I've been thinking a little more about paladins, recently, and i just wanted to post a thread which would allow for more discussion on the topic.
My initial concern was that paladins are actually a bit... weak. Considering their restricted possible actions (in order to maintain alignment, and thus class features, and due to their code of conduct), the limited array of foes that the paladin's abilities are useful against (granted, most things the party kills are evil, but for those that aren't, the paladin can be at a large disadvantage), the multiclassing restriction, many people would expect some stellar abilities to compensate, which they quite frankly lack, it seems.
In the pen and paper version of the World of Warcraft MMORPG that a friend showed me, the paladin's smite was not just +level to damage, but +1d6+level to damage, which makes it much more significant at lower levels, while next to negligible at higher ones.
However, the more I looked, the more I realized that they were really just as strong as they needed to be. With feat options from the Complete Warrior that utilize their (sub-par) turning to power combat abilities, they can easily hold their own with a fighter or barbarian. The extra divine abilities and resistances they have only serve to reinforce their role as a defensive bastion, concentrated not as much on doing damage, but on surviving a fight in one piece and keep going. Poorly thought-out attempts to play them otherwise can lead to the perception of them being weak, I believe.
The other problem is that paladins have such an ability to be mishandled and abused, to make the paladin a role-playing pain by being an uptight, self-righteous jerk, which it never says in the rules that they must be.
So, what stories do other people on the boards have, either illuminating the power of the basic paladin, extolling a variant take they once played with one (or saw played in their group), or denouncing them as worthless heaps of full-plate covered crap? Post away!
|
Sure, the behavior limitations on paladins can make them challenging to play, but it doesn't have to be in a bad way. I'm fond of making my characters (never played a paladin) be almost as strict in their alignment. I am a fan of truly heroic characters, so it would be a good fit for me but for my predisposition towards full spellcasters.
Paladins should not be a pain in the ass. That's not part of being good. Real life and fantasy fiction are full of patient, forgiving, and empathetic good people. They CAN be uptight and overbearing, but so can any character type, and it's generally a poor choice for a PC, who are much better off being designed as team players.
My two coppers.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My experience is that the optimal paladin build requires use of the warhorse. They are the class best positioned to take advantage of the mounted combat chain of feats, and when combined with the lance, they are truly deadly. That's also their greatest weakness - if you're playing a dungeon crawl, paladins suffer more than any other class because they can't bring their mount to bear (unless you do something silly like make a halfing paladin riding a wardog).
I generally hate the class and will probably replace it with the knight from the phb II. Same concept (good armored warrior), but implemented better.
|
In my current Eberron Red Hand of Doom camapign, I have a player with a warforged Paladin of Freedom.
I must say, Saern, that your identification of the paladin as a defensive bastion is spot on with this fellow- 7th level, 88 Vit {Con of 22}, AC of 25, and tremendous Fort & Will saves. While his use of Power Attack and a brutal magebred heavy warhorse ensure that he crushes heads on a regular basis, he is renowned for absorbing enormous quanities of punishment and restoring them swiftly with his Lay on Hands capability.
While the old tiefling duskblade had managed to overshadow our boy in damage, no one has paralleled his endurance and bravado.
While I think a solid player can manage the LG Paladin of Honor without being a total "stick in the mud," my player has enjoyed embracing the concepts of freedom and total free will, while retaining a strong moral compass. He'll spare an enemy's life once, but there are no second chances once his trust has been betrayed.
Good fun overall :)
The Saltmarsh campaign I ran over the waning days of the summer had my best friend playing an aasimar paladin of Heironeous. He did a decent job, but I did usually have to step in now and again to remind him of the lawful aspect of being a paladin. For example, searching the slaughterhouse in "Funeral Procession" I had to pipe up when they found the Sawfish Boys' masterwork knives. He may have been there to investigate the slaughterhouse for their involvement in the theft of a serial murderer's corpse, but the gentlemen in question were still innocent until proven guilty, which meant he was contemplating theft according to the law.
Material possessions were always kind of an interesting balancing point for the character; he was always eager to grab magical gear that he and the rest of the party had no use for so that he could sell it, but he did make sure to tithe regularly to his church in the hopes of bringing it to a more prominent role in town. While he did scrimp and save for full plate armor, he also scouted out real estate for a larger shrine and did his utmost to lead by example and encourage others to his faith. The most interesting part of playing a paladin are those dichotomies. While they are adventurers on quests for glory and plunder, they must always have their code in mind and should do their best to temper their temptations.
My games tend not to focus on mounted combat, which I really don't find all that interesting, so I usually exchange the special mount ability for some of the low magic variations on paladin abilities as presented in Complete Warrior. I think having one's weapons always strike as though good aligned is more helpful in my game, though at higher levels when he may actually have a holy weapon I'll have to give him something else, since that ability will no longer be useful.
Hi all,
I am playing a paladin in my friend's AoW game. I started multiclassing into other classes after 4th level, but I still maintain a lawful good alignment and stick to the paladin code. Early in the game, I chose to play my character as a bit of a jerk. I know that it isn't neccesary to do this. But he was the only person in the group with true military training, and the rest of the group were sort of misfits so he naturally fell into a leadership role. As the game has progressed though I've tried to make the character grow. He lost one of his comrades to evil (she was killed by the ebon aspect, and this really hurt his confidence in his mission and his abilities. He fell into darkness for awhile, becoming very vengeful. It was while he was at his lowest, that he realized that the church and heironeus were not the ones protecting him and keeping him whole, but that it was his misfit friends instead. Since then, he has been much more understanding and helpful. He now sees them as a true team. He still believes in Heironesu, but no longer looks for heironeus to coem down and defeat evil. He realizes that the Gods love us and protect us, but that this is our fight. He's now 15th level. He has spent time training alone in the wilderness (ranger) after his friend's death. He spent time trainign himself to kill more efficiently (tempest) during his dark period. Then he tried to find himself and understand his life more (monk). Now he is trainign his combat abilities again (fighter) to finally meet Kyuss and end his reign of terror. I think my character might finally be able to take up the path of the paladin again.Only now he will do at his a true servant of Law and Good, and as the Scion of the Vaati, wielding the Sword of Aaqa and the Lightning sword against kyuss's evil.
