Thank you Xum,
For taking this corpse off my hands.
I got some more killing to do.
A Paladin's work is never done...
Not sure I understood that...
Historically the most corageous people alive were the Samurai, and bushido, was the closest thing to a paladin code.
Now, they did attack preemptively, they did use ranged weapons, and they did use tactics. They did not, cheat, murder or steal.
Well, except for all those samurai that did cheat, murder, and/or steal, as well as betray their allies, exhibit cowardice, et cetera. Equivalents of the D&D paladin don't exist outside of very rare individuals and fiction.
I don't see why people need to be incredibly precise and exact on what the code says you must or must not do.
It takes a gross violation to make you fall.
Again, stop using the code as a crutch and learn to roleplay. If your DM is going out of his way to make your fall, then your issue isn't with the class - it's with the DM, the kind of jerk who thinks making paladins fall makes for "good roleplaying." Paladins don't have to be super super shining idealist knights that never ever do anything wrong. GROSS violation. Learn some leeway.
I thought this was a pathfinder discussion? In 3.5, it takes a gross violation.
In Pathfinder it takes a violation.Why else would the designers remove the word gross if they wanted it exactly same code?
RD since you added more information that you think might change the choice.
Vile caster no symptoms b/c his plague is nothing more than a spell he is traveling around casting on hapless victims and with his death those spells will stop. Or it is his very touch of evil that permeates from him. Avaunt fail wizard, you die!
Not sure my paladin has knowledge (germ theory) I just checked none of them do darn, evil caster is still dead.
Um...I was thinking more like "an artifact" started it or something similarly more potent then "a mere spell."
It's meant to be an absolute scenario that puts emphasis on the paladin's choice: The necromancer knows the cure (fact), there is no other cure available (fact), it is highly unlikely that traditional magical means will rip the info from the vile man's mind as he has prepared for that eventuality though mundane means of information gathering such as torture may work (fact), paladin has to make a choice (fact), will the paladin fall due to his choice of action? (Whatever that may be.)
That is the question being discussed. Please don't change the parameters as it defeats the purpose of the question.
And your deffinition of a "gross" violation can be very different from mine. I, for instance, think that using a ranged weapon on a peer who cannot attack back is a major violation. Premptively striking an opponent who has not yet shown hostile actions, even if you know they will, is a major violation.You can chose to define them differently, but those are marks of a coward in my book. Cowardice is against a Paladin's code.I don't see why people need to be incredibly precise and exact on what the code says you must or must not do.
It takes a gross violation to make you fall.
Again, stop using the code as a crutch and learn to roleplay. If your DM is going out of his way to make your fall, then your issue isn't with the class - it's with the DM, the kind of jerk who thinks making paladins fall makes for "good roleplaying." Paladins don't have to be super super shining idealist knights that never ever do anything wrong. GROSS violation. Learn some leeway.
The last part of my quote originally had a curse word in it. I can't add it in, but let's add some emphasis.
"Learn some g%@#@%n leeway."
Yes, you are doing it wrong. You are tying "paladin" to one very specific subset of fantasy knight class from one branch of culture and demanding everyone else do the same. More so, you are stating that any paladin that ever does anything you disapprove of instantly falls.
Does anyone even play paladins in your game, or did they get so tired of you making them fall nonstop that they just stopped bothering?
I don't see why people need to be incredibly precise and exact on what the code says you must or must not do.
It takes a gross violation to make you fall.
Again, stop using the code as a crutch and learn to roleplay. If your DM is going out of his way to make your fall, then your issue isn't with the class - it's with the DM, the kind of jerk who thinks making paladins fall makes for "good roleplaying." Paladins don't have to be super super shining idealist knights that never ever do anything wrong. GROSS violation. Learn some leeway.
I thought this was a pathfinder discussion? In 3.5, it takes a gross violation.
In Pathfinder it takes a violation.Why else would the designers remove the word gross if they wanted it exactly same code?
Then that's honestly the worst change in Pathfinder I've seen, period.
Look. Western christian knights didn't challenge people to "honorable 1 vs 1 duals." Nor, for that matter, did samurai, at least not until war became almost entirely symbolic. You're basically taking the most restricting things of multiple societies, and most of these restrictions either didn't exist in reality, or were founded when the warrior class became nobility, and you're forcing them onto a single fighting character. You are, quite literally, asking the impossible.
