Part of the issue is bad players (psychotic lawfulk stupid) and bad GMs (ohhh, class with a shiny built-in off switch)
Another part is current north american culture (I include Canada in this... and I am Canadian) where lawful= joy-killing douche who gets in the way of getting things done. Perhaps this is a side effect of the 90's anti-hero trope
What are the popular heroes/shows these days? I will note any lawful influences. These are all IMO
- Batman (Chris Nolan variant... yeah, right)
- 24
- Person of interest
- Burn Notice
- Continuum
- Deliverance
- THOR
- Avengers
- Agents of SHIELD
- Actually, just about any Marvel-related property, except Captain America (haven't seen Winter Soldier yet)
- Castle (Finally, an example where lawful <> douche, but the main characters would be NG or CG, with the NG sometimes concerned about procedure)
- Bones (Mostly lawful behaviour in the end, but evidence gathering is sometimes... questionable)
- Law & Order (all variants...): by it's nature, lawful examples
- the JAG universe is: JAG->NCIS->NCIS:Los Angeles
The JAG universe starts with upholding Lawful Goodness, but NCIS: Los Angeles? Almost everyone there is CG, the lawful characters are basically douches at best.Then there are shows like
Dexter
Vikings
HannibalWhere the characters are just plain socio/psycho pathic
So we have a generation or 2 raised on "break the law if it feels wrong, lawful/ordered behaviour is the sign of someone who, at best, is dragging their heels...".
I would argue some heroes.
Batman has been through so many interpretations that he could be argued for every alignment. But he has fought to preserve his society while changing it from within. For example, in the Dark Knight, he uses his influence as Bruce Wayne to help Harvey Dent legally fund his future campaigns so he keep fixing the legal system. He helps Gordon because he's a good cop. But most importantly, he fights the definitely CE Joker. Batman may break a few laws but he's fighting for the rule of law which is what a LG or LN person does. Doesn't mean he won't do what's necessary. A paladin shouldn't be afraid to jaywalk in order to save a child from a moving car.
The main heroes of Burn Notice are NG or CG but there are good LG people like the two recurring FBI agents from season one. But yeah the conceit of the show pretty much is that Michael helps those who the law can't handle.
The Avengers and Agents of Shield are tough cases because they're teams. Cap is obviously Lg even in the Winter Soldier. Though Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk are Chaotic, Hawkeye and Black Widow seem to be pretty Lawful in that they follow orders. Maria Hill too. Fury doesn't follow orders; he gives them. Though I would argue, he's LN. Coulson seems LG to me. Ward and May are definitely Lawful.
The other shows I don't know as much about. The point is that the are plenty of Lawful heroes. They just don't always follow the rules. Any LG character would tell you the doing the right thing or saving the day is more important than upholding every single rule. LG means respecting the rule of law but knowing where the line is. Caring more about the law than good is LN and the realm of Judge Dredd and the Hellknights.
I like paladins, and am finally able to play one. Most groups seem to be against the paladin, because it "cramps their style" of Wolverine-like anti-hero, who doesn't care what he has to do to achieve his goals. I personally enjoy the hero type of characters, similar to Superman or Captain America.
Most groups I have been in, they make it almost impossible to play a paladin, unless you want constant arguing and the PVP that is almost guaranteed to happen. All because they want to play their Chaotic Stupid murderhobo, and usually outnumber those who would like the paladin.
Maybe I am just jaded when it comes to the anti-hero Chaotic Stupid muderhobo, having played a couple when I was younger. Apologies if this has been all over the place.
I've found that these things come up on their own, while the players are coming up with a plan of action. You don't have to manufacture them.
| 3 people 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.
So, not evil? Sounds like a problem with everyone else at the table, not the paladin.
Makes it hard to play a morally ambiguous 'team up with a group of vampires to fight a greater evil' type adventure.
Okay? How? The paladin code flat out says "Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil." Which is pretty much verbatim for what you are claiming it doesn't say.
Gets so many abilities it's hard to keep track of them all; makes Fighters look inferior.
By comparison? Probably. The auras really don't do much, aside from Aura of Courage turning Bravery into a complete joke. Divine Grace is the reason most people play the class, Smite makes his damage match up with the fighter's up to seven times in a day, and Lay on Hands is not that big of a deal. Sure it's a strong class by comparison, but I don't think people are refusing to play paladins because they are protesting Paizo to make fighters better, and that seems to be what you're implying here.
