Paladin hate.

[brewdus]

While perusing the boards, it seems there is much disdain for the paladin class. Why is this? Is it because people perceive them as too powerful or do people think playing a character seen as the pinnacle of good isn't "cool"?

[Quatar]

Probably a mix of both.
In previous editions Paladin's were extremely powerful, and the "they can fall" was the mechanic to balance this. It's obviously a pretty s*&+ty mechanic.

By now though, Paladins aren't any more powerful than other classes. Yes sure against evil dragons their Smite rocks, but most classes have some sort of enemy they excel against.

There's also the problem that some players play Paladin's as Lawful Stupid with a MASSIVE stick up their behind, and drag the fun-level down for the entire party.
Even if the Paladin in question isn't like that, many players/GMs have that image of Paladins and believe that's how they're played, so they prefer not to have one in the party (or bring them down quickly).

[brewdus]

Maybe people hate paladins because you have to put a bit more effort in the role playing aspect than a lot of other classes. I suspect they'd be more popular if they could be chaotic neutral.

[LazarX]

brewdus wrote:

While perusing the boards, it seems there is much disdain for the paladin class. Why is this? Is it because people perceive them as too powerful or do people think playing a character seen as the pinnacle of good isn't "cool"?

The problem with Paladins is that it's the only class with a built in self-destruct button. (Rangers had that button too in first edition until the "good alignment" requirement was removed.) This and the "holier than thou" attitude that comes as part of the package tends to encourage people to find ways to push that button. That's why almost all of the alignment threads on this board either are about, start with, or finish about Paladins.

Paladins were written in the game by an older generation, that took it's cultural background from the Baby Boomers and the Greatest Generation. The game however is now played by the far more cynical (with good reason) Generation X and their Millennial successors.

[johnlocke90]

I don't think people hate Paladins. Paladins have a strict(and vague) code with big consequences involved. As a result, nobody uses the rules as written(RAW, any violation of code means paladin falls, even a minor one) and people come up house rules to make this more enjoyable for everyone. This results in a lot of arguments.

Most of these threads start from GMs trying to deal with Paladin players. This results in philosophy conflicts.

[uriel222]

Paladins are tied to the alignment system, and some people DESPISE the alignment system. In fact, the mere existence of Paladins is one of the main reasons you can't simply excise alignment from the game entirely.

[LazarX]

johnlocke90 wrote:

I don't think people hate Paladins. Paladins have a strict(and vague) code with big consequences involved. As a result, nobody uses the rules as written(RAW, any violation of code means paladin falls, even a minor one) and people come up house rules to make this more enjoyable for everyone. This results in a lot of arguments.

Most of these threads start from GMs trying to deal with Paladin players. This results in philosophy conflicts.

It's not so much Paladin hate, although there is that out there, much of it brought on by Paladin players themselves. It's the hate of the baggage and the drama that Paladins bring with them. It's the requirement that players bend their gaming style to accommodate the Paladin player.

[johnlocke90]

LazarX wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

I don't think people hate Paladins. Paladins have a strict(and vague) code with big consequences involved. As a result, nobody uses the rules as written(RAW, any violation of code means paladin falls, even a minor one) and people come up house rules to make this more enjoyable for everyone. This results in a lot of arguments.

Most of these threads start from GMs trying to deal with Paladin players. This results in philosophy conflicts.

It's not so much Paladin hate, although there is that out there, much of it brought on by Paladin players themselves. It's the hate of the baggage and the drama that Paladins bring with them. It's the requirement that players bend their gaming style to accommodate the Paladin player.

Exactly, if your lawful good wizard does something morally questionable, its no big deal. He might have to alignment shift if its big enough, but you can continue the campaign. If your paladin does something morally questionable, it can result in him losing all his powers.

The GM has to figure out how to deal with this.

[brewdus]

I would think that would create an interesting role playing challenge, but I guess some people just don't want that in their games anymore!

[Wiggz]

brewdus wrote:

I would think that would create an interesting role playing challenge, but I guess some people just don't want that in their games anymore!

