|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a paladin, the ends never justify the means.
Having said that. I play paladins every so often. to answer your question " so to what extent should a gm plan out and create scenarios that test a papladin and the code of conduct?
I would suggest talking with the player. Find out A) is he interested in role playing moral quandries. b) find out if he thinks playing a paladin is like say playing a jedi kight, or just a bunch of cool abilites.
I have played in games where the GM did his best to make sure you had to "use the ends to justify the means". I was frustrated. it seemed like the players wanted to edge me out of the game, and the GM was at the same time giving them a helping hand.
but i find often the best thing to do is talk things through....GM to player etc.
i think philosophical conundrums are great and a lot of fun, it really lets you get some character out of the paladin whether or not they stretch the code
i think as long as the GM doesnt purposely set up the paladin to fall so he can laugh and take away the party's fighter, and you get to experience the idea of someone challenging their own integrity and superficial, or vain values for the sake of the greater good, then its a fantastic story and really fun to play
i remember one of the 3.5 source books showing a paladin in a situation where he had to choose between slaying a devil who was in love, or letting him live to not break the heart of its lover
i feel like a paladin that comes up with his own interpretation of right or wrong in any scenario shouldnt be punished because the DM wants to put him in an impossible situation
if the character grows and learns something more about what is really right and wrong vs. blindly adhering to some code, then that particular paladin may in fact by the end of it be an example that shines brighter than any other paladin because he had to make tough choices
just got a great idea for an NPC in a campaign being an old, retired paladin who had to make such a choice and is trying to teach a PC paladin about the true meaning of good vs evil, and how it may not always be right to blindly adhere to the fragile and subjective laws of man
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does everyone think of the GM deliberately putting the paladin in situations that test the paladin's adherence to the code of conduct?
You volunteered to play a paladin. You signed up for dealing with issues of good and evil. You will run into them, at least in my campaigns. And some fiends will try very hard to make you fall, recruit you, whatever. Comes with the job description.
Now, a GM putting a paladin through nothing but that sort of thing, or forcing fall/fall situations, is just being a dick. I try not to do that. (It is, by the way, REALLY TRULY IMPORTANT that both you and your player be on the same wavelength as what's good or evil, what's acceptable and what's not, and it may differ somewhat from paladin to paladin. If player and GM aren't in accord on this, only grief awaits, and it would probably be better not to try. I speak from bitter experience.)
I generally ask them if they think their character ought to be on the same page as Joan the Maid, or Lancelot, or George Washington, or William Marshall, or Steve Rogers, or Clark Kent, when it comes to moral fibre. Because that's what a paladin (legendary or fictional)
Paladins ought to have moral issues hitting them at about the same frequency that wizards have hefty-magical issues hitting them, or clerics have issues-of-their-god, or bards have diplomacy issues, or samurai have loyalty issues. Some of those tests probably should be hard. Moral dilemmas do exist. But they also ought to have the chance to shine. Sometimes good and evil really are clear-cut, and the shining knight in armor deserves a chance to really, truly shine. Fiendish foes should fall. Wavering ones should be redeemed (or at least redeemable). People should trust and admire the trustworthy and admirable. Not all dilemmas are simple or easy to solve -- and falls need to be clear and unambiguous, and even a vague saunter downwards needs to be given plenty of warning.
And (in my campaigns, at least) no fall is unredeemable. You can always get up, atone, and try again: the only unforgivable sin is refusing to seek forgiveness. A paladin can choose the least bad course of action even if it isn't great, but he isn't allowed to do evil that good may come of it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if the end results in a greater good for a greater number of people?
If I'm a paladin, and someone uses the phrase "greater good" around me, I detect evil on them. You may have to ally with someone evil. You might have to fight hard and maybe dirty. You don't get to be evil yourself.
This is not always easy, nor should it be. And that's why the atonement spell exists. Sometimes you make mistakes.
What if the end results in a greater good for a greater number of people?
If I'm a paladin, and someone uses the phrase "greater good" around me, I detect evil on them. You may have to ally with someone evil. You might have to fight hard and maybe dirty. You don't get to be evil yourself.