Forces the GM to make rulings about what constitutes lawful good behavior and decree whether or not the paladin should fall.
It does not. It is usually pretty clear cut when the paladin does something evil and deserves to fall, unless you are forcing a Sadistic Choice on your paladin players, or are invoking To be Lawful or Good, but not both in an attempt to screw with the player. It really is not that difficult to identify an evil action.
Myself, I have more problems with Stupid Neutral clerics who purposely teeter the line between stupid and dumb to 'balance' their character's alignment so he can continue to maintain his rising army of undead spawned from his fallen enemies to save kittens from trees. That is the alignment issue I have more of a problem with, but I think I am the only one on the boards who has more of a problem with clerics than I do with paladins.
Causes long threads on the internet about whether executing prisoners is an evil act.
It doesn't have to, there are way too many people who feel the need for the paladin to fall supposedly because they themselves feel they could not play a paladin, so they must ruin everyone else's ability to play a paladin also.
I think the other reason why paladins are talked about so much is that they epitomize the alignment system crunch, and without them we would all be complaining about clerics exclusively.
The paladin gets hate because he does things right. In the famous words of Marshall Mathers “If you have enemies, good
that means you stood up for something.”
|
I'm wary of paladins because it seems like a very fine line to walk: you want the alignment restriction to mean something (otherwise, you're just playing a Smighter) but you don't want to derail the game (let's be frank, most of what adventurers do would in game would get you thrown in jail for a long time in real life, implying it's non-lawful, non-good, or both).
A lot of adventures happen in lawless places, which really changes the expected and appropriate standards of behavior.
Also...I've just been reading through several APs (Curse of the Crimson Throne, Legacy of Fire, Serpent's Skull, Reign of Winter, and Wrath of the Righteous) and all of those seem relatively easy to be a Paladin in. In some, you need to break law instituted by Evil people...but you tend to know who instituted them...so that still works fairly well. Some others would involve a slightly different style of play than that assumed for a Paladin, but not one that wasn't viable or effective.
Really...I'm having a hard time thinking of games I've either played in or run where the PCs did anything important to the plot that wasn't Paladin-safe (well, there was the Evil game where we helped commit genocide, among other awful things...but that's an Evil game, and we had an Antipaladin and he didn't object).
Paladins essentially involve certain archetypes (usually what I call "old school" heroics) and thus require certain types of games to function well. This means the DM and to a certain point the party should be on board with the plan. Sometimes, though, people have certain views on how paladins must work and don´t like those views being conflicted.
Overall, I like paladins, since I generally like the type of games they fit, if done half right. Yes, they come with a few restrictions (although the Paladin Code can be 99% summarized as "You are a warrior and you are lawful good"), but the same is also true for clerics - except those don´t come with a single code in the PHB but different faiths for their deities. That doesn´t mean either have to be identical Dogmabots with zero personality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins really are simple:
- Uphold the good
- Adhere to the law
- If the two conflict, good always trumps law, because just law is in place for one reason—to preserve the good
Despite the alignment system and the philosophizing of Michael Moorcock, which posit an extreme and thus false dichotomy, it's arguable that law and good are more akin (though clearly not synonymous), as are chaos and evil. Can one still be chaotic good or lawful evil? Sure. But they don't lend themselves as easily to each other as do lawful good and chaotic evil.
The movie Thor is neutral good, in my opinion. The comics' Thor runs the gamut from lawful to chaotic good, dependent on the writer and storyline.
Even Captain America strays, in the comics, into neutral good quite often.
Agreed about paladins.
Thor is usually considered Chaotic because of his love of battle for its own sake and his tendency to flout Odin's command whenever it doesn't suit him. Odin is generally a dick so Thor is still good but usually not lawful. Movie Thor being NG I could buy in that he's naturally chaotic (battle-loving, plays by his own rules, will do whatever it takes to do what's right) but wants to be more lawful (keep his violent impulses in check, respect his father, be a good ruler himself.)
