** spoiler omitted **
What prime moral law are you talking about? Religion or civil law?
In the second paragrahp you are talking about moral relativism, which is generally immoral. We can however gain some sort of understanding...
A few years ago Sam Harris wrote a pretty decent book where he argued for absolute morality not based on civil or religious law, it was called The Moral Landscape. I am simplifying the idea, but it was largely based on minimizing suffering while not forcing suffering on an individual to achieve this end. His sort of tip of the hat to relativism is that there is more than on route to moral justness or corruption; they have to be thought of sort of as an entire gene complex in which some traits are bad in the presence of others, but they can be very good with the appropriate counterparts. This is not relativism though, in that these things can be judged as right or wrong in their present state as a constant for everyone.
I think he did a speech on TED (I can probably find a link if interested) where the main points were summed up. It is worth a listen and/or read.
PS moral relativism is only immoral to the moral absolutist.
Even if we accept that absolute morality exists, we still have widespread disagreement on right v wrong.
In fact, I think the nastiest disagreements are those between two people who have absolutist views or morality.
Lovecraft of all people, expressed a similar view.
Regardless you are still wrong about never getting nonevil undead. We already have.I am guessing you didn't read the editor's note where it was explained nonevil undead are an error and that you probably won't see pathfinder publish nonevil undead.Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.WRONG!
Even discounting juju oracles (I will always play them as written until they release official errata), you still have ghosts.
So, still WRONG! ;)
The issue I am having in our game with my paladin, is not the moral codes, behaviour or even compatability of the Paladins codes with the party. My DM I think secretly hates paladins. He keeps over time diminishing my abilities so that my damage output is lower and lower and lower.
Our party is comprised of a Druid, Ranger (archer), a non combat spec rogue and a witch and of course my paladin. The ranger has become the only real high damage dealer.
I have had my off hand damage reduced, the ability to offensively enchant my shield banned ( I am a dual wielder with a shield/Sword) my Smite no longer crits, and now I have had my immunity to Lycanthropy removed so werewolves can get me..oh..and my remove disease from my lay on hands wont remove lycanthropy. I have also had my smite reduced to only primary hand as opposed to all attacks, and a trait reduced (Shining Beacon) to again lessen output.
At early levels it was a problem as I could walk up to weak bosses and WHAM dead (they were undead bad guys) but the bad guys are getting tougher and tougher and tougher as we get to the medium levels.
I have been diminished in a few other ways as well over time.
I wonder is this common in a lot of games, are Paladin players seeing the nerf bat thrown at them from DM's for being OP?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Here's what I think the real issue is. The Paladin class was created by a couple of wargamers who were raised by "Greatest Generation" parents and soaked in their ethical and moral values. However the present culture is simply a far more cynical type of moral relativists who've been raised on self indulgence and greed as a national virtuem and most modern game settings reflect this particular cultural tone. A Paladin these days is as out of place as a newly defrosted Steve Rogers.
Which can be fun (See Due South) but it does take a GM willing to actually let the Paladin make a difference. Basically, the GM can make the setting as cynical as he wants, but the Paladin's code should have an impact to make the game enjoyable for everyone. (again, see Benton Frazier in Chicago)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My point is that today's players are far more cynical than that of the generation that first played the game. Ethical and moral norms DO tend to change with generations. And it's my feeling that the Paladin is just that more dissonant with today's players who have been raised on essentially Grey Heroes and feel that someone who insists on wearing a hat as White as the Paladin is expected to be just doesn't make sense.Here's what I think the real issue is. The Paladin class was created by a couple of wargamers who were raised by "Greatest Generation" parents and soaked in their ethical and moral values. However the present culture is simply a far more cynical type of moral relativists who've been raised on self indulgence and greed as a national virtuem and most modern game settings reflect this particular cultural tone. A Paladin these days is as out of place as a newly defrosted Steve Rogers.Which can be fun (See Due South) but it does take a GM willing to actually let the Paladin make a difference. Basically, the GM can make the setting as cynical as he wants, but the Paladin's code should have an impact to make the game enjoyable for everyone. (again, see Benton Frazier in Chicago)
Heh, maybe I'm just old fashioned. :P
That said, it's easier from a RP POV to play an Inquisitor trying to live up to the Paladin code, than play a Paladin. And that's sad.