This is not always easy, nor should it be. And that's why the atonement spell exists. Sometimes you make mistakes.
This x 1,000,000.
What does everyone think of the GM deliberately putting the paladin in situations that test the paladin's adherence to the code of conduct?
These are fine. Paladins are still human, after all. We work with the knowledge we have, the values we have adhered to our entire life, and make the choice we think is best. Just like real life. Sometimes you have to make a difficult call. Sometimes people will die despite your best efforts. Cities will be sacked. The bad guys get away.
It happened. Get an Atonement, if necessary. You deal with it as best you can, swear to do better next time, and persevere on. Really, that's what the Paladin does better than anyone. Persevere. Even with the entire world (and even his companions, often times) resorting to foul, dark, or unscrupulous methods to achieve a "greater good", he keeps pressing on, certain that his way is the right way.
Also, having a Paladin is a sure way to hook at least one party member into basically any adventure. "People are in trouble, we need a hero" pretty much guarantees one person is heading that direction.
I don't care a lot about code of conduct.It can be really different from every situation or campaing. Think about Eberron, for example. I don't think that a paladin can be balanced only stressing players with the code of conduct. The main reason is that every character has a code, and we have to encourage fighters or rogue with a personality, this doesn't mean they should have paladin powers. Paladin and inquisitor are OP. Casters can be op, but you can fix that with smart play or debugging some spells. Paladin and inquisitors (and some alchemists) are simply too much strong. ST, spells, lot of buff, insane damage (a good oriented team face almost only evil monster), istant heal removing conditions. What can be a threath for them is death for other classes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins ought to have moral issues hitting them at about the same frequency that wizards have hefty-magical issues hitting them, or clerics have issues-of-their-god, or bards have diplomacy issues, or samurai have loyalty issues.
In other threads there are those who try to say that the paladin's code of conduct is no more than a balancing mechanic, like a Druid not wearing metal armour or a wizard not losing his spellbook.
If this is the case, then 'paladins ought to have moral issues hitting them' as often as wizards lose their spellbook or Druids are forced to wear metal armour.
These things should be judged on a case by case basis. In the OP's case, sentence the evil-doer to death and carry out sentence straight away, casting that spell in the process.
Two birds, one stone! Lawful execution of mass murderer, and save the world.
Don't you hate it when DMs put paladins in win-win situations. : )
|
Here's my little bit of advice that others seem not to have touched on: be careful about the party. I'm playing with a Cleric of Iomedae and have clearly stated how my character will react to situations and what types of jobs I'm willing/unwilling to perform. My GM has tested me a couple of times, and I'm currently in the middle of sitting to the side while the half of the party goes on a mission because the reward was too juicy, but was too shady for my cleric to agree to. Not getting to play my character sucks, and I also understand why the rest of the party wanted to take this side mission.
Basically I'm currently an unhappy camper because my GM didn't plan for this scenario to happen. Try not to put your pally into a similar situation.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's a Paladin in the party, I'm not.
Seriously, I'll find another game.
The Paladin won't like me, I won't like the Paladin. There's <no point to trying to run a game with me _and_ someone playing one of those.
Am I a pyromaniac murder-hobo? No.
But I also don't have any problem selling sentients to mind flayers, if the price is right. I manufacture and distribute cripplingly-addictive substances. I smuggle. I don't pay taxes. Yes, that is poison on my knife. Etc.
At my very BEST I'm only antiheroic.
Most of my groups know and accept this, so I don't get faced with playing with Paladins often...
Who's this 'I' you're talking about?
If it's 'you' the player, get help!
If it's the characters you play, you're saying that every PC you play is evil? Or, 'at best, anti-heroic'?
I don't think I'd want to play with you, either. Whether I'm playing a paladin or not.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose you just play evil characters then? Slavery (selling sentients) sure qualifies as evil.
I mean, that's fine if that's what you guys want to play. Your table. But suppose, at campaign character creation, the group said "We would like to try a heroic campaign, and John will play a paladin." Would you try to mesh with what they wamted, decline to play, or do something else?
Just curious.
EDIT: With you on that, Malachi.
Steal from the paladin and donate the wealth to a good church. If caught, have your char lecture pally that they should be giving more. Pathfinder: Tithe Harder.
