I do not DM but I am very curious about what DM's see when a player is playing a paladin. How do paladins affect your games? What is it that you worry about from paladins? Do you usually see them hindering your groups with there code and alignment more than they help them with there abilities and spells? Just really curious what the DM's take on the paladin is.
I so want to say the right things to get the paladin the love he deserves but I dont know if I am going about it the right way. I want to look at it from a different angle now.
The biggest concern I've had with paladins is the players of the other characters. I've had more than a couple groups where someone decides to be immature and go from Chaotic A$$hat to the Evil Bastard.
If this wouldn't create intra-conflict already (usually this is a case of a glory-hound not getting all the attention), then it pretty much has to if a paladin is in the group.
Naturally violence is the answer to this case, but what about when the other players would prefer a game with more moral ambiguity, intrigue and subterfuge than a paladin would be comfortable with? In these instances, it's really an issue that needs to be tackled while the players are all still creating their characters. In otherwords, some party-composition oversight from the DM — if only to get the players to express their goals with one another — is a must if you want to mitigate potential disaster.
So from what you have seen...the bonus that paladins bring to groups in there current form is out weighed by the hindrance they place on it?
I dont see an issue. Many misplay LG as lawful stupid or lawful stick up the ass. The paladins code is all up to the order. Paladins can and do come into conflict with other paladin order.
What each player and DM should do is come up with whats allowed and accepted within there order.
I have had a cursing, hard drinking take no BS LG paladin in games just as I have had the Lawful stick in the ass. Both are right and both can be fun. Other players should not try and kill the paladins players fun just because there playing "the unfun class"
I have been in a group that the party slip because the paladin player"me" could not stay as the other player murdered someone..and they did. Most games
I have run paladins have become a welcome part of the group they are really no worse then a cleric as the clerics god will not allow them to do somethings yet most groups never complain on that.
But you are still saying that there is controversy there when a paladin is in the group.
Is this inherent with any other class? I mean as part of the RAW...I dont think it is.
|
But you are still saying that there is controversy there when a paladin is in the group.
Is this inherent with any other class? I mean as part of the RAW...I dont think it is.
It comes down to how you and your group play alignment. If alignment is important for the paladin then it also must be important for the monk (lawful always) and the cleric (always acting in accord with his god's dogma if not alignment) at least. The paladin is no more bound than those characters by their beliefs. Monks that kill rather than take prisoners in a land where the law requires a trial are violating their code just as much as the paladin that does the same. Clerics that fail to carry out their deity's dogma (clerics of war gods that flee from fights, clerics of merciful gods that kill rather than subdue prisoners) are also just as in error as a paladin that fails to uphold his code. Somehow players of these other characters mistakenly think they are immune to codes of conduct, especially if they have a "neutral" somewhere in their alignment.
Paladins are not especially "special" in this regard. They have standards to live by. So do clerics and so do monks (and any other character that has a mandatory alignment component, even if that mandatory alignment is CE). What happens many times in practice is that many groups would love to have there be no standards (so they can be mercenary killers out for self serving power and profit) and this clashes with a paladin's standards. Thus paladins are only a "problem class" when the real desire of the party is to play a bunch of true neutral (as in not caring for law, chaos good or evil) mercenaries regardless of the alignment written on their character sheets and the player with the paladin comes along to "spoil all their fun".
The players and DM need to decide at the outset if the game is going to be about a bunch of heartless mercenaries or a collection of selfless heroes or, best yet, a reasonable blend of the two. Depending on the context of the game, the paladin class may not be proper for the group in the same way that clerics of mercy, passificts or law-abiding monks are not right for the group. To look at it from the other side, the barbarian would be just a poor a match (in most cases) for a game about subtle court intrigue where civility and the rule of law is paramount.
Lich-loved has it right. The paladin is not the issue, but player types and how they want to act is.
Oh and vult I have had the same issues with clerics and monks, many times. If your playing a LG cleric and dont have them issues I think you need to reread your god prob.
It comes down to how you and your group play alignment. If alignment is important for the paladin then it also must be important for the monk (lawful always) and the cleric (always acting in accord with his god's dogma if not alignment) at least. The paladin is no more bound than those characters by their beliefs. Monks that kill rather than take prisoners in a land where the law requires a trial are violating their code just as much as the paladin that does the same. Clerics that fail to carry out their deity's dogma (clerics of war gods that flee from fights, clerics of merciful gods that kill rather than subdue prisoners) are also just as in error as a paladin that fails to uphold his code. Somehow players of these other characters mistakenly think they are immune to codes of conduct, especially if they have a "neutral" somewhere in their alignment.
Paladins are not especially "special" in this regard. They have standards to live by. So do clerics and so do monks (and any other character that has a mandatory alignment component, even if that mandatory alignment is CE). What happens many times in practice is that many groups would love to have there be no standards (so they can be mercenary killers out for self serving power and profit) and this clashes with a paladin's standards. Thus paladins are only a "problem class" when the real desire of the party is to play a bunch of true neutral (as in not caring for law, chaos good or evil) mercenaries regardless of the alignment written on their character sheets and the player with the paladin comes along to "spoil all their fun".
Bold mine
Really, Lich Loved has summed it up perfectly. Paladins are one of the most popular classes in my group and the problems come from immaturity and/or the desire to play a different type of game. As long as everyone is on the same page and plays the game sensibly, i.e. it is not Elder Scrolls with god-mode on, there is no more a problem with Paladins and LG than there is with any other class or alignment (combo).