First of all, I LOVE Paladins, and the role-playing isn't usually a challenge for me at all... but what it can be is a challenge for the rest of my group, one they didn't sign on for. If I have a DM who for whatever reason has a particular or rigid view of what a Paladin can or can't do then it can become a true encumbrance because what he's really doing is either deciding what the party can or can't do (since I'd have to go along with whatever actions they chose) or setting me at odds with the party which takes away the fun for everyone.

.
When the GM and the player are on the same page as to what is required by a Paladin's faith then there is rarely any problem for anyone. For our group, we've removed the alignment requirement, removed the 'detect evil' ability and tweaked the Smite power so that it works against a set group appropriate for whatever deity the Paladin has devoted himself to... its worked out very, very well. The Paladin 'falls' when he fails to uphold the will of his patron deity who granted him his divine power, its as simple as that.

[Arslanxelan]

Nothing wrong with the class from a rules perspective. To me its more that paladins tend to attract players who like to impose their will on a party. Also the fact that some people play lawful good as lawful stupid does not help.

It is annoying when the paladin is telling the party what to do based on his alignment. Its important for a DM to veto a paladin character if group composition and campaign tone is not favorable to the class.

A well played paladin is also one of the most fun characters to watch and I also have some very good memories of then. So to me, its not a rules or roleplaying issue. It is a player issue.

[Kimera757]

brewdus wrote:

While perusing the boards, it seems there is much disdain for the paladin class. Why is this? Is it because people perceive them as too powerful or do people think playing a character seen as the pinnacle of good isn't "cool"?

There have been numerous editions of D&D, so there's little point of talking about how powerful a paladin is. (Perhaps they were overpowered in AD&D, although I dispute this; this has nothing to do with 3rd Edition or Pathfinder though.)

The biggest issue with the paladin is the code. In some editions, alignment was also a metagame problem, although I believe this is less relevant in newer editions.

To deal with alignments first:

There are approximately 7 billion people on this planet. That means there's approximately 7 billion different interpretations of each alignment. TSR, WotC and Paizo have done a poor job of describing alignments. TVTropes frankly does a better job; it must be the crowd-sourcing.

The DM wins any alignment argument (unless the player "bullies back" sometimes).

Some editions of D&D make alignment adversarial. If the DM can change your alignment, that can break your character, either in or out of metagame. (Having your fighter's alignment change from NG to LG might anger you, worse if it costs XP like in 2e, and worse if instead you were a 3.x/PF barbarian and suddenly lost the ability to rage!)

As for the paladin code, it has many issues, most of which have to do with (let's face it) a lack of clarity and playtesting. If a paladin joins an adventuring party, one of two things happens:

1) The paladin acts like an adventurer and falls.
2) The paladin player starts dictating how other PCs behave, because they're scared their PC will fall. (And their PC will fall, if they even tolerate what other PCs are doing.)
Or take a third option: The paladin suffers the fate of Ned Stark.

brewdus wrote:

Maybe people hate paladins because you have to put a bit more effort in the role playing aspect than a lot of other classes. I suspect they'd be more popular if they could be chaotic neutral.

brewdus wrote:

I would think that would create an interesting role playing challenge, but I guess some people just don't want that in their games anymore!

You're supposed to enjoy RPing. Plenty of paladin players don't enjoy this, nor do their fellow players. You also sound like you're trolling with these kinds of statements.

[Delthyn]

Paladins are despised because the concept of a prime moral law has vanished like tears in the rain. The younger generation has no concept of absolute right and absolute wrong. Even the terms invoke anger and hate in them.

In a world where each person has their own moral standards, and hold no one to the same standards, there is no room for a champion of justice and good. Killing is wrong for me, but its ok for you to do it. Slavery is wrong in my opinion, but it is ok if X culture does it. Or to put it into more contemporary, every-day terms, it is ok for people to curse in public, or in front of ladies nowadays, to use an example. Our culture has lost that sense of "common decency." It has been replaced by an "individualistic decency."

