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.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.
Then that is your choice as a player.
If a player wants to play like that, then yeah, talk to your DM about it and set it up.
But a DM shouldn't force all the other players to play that way.
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.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.
Then that is your choice as a player.
If a player wants to play like that, then yeah, talk to your DM about it and set it up.
But a DM shouldn't force all the other players to play that way.
I'm having a hard time trying to picture a player who wants to play a Paladin who has no code to live by. That'd be like wanting to play a Fighter who doesn't use arms and armor or a Wizard who doesn't use spells.
I just don't get it.
So, perhaps you can help me by giving me a scenario of such a thing. That'd help me wrap my head around what you are arguing for.
There's a space between "Super restrictive code" and "no code." You can have a code that isn't extremely conservative and restrictive.
In fact, here's the code my last paladin followed.
Do good, always. Every good deed done, no matter how trivial, blossoms forth into more good. This is the first and final oath.
Obey rightful and lawful authority, the true kings who care for their people, but beware the corrupt law of tyrants. Those who act with good in their hearts are true rulers, for they seek rulership not for their own gain, but for the good of others. Those who seek to rule without good in their hearts will never truly rule, for they shall always serve another master.
Act with honor. Do not use poisons, or cheat, or lie. It is not a question of evil, but one of trust and truth - none can trust a man or woman who relies on venoms or poison, or lies and cheats, to do his work, nor can any man or woman claim to be honest and truthful so long as they rely on such.
Should a combatant surrender completely, restrain them in a way that insures they cannot escape or do more harm, and bring them for imprisonment and punishment. This pertains to all combatants.
Protect all those who are innocent. It is the duty of those who can fight to protect those who cannot - one learns war not to inflict it on another, but to ensure that their children may learn peace.
Do not envoy with evil unless circumstances drastically require it. Those of evil morals corrupt what they are around, and their fellowship should not be desired. Should circumstances drastically require it, they are to be treated with respect, though at arms length, until those circumstances have finished, at which point you and they shall go separate lengths.
(That was everything in the prd. Here's a few extras I - not, mind you, the DM - added)
Always give those of impure heart a chance of redemption. It is never too late to turn back - not even for the most foul of devils.
Why do I mention that last one? In the campaign, one source of ire - not BBEG, but recurring nemesis - was an Erinyes on the run from one of the dukes after accidentally shaming him. In one final battle, she surrendered to us and begged not to kill her or banish her and send her back to the Hells for the punishment that awaited her. I - the paladin - made her swear an oath of fealty and servitude. Less of a geas of slavery, more of an extreme parole officer. I feel the need to point out that, in some games, this would cause me to fall (Which I sharply disagree with). Instead, she traveled with us (I just took Leadership next level to help show it), and, as the campaign went on, the both of us tried to convince the other to turn lawful evil/lawful good. The campaign ended with her alignment change.
This was something incredibly awesome, it should really go without saying. It was a campaign-long thing, too - right from the beginning she was stirring up trouble for us to fight again, and after making her a cohort, she stayed with us until the end. I didn't trip over my code, but instead did the opposite - showed both the NPC and the other players how the code was a shield instead of chains. Not once did I worry about needing atonement or falling.
You can have awesome story archs with paladins without clubbing them over the head with their code.
|
I don't know what any of this has to do with my question. Could you answer my question please?
It has nothing to do with your question because he doesn't fit the profile of the question you asked. No one wants to play a paladin with no code, because that is not a paladin.
But at the same time, not everyone enjoys walking on pins and needles wondering when they will make a mistep and fall. Nor does everyone enjoy being so restricted that they can only take a handful of paths. Just because you do does not mean I do.
|
|
As for not playing a code that is restrictive, the whole -point- of a code is to be restrictive. If a code isn't restrictive, it's not much of a code. Which goes back to the question I asked and which hasn't been answered.
I believe his answer was 'restrictive' does not need to be 'straight-jacketed'.
As for not playing a code that is restrictive, the whole -point- of a code is to be restrictive. If a code isn't restrictive, it's not much of a code. Which goes back to the question I asked and which hasn't been answered.I believe his answer was 'restrictive' does not need to be 'straight-jacketed'.
Correct.