Keiran is a paladin4/ranger2/tempest5/monk2/fighter2. He is a two-weapon fighting master. I am interested in soemday playing a paladin straight through but this so far is my experiences with the paladin. i multiclassed for character purposes as well as to gain certain abilities, not because I thought paladin was a weak class. Although after like 8th level they don't get much more new stuff. maybe they could be reworked.
sorry to post so huge on your thread, just thought it might help to see another paladin's story.
The versatility of the paladin is nice, much like the ranger, but I still think he lags behind a staight warrior quite a bit in raw combat; his skills just dont make up for all the feats a warrior gets expecially with more and more feats coming out all the time and the paladin abilities just staying the same and not much to improve them.
I not one to subscribe to 'Law and Order' in the modern sense when it comes to paladins. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a factor for instance. That is our concept for society today in the U.S.
I've experimented with various paladin attitudes. The easiest has been the self-righteous do-gooder and the most typical.
The one I had the most fun with was a hard-line repent or die type. He wasn't about preaching or trying to convince the rabble of the world a better way. He was bent on purging evil in any form. He was gritty and dark in attitude. He didn't take prisoners and those who surrendered to him had to repent their evil ways or he sent them quickly to a deserved death.
Currently, I'm playing a paladin/sorc who is going to become a spellsword. He's a quiet and unassuming man for whom his faith is a very personal and intimate thing. He likes to laugh and enjoy his life. He's decisive and willing to lead but unsure of his ability (still low lvl). He trys to live his life without regret while maintaining his faith. His sorcerous powers are somewhat disconcerting to him. He believes they are powers granted by his god but he doesn't sense the same 'purity' in the magic when he uses it. So, there is a nagging doubt in his heart. He worries that is unknown father has passed some taint on to him and so he keeps these powers secret as best he can.
I think there are many options for opening up a Paladin for RP. I find it unfortunate that most players of Paladins are pigeon-holed into a certain RP style by their fellow players and DM's alike. I also feel they get a hard-line approach for alignment infractions that isn't present for other alignments.
I also would support that the code of conduct should reflect the world view of the god he worships rather than a standard template in the PHB.
|
In a 2nd edition campaign we did there was a player who was playing a paladin and the group ended up capturing a bad guy. The group was a bit away from town and the paladin set up court, tried and executed the accused. It was a great roleplaying experience.
Recently one of our players played a halfling paladin from Eberron with a dinosaur mount. He had a lot of fun with the character. The primary weapon was a sling. There were a lot of good experiences there as well.
Both characters, however, seemed to be a bit self destructive -- "Charge the gargantuan red dragon -- hurry!!". I think that they both died well before making it to 7th level.
Last thing -- Eberron Campaign Setting has a feat that allows you to multi-class with a paladin without penalty. Forgotten Realms allows certain faiths to multiclass with paladin without penalty. These are at least a couple of viable ways for a paladin to multiclass within most settings.
I am a huge fan of the pladin class. The concept is just seems so cool to me. As far as abilities go however, I think they get some pretty good ones. Special mounts are especially useful when paired up with the spirited charge feat. Also, divine grace is an often underestimated ability. Gaining a plus to your saves equal to your charisma bonus is staggaringly good. If your paladin has a bonus of +3 at first level, then you are a good step ahead of everyone in the party.
Not to mention they are immune to dissease and fear, both nice abilities.
Anyhow, as far as alignment restrictions, there are some articles in dragon (can't remember which issue right now) that detail classes for "paladins" of other alignments, kind of like blackguards. One example was the lawful evil overlord. If you want more options, you should look up these articles.
Also, I have to agree with what has been said about paladin personality type. Sure, there is the cliche up tight holier-than-thou option, but are a lot of other options as well. The paladin's code states that a paladin must "not commit and evil act. Respect legitimate authority. Act with honor. Help those in need. Punish those who would threaten inocents and never associate with an evil person knowingly" There's a lot of wriggle room in there, for example, what is the definition of honor? Sure they give some examples in the book, don't use poison or lie or cheat, however I could easily see two paladins getting in a huge debate over exactly what"honorable" behavior is.
Just look at the Forgotten Realms pantheon. Torm, Helm, Tyr, Lythander, Mystra, Selune and Gond (just to name a few) can all have lawful good follower, and thus are eligible to have paladins. Give them all the same challenge to overcome and I gaurantee that they will all come up with a different solution.
Okay, first just let me say that I do NOT want to turn this into a religious debate. With that in mind -
It seems to me the biggest problem with paladins is the way many players perceive their role. They are often characterized as stodgy turn-or-burn types. In other words, players tend to think of them as extremist Christians. But who says paladins in a fantasy world have to be anything like that?
As a student of world religions (and a Christian, by the way), I can tell you there are tons of religious icons out there who support what D&D would define as "lawful" and "good" who in no way resemble the stereotype.
Players who consider "lawful" characters as stodgy simply betray their misunderstanding of personal discipline and belief in a universal order to things. Further, "lawful" alignment in no way suggests a character believes everyone else should be forced to believe as he does.
Similarly, many players' hesitation to play "good" characters suggests they do not understand how one may fight for the good of others while simultaneously being interested in self-improvement. I might also suggest that players consider the wisdom of spending lots of time with those who openly express an interest in indulging their feelings of personal greed, violence, and selfishness.
D&D paladins are supposed to be highly disciplined servants of good deities. If you reinterpret their role as servants of a given god's interests rather than as freaked-out fundamentalists, difficulties with their behavior and abilities tend to disappear.
Okay, I know I ranted a bit, but I've played paladins since 1978 and I'm tired of being judged on my choice of class. I like being lawful good in the game and in real life. Take it or leave it.