Peace,
tfad
|
Some, but by no means all, paladin players like to cause strife within the group, justifying it by "playing [my] character." They play their characters ultra-lawfully, to the point of absurdity.
I often find it is the same type of player who usually plays a rogue that steals from other party members - he/she is playing a paladin in order to "try something different."
The only thing different is the means of annoying everyone else.
personally, i never have seen any real problems with paladins in game.
For me, moral choices are a big part of playing heros and paladins are perfect for this (not talking about paladin-traps here).
a lot of problems at the table i witnessed have been brought by CN characters (played by immature players of all ages up to 40) if the same players played paladins they didn't cause nearly as much trouble.
|
Our group has never had a problem with paladins at the table, but mostly because they usually play their characters' alignments pretty loose. I mean, there's lg and then there's LG. basically, we always saw paladins as being the warriors of a church or cause or ideal. as long as the paladin follows the laws, protects the people and routes out evil, he's lg. he won't hand in his cn friend for scamming people, but he will make amends to the people, stop him whenever possible and give a lecture to his friend. and lg doesn't mean he can't be fun. the occasional practical joke is fine. I think a lot of the problem is that people (some people, not all) try to fit their character too extremely into one of the alignments, instead of using the alignment as a loose set of guidelines for how to handle situations. I see the same problem too often in real life when it comes to religions as well, but that's a differant conversation for another time.
edit: we also play with a house rule where the paladin has to be either L or G. it works well and the player usually picks lg anyway.
Thank you all for your posts, this makes a lot of sense to me. I guess my group is just a little different. For example my DM really likes to push this issue...I will give you the short version of what happened.
We spent weeks (in game and out) hunting down this evil cleric. He tried to burn us all down in a building and continually harassed us each time we met him. The first time he actually defeated us but thought it more demoralizing to take our holy symbols (mine and the clerics) and let us live. When we finally had him, the monk had him grappled and I was going in for the kill he broke free of the monk's grasp and surrenders to us. I wanted to kill him with the justification that he has tried to murder us all before and we know if he escapes he will do it again. My DM would have stripped me of my paladin powers if I had done that, so I was actually forced to defend this evil bastard against my own party who wanted to kill him.
I know this is an extreme case but these are the sort of issues I am talking about. I agree alignment means something for all classes, but it is a bigger issue for the paladin than any of those when combined with his code of conduct. All of the other classes bound by some alignment have some bit of ambiguity or flexibility in their actions, the paladin has MUCH less.
Thank you all for your posts, this makes a lot of sense to me. I guess my group is just a little different. For example my DM really likes to push this issue...I will give you the short version of what happened.
We spent weeks (in game and out) hunting down this evil cleric. He tried to burn us all down in a building and continually harassed us each time we met him. The first time he actually defeated us but thought it more demoralizing to take our holy symbols (mine and the clerics) and let us live. When we finally had him, the monk had him grappled and I was going in for the kill he broke free of the monk's grasp and surrenders to us. I wanted to kill him with the justification that he has tried to murder us all before and we know if he escapes he will do it again. My DM would have stripped me of my paladin powers if I had done that, so I was actually forced to defend this evil bastard against my own party who wanted to kill him.
seems you and the DM have two different ideals of what a paladin does. if there was no law around and you was not near a town that could provide a fair justice then you was within your right to kill him if your god would have allowed it.
Alignment is not a strait jacket.
A LG stable boy can occasionally steal a coin from a saddle bag without losing his alignment.
A LG person can run from danger. They can be cowards. They can make bad decisions without necessarily losing their alignment.
The Paladin can not. Not only that- but the Paladin can NOT let the party do those things either.
That is my problem with the Paladin. The Paladin not only has his alignment to deal with but also his Code he must abide by and inflict upon others. If the Group doesn't agree to abide by the Paladin code then the paladin either loses his powers or has to abandon the group. In effect- having a Paladin in the group forces everyone into obeying the Paladin code.
Note the following restrictions that are NOT based on alignment:
The paladin must
1) respect legit authority.
2) Act with Honor (no lying, cheating, poisoning)
3) help those in need (provided not evil or chaotic)
4) Punish those who threaten the innocent.
Associates:
".. nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."
My problem with the Paladin isn't the class itself or its powers, its that the group is suddenly forced to obey the Paladin code in order to affect group cohesion. No other class has such a big problem in this regard.
As for Lawful. (long rant, hopefully in spoiler)
Lawful vs Chaotic has -nothing- to do with whether or not you are Law abiding. Obeying the Law is a requirement of the Paladin (i.e. respect legit authority), and is generally associated with Good vs Evil (good folk will obey laws that aren't overly oppressive, evil will largely ignore the law in favor of whatever they want to do).
Law vs Chaos is a matter of how you see the world. Some folk are extremely disciplined. Monks, for example, tend to lead relatively regimented lives and they tend to do so by various codes or creeds. It may be a code or creed they created themselves, but they still tend to follow it.
the Church of Bane in FR is an example of this. Military regimes are also Lawful. (whether or not they are evil (like Bane) or Good).
Devils are another example of the Lawful Evil alignment and are depicted numerous times in various books as being a demon who will hold to the very letter of its agreements- if not the spirit. (can't think of the angelic type for CG.. Ghaele? I forget.) Chaos isn't so much an issue with law itself, but with structure. They don't care so much for social structure, but will let their good/n/evil axis determine the extent to which they may follow the law.
