Ive never played a Paladin before, nor have I seen one played by a capable person. What are some of the general thoughts or feelings have about choosing a Paladin as opposed to a fighter. Or is it opposite, and people would rather choose a fighter over a Paladin?
Anyway, thoughts and ideas?
Thanks!
Ive never played a Paladin before, nor have I seen one played by a capable person. What are some of the general thoughts or feelings have about choosing a Paladin as opposed to a fighter. Or is it opposite, and people would rather choose a fighter over a Paladin?
Anyway, thoughts and ideas?
Thanks!
I'd take the Paladin only for the role playing ops. A fighter is a superior class in straight up combat. The more splat books you allow the more superior the fighter is, especially with the PB II as that book opens up some truely awesome feats and feat chains which have prereqs of 14th level and such.
I would personally choose a fighter. While you don't get the spells or the special abilities (a lot of which aren't terribly useful) you get the same Hit Dice, same BAB and a ton of feats. My opinion may not be entirley objective though, as I don't like Paladins.
You could always take 3 levels of Paladin and then switch over to Fighter-- the nice save bonuses and immunities, and four levels later you hit weapon specialization just in time to pick up a prestige class.
I prefer the fighter, but only because I don't like not being able to choose my class features, not because I think one is superior to the other. I've played a paladin once before and he was fun, until that mind flayer came along and made a salad of his brains.
More players would enjoy playing paladins if they weren't restricted to LG, I think.
More players would enjoy playing paladins if they weren't restricted to LG, I think.
That's like saying more people would be vegetarians if they weren't restricted to vegetables. Being LG is an inherent part of the class flavor. That's why paladins in my game are prestige classes instead, as described in Unearthed Arcana; with an additional prerequisite of doing at least one heroic act.
I allow very few prestige classes in my game, and always with some roleplaying reason, and I have to find a reason for the PrC to exist in my world too. "I want to get this nifty power" is definitely important, but you have to give that extra umph to get it.
I like Paladins. Granted, however, the class probably needs a bit of reworking to keep it on par with other classes. I know Saern has a recent thread up about offering the divine feats from Complete Warrior as bonus feats, which I think is a great idea, since it gives a few more alternatives for the use of the Turn Undead feature. The mount feature can be problematic if your campaign focuses on things like dungeons or other interior adventures. If there's a class feature substitution for that aspect, I would look into it, personally.
Fighters and barbarians definitely pack more of a punch, but a Paladin can be a great defensive front line; a high charisma and a lot of armor can give a decent armor class and great saving throws, coupled with Lay on Hands, immunity to disease (every little bit helps) and a small selection of spells which can provide a bit more survivability.
That depends largely on your PoV, I think:
From a game mechanic view: If you aim for maximum damage capabilities, a fighter with all that extra feats is probably the better choice. The paladin has other nice abilities, he can double as a minor healer, can turn undead, can help against fear attacks, is immune to disease, has added saving throw bonuses etc. So, he is more versatile than a pure fighter, but this costs him fighting abilities (as always). The code of conduct is a minor restriction compared to the older rules.
From a roleplaying point of view, the Paladin just screams "HERO" out loud. The fighter is a hero as well, but he is (or can be) more of a professional - soldier, mercenary etc. The knight class from PHB2 is somewhere in between IMO. The paladin is the quintessential holy warrior, who fights for good without any thoughts on rewards, the fighter not necessarily so. Of course, you can interpret each class different from that. It´s just my idea.
Stefan
Being LG is an inherent part of the class flavor.
This is only true if the DM follows RAW.
I like Paladins. Granted, however, the class probably needs a bit of reworking to keep it on par with other classes. I know Saern has a recent thread up about offering the divine feats from Complete Warrior as bonus feats, which I think is a great idea, since it gives a few more alternatives for the use of the Turn Undead feature. The mount feature can be problematic if your campaign focuses on things like dungeons or other interior adventures. If there's a class feature substitution for that aspect, I would look into it, personally.
Fighters and barbarians definitely pack more of a punch, but a Paladin can be a great defensive front line; a high charisma and a lot of armor can give a decent armor class and great saving throws, coupled with Lay on Hands, immunity to disease (every little bit helps) and a small selection of spells which can provide a bit more survivability.