I completely agree with those who posted in favor of the paladin. (On a side note, Sebastian, I am simply curious whether you object to the paladin because of mechanics or cultural presentation? Just wondering) In my high school gaming group, there existed the unfortunate condition that most of the group (three of the five regular players were possessed typical anti-authoritarian adolescent views) that paladins, and all lawful characters, had no sense of humor and were sticks in the mud. I tried many a time to show them the error in their ways, but they never got over it.
I personally love the idea of playing someone that defends the weak and the needy. All those times when someone does something horrible, but there's nothing that can be done, the paladin is the fantastic relief, the force of good that we all want to swoop in, exact justice, and make things right again. I can certainly identify with this and wish that the paladin was a more popular choice for players.
The odd thing about people's rejection of the paladin's code and alignment is that most people are encouraged to act that way normally. most characters don't go looking for laws to break, develop some sort of teamwork and strategy for their combats, and will even shy away from illegal activities in game (most of the time) if they fear retribution or lack respect for the local authority. But, when the book says you HAVE to do those things to have these abilities, people get defensive. What gives?
Anyway, I move to have the stereotypical paladin's attitude named the "Miko syndrome," after OotS.
My personal favorite experience with a paladin came from one the one regular player in my high school group that actually loved the paladin class. His very first character ever was a paladin (and interestingly enough, before I had ever looked at any supplement books, ever heard of substitution levels or anything like that, came up with a very similar progression that would allow him to phase into the half-celestial template without unbalancing the game ((too much))).
Anyway, the situation now was that he was a paladin of Bahamut, working on ferreting out a specific villain in a foul pirate city along a northern coast. As a side note, he did a remarkable job of being a team player, as one of the members of the group, who was a self-admitted a%*~$!*, made it a point of trying to be hard on him just because he was a paladin. In fact, this one playere was the source of 50% of all the anti-paladin sentiment in the group.
Well, they ended up making a deal to get info out of a vampiric halfling crime lord, and wound up in his underground meeting chamber. The vampire expected trouble, and with good cause; the party had no intent to let the halfling leave.
Well, once they got the info needed, the sorcerer threw up an Otiluke's resilient sphere, followed by several rounds of preparation on the part of both sides. The vampire and his wererat minions moved into position and used their magic items, the rest of the party cast their buff spells, and then the sorcerer dismissed the sphere. By order of initiative, the paladin went immediately afterwards.
Now, because of the preparations, he had been granted about +12 to Strength, had flaming and holy on his weapon (one was only a temporary spell ability, I think the flaming), in addition to several other modifiers. He then leads with an attack on the vampire (the party is around level 8, and he's making a full attack, and has Cleave). The attack was amazingly successful, and came up to around 138 damage. I wish I could remember the exact mechanics, but something completely unforseen came up and allowed some huge multipliers.
Poof. No more vampire.
The subsequent Cleaves took out all but two of the wererats, who were quickly hunted down and destroyed.
This paladin also got caught up in a bar fight, started by the self-proclaimed ass, and while trying to end it and restore order, fell under suspicion from the guards that he started it. He managed to do some fancy talking, combined with a huge diplomacy check, and completely talked the whole party out of any trouble with the law. That was in the same session. I was a great game. :)
Dear Saern,
1. I hate paladins on basic principle and doubt I would play one
2. I would have absolutely no problem playing a lawful fighter with the exact same code of honor, so yes for me at least it is the forced alignment that bugs me. Why? It is a good class with lots of potential for both storyline and power. I won't try and argue that. I don't like the fact that the class is so strong with such a tight behavior restriction. No other PC has to be so predesposed despite their powerful abilities. None of the paladins core abilities have anything to do with lawfulness, just the code of honor and a few spells. They could have just as easily gone with an "any Good" retriction and let the paladin be as versitle as all the other classes. I know not every paladin is a Miko but how many are? Then compare that number with how many fighters are Roy's? How many rangers are Belkars? I'll gladly play alongside a paladin but it is too tight a character concept for me.
3. Yes the ass you mention took it to annoying extreams but evryone was aggrivated by the paladin. In the two play sessions before that every character broke the law on a continual basis and it was tons of fun. And THEN the player wanted to be a paladin and buddy up with our group in the middle of a pirate infested town. That was my issue anyway. And through my definition of a paladin I think you let him slide with a little
to much "looking the other way" just to allow him to keep playing.
4. A paladins usefullnes was never in question in our campaigns. We never expected them to be worthless only annoying. The fact that the paladin obiterated the vampire is largely moot as nearly any character with those buffs and rolls would have done the same exact thing only with less lighting effects.
5. Correct me if I'm wrong Saern but didn't almost everything the "Paladin" said come as a prompt from me (me playing a wizard making items in the hotel and otherwise completely uninvolved) so that he wouldn't technically lie and could help us.
6. Answer me honestly Saern. As far as roleplaying goes would you imagine that a REAL paladin of any temperment. Would have actually stayed with that group. The ranger was abhorrent of the law, the druid payed no heed to law or the neds of others, and my wizard didn't even understand the concept of a fair fight. Not to mention we were in the middle of a criminally run city and our characters had good reason to believe that hanging out with the 5-0 could get us killed. With that in mind (lets just pretend for a moment the ranger wasn't an ass to the paladin) and we all acted with nothing but roleplaying in mind, why in gods name would these people join forces with ANY paladin?
Dear Sexi Golem 01,
1. I'm not sure if this new, amazingly organized (and highly unusual for you) letter layout is sign of some irritation with me, but I wasn't necessarily labelling you with the descriptor of "typical adolescent anti-authoritarian views," (though I think we can both agree that you did your fair share now and then... err, constantly... :) ) but I made that statement simply because delving into the dynamics of the group to that extent was irrelevant to the post. I can't tell if you are or not, but don't take this as an attack on you.
2. Yes, a fighter using power attack could probably have outclassed the paladin in damage in that situation, but it was in fact a paladin, and thus I posted his tale.
3. Yes, you're right, although it didn't run long enough for that to have really become an issue. There should have been a few more objections from the paladin, but I can see a paladin sticking around as long as he did at least, to give it a shot.
4. In terms of social interactions, when I was DMing, you were ALWAYS the prompter and source of most of what was said (that had any seriousness relating to the situation, which is really strange from you now that I think about it...). So don't be overly hard on the one player. Everyone has quirks, flaws and virtues.
