After playing through several campaigns as paladins, I've come across at least a few players that seem to have a deep-seated dislike or even hatred for paladins, in stark contrast to my love for the class. While I can understand some of the concern in paladin PCs(i.e. players playing Lawful Stupid), what have paladins ever done to deserve this hate?
I'm very curious to get a much wider view on this class and how it's been played in other peoples' experiences, be it as a party member, as a DM, or as the paladin player themselves.
Feelings on paladins? Constructive advice for aspiring paladins? Issues that come up as a DM? Past experiences concerning the Fall?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins draw a line in the sand and say 'Good people don't do XXXXX.'
That's pretty much it.
We only had a conflict with ONE paladin in all our games, and that was a 10 person party with a couple of rogues/assassins in it... and half the group sided with the Paladin against them.
If you're playing a 'good' party doing 'good' things... there really shouldn't be much conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Negatives of having a paladin:
Forces other players to act in a manner that will satisfy a paladin or suffer inter-group conflict.
Makes it hard to play a morally ambiguous 'team up with a group of vampires to fight a greater evil' type adventure.
Gets so many abilities it's hard to keep track of them all; makes Fighters look inferior.
Forces the GM to make rulings about what constitutes lawful good behavior and decree whether or not the paladin should fall.
Causes long threads on the internet about whether executing prisoners is an evil act.
Makes it hard to play morally ambiguous 'team up with a group of vampires to fight a greater evil' type adventure.
I remember a game like that....
We had no paladin, and even my CN Rogue wanted nothing to do with THAT deal ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On my end it's because they epitomize the infringement of alignment on mechanics in this game. And NONE of it is implemented well or adds anything good to the game.
Plus, they f@!* with even the alignment rules themselves by implying that there is a "best" alignment (Lawful Good) and make people try to apply the alignment rules to specific scenarios.
Which never really works, because alignment only works as a broad strokes sort of deal.
So they try to apply this bucket of paint to their canvas, when the rules have provided no relevant paintbrush. So you end up just tossing paint on the canvas and then other people chime in "No, that's not quite the right color, have some of this" and before you know it all you have is a sodden brown mass that looks like garbage and makes everyone involved feel like s!#$ for making it.
Gets so many abilities it's hard to keep track of them all; makes Fighters look inferior.
Well if we're going for that reasoning for not liking classes we must only like Rogue and Monk.
Makes it hard to play a morally ambiguous 'team up with a group of vampires to fight a greater evil' type adventure.
How can there ever be a greater evil than a horde of bloodthirsty undead?
Yes, but Fighters are at least good at inflicting damage and having decent hit points and armor class. Wizards and Clerics are more powerful in theory but don't (in my experience) make Fighters look bad because they're not trying to do the same thing. A Paladins can out-damage a fighter while smiting evil AND has the ability to enhance his weapon or have a full animal companion AND can heal himself as a swift action AND can cure statuses with lay on hands AND can cast spells AND has the best saving throws AND can cast spells AND is immune to lots of conditions AND can channel energy AND can detect evil at will...
How can there ever be a greater evil than a horde of bloodthirsty undead?
Makes it hard to play a morally ambiguous 'team up with a group of vampires to fight a greater evil' type adventure.
A few vampires (who might kill a dozen humans a year apiece to feed on) vs an army of Demons (who want to kill everything).
Yes, but Fighters are at least good at inflicting damage and having decent hit points and armor class. Wizards and Clerics are more powerful in theory but don't (in my experience) make Fighters look bad because they're not trying to do the same thing. A Paladins can out-damage a fighter while smiting evil AND has the ability to enhance his weapon or have a full animal companion AND can heal himself as a swift action AND can cure statuses with lay on hands AND can cast spells AND has the best saving throws AND can cast spells AND is immune to lots of conditions AND can channel energy AND can detect evil at will...
I was more talking Rangers and Barbarians and Inquisitors and so on and so forth which have a laundry list of "Stuff that makes the Fighter cry" almost as big as the Paladin's if not as big.
Negatives of having a paladin:
Forces other players to act in a manner that will satisfy a paladin or suffer inter-group conflict.
Makes it hard to play a morally ambiguous 'team up with a group of vampires to fight a greater evil' type adventure.