Argue against that if you will, but it is the truth. For better or for worse, we have abandoned the concept of a prime moral law. The repercussions will supposedly lead us to a new age of enlightenment...but is that really true? Or will the repercussions lead to something worse...

In any event, you stick a Paladin into that mess, and its like sticking oil into water. It doesn't mix.

Now that is a "main" reason. There are others. Like for instance, the "sterotypical" paladin concept is Waaaaayy over-used by players. Too many Paladin clones, not enough original thought. This is a failing of the players, not the class though. Paladins have just as much RP value as anyone else. In addition, Paladins are not exactly an OP class, nor are they inherently useful in every campaign. And even other moralists often find that the code can get in the way, particularly when it comes to the age-old question of "do the ends justify the means?"

So one main reason: culture, and several smaller reasons. There's your answer.

[Aelryinth]

Paladins plant themselves by the river of truth, and don't move. People whine and complain that the truth is subjective and interpretive, and the paladin should bend and flex.

And the paladin says "You move."

Paladins make the cynical green with envy, because they can't actually be that good and decent, and they LOOK for ways to bring down something better then themselves, instead of trying to be more like them. Instead of trying to find the better way, they try to justify the worse way.

Alignment and paladins are not hard to play. People who protest are those who seek to justify any action in their own morality, ignoring morality that is larger then they are (alignment).

==Aelryinth

[DeathQuaker]

Honestly, maybe I don't read the right threads, but I've not actually seen much paladin hate on this board. Anything in particular cause you to observe this?

I've seen a few inevitable "does a paladin fall if..." threads, but I don't necessarily perceive those as paladin hate threads. I think some people hate those kind of threads, but that's a different issue. I think maybe people hate discussing the paladin code sometimes, and alignment issues related to that, for the issues noted above. I've seen a few posts disdain paladins, but frankly I've seen a hell of a lot more fighter hate and rogue hate threads than paladin hate threads.

When looking at mechanics alone, I've usually seen a lot of praise for the Pathfinder paladin. It's a fairly powerful but not broken class. And its build is quite an improvement on the 3.5 paladin, in my personal opinion--I did see some hate threads on those in other forums because they had some more weaknesses and MAD issues.

I do agree sometimes the paladin feels like an unnecessary holdover from oldskool. It is an unusual class in that it is now the only one with a very restrictive behavior and alignment restriction, and in the future there may be better ways to build a holy champion kind of class (where playing like a paladin may be one of many options that the class offers). (And Inquisitor and some cleric archetypes do that already to a limited extent.) While that is a critique, it is not hatred.

[mousestalker]

I'm rather fond of pallies. The problem for me hasn't been the players playing them, but the GM's. Some GM's of the adversarial sort look at the pally code as a chance to screw over the player.

In our current gaming group there are two members that I would never play a pally with them as GM. They wouldn't be able to restrain themselves from messing with my character. The rest are people for whom I've played a pally and things went well.

What the player and the GM need is a clear understanding of what the paladin is about. There needs to be a well defined meeting of the minds.

If ever I ran a PbP game it would probably be the 'all paladin party'. Five paladins, all lawful good, off to save the world from itself and get kittens from the tops of trees. :)

n.b. If anyone played City of Heroes, I was member of "Repeat Offenders" in Freedom for a very long time.

I just read the other pally thread. Not naming names, but one of the posters would find his pally card yanked if he behaved as he described a paladin should act were I his GM.

[johnlocke90]

Aelryinth wrote:

Paladins plant themselves by the river of truth, and don't move. People whine and complain that the truth is subjective and interpretive, and the paladin should bend and flex.

And the paladin says "You move."

Paladins make the cynical green with envy, because they can't actually be that good and decent, and they LOOK for ways to bring down something better then themselves, instead of trying to be more like them. Instead of trying to find the better way, they try to justify the worse way.

Alignment and paladins are not hard to play. People who protest are those who seek to justify any action in their own morality, ignoring morality that is larger then they are (alignment).