Chaos is the opposite of this. They are the "free spirits". Folk who "go their own way".. Their minds are not regimented and they tend to do things as they see fit todo them, rather than to follow any particular scheme or model. Demons are the archtypical "Chaotic evil" example that come up repeatedly, as are Red Dragons.
So what's the point?
If a Lawful Evil Monk murders someone in a country that forbids it, he's in no more risk of losing his alignment that is the Paladin who tries to stop him. Monks of Shar (FR deity) are evil, and do not lose their alignments despite being extremely evil in their outlook. They remain both evil, Lawful, and Monks. They follow their code- that code just has nothing to do with the law in any given land.
The overall point being-
My problem with the Paladin is that in coming to the group, he forces the group to become a Paladin in outlook and lifestyle. That outlook is decidedly more stringent than being simply Lawful Good, otherwise there would be no point in having a "special code" if it was just "be lawful good".
-S
edit: hey neat, the spoiler worked :)
|
|
...We spent weeks (in game and out) hunting down this evil cleric. He tried to burn us all down in a building and continually harassed us each time we met him. The first time he actually defeated us but thought it more demoralizing to take our holy symbols (mine and the clerics) and let us live. When we finally had him, the monk had him grappled and I was going in for the kill he broke free of the monk's grasp and surrenders to us. I wanted to kill him with the justification that he has tried to murder us all before and we know if he escapes he will do it again. My DM would have stripped me of my paladin powers if I had done that, so I was actually forced to defend this evil bastard against my own party who wanted to kill him.
...
Ya, see, at our table, while the Paladin wouldn't have been allowed to kill him directly after he gave up, he would've been able to either sense motive to determine if the BBEG was lying just to stay alive and if he intended to do more harm, in which case it's a-ok, or else he could've been perfectly within his rights to take one on a sense motive versus the other player's bluff that ti's ok if he takes a walk around town, the other players will escort him to jail. yes this has come up before, and very rarely do real villains get away from punishment by appealing to the paladin. it also helps that the paladin was played by a law student. he could make a case for anything. (which he shoudn't have to, I know.)
|
|
Alignment is not a strait jacket.
A LG stable boy can occasionally steal a coin from a saddle bag without losing his alignment.
A LG person can run from danger. They can be cowards. They can make bad decisions without necessarily losing their alignment.
The Paladin can not. Not only that- but the Paladin can NOT let the party do those things either.
That is my problem with the Paladin. The Paladin not only has his alignment to deal with but also his Code he must abide by and inflict upon others. If the Group doesn't agree to abide by the Paladin code then the paladin either loses his powers or has to abandon the group. In effect- having a Paladin in the group forces everyone into obeying the Paladin code.
Note the following restrictions that are NOT based on alignment:
The paladin must
1) respect legit authority.
2) Act with Honor (no lying, cheating, poisoning)
3) help those in need (provided not evil or chaotic)
4) Punish those who threaten the innocent.Associates:
".. nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."My problem with the Paladin isn't the class itself or its powers, its that the group is suddenly forced to obey the Paladin code in order to affect group cohesion. No other class has such a big problem in this regard.
I don't fully agree with this. Here is a passage (emphasis mine) on paladin's becoming ex-paladins:
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
So, would stealing a coin cause the paladin to not be lawful good (no, by your own admission above), especially if the coin was needed to accomplish a greater good (though the paladin might be treading on dangerous ground here). Where does it say the paladin can't "...be cowards" or the paladin can't "... make bad decisions"? These are not restrictions placed on the paladin in the RAW. Nowhere does it say paladin's have to immediately punish those that threaten the innocent, and it does not say that the paladin must help those in need to the extent that he perishes in the attempt (thus retreating in the face of overwhelming power even if it costs innocent lives is not a failure to obey his code). A paladin that fails to swear vengeance upon those that carry out such acts or that retreats without remorse for those that fall is a paladin on his way down, but being a paladin does not entail being stupid or careless with your life (and even may jeopardize your paladinhood if such recklessness gets good people killed in the process).
The only real complaint others may bring against a paladin is that he will not regularly deal with liars, cheaters, poisoners or other dishonorable people. This comes down to the type of game the DM and the group wants to run and back to my point abut mercenary approaches versus altruistic approaches to problem resolution. If the other players and the DM want to play a game where they swindle, lie, cheat and murder as a means to an end, then yes, the paladin is a poor choice for such a game. So is a cleric of a god of mercy, a cleric of a god of battle (who may well see such despicable tactics as unworthy of the warrior spirit), non-evil monks (and even evil monks, depending on code, may find these practices unacceptable), and any other basically good-aligned character.
Too may times people try to press paladins into something they are not. They do not have to be shining paragons of virtue with spotless armor and the rigid morality of a bible-belt evangelist. They can be flawed, normal people trying to better the world by quelling chaos and rooting out evil. They can make bad choices, find themselves in situations where all ends are undesirable and the like. What makes them paladins is that when given the possibility of choosing the higher of the two paths, they do their best to take that chance, even if it is the harder.