There is a place - many places, in fact - between your thoughts of "A paladin should be tripping every session" and "There is no code."
Again, look at my rather gigantic post. I posted my own paladin's code there, and you'll note that, while it was restrictive - no lying, cheating, no poison usage, grant mercy, etc - it didn't cause him to fall. On the contrary, because the DM gave me some leeway in the "No evil dudes in your group" bit and let me take on the erinyes, it lead to some really fantastic roleplaying.
Which brings me back to my original point: Don't use the code of conduct as a crutch. Learn to roleplay WITH the code.
|
|
You have accused us of wanting to play a paladin without a code and of one with a code that never threatens falling. I do not understand how any of our posts have given you that impression. We have attempted to answer your question, and I apologize for not asking for better clarification of what your question was sooner. But if I seem to be arguing in bad faith, I cast it back at you for misrepresenting our position.
Edit: I cannot speak for him, but the intent I gathered from that was that 'of course the player doesn't want to fall unless he is looking for that roleplaying opportunity. therefore he does not want a code that restricts him so severely that merely playing his character causes him to fall.'
|
|
Public forum, differing sides. If I wish to participate on one side, I am allowed. If you do not wish to discuss with me, you need not reply to me. If you want a private discussion with one poster, you should set it up. The very nature of a forum like this is that anyone with an opinion can contribute it. You don't have to like it, and you can ask me to stop. I may even oblige.
For what it is worth, I am sorry you chose to take offense at my words.
|
|
So I cannot take up a side and respond to your assessment of it? Isn't that part of debate?
My basic premise is that a player of a paladin should not be forced into falling by the DM unless he is comfortable roleplaying that scenario. He should absolutely be put into positions where he has to make hard choices, where the easy choice goes against his code, but he still has the opportunity to prove himself the paladin and take the hard choice of upholding the code. But he should not have that choice taken from him by falling no matter what his choice.
So thank you for the time you have taken, and I am sorry my method of debate is too argumentative for your tastes. No offense was intended, and it is unfortunate that it was taken.
Liliths, I don't live on this forum. I occasionally leave to, you know, make dinner, go to classes, stuff like that. Chill out :p
Earlier you and others talked about how the code should be very strict, because falling and atoning made for good roleplay.
My point is that not everyone wants that roleplay. Some people want to play a paladin who doesn't have to worry about falling every game. They still have a code, but...well, look at the prd code.
Don't lie.
Don't cheat.
Don't steal.
Don't be best buds 4lyfe with evil dudes.
Don't use poison.
Be a good guy.
Protect the innocent.
That's the code in its entirety. What people get caught up in is when they want to ADD things to that code. And that, in of itself, isn't neccesarily a bad thing. The issue is when the additions to the code are made to straightjacket the paladin into only one specific trope, or to greatly limit the paladin in an attempt to MAKE him fall.
Some players just want to be a really cool Good Guy character. They don't want the drama of falling and having to atone.
I think the code should be very defined so the player has a clear idea of what will make him fall 90% of the time. No part of the code should lead him to suicidal decisions or decisions that lead to a party member being killed, if using the code means the paladin has to ignore tactics. One of my earlier post demonstrates this.
Should it be difficult(to be a paladin), sure.
Should it be detrimental, no.
Edit: Hopefully it's an easier read now.
I think the code should be very defined so the player has a clear idea of what will make him fall 90% of the time. No part of the code should lead him to suicidal decisions or decisions that lead to a party member being killed, because using the code causes the paladin to ignore tactics. One of my earlier post demonstrates this.
Should it be difficult(to be a paladin), sure.
Should it be detrimental, no.If I understand you properly, then I agree
part of my paladin code is
first in and last out.
Of the fray, the dungeon, or the brothel?
Of the fray, the dungeon, or the brothel?I think the code should be very defined so the player has a clear idea of what will make him fall 90% of the time. No part of the code should lead him to suicidal decisions or decisions that lead to a party member being killed, because using the code causes the paladin to ignore tactics. One of my earlier post demonstrates this.
Should it be difficult(to be a paladin), sure.
Should it be detrimental, no.If I understand you properly, then I agree
part of my paladin code is
first in and last out.
Why not all three? I don't see any code against women. :)
guess I walked into that one feat first.....
meant the fray, but all three works..... unless said paladin is a female...