==Aelryinth

I would love to see two paladins who take this stance in a group while having different ideas of "the truth". Would probably lead to paladin v paladin combat.

[johnlocke90]

Delthyn wrote:

Paladins are despised because the concept of a prime moral law has vanished like tears in the rain. The younger generation has no concept of absolute right and absolute wrong. Even the terms invoke anger and hate in them.

In a world where each person has their own moral standards, and hold no one to the same standards, there is no room for a champion of justice and good. Killing is wrong for me, but its ok for you to do it. Slavery is wrong in my opinion, but it is ok if X culture does it. Or to put it into more contemporary, every-day terms, it is ok for people to curse in public, or in front of ladies nowadays, to use an example. Our culture has lost that sense of "common decency." It has been replaced by an "individualistic decency."

Argue against that if you will, but it is the truth. For better or for worse, we have abandoned the concept of a prime moral law. The repercussions will supposedly lead us to a new age of enlightenment...but is that really true? Or will the repercussions lead to something worse...

In any event, you stick a Paladin into that mess, and its like sticking oil into water. It doesn't mix.

Now that is a "main" reason. There are others. Like for instance, the "sterotypical" paladin concept is Waaaaayy over-used by players. Too many Paladin clones, not enough original thought. This is a failing of the players, not the class though. Paladins have just as much RP value as anyone else. In addition, Paladins are not exactly an OP class, nor are they inherently useful in every campaign. And even other moralists often find that the code can get in the way, particularly when it comes to the age-old question of "do the ends justify the means?"

So one main reason: culture, and several smaller reasons. There's your answer.

On the contrary, I think people who believe in subjective morality would be easier on a paladin. Would allow more leeway for the player.

If you want a real pain to roleplay, try playing with a GM who believes morality is objective but has completely different ideas from you for right v wrong.

[Rynjin]

brewdus wrote:

I would think that would create an interesting role playing challenge, but I guess some people just don't want that in their games anymore!

Quit with the passive-aggressive dramatic b*#*+**@ and just rename your thread to "People hate Paladins because they're all Roll Playing Scrubs who don't know how to RP" instead of pussy footing around it.

Nobody hates Paladins. People expect Paladins to be upheld to their Code, which is pretty much the basis of the entire class. They're held to a higher standard, and thus they get power from that. The only thing people "hate" about Paladins is the vagueness of the Code and people using the whole "destroy evil" thing as a license to run around and slaughter everything in sight.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Through playing my characters, their only experience of paladins npc or pc is that they are absolute fu** heads. Crazy, arrogant, dangerous.

I hate paladins, my chars have had reason to hate paladins. lol.

[TriOmegaZero]

brewdus wrote:

While perusing the boards, it seems there is much disdain for the paladin class. Why is this? Is it because people perceive them as too powerful or do people think playing a character seen as the pinnacle of good isn't "cool"?

Nah. You're just imagining things.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Delthyn wrote:

Paladins are despised because the concept of a prime moral law has vanished like tears in the rain. The younger generation has no concept of absolute right and absolute wrong. Even the terms invoke anger and hate in them.

In a world where each person has their own moral standards, and hold no one to the same standards, there is no room for a champion of justice and good. Killing is wrong for me, but its ok for you to do it. Slavery is wrong in my opinion, but it is ok if X culture does it. Or to put it into more contemporary, every-day terms, it is ok for people to curse in public, or in front of ladies nowadays, to use an example. Our culture has lost that sense of "common decency." It has been replaced by an "individualistic decency."

Argue against that if you will, but it is the truth. For better or for worse, we have abandoned the concept of a prime moral law. The repercussions will supposedly lead us to a new age of enlightenment...but is that really true? Or will the repercussions lead to something worse...

In any event, you stick a Paladin into that mess, and its like sticking oil into water. It doesn't mix.