As a case in point, I once played a paladin that was in love with a member of the group. The woman, a renowned ranger, died in a battle when the paladin was not there to help her. Wracked with guilt, he had a crisis of faith, feeling as if the ideals he held so dear were snubbed by his god (a god of protection) simply because he was not present to carry them out. In effect, he blamed his god for letting him down when he was otherwise engaged. He turned to drink, got in bar brawls, threw himself recklessly into battle and in short didn't act very paladin-like. His god remained by him, never abandoned him (eg no loss of paladin abilities) and even aided him in subtle ways as he worked through his grief. Eventually the paladin passed through this time and sought atonement for his behavior, returning with a new passion for his ideals and a burning desire to see his love's killers brought low, preferably at sword point. He did not take the easy road of becoming a bloodthirsty killer out for revenge at any cost. That would have severed his relationship with his deity and been a deep (read as gross) violation of his code. It might have made him feel better, but he would not be a better man in the end. To me, that is a paladin.
ah lich-loved finally someone who knows how to play a pally. and yeah the code of conduct is up to you and your DM.
Lets look at the realms paladins since i know them
tyr pertty much the classic you have to do right, dot your t's kinda pally
sune....this pally would not be anything like the other, he would prob bed multiple ladys, drink, party gamble and over all have a good ol time.
Kelemor..more sumber, much more in touch with death less likely to pull a dieing man back from death with spells , more inclined to hunt undead without mercy
that's 3 and there codes would look nothing alike
Most of the time, I see a guy doing his level best to piss everyone off.
As a DM I like Paladins both as NPCs and when PCs play them. Paladins provide a lot of roleplaying opportunities and are a nice archetypical true hero class. I am not very strict with the Paladin code, figuring that players who chose to play a Paladin want to play an true hero and don't require additional prodding from me to do so. That said, if they truly egregiously violate their ethos, then I do take action.
I don't find Paladins to be problematic as a DM. In fact, I think some chaotic character concepts (often associated with rogues or bards) can be much more damaging to the game and party dynamics than the noble Paladin.
We spent weeks (in game and out) hunting down this evil cleric. He tried to burn us all down in a building and continually harassed us each time we met him. The first time he actually defeated us but thought it more demoralizing to take our holy symbols (mine and the clerics) and let us live. When we finally had him, the monk had him grappled and I was going in for the kill he broke free of the monk's grasp and surrenders to us. I wanted to kill him with the justification that he has tried to murder us all before and we know if he escapes he will do it again. My DM would have stripped me of my paladin powers if I had done that, so I was actually forced to defend this evil bastard against my own party who wanted to kill him.
I don't have these kind of problems when I DM because I have an incredibly easy and simple solution: I don't enforce class alignment restrictions or codes of conduct! If a player wants to play a strictly honorable paladin, fine. But if they want to play a paladin who's willing to ignore the occasional plea for mercy, that's fine too. I don't know why so many DMs are obsessed with the Galahad image of paladinhood, but I don't see the point of punishing my players for role playing a mortal hero, rather than an emotional robot.
Sorry to hear that your DM sucks at DMing paladin players. If his restrictions are really getting on your nerves, I suggest making a new character and making a point of telling him why you're doing it.
TS
It is interesting that you used the word "guy" and not the word "character". Perhaps this is a situation with the player, hmmm? It is possible to make any party's life miserable; you don't even need to be a paladin to do it.
Not perhaps. In most cases it is most definetly a player problem, not a character problem. Or, rather, a character problem because the player chose to play the character that way.
It's possible to really annoy people - both players and characters. No, you don't need a paladin for it, but people like to use it as an excuse.
It's not really the game's problem (though there are some parts about the expected behaviour that could use fixing) - the problem is that it's illegal to physically punish players.
|
|
in my campaigns... it has depended on the player
either they have been the link for thewhole group and limiting their exceses while guiding them... or a pain in the ass... or theavnegers who would go where theothers wont (because they don't want)
so... it depends onthe player, not the class
i played once a paladin, very in the mood of Aragorn as the fellowship found him first... moody, silent and calculating... still he moves to protect people, he is just discret... in theland of thedead... you already carry a pinpint saying you area paladin, you don't need to scream it (i was playing in Ravenloft)
|
It comes down to how you and your group play alignment. If alignment is important for the paladin then it also must be important for the monk (lawful always) and the cleric (always acting in accord with his god's dogma if not alignment) at least. The paladin is no more bound than those characters by their beliefs. Monks that kill rather than take prisoners in a land where the law requires a trial are violating their code just as much as the paladin that does the same. Clerics that fail to carry out their deity's dogma (clerics of war gods that flee from fights, clerics of merciful gods that kill rather than subdue prisoners) are also just as in error as a paladin that fails to uphold his code. Somehow players of these other characters mistakenly think they are immune to codes of conduct, especially if they have a "neutral" somewhere in their alignment.
Paladins are not especially "special" in this regard. They have standards to live by. So do clerics and so do monks (and any other character that has a mandatory alignment component, even if that mandatory alignment is CE). What happens many times in practice is that many groups would love to have there be no standards (so they can be mercenary killers out for self serving power and profit) and this clashes with a paladin's standards. Thus paladins are only a "problem class" when the real desire of the party is to play a bunch of true neutral (as in not caring for law, chaos good or evil) mercenaries regardless of the alignment written on their character sheets and the player with the paladin comes along to "spoil all their fun".
Bold mine
Really, Lich Loved has summed it up perfectly. Paladins are one of the most popular classes in my group and the problems come from immaturity and/or the desire to play a different type of game. As long as everyone is on the same page and plays the game sensibly, i.e. it is not Elder Scrolls with god-mode on, there is no more a problem with Paladins and LG than...