Hey, no reason why that would limit her :p
Chastity is not a part of the paladin code. Neither is sexual orientation.
That said, wanton brothel visiting would probably seen as a somewhat...chaotic act :p
I think the Codes make for some interesting sessions... the party wants to off the prisoner, yet the Paladin protects the prisoner so they may face a trial and 'due justice' - even though the prisoner might escape - and may have escaped in the past.
When taking POW's people are bound by certain legal constraints that can't be abandoned 'for convenience'... however in a medieval fantasy world, such constraints may not exist. Though it must be determined whether we are using our current era moral compass, or that of a less enlightened age.
Some players just want to be a really cool Good Guy character. They don't want the drama of falling and having to atone.Which would be a character who doesn't have a code. Fighters can be "a really cool Good Guy". Paladins have a code and with a code, there is falling and having to atone.
I asked you to give a case of a guy who wants to play a paladin without playing a code, instead you dodged the request and gave an example of a guy who had a code.
You aren't listening, or you're being purposefully obtuse.
My example showed that you could have a code that didn't make you fall.
You keep saying "You can have multiple codes," and yet, right here, you say it flat out - if you have a code, you need to fall and atone.
No. Screw that.
You can have a paladin who's a good guy and has a code and never once falls. Never even trips. And if people have an issue with that, screw them, too. They're the reason 4e got rid of paladin alignments - because players were tired of DMs who could destroy their character on a whim.
If your DM is routinely placing your Paladin in situations where they not only might, but very likely will fall, that's not a problem with the class, that's your DM being a prick. A Paladin doesn't fall for no reason, they fall because they make the choice to do something terrible, something that is wrong. It's that simple. Now, there may be many situations where a Paladin has to make a difficult choice they will seek atonement for. That's perfectly human and acceptable - a Paladin is an idealist and situations may be far from ideal, but they must still try their best to serve the greater good and the ideals of justice.
Let's look at the example in Order of the Stick: Miyako falls because she slays her liege lord for lying to the Sapphire Guard, without asking what the reasons for doing so were. Because his lies had been in the service of the Greater Good, they were not the evil act that Miyako had assumed they must have been. Her fellow Paladin (Hinjo?) warned her to stop until they had the full story, but she chose to kill instead of find out more. THAT is why she fell.
Lilith is NOT saying that if you have a code, you need to fall and atone. She never did. She's saying that having a code makes it possible to use atonement as a tool for character development. It means you can make mistakes and have to pay for them, which is very different from willingly committing a terrible action and losing the status of a Paladin for it.
for clarity, there is another poster on these boards called "Lilith" (which I didn't know about when I chose my name). If you need to abbreviate my name, I think LT should work.
I actually thought you were her, or a poster playing off of her name. She is a popular poster, and developer(I beleive).
PS: I know that was off topic.
PS: This post has no reason to exist. I am really bored.
PS: I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate, already in progress.
If your DM is routinely placing your Paladin in situations where they not only might, but very likely will fall, that's not a problem with the class, that's your DM being a prick.
The thread in a nutshell :)
Once the code is in place it becomes kinda self regulating - other players put the Paladin under the hammer far more often that I ever will as a GM!
The problem with the Code is that it (by default) ends up applying to teh whole party.
|
|
Lilith is NOT saying that if you have a code, you need to fall and atone. She never did. She's saying that having a code makes it possible to use atonement as a tool for character development. It means you can make mistakes and have to pay for them, which is very different from willingly committing a terrible action and losing the status of a Paladin for it.
What Cirno and I were arguing was that the code should not be oppressive and exclusionary. A player should only have to suffer the effects of falling if his characters choices cause that fall. It is not that we want the benefits of a paladin without drawbacks, but that it should be clearly explainable as to what choice was made to cause the fall. And you are correct that it is more a problem with the DM than the code, but the code can be an indicator of the problem with the DM.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Food for thought for those who have a hard-line literal interpretation of the Paladin's Code:
Bravery does not equal Stupidity. It is not dishonorable to retreat when facing overwhelming odds.
Using tactics against your enemy does not mean you are being cowardly. Ranged weapons and ambushes are perfectly acceptable tactics to use when combating the enemy.