Now that is a "main" reason. There are others. Like for instance, the "sterotypical" paladin concept is Waaaaayy over-used by players. Too many Paladin clones, not enough original thought. This is a failing of the players, not the class though. Paladins have just as much RP value as anyone else. In addition, Paladins are not exactly an OP class, nor are they inherently useful in every campaign. And even other moralists often find that the code can get in the way, particularly when it comes to the age-old question of "do the ends justify the means?"

So one main reason: culture, and several smaller reasons. There's your answer.

I like your analysis.

[Mechalibur]

Delthyn wrote:

Paladins are despised because the concept of a prime moral law has vanished like tears in the rain. The younger generation has no concept of absolute right and absolute wrong. Even the terms invoke anger and hate in them.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Moral relativity most certainly is not something unique to newer generations of people, and definitely not the only moral viewpoint people have nowadays.

[The Drunken Dragon]

Morton forks. It's too easy for a paladin to be locked into some moral conundrum.

It's more a challenge for GMs. What is a quaint moral dilemma for the rest of the party becomes life and death for one of them. And at the end of the day, like arguing religion, philosophy, semantics, or pretty much anything that's even slightly subjective, nothing gets accomplished, except of course, making everyone angry. At the end of the day, paladins just have this unfortunate tendency to become the elephant in the room. Clerics have similar restrictions, but no one usually cares, since a cleric usually has a little more wiggle-room. Paladins have VERY strict restrictions.

Basically, what I'm saying is, they're a reason to get the entire table mad at one another, because, as we all one day learn, everyone has VERY different ideas about what the word "good" means.

P.S. The interpretation of a "greater good" mindset being outdated is stupid. The philosophical extremes of "greater good" and "situational good" have existed since people could reason in abstracts, it has nothing to do with age(though the tendency to subscribe to one mindset or another does depend slightly upon culture). If anything, our culture has a strong tendency of letting people freely choose one or the other without penalty. Both are considered valid. Both continue arguing pointlessly. Both are probably both true and false. See, this is exactly why most people don't like paladins.

Personally, I love paladins, but only because I enjoy playing them as if i were playing Dalinar Kholin or Michael Carpenter. I try not to be too militant or knight-templarish.

[Spanky the Leprechaun]

I love paladins.

The umpteenth iteration of "is stealing trick-or-treat for UNICEF money as a kid enough to make my paladin chaotic evil?"

Not so much.

[Seranov]

I love the Paladin I'm playing right now, though my group may start disliking him to a greater or lesser degree as we go on.

He's a Half-orc Redeemer of Sarenrae with the Blade of Mercy trait. All he does is nonlethal damage, and tries to talk down enemies before he attempts to attack him. The rest of the group appears to be murderhobos, though, and it's likely that poor Tomag is going to get coup de grace'd in his sleep because of his ways.

I told them all this was the character I wanted to play weeks before we started, and no one said a single thing about it until I tried to convince the Lizardman that he should just let us go peacefully. ;_;

[Rynjin]

Seranov wrote:

I love the Paladin I'm playing right now, though my group may start disliking him to a greater or lesser degree as we go on.

He's a Half-orc Redeemer of Sarenrae with the Blade of Mercy trait. All he does is nonlethal damage, and tries to talk down enemies before he attempts to attack him. The rest of the group appears to be murderhobos, though, and it's likely that poor Tomag is going to get coup de grace'd in his sleep because of his ways.

I told them all this was the character I wanted to play weeks before we started, and no one said a single thing about it until I tried to convince the Lizardman that he should just let us go peacefully. ;_;

Think that's bad?

Try being the Lawful Evil Monk who tries to leave people alive if they pose no threat and/or fulfill their end of a bargain when everyone else wants to killripmaimdestroy at all times.

At least you have the excuse of being a good guy, the rest of my (mostly Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral) party including the GM likes to look at me and go "Shouldn't you be more killdeathkill as an evil guy?"

[Seranov]

Instead I get, "HE STABBED ME, I NEED TO BISECT HIM AT THE WAIST." They yelled at me when I tried to perform a heal check to stabilize the one lizardman they didn't manage to completely murder, because I was doing that instead of standing in front of the party being a wall of stupid orc.