5. If I'm reading into your post more hostility than exists, or you think I'm being defensive (not trying to be), the B$&$% Queen has been at me again lately, so that last thing I want to see is one of my best friends getting angry, too.
|
I love paladins...
I try not to play them as austere (is-this the same as in french ?), narrow-minded, psychopathic do-gooders & stubborn.
I understand that people may not like them if they have only seen this kind of paladin.
Also, how many times I have seen "good" characters killing kobold, orc or goblin children to stop a menace...
Is that good ? I don't suppose so. And there could be numerous other examples !!
Paladins are supposed to be good and lawful, abide by the law.
As a DM and player, I would ask anybody who wants to play a paladin this :
1st question - what is "being good" ?
2nd question - what law does he have to abide by ?
Then, what kind of paladin do you want to play ?
- some paladins are the "For king and country" kind, other "let's go protect the poor and the weak".
- some are the "charge & kick those demons'a##" kind, other "le's be cautious : our death would prevent us from saving the country".
- some would be mysterious with a kind of inner spirituality, other would go "I do this in the name of Tyr, I eat lettuce because he told me so, I don't drink beer becuase he told me not to...".
The paladin in your game depends on your players's personnality.
I played a paladin who looked like he had just come back from Woodstock : very long hair, always smoking halfling's weed, speaking slowly...
However, he was brave, do-gooder and a fine and trustful companion.
Dear Sexi Golem 01,
1. I'm not sure if this new, amazingly organized (and highly unusual for you) letter layout is sign of some irritation with me, but I wasn't necessarily labelling you with the descriptor of "typical adolescent anti-authoritarian views," (though I think we can both agree that you did your fair share now and then... err, constantly... :) ) but I made that statement simply because delving into the dynamics of the group to that extent was irrelevant to the post. I can't tell if you are or not, but don't take this as an attack on you.
2. Yes, a fighter using power attack could probably have outclassed the paladin in damage in that situation, but it was in fact a paladin, and thus I posted his tale.
3. Yes, you're right, although it didn't run long enough for that to have really become an issue. There should have been a few more objections from the paladin, but I can see a paladin sticking around as long as he did at least, to give it a shot.
Not irritated, just used it to present my numerous objections. I know I have major bias against paladins but I still think ramming such a dinamically opposed character into that party justified some of the hostility.
Also please note that I've done some editing. If you wouldn't mind looking over my post one more time I could use a few more responses.
Dear Sexi Golem 01,
1. I'm not sure if this new, amazingly organized (and highly unusual for you) letter layout is sign of some irritation with me, but I wasn't necessarily labelling you with the descriptor of "typical adolescent anti-authoritarian views," (though I think we can both agree that you did your fair share now and then... err, constantly... :) ) but I made that statement simply because delving into the dynamics of the group to that extent was irrelevant to the post. I can't tell if you are or not, but don't take this as an attack on you.
2. Yes, a fighter using power attack could probably have outclassed the paladin in damage in that situation, but it was in fact a paladin, and thus I posted his tale.
3. Yes, you're right, although it didn't run long enough for that to have really become an issue. There should have been a few more objections from the paladin, but I can see a paladin sticking around as long as he did at least, to give it a shot.
4. In terms of social interactions, when I was DMing, you were ALWAYS the prompter and source of most of what was said (that had any seriousness relating to the situation, which is really strange from you now that I think about it...). So don't be overly hard on the one player. Everyone has quirks, flaws and virtues.
5. If I'm reading into your post more hostility than exists, or you think I'm being defensive (not trying to be), the b!%&# Queen has been at me again lately, so that last thing I want to see is one of my best friends getting angry, too.
No hostility here. I just wanted the people reading to know that our frustraion was not without at least some justification.
And point number 6 isn't aimed at you at all. My point being that any other class could have been acceped into that party with the right attitude. A paladin though? Not possible as far as I can see. Thats something I have a big issue with in the class itself.
Roleplaying aspects (morals and codes, etc.) aside, I feel that the Paladin is too heavily front-loaded in abilities. Consequently, players, if they even decide to play one, rarely stick with the class for the long-haul.
WOTC needs to spread out the abilities to the later levels AND offer alternatives to the mount.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Roleplaying aspects (morals and codes, etc.) aside, I feel that the Paladin is too heavily front-loaded in abilities. Consequently, players, if they even decide to play one, rarely stick with the class for the long-haul.
WOTC needs to spread out the abilities to the later levels AND offer alternatives to the mount.
My favorite way of beefing up the paladin and making it a more attractive option for players is changing their remove disease ability to restoration with the same frequency of uses (X per week). Remove disease is a bit narrow in my opinion, especially since its only useable a few times PER WEEK. Restoration can be used to remove diseases as well, but it can do so much more, too! And yes, I agree that the mount is pretty gimped too. Most of my players don't even use it. Taking it away is something I've considered to make up for the restoration ability's usefulness.
My experience with Paladins is that they are very tasty, but tend to give me gas!
Crunchy on the outside, gooey on the inside ;)
I think the stodgy attitude of paladins doesn't come so much from the good, or the lawful, so much as their prohibition against knowingly aiding or associating with those who are evil. Truth be known, there's a lot of evil people in the world--real world and fantasy. They are not all axe murderers. In fact many of them are quite sociable and empathetic, they just have different tolerances. They can be innkeepers or merchants, rulers, or adventurers. While they are willing to hurt others to get their way, and are in no way philanthropic do-gooders, they are not nearly the bane or the scourge of the univers. They lie about the goods they sell, charge you as much as they think you will be willing to pay, take advantage of emotions and situations without regard to people's feelings--that sort of thing. Evil characters can be fun to play, precisely because they need not be psychopaths to enjoy some blackhearted intrigue and mustasche twirling.