Gets so many abilities it's hard to keep track of them all; makes Fighters look inferior.
Forces the GM to make rulings about what constitutes lawful good behavior and decree whether or not the paladin should fall.
Causes long threads on the internet about whether executing prisoners is an evil act.
I can agree that it does bring up a lot of issues specific to the paladin, but to the best of my knowledge paladins can work with those that ping evil, as long as it is to reach a goal that inherently spreads good or reduces evil.
I do however completely sympathize with the last point. Making morally ambiguous things into strict Lawful Good versus Neutral Good or even Evil is generally quite hard, if not completely impossible.
It may be that I've had more lenient DM's or the settings I played them in, but I've not had too many issues with having to play the Fall. I'm just glad I haven't had to execute any prisoners yet.
Well if we're going for that reasoning for not liking classes we must only like Rogue and Monk.
Not fair, ki pool makes rogues and brawlers look inferior.
How can there ever be a greater evil than a horde of bloodthirsty undead?
A horde of bloodthirsty liches?
A Paladins can out-damage a fighter while smiting evil AND has the ability to enhance his weapon or have a full animal companion AND can heal himself as a swift action AND can cure statuses with lay on hands AND can cast spells AND has the best saving throws AND can cast spells AND is immune to lots of conditions AND can channel energy AND can detect evil at will...
Yes, a paladin outdamages the figher against the one specific enemy, but that's it. Comparing it to a similar class in it's element will always make it seem strange in power levels, the same way that the barbarian might smash the fighter on a charge because he can pounce and the fighter can't. Is the barbarian broken? No.
How can there ever be a greater evil than a horde of bloodthirsty undead?
Makes it hard to play a morally ambiguous 'team up with a group of vampires to fight a greater evil' type adventure.
This is about a section of Carrion Crown where you're supposed to
Yes, a paladin outdamages the figher against the one specific enemy, but that's it.
Firstly, evil enemies are about two-thirds of the enemies a typical party fights and they can smite up to seven times a day at higher levels. Secondly, that isn't it, because a paladin has all the other advantages I listed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
makes Fighters look inferior.
I thought that way for some time. Then I noticed that the same seems true about the ranger and the barbarian. At that point the realization of the reality dawned on my: The fighter IS inferior.
The problem with paladins is the same as with all parties, just more obvious: You have to clearly agree on what kind of game you want to play, as a gaming group and stick to it.
One of our games was a good example: I played an undead hunting/hating dirge bard with pharasma as his deity. After some time another player rerolled and came up with an undead(sanguine) bloodline sorcerer. For me that killed my pc but the other player insisted on playing that pc. Now I felt forced to reroll, too. After talking about it and being told several times that the new pc will be no "real" necromancer despite specializing in necromancy spells I decided to play a stonelord paladin.
After some time the sorc started to more and more use real necromancy. She used command undead and took one of them with her after the fight, declining to let me kill it.
As I did not like the AP we were playing (CC) I left the game instead of letting the combination of bad AP and inner party conflict annoy me further.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, a paladin outdamages the figher against the one specific enemy, but that's it.Firstly, evil enemies are about two-thirds of the enemies a typical party fights and they can smite up to seven times a day at higher levels. Secondly, that isn't it, because a paladin has all the other advantages I listed.
Well let's say that mechanically paladin is a "better" fighter. Is a magus or synthesist also not a better fighter? I agree that paladins have some key abilities that are very good, but I don't really think they're unbalanced in having them.
The amount of smites they have at that high of a level being "good" isn't quite a reflection on them as much as it is a reflection on the design of boss fights usually being one enemy or a small group. Not to imply there's a better way to do it, but being good in this situation is mechanically the intent of a paladin.
The problem with paladins is the same as with all parties, just more obvious: You have to clearly agree on what kind of game you want to play, as a gaming group and stick to it.
I actually think this is a very good way to put it.
What I wanted to state with my comment was: I can hardly see any reason at all to side with something as heinous as a vampire. And in 99.9% of all cases my answer to such an offer of alliance would be answered by at least a flask of holy water. But more likely something more drastic and/or effective.
I dislike having too many shades of grey and thus vampires are just black.