I suppose I can say I understand your pain, guy.

[Pendagast]

See I have this Idea to Play a Paladin. But I'm afraid I won't get away with it.

He's Based on Ulysses S. Grant.

Grant was a failure as a human being.

We was a rude, mean, depressed, unsuccessful drunk as a civilian.

But he came alive as a soldier.

This was his 'calling'.

I'd like to play a disheveled, lazy, brooding warrior, called to a higher purpose. In town, in standard situations abroad, and adventuring he's crass, impatient or busy himself eating or drinking, possibly making himself comfortable or some other self obsessed behavior.

But when needed, a great evil is present, no one else can over come the monster, or the odds are overwhelming and his companions/innocents really need his help. He shines.

Always there when you need him, but never really "towing the line", maybe call him a reluctant paladin?

Possibly frequently muttering to himself, which if listening closely sounds like harsh arguments with his god?

[Rynjin]

I don't see anything wrong with that.

To me, a Paladin doesn't have to be nice, or polite, or even selfless in his every day life. He just has to be Good and to follow the Code to the best of his ability.

I don't see anything in the Code that says a Paladin must be "Clean shaven, washed, sober, and ready to throw himself at every possible cause he could conceivably pick up".

[Roberta Yang]

Rynjin wrote:

I don't see anything in the Code that says a Paladin must be "Clean shaven, washed, sober, and ready to throw himself at every possible cause he could conceivably pick up".

Obviously you don't appreciate the roleplaying challenge of being as boring as possible. Damn kids these days.

[Pendagast]

hah whos that guy from true grit? Rooster Cogburn? peeeeerfect.

edit:

Arrogant
Cunning and able to adapt
Cynical
Disrespectful of rank and privilege
Emotionally conflicted, bipolar, or moody
Having a distaste for social institutions and norms
Having a troubled past or suffering from an unnamed crime
Intelligent and perceptive
Jaded, world-weary
Mysterious, magnetic and charismatic
Rebellious
Seductive and sexually attractive
Self-critical and introspective
Self-destructive
Socially and sexually dominant
Sophisticated and educated
Struggling with integrity

This would describe him perfectly....

[Rynjin]

Pendagast wrote:

hah whos that guy from true grit? Rooster Cogburn? peeeeerfect.

Wasn't there a thread here a while back where a guy wanted to make a Rooster Cogburn Paladin/Gunslinger or summat?

[Pendagast]

Rynjin wrote:

Pendagast wrote:

hah whos that guy from true grit? Rooster Cogburn? peeeeerfect.

Wasn't there a thread here a while back where a guy wanted to make a Rooster Cogburn Paladin/Gunslinger or summat?

isnt there paladin gun wielding archetype?

[johnlocke90]

Rynjin wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with that.

To me, a Paladin doesn't have to be nice, or polite, or even selfless in his every day life. He just has to be Good and to follow the Code to the best of his ability.

I don't see anything in the Code that says a Paladin must be "Clean shaven, washed, sober, and ready to throw himself at every possible cause he could conceivably pick up".

Well it says he has to "act with honor". I don't think being a rude drunkard would be honorable.

[Seranov]

It might, if he were a Paladin of Cayden Cailean! I don't recall it saying Paladins needed to be near their deity in alignment.

[Pendagast]

Honor definition:honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and action.

Don't see the need to be polite, or sober here.

[johnlocke90]

Seranov wrote:

It might, if he were a Paladin of Cayden Cailean! I don't recall it saying Paladins needed to be near their deity in alignment.

Actually Cayden frowns upon drinking to excess. Being a drunkard would be dishonorable to him.

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Cayden_Cailean

[Seranov]

Fair enough.

[Pendagast]

Drunk isnt a necessity as Id rather not deal with technicalities of addiction and or diminished performance due to being intoxicated.

If a Paladin is immune to disease, isn't he immune to alcoholism, since it is a disease?