I would add to your statement, Laz, if I may: "Someone who insists on wearing a hat as White as the Paladin is expected to be just doesn't make sense, and is secretly lying and/or trying to sell you something... and is most likely more 'evil' than the bad guys."
I've run into that kind of attitude before as well, which is frustrating.
:(
... sadly. (Even though I like Wolverine... or did before that one movie.)
EDIT: totally off topic, but man, Avengers was a good movie. Had a great Captain America, too.
He also keeps his BAB, his hit dice, his skill points, and his saves. All of those are ALSO class features he gets to hold onto. He doesn't devolve back to being a commoner.
Base ability he gets to keep. There's nothing in the rules anywhere to force him to take ANY amount of training. If a commoner/3 takes the Call, he gets the benefit...no years of training needed, and that applies at level 1 as much as level 3.
It's magic, roll with it.
==Aelryinth
Well, the kid off the streets who picked up enough know how to pick locks and pockets, sneak about quietly and find the best way to slip a dagger between your ribs when you aren't looking, after having adventured for a bit suddenly is capable of reading magic, casting spells and scribing scrolls (i.e. takes a 1 level dip into Wizard) without any additional training unlike the level 1 Wizard who supposedly spent years learning these rudimentary abilities.
So I'd call it game fluff, but would still say roll with it. :)
... He keeps over time diminishing my abilities so that my damage output is lower and lower and lower. ... I wonder is this common in a lot of games, are Paladin players seeing the nerf bat thrown at them from DM's for being OP?
I have seen and/or heard the nerf stick used quite a bit. Not just for paladins though. It usually (not always) seems to be when a long term GM (several versions of the games) gets a character that is doing so well that it is wrecking the campaign. At least more than the other characters.
This usually seems to be with extremely efficient powerful builds (or even one-trick-ponies) that happen to be very effective in a particular campaign.
Ex1: We had a battle mage with incredibly powerful fire spell castings join the group. The character wasn’t good for much of anything else. But at that point in the campaign we were mostly fighting. No diplomacy or investigating going on. And the particular opponents we had at that time, the GM did not think it was reasonable for them to suddenly be resistant to fire. If the player’s job hadn’t forced him to leave he would have been nerfed.
Ex2: Player built a sorc around high initiative and the old iron bands spell (I think that was what it was called). I don’t remember the details, but even if the target made the save he was really no longer a serious threat. The GM at that time mostly used single powerful opponents (as opposed to groups or underlings). Sorc usually won initiative cast iron bands. Fight over. Sorc has plenty of spells to keep doing that over and over. GM eventually threw a fit and eliminated the spell.
Ex3: Intrigue heavy, investigation, mystery, urban, courtly campaign. Player made a trip/disarm specialist. The common disadvantage of trip and disarm specialists is that a lot of critters can’t be disarmed and/or are nearly impossible to trip. But this in town virtually everyone was a humanoid with a weapon or other gear. A trip and disarm build was just horrifically overpowered for that campaign. He was being systematically nerfed when the group broke up (totally unrelated reasons).
I am not saying it is a good thing, but from what I’ve seen it is usually when a single character is dominating and the GM can’t or won’t adjust for it.
My guess is that he usually had a standard standup fights with evil creatures and few enough in a day that you could mostly use smite to make his expected epic fights into a couple rounds of the paladin beating on things. I think there are usually better ways to handle situations like this. But many old edition GM’s seem to use nerf as the default. Not sure why.
--------------
I would talk with him. Say I sorta understand you felt the paladin was too powerful, but I don’t feel like I’m playing the same character I started with. Can I switch to a different character? Would you have a lot of problems with X class/concept? My suggestion would be to not go for a highly focused DPS machine since he seems to have a problem with that. A more generalist character rarely gets the same response even if it is very good.
If on the other hand you really think he just doesn’t like paladins for fluff rather than power reasons. Many people just do not like the whole concept of the paladin. But rather than banning will get very passive/aggressive and try to in game make it a poor choice. You could play a LG inquisitor with basically the same personal code of conduct. Don’t write it down and tell everyone, just play it that way in character. I’ve never heard of any GM having a problem with that.
|
The White Necromancer however isn't a license to go around doing the same kind of corpse robbing and raising that his Black Hat counterpart is doing. Or at least it shouldn't be played that way.Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.Along with juju oracles(which I refuse to ever give up as written), there's also the 3rd party White Necromancer.