Problem is, if there's a paladin in the party too, then he can't associate or cooperate with these sorts of people. They might have vested interests in common, common enemies--or goals even, but the paladin must hold up a solemn hand and condemn the evil doer. Makes it hard to integrate parties, throws a wet blanket on relations with NPCs the characters really like, who happen to be evil, allows a LOT less room for negotiations with vastly powerful evil characters, makes impossible alliances with evil enemies of the vastly powerful evil badguys--not the mention smashing flat the possibility of characters playing with moral ambiguities, trying to leverage benefit for themselves without becoming corrupted. Most of all it makes paladins, who are supposed to be these icons of goodness, unable to attempt to redeem those who fall to evil--even loved ones. They must either destroy them or toss them away like the filth they "are".
So yeah, that's the proviso where I think the paladin suffers his problems. They are intolerant and cliquish and utterly closed minded because if you are evil, they will never knowingly pay you heed.
Granted thats the neat thing about RPGs as contrasted with video games. Theres no necessity to play them as written and can in fact be field stripped and reassembled however you want. Personally I would much rather interpret the paladin as lawful good by necessity, and beyond that adhering to a stringent moral code beyond what even is required to be lawful good--but that it not necessarily always be the exact moral code printed in the main book.
...and it varies by campaign. Sometimes its fun to go ultracannon and then let the players have to work around characters who are so unyieldingly good they might at times be forced by their moral code to do unconcionable things. That's always fun.
I have never played a paladin myself (I wouldnt last two days without having to atone for something), but I have been in parties with them. I see paladins as the good boyscout to be teased. The ones I traveled with were always a bit uptight, suspicious, and judgemental. Don't get me wrong, they were a great help to the party, but my bard,monk, or druid always butted heads with them at some point because we handled things differently.
For instance as a druid, nature is neither good nor evil. You wouldnt call a cobra evil for using its venom for catching its prey. Nor would a druid see it as an evil act to use poison or weaken his enemies. But man, let the paladin get wind of that and you might as well pick an evil alignment in his eyes.
Dont get me wrong, paladins can survive situations a fighter or barbarin wouldn't and they'll be the first I run to against undead if a cleric isnt around but it holds true what they say. Justice can be cruel sometimes and i treat Paladins like a fantasy version of Judge Dredd
I've played paladins and incorporated them into campaigns since 1e, and I haven't had the same kinds of problems that people frequently mention in connection to the paladin. I suppose I am a bit more flexible when I play paladins (a Lancelot type, with human frailties but high ideals vs. a Galahad who is sinless and unwilling to compromise).
And as DM, I'm not going to take away a paladin's powers the minute he fails to make a frontal assault on any sort of evil he observes. Hieroneous knows you have to stay focused on your quest, to prioritize which evil needs to be attacked first, because the faithful are few and do not have the strength to take on every problem at once! A young paladin, perhaps, hasn't learned this lesson yet, but his superiors (i.e. NPCs the paladin respects, played by the DM) should be steering him in this direction most of the time. This does not mean the paladin tolerates moral laxity in himself--if he finds it he tries to expiate it. This is what the paladin's code should be all about. But it means he recognizes that he cannot stamp out every vice or stop every evil he sees from being committed. The paladin's code encourages him to act in whatever way furthers the cause of good, discourages sin and evil, but it does not force him to act mindlessly against any evil he observes. He is not morally responsible for the evil that others commit.
If you were in Nazi controlled territory in WWII, and you saw them rounding up certain groups of people to send off to the concentration camp, is it better to do what you can (maybe help some people escape, go to another country and try to awaken people as to what is going on, etc.) or is it better to run out and kill the S.S. guys herding people into the rail-cars? If you do the latter, you die a martyr, but you probably don't save even one person's life or bring the evil system any closer to an end. If you do the latter, you still might get killed, but at least maybe you saved some people. And to do the latter successfully, you might have to deceive some people. At some point, you might choose to become a martyr, but your martyrdom should mean something more than just symbolic resistance. You sacrifice your life when that sacrifice has a chance of saving other people's lives.
In my book the well-played paladin tries to save as many victims as he can, and in order to do so he sometimes has to pick his battles. All the high-level paladins should be telling the low-level paladins this, because they had to be a bit pragmatic to make it to high level.
As for the problem of association or cooperation with evil people or beings: there are two big concerns here. One is that being around evil people/beings tends to rub off on a person. The second is that he belongs to an organization which cannot be seen as cooperating with evil or compromising with evil, or else it will lose its legitimacy. So the paladin has to maintain some kind of separation from evil beings to avoid being corrupted, and to avoid letting the general public think that the Knights of Hieroneous tolerates evil. Does this mean temporary cooperation is completely out of the question? No, it just means that the paladin has to avoid, to the best of his ability, doing anything that directly furthers an evil agenda, and he has to maintain a clear sense of his own mission and code of personal behavior. He doesn't necessarily detect evil on every person he works with, but he isn't going to turn his back to let his fellow party members slit the throats of the helpless enemies either. And if they persist in such behavior even when he's made it clear he won't tolerate it, then at some point he's got to draw the line and either expel the offender from the party or leave the party himself.
Are paladins difficult to roleplay effectively? Absolutely. Do they insist on a high standard of behavior in their allies? Yes, but they don't necessarily hold everyone in the group to as high a standard as they hold themselves. If everyone could be as good as a paladin, what would be the point of having paladins? Are they impossible to work with? No. Do they automatically spoil all attempts at discretion and stealth by their fellow party members? No.
Grimm does bring up a good point. The "no association with evil" tennent of the paladin code can be a sticky one. I recently finished a FR campaign in which my paladin character's wife turned to evil after the birth of their first daughter. Trying to balance my characters paladin hood againt his love for his wife was a challenge. It was a roleplaying opportunity I enjoyed emmensely, however I will be the first to admmit that it was a delicate juggling feat.
On the class abilities side of things, I think much attention needs to be paid to how the paladin equips him/herself, what feats s/he takes, and what role s/he plays in the party. If the party needs the paladin to be the primary tank, they need to have somewhat stronger, more combat-oriented secondary combatants, because the paladin doesn't have the feats of a fighter or the ability to suck up or dish out damage on every hit like a barbarian. However, the paladin improves the party's defensive and healing powers, and (if well-played) can solve some of the diplomatic challenges facing a party.
