. Sorry. I am not trying to troll you guys. It's just that I have a lot of problems in my group and I need advice. In reality, I am actually just looking for help. Thank you for informing me. I'll try to be more polite.

[Gligarman2]

So you have a problem because one of your players enjoys playing LG and treats the campaign world like a world rather than an XP mining farm?


Actually, I'm having a bit of difficulty determining the actual problem. If the paladin player is constantly trying to take over the spotlight and demand how everyone runs the game? If so, talk to them about it OOC. (Please note that roleplaying someone with high moral standards is different than trying to force everyone into a particular playstyle.) Does the paladin's attitude just conflict with the party? If so, talk to them about it OOC. Is the player expecting something wildly different from the campaign setting? If so, let the DM talk to them OOC.

On the other hand, if you just don't like paladins and LG characters, then perhaps someone should talk to you OOC.


To the paladin player: If people insist on no paladins and no LG characters, you might think of a Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker. Or a Paladin of Freedom/Barbarian/Champion of Gwynharwyf.

No, the problem is that one of my players is treating the campaign world as a way to have no personal vices and police the world. I love a complex campaign world as much as the next guy. In fact, I am working on one about no. As a DM, I can't have a Neutral or Lawful Good Villain (like Miko) without him stopping the party from killing him, and the LG Bard trying to convince him to stop the villany. Seriously, I can't have any motivations for NPC's other than "He's evil. He was evil. He will be evil. Kill Him." As a player, he's a pain in the butt.

[NOhara24]

-snip-

I'd love to see your post re-snided. That being said, OP, when making a party that is supposed to have some sort of cohesion over any period of time, it should already be well-established what sort of campaign the players are participating in. Good, neutral or evil campaign, respectively.

I had the inverse of what hewhosaysfish describe happen. In a game that I'm playing now I had a player swap out his LG monk for a TN cleric, the TN type of cleric that chose to rebuke zombies instead of turn them, and create undead.

He did this with the foreknowledge of what the party consisted of, infact, we were level 5 at the time. A Druid, rogue, a paladin, and another NG cleric who was thinking about going RSoP.

The TN cleric didn't last long, about one session if I remember correctly. The player's excuse for going back to his monk was "I really didn't realize how much he helped maintain order within the party." ...right. Nevermind about how he was creating undead right in front of the paladin and cleric, and then flipping out after they were obliterated after a conjoined turning attempt...over, and over, and over again.

[Gligarman2]

The OP gives "Don't burn those children!" as an example of rules a paladin must abide by. This suggests to me that the other PCs are wanting to play Gratuitously Evil/Chaotic Stupid characters.

So either:
1) Someone rolled up a paladin knowing that there were going to be GE/CS characters in the same party, no-one (including the DM) indicated anything was amiss when they realised and then everybody was surprised and dismayed when intra-party conflict broke out.
2) Someone decided to play a GE/CS character despite knowing that there was going to be a paladin in the same party, no-one (including the DM) indicated anything was amiss when they realised and then everybody was surprised and dismayed when intra-party conflict broke out.
3) Everybody made characters without talking to eachother, no-one (including the DM) indicated anything was amiss when they realised the one person had a paladin and one or more others had GE/CS characters and then everybody was surprised and dismayed when intra-party conflict broke out.

Conclusion:
*facepalm*

To prevent this problem in future, I would recommend that either:
1) Everyone makes characters that a paladin could work alongside.
2) Everyone makes characters that won't be too put out by their colleagues setting children on fire.
3) Everyone accepts that the party are qucikly going to come to blows and tries to enjoy it.

But which ever solution the group decides to go with the most important consideration is to make sure that the whole group is trying the same solution - because is one guy tries solution 1 while another guy is trying solution 2 then you're going to end up with exactly the same problem again.

EDIT: Editted to reduce level of sarcastic snideyness. Snidiness? Snidieness? Whatever.

Don't burn those children was sarcasm. It was more like "Those Orcs need to see the path of Pelor. I'm going to try to convert them." Or "I won't continue with the story until I free one minor NPC elf slave."

[NOhara24]

No, the problem is that one of my players is treating the campaign world as a way to have no personal vices and police the world. I love a complex campaign world as much as the next guy. In fact, I am working on one about no. As a DM, I can't have a Neutral or Lawful Good Villain (like Miko) without him stopping the party from killing him, and the LG Bard trying to convince him to stop the villany. Seriously, I can't have any motivations for NPC's other than "He's evil. He was evil. He will be evil. Kill Him." As a player, he's a pain in the butt.

The bane of having a paladin in the party. Introduce him to the concept of "the greater good" as well as the concept of Lawful Stupid.

[Gullintanni]

The bane of having a paladin in the party. Introduce him to the concept of "the greater good" as well as the concept of Lawful Stupid.