I don't disagree with you at all. In a certain kind of party the Paladin will be very useful. Tanking them with high ACs and depending on the other classes to dish out the punishment is probably the best role a Paladin can play as one does not need a lot of feats to get a really high AC and, if one can get a really good charisma bonus, their saves are phenomenal. But from a pure mechanics point of view their not as good as a straight up fighter. Especially in dealing out damage and special moves as the fighter just gets so many feats. I certainly encourage them at my table and even give them some incentives with the ability to use feats to get better special mounts (so they can ride good dragons at higher levels) but its not the same thing as having a tons of extra feats at the end of the day.
I love the concept of paladins, but think the RAW make them a little lack-luster. General thoughts on the mechanics:
1. As many other people have said, their class features are locked; in a more general perspective, so are a barbarians, but there's something about the paladin that makes designing widely differing ones difficult, for some reason.
2. They tend towards defense. In fact, they're probably the most "defensive" full BAB class in the PHB. Clerics can arguably be better "tanks," but paladins can pull it off more effectively with less effort than a cleric. If you're a defense buff that doesn't mind having offensive abilities like that of a fighter without bonus feats, then the paladin will seem great to you.
3. They can be really powerful by the RAW if they take the mounted combat feat trees and combine that with a smite and power attack. You end up with a character that can deal a massive amount of damage in a single attack a very small number of times per day; beyond that, he's about the best meat shield around.
4. However, that relies on the mount, which is only useful outdoors. Many DMs seem to focus their combats in dungeons, cities, or even forest, etc.; just anywhere that they can draw an interesting battlemap. Unfortunately, this is often directly at odds with the effective use of a mount. Therefore, mounts tend to be underwhelming.
5. Paladins can't heal crap other than themselves. They lack the sheer number of hp output in healing per day to be effective healers, unless you have a whole team of them and/or some heavy backup from bards and rangers. Nevertheless, a single cleric would be able to heal better than that whole team. However, a paladin's healing is still useful, but only when they funnel all of that into themselves to keep going. Then it's awesome. This is another reason that they're great "tanks"; they have the same HD and armor proficiencies as a fighter, but can heal themselves to boot. Throw in Divine Grace and Divine Health and you're looking at one resistant little meat shield!
6. Turn Undead is useless for paladins except as fuel for Divine Feats. Take as many as you can.
Overall, fighters are a statistically superior class compared to a paladin. This greatly annoys me, because I love the paladin's "persona" and image. I also don't believe that roleplaying should come at the cost of mechanical effectiveness, and I don't believe that just because you want a character with cool and powerful abilities that you're some kind of "munchkin" (the word returns!).
If someone could cast a Link spell to my thread, Paladin Revamp, I think the OP might be interested. Or you can just use the search function.
My alteration is pretty simple, and results in a warrior-type character that emphasizes the mysitcal nature of the paladin by using Divine Feats to give themselves some more flash and oomph, balanced with the fighter by the fact that fighters can do what they do all day, where as the paladin has some "big guns" that can be employed a few times a day (althoug, using Divine Feats, that "big gun" could be offensive or defensive, at the player's choice; thus, more freedom in the build).
As far as the image of the paladin goes, I love them and firmly believe they are overly maligned as "sticks in the mud" by people who fail to thoroughly consider the class and/or approach it with a narrow mind. They see a restriction (have to be LG) and run completely overboard with it. This isn't helped by the fact that there are actually quite a few examples of paladins in D&D "literature" (I cringe to use the term), or the likes thereof, that enforce this ill-concieved attitude.
One thing to consider is that if you have a Paladin character the rest of the party is pretty much railroaded in terms of alignment and behavior. If the rest of the party wants to be holy warriors it's fine, but check with your friends and make sure they're okay with having to be righteous.
I don't think having a paladin in the party "railroads" anyone any more than having any other LG character, or at least one that is likely to play according to a certain creed of belief. Does having a druid in the party "railroad" the party into not being able to function as well in wilderness environments because they will have to avoid damaging the flora and fauna?