My story--recently, I ran a paladin DMPC with a party through the Istivin campaign arc, (roughly 11th-14th level). Since the campaign focused on giants, I made sure he was equipped with both a holy greatsword and a giant-bane lance. These two weapons, combined with his mounted combat feat sequence and smite evil ability generally allowed him to do lots of extra damage at key moments to bring down tough enemies before they could TPK the party. (I let him use his lance like a long-spear when dismounted--2-handed and no extra damage for charging, which helped when the battle against the giants went indoors). His turn undead ability saved the party's bacon when they were faced by a virtual army of shadows in the first adventure. His healing ability allowed him to revive the party cleric on one or two key occasions, and helped with restoring ability scores weakened by poison and ability damage. This all worked because the party had a tough dwarven cleric who could either cast righteous might etc. and join the melee, or could cast [blanking on the spell name, but it shunts half the damage from the victim to the cleric casting the spell], and a ranger/rogue who could dish out serious damage to giants with favored enemy, sneak attack, and rapid shot with a flaming bow. The paladin died once during the arc, but so did the ranger, and the gnome illusionist died twice. And everyone in the party made critical contributions at several junctures. (I didn't have the Complete books yet at this time, so the paladin was a strictly core books paladin).
I don't think the special mount makes up that much of the paladin's overall power, just as familiars and animal companions are really just an adjunct to the classes that have them. This is especially true at high levels, where the animal might help in certain ways, but is not directly useful in combat in the event of a climactic melee encounter. A paladin isn't terribly hurt by not being able to use the mount in every situation--instead, the mount should be viewed as a tool to be pulled out of the toolbox when it will be useful.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Roleplaying aspects (morals and codes, etc.) aside, I feel that the Paladin is too heavily front-loaded in abilities. Consequently, players, if they even decide to play one, rarely stick with the class for the long-haul.
WOTC needs to spread out the abilities to the later levels AND offer alternatives to the mount.
They fixed the front-loading a little in 3.5, but I completely agree that it's still an issue. I always end up ditching the class before getting the mount because I can't stand that ability. I hear their spells are good, but I can never make it that far into the class to verify.
Let me start by saying that I've always really liked paladins (hence the avatar). I'm not so sure that the front-loading of the class needs fixing. If anything, I think it could use some strengthening at higher levels. Once you get past 6th level, the class become a Warrior clone. I think better smiting and/or increased spellcasting might help. Spacing the existing abilities out over more levels would seriously reduce it's ccombat effectiveness and viability.
Additionally, I think the special mount ability needs retooling. It can be fairly effective, in a narrow range of situations, up to about 8th or 9th level. After that, the bonuses that the mount gets are insufficient to ensure its usefulness and survivability in combat. When was the last time your 15th level paladin's mount actually trampled (or even hit) a CR 15 creature? I like the concept, but I think this ability needs some work.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Let me start by saying that I've always really liked paladins (hence the avatar). I'm not so sure that the front-loading of the class needs fixing. If anything, I think it could use some strengthening at higher levels. Once you get past 6th level, the class become a Warrior clone. I think better smiting and/or increased spellcasting might help. Spacing the existing abilities out over more levels would seriously reduce it's ccombat effectiveness and viability.
Uhhh..that's what front-loading means - all the good abilities of the class are loaded into the early levels and after you get those abilities, there's not a compelling reason to take additional levels. You can fix the problem by getting rid of the good abilities at low levels (so that the class consistently sucks), spread the abilities across all levels, or add additional abilities to later levels so there is incentive to continue in the class. I would agree that the third option makes the most sense for the paladin - give it some good abilities after 4th level.
I think my favorite paladin was Sir Agrivar from the old Realms comic books. A recovering alcoholic (who fell off the wagon a couple of times), he battled his inner demons, valued his companions, and led by example. He also lusted after one of his companions, strongly disliked another, and constantly second-guessed himself. He was seriously flawed, but interesting, and I appreciated that he internalized a lot of the alignment conflict that paladins fight with. Just thought I'd share.
Uhhh..that's what front-loading means - all the good abilities of the class are loaded into the early levels and after you get those abilities, there's not a compelling reason to take additional levels. You can fix the problem by getting rid of the good abilities at low levels (so that the class consistently sucks), spread the abilities across all levels, or add additional abilities to later levels so there is incentive to continue in the class. I would agree that the third option makes the most sense for the paladin - give it some good abilities after 4th level.
I guess what I was trying to say is this: the 3.0 paladin got almost everything at first level, making it a favorite class for 'cherry pickers.' The 3.5 version isn't nerfed, per se, but spreads the accrual of abilities over more levels. I just don't want to see that trend go any further. If WotC wants to 'improve' the paladin, they should do so by adding more abilities and not by moving the existing abilities to a higher class level. I guess my point is that the class doesn't need "fixing" (with all of those negative connotations), just a little improving. Funny how we're saying the same things, but not agreeing.
I think my favorite paladin was Sir Agrivar from the old Realms comic books. A recovering alcoholic (who fell off the wagon a couple of times), he battled his inner demons, valued his companions, and led by example. He also lusted after one of his companions, strongly disliked another, and constantly second-guessed himself. He was seriously flawed, but interesting, and I appreciated that he internalized a lot of the alignment conflict that paladins fight with. Just thought I'd share.
Priam Agrivar was a great paladin, especially as far as being an interesting charcter.
Over at Candlekeep we had a discussion on Realms paladins that didn't fall into the "stuffy, holier than thou" stereo type.
Some of the ones that stand out from that discussion were Dragonbait from Azure bonds, Holly Harrowslough from Finder's Bane and Tymora's Luck, and Bars from Ghostwalker.
Peirgeiron from Waterdeep is a good example of one as well, as he upholds law and good in Waterdeep, but isn't above letting others who deal with him think he is a bit simple in his view of things. Lord Dhelt of Elturel is kind of cool as well, given that he still rides off to fight evil with his Hellriders.