And more in this vein - Lawful Good =/= Lawful Nice

[NikitaDarkstar]

Yeah. Sorry. I am not trying to troll you guys. It's just that I have a lot of problems in my group and I need advice. In reality, I am actually just looking for help. Thank you for informing me. I'll try to be more polite.

My troll-o-meter is just over sensitive at times and was reacting to the way you were wording things, no worries and my apologies.

And on that note I do think all of you might need to adapt your play-styles a bit because it sounds like you're at the extreme opposites of the style/alignment spectrum ("I wanna stab something!" vs "I'll drag you to court and have you hanged if you kick that puppy!"), you all might benefit from trying to have a more... neutral/sensible style. ("I'm going to stab him for robbing those travelers" and "I'm going to have him thrown in jail for robbing those travelers!") Intra-party conflict may still happen, but trying to keep it on a smaller, more sensible scale would help.

But yes, it does sound like you guys need to make the characters together and talk to each other, and the DM needs to be clear about what kind of game he's going to run and then make sure everyone has made characters that at least on a theoretical level should be able to get a long.

Also, just for kicks if could try running one campaign with the book of exalted deeds and one with the book of vile darkness, meaning running one campaign where everyone is absolutely good and one where everyone is absolutely evil. It can usually be a lot of fun, get people to step outside their comfort zone for a bit and let people vent their absolute good/evil nature for a while.

[Morithias]

No, the problem is that one of my players is treating the campaign world as a way to have no personal vices and police the world. I love a complex campaign world as much as the next guy. In fact, I am working on one about no. As a DM, I can't have a Neutral or Lawful Good Villain (like Miko) without him stopping the party from killing him, and the LG Bard trying to convince him to stop the villany. Seriously, I can't have any motivations for NPC's other than "He's evil. He was evil. He will be evil. Kill Him." As a player, he's a pain in the butt.

This is a bit off topic, but how do you have a LAWFUL bard in the party?

[KnightDisciple]

Disclaimer: I love paladins (well, the fluff; crunch often leaves something to be desired). So for me, seeing a threat title like this is a major red flag.

Anyways, let's take a look.

No, the problem is that one of my players is treating the campaign world as a way to have no personal vices and police the world.

Right off the bat I feel like you're missing a point somewhere.
"A way to have no personal vices" is kind of vague, but I have no idea why it's a problem. Could you elaborate?

"Police the world". What do you think Paladins do? The whole point of the class/concept is that they go out into the world to stop evil. They're beat cops on a global, sometimes planar scale. That's what the character's about! Going out and stopping evil in its tracks, and helping their fellow beings! Again, this one needs more explanation before I see it as a "problem".

I love a complex campaign world as much as the next guy. In fact, I am working on one about no. As a DM, I can't have a Neutral or Lawful Good Villain (like Miko) without him stopping the party from killing him, and the LG Bard trying to convince him to stop the villany. Seriously, I can't have any motivations for NPC's other than "He's evil. He was evil. He will be evil. Kill Him." As a player, he's a pain in the butt.

Ok, a couple of things.
1.)The paladin electing to show mercy to an opponent is not a problem. It should not be a problem.
2.)If the villain is Good-aligned...they're not doing a lot of villainy. They're clearly just doing things in a way the players disagree about. You have to remember that in D&D, Good can be objectively measured, and it has ultimate representatives in the form of planar beings that are literal manifestations of purest Law and Good (or Chaos and Good, or whatever). So if the "villain" is Good-aligned, I question what they're doing that's objectively villainous, instead of just "something the party doesn't like".
3.)Miko is actually an illustrator of what I'm talking about. At first, she skirted the line, but was ultimately just a stuck-up jerk. Her fellow paladins disliked her and more than once called her on it. And then, when she committed an evil act by killing a defenseless old man? She fell from Paladinhood, fell from being Lawful Good, and lost her powers.
That's a critical thing to remember; after a point, someone who started out Good but kept crossing the line isn't Good anymore.

So, again, you're going to have to elaborate on where the actual problem with this player and his choice to play a paladin is.

So far it sounds like he's actually doing a halfway decent job of things. It's just you guys want to run a Chaotic "Good" campaign or something, and he's sitting where he's comfortable still. Which is only kind of a problem, depending on how much you all talked about this.

Don't burn those children was sarcasm. It was more like "Those Orcs need to see the path of Pelor. I'm going to try to convert them."

Wait. Wait. WAIT.

It's "bad" that the Paladin wants to peacefully convert the Orcs to Good rather than him deciding "Oh, it's Orcs, which are Usually Evil. Time for the slaughter to begin, haha! Mercy doesn't exist!". I mean, come on! This isn't bad, this is just him being Good! He actually gets it, dude! He's branching outside Lawful Stupid to try to engage real, lasting change in the world!