The reason I would not play a paladin and generally dislike the paladin is because it doesn't take mistakes well. Order of the Stick had a great strip about this when an LG fighter is being judged at the gates of heaven. The deva makes some arguments that could put him into NG because he sometimes uses chaotic means to achieve lawful ends which is one definition of NG. But she lets him into Heaven on the basis of him honestly try to be LG. It's okay for him to make mistakes and not always uphold the law or be a bit dickish sometimes as long as he realizes his mistakes, owns them, and tries to make up for it.
The rigid paladin system is difficult for many players because it doesn't allow for these mistakes as well. Many players and GMs are rather Hellknight-like themselves when it comes to the code and how digressions are handled. (They also do this for alignments which is one problem with the system.) Is this an inherent problem with paladins per se? No. But without clear wording about wiggle room, people assume it doesn't exist. Therefore the jaywalking paladin instantly loses his powers. This is why I usually discourage players from being paladins or GMs from allowing them. They need to be smart. They have to understand that things the LG Fighter can get away with without a forced alignment shift should be things a Paladin can get away with without falling. If the player and gm know what they're doing, then have fun with your paladin. Don't let idiots ruin your fun because they're being lawful stupid in real life.
I'm wary of paladins because it seems like a very fine line to walk: you want the alignment restriction to mean something (otherwise, you're just playing a Smighter...
(By the way, when I say alignment restrictions should matter, what I mean to say is this: the paladin should be put in situations where the alignment restriction is going to force hard choices...)
I think that's a bad instinct. The Lawful Good restriction is supposed to be flavor, not a balancing mechanism to compensate for Paladin superpowers. (Paladins are powerful, but not the most powerful class.)
Being a paladin should mean that you don't do evil things for no reason, and that if the GM gives you an adventure hook with no motivation other than helping people or defeating evil, you immediately jump at the task.
If a moral dilemmas isn't obvious (Do you save the peasants or take a bribe to let them die?) it should be the sort where neither decision will make you fall because there was no obvious right answer (Do you execute the bandit on the spot or release him go on committing crimes?)
I think that's a bad instinct. The Lawful Good restriction is supposed to be flavor, not a balancing mechanism to compensate for Paladin superpowers.I'm wary of paladins because it seems like a very fine line to walk: you want the alignment restriction to mean something (otherwise, you're just playing a Smighter...
(By the way, when I say alignment restrictions should matter, what I mean to say is this: the paladin should be put in situations where the alignment restriction is going to force hard choices...)
Cite?
I'm trying to give an example of a situation where both sides look equally bad - so imagine (a) a bandit who seems to be the murderous kind who you would feel awful about releasing, and (b) you are in a lawless region and on an important quest so there's literally no other option than killing him or letting him go.
Sorry - I know this is one of those issues that takes over threads.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"If a character is summarily executing bandits on the spot:... He ain't no paladin."
Incidentally, this is an example of why some people have problems with paladins. There are no other classes that people make this kind of statement about. I'd allow paladins to be both merciful redeemers and ruthless slayers of evil.
"If a character is summarily executing bandits on the spot:... He ain't no paladin."
Incidentally, this is an example of why some people have problems with paladins. There are no other classes that people make this kind of statement about. I'd allow paladins to be both merciful redeemers and ruthless slayers of evil.
Clerics say hi.
|
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?
The issue with that particular instance is not the paladin. Actually Clerics of Pharasma, (who the AP specifically calls out as being great options for players), and most other followers to good aligned deities would have a lot of issues with that, and absolutely should be at risk for violating their codes of conduct. The issue was specifically how railroaded that section of the AP was. It was meant to be interesting, a fun little moral quandary, but in reality it absolutely flew in the face of the settings internal consistency, and was clearly just a railroad.
Back on topic, Paladins don't have an issue with shades of grey. Players, usually not the paladin but others, probably your steal from the party and cause trouble rogue, (imagine that. . .), who think that shades of grey translates into only grey or "Hey, my character sheet says right here CN, no matter what I do" are 99% the issue when it comes to paladins, (and others). If it's actually shades of grey, than the lighter shades are absolutely required to put things into perspective, as are the darker. It's not an excuse for the less than moral character/players to force their character's beliefs and attitudes on others, which happens far to often in most of the cases I see about "paladin problems". Not all, but many.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I think bandits were excluded from the protection of some codes. The idea was that anyone could kill a known bandit and not face any retribution - Wikipedia mentions this being part of the "Writ of Outlawry". In essense, this person is sentenced to death in absentia and everyone is allowed to carry out the execution.