Paladins don't always know who is good and who is evil, unless they are constantly detecting evil, which some do.
I have seen many different types of Paladins over the years, most of them unyeilding good.
Yes the associate knowingly with evil is rather sticky, but that doesn't mean a paladin can't be a redeemer type, nor does it mean that they have to attack every evil being they see.
If it comes down to a situation where the party wants to associate with a evil baddie, then the party stands back stonefaced and unproving, but doesn't say a word so he isn't associating with them. His companions are not evil for entering into an alliance with an evil baddie, now if they start murdering innocents for evil baddie, then the paladin has two choices, to leave or to offer the party a chance to turn or burn.
Some people don't like in partying fighting, so handwave whatever you want, but me, I live on the roleplaying of my party whether its in-party fighting or not. Turn or Burn! Time to go out in a Blaze of Glory!
(Btw. I did have a paladin in my Red Hand of Doom group, and since I am not going to offer an spoilers, anyone that knows the module will understand that we adhered to the above statement, stonefaced and silent.)
Peruhain, your post is, once again, a revelation.
So is actually reading the Player's Handbook.
A ban on association with evil is not found in the Code of Conduct. It's found under a completely separate heading, "Associates."
It says, and I quote from page 44, "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 consitently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
Under the heading on Ex-Paladins, there is absolutely no mention of a loss of class features or other mechanical retribution for association with evil.
So the paladin's code has nothing in it prohibiting a temporary alliance with evil, or association, for the better good. While it does say, they "will never knowingly associate", I think that to means that it is a matter of pride and typical mode of operation, not a hard and fast rule. If it were, it would be in the Code.
Novices in the field may take it verbatim, but, as was said before, they rarely ascend to high level. The wiser, more senior paladins are well aware that allying with a band of goblins to stop a raging dragon is certainly not something that should cause any paladin more than a moment's pause.
One of the main intentions here is to stop any sort of long-term association. No paladins in parties that are working for demons, no paladins that are content to live in a Nazi-like state, even if they do go out and kill a few evil orcs every morning. However, when it is reasonable, wise, and beneficial to the overall fight for good, such temporary alliances should not be an impasse.
Also, though it's hardly unimpeachable evidence, I point to the Order of the Seropaenes (Tome of Magic, pg. 90). This organization exists to conceal the existence of pact magic, detailed in that supplement, and to destroy its practicioners. The order is composed of several faiths, include Vecna and Hieroneous.
VECNA and HIERONEOUS. I take that as a pretty clear indication that paladins can work with the lesser of two evils for the greater good, although they must always keep an eye open for another option and pursue that if it presents itself.
I should think the paladin of Hieroneous who is in a secret order with Vecnans probably hasn't told his superiors what he's up to. Of course, maybe he is the superior.
The alternative (and very cynical) model for paladins that comes to mind, in that vein, is the Children of the Light in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. Fanatical and inflexible underlings, cynical leaders who are willing to do just about anything to fight against those they see as the Dark One's allies, and a few of them are, in fact, Darkfriends.
On the topic of beefing up the upper levels of the class, I think a very simple solution would be to offer 2-3 bonus feats (11th and 16th or 9th, 13th, and 17th levels). These feats could be any fighter bonus feat for which they are otherwise eligible, or any divine feat that makes sense for a paladin. I'd also open up Weapon Specialization and (maybe) Greater Weapon Focus to paladins, but make it so they have to have twice the number of levels a fighter has to have to take the feat. This helps them do a bit more damage in between smites. If you're worried about game balance, ditch the special mount in exchange.
Note that the feats Improved Smiting and Spontaneous Healer from CD, and Extra Smiting from CW are also quite good for paladins, in addition to the above posted Divine feats. These could be added to the list of bonus feats listed above.
Really, if you compare paladin and ranger (a class significantly reworked in 3.5 to reduce the temptation of cherry-picking), rangers get more good class abilities at levels 7+, and they are already comparable to the paladin in the class abilities dept. before that. They've got a smaller hit die, but way more skill points, so those aspects balance. Both have comparable spellcasting, and animal companion and special mount are roughly equivalent, although the mount might be a bit more synergetic with the character in certain types of combat. More smites per day and cure diseases per week are nice ('specially if your paladin is going into the last two modules of age of worms), but not interesting enough to make it attractive, so I'd say two or three bonus feats ought to be about right to make the upper levels interesting but not munchkinized.
I like paladins. One of my favorite characters I played is Paladin Sir Kaikillah. The parties nick name for him is "Spatula" because you need a spatula to clean up what was left of evil after encountering the mighty paladin. At six level I have power attack, divine might, extra turning, and cleave. This feat combo makes Sir kaikillah the damage dealer of the party. With divine grace and a 16 charisma, and immunity to disease, protection from evil, HE is one tough paladin. He just got his warhorse a white and gray mare called "Casious Clay".
To me the most important part af a Paladin is Charisma. So sir Kaikillah is a very likable person. He likes to drink with the boys and flirt with serving wenches. He is a natural leader and the undisputed party leader. Is is the leader not because he bullies the others, but they just differ to his leadership. He is full of inspirational calls to battle when evil is present. THe one flaw that I play in his personality is his vanity. He once faced an evil version of his self while gazing at himself in a mirror, making him realize the greatest evil he most face is that which is in himself (Thanx DM ERK). Sir Kaikillah is good looking and knows it.
He is a paladin in a dangerous world of demons, devils, sorcerers and dragons. He can smell evil and attacks first and never needs to ask questions. He has offered quarter to those who do not smell of evil. But when attacked he counters with deadly force. His penchant forattacking headlong against evil has caused the deaths of a number of campanions, thus as he has grown in power he has tempered his passion to fight evil and become wiser and more cautious. After all when others follow you into danger you take some responsability .
Most of the points either for and against Paladins have already been made, so I'll just point out that it is possible to play a Paladin without being a stringent ass. I can also back up the comment about someone in the party constantly rattling the Paladin's can about his being a "self-righteous do-gooder" since I'm in a game with a Neutral Wizard who refuses to believe that Paladins are anything more than "Death waiting to happen."