Who is suggesting it is?
|
My point is that today's players are far more cynical than that of the generation that first played the game. Ethical and moral norms DO tend to change with generations. And it's my feeling that the Paladin is just that more dissonant with today's players who have been raised on essentially Grey Heroes and feel that someone who insists on wearing a hat as White as the Paladin is expected to be just doesn't make sense.I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that there's another germaine issue with the Paladin's Code - it's supposed to offset advantages that have been comparatively devalued as the game has evolved.
Paladin characters were originally (back in 1E) very difficult to qualify for. Presuming that stats were rolled, you needed exceptionally high scores - and could only be a human - in order to even be one. They had strict alignment regulations and a Code of Conduct.
In exchange for this, they received powers and abilities that made them flat-out better than other classes, at least insofar as fighting evil creatures in melee combat went. They had significant advantages to balance out their drawbacks.
Second Edition largely clung to this tradition, but everything changed in 3E; suddenly "balance" meant that every class needed comparable parity in combat, and while the paladin did get something of a boost, it was a modest one compared to what most other classes received. Worse, this process repeated itself in 3.5 and again in Pathfinder.
The paladin didn't get any weaker, but now it was equaled by other classes in the same role (melee combat with evil monsters). Unfortunately, retaining the flavor of the class meant keeping its alignment restrictions and Code of Conduct (even if the racial and ability score requirements went away), and so the paladin is still burdened by drawbacks to pay for the combat effectiveness that other classes are getting for free.
Honestly I have to agree 100%
|
Properly played, a White Necromancer should raise undead only reluctantly, and then release them back to their rest when the need has passed.Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.Along with juju oracles(which I refuse to ever give up as written), there's also the 3rd party White Necromancer.
I tend to agree. In fact, that mind set is practically hard-wired into the White Necromancer class in Kobold Quarterly.
If anything, I'll probably build on this aspect of the class a bit more when I start working on New Paths: The Expanded White Necromancer.
...The paladin didn't get any weaker, but now it was equaled by other classes in the same role (melee combat with evil monsters). Unfortunately, retaining the flavor of the class meant keeping its alignment restrictions and Code of Conduct (even if the racial and ability score requirements went away), and so the paladin is still burdened by drawbacks to pay for the combat effectiveness that other classes are getting for free.Honestly I have to agree 100%
I think the paladin is still a little bit more powerful than most other classes, but not excessively so. (Certainly not as much as many people think the master or sythesist summoner are.) So there could be some rationalization for a slight RP burden. (But then why is there no burden for the master summoner?)
But in my opinion the RP burden is not slight. In many respects it seems to have gotten much worse. When I played back in the 'olden-days' if someone ran a paladin they would get a moral quandry every so often but usually it wasn't that bad and most people didn't make a big deal of it. (Yeah, there were a few GM's that hated the paladin and would spend the campaign trying to cause you to fall. But most of them didn't do that.)
Now there seem to be many groups that either the GM or the players get into aggressive disagreements over every action using some sub-set of what they think are proper moral decisions. The player is hemmed in by what he thinks, what the GM thinks, and by what each of the other players think. They often seem constrained so that no action is possible.
|
|
Properly played, a White Necromancer should raise undead only reluctantly, and then release them back to their rest when the need has passed.Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.Along with juju oracles(which I refuse to ever give up as written), there's also the 3rd party White Necromancer.
I tend to agree. In fact, that mind set is practically hard-wired into the White Necromancer class in Kobold Quarterly.
If anything, I'll probably build on this aspect of the class a bit more when I start working on New Paths: The Expanded White Necromancer.
Hey everyone, just a quick heads up that the aforementioned New Paths 7: The Expanded White Necromancer is finally about to be released :)
You can read a design blog here ....