What I wanted to state with my comment was: I can hardly see any reason at all to side with something as heinous as a vampire. And in 99.9% of all cases my answer to such an offer of alliance would be answered by at least a flask of holy water. But more likely something more drastic and/or effective.
I dislike having too many shades of grey and thus vampires are just black.
So Blade was 100% a bad guy, absolutely irredeemable and a heinous villain?
Edit: I think Blade was actually a Dhampir. Welp, there goes my argument.
They are a worthy and intriguing concept, but I'm not sure they are mechanically done correct.....and never quite play out like it is imagined they play out
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the main problem is that more than any other class it throws a wrench in the game immediately if there's no involved discussion on the intent of the group and the setting of the campaign.
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to seem that I'm attacking anyone's ideas or opinions, just attempting a defense for a favored class of mine.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Paladins is that most people are bad at running them and most GMs are poor at handling them. Unlike virtually all the other classes which require little to zero effort and cooperation to get them played out right, Paladins pretty much need a very mature, intelligent and committed player coupled with a sensible, flexible and level-headed GM and a gaming group that's fine with such a dynamic at the table. The only other class that gets close to such situation are Clerics, but since you can pick an easy-going deity if you don't enjoy pigeon-holing your gaming style it's pretty much mitigated.
Sometimes, this works. Most of the time it doesn't and deteriorates into Lawful Stupid/I Really Should Be Playing Judge Dredd or WH40k Inquisitor problems on player-side and/or "Let's give the Paladin a choice between burning an orphanage and sexually violating the princess and see how he/she gets out of it har har har" problems on GM-side.
Paladins should be just plain taken out of the Core Rulebook, replaced with the upcoming Warpriest, and slapped into APG with a big honkin' disclaimer "Warning, may cause implosion of gaming groups and permabans on Internet". Alas, that ship has sailed, because backwards compatibility and tradition. Getting Paladins out of CRB is about the only major request I have for PF 2.0 if it ever comes out.
Well let's say that mechanically paladin is a "better" fighter. Is a magus or synthesist also not a better fighter?
Probably. Paladins just make a direct comparison easier by being a heavy-armor-wearing full-BAB d10HD class since day 1.
|
What I wanted to state with my comment was: I can hardly see any reason at all to side with something as heinous as a vampire. And in 99.9% of all cases my answer to such an offer of alliance would be answered by at least a flask of holy water. But more likely something more drastic and/or effective.
I dislike having too many shades of grey and thus vampires are just black.
There's a LN vampire in the Kaer Maga book. He's pretty chill unless you actively mess with him. Blood of the Night also mentions Neutral vampires as a thing (Good ones are basically unknown, though not technically impossible).
In short, like most creatures in Pathfinder, not all are Evil. Though most certainly are.
More importantly...Paladins are explicitly allowed to work with Evil people or creatures for the greater Good, it's in the class description.
.
.
.
On the actual topic, I like Paladins. I understand that some people dislike them, but I think it really mostly comes down to players and GMs using the Paladin's code to be a dick (with Paladin players playing Lawful Stupid, non-Paladin players messing with the Paladin for kicks, and GMs making the Paladin fall for no good reason), and a lot of miscommunication about what it means to be a Paladin.
Specifically, I think GMs should sit down with anyone who wants to play a Paladin and talk in detail about what they both think a Paladin and the nature of Good Alignments in Pathfinder are. You can skip this if you've been gaming together for years, pick a specific code, and trust each other...but not unless all three of those are true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, have loved paladins ever since Final Fantasy IV.
The only piece of media I've ever seen that has an Anti-Paladin rise to a Paladin rather than the other way around.
The look of sheer "Are you f&!!ing kidding me with this" on my face when I realized that all my previous grinding was useless kinda soured the moment though. =/
I should really get around to making a character based on Yang. Yang's da man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I wanted to state with my comment was: I can hardly see any reason at all to side with something as heinous as a vampire. And in 99.9% of all cases my answer to such an offer of alliance would be answered by at least a flask of holy water.
OK, suppose you're fighting a group of villains whose ultimate goal is to replace all life with undeath, and who are preparing to bring forth the most powerful undead being who ever lived. A vampire king who is about seven levels more powerful than you offers you his aid. (He doesn't want all humanity replaced with undead because then where's he going to get fresh blood from?) What's your first move?