I totally agree with this point. In my last campaign (RotRL, to be precise), I challenged one of my players to play a paladin (he actually played a paladin/monk/argent fist) and the version he came up with was kind of a hard-nosed one, but he didn't try to ram his views or beliefs down the group's throats. Very action oriented, he preferred deeds to words. And proved to be a breath of fresh air to most members of the group (some of whom had either never seen a paladin in action before or have had bad experiences in the past with Lawful Stupid paladins). I actually had someone want to try their hand at playing one in the very near future. Made my day as a GM.
I've seen groups of mercenary-bent PCs clash with the lone paladin in the party trying to do the right thing in spite of the other players and I've seen the other side where the PCs are heroic and the paladin was being a real oppressive stick in the mud. Drives me crazy either way.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: paladins are supposed to inspire those around them, not oppress them. Superman and DC's Captain Marvel (Shazam!) are two sides of the same coin (as they are perceived as boy scouts or paladins), but their approaches to fighting the good fight are different as night and day. Sure, it has a lot to do with Billy being a kid (read: slightly naive) and Clark being portrayed more as a jaded adult, but that only serves to illustrate the point. There are different ways to play the role of paladin (as in something other than oppressive sticks in the mud or stupid Dudley Do-Rights). But that's another rant entirely.
I've been blessed with a good group of players over the years. I like challenging them. They like being challenged and are more than ready to stand and deliver as the situation demands. For the most part they are a mature group equally adept at being cutthroat bastards as they are at being heroic. Having seen and even been a part of groups not like this makes appreciate what I have as GM all the more.
|
|
UPDATE ALERT: A REVISED VERSION OF THE BETA PALADIN HAS BEEN POSTED BY JASON ON THIS THREAD.
Check it out, and save yourselves debating changes that have already occurred!
I had a discussion about Paladin code and acting these days.
And I was wondering what would you say a Paladin should do (to not lose his paladin powers) in a situation like this one:
He/she is imprisoned by an evil person that give him some options:
a) say where is a location of a person he wants to kill (paladin knows this) or
b) lie (or say nothing) about the location and the evil guy kills a innocent person right now before his eyes (or later when the lie is discovered)
c) what if there is no innocent to kill and if the paladin lies that act can save the person evil guy wants.
d) something else?
I always had a view that a paladin cannot sacrifice even one person to save 1000 unless that life is his own.
I have a paladin I enjoy playing with people that don't understand what a paladin can and can't do.
He's a drunkard and enjoy frequently legal bordellos (no worries about diseases). Up most the night drinking and enjoying life, if he sees a fight in progress in a bar or someone about to be mugged he puts a stop to it if possible. However in the morning he's also the one up helping milk cows, cut firewood and weed gardens. He complains the entire time he's doing it though. He understands and feels an obligation to do the right thing, however he would prefer to be lazy if possible (if he can get the wizard to summon an unseen servant to help him with the chores of an old woman he will) but still does it himself if the wizard won't help. Most of his remove disease and such abilities goes to help people in town, the cobbler with small pox, the boy that got a disease from a rat etc. He will watch a robbery for a little bit if he thinks the victim was stupid in getting caught by the robber but he does stop it before it gets out of hand usually with a small amount of preaching to both people for being stupid/not good.
A paladin can be lawful and can be good but still be just an ordinary joe beyond that.
As a DM, I believe that the Paladin's at will Detect Evil is THE most annoying and mood-breaking ability, all class considered.
I ended-up house-ruling it working against evil outsiders, fiendish creatures, sentient undeads and humanoids with an evil aura only (mainly evil priests and blackguards).
EDIT: ... or I just go back to the spell description and figure-out that nobody except the creatures above read as evil under 10HD...
'findel
Lich-Loved.
Nice post. (no sarcasm intended).
The problem is that if
1) respect legit authority.
2) Act with Honor (no lying, cheating, poisoning)
3) help those in need (provided not evil or chaotic)
4) Punish those who threaten the innocent.
define being Good aligned, then the Code belongs in the alignment section of the PHB, not in the Paladin section.
It isn't in the Alignment section because it is an additional requirement on the Paladin. Not only MUST the paladin abide by those rules, but they can't consort with those who do not also follow the code.
Being a Paladin in a group means /the group must act like the paladin/. Your example is a good one- except I'm not talking about the *paladin* acting like a paladin. Clearly any character rolling one should be aware of the limitations.
When I roll my CG rogue though I don't really have LG+Paladin code in mind. I have a more free rolling character who- while not really evil- doesn't see the need for all the muss and fuss of rigid society. He and the LG cleric have words now and then over it but its mostly friendly- until the Paladin comes along. Because the Paladin can't consort with people who do not uphold the Paladin code.
Lying, coincidentally, is not in and of itself good or evil. "throwing them off the trail" with a convenient falsehood is a regular tactic in fact, when captured and trying to keep the BBEG from finding out where X is. (x being the item, creature, place, whatever that he's looking for).
Notice that there is no exception for Not Lying. The paladin /must always tell the truth/. And so must his companions. How far you take that is between you and the DM (lying by omission, for example, and whatnot).
Help those in need- provided they aren't chaotic? So when the Rogue gives charity to a CG temple the Paladin risks losing his powers, or leaving the group?
I'm not trying to be "overly nit picky" but this is a major problem if the group as a whole doesn't want to play a paladin. I'm not saying "paladin should be banned" but rather "the group needs to decide whether or not they want one in the group" because they are, so far, the *only class* that has, as a class restriction, the writ to force other characters to act in a particular manner or He/She faces the consequences.