... He keeps over time diminishing my abilities so that my damage output is lower and lower and lower. ... I wonder is this common in a lot of games, are Paladin players seeing the nerf bat thrown at them from DM's for being OP?I have seen and/or heard the nerf stick used quite a bit. Not just for paladins though. It usually (not always) seems to be when a long term GM (several versions of the games) gets a character that is doing so well that it is wrecking the campaign. At least more than the other characters.
This usually seems to be with extremely efficient powerful builds (or even one-trick-ponies) that happen to be very effective in a particular campaign.
Ex1: We had a battle mage with incredibly powerful fire spell castings join the group. The character wasn’t good for much of anything else. But at that point in the campaign we were mostly fighting. No diplomacy or investigating going on. And the particular opponents we had at that time, the GM did not think it was reasonable for them to suddenly be resistant to fire. If the player’s job hadn’t forced him to leave he would have been nerfed.
Ex2: Player built a sorc around high initiative and the old iron bands spell (I think that was what it was called). I don’t remember the details, but even if the target made the save he was really no longer a serious threat. The GM at that time mostly used single powerful opponents (as opposed to groups or underlings). Sorc usually won initiative cast iron bands. Fight over. Sorc has plenty of spells to keep doing that over and over. GM eventually threw a fit and eliminated the spell.
Ex3: Intrigue heavy, investigation, mystery, urban, courtly campaign. Player made a trip/disarm specialist. The common disadvantage of trip and disarm specialists is that a lot of critters can’t be disarmed and/or are nearly impossible to trip. But this in town virtually everyone was a humanoid with a weapon or other gear. A trip and disarm build was just horrifically overpowered for that...
So... players were getting nerfed due to building their PCs intelligently? How unreasonable is it to build a Manuever Master in a city? It owuld make alot of sense actually. And as for the Sorc, he was playing smart. If the GM wanted to do something, rather than ban hammering it, he should have been smart and change up his style (throw a horde of kobolds at you or something). As for the pyromancer, throw rogues at the party. Not resistant to fire, but good luck getting your spells to stick on a rogue or monk. Additionally, he could have introduced more RP, forcing the character to have to do something OTHER than burn the crap out of things.
Funny thing is, alot of things GMs call "over-powered", "broken", or "abusing the game" are actually very easily remedied if they would simply adjust the world accordingly and not go on a ego trip and expect all his PCs to be exactly as he wanted and not adapt to the their world or build in according to their world.
But then again, what do I know?
Ok, serious 9 month thread necromancy...
... So... players were getting nerfed due to building their PCs intelligently? How unreasonable is it to build a Manuever Master in a city? It owuld make alot of sense actually. And as for the Sorc, he was playing smart. If the GM wanted to do something, rather than ban hammering it, he should have been smart and change up his style (throw a horde of kobolds at you or something). As for the pyromancer, throw rogues at the party. Not resistant to fire, but good luck getting your spells to stick on a rogue or monk. Additionally, he could have introduced more RP, forcing the character to have to do something OTHER than burn the crap out of things.
Funny thing is, alot of things GMs call "over-powered", "broken", or "abusing the game" are actually very easily remedied if they would simply adjust the world accordingly and not go on a ego trip and expect all his PCs to be exactly as he wanted and not adapt to the their world or build in according to their world.
But then again, what do I know?
The OP was expressing concern that this just happened to him, I was saying that I have seen it several times before. I didn't say it was right just those were some instances I've seen it happen. But to a certain extent I could see the reasoning behind the decisions.
In example 1: The player/PC had not been with us through the campaign. He was a late addition. The build would have had very rough going and probably wouldn't even have survived through earlier parts of the campaign. But if he had slogged through it, I would bet the GM would have had no problem with him now having an opportunity to shine. Yes there were a few rogues and other things with evasion. But at that time we were mostly fighting things that didn't have class levels and wouldn't have made sense if they did. I can understand him not wanting to completely re-write the campaign war-climax due to a late-to-the-party-one-trick-pony PC.
In example 2: He was a fairly new GM (at least new to PF). He was mostly running things the way the modules are already written. The GM had allowed a 3.x spell into PF at the players request. I'm not sure he knew it was counted as one of the more powerful spells back then. Then PF gives you many ways to jack-up the DC's and effectiveness of a single spell. I think this PC had every single one of them. Almost nothing could save or resist the effect of that one spell which was a fight ender. The whole rest of the group was bored out of our skulls because we almost never got to do anything. Every single person (except the sorc player who enjoys wrecking a campaign) agreed the spell should never have been let into PF.