How can there ever be a greater evil than a horde of bloodthirsty undead?
Makes it hard to play a morally ambiguous 'team up with a group of vampires to fight a greater evil' type adventure.
This is about a section of Carrion Crown where you're supposed to
** spoiler omitted **
": While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
What I wanted to state with my comment was: I can hardly see any reason at all to side with something as heinous as a vampire. And in 99.9% of all cases my answer to such an offer of alliance would be answered by at least a flask of holy water.OK, suppose you're fighting a group of villains whose ultimate goal is to replace all life with undeath, and who are preparing to bring forth the most powerful undead being who ever lived. A vampire king who is about seven levels more powerful than you offers you his aid. (He doesn't want all humanity replaced with undead because then where's he going to get fresh blood from?) What's your first move?
Funny you mention that.
From the AP we've been talking about.
whose chief tenet espouses the complete transformation of
Golarion into a world of undead. For though the vampires of
Ustalav certainly meet that requirement, their quality of life
and primary sustenance depends on the blood of the living.
Thus, if successful, the Whispering Way would leave no one
for vampires to feed upon, relegating every vampire to an
anguished existence of eternal thirst and little to slake it.
At the culmination of the Shining Crusade and the
defeat of Tar-Baphon, several vampire clans recognized
this symbiotic relationship with the living and turned
their backs on the Whispering Tyrant, making no attempt
to rescue him from his prison in Gallowspire. Instead, they
recalled their armies, melting away into the dark holds of
Ustalav to form their own unholy courts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the problem is GMs deliberately singling out the Paladin for a fall from the off. In the 30+ years of playing I have been the only GM to talk to the player before the campaign begins about the Code (in games I have played in). I am also the only GM/Player to define a Code for Clerics, Druids and Monks. I have also had a Unearthed Arcana Barbarian "fall" because he didn't stick to the restrictions applied to them.
The boards is full of "Paladin falls" threads but you never see one about a Monk or Barbarian acting contrary to their alignments. For some, IMO, odd reason falling belongs ONLY to Paladins while other classes which also have alignment restrictions seem to get away with anything.
Frankly I am amazed that the Cleric never had similar Codes designed specifically for their chosen deities. Still that gave me something to do when bored.
EDIT: Players being dickish while playing Paladins and forcing their PCs ideals down the throats of others doesn't help but that is generally, in my experience, from immature players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, suppose you're fighting a group of villains whose ultimate goal is to replace all life with undeath, and who are preparing to bring forth the most powerful undead being who ever lived. A vampire king who is about seven levels more powerful than you offers you his aid. (He doesn't want all humanity replaced with undead because then where's he going to get fresh blood from?) What's your first move?
I tell him to feel free to make his own moves to stop the ultimate evil but to not cross my path doing so, or else...
|
|
Also, have loved paladins ever since Final Fantasy IV.The only piece of media I've ever seen that has an Anti-Paladin rise to a Paladin rather than the other way around.
The look of sheer "Are you f@%&ing kidding me with this" on my face when I realized that all my previous grinding was useless kinda soured the moment though. =/
On the flipside, he then skyrockets through levels for a while and becomes the prettiest damn character in the entire series. ;)
Regarding the problem of some groups pigeonholing paladins: We've got two in our Wrath of the Righteous game, and we've managed to get a neat yin-yang thing going between them. One's a tiefling, the other's an aasimar. One's lived a life of brutal hardship and is defiantly idealistic in spite of it, one's lived a life of relative ease and has grown a bit jaded and cynical. One mostly buys into the concept of proper form in combat, the other fights like a swashbuckler. One is chaste, the other promiscuous. One is mindful of society's expectations and struggles to fit in, the other strains against them. One tries to look like the shining knight, the other more like a dashing rogue. One is desperate for the approval of others, the other is weary of having it foisted upon him unwarranted.
But both agree on matters of justice, honor, faith, duty, mercy, and compassion, though each may be weighted a bit differently between them. Both are still solidly paladins, even if one of them might give some folks fits when he hits the Lymnieris-inspected-and-approved brothel.
(and hell, the prostitute he's seeing could very well be a paladin too considering her Empyreal Lord...)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in 30+ years of playing D&D and its successors, I've never had a problem with paladins that weren't directly related to either a disruptive player or a power-tripping GM.