Depending on the society, as a warrior and exemplar of their faith, the paladin may be allowed to dispense justice in at least some cases.
The Lawful Good restriction is supposed to be flavor, not a balancing mechanism to compensate for Paladin superpowers.Cite?
It looks like I'm misremembering.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Oh, there are plenty of "other" reasons, but you shouldn't balance flavor with mechanics, or vice versa...
I have seen this quoted previously in reference to paladins, but apparently he wasn't thinking specifically of paladins when he wrote that.
Why? He is a bandit, laughs in your face, even admits it?
In my homecountry we execute bandits, you admit it, I will give you a short fall and a sudden stop. Now is your time to confess your sins, and enter your journey to pharasma with a good start. May whatever god awaits you have mercy on your soul! Please folks, most countries have rather harsh rules. And if you check for Iomedeas 11 miracles, she was not really the forgiving type!
|
|
"If a character is summarily executing bandits on the spot:... He ain't no paladin."
As a blanket statement, I disagree. Paladins, like Clerics, by the very nature of their class, are chosen individuals that champion "higher truths". By divine mandate, if not mortal law (but maybe both), they most certainly can punish criminals and be justified in doing it. That does not mean that that is their only course of action, nor that it's the best, but in some circumstances, might be the best option. If said bandits are murdering people, robbing, kidnapping, mutilating, raping, etc. . . (not just stealing a few purses here and there), and a paladin sits there and debates for a moment the chance of redemption vs the risk of letting these monsters loose to return and harm more, not knowing for certain what will happen either way, just which is more likely, (and not even getting into the factors about availability of turning them into the law, time constraints, or other missions), it could absolutely be argued that by not executing them, legally and morally, the paladin is willingly contributing the greater evil and suffering in the world and failing to do their responsibility as a champion.
Ends do not justify the means, and it should be a case-by-case basis at best.
There are no other classes that people make this kind of statement about.Clerics say hi.
I assume you mean that clerics can lose their powers for violating the tenets of their deity. But you can at least choose to play a cleric of a god who will allow you to play your character however you wish. You can't say "anyone who kills children for fun isn't a cleric" because there are evil gods who'd be OK with that.
|
|
The Lawful Good restriction is supposed to be flavor, not a balancing mechanism to compensate for Paladin superpowers.Cite?It looks like I'm misremembering.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Oh, there are plenty of "other" reasons, but you shouldn't balance flavor with mechanics, or vice versa...I have seen this quoted previously in reference to paladins, but apparently he wasn't thinking specifically of paladins when he wrote that.
Yah, I'm not sure where that idea came from. Since at least 2nd Ed, the Paladins restrictive code has been purposefully kept to balance out the paladin's otherwise high level of power. 4E was an exeption, but even in PF its been noted a few times that the code was there to balance out the class, even if lightened a bit, (sort of) in PF.
|
|
I assume you mean that clerics can lose their powers for violating the tenets of their deity. But you can at least choose to play a cleric of a god who will allow you to play your character however you wish. You can't say "anyone who kills children for fun isn't a cleric" because there are evil gods who'd be OK with that.There are no other classes that people make this kind of statement about.Clerics say hi.
And likewise a Paladin can choose a deity whose Paladin code lines up with what the player wishes. Some mandate not give quarter to enemies for instance, while others require their paladins to look for peaceful/diplomatic courses of action first and foremost, with violence being an absolute last resort.
Both Clerics and Paladins have very similar if not equal room to maneuver around that, and how much or little falls into the DM's hands a little to much, I think. The main difference is that ach individual Cleric's tenets of faith are not outlined in the Core book, while the generic Paladin catch all one is (sort of).
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.
That douchenozzle would be booted from the group for deliberately antagonizing the player and the character. I'm sorry you have to endure such infantile behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both Clerics and Paladins have very similar if not equal room to maneuver around that, and how much or little falls into the DM's hands a little to much, I think. The main difference is that ach individual Cleric's tenets of faith are not outlined in the Core book, while the generic Paladin catch all one is (sort of).