Samurai didn't have big honorable 1 vs 1 duals until much later. They were horseback archers and lancemen. Knights didn't have big honorable fights either - they engaged in bluffs and trickery in combat. Bows were considered an honorable weapon by many cultures, sacred to an equal number. Hell, in Eberron, the primo paladin association has Longbow as their deity's favored weapon.
Your demand that paladins not use bows has no basis. In, like, anything at all. Paladins have mounts because knights would trample footsoldiers underfoot. Does that sound honorable? What about reach weapons - the standard weapon for those knights you demand players emulate. Don't those get in the way of your demand for 1 vs 1 martial combat?
Um...I was thinking more like "an artifact" started it or something similarly more potent then "a mere spell."
It's meant to be an absolute scenario that puts emphasis on the paladin's choice: The necromancer knows the cure (fact), there is no other cure available (fact), it is highly unlikely that traditional magical means will rip the info from the vile man's mind as he has prepared for that eventuality though mundane means of information gathering such as torture may work (fact), paladin has to make a choice (fact), will the paladin fall due to his choice of action? (Whatever that may be.)
That is the question being discussed. Please don't change the parameters as it defeats the purpose of the question.
Another likely fact, that he has prepared completely and utterly against magical means to take the information makes it seem more likely that he would also be protected against revealing the information by torture. If he hasn't protected the information against torture, it would seem that he wanted to be tortured for the information (for some reason). In that case, offer to torture him in exchange for the information.
Overall, I wouldn't count this as a action worthy of breaking the paladin's purely due any of the choices he took. However, the intensity and precise actions might still result in the loss of powers (to me), like performing the interrogation/torture to a horribly abysmal level. In this situation, I don't believe there to be a completely "correct" choice for every single person.
Would you condone any of the following...
...ambush enemies from hiding...
Yes. Ambush is fine.
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
Depends on whether the paladin thinks they might be hostile or knows that they will be - in the first case, no, in the second, yes. For example, the paladin can't order the preemptive fireballing of that unflagged ship that's approaching just because it's suspicious and MIGHT be pirates. But he can attack that CE balor that just teleported into the midst of the party, without having to wait for the demon to murder someone first.
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
Certainly. Otherwise the rules would forbid paladins from using bows, which, you may note, they don't. This would be an excellent case of "not all paladins are Lawful Stupid."
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
Sure. The rampaging orc horde doesn't get a free pass to kill everyone in town without the paladin being able to fight them off, just because they brought their kids along to watch.
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
It depends. If they continue to fight, he may. If they surrender, probably not.
Also, disarming is not a good metric of ineffectualness in Dnd. A number of classes can still be very dangerous without their primary weapon, if they even need one to begin with (caster)....kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...
Certainly. Otherwise paladins would become unplayable as PCs, since the PCs will as a group be more powerful than the monsters almost every time (unless encounters in your campaign end with TPK for Team PC more often than for Team Monster, which I'd guess is a very rare circumstance).
...or would you cite it as a code violation?
So to sum up, no, not one of these is a code violation, with the possible exception of if there are further complicating circumstances (ie, enemy surrenders after being disarmed, etc).
I ...
I thought this was a pathfinder discussion? In 3.5, it takes a gross violation.
In Pathfinder it takes a violation.Why else would the designers remove the word gross if they wanted it exactly same code?
Then that's honestly the worst change in Pathfinder I've seen, period.
I really hated that they did that, too. I thought the old paladin code made sense in several ways, even though it was fairly unclear at times. Personally, I understood it as more of a help sheet, a warrior's interpretation of the LG alignment itself. Here is how being lawful good is defined as per the D&D Player Handbook (and the OLG): "A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. "
Now, compare that with the paladin code: respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. To me, they look like pretty much the same thing. A gross violation of the LG alignment (and the code) is probably going to move you to another alignment anyway (temporarily or not), at least as per my definition of "gross violation."