Your example was very nice. Again, no sarcasm intended here.
I'm curious how it would have all turned out though of the Bard, Barbarian, or Rogue (or whoever) would have done all the "breaking of the code" rather than the Paladin. I think we can both agree- the Paladin can't both atone *and* keep in the company of those who cause him/her to break from Paladinhood in the first place. (atleast, not without some deep commitments and possibly alignment changes and/or atonements for the other party members as well). How would it turn out in that case? At some point the paladin either becomes a glorified warrior (the npc class) or he packs his gear and leaves the group. Either way, it's an unhappy situation.
-S
I tend to read it as a "keep it out of his face thing" and an issue of degrees. We generally just let the paladin get away with the constant company as long as they aren't evil/flaunting the law. Even then the paladin and other character have some words and then the paladin is cool from his end. If the authorities come to arrest his friend I expect the paladin to help usually (evil and such problems might cause some issues).
Also why all the hate on detect evil? No one has ever seen a ring of mind shielding or any of the Undetectable alignment spells that are on every spell list at around level 1? If my BBEG's or what not are not expecting combat and they can reasonably have access to it I tend to have them cast undetectable alignment at the start of each day (scrolls for the rogues).
I generally find the only problems with the paladins code of conduct is immature players (usally I find that the ones who go out their way to screw over the paladins actually play them as lawful anal when they use the class).
An easy way to spot such a player is that they'll insist that "paladins have a stick up their ass" long before anyone in the group even plays one.
The problem is that "Not following the code" does NOT equate with "the PC is evil".
If good = paladin code then the paladin code is *meaningless* because the Paladin is already lawful good. And the Code would be in the LG alignment section rather than in the Paladin section.
It goes to follow that you can both be LG and NOT follow the Paladin code.
And the paladin can not consort with those who continually rebuke the paladin code.
If I, as a PC (LG, NG, CG) decide that the best course of action is to *lie to the BBEG* to save the world (the item, the person, the zone, the area, the whatever it is the BBEG is after) the Paladin has a duty to stop this from happening. Not only that, but if the other PC's make a habit out of trying to deceive evil to preserve the good, then the Paladin can't consort with them. Now obviously I don't envision a bunch of PC's who make it their life's goal of lying every chance they get- but I think we've probably all been in situations where the PC's have the capability to "misdirect" the BBEG through falsehood.
And that is before you get to the oddest one of all to me- that they must help the poor /as long as they aren't chaotic/.. wth?
"3) help those in need (provided not evil or chaotic) "
Keep in mind- this isn't some vague guideline. the Paladin can not help those in need who are evil or chaotic. It's also part of "the code"- meaning that they can't consort with others who continually DO help GOOD folk who happen to be chaotic.
So the CG priest or fighter or barb or bard or rogue or.. whoever really, who donates their money to a soup kitchen that is frequented regularly by chaotic poor, or who donates their money to chaotic temples.. these folk can't consort with the Paladin regularly without the Paladin either having to leave or lose their powers?
-Yikes!!!-
Having a Paladin in the party necessitataes the Group deciding to allow it, and to follow the code. They have to. Barring houserules- this isn't really an optional thing. It's not like the LG cleric and the CG barbarian, where they can agree to disagree about how they live their lives. *the paladin HAS to follow the code* and that requires those he regularly consorts with *to follow the code* as well.
Some folks may gloss over this particular part of the code (groups I've been in have glossed over it, thinking that helping Good was more important than the law/chaos axis side of it) but that's just a houserule. Under Core- having a paladin in the party is either a heavy problem for the Paladin (aka lose of powers or character), or a headache for the players (but I didn't roll a paladin, why do I have to act like one?).
If an occurrance happens once, it's an RP opportunity. If it keeps happening (but I want to give money to -my- god, and he's chaotic!), then you have a problem.
-S
note: obviously, people who are intentionally tools just to screw with the paladin deserve special consideration- hopefully with liberal use of the hammergun or such. I am discussing mostly from the point of characters who are NOT trying to screw each other around- but are instead just trying to actually play the character they envisioned.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the most successful paladin players tend to have real world shades of paladinhood. They're forthright, well liked and respected by the other players at the table, and are given latitude to interpret their character's ethical framework. They're often natural leaders, and their presence diminishes the contrarian streak that's second nature to a lot of gamers. If other characters are evil or opportunistic, their players are more crafty and less juvenile about it.
It's only when I have players who aren't exactly well liked or trusted playing paladins that the framework tips. The player is bereft of a natural charm, so they feel they have to browbeat to make a point, and it sets the game on a downward spiral of finger pointing.
It's a little cruel to say, but some people shouldn't play paladins.
That's.. odd. I was typing right from the beta.. but you are right- i apparently got it wrong.
Ok.. so it says "provided they do not use it for chaotic or evil ends"
Not "chaotic evil" but "chaotic or evil".
This still means that CG characters who worship CG gods can't donate to their respective temples without offending the Paladin moral code.
-this should not be-.
While the paladin himself may not want to do it- Good v Evil should weigh far more importantly to him that L v C.
other members of the party should not have to follow the Paladin code in order for the Paladin to keep his powers. NO other class has such restrictions. The party should generally be in the same alignment range but different alignments can make for excellent RP. No other class has the choice of leaving or being "de classed" just because the other players in the group don't pretend they are his/her character.