Paladins are one of my favorite classes. As a GM, I fully encourage paladin PCs. I have never had a paladin PC lose his powers without the full cooperation of the player. I do give players warnings if I think they might be treading too close to the line, usually in the form of signs from the gods.
I think the perceived problems with paladins are due to the attraction the class has to disruptive players and/or the class being an easy target for GMs who enjoy screwing with players.
TL/DR: Paladins are a perfectly fine class that is eztra-vulnerable to bad players/GMs.
My experience is that the "paladin problem" comes from players and GMs who don't understand that alignment is just guidelines. The paladin has a moral code that applies to themselves. Otherwise they are just Lawful Good and don't need to be a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice chaps if you can get the stick out of their butt.
Seriously though, playing a paladin takes a concerted effort by not just the player of the paladin, but the entire gaming group.
Some groups just don't deal with it well....quite literally every time I've tried to play a paladin with my gaming group there is always the same player who will announce that he is playing a necromancer or some other chaotic evil a#@@&#@$. Every. Damn. Time. I've gotten to the point where I don't even bother thinking about playing a paladin any more. I don't know if he just thinks the idea of the dynamic is fun or interesting...but whatever he thinks it is, it is not. For me as a player of paladins it's annoying to have to say to my fellow players that my paladin couldn't exist in the same group with one of them. The neutral and morally ambiguous characters that hide their evil or morally questionable acts are okay...or at least can be made to work so long as they aren't acting out in front of the paladin. But when you start raising undead in front of him you're simply instigating a fight.
Ughhh....it's just so frustrating. Sorry to rant there.
As others already said it is often a problem that both the GMs and other players start look at situations differently when they have a paladin around.
Another example of what happened while I played my stonelord paladin: While our party was already way under WBL and by that underequipped we encountered a rust monster. My pc positioned himself at a spot where the rust monster had only one square to attack him from and there he placed his stone servant. From that position I started shooting at the rusty with my trusted sling.
After the rust monster went down the mage stabilized it without checking with the group whether we are ok with that. He didn't even have a plan what to do with the monster. And not only had it hurt several party members it also ate the other dwarf's magic armor.
Because of that my pc decided that it is too great of a threat to us and killed the beast.
At the end of that day's session there was a discussion on whether my paladin should fall. One argument for the fall was cowardice in the face of an enemy, which was dropped because in every other single fight I was standing there, taking the hits. But the second point was that killing the helpless rustmonster, which the wizard had made sure didn't bleed out was either chaotic or evil or both. My argument that it was a dangerous beast able to kill innocent people and in addition to that nemesis to his people was dismissed as a strawman argument. No other class would get flak for tactical fighting and self defence in that way.
I tell him to feel free to make his own moves to stop the ultimate evil but to not cross my path doing so, or else...
OK, suppose you're fighting a group of villains whose ultimate goal is to replace all life with undeath, and who are preparing to bring forth the most powerful undead being who ever lived. A vampire king who is about seven levels more powerful than you offers you his aid. (He doesn't want all humanity replaced with undead because then where's he going to get fresh blood from?) What's your first move?
So you would rather risk the world ending than side with someone who can keep it as it is, just because you dont like them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you would rather risk the world ending than side with someone who can keep it as it is, just because you dont like them?I tell him to feel free to make his own moves to stop the ultimate evil but to not cross my path doing so, or else...
OK, suppose you're fighting a group of villains whose ultimate goal is to replace all life with undeath, and who are preparing to bring forth the most powerful undead being who ever lived. A vampire king who is about seven levels more powerful than you offers you his aid. (He doesn't want all humanity replaced with undead because then where's he going to get fresh blood from?) What's your first move?
And this brings us into one of the core themes with paladins: how much of their code are they willing to compromise for the greater good?
For instance, if they know they have no chance to kill a BBEG who'll destroy the world in a fair fight, then do they sacrifice their own honor to backstab him? Hell, how many innocent lives is the honor of a paladin worth? These are questions that a paladin must ask themselves at some point, and sometimes a paladin has to decide whether to stick to his code or his principles. Paladins are awesome because of the roleplaying opportunities they present, as well as being a badass class to boot.