Following the Paladin's Code does not mean ignoring common sense. A 1st level Paladin who encounters the minions of a high level evil overlord should not immediately track the overlord down and challenge him to a duel to the death. Even if the overlord is in direct conflict with the Paladin's deity and/or belief system, the Paladin should be smart enough to use other tactics to bring his/her foe down. After all, how well can a Paladin serve his/her deity if he/she is dead.
I have a player who's currently playing a paladin (with multiclass levels of sorcerer) who doesn't belong to an order, or even worships a specific deity but rather set out in the world to become a knight and follows his own honor code.
I'm pretty lenient in how to interpret the code itself, that's up to the player (the 'and so forth' is cut though). But what I do is to point out when his actions are decidedly evil. The idea of honor and justice are inherently shady concepts as they are mental constructs whose attributes change from person to person and culture to culture. So unless the character in question is part of an order which has a special creed, it's up to the player to define his moral compass, while I as GM keep track of how well he is keeping within those lines. A few decidedly evil acts (or good acts if you're evil) will bring up the topic of aligment shifting for discussion.
I actually love having paladins in the group when I'm GM. They tend to get personally interested in beating the BBEG, as it's in their nature to go after him.
Paladins are the "historic" knight's paragon. Knight were trained for war and strategy, and... strategy is deception :) I don't think that high level paladins like Queen Galfrey or Ulthun II are poor strategist, or Mendev and Lastwall would be overhelm soon. If a paladin army can smash an undead army cause they outnumbered them, they won't discuss long knowing if the act is honnorable or not... If a tactic trick can make them win against all odds against an evil hord, they will use it. They are not dumb warriors sacrificing their lives! Paladins know one thing, if they fail in their mission, the civilisation will end.
We all think that Galaad was the best paladin's exemple... but even if many rules explain that Robin Hood is a "chaotic good" character, I think he's much more like a paladin! He's a noble knight, loyal to Richard and he doesn't accept the rules of the false prince. He helps poor people, robing from the rich, he is courageous, he keeps is word... Yes, he can lie sometime, he uses tricks and a bow... Even if he's a knight, he's not stupid enough to charge Prince John's castle juste because he has to fight with honor!
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.
I think this really depends on the playstyle, and is something player and DM should consider in advance. Sure, I can understand a paladin falling from grace temporarily, and how s/he responds to it is important. That can certainly make for a more memorable character, and I'd say probably the paladin orders have their share of members who once or twice stepped away from the true path. However, one thing that would bug the living heck out of me is if the DM then becomes doggedly insistent on the character needing to find a high-level cleric to be able to channel energy, when the paladin needs to save a village from a rampaging horde or vampire weasels. Dramatic characters only work when both sides are ok with it.
I think, ultimately, that the penance should fit the misdeed. A paladin who cheated in a friendly game of dice, a paladin who lied to a tax collector, and a paladin who betrayed their order and religion for a perceived slight should not be treated the same way. One of the reasons I was more or less ok with the DnD 3.5 code is that it allowed for some leeway in the minor things. Now, a true paladin would probably be remorseful about those as well, and enough minor misdeeds can eventually be one too many, but it meant that you didn't have to worry about your DM messing with you over a minor interpretation of issues such as "what to do with a wounded rabbit."
The example of retreating in the face of overwhelming odds is a good one. Part of a Paladin's ideals should be to respect life, and as such, not throw it away needlessly. So if a Paladin is leading or an officer in a company of soldiers, and they find themselves facing overwhelming odds, it would not be against a Paladin's code of conduct to withdraw - but at the same time, the ideal of valor means that a Paladin should volunteer to act as the rearguard, holding off the enemy while everyone else withdraws. That doesn't mean that he should stay and fight to the death, just that he should be the one who keeps an orderly withdrawal from turning into a rout. Lawful Good is making sure everyone else who is able gets away before retreating oneself. Lawful Stupid is refusing to retreat, ever. HUGE difference.
Of course, this is assuming that there is no realistic chance of survival and that fighting to the death won't make a significant difference. When staying and fighting WILL make a difference - ie holding a fortified position while one's allies gather reinforcements; resisting a charge until it breaks; etc - then a Paladin should stay and fight even to the death.