I have *no* problem with the RP of the Paladin, even to the extent of talking to/preaching to/whatever with the other characters. (clerics should be doing it too, for that matter, on whatever topic their God dictates) but it shouldn't be a hamstring for the *party* that they have to follow or else the paladin leaves or loses his/her powers.
".. nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."
It doesn't explicitly say he/she loses her powers if she doesn't leave- but i think that a reasonable interpretation. (without a penalty, there is no enforcement of the action).
Rp is great. Good RP is better. Being forced to act a certain way because someone else will stop being the class they chose if you don't- is not ok. At least not without your prior express permission.
-S
That's.. odd. I was typing right from the beta.. but you are right- i apparently got it wrong.
Ok.. so it says "provided they do not use it for chaotic or evil ends"
Not "chaotic evil" but "chaotic or evil".This still means that CG characters who worship CG gods can't donate to their respective temples without offending the Paladin moral code.
-this should not be-.While the paladin himself may not want to do it- Good v Evil should weigh far more importantly to him that L v C.
-S
I think you got it wrong. Why should the paladin bother if his party member is donating to the temple of his CG god? As long the paladin is not helping this guy in donating it is OK. Paladin will not give or lend money or in case that ally is a cripple will not carry him to the temple so he can donate.
As long that temple is not trying to bring down the order of the society and the paladin's ally is not trying to help the temple, all should be OK.
As for Good being more important then Lawful, I agree, it should be.
I had a discussion about Paladin code and acting these days.
And I was wondering what would you say a Paladin should do (to not lose his paladin powers) in a situation like this one:
He/she is imprisoned by an evil person that give him some options:
a) say where is a location of a person he wants to kill (paladin knows this) or
b) lie (or say nothing) about the location and the evil guy kills a innocent person right now before his eyes (or later when the lie is discovered)
c) what if there is no innocent to kill and if the paladin lies that act can save the person evil guy wants.
d) something else?I always had a view that a paladin cannot sacrifice even one person to save 1000 unless that life is his own.
So none wants to try their hand in answering this?
It is not such a complicating thing and I am sure something like this (or similar) comes up in games with paladins often?!
If you want an answer to this go read the book of exalted deeds. They cover this issue directly actually. it's partly based on the character and partly based on what is going on, and really is that complicated.
If you want an answer to this go read the book of exalted deeds. They cover this issue directly actually. it's partly based on the character and partly based on what is going on, and really is that complicated.
As I can remember that book talks about exalted characters, and paladins and other LG characters are not exalted. Exalted is another step in the staircase of goodness :)
Um no the book talks about good characters, and their actions. There is no "exalted" alignment there is no "vile" alignment. There are "exalted" and "Vile" feats but not alignment. The alignments involved in exalted deeds are LG, NG, and CG. It talks about what is good, what good people do, what good people do not do and how the law and chaos spectrum can be applied to this, but it doesn't focus on some "exalted" characters. If you want to play good you should have an idea of what good is instead of apeing some actions that seem good, and the book does a fair job going into the philosophical points of what good is and is not.
Um no the book talks about good characters, and their actions. There is no "exalted" alignment there is no "vile" alignment. There are "exalted" and "Vile" feats but not alignment. The alignments involved in exalted deeds are LG, NG, and CG. It talks about what is good, what good people do, what good people do not do and how the law and chaos spectrum can be applied to this, but it doesn't focus on some "exalted" characters. If you want to play good you should have an idea of what good is instead of apeing some actions that seem good, and the book does a fair job going into the philosophical points of what good is and is not.
That is all good and cool, but what is your opinion/solution on the problem above?
Give me an actually situation. What you have is an impossible postulation that has no bearing or context, no decision can be made with the information at hand.
As a computer would say: "NEED MORE INPUT"
;)
|
|
That's.. odd. I was typing right from the beta.. but you are right- i apparently got it wrong.
Ok.. so it says "provided they do not use it for chaotic or evil ends"
Not "chaotic evil" but "chaotic or evil".This still means that CG characters who worship CG gods can't donate to their respective temples without offending the Paladin moral code.
-this should not be-.
At the very least, I would change that to "chaotic with the absense of good". And even then I would have to recommend keeping common sense and compassion in mind rather than running on an absolutist interpretation of the code. Paladins are supposed to be good, honorable people, not unthinking robots. If there's a CN tribe of barbarians simply fighting to preserve their culture against an expansionist LN government, I would hope the paladin at the very least would want nothing to do with that government's goals, and would only step in to try and prevent as much bloodshed as he could, even if he had to work in the system to do it.
The thing about the LG/CG conflict that absolutely frustrates me when people take a hardline stance on either side is this: When painting the issue in broad strokes, LG and CG characters that actually live up to the Good aspect of their alignments should be able to coexist. It doesn't have to be easy. Hell, it doesn't have to be pleasant, but good characters should at least try to put some effort into getting along as possible.
After all, there's no Blood War in the Upper Planes now is there? I'm just of the mind that good and evil trump law and chaos when it comes to mortals.
Give me an actually situation. What you have is an impossible postulation that has no bearing or context, no decision can be made with the information at hand.
As a computer would say: "NEED MORE INPUT"
;)
No it is not.
Your paladin was caught by a bad guy (how and why is not important, it is very possible to do this with spells like Dominate Person and such), and put in a prison with nothing but his clothes. Prison looks top quality and paladin does not think he has a chance to escape on his own.