Since I DM in the Forgotten Realms, that's the example I'm most used to. A paladin of Lathander is going to act differently than a paladin of Helm, who is going to act differently than a paladin of Ilmater, who is going to act differently than a paladin of Torm, who is going to act differently than a paladin of Chauntea, who is going to act differently than a paladin of Mystra . . . you get the idea. The paladin of Lathander and Ilmater are going to overlap a bit more, and the paladin of Torm and Helm would overlap a bit more, but they are all going to have different views of what is the most important task to accomplish and what they are capable of doing.
One thing to consider is that if you have a Paladin character the rest of the party is pretty much railroaded in terms of alignment and behavior. If the rest of the party wants to be holy warriors it's fine, but check with your friends and make sure they're okay with having to be righteous.
I don't know if that's necessarily completely true. Granted, if you want to play evil characters, then a paladin is going to be a major problem. I don't see a reason why a paladin (if role-played as a person with a realistic outlook on life) can't get along with neutral and or chaotic characters at least a good portion of the time. A paladin may hold him or herself to a high ethical standard, but it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing for his/her allies. A poorly played (or intentionally annoying) paladin is full of lectures and bluster. A well-played paladin leads by example; if there are three healing potions and four PCs, he volunteers not to take one, if the group needs to break into the mayor's mansion to look for evidence of his corruption, he looks for concrete evidence that will allow them to lawfully enter or, ultimately, chooses good over law. An alignment conflict between characters can lead to some really good roleplaying, especially if you allow a paladin some leeway in the code.
Also, as far as healing abilities go, I'm pretty sure they're allowed to use cure wands and things like that, which may end up being a life saver if the cleric or druid is down.
One thing to consider is that if you have a Paladin character the rest of the party is pretty much railroaded in terms of alignment and behavior. If the rest of the party wants to be holy warriors it's fine, but check with your friends and make sure they're okay with having to be righteous.
See, I tend to disagree with that. Sure, you're not going to be able to play a CE berserker or murderer with a paladin in the party, but that's a false choice. But, how likely were you to have such a character in the first place?
Reminds me of an add for medication dealing with leg cramps, and they show someone who's taken the medication and is now out blitzing down the slopes on skiis. Nevermind the fact that most people wouldn't consider doing that until someone points out that they couldn't if they decided to because of leg pain, for which there is this pill... sorry, getting sidetracked.
Parties are already expected to be doing good things. No, if you want to play a mercenary campaign, then a paladin isn't right. However, that doesn't mean that you can't have a mercenary and a paladin in the same party. They'll get into arguments, sure, but that's called roleplaying. Same thing with CG characters in a group with a paladin. They're both Good, so while they may argue about style, they're not going to be trying to kill and/or subvert each other.
I'll go ahead and bring up the "It's Me or You" phenomena, too. No one has mentioned it before, but the conversation is slowly drifting in that direction, and I've seen it happen, so here goes.
Too many people jump to the conclusion that paladins can't be reasoned with, and either the paladin or another character has to leave the party.
DON'T DO THIS. That is terrible roleplaying, and it's destroying one person's enjoyment at the game because one or more of the players is too dense and/or egotistical to figure out another solution. That's not fair and it's not fun. Almost invariably, you will get animosity stirred up between players even more than the characters, and it can severly undermine the integrity of your whole group.
Don't do it as a player, and don't allow it as a DM.
This has been brought up several times before in even more depth on other threads, and Rich Burlew has an excellent article about this topic over on giantitp.com
Parties are already expected to be doing good things.
Well, not really. Some parties are holy warriors, some are knightly and virtuous, but others are mercenary or thieving, some can just as easily be corrupt or merely beset by chance, accidental or reluctant heroes.
Having any character with stringent alignment restrictions like those of a Paladin will force the party down certain paths, which is not automatically going to conflict with the desires of the players. It does mean, however, that you're probably not going to be able to buy goods on the black market, for example. Breaking and entering is right out, as is, arguably, espionage. Conversely, if the orphanage needs help, there's a good chance you're taking that job with a paladin on hand. Not a bad thing, but a thing nonetheless.