The whole "gross violation" thing was imo quite important; it shows that the paladin's code might be all-important to the paladin's order, but is secondary to the paladin himself/herself. The code is an important guidance, to be sure, but a paladin was given some liberty to adapt to the necessities of the situation; the one commitment that should be kept at all times is that a paladin should not commit evil. Thus, in case a paladin ever truly has to choose between the code and doing good, a true paladin should be prepared to choose the latter and brave the consequences. Now, as a LG character the paladin should uphold the code anyway, and probably abstain from (and atone for) even minor violations; that is because s/he actually believes in its tenets - but in the end, they are just recommendations, not her true loyalty. It could serve as a very effective RP and storytelling tool, but it also served to somewhat simplify the paladin's loyalties, giving them something like the three laws of robotics* in case the web of commandments and laws became too hard to navigate.
*: in their case:
1. Do no evil, or through inaction, allow evil to be done
2. Follow the paladin code, as long as it does not interfere with 1.
3. Do whatever else you will, as long as it does not interfere with 1. and 2.
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...Evil AND dishonorable.
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
EVIL
Etc...
I am a BBEG. A critical fortress of Team Good is guarded by an order of devoted paladins. Such is their courage that they have beaten back my every attempt to take it, and I was at a loss.
Until now. Now, I understand that all I have to do is bring a small child along to watch me attack, and the paladins will be unable to fight back against me.
It doesn't even have to be my actual child. All I have to do is tell the paladins that it is, and remind them that daring to resist me in front of my baby son would doubtless scar him for life, thus losing them all their powers! Then, I shall proceed to slaughter the fortress full of newly neutered paladins (whether because they have decided that they cannot possibly hurt me in front of a baby, or because they tried to defend themselves, and the righteous gods immediately stripped their powers). Subsequently I will be able to sack whatever it was they were guarding without their interference.
Who would have thought that defeating all paladins everywhere only required passing on your genes? You'd never guess it was so easy all along.
Hurrah for Team Evil.
Until now. Now, I understand that all I have to do is bring a small child along to watch me attack, and the paladins will be unable to fight back against me.LOL, yes, human shields have presented a problem for quite some time (in R/L). Strap a baby to your shield and the Paladin may have trouble swinging at you.
Except now it's even simpler :P
No need to strap a baby to my shield. No need to have him threatened by the combat at all, in fact. Just stick your kid somewhere where he can see you (a distant hill?) and suddenly, all paladins are no longer allowed to fight you. At least in the interpretation that killing someone in front of their relations is always capital-letters EVIL.
I'm still going to stand by my earlier statement. The rampaging orc horde doesn't get a free pass to kill everyone in town without the paladin interfering, just because they brought their kids along to watch.
So then they should nix the "it's EVIL to kill people in front of their families" line of thought from earlier in this thread.
I don't see why people need to be incredibly precise and exact on what the code says you must or must not do.
It takes a gross violation to make you fall.
Again, stop using the code as a crutch and learn to roleplay. If your DM is going out of his way to make your fall, then your issue isn't with the class - it's with the DM, the kind of jerk who thinks making paladins fall makes for "good roleplaying." Paladins don't have to be super super shining idealist knights that never ever do anything wrong. GROSS violation. Learn some leeway.
I thought this was a pathfinder discussion? In 3.5, it takes a gross violation.
In Pathfinder it takes a violation.Why else would the designers remove the word gross if they wanted it exactly same code?
Then that's honestly the worst change in Pathfinder I've seen, period.
Look. Western christian knights didn't challenge people to "honorable 1 vs 1 duals." Nor, for that matter, did samurai, at least not until war became almost entirely symbolic. You're basically taking the most restricting things of multiple societies, and most of these restrictions either didn't exist in reality, or were founded when the warrior class became nobility, and you're forcing them onto a single fighting character. You are, quite literally, asking the impossible.
Samurai didn't have big honorable 1 vs 1 duals until much later. They were horseback archers and lancemen. Knights didn't have big honorable fights either - they engaged in bluffs and trickery in combat. Bows were considered an honorable weapon by many cultures, sacred to an equal number. Hell, in Eberron, the primo paladin association has Longbow as their deity's favored weapon.