His friends are either dead or do not have the magical abilities to find and save him fast. The bad guy brings a small girl, that paladin knows is a daughter of a baker he met in the past and that the girl is not a fiend in disguise or anything like that, and puts a dagger under her chin. The girl is in stress and crying uncontrollably.
The bad guy asks for a location of a another person that paladin was protecting or he would kill (or rape and kill) this little girl right now and here before him. If the paladin tells him the location he will let the girl go (and the paladin knows the bad guy is honorable enough to do that). The paladin knows that if he gives up the location of the other person that person will die for sure and short of a miracle he will not be able to stop it (and that paladin has not witnessed a miracle yet).
Now lets make it more interesting with two additional situations:
1) the person that the bad guy is looking for is a simple innocent commoner that witnessed something they they were not supposed to.
2) the person that the bad guy is looking for is a special good person that holds a knowledge to a cure for a unstoppable disease that kills 100 people per day and will kill a lot more if not stopped
So what does the paladin do in these two cases?
When we finally had him, the monk had him grappled and I was going in for the kill he broke free of the monk's grasp and surrenders to us. I wanted to kill him with the justification that he has tried to murder us all before and we know if he escapes he will do it again. My DM would have stripped me of my paladin powers if I had done that, so I was actually forced to defend this evil bastard against my own party who wanted to kill him.
<RANT>
The problem is your DM. Is he saying slaying a goblin who kills evilly to bring looted food to his goblin wife and kids at his tribe is okay, but killing a human who tried to kill you for the fun of it and WILL try it again is bad just because he surrendered? Can anyone see the double moral here? If we were in the 21th century with an established, structured, and global law system then ok, then he should turn him in, because there's a system so the Paladin can say "I believe in the system".... but you're talking about a fantasy world, -laws- are limited to the borders of either the city-state or kingdom of the week. In addition, even if you wanted to turn someone in some city's jail for a crime he did in the wilderness, where no law exists, and without any physical proof... guess what? They won't jail him, they can't, you may be a Paladin, but I still won't jail someone just on your say so. The Paladin is the law to the extent that his deity empowered him because the deity trusts him to do what's right. This is a fantasy world and you have in your hands a superpowered criminal able to do great harm, at which point do the evil necromancer's mudering sprees become the shining knight's fault? That's why I suggested a bottom line in the Paladin Code: The Greater Good, if you have a dangerous criminal that you know can bribe his way out of jail and will only do more harm then you KILL HIM or you become guilty of HIS crimes by omission... And that's the reason why I don't play Paladins on tables where I don't know the DM thoroughly</RANT>
Now, back to the point of the thread.
How do I see Paladins as a GM?
They're people with the balls to stand up for what they believe in, which happens to be a call that no one else dares follow... few and far between. However, I see to it that my players come up with character concepts reasonably compatible and with reasons to stick with one another. Ten years ago I'd have told you that Paladins had little to no place in my table as my average player averaged in the "chaotic juvenile" alignment, but now my players are all mature people, plus I enjoy seeing a character struggle to do what's right. My bottom line, however, is that I tend to lean towards a cyberpunk style of GMing, and my worlds are usually colored in shades of grey, so any character with a "hero" concept have a particularly hard time following the "long and narrow path"...no good deed goes unpunished. I have such characters in my current campaign (a Superhero-genre story played with the Alternity system), and I love when they persevere and succeed.
|
Some, but by no means all, paladin players like to cause strife within the group, justifying it by "playing [my] character." They play their characters ultra-lawfully, to the point of absurdity.
I often find it is the same type of player who usually plays a rogue that steals from other party members - he/she is playing a paladin in order to "try something different."
The only thing different is the means of annoying everyone else.
This is my experience. In the last 30 odd years, every group we've had that included a Paladin ended up with interparty conflict (and no, I never started it, so I'm not the cause of the problem, despite being present in every instance).
'You killed my prisoner!' 'I should get one of those magic rings!' 'We can't sneak up and kill the Hobgoblin chief, we have to announce ourselves and charge in!' 'No, we have to go back to town and turn them over to the law!' 'The Rogue stole something, he must face justice!' 'That was supposed to be an honorable fight, you dishonored me by attacking my target!'
I've seen Paladins stab party members in the back (and kill them) because they didn't feel like the treasure distribution was fair. I've seen them attack party members for not destroying treasure taken off of an evil foe (the treasure itself was not evil). I've seen them attack party members for violating *their* codes of conduct (despite the fact that none of the other party members get kewl Paladin powers, and shouldn't have to follow Sparky's Code of Conduct). I've seen, too many times in college particularly, Paladins get entire parties killed by refusing to retreat (and, in one memorable case, cutting down a fleeing party member for 'cowardice,' during a rout against Mind Flayers), or refusing to allow the party (who was perfectly willing to allow the Paladin to sit this fight out, or ride up and serve as a distraction) to ambush a larger force of bad-guys or even follow a module-requisite use of some evil McGuffin (such as a lich's phylactery) to defeat the bigger evil.
And, not always, but entirely too many times, the old excuse came out, 'But I'm just role-playing my alignment!' as a sort of accusation against the other players, as if everyone else is doing something wrong.
Frankly, the powers that a Paladin brings to the table aren't worth the aggravation of the contrary players who always seem to pick them.
We've played a few 'evil character' games, and I've never seen a single problem from someone playing an Assassin, Death Master or Necromancer. It's very odd to me how *badly* Lawful Good characters work together...