After playing through several campaigns as paladins, I've come across at least a few players that seem to have a deep-seated dislike or even hatred for paladins, in stark contrast to my love for the class. While I can understand some of the concern in paladin PCs(i.e. players playing Lawful Stupid), what have paladins ever done to deserve this hate?
I'm very curious to get a much wider view on this class and how it's been played in other peoples' experiences, be it as a party member, as a DM, or as the paladin player themselves.
Feelings on paladins? Constructive advice for aspiring paladins? Issues that come up as a DM? Past experiences concerning the Fall?
In my experience there are two fringe groups/scenarios - at one end there are players who deliberately do the 'Lawful Stupid' thing, either because they have this iconic image in their heads that they want to play regardless of the rest of the group's make-up or intent... and at the other end there are GM's who go out of their way to 'challenge' Paladins by creating impossible scenarios in an effort to get them to fall.
Those two fringe groups are exactly that - fringe, to the point of being almost (but not quite) urban legend. The vast majority of the games I've been a part of involve a Paladin having a personal code and a 'big picture' view of good vs. evil and GM and the rest of the party being fine with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I have to add this:
We've completely revamped Paladins twice in our game. The first time we simply made Paladins similar to Clerics - beholden to a specific deity and capable of being any alignment, only at risk of 'falling' if they were to go against their God's wishes/interests... after all, is there really a 'greater good' when you have deities of every stripe muddying the waters? They were the militant arm of a patron deity, no more, no less.
That worked really well for a very long time and through several iterations of the game (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder), but recently we've taken another look at them as we were putting together a homebrew world. Now, they are independent of particular faiths and instead serve as avatars or the cardinal alignments... in other words, there are Paladins of Good, Paladins of Evil, Paladins of Order and Paladins of Chaos, with any alignment other than Neutral being a possibility. The example I use sometimes to illustrate the nuance of how it might play out is Batman and the Joker, both Paladins of Chaos, but Batman as Chaotic Good, working outside limitations of the established order to protect the weak and innocent while the Joker is Chaotic Evil, sowing discord and chaos for its own sake, taking actual pleasure in the suffering it might cause.
This variant of the Paladin is simpler in its execution and broader in its applications, and while its still early in its use, we've absolutely loved the new take on the old theme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in 30+ years of playing D&D and its successors, I've never had a problem with paladins that weren't directly related to either a disruptive player or a power-tripping GM.
Paladins are one of my favorite classes. As a GM, I fully encourage paladin PCs. I have never had a paladin PC lose his powers without the full cooperation of the player. I do give players warnings if I think they might be treading too close to the line, usually in the form of signs from the gods.
I think the perceived problems with paladins are due to the attraction the class has to disruptive players and/or the class being an easy target for GMs who enjoy screwing with players.
TL/DR: Paladins are a perfectly fine class that is eztra-vulnerable to bad players/GMs.
This perfectly sums up everything I think and feel about Paladins, and mirrors my own RL experiences over the past 30+ years as well.
People have mentioned a certain adventure path and its morally grey area...
In the introduction it spells out quite clearly the reasons why a Paladin or a Cleric of Pharasma might side with Team Evil. It is presented as a mature theme and certainly there is no hint of "neeneer! neeneer! You've fallen!" unless the player just blindly hooks up because its easier.
And yes while it would tug at the conscience of the Paladin as well as good Clerics and Pharasma followers (but hey we don't screw with 'em because they have no Code and therefore it ain't fun) its presented as a Roleplaying opportunity. In my campaign the player of the Pharasmin Inquisitor thought that book was the highlight of the adventure path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you would rather risk the world ending than side with someone who can keep it as it is, just because you dont like them?
Not exactly. I would not side with them because a) I don't trust monsters and b) because siding with evil is the path to evil.
And that has nothing to do with playing a paladin or not. It is how I as a player like to see my game world.Paladins just support that view.
|
|
This perfectly sums up everything I think and feel about Paladins, and mirrors my own RL experiences over the past 30+ years as well.Well, in 30+ years of playing D&D and its successors, I've never had a problem with paladins that weren't directly related to either a disruptive player or a power-tripping GM.