Your demand that paladins not use bows has no basis. In, like, anything at all. Paladins have mounts because knights would trample footsoldiers underfoot. Does that sound honorable? What about reach weapons - the standard weapon for those...
Have you ever read any Arthurian legends? The challenge eachother to 1 on 1 duals all the time, and it is a show of valor and a great insult to do otherwise. Paladins are based off of Arthurian knights foremost. Just look at how most of them fall. Most of them violate their chivalric code in some way before their deaths.
The Arthurian knights knew how to use bows. They used them to hunt beasts. They did not use them against their fellow man, because that was dishonorable. You had to beat your foe with your own strength. Now, they used their wits and guile all the time, as a Paladin should, but they did not overtly lie to do so.
Using the Arthurian Knight example, tampling enemies underfoot was valid against peasants but not against your peers. If a peer challenged you, you were to accept the 1 on 1 dual on roughly equal terms, or could offer less than favorable terms to yourself to insult their prowess. Lancelot did this on numberous occasions, though I don't recall one against a named knight.
As for your example of Samurai, premptive strikes were not always seen as honorable. That is why they declared war and then struck immediately. Before the enemy had time to react, but after they were told they would be under attack. Japan, for instance, declared war before Pearl Harbor, but the message had not been translated yet. This was seen as a failure of honor by many Japanese when they found out. Japanese also did not have anywhere near the same principals for protecting the weak as the Paladin, though some individuals did.
Now, I agree that there is lots of room for a player to work out the code with a GM. I based most of my judgments off Arthurian ideals.
Have you ever read any Arthurian legends?
Have you? Arthur had no qualms with hiding troops and ambushing enemies, things that you claim would make paladins fall.
You yourself admit that the knights trampelled peasants underfoot, yet you adamantly refuse to classify this as honorable or dishonorable.
You admit that the knights fought each other one on one, not in full melee combat, but in ceremony and tournament games.
You're arguing my side for me, here.
And besides that, paladins are not Arthurian knights. At no point in the paladin description does it call them such. You're taking a very conservative translation from one very specific sect that never existed and forcing it on the entire class.
What if I wanted to play a paladin who wasn't European. Would you allow that?
Have you ever read any Arthurian legends?Have you? Arthur had no qualms with hiding troops and ambushing enemies, things that you claim would make paladins fall.
You yourself admit that the knights trampelled peasants underfoot, yet you adamantly refuse to classify this as honorable or dishonorable.
You admit that the knights fought each other one on one, not in full melee combat, but in ceremony and tournament games.
You're arguing my side for me, here.
And besides that, paladins are not Arthurian knights. At no point in the paladin description does it call them such. You're taking a very conservative translation from one very specific sect that never existed and forcing it on the entire class.
What if I wanted to play a paladin who wasn't European. Would you allow that?
Arthur also sent his knights to round up babies and set them adrift in the ocean to try to kill the infant Mordred. Arthur wasn't a Paladin. The strict code of honor that they followed is however one of the best to model the Paladin after.
Arthurian legend exists in a strict class society. Trampling your lessers underfoot was not considered dishonorable, as they were your lessers. D&D does not have the same class distinction in most settings. It also has much more modern thoughts about equality and rights. Therefore, I think in a generic setting that yes, trampling could be considered dishonorable.
If you wanted to play a Paladin of a different flavor, I would let you in a heatbeat. It would still have an equally restrictive code attached to it that included many of the same values. I would then base the region that you hail from's philosophies on honor off of the code you developed. Many regions cannot easily produce Paladins because they do not have strict enough codes of honor.
Arthur also sent his knights to round up babies and set them adrift in the ocean to try to kill the infant Mordred. Arthur wasn't a Paladin. The strict code of honor that they followed is however one of the best to model the Paladin after.
So you're stating that paladins should follow a code of honor that nobody in the original works could follow. See how this is an issue?
Arthurian legend exists in a strict class society. Trampling your lessers underfoot was not considered dishonorable, as they were your lessers. D&D does not have the same class distinction in most settings. It also has much more modern thoughts about equality and rights. Therefore, I think in a generic setting that yes, trampling could be considered dishonorable.
But you just said that you base your paladins on those very knights.