In example 3: Many people think tripping and disarming (when really built for it) are too easy to use against higher level opponents. The common statement is that it is balanced because of all the opponents it doesn't work against. But in this campaign there were almost no opponents it didn't work against except for the occasional summoned creature. Yes we all thought it was an excellent and thematically appropriate build for the campaign. But it was suddenly too good. With whip and flail he was repeatedly disarming and tripping NPC's almost double his level almost every single time. Fights became trivial because the only time we were threatened was if some one started casting spells (or archers) from a long ways away. Or the GM had to start using such high level NPC's that if he did miss it would one-shot any of us. No one said it was unreasonable or didn't make sense. But it was so effective that it was making the group operate way outside of level appropriate (or be bored) and then TPK's were a constant risk. The GM did try to go on and deal with it for a while as is, but it wasn't very successful. I'm not sure how the GM could have compensated for the build in the campaign without altering the trip and disarm rules. Not saying it is impossible, but none of us were sure how to do it without making a bunch of the NPC's all suddenly have the same magic items and feats to resist disarms and trips which would have been incredibly lame.
|
|
I never saw any hate. Just a combination of many things which turn both players and DMs from not wanting the class in their games. Or players wanting to play them.
Too many players who play the Paladin as Lawful Stupid. Refusing to go into a battle with tactics. Upfront at the door since sneaking in is apparently unpaladinlike. Even if it means commiting suicide. Acting like Detect Evil is a a free rein to scan everybody in case they are evil. Playing Paladins like Dirty Harry or Judge Dread. No you are not the law. A vague poorly explained alignment system. Too many players and dms who go out of their way to tweak the nose of the Paladin. Which result in both putting players into situations where they fall from grace.
It's imo a good class. The Pathfinder version even more so. It needs a better more fleshed out alignment system with the right group and dms imo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny, but I truly believe that the vast majority of paladin haters would be hiding behind them if this became real life instead of just a game. To me chaotic neutrals are the ones that cause the most problems, and the main reason people play them is just to cause trouble. So really people are just mad because they can't act like total d%&ks with a paladin around. And the term 'lawful stupid' is kinda stupid. You just have stupid actions (I refrained from saying stupid people). Any class can be played to the extreme end of annoyance, but at least the paladin isn't going to cut your throat in your sleep just to loot your body.
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"?
I like paladins... to walk into an ambush.
Lawful stupid, harassing others players, that is not cool though.
In the groups I've played in and run, those first examples of behaviour would have led to a dead pally by the second session.
We allow pvp. You could try it too if this is a problem again.
You can just refuse to adventure with him or follow any orders at all. A group is stronger than a single member. Yes he was meaty, but if he kills you all there is no game, and he is proving he is a dick, if you ignore him and he tries to boss you all around or threaten, proving he is playing a dick, and you can tell the dm, we don't want any of this, please remove this guy.
Well that game didn't allow pvp I think because otherwise the druid would have died in the second session (he was an even more disruptive player) and the pally would have attacked some of us already (I was LE as with the Summoner. The Rogue was NE)
Frankly the problem is more any Paladin is a lot more powerful than other classes and we are all at the time too scared to initiate any fight because someone (if not all) would end up dead.
Paladins are not that powerful... If your comparing to a rogue, then yes they are pretty good, but that is setting a pretty low bar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Omnitricks - the first one does sound like an ass, especially with the loot destruction s..t. The second sounds like a keeper, though - pretty much all good characters and most clerics are very staunchly anti-zombie (as are most characters with good olfactory perception), so it isn´t just a paladin gripe. See if you can get tax deductions or some support from their temple if you use reformed goblin with a wig and pompous clothes instead :P .
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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's several reasons.
1. People think Paladins are OP (they aren't, they're balanced alongside classes like Barbarian and Ranger).
2. People think the Paladin code and/or alignment based mechanics are poorly written, overly restrictive, or disruptive to games.
3. People have had bad experiences with Paladins in their campaigns due to stereotypically bad Paladins (the smite-happy fanatics).