Paladins are one of my favorite classes. As a GM, I fully encourage paladin PCs. I have never had a paladin PC lose his powers without the full cooperation of the player. I do give players warnings if I think they might be treading too close to the line, usually in the form of signs from the gods.
I think the perceived problems with paladins are due to the attraction the class has to disruptive players and/or the class being an easy target for GMs who enjoy screwing with players.
TL/DR: Paladins are a perfectly fine class that is eztra-vulnerable to bad players/GMs.
I've only been gaming ten or fifteen years now (depending on how you count), but this sums up my general experience, too. I admittedly haven't seen a whole lot of Paladins (and have only played a couple...the Doppelganger Paladin was fun), as the groups I've played with tend more towards Chaotic alignments...but I've also literally never seen a Paladin fall, or be a giant dick for no reason, either one. Because the people who play Paladins play them as good guys. Dammit. And other people might make jokes about that, but they're jokes, not attacks.
I've only been gaming ten or fifteen years now (depending on how you count), but this sums up my general experience, too. I admittedly haven't seen a whole lot of Paladins (and have only played a couple...the Doppelganger Paladin was fun), as the groups I've played with tend more towards Chaotic alignments...but I've also literally never seen a Paladin fall, or be a giant dick for no reason, either one. Because the people who play Paladins play them as good guys. Dammit. And other people might make jokes about that, but they're jokes, not attacks.This perfectly sums up everything I think and feel about Paladins, and mirrors my own RL experiences over the past 30+ years as well.Well, in 30+ years of playing D&D and its successors, I've never had a problem with paladins that weren't directly related to either a disruptive player or a power-tripping GM.
Paladins are one of my favorite classes. As a GM, I fully encourage paladin PCs. I have never had a paladin PC lose his powers without the full cooperation of the player. I do give players warnings if I think they might be treading too close to the line, usually in the form of signs from the gods.
I think the perceived problems with paladins are due to the attraction the class has to disruptive players and/or the class being an easy target for GMs who enjoy screwing with players.
TL/DR: Paladins are a perfectly fine class that is eztra-vulnerable to bad players/GMs.
Oh, I think it goes without saying that anyone playing a Paladin will be the butt of (usually friendly) jokes/antics/pranks. Comes with the territory, both in and out of character.
And I have to add this:
We've completely revamped Paladins twice in our game. The first time we simply made Paladins similar to Clerics - beholden to a specific deity and capable of being any alignment, only at risk of 'falling' if they were to go against their God's wishes/interests... after all, is there really a 'greater good' when you have deities of every stripe muddying the waters? They were the militant arm of a patron deity, no more, no less.
That worked really well for a very long time and through several iterations of the game (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder), but recently we've taken another look at them as we were putting together a homebrew world. Now, they are independent of particular faiths and instead serve as avatars or the cardinal alignments... in other words, there are Paladins of Good, Paladins of Evil, Paladins of Order and Paladins of Chaos, with any alignment other than Neutral being a possibility. The example I use sometimes to illustrate the nuance of how it might play out is Batman and the Joker, both Paladins of Chaos, but Batman as Chaotic Good, working outside limitations of the established order to protect the weak and innocent while the Joker is Chaotic Evil, sowing discord and chaos for its own sake, taking actual pleasure in the suffering it might cause.
This variant of the Paladin is simpler in its execution and broader in its applications, and while its still early in its use, we've absolutely loved the new take on the old theme.
Isn't that the 4th Ed. version of the paladin? I don't have the sourcebooks but that's what I've heard. If that's what you want in Pathfinder then there's always the Inquisitor which fits your homebrew a lot better IMO. The Paladin and Anti-Paladin are specific character types that crop up in fantasy often so D&D and later Pathfinder gave them rules to someone who wants to play them.
A Paladin is really just Superman. Stands for the rule of law as long as it's just, for good, and for protect the innocent. Superman has faced several moral dilemmas in his long history but has always chosen good and righteousness over rigidly upholding the law like a Hellknight.
Paladins are given extra power because they are champions of the Good Gods on Earth(-equivalent). They're given a strict code of morality in order to make sure they don't abuse that power. If I were to play a paladin or GM a campaign with one, I would require the GM and player write a version of the paladin code. Maybe not comprehensive but at least an outline of dos and don'ts to guide the player and GM in ambiguous situations.