If you wanted to play a Paladin of a different flavor, I would let you in a heatbeat. It would still have an equally restrictive code attached to it that included many of the same values. I would then base the region that you hail from's philosophies on honor off of the code you developed. Many regions cannot easily produce Paladins because they do not have strict enough codes of honor.
I just dislike the thought of you reigning over how a code of honor is supposed to be so strict it's unattainable. You're making the paladin into something you read about, but not something you play.
If a culture had a bow as an honorable weapon - like, oh say, the Church of the Silver Flame in Eberron - would you tell them that they can't use their deity's favored weapon because it's dishonorable?
The strict code of honor that they followed is however one of the best to model the Paladin after.
Hm. I believe I would disagree with this. While there are aspects of the chivalric code that should certainly be reflected in the paladin's, large chunks of it would have to be discarded as incompatible with Lawful Good already. I see no reason at all not to make "don't use (cross)bows" one of those parts, since it was a part of the codes specifically and blatantly intended to preserve the political power of the wealthy and knightly class against the common and poor class - rather than to serve Christian charity or any such. It's no less painful to die on the point of a longsword than it is to a crossbow quarrel.
The idea that bows are in any way intrinsically dishonorable is simply not defensible.
No, you plan your location of attack based off of where the archers will do the least good to the opponent. This does not mean that you can suprize the enemy, however, and attack them at night when they are unprepared. Attacking unexpectedly from a flank is perfectly valid, assuming they are expecting combat, but jumping them on the road would not be. There are rules to honorable combat that the Paladin must follow. If its not, and he forsakes his sacred vows, he should lose the powers granted by them. And to a Paladin, defeat is preferable to loss of honor. This sentement is repeated over and over in fiction.
Ambush: Dishonorable to attack a foe without clearly displaying your intent.
Pre-emptive strike: Dishonorable - see above
Arrows: Dishonorable to strike a foe who cannot dirrectly attack backTrickery: you can mislead a foe but never by lying or intentionally presenting information as complete when it is not. In this way, when asked, Lancelot clad in nondescript armor, can tell his foes that he is...
So lets say your paladin is in charge of an army. The opposing troops happen to be archers. Do you run them headlong into the archers likely resulting in certain defeat/death, or take the other option of using cover and terrain to get the flank and attack them so they are not aware of the attack?
If you take the straight ahead approach how do you justify the tactics to your king and country men?
That against using ranged attacks sounds like a 2nd edition rule(even though I can't locate it), and is not supported at all in 3.X or Pathfinder. The fact that the enemy has armor and a shield means they have defense. You being silly enough to get close enough to allow them to hit you does not make you honorable. It only increases your chances of dying. I am not saying melee is nonsensical, but opening yourself up to harm you can avoid is.
PS: You don't always get to plan the location of an attack, and you still did not answer my question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That against using ranged attacks sounds like a 2nd edition rule(even though I can't locate it), and is not supported at all in 3.X or Pathfinder. The fact that the enemy has armor and a shield means they have defense. You being silly enough to get close enough to allow them to hit you does not make you honorable. It only increases your chances of dying. I am not saying melee is nonsensical, but opening yourself up to harm you can avoid is.
PS: You don't always get to plan the location of an attack, and you still did not answer my question.
Not even that. It's from the AD&D Unearthed Arcana Cavilier - and only that.
AD&D standard? Bows are fine.
2e? Bows are fine.
3.x? Bows are fine.
Pathfinder? You guessed it - bows are fine.
One thing always irked me when hearing about the samurai code - it was fully developed well after the major wars, at a time when samurai fought very little.
In general, even when a strict code supposedly existed, it was more of a general guidance than something everyone should have followed in every occasion. During the warring states period of Japan, you could see ample evidence of using espionage, ambush, betrayal and worse - heck, the very battle of Sekigahara was decided by several of Mitsunari's vassals turning against him in the battle itself!
|
While NPCs should respond appropriately to the Paladin's acts, no extra reward is needed. Being a Paladin and doing it well is a reward in and of itself.
Agreed. There is great RP reward in just doing good and doing it well in the face of great challenges. I personally could never be a paladin but I love the challenge of trying to see things through a paladins eyes and then try to react as one would.