4. Preconceptions as to what a Paladin must be that are not associated with their mechanics at all (such as Paladins being required to have deities by default, or GMs or players creating strife by enforcing things that are not part of their code or philosopy, such as insisting Paladins cannot use ranged weapons due to it being cowardly).
Usually some combination thereof. For example, by combining #1 and #2 you can end up with the sub-idea that Paladins are overpowered but that's okay because they're balanced by their special roleplaying restrictions (which is false, but still something you hear often).
Paizo's Paladin vs 3.5 Paladin
In some cases, part of this is Paizo's fault. While I hail the Paizo Paladin as being a great improvement overall from the sad, pathetic, pitiful class that was the core 3.5 Paladin from a mechanical perspective, they screwed the pooch on the code revision.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
The difference here is that the 3.5 version gave some wiggle room for things like Paladins struggling with their codes, or giving Paladins an out in the case they have to choose the lesser of two evils. A 3.5 Paladin could lie to save an innocent life if it called for it, while in Pathfinder a Paladin cannot lie to save an innocent because the code is more important than what the code stands for, which incidentally makes it impossible to have a Paladin who struggles, or a Paladin who can make choice. This small change shackles roleplay opportunities in a very real way, causes additional strife between players and GMs as every slight disagreement on the code immediately falls to a situation where the Paladin could lose their abilities.
The Party Conundrum
One of the problems that people have with Paladins rises from the idea that Paladins are against the party, and perhaps not literally. See, due to the perceived notion that Paladins cannot associate with characters of certain activities or alignments means that choosing to play a Paladin means you are making the choice of alignment or activities for your companions unless you are trying to create inner party strife. For example, it's a very real possibility for a GM saying: "Everyone has to get along, and Jim is playing a Paladin, which means all you guys have to be non-evil and not regularly violate his code of conduct". This is pretty unfair as no other class - including the Antipaladin - asks so much of the other players rather than he player themselves.
Fun Fact Though: There is no mechanical reprimand for a Paladin ignoring the entire associates section of the Paladin class. No, seriously, read it. A Paladin can quite literally rub elbows with an antpaladin in the same party with 0% repercussions because the association commentary on the Paladin class is neither part of their code nor is its violation one of the things that will cause them to become Ex-Paladins.
Why is this important? It's important because it means that one of the ideas - that Paladins bar what other people can make - is a myth (at least currently). If you want to make a Lawful Evil necromancer and play it in a party with a Paladin, you can do that, or vice-versa. The two just have to deal with each other in a mature way (probably through talking to each other and setting some give and takes).
My Personal Take
I like Paladins. The class is fun, well balanced, and contributes nicely to a party. I like the concept of the Paladin and I myself am a sucker for being a good guy (even my evil characters tend to have a silver lining or three). I don't have problems with Paladins in my games, and I encourage people to try them out, and I encourage GMs and other players to be open minded and don't hover over them with the metaphorical banhammer of paladin powers.
Yes, there were a few minor changes in the code that were really a headscratcher. Before, a paladin could fall for gross violations of the code (or an evil act or alignment shift, but a gross violation is likely one to lead to alignment shift anyway), now it is any violation, period. The associate clause was made looser, but the code became much more stringent
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'd think that the Gods of Good would all be about following the Spirit of the Law, and not the Letter, but nope.
It's kind of Asmodean, really.
Stuff
While I generally agree with you, I would point out that a paladin who parties with evil is walking a very dangerous line.
If someone in the party commits an evil act and the paladin knowingly allows that evil act to happen, then the paladin becomes a party to the evil act, and thus is considered to have committed an evil act.
Now normally, this results in a, "Do it and don't let the paladin find out until afterwards." kind of shennagins that can be really fun, but if the paladin has good reason to think that someone in the party is going to do evil(like because they are evil or that have a history of committing evil acts), and the paladin turns a blind eye to their activities, then they may also be considered a party to the evil deeds.
CSB: The most fun I have had playing with a paladin was playing with a stupid(int 7) paladin. The paladin was too stupid to catch on to what the rest of the party was doing most of the time, and we could rely on him to be a distraction from what the rest of us were doing.