As for the greater good, I don't see a problem with that statement. Evil acts are still clearly evil, so there is no way the pally gets off. They should be trying to greatly serve the forces of good and act in the interests of the greater good (with a lawful bent, but you can often get away with playing a NG paladin 40% of the time, LG 60%, unless your dm is very strict).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's a Paladin in the party, I'm not.
Seriously, I'll find another game.
The Paladin won't like me, I won't like the Paladin. There's <no point to trying to run a game with me _and_ someone playing one of those.
Am I a pyromaniac murder-hobo? No.
But I also don't have any problem selling sentients to mind flayers, if the price is right. I manufacture and distribute cripplingly-addictive substances. I smuggle. I don't pay taxes. Yes, that is poison on my knife. Etc.
At my very BEST I'm only antiheroic.
Most of my groups know and accept this, so I don't get faced with playing with Paladins often...
Who's this 'I' you're talking about?
If it's 'you' the player, get help!
If it's the characters you play, you're saying that every PC you play is evil? Or, 'at best, anti-heroic'?
I don't think I'd want to play with you, either. Whether I'm playing a paladin or not.
That does seem to be a very narrow palette you paint your characters from. I would get bored playing the same sort of character over and over. I really enjoy playing wildly different sorts of personalities, from all alignments.
I also like "fitting" the theme of the campaign and the party as a whole. It makes me enjoy the whole game more if the PCs all mesh, whether they're good, evil, all from the one region, or whatever.
Yeah, I think I'd find a player with such an inflexible concept of "character" pretty boring and difficult to play with. I certainly wouldn't enjoy GMing for such a player. I don't have a problem with mercenary type PCs, but not all the time.
I don't mind white pepper, but if I had to have it on every meal, I'd hate it pretty quick.
Edit: On topic, I think the default way to GM it for me is: There's no real need to push the "moral dilemma" angle unless the player isn't self-regulating, or I know the player's up for those kinds of themes. And if I think a player's decision is going to bring their PC anywhere near a fall, they'll have had plenty of warning.
I do find it interesting that a Paladin "falls" for committing an evil act, but not a Chaotic one. Since the restriction is to be Lawful Good, shouldn't the Law-Chaos side have an equal effect?
I've also noticed that there are many threads about Paladins and "falling," but where are the threads about Clerics, Druids, Monks, and the classes that can "fall?"
Any time I as GM put a situation that a Paladin could "fall" in, a Good or Lawful Cleric or other class would be in the same situation. Note that none of these are the "fall/fall" situations, but situations where the player should know better.
Patriot barbarian rogue.
I don't think I've ever run a game without a paladin, but I imagine it wouldn't be any different.
If you (as the GM) try to make paladins fall, or put them in situations where they are not allowed to participate because of their code, you shouldn't allow paladins in the game in the first place.
As to Vod's question: the Law-Chaos axis isn't as important to a paladin as the good-evil one. If it was they would have an aura of Law. If you have paladins have to adhere to Law as rigidly as they do good, I'd suggest that they also be given an Aura of Law equivalent to their aura of good. Also, I'd allow their smite to effect chaos.
|
If there's a Paladin in the party, I'm not.
Seriously, I'll find another game.
The Paladin won't like me, I won't like the Paladin. There's <no point to trying to run a game with me _and_ someone playing one of those.
Am I a pyromaniac murder-hobo? No.
But I also don't have any problem selling sentients to mind flayers, if the price is right. I manufacture and distribute cripplingly-addictive substances. I smuggle. I don't pay taxes. Yes, that is poison on my knife. Etc.
At my very BEST I'm only antiheroic.
Most of my groups know and accept this, so I don't get faced with playing with Paladins often...
Who's this 'I' you're talking about?
If it's 'you' the player, get help!
If it's the characters you play, you're saying that every PC you play is evil? Or, 'at best, anti-heroic'?
I don't think I'd want to play with you, either. Whether I'm playing a paladin or not.
In all honesty, I thought the same thing myself. I have no problem playing a paladin or being in a party with one ... but I'm pretty sure I would not want to be in a party with a character like you are describing ...