Characters will always dictate what their environment can be like; a cleric of Lathander going for Hunter of the Dead will not mix with a Dread Necromancer. A full plate tank isn't a great option if the rest of the party is a rogue, a beguiler, and a druid. A druid isn't so appropriate for a city-based campaign, and a rogue in the forest should probably be a scout.
Finally, you have to consider why a holy warrior would be mixed up with the rest of the party-- easily understood if the party is divinely based and shares a religion. However, it's pretty difficult to justify why this servant of a deity is going after piles of gold in an abandoned temple, possibly defiling it in the process, just because he found a map.
Different styles to reach the same objective is fine and dandy, but if the objectives are different-- a group owes it to each other to make sure they're all on the same page. If three people want to be neutral cat burglars and the fourth comes to the table as a lawful cop, someone's stuck playing a game where someone else is dictating the choices.
Having any character with stringent alignment restrictions like those of a Paladin will force the party down certain paths, which is not automatically going to conflict with the desires of the players. It does mean, however, that you're probably not going to be able to buy goods on the black market, for example. Breaking and entering is right out, as is, arguably, espionage. Conversely, if the orphanage needs help, there's a good chance you're taking that job with a paladin on hand. Not a bad thing, but a thing nonetheless.
No it means the PALADIN will not buy things form the black market, or break and enter. The CG rogue however can. Done for the right reasons, a Paladin could easily "overlook smaller offenses" for the greater good. Or simply consider it just deserts under the right circumstances.
Characters will always dictate what their environment can be like; a cleric of Lathander going for Hunter of the Dead will not mix with a Dread Necromancer. A full plate tank isn't a great option if the rest of the party is a rogue, a beguiler, and a druid. A druid isn't so appropriate for a city-based campaign, and a rogue in the forest should probably be a scout.
Why? The measure of a good player is to ba able to move outside of your "realm" and still succeed. As I'm playinng a rogue in the woods now, I never would have considered playing a scout. Ever. Don't like them much at all. Plus rogue fits the character better. He's doing just fine, out there by the way.
Finally, you have to consider why a holy warrior would be mixed up with the rest of the party-- easily understood if the party is divinely based and shares a religion. However, it's pretty difficult to justify why this servant of a deity is going after piles of gold in an abandoned temple, possibly defiling it in the process, just because he found a map.
Different styles to reach the same objective is fine and dandy, but if the objectives are different-- a group owes it to each other to make sure they're all on the same page. If three people want to be neutral cat burglars and the fourth comes to the table as a lawful cop, someone's stuck playing a game where someone else is dictating the choices.
This is why it's a roleplaying game. The main reason people dislike paladins is that they view them in a very narrow box. Ok, a party with a paladin is imited to no evil characters. Would any good players in that group want to hang around with a guy they didn't feel they could trust or like?
The party should, at least partly be built to work together. Or the characters should have some links to bind them together. Character hooks into their backgrounds is a great way to do this. I have told players that certain alignments and characters were not acceptable in the party. I turned down someone who wanted to play a Psychotic Neutral Hex Blade in a good party. He just would not fit (player or character, but that's another thread).
I agree, sometimes one character can make or break a party, but if it does, that's the DM's fault, or the players for not saying so before hand. Thankfully, I have my players trained well. They tell me what they like, dislike and why. I've learned that good communication is key to a great party (DM and all).
No it means the PALADIN will not buy things form the black market, or break and enter. The CG rogue however can. Done for the right reasons, a Paladin could easily "overlook smaller offenses" for the greater good. Or simply consider it just deserts under the right circumstances.
On what, exactly, are you basing your concept of a paladin? I am looking to Sirs Bors, Percival, and Galahad from the various depictions of the Arthurian Legend. I assure you that those figures would certainly *not* adventure with someone who would buy stolen or illegal goods, nor would they make some paltry excuse to rationalize what they considered sinful behavior.
There is a huge difference between merely being lawful and good and being a holy warrior infused by the power of faith to smite evil and uphold morality. A paladin need not be heavy handed-- indeed, should be humble about his mission-- but make no mistake that the literary inspirations for the class would suffer no stain on their honor or souls.