That said, my Paladin proceeded to inform her that he was not going to go charging heedlessly into battle shouting out his name and the many reasons that evil must die. He also proved that his valor and bravery came with a cost - he had lost his wife to a previous lord who, it turned out, was evil and had been sending him on increasingly more dangerous missions simply to get him killed. Frustrated by the fellow's continued success (his god had other plans for him, apparently), he offed the one thing the Paladin truly cared for aside from his duty and service (he was a "God save the Queen" kind of guy) - his wife.
The Paladin forswore the oath he'd taken to the man and walked away, to find another lord who was truly good. He also swore that, someday, the lord who had betrayed him and slew his wife would pay for his crimes - not against the Paladin, but simply because he had murdered someone. The fact that it was his wife only gave him that much more drive.
In that campaign, the Paladin has, so far, single-handedly defended the slender path the party was retreating away from an army of evil until the party could get to safety (nearly dying in the process and having his Con reduced to nearly zero by the immaterial creatures he was fighting), stood in front of the party to take the explosion he knew was coming from a series of villains who exploded when defeated (their leader was a truly villainous bastard), talked a pair of animalistic high-powered barbarians down from attacking them and turned them against their evil lord by playing on their honor and calling upon them to "do the right thing..."
Basically, a Paladin can be much more than the stick in the mud everyone thinks he is. He can abide by good tactics against a superior foe (including sneaking in and NOT announcing himself before combat if that means he'd get smoked before he finished his sentence). He can deal with dark-aligned individuals if doing so serves a greater good, but only so long as the greater good is served and only if he breaks off such contact once such greater good is served.
A Paladin is not a dimwit. He serves the forces of Good. Good gods in mythology work with Evil gods if it serves their purposes - so can a Paladin. So long as such contact does not taint the fellow and lead to a fall, he is still a Paladin and is still serving the cause of Right and Good!
Syrinx
Inspiration is the core of a paladins role in the world. Lay on hands, remove disease, inspire courage are all paladins abilities that bring hope and encourage others. In my opinion a good paladin is far from a stick in the mud, but is an inspirational personality in any group.
Has anyone read the novel Nightwatch?
Essentially the world is divided into humans and <i>others</i>. The <i>others</i> have some supernatural powers, and must choose between working for the powers of light or the powers of darkness. Long ago the Nightwatch (as the good <i>others</i> are known) realized that constantly battling evil created wars that created more problems for the common folk than evil did on it's own. As a result, a treaty was created that led to a kind of Cold War between the forces of good and the forces of evil. While good and evil don't regularly associate with each other, they are pragmatic and try to best each other through subtle means. If I ever get to be just a player again (I'm an almost fulltime DM), I think I'd like to run a palidan who has a similar worldview.
Since I am a fulltime DM, I think the most important aspect to playing a paladin (or really any other character, especially one with alignment restrictions) is to talk over with the DM the motivations and planned path of a character. While I think it would be great to have a player play a paladin with the above concept, some DMs might not think that it would make for good paladin material. That's cool. I'd just play a bard like I normally do (did).
El Skootro
And as DM, I'm not going to take away a paladin's powers the minute he fails to make a frontal assault on any sort of evil he observes. Hieroneous knows you have to stay focused on your quest, to prioritize which evil needs to be attacked first, because the faithful are few and do not have the strength to take on every problem at once! A young paladin, perhaps, hasn't learned this lesson yet, but his superiors (i.e. NPCs the paladin respects, played by the DM) should be steering him in this direction most of the time.
Have I mentioned lately how much I love you?
This is sort of paladin which actually makes sense. And made me think of polices...since usually the young polices who start are really eager and do things "by the book", and older ones then keep them in control and suggest, say, talking instead of truncheon even when use of latter were justifiable...
If we allow this levity to behavior of paladin, I guess my favorite fiction paladin is then Sam Vimes from Discworld series by Terry Pratchett...dedicated to service of law and generally a good person but to get the work done he can use bluffs, ruses and other questionable things. And often associates with people of suspicious alignment.
As far as game mechanics go, I find paladins to be too cookie-cutter. You get set powers, no extra feats, limited skill points, that bloody mount, no multiclassing...not much wiggle room there.
A tip to the staff: I really liked that article for sect powers for clerics who are willing to give up their undead turning. Make something similar to paladins and I will like the class more.
Why is that horse following me? Go away!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
As far as game mechanics go, I find paladins to be too cookie-cutter. You get set powers, no extra feats, limited skill points, that bloody mount, no multiclassing...not much wiggle room there.
A tip to the staff: I really liked that article for sect powers for clerics who are willing to give up their undead turning. Make something similar to paladins and I will like the class more.
One of the ways I power up paladins a little bit in my campaigns is that I allow them to choose one of their god's domains which they may use the special granted power from as a cleric equal to their paladin level. They do not gain access to the domain spells, however. It's not much, but a paladin with the Strength Domain can certainly hand out some punishment on a Smite Evil attack. Obviously, certain domains are less useful (or even completely useless) for a paladin opposed to a cleric, but since it is the player's choice, I trust them to choose the domain that will be most useful for them. War domain is another good choice to get the character started with some extra feats (especially if the favored weapon happens to be exotic).
Well, the paladin is my favorite D & D class to role play. One of my all time favorite characters was a paladin.
I was telling a friend of mine that it is a shame that paladins always come off as pompous, stick-in-the-mud, holier than thou characters whenever you see them written in fantasy short stories or novels and the one that comes to immediate mind is from a Paul Kemp written short story in a Dragon mag a few years back of which I forget the number.
I tend to run my paladins as fair, but strong leaders and currently I am running a female drow paladin in the SCAP campaign who is of NG alignment.
If anything, at least in 2E, the paladin was getting the knock as the strongest and most over powered character in D & D, but with the advent of 3.5E, feats, and all classes having rather neat special abilities the playing field is rather even.
To wrap up, I still love playing paladins as the armored tanks that they are and I suppose it could be interesting someday to play one w/out the heavier armor as more of a Aragorn-type. But that day hasn't come for me yet.