[johnlocke90]

Yes, a paladin is immune to alcoholism. He is also immune to drug addiction as well.

[Pendagast]

cool, so i could do the melancholy Capt America thing....DANG it! I cant even be a good drunk! Why gods, WHY!

[3.5 Loyalist]

Rynjin wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with that.

To me, a Paladin doesn't have to be nice, or polite, or even selfless in his every day life. He just has to be Good and to follow the Code to the best of his ability.

I don't see anything in the Code that says a Paladin must be "Clean shaven, washed, sober, and ready to throw himself at every possible cause he could conceivably pick up".

Yeah, I agree, but others on these boards have argued a paladin that isn't pleasant to everyone he meets will fall. Literally they tried the trap of, ugly fat princess you are a bodyguard for wants to know if she is pretty. If you lie, you break your code. If you tell the truth (she is an ugly spoiled brat) you hurt her feelings and have therefore hurt an innocent. You horrible human being, you should be nice to everyone paladin.

Screw that, I like the idea of surly flawed paladins, that aren't arrogant dicks, but do have their weaknesses.

[Pendagast]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with that.

To me, a Paladin doesn't have to be nice, or polite, or even selfless in his every day life. He just has to be Good and to follow the Code to the best of his ability.

I don't see anything in the Code that says a Paladin must be "Clean shaven, washed, sober, and ready to throw himself at every possible cause he could conceivably pick up".

Yeah, I agree, but others on these boards have argued a paladin that isn't pleasant to everyone he meets will fall. Literally they tried the trap of, ugly fat princess you are a bodyguard for wants to know if she is pretty. If you lie, you break your code. If you tell the truth (she is an ugly spoiled brat) you hurt her feelings and have therefore hurt an innocent. You horrible human being, you should be nice to everyone paladin.

Screw that, I like the idea of surly flawed paladins, that aren't arrogant dicks, but do have their weaknesses.

agreed , stupid circular trap is why I don't play it.

maybe 6 levels of Sohei monk and THEN called as a paladin... what? hey, no no, I didnt ask for this, wha? shut up1 I can't hear myself meditate! Oh alright, whatever, just this one time..... maybe I can drown the voices with sake..... uggggh no! It doesn't work.

Next morning... what do you want now? Why? IS there a REASON i Can't just be the palace guard? That's an awfully long way... what did you say your name was again?
Ok look.... ill do it this one time, but you are really going to have to give me some time to myself... ahimsa and incense awaits....

[Darkwolf117]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Yeah, I agree, but others on these boards have argued a paladin that isn't pleasant to everyone he meets will fall. Literally they tried the trap of, ugly fat princess you are a bodyguard for wants to know if she is pretty. If you lie, you break your code. If you tell the truth (she is an ugly spoiled brat) you hurt her feelings and have therefore hurt an innocent. You horrible human being, you should be nice to everyone paladin.

Are you... kidding? I really hope so, cuz if not, that's absolutely insane. A Paladin's code is not that temperamental. I'm rather confident that hurting someone's feelings is not quite the same as hurting an innocent, in the context of performing evil, and not even remotely close to causing a fall.

I don't know who thought that 'trap' up, but that's absurd.

[Blueluck]

Wiggz wrote:

When the GM and the player are on the same page as to what is required by a Paladin's faith then there is rarely any problem for anyone. . .

I think this is the key to having a good time playing with a paladin in the party.

My Paladin:

In my current Kingmaker game I'm playing a Paladin who recently hit 12th level. At first, I played him as a very black & white, evil smiting, moralist. As he gained experience and encountered more complex ethical situations, I played out his learning to approach morality more subtly. At some point, I plan to push this "subtlety" far enough to risk falling, possibly even to the point of fall and redemption. I'm holding off until a fall won't adversely affect the rest of the party too much.