StuffWhile I generally agree with you, I would point out that a paladin who parties with evil is walking a very dangerous line.
If someone in the party commits an evil act and the paladin knowingly allows that evil act to happen, then the paladin becomes a party to the evil act, and thus is considered to have committed an evil act.
Now normally, this results in a, "Do it and don't let the paladin find out until afterwards." kind of shennagins that can be really fun, but if the paladin has good reason to think that someone in the party is going to do evil(like because they are evil or that have a history of committing evil acts), and the paladin turns a blind eye to their activities, then they may also be considered a party to the evil deeds.
CSB: The most fun I have had playing with a paladin was playing with a stupid(int 7) paladin. The paladin was too stupid to catch on to what the rest of the party was doing most of the time, and we could rely on him to be a distraction from what the rest of us were doing.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that the Paladin turn a blind eye to every evil that the party does, but I think it is reasonable to assume that a Paladin understand that not everyone is like him. This is why I suggested that in a party with mixed priorities that those with conflicts discuss them like mature adults. This was one of the definitive portions behind an idea a friend of mine and I had. We haven't rolled them yet, but we do plan to play a pair of sibling Paladins (one anti, one normal) in a party where the two compete for what they believe is the superior methodology while trying to get the other to see it their way.
But at the end of the day, a lot of evil characters can be evil without doing things like throwing babies in wood chippers or other comically blatant extreme examples of evil, and the Paladin should be able to work with them even if he or she isn't really the fondest of their attitude.
Most of the reasons I hate Paladins has been mentioned, many of them in Ashiel's excellent post above (particularly the Party Condundrum). But I personally have one I don't think anybody's mentioned.
I don't think it should be a class.
I don't think base classes should have alignment restrictions; those are for Prestige Classes.
If there's only one way to play a character (see: Paladin's code), it shouldn't be a class. A class should be a broad archetype; the paladin is too narrow of a concept.
I can't see any reason this isn't just a Cleric archetype or a PrC that builds off cleric.
You can play 'the epitome of the good guy' without having it hard-coded into your character.
Power-loss mechanics are dumb (tangential, applies to multiple classes, but the Paladin seems to be the one that always gets it).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, by combining #1 and #2 you can end up with the sub-idea that Paladins are overpowered but that's okay because they're balanced by their special roleplaying restrictions (which is false, but still something you hear often).That idea is as true or as false as the people playing the game make it. The nature of the paladin's inherent restrictions on their conduct are meant to be just that: restrictions. Whether or not they're brought into play - and how artfully - is up to the GM (and the player).
Now, you can argue that this is less effective/fair/fun/etc. than a mechanical penalty, but that's purely a matter of opinion. It's more germane, I think, to argue that the perks that these restrictions are supposed to offset, in comparison to other characters, have been comparatively devalued as of Third Edition onward.
The catch is that the restrictions are questionable. In previous editions they were a means of balancing a class that was essentially Fighter++. Today many of those restrictions exist but without the balancing aspect, and for most the restrictions don't really add much to the game. If anything, it's just another thing that makes it harder to fit a Paladin into your group, and comes with a lot of different hangups and extra work for the player and GM (even if that extra work is having to have a 1 on 1 so they can even figure out if they see eye to eye on what the code means or what parts of the code take priority, etc).
The problem is that restrictions do not really create roleplaying. They could be - at best - a springboard for ideas on how to roleplay something, but the restrictions do not a Paladin make. Let's be real. Paladins are based on crusaders who aren't even close to Paladins in terms of their morality or D&D alignment, so it's about as silly to say that there is only one way to play a Paladin as it is to say barbarians must be crazed illiterate psychopaths, or that rogues must be thieves.
As an example, my brother at the age of 5 played the most lawful good paladin I've ever seen. Followed the code to the letter. Never cheated, never stole, never lied. He gave to the poor, and rode children around town on his warhorse. His name was Sir Wallace Van'tiel. He was a human Fighter. The moral of this story? The restriction adds nothing to roleplaying because if you want to roleplay that way you're going to. What it does do is prevent roleplaying the deeper stuff like temptations or struggling with what's wrong and what's right, because due to how the mechanics work there is no slippery slope that could lead to evil, no risk of temptation.