Imagine what having a whole tribe of sincere, repentant Orcs serving Pelor (or whoever else fits that bill) would do for your world. Think of the possibilities! Think of the conflicts! Think of the world-changing dynamics!

But whatever you do, don't try to convince me that the Paladin trying to peacefully convert others to Good is a bad thing in any way.

QUOTE=Gligarman2;12608242] Or "I won't continue with the story until I free one minor NPC elf slave."[/QUOTE]So let him free the slave.
You see a "minor NPC elf slave" that suddenly blocks your story.
The Paladin clearly sees a wrong that needs righted. More than that, he sees the slave as a person, one deserving freedom and dignity just like any other person. Again, this paladin clearly has nuance, and isn't satisfied with riding the rails of your story.
Why can't you adapt to this? I mean, seriously? Just suggest he buy the slave, then free the slave without asking a thing of them. It's mercy and grace in its finest example. Again, there is nothing wrong with a Paladin wanting to free a slave.
You talk about wanting to form a "complex world", but then all your other comments reveal you're mainly concerned about "the story" (which is to say, your own idea of the story's progression, and not an organic developing tale with twists and turns). How is freeing this slave such a big deal? Again, give him a quick method of doing so, then move on.
I can see the complaint if he wanted to stop an entire nation's system of slavery and oppression. But you're talking a single individual NPC, not a year-long abolitionist campaign.


So far, I've yet to see a concrete problem with your always-a-paladin player.
Perhaps you could enlighten me?

[erikun]

No, the problem is that one of my players is treating the campaign world as a way to have no personal vices and police the world. I love a complex campaign world as much as the next guy. In fact, I am working on one about no. As a DM, I can't have a Neutral or Lawful Good Villain (like Miko) without him stopping the party from killing him, and the LG Bard trying to convince him to stop the villany. Seriously, I can't have any motivations for NPC's other than "He's evil. He was evil. He will be evil. Kill Him." As a player, he's a pain in the butt.

This sounds like some excellent roleplay potential! I mean, how many times must a villian cut off food supplies to a hungry orphanage, attack innocent farmers and drag them into court, send off miners to a instable and highly lethal mine, fund some corrupt and clearly evil devil-summoner, and everything else without pinging on the evil-dar before the paladin steps up and says it all needs to end?

On a slightly lesser scale, if he isn't willing to resist the town guard when they try to arrest him... just throw him in wizards' jail. There are consequences to just going along with what every NPC says, after all.

I am still under the impression that this is more of a "I don't want to slaughter these town guards just because they were told we were badguys" rather than "I want to feed this last orphan before we go," though. And if it is the latter, then just gloss over it with a quick "you feed the orphan" and get moving with the game.

Don't burn those children was sarcasm. It was more like "Those Orcs need to see the path of Pelor. I'm going to try to convert them." Or "I won't continue with the story until I free one minor NPC elf slave."

Once again, this sounds like you're complaining that the character has personal motivations rather than following the plot railroad. "You shouldn't care if the slave suffers beatings or starvation or death; there's orcs to kill! CHOO CHOO!!"

As for the converting-orcs problem, this is remarkably easy to solve. Make the orcs act like, well, orcs. Or just badguys. "Oh, you want me to convert? Well that's a nice shiny armor you have. Just about my size, too. I'd sure feel like converting if I was wearing that." (Hint: they're lying.)

[Silma]

is it just me or does the paladin sound like a player all dms would want to have?

[DoctorGlock]

is it just me or does the paladin sound like a player all dms would want to have?

Yeah, it really does. I can't stand when players say stuff like "I'ma poison that town for the XP!" (fellow player in that case) or "I will animate that mountain by the end of this game!" (one of my psychopaths)

I'd find it nice and relaxing to not have screaming murderhobos for once.

[LikeAD6]

is it just me or does the paladin sound like a player all dms would want to have?

I want the paladin. OP can send him my way if he likes.

[Terracotta]

It seems like the problem here is one of flexibility. Sometimes the players want to focus on something totally different that you threw in for fluff or flavor that ends up being more fun that your original concept for the campaign. From what you're saying, this paladin has a different set of priorities than the others. The question is where and whether those other priorities can be made to intersect.

What kind of campaign are you running? Who are the other players playing? Who has a specific problem with the aforementioned paladin OOC? IC, paladin-party conflicts make for some pretty awesome roleplaying as long as people can agree on how far it's going to go.

I'd find it nice and relaxing to not have screaming murderhobos for once.

On a side note, I'm totally going to put together a sidequest that revolves around subduing a band of screaming murderhobos.

Actually, "The Screaming Murderhobos" isn't a bad band name either...