Why all the interest in singling out the paladin for no-win and impossible situations? There are plenty of no-win scenarios that would challenge ANY good character, or even any party of non-evil characters.
So why single out the paladin, like he's some sort of nuisance/threat deserving of punishment?
If a GM has a problem with paladins (warning sign to smart players!), he should simply not allow them in the game. Welcoming a paladin into the game, and then cooking up scenarios designed to torment him and ONLY him, is simply being a jerk GM.
paladins are always the example of the alignment threads because they are the most restrictive, and they lose the most should they deviate from it
really, all these threads are generic alignment threads, but we throw paladin in there to give perspective on the situations
cant really say 'its not so bad' for a ranger to do someting and then also have 'its absolutely unacceptable' for the pally
it gives perspective on how to define good and evil imo, by comparing what a paladin would do, to what any other character would do
WWAPD
what would a paladin do?
Nonsense. Code of conduct is DM custom. It's not a matter of rules but of campaign setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nonsense. Code of conduct is DM custom. It's not a matter of rules but of campaign setting.
Please explain. The code of conduct is simply in for reasons of custom, or it's included to customize? I could see that being the case if you mean it could change with campaign setting.
all threads about alignments are subjective anyway, so saying any one thing is good definitively by the rules is also nonsense
for that matter, any of these threads is nonsense
|
|
Should a paladin occasionally encounter moral dilemmas? Yes, that's part of the game for any character.
Should a paladin be presented with a moral dilemma specifically to see if they make the "right decision" in the GM's POV (because moral dilemmas are subjective by nature)? Should they be placed in a situation where any action will cause them to fall? No, the paladin class is not an excuse for the GM to screw over a player or to railroad them.
These things should be judged on a case by case basis. In the OP's case, sentence the evil-doer to death and carry out sentence straight away, casting that spell in the process.
Two birds, one stone! Lawful execution of mass murderer, and save the world.
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable response to that particular situation. Paladins are supposed to protect the innocent and punish those who threaten innocents. The agent in question is not innocent and has threatened innocents. Paladin is completely within his rights to strike a plea bargain: "Your crimes against the innocent deserve death, but you have a chance at redemption. Tell be how to undo this evil and I will spare you. Else, prepare for the abyss, and know that my friend will take the information we need from your corpse."
I might try to play something Neutral... but no, really, if (and that is a big if, by the way) my usual group wanted to play heroes, with or without Paladins, I'd probably sit out that campaign.
I'm envious that you have enough people in your life that play that you can be picky about which games to participate in. If I didn't play with my group, I wouldn't be playing. I have to take what I can get.
That being said, my group gravitates toward good, and it would probably be best if you didn't play with us. Not intending that as a snipe - just a matter of fact. It's also likely I wouldn't enjoy your group too much, and would be best for everyone if I sat out.
I don't do altruism well; a heroic campaign would be frustrating and, frankly, boring. For me -- not saying other people couldn't have fun with it, just that there's nothing to hook my interest in playing would-be heroes.
It's interesting; I have the opposite philosophy. I find playing evil to be rather dull and trying to "be the hero" is a real adrenaline rush for me. Not surprisingly, Paladin is my favorite class. I did play in an evil campaign for a while, but it was difficult to get anything done without a little bit of railroading by the DM (which we were all OK with). Our quests were very linear, as opposed to what I am doing now (as the DM), where I'm trying to give the PCs different options they can explore.
I find that running a group of evil characters is hard unless they have similar goals, and can work toward them amicably. I run into the problem of "random acts of evil" where people go find a monastery to kill off all the nuns, and whatnot. Maybe it's just who I played with, but it was more about escapist destruction than a long-term thing (like Postal).
Just my experience.
I still kind of like paladins, but playing them is not really my style.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recall asking a fellow party member once what he thought of the Paladin I played. He said to me that if the whole party was running away from a horde of demons, and he tripped, my paladin would probably be the only one to come back for him, even though it meant certain death.
I can think of no higher praise for a Paladin. I run them the way I imagine Superman would. Very likable, too. The class is not composed of jerks, people. When you run one, explain to the other party members what the long term benefits to everyone a LG action would be. Yeah, it might be a pain in the short term, but it always pays off for everyone.