The Paladin restrictions now are laughable. Frankly unplayable if used as written. It's entirely too easy to set up some situation that forces a Paladin to fall. Literally a villain can say "I'm going to ask you a question. You are then going to answer it with a lie. If you don't, my men are going to kill this hostage". Either way the Paladin falls (if he lies he's broken his code and unlike in 3.5 he can't break it if necessary) but if he doesn't he breaks his code (because he's putting himself and his powers before the safety of an innocent).
1. People think Paladins are OP (they aren't, they're balanced alongside classes like Barbarian and Ranger).
2. People think the Paladin code and/or alignment based mechanics are poorly written, overly restrictive, or disruptive to games.
3. People have had bad experiences with Paladins in their campaigns due to stereotypically bad Paladins (the smite-happy fanatics).
4. Preconceptions as to what a Paladin must be that are not associated with their mechanics at all (such as Paladins being required to have deities by default, or GMs or players creating strife by enforcing things that are not part of their code or philosopy, such as insisting Paladins cannot use ranged weapons due to it being cowardly).I'm going to suggest a forgotten item 5 on this list.
I've seen several times when someone's character veers into something far more evil than anything they have ever attempted to play before once there was a paladin in the group. It's as if one of two things happens.
A: Having someone to screw with brings out the worst in some people.
B: The mere existence of restrictions on actions makes them want to push against them, even if they would never have crossed the line otherwise.
True that. On a side note, we have a fairly psychopathic Paladin in a game I'm currently playing in on Thursdays. He really hates witches, specifically witches from Irrisen, with cannibalistic witches being the most reviled of all. Unfortunately my character is a shapeshifting cannibalistic witch from Irrisen. Go figure (I just put the character together after reading the player's guide to the campaign). Meanwhile, turns out his sister was cooked in a pot or something by a witch from Irrisen and it left a bad taste in his mouth (pun intended).
So far he has probably been the most violent - if idealistic - character in the party. Though he's threatened the life of my character several times out of prejudice, we haven't actually come to blows (the closest time was when my character was going to go back to her homeland through a portal and he basically said "over my dead body" and told her he'd beat her to death with his mace if she tried; but then she just put him to sleep and walked through the portal).
Perhaps in contrast to rule #5, she has actually attempted to curb her habits to make him feel better. She hasn't eaten anyone and she doesn't rub it in his face that she's a witch (where "Witch" has become her default name when he addresses her :P) unless he's especially getting under her skin (because at the end of the day, she's actually a nice person) and then it's purely by making satirical remarks in an attempt to show him how insane he sometimes seems to everyone. =P
I find that the Paladin's code will force a player to do suicidal things that their class features will help then live through.
If played by the rules, a paladin has no higher chance to survive than any other character.
The balance issues come up, when GMs ignore rules because they don't think those rules are fun. To me, if you didn't want to play by the paladin's code, you should have played another class. Do what everyone else did in 3.5 when they wanted to play a holy warrior, play a cleric.
That's a strawman argument, because quite frankly a villain who's holding hostages is going to do it for a real reason other than for the sake of manipulating game mechanics.
Of course not. He's doing it to be a douche, because that's what badguys do. Or he rolled a successful knowledge (local) check versus the Paladin and knows that if he breaks his code he loses his powers.
The Paladin restrictions now are laughable. Frankly unplayable if used as written. It's entirely too easy to set up some situation that forces a Paladin to fall. Literally a villain can say "I'm going to ask you a question. You are then going to answer it with a lie. If you don't, my men are going to kill this hostage". Either way the Paladin falls (if he lies he's broken his code and unlike in 3.5 he can't break it if necessary) but if he doesn't he breaks his code (because he's putting himself and his powers before the safety of an innocent).That's a strawman argument, because quite frankly a villain who's holding hostages is going to do it for a real reason other than for the sake of manipulating game mechanics. And the only kind of GM who would put down a Paladin for no other reason than because he set them up in this Kobiyashi scenario is the kind who deserves a whack with the Rolled Up Newspaper of Justice.
Just because no decent GM would run things that way doesn't mean that the rules-as-written aren't a bit problematic in this regard.
Personally I like paladins. I can remember that I played one as my real first character in 1st edition.