No it means the PALADIN will not buy things form the black market, or break and enter. The CG rogue however can. Done for the right reasons, a Paladin could easily "overlook smaller offenses" for the greater good. Or simply consider it just deserts under the right circumstances.On what, exactly, are you basing your concept of a paladin? I am looking to Sirs Bors, Percival, and Galahad from the various depictions of the Arthurian Legend. I assure you that those figures would certainly *not* adventure with someone who would buy stolen or illegal goods, nor would they make some paltry excuse to rationalize what they considered sinful behavior.
There is a huge difference between merely being lawful and good and being a holy warrior infused by the power of faith to smite evil and uphold morality. A paladin need not be heavy handed-- indeed, should be humble about his mission-- but make no mistake that the literary inspirations for the class would suffer no stain on their honor or souls.
There is exactly as much difference as the DM and the players decide there is.
It seems to me your kind of arguing both sides of the fence. Your posts indicate that the problem with a Paladin is that they rail road the party far too much. When other DMs have noted that this is not really a requirment you then seem to argue that it is soley based on a historical interpretation of some myths.
I mean if you want your Paladins to be Arthurian Knights - fine, its your game and you can do with it as you please. However, with the exception of a 'all holy warrior' type campaign it is not a very good solution. Better to have pragmatic Paladins for most campaigns and to insure that players that want to play Paladins understand this.
One of the greatest weakness of the Paladin class is the one that Saern has eluded to. It can become a total spotlight hog class and it very much attracts players that want to hog the spotlight. With a 'stick in the arse' Paladin the player running the Paladin is always the centre of the groups universe. Everything the party does must be vetted by the Paladin to see if its allowed, if players want to do anything the Paladin does not allow then they have to try and hide it from the Paladin - which is just a less obvious way of making the Paladin the centre of attention. At the end of the day this is just bad campaign design. No one player should always be the focus of whatever is going on. Its unfair to the rest of the players and soon leads to resentment. Unless everyone at the table wants to play one 'stick in the arse' Paladins should simply not be allowed at the table.
If someone could cast a Link spell to my thread, Paladin Revamp, I think the OP might be interested. Or you can just use the search function.
Done: Paladin Revamp?
Now, as far as the question of the benefits of the Paladin...
It really depends on the rest of the party. If there isn't a primary healer yet, the Paladin can be a big help. If you have a group of Clerics, the Paladin won't be much help.
On the other hand, if there is a group of Clerics, a Paladin might fit into the group better than the Fighter.
And while I don't agree that the Paladin automatically "railroads" other characters, they due have a tendency to shape their actions - sometimes in ways the group wouldn't otherwise go.
This isn't exactly a bad thing... But it does bear some consideration.
You might want to check with the rest of the group, and get their opinions.
No one seems to be mentioning LG clerics as being such railroaders, but surely a LG cleric would be even more devout and rigid than a paladin. Yet no one brings them up. Why?
I think people see that "Code of Conduct" and the alignment restriction and freak out. Clerics don't have an alignment restriction listed (as clearly) because they can serve any god. Nevermind that once that choice is made it's typically permanent and the cleric should be then quite bound to uphold the tenents of their faith, whatever they might be.
I think it was said above, but druids have alignment restrictions too, yet no one seems to complain about druids railroading the party. It's always paladins. I guess it's because druids have five possible alignments while paladins only have one?
Oh, and thanks for the link! :)
No it means the PALADIN will not buy things form the black market, or break and enter. The CG rogue however can. Done for the right reasons, a Paladin could easily "overlook smaller offenses" for the greater good. Or simply consider it just deserts under the right circumstances.
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.
I know a lot of people tend to ignore or downplay this part of the paladin's code, but I think it's quite important.