When I am DM, I don't deliberately create scenarios to put the Paladin in a fix. Every morality eventually comes up with a quandary to solve, it's only a matter of time. Let things come naturally, and don't pick on a character simply because of their class.
Well I do want to one day play un-charismatic non-courtier paladin. Less perfect, more a long-term warrior against the forces of darkness, sometimes baffled by people, their thousand and one codes and sensitivity (basically been fighting too long).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I do want to one day play un-charismatic non-courtier paladin. Less perfect, more a long-term warrior against the forces of darkness, sometimes baffled by people, their thousand and one codes and sensitivity (basically been fighting too long).
You don't need to have a perfect personality to run a paladin. Heck, I've run one that had a kid's sense of humor. He'd play card or dice games for pebbles, and if he found himself losing, start whipping the last of his stake at his opponent. That's a harmless action, and yet it establishes this character as one willing to play around.
|
|
In most scenarios that i played you have a neutral DM and a world where 8 alignments have all the fun and a struggling paladin isn't allowed to do anything. This guy hit you, you cannot hit back it would be wrong, you'll fall from grace. I find this approach completely silly, it doesn't make any sense at all.
Agreed.
It should be the other way around: the society is lawful-good with a paladin as a prominent member in it and all other alignments have to struggle to find their place in it.
How many real-world societies would you describe as LG?
It isn't your lawful-good you have to obey the law, no everybody no matter what alignment has to obey the law.
Yes, there should be realistic consequences for disregarding local laws.
As a paladin you should be much better of than the rest, not worse, you are the law, you're not simply following it. No guard will judge you, as a paladin you are able to judge others. If a rogue is making fun of you, beat him up, bring him to prison and no one will ask you, if you've done the right thing. You've always doing the right thing, you're a paladin!
And now we've gone dangerous places. A LG character does not use the law to abuse people they don't like - they believe that the law serves the good of the people. Arresting someone for making fun of you is making the law serve you, which is LN or even LE. Paladins can absolutely do the wrong thing. And they can fall for it. A paladin who assaults and imprisons someone for making fun of them has done something wrong and should fall.
A neutral druid will certainly be critized: you really believe that good or bad, chaotic or lawful doesn't matter? Are you crazy?
A chaotic-neutral rogue isn't far away from evil, you don't respect the law and do what you like, where is that different from being evil?
And even a chaotic good elf should have his troubles in society, so you think your good, but don't respect the law. Are you kidding?
These characters would occasionally have problems when their beliefs conflict with society. But so would the paladin, because of not-LG societies. A paladin will have problems with a society in which bribery is common, or in which the law is used to exploit the innocent or for other evil ends (ex: Cheliax).
When my players run good characters, I find it (relatively) easy to present a realistic world for them to be in. A Cleric of Abadar gives them a mission, they discover a potentially dangerous threat. They report back - the Cleric offers to keep them on retainer to help combat the problem - my PCs refused this - and they work independently to try and solve it.
I find that running a group of evil characters is hard unless they have similar goals, and can work toward them amicably. I run into the problem of "random acts of evil" where people go find a monastery to kill off all the nuns, and whatnot. Maybe it's just who I played with, but it was more about escapist destruction than a long-term thing (like Postal).
Just my experience.
Mmm.
As another person who prefers to play neutral-ish (Neutral Good is probably my favorite Good alignment), evil (usually lawful), and rarely flat-out good characters, I feel the need to somewhat defend the difference between Evil (I'm out for myself, but I'll work with you self-righteous fools until our mutual goals are completed) and Stupid (Lulz I killed the Cleric we were supposed to talk to. Oh she was important? Well sorry, it's what my character would do. He's Evil, duhhhh).
I prefer to play the former. Even my Evil characters like to stomp on the latter and kill them in increasingly gruesome ways once they no longer serve a purpose and/or the first time something like "I killed an important NPC lol" happens.
Frankly, you probably wouldn't fit a group with at least two decent human beings if you honestly enjoy evil more than good.