That's a pretty big difference though, and a lot of people I've met have their own opinions about paladins that compound with the deity and the code. Those opinions range from a certain idea about how to play them to have fun, a certain idealism, a sort of one true way ism, or even having their own houserules to expand the paladin. DM really does make a big difference when a lot of the if's and but's about the paladin are subjective or houserules. Clerics also deal with it, but in my experience its a much bigger difference because its less "This is a cleric" as it is "This is a cleric of..." while paladin is more of "This is a paladin!". Another thing is I meet a lot of different clerics of a lot of different deities, especially in a PFS environment, and some of those deities I can't remember for the life of me and I certainly don't know the tenants of, but I sure know what a paladin's code is off the top of my head. If that makes sense.
Anyways... I like the idea of the paladin, not so big on the execution or how I've had to live with everyone else's idea of the paladin. Big fan of having a lot of options, but paladins always come off as being very uniform and they have this big hammer over their head just kind of looming. Sometimes its the player of the paladin, sometimes its the GM, sometimes its another player, and I've even had that random passerby just go off about how your doing it wrong or how it has to be done without any lee way or care for your preferences. Not sure if I'd say I hate the paladin, but I would say he's in a weird place for trouble. A lot of it has to do with a lot of what's said in the thread about alignment and how everyone has a different idea of what is and should be about paladins and alignment.
I'm not sure if I would blame people before I blame the system for supporting the one true way ism baggage.
I assume you mean that clerics can lose their powers for violating the tenets of their deity. But you can at least choose to play a cleric of a god who will allow you to play your character however you wish. You can't say "anyone who kills children for fun isn't a cleric" because there are evil gods who'd be OK with that.As of the APG, "Antipaladin" is now a thing. I've even heard "Paladin of Freedom" tossed around (a CG variant, possibly from an AP or 3pp). It probably wouldn't take much imagination to define a LE version.
Educate yourself! There were a few other paladins of different alignments from other editions too. Paladin of freedom is a common nickname for the CG one though, not sure if this is really what you'd call the source but its something. Can't read minds or know where people get their ideas from. Official from the game that pathfinder converted from if it matters.
The Lawful Good restriction is supposed to be flavor, not a balancing mechanism to compensate for Paladin superpowers.Cite?It looks like I'm misremembering.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Oh, there are plenty of "other" reasons, but you shouldn't balance flavor with mechanics, or vice versa...I have seen this quoted previously in reference to paladins, but apparently he wasn't thinking specifically of paladins when he wrote that.
Mr. Reynolds's opinion is more educated on the subject than mine, but I maintain my disagreement. It doesn't really match up with the paladin at any time from 3.5 backwards. To a lesser extent, it doesn't match up with the druid, cleric, monk, or barbarian either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems more appropriate to make classes/archetypes/prestige classes based on whatever ideals the paladin/variant wishes to uphold rather than by alignment. The names of the variants lends credence to such an approach--a paladin who works to uphold freedom makes more sense than a paladin who works to uphold "chaotic good", whatever that means.
Then again, I think the regular paladin works better that way, too.
/kill alignment
//burn it down
///salt the earth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
This may sound odd but I blame the bad rep more on DMs than players. What most people find annoying about paladins is when they are run as self-righteous arrogant sticks in the mud that demand everyone else in the party has to live by their Paladin standards and essentially acts as the Fun Police. And who wants to play a game with the Fun Police?
So the answer should be simple, right? Just don't be on of those guys. Well, I have played a lot of Paladins over the last 40 years and I can tell you that is far easier said than done. I have tried very have not to be that guy but the problem always ends up being the DM, because far too many DMs think that I am supposed to be that guy. They have such a ridged idea of what a Paladin is that they frequently question my behavior and threaten me with falling every time I am not being a total jackass to the rest of the players. Instead of the DM being the guy that is there to help everyone have fun, adding a Paladin to the party seems to suddenly transform the DM into the high arbiter of all that is moral. So I am either stuck with becoming the Fun Police the DM expects me to be, thus making everyone else at the table miserable and eventually causing the game to dissolve. Or can stop playing a Paladin. Either way, the DM has just rendered a class the game designer intended to be playable into one that is unplayable.