Here's the other thing.. If a code is restrictive enough that a Paladin may occasionally fail the code, may "trip" instead of a complete fall... that's character development, not necessarily the end of a Paladin's career.
Yes. If a DM is secretly trying to trick the player or WANTS him to fail, thats a problem with the DM, not the paladin. The DM has issues. However, I as a DM do like to place moral issues before the players from time to time. Not to trick any of them but to see how they respond. I usually don't plan an encounter with a "this is the right way to resolve it" mindset. I just come up with weird scenarios and then see what they do. I do give gentle reminders to the paladin player along the way that "you get a vague feeling of unease when you consider that action..." and I might say "yes, you do believe that you were told by the priests back at paladin school that killing a defenseless captive is a serious offense that would require atonement..." (which reminds me how much I hate the atonement spell... wait what? kill some babies maliciously then 2500gp and an hour with a cleric and all's good? what? not in my games! if the paladin does something willingly evil, the atonement spell will not work...)
...the defining aspect is what does the Paladin do with that failure? Does he accept it and work to rise up again? Or does he allow it to embitter himself and fall from the path for good? That's why atomenents are good story plots. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition, a good story line can involve a Paladin's fall and redemption. In this case it's okay to put the hero in a situation where the only way to save the day is to put a bit of stain on that shining armor. it's a quality that makes him human (or demi-human if you will)
VERY agree :) MUCH agree! Challenges that cause a paladin player to get deep into his PC's mindset and cause him to really roleplay out his fall and return to grace are exhilarating to me. AWESOME stories come from those situations.
The burden on the GM is that she should not be looking to make the Paladin fall or "trip" from a contrived or arbitrary "trick" but as part of an engaging storyline. I don't think the players should be told whether every action they take is with or against the Code... your job is to remind them of the broad principles... the big questions, the Paladin should figure out for himself and hope to her gods that she is right.
I think we very much agree on what a Paladin is and is supposed to be.
|
|
We need to start a new thread for people who seem to agree on many of these points about a paladin, where we build a common code, spelled out. Then when people of like mind on the "classic" paladin want to have a starting point for determining "what is the code of the paladin" for their campaign they can copy and paste that developed list of tenets and then add/remove as desired. Then the DM gives that list to the player and they agree on a common list etc.
The Paladin would not participate in the ambush. However, would not be against allies hiding and launching attacks from positions of tactical superiority.
So the paladin would stand by and risk some of his allies getting slain because he wasn't there to protect them?
That just doesn't sit well with me.
The Paladin would not participate in the ambush. However, would not be against allies hiding and launching attacks from positions of tactical superiority.So the paladin would stand by and risk some of his allies getting slain because he wasn't there to protect them?
That just doesn't sit well with me.
Agreed. Any restriction on ranged weapons doesn't sit well with me for the same reason. Since it's quite easy to imagine a situation where refusing to allow the use of ranged weapons (say, by soldiers under the paladin's command) will practically equate to sacrificing the lives of your allies on the altar of "chivalry."
That against using ranged attacks sounds like a 2nd edition rule(even though I can't locate it), and is not supported at all in 3.X or Pathfinder. The fact that the enemy has armor and a shield means they have defense. You being silly enough to get close enough to allow them to hit you does not make you honorable. It only increases your chances of dying. I am not saying melee is nonsensical, but opening yourself up to harm you can avoid is.
PS: You don't always get to plan the location of an attack, and you still did not answer my question.
Not even that. It's from the AD&D Unearthed Arcana Cavilier - and only that.
AD&D standard? Bows are fine.
2e? Bows are fine.
3.x? Bows are fine.
Pathfinder? You guessed it - bows are fine.
I realized when another posted put out the history of the paladin I was incorrect. I need to print that out and hand it to my group.
The Paladin would not participate in the ambush. However, would not be against allies hiding and launching attacks from positions of tactical superiority.So the paladin would stand by and risk some of his allies getting slain because he wasn't there to protect them?
That just doesn't sit well with me.
<pouts>I wanted to say that </pouts>
The problem with this severely limited code and then claiming "No, it's ok, you're a paladin, that totally makes up for it!" is that, again, this makes the class fun to read, but atrocious to play.