Yes, I have played evil characters, and they were wrought with moral dilemmas - because they conflict with me, the player. If for you evil is fun and relaxing, you need a therapist or a jail cell.
Seriously?
You're seriously telling me there's something wrong with enjoying the catharsis of being unfettered by the restrictions you're bound by in real life?
I don't usually play these kinds in Pathfinder, because they simply don't work in a party, but one of my favorite things to be in a game like say, Fallout 3, that evil a!%*@** who murders people just to get his money back after getting them to repair his stuff, and who goes nuts and nukes the town because somebody insulted him.
It's funny, because I would never (and could never) do that IRL.
But I suppose I need a therapist because I killed a bunch of imaginary people and they felt imaginary pain while I laughed at their imaginary ragdolls flying all over the place because Bethesda physics are lulzy.
Inb4"Videogames are an inferior medium, they don't count" or some other such crock of b$+*~%$@ which seems to pop up on this forum occasionally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RA,
I speak of my usual groups -- I've got one in FL and another in AK. So in any given time, I have a group available. And it stands, that if either of those groups were going to "go heroic" on me, I'd sit out until they were done. That is, find some other hobby to pass the time. So you needn't be envious. I simply find a bad-fit game less fun than no game.
Now... whether you intended sniping or not (and I DO believe you), you're wandering into irritating territory. Have I asked to play in your group? Have I even hinted at the inkling of an idea of wanting to play with your group?
No. I haven't.
I'm here, originally, responding to the thread Title, explaining that, well, nah -- I don't play well with Paladins, call me when he falls or gets killed. I opt not to run around with a group of people trying to be heroes.
By extension, IT'S KIND OF OBVIOUS I WOULDN'T FIT YOUR GROUP. And no matter how good your intentions are or were in making that obvious comment, you'd be on much better behavior just letting it pass, uncommented.
Frankly, you probably wouldn't fit a group with at least two decent human beings if you honestly enjoy evil more than good.
Yes, I have played evil characters, and they were wrought with moral dilemmas - because they conflict with me, the player. If for you evil is fun and relaxing, you need a therapist or a jail cell.
Even though I struggle with people that can't enjoy anything but one narrow concept of character, I disagree strongly with these presumptions.
I imagine that people enjoy evil PCs for all sorts of reasons. Could be like Rynjin said, it's a game and a chance to explore completely different ideals. Or, like my experience almost invariably suggests - it's easier: you get to score more loot (even murder to get it), ignore shackles of morality, and pursue whatever you want, regardless of the little puppies the GM throws in your path (screw it - I run it over!).
Seriously, from a gamist perspective, evil is way easier. Most people I've encountered that always want to play evil do it for the ease of improving their character through loot, xp, or whatever.
That doesn't have anything to do with players that choose to play evil occasionally. I like evil characters sometimes too. But I like playing all sorts, exploring as many different playing experiences as possible.
Nonsense. Code of conduct is DM custom. It's not a matter of rules but of campaign setting.Please explain. The code of conduct is simply in for reasons of custom, or it's included to customize? I could see that being the case if you mean it could change with campaign setting.
Code of conduct of the book is an example. Every GM chose the alignment restriction of his classes. Eberron, for example, is not based on character alignment but on church membership.
So, code of conduct is not the way to limit the power of a class. Maybe some stuffs like wow of poverty, that now is a monk's feature, because limits the gear power, but not the paladin code of conduct. And the main reason is that someone wants to role a paladin this will not be a limitation at all, while this instead encourage other classes to take advantage of not having one for rules. What about a fighte with a strict code of conduct? Is like throw away a class feature. Instead, class should be designed in power with balance, not using code of conduct to raise its power. This is not gurps :D If you like the class you play it. Want to make a good assassin? Ok, put down a background, i'm fine. Want a more powerful character because of a code? Nope.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more relaxed about the paladin's code nowadays. In 2nd ed. Dnd paladins got quite a lot in comparison to other classes in exchange for a strict code to live by. That was the deal; a list of cool abilities and a list of regulations. Since PF, especially, classes are more balanced and i really don't see pushing code very hard as fair to the paladin.
Doesn't mean they get to ignore their code, of course. I'm just not eagle eyeing their actions like i used to.