Now this isn't true for every DM. But I have experienced it enough to know it is likely a major cause of the bad rep for Paladins.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote a guide on how to play a paladin's code of conduct. See that for any advice I have on how to play one.
As for my feelings on the class, I love it. However, I have a dislike when certain types of people play the paladin. That is, the type of people who don't have proper context or experience to roleplay one correctly. This is a pretty difficult issue because the class is tied so closely to the ideals of the paladins in literature, which are all highly religious Christin knights that follow not only the doctrine of Christ but the ideals of Chivalry as well.
And this is often a problem for non-religious, non-christian, and certainly those not familiar with the classic literature that the class was influenced by. They take to the class this idea that doesn't fit. Sometimes they take a prejudice to the class and play it as the heartless crusader who is bloodthirsty and blames their horrible acts on their god's will. Sometimes they actually give it a great try but fall short because they don't have any real context or experience to pull from that is anything like what a paladin is meant to be.
Don't get me wrong, I have seen non-relious people play the paladin well. I have also seen Christian's play them badly. More often than not it is non-religious people that don't have that context to play with. And I am not saying you need to be Christian to have it either. Nearly any very religious person should understand what it means to live a strict code of conduct. Heck, even those who have belonged to non-religous organizations, like a military, should have some context.
And maybe that is it. Maybe there is a disconnect when it comes to understanding what living such a code actually means. I have had to live stricter codes in my life, so I know the complexities and the stress people face when they do so. But that player who has never had to live a strict code of conduct, who hasn't ever believed in something with such a passion that they would follow such a code, they clearly don't understand. And it shows when they so casually toe the line with their paladin and give little thought to the code when playing them.
In short, the people who play paladin's badly don't have a proper understanding of the material, and often try to force upon the class their own ideals. Ideals that do not match what the class is meant to portray.
The same goes for the GM that runs a game in a way to ruin a paladin. They don't have proper experience and understanding of what it means to be a paladin and bring to the table this idea that doesn't actually match up to the intent of the class. This bring in conflict and confusion, and often results in a pause in the game that is needed to hash out the problems created by this disconnect.
All of this can be prevented of course. It can be done in two steps. First, when you decide to play a paladin you should do a little research. You don't have to live a strict code or suddenly join a religion, but you should read up on paladins in history and literature. Check out Roland, the first paladin, and of course you have the Knights of Round Table. Try to get a good idea of what those characters were like. Don't come to a game with just your own understanding and experience, because there is the possibility that you won't have the right tools if you do.
Next, the most important step, the GM and player should sit down and talk before the game is ready to start. Figure out the code, talk about how strictly the GM wants it to be followed, and discuss if the campaign is going to work well for paladins. Lay down some ground work and understanding in the beginning and you won't have to stop the game and argue later.
Someone mentioned above that other classes should have a code of conduct. I agree. Clerics, for example, should have one just as strict as a paladin. Druids should have one as well, and maybe even monks. The only reason why the paladin has a code of conduct is because of chivalry, and that code of conduct being a central theme to the characters the class is based on. Clerics also had to follow strict codes of conduct, often dictated by the sect of religion they followed. Druids in history were basically just non-Christian clerics, and they had strict codes of conduct to follow, even if their way of life was very much not-Christian. The characters that the monk class is based on often have codes of conduct as well, or at least vows they take related to their path in life. Inquisitors, cavaliers, and even rangers could also have cases for the need of a code of conduct.
That is my 2 cp. I am sure I am going to have people who don't like it, but that is one of the really cool things about playing this game. People of all types of backgrounds, beliefs, and opinions coming together to play and work together.
|
|
| 1 person 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.
Yeah, I have been in games where Paladins are a tremendous source of intra-party conflict as well. The Paladin class seems to be a straight jacket for role playing by limiting you to a very specific interpretation of Christian beliefs. This boy scout / superman motto is very simple minded and gets old very fast. The Paladin class is also the only class where your character really forces their values on the rest of the party.
I second the notation of just removing the class from the CRB if there ever is a PF 2.0. The Warpriest allows a very wider variety of character types and role playing opportunities. The Warpriest also does this without forcing other players to change their characters to suit the disruptive Paladin class.
Reason #4: "I know, deep down in that place I can't lie to myself, that the paladin *is* better than I am, and I resent it. He's an ever-present reminder that it can be done the right way, if you stop taking the easy way."