But I think it is more frequently overplayed, to the point of the Pally being the yardstick for every decision made by aparty member. Then the role playing aspect of having a pally around becomes more important to the other players, which may or may not be what they want. If I am a bard, I don't want to hear a sermon, to the point of not being helpful when trouble arises, over my night life when we are in town. I think the key to a pally is to play the good bit a fair bit more than the lawful bit. If the pally genuinely cares about the bard, and just sees him as misguided, he will go out of his way to protect the "weaker" character to try and set an example. I think its the attitude of servanthood as relates to a pally that is most often overlooked. They are servants of thier church, god, and even of the rest of the party, if it means thier mission is fulfilled and thier diety is pleased. IMO, any way :)
I found the fluff descriptions of the Dragonborn of Bahamut to be very helpful in getting into the Paladin mindset, since they are almost all Pallys mentally, even if their class is different.
They raid abandoned ruins and lost temples for gold to increase the power they can bring to bear against evil. They go on quests that have no real "good" to them (as long as there is no evil) because it challenges them and allows them to grow in skill and power.
I can't really do it justice by summing it up. Suffice to say it helped me play a paladin better, even when he's not a Dragonborn.
No one seems to be mentioning LG clerics as being such railroaders, but surely a LG cleric would be even more devout and rigid than a paladin. Yet no one brings them up. Why?
Oh, that is an easy one. Players find it easier to put up with a more devout character that is a primary healer. There isn't any other real choice. The Paladin could be replaced by a Fighter that is less devout. Not true for the Cleric.
I think it was said above, but druids have alignment restrictions too, yet no one seems to complain about druids railroading the party. It's always paladins. I guess it's because druids have five possible alignments while paladins only have one?
That too is easy. Druids are neutral, and focus on balance. Players can "let loose" from time to time without upsetting the Druids sensibilities.
Oh, and thanks for the link! :)
You are welcome.
|
No one seems to be mentioning LG clerics as being such railroaders, but surely a LG cleric would be even more devout and rigid than a paladin. Yet no one brings them up. Why?
I think the biggest difference is that Clerics are required to be devout, but Paladins are required to be intolerant. (By the rules as usually interpreted in campaigns I've been in. YMMV, of course.) If you play a Cleric who requires that you follow his precepts before he'll heal you, you'll alienate your fellow players about as quickly as if you play the usual sort of Paladin.
Personality conflict is common enough with most players, but you can often bend your characters such that they can work together. Paladins don't bend, so the result is that the other characters have to do all the accommodating. While one-sided accommodation might work better in an RPG than in a relationship, it's not exactly a recipe for resounding success in either case.
Is it really pally's that can't bend? The code is pretty open if you follow RAW. I think its just players lack of understanding of how to play LG, especially if its small "L" lG.
|
|
"... nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."
That's intolerant. I don't intend that necessarily as a negative comment; sometimes toleration is inappropriate. It does, however, mean that every other player needs to take that code into account both when building new characters and when playing existing characters. Clerics need not be played with the same constraints (though it's certainly possible to play a Cleric with the same sort of rigid code).
|
|
I think it’s quite possible for a Paladin (and let’s assume the rules are followed, and he’s LG) to adventure with a party of mixed alignment. There are all sorts of creative hooks for how the paladin got caught up with such people, and even more juicy reasons he might stay with the party. Of course, the dichotomy itself would add spice: Sturm Brightblade, a paladin by nature if not in truth, paired with Raistlin Majere.
Personally, I firmly believe that a lot of the bumpiness of a paladin can be solved with good, well-thought roleplaying. True, a Paladin forces the ideals of No Evil Characters(tm), but a similar contrast should realistically arise with any Good aligned character. Even a Chaotic Good character, who laughs in the face of the law, is still good at heart, and would take offense to some psychotic CE who spent all his time raping, pillaging, and generally doing Very Bad Things to the very people the CG character broke laws in order to protect. Sure, a CG may be more willing to overlook things "for the greater good" than a Paladin, but his interest is still on the side of Good.
I agree with the statement that Paladins are sometimes required to be intolerant, but this again is determined by the character.
Some paladins may be holy fanatics, much like the knights who took part in the Crusades, who slaughtered and died in droves becase they felt they were destroying sinners and evil according to the tenets of their God.
A character like this would certainly take a "My way or the highway" stance, but this is just one aspect of the possbilities.