[Katz]

Darkwolf117 wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Yeah, I agree, but others on these boards have argued a paladin that isn't pleasant to everyone he meets will fall. Literally they tried the trap of, ugly fat princess you are a bodyguard for wants to know if she is pretty. If you lie, you break your code. If you tell the truth (she is an ugly spoiled brat) you hurt her feelings and have therefore hurt an innocent. You horrible human being, you should be nice to everyone paladin.

Are you... kidding? I really hope so, cuz if not, that's absolutely insane. A Paladin's code is not that temperamental. I'm rather confident that hurting someone's feelings is not quite the same as hurting an innocent, in the context of performing evil, and not even remotely close to causing a fall.

I don't know who thought that 'trap' up, but that's absurd.

I've heard plenty of stupid 'paladin traps' like that. In reverse of the 'wizard god confirmation bias' thing that happens sometimes, some GMs want to make the Paladin fall ASAP, apparently to 'prove' they suck, or take the fun out of the game, or something.

[Roberta Yang]

Katz wrote:

I've heard plenty of stupid 'paladin traps' like that. In reverse of the 'wizard god confirmation bias' thing that happens sometimes, some GMs want to make the Paladin fall ASAP, apparently to 'prove' they suck, or take the fun out of the game, or something.

The worst part is that the rules seem to support and encourage stupid paladin traps. For example, the Atonement spell's text explicitly states that a single evil act is enough to make a paladin fall even if the act was unwitting or the paladin was under a compulsion effect. A lot of bad GM's read things like that as giving them permission to screw over paladins because, man, if you weren't supposed to hit paladins with Dominate Person or put them against evil villains who are secretly good and have adorable babies or otherwise actively try and make them fall for stupid reasons, why would those rules be there?

[Katz]

Roberta Yang wrote:

Katz wrote:

I've heard plenty of stupid 'paladin traps' like that. In reverse of the 'wizard god confirmation bias' thing that happens sometimes, some GMs want to make the Paladin fall ASAP, apparently to 'prove' they suck, or take the fun out of the game, or something.

The worst part is that the rules seem to support and encourage stupid paladin traps. For example, the Atonement spell's text explicitly states that a single evil act is enough to make a paladin fall even if the act was unwitting or the paladin was under a compulsion effect. A lot of bad GM's read things like that as giving them permission to screw over paladins because, man, if you weren't supposed to hit paladins with Dominate Person or put them against evil villains who are secretly good and have adorable babies or otherwise actively try and make them fall for stupid reasons, why would those rules be there?

That's one of the reasons why I'm so unsure about trying out the Stonelord Paladin archetype--I don't want my character to fall for stupid reasons for that.

On a side note, I really hate the Atonement spell, at least for paladin-related stuff. It just seems kinda shallow for a divine caster to regain all their powers...through buying a spell (or getting another party member to do it). I'd prefer if the RAW let you regain your paly powers just by atoning...not by an Atonement spell.

[Sitri]

I am not overly fond of any player in my party being Lawful Good because it does tend to impact how I can behave within my alignment (On the flip side I don't like CE there either). If I deem an action I can take necessary and within my alignment I want to take it, I don't want to need to sell it to another player or trick them into going away so I can do what I need to do. Most other alignments will accept that you are your own person and make your own decisions towards a common goal, but Lawful Good characters tend to want to impose their alignment on others; as well they should, it makes sense from a role play point of view. But I don't care to hang out with self righteous people in the game any more than I do in real life.

As for the common decency as described earlier in the thread, I think this is the main reason people tend to play paladins as Lawful Stupid. If you are going to have a simple black and white code in a world of infinite variables you are bound to make some bad decisions. The more complex the problem, the more complex the solution. If you can sum up your thought process for every moral decision you will ever make in a couple of lines, that seems to me like saying I only need arithmetic to solve calculus problems.

This sense of moral authority also leads to massive exploitation. The history of people dogmatically doing very bad things that either they thought were good because they were following simple rules without question or people that got away with bad things because of the dogmatic views of others thinking they were pious makes a very long list.

I will take a well reasoned argument based on the facts at hand any day over an appeal to authority.