It's not fun having to worry every session that your powers could be snatched away at any moment. It's incredibly stressful and irritating. It sounds cool in a story you hear about, but try to view it from the poor player who rolls a paladin, only to find you want them to lose all their class powers at the drop of a hat. Who on earth would even make the class if you actively desire to punish them for playing it?
And yes, making the paladin fall is a punishment. It's not cool to find yourself a mediocre warrior with no special abilities. Sure, to the DM, it's really cool to have the paladin go through this big arc of corruption and redemption, but the player doesn't want to. They want to be a cool lawful good heroic type, not some angsterbanging anti-hero.
I absolutely do not agree with this.
Rather, I believe it makes sense to post a couple of different codes of conduct, but not post one that is suppossed to be canonical.There -should- be multiple paladin codes in a campaign world IMHO. Different paladins who are members of different churches or different sects in a church (forex. Franciscans vs. Jesuits) none of whom are objectively better than others adds rich color to a world which I'd simply hate to get rid of.
Thank you.
The reason the paladin doesn't have one super specific code is because there isn't meant to be just one. Paladins come from all races, religions, and cultures. I asked earlier if some DMs here would let a paladin be non-European, and I dread to think that some might say no.
If the player knows ahead of time (ie. the GM warns him) what is and is not good/evil, then there is no undue stress. Falling should not be seen as a punishment but as a plot point (just as atoning is). "It's not cool to find your self a mediocre warrior with no special abilities". I didn't mind (as I said elsewhere, I played a character until 4th level before he even got his Paladin powers - not because he did anything wrong, but because the GM was setting up the story for it). What's not fun is not having an interesting character story to build with the GM.
The player -does- want to go through this big arc of losing and gaining his powers *if* he's got a competent GM who can make the story interesting. Or, maybe the player doesn't (he's just interested in maxing out the little scratches on his character sheet for his imaginary character) which I find very boring. It's going to depend on the player.
Or maybe that's simply a plot point the paladin doesn't want.
I don't force rangers to have a whole story arch where they prance around in the forest and become friends with all the woodland creatures.
If the player actively does not want you to force a plot point onto their character, that's their choice. Now, if they play the paladin as a CN jerk, then yes, they're going to fall faster than an exalted character in Ravenloft, horrible nerd joke. But you don't force someone else's character to act a certain way.
It's not about just maxing the little scratches. Again, maybe he doesn't want to fall. He doesn't want to go through atonement and have to suffer and be a paladin who failed. Maybe he just wants to be a g@!!*@n good guy and stay that way.
It is NOT your place as a DM to tell your players how their characters should act, and that's precisely what you're doing. It's even worse then railroading, because instead of forcing your party on one linear path, you're writing fanfiction for someone else's character, and then forcing them to live through it. Why even have someone play the paladin if you're going to be the one calling the shots for how the paladin acts?
If and when I ever get to play a paladin again, this will be his model and code.
:)
maybe he doesn't want to fall. He doesn't want to go through atonement and have to suffer and be a paladin who failed. Maybe he just wants to be a g+%!~#n good guy and stay that way.Then he doesn't have to. Since the GM is there telling him what is a good and what is an evil act, the player has the ability to choose good acts.
It's only railroading if the GM says "action X is the one and only good act possible, don't even waste your time trying to come up with alternatives because I'm going to tell you they either can't be done or they are evil".
But when the code is so strict that you make it impossible for him to not go through a game without "tripping," as you said, then yes, there is a problem. You're setting the paladin up to fail.
No player should have their class set up to fail.
The problem with this severely limited code and then claiming "No, it's ok, you're a paladin, that totally makes up for it!" is that, again, this makes the class fun to read, but atrocious to play.
Cirno, I couldn't disagree with you more here. I absolutely LOVE it when my characters have handcuffs. If I have no real fear of falling, I don't want to play a Paladin. If I have to obsess over it, it makes it much more interesting and fun to play, and I get much better stories of it afterwards. One of my favorite characters was in a star wars game where I almost fell for telling someone they were not worth saving. Flirting with falling is immensely fun as the player. Its not all about the power.
If and when I ever get to play a paladin again, this will be his model and code.
:)
Awesome