I think the most important thing to note about this particular aspect of a paladin is that paladins exist to destroy evil. And as far as D&D goes, I consider "Evil" to be the foul things that lurk in the dark waiting to suck your brains out through your backside.
I do not think that Evil needs to be a Gray area, even for a paladin. Take for example, a Farmer who steals food for his family: By the logic that a Paladin looks at the word as "justice is all or nothing" that most people seem to take, then by rights the Farmer is an Evildoer and should be Smote, and dragged screaming to the King's Justice by his hair.
I personally think only a Zealot would have this much fervor towards Evil. A paladin, I think, in this case would be willing to forgive the man his crime. Certainly, the paladin would not forgive the theft, as a law has been broken and he is duty-bound to see it right. But he could forgive the farmer, because the farmer is not an evil man, simply a desperate one. Justice being done does not mean he need burn down the man's farmhouse, or cut his head off as punishment. The paladin is a warrior of good, and his duty is to help all people. As such, he may still care for, and try to save, even the very farmer who committed the crime. Instead of dragging the man to the local guardhouse to be thrown in the dungeon as a thief, the paladin could just as well try to examine the reasons that forced the Farmer to steal in the first place. And if it was justifiable, such as the farmer's children would have starved to death, he could attempt counsel the man to see the light; to try and find a better solution to his problems than stealing, and make the farmer pay back the cost of the loaf in the process. A paladin who truely cared about the good of people might even pay for the loaf himself if the man could not afford it, providing the farmer swore never to resort to thievery again.
As with the example of the black market, I don't think the paladin would simply cut off all contact with his party either (though again, this depends on the personality of the paladin). Perhaps he would attempt to persuade his fellow party members that it is better to buy legitimate goods, in a legitimate way. Perhaps he would try to make them understand-- not as a lecturer on the nature of Justice-- but rather that buying stolen goods could have serious repercussions on innocent people. "Maybe that stolen sword of yours is taking food out of the blacksmith's pocket, and he in turn has to resort to stealing to feed his family. Do you see how that causes a chain reaction of injustice and harm? Shall we go back and pay for it?"
Obviously if such bad behavior continues, the group is beyond salvation. But I think a paladin would at least make an ATTEMPT to counsel his fellows back to Goodness before excommunicating them entirely.
I honestly believe that the true paladin fervor would be retained for REAL evil, such as cruel tyrants, corrupt lords, murderers and demons.
Anything less significant, and I feel the paladin would try to redeem first, kick butt later.
Anything less significant, and I feel the paladin would try to redeem first, kick butt later.
I think this is spot on. A paladin has a high WIS for reasons other than spell casting. :)
"... nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."
Note that they have to be consistent about it.
OK the Paladin can't hang with bloodthirsty bandits - or any bandits at all outside of the Robin Hood kind. However so long as the party is not constantly lying, cheating and such like there should not be a huge problem. As long as the rest of the party is working for Good the occasional use of this sort of behaviour does not qualify as consistently. Once is not 'consistently', even twice fails to qualify. At around three times we get into the realm of consistently depending on when the last time such behaviour took place.
A Paladin could surely work with Robin Hood's band of merry men - maybe not exactly a good fit but not an impossible situation if the ultimate goal is to bring down a tyrant and return the legitimate king to power.
Random thought: The DM can insure the Pally will never have to deal with the moral turmoils of dealing with the black market through the judicious use of the Pallys church. Ie- "Mr. Pally, we need you to take out this dragon." "I have no gear to take on such a challenge, nor do my companions" "Well, since you tithe so generously, and are reknownwed for your acts of charity and piety, we will allow you the use of the holy relics of St. Whats-his-name, and your companions may request aught of us that may be efficacious on your journey. If you could help out with the raw materials, our brothers and sisters will see you equiped like few have been before!1"
True story: When my mom divorced, we moved 3000 miles from San Diego, CA, to New Jersey. Along the way, we needed a place to stay, but couldn;t afford a hotel for the night for myself, mom, and 2 sisters. So we found a small country church, and asked. One of the ladies put us up, fed us, and even packed us lunch to see us off the next day. And asked nothing in return. That my friends was a paladin in the form of a little old church lady.