Of course, you also have to remember good is not inherently right and neither is lawful inherently good. Similarly that Good doesn't always make the best decisions, and some GMs are more than happy to punish you for that sort of behavior. Inb4 can a paladin lie to save lives dilemma.
One of those things that makes a paladin not so hot to me is the idea that they're actually supposed to be impossible to play because your not as good, or that they're not supposed to be fun. That instantly kills the fun, believe it or not. Lots of ideas on how a paladin can be played out there, but those two stick out right now as two that bother me personally.
The Paladin class is also the only class where your character really forces their values on the rest of the party.
It may be the only class that inherently does it. But a lot of other classes CAN do it, too.
If a pc uses undead for example he forces the other players to either have their pcs accept it or it creates the same amount of inner party conflict.Or some druids could insist that it is a bad thing to kill an animal that you don't plan to eat.
I have often seen pcs force a certain play style on the other players and most of them have not been paladins.
|
|
The Paladin class is also the only class where your character really forces their values on the rest of the party.
It may be the only class that inherently does it. But a lot of other classes CAN do it, too.
If a pc uses undead for example he forces the other players to either have their pcs accept it or it creates the same amount of inner party conflict.
Or some druids could insist that it is a bad thing to kill an animal that you don't plan to eat.I have often seen pcs force a certain play style on the other players and most of them have not been paladins.
I have seen other cases of classes being role played and trying to force their character's values on other characters. However, the Paladin class pretty much mandates for most players(in the current interpretation) such conflicts by forcing its values on other player's characters.
I do find the current Paladin version funny because the very first DnD Paladin was a cowboy on a white horse that used "6 shooter" wands played by Don Kaye in Gygax's campaign.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
The Paladin class is also the only class where your character really forces their values on the rest of the party.
I have seen a druid force their ideals about nature upon the party to the point of stupid. No hunting, strict rules about fire, and even an extreme view on how to handle monsters of the animal and plant types.
I have seen clerics force their character's religion on others as well. I haven't played with many inquisitors yet, but I imagine that class would be prone to such behavior as well.
Cavaliers could easily force the codes of their orders on the party.
All of these are classes may not have the same type of code of conduct mechanic, but they do have assumptions built in about how they are to be roleplayed and thus potential for the same danger you claim only the paladin has.
A paladin that forces anything to happen isn't playing a paladin right. At least, that is my opinion on how they should be played.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote a guide on how to play a paladin's code of conduct. See that for any advice I have on how to play one.
As for my feelings on the class, I love it. However, I have a dislike when certain types of people play the paladin. That is, the type of people who don't have proper context or experience to roleplay one correctly. This is a pretty difficult issue because the class is tied so closely to the ideals of the paladins in literature, which are all highly religious Christin knights that follow not only the doctrine of Christ but the ideals of Chivalry as well.
And this is often a problem for non-religious, non-christian, and certainly those not familiar with the classic literature that the class was influenced by. They take to the class this idea that doesn't fit. Sometimes they take a prejudice to the class and play it as the heartless crusader who is bloodthirsty and blames their horrible acts on their god's will. Sometimes they actually give it a great try but fall short because they don't have any real context or experience to pull from that is anything like what a paladin is meant to be.
Don't get me wrong, I have seen non-relious people play the paladin well. I have also seen Christian's play them badly. More often than not it is non-religious people that don't have that context to play with. And I am not saying you need to be Christian to have it either. Nearly any very religious person should understand what it means to live a strict code of conduct. Heck, even those who have belonged to non-religous organizations, like a military, should have some context.
And maybe that is it. Maybe there is a disconnect when it comes to understanding what living such a code actually means. I have had to live stricter codes in my life, so I know the complexities and the stress people face when they do so. But that player who has never had to live a strict code of conduct, who hasn't ever believed in something with such a passion that they would follow such a code, they clearly don't understand. And it...
The most polite way I can think of to say this is: This post says more about you and the breadth of your experiences than it does about paladin players or nonreligious people in general.
|
|
The Paladin class is also the only class where your character really forces their values on the rest of the party.
It may be the only class that inherently does it. But a lot of other classes CAN do it, too.
If a pc uses undead for example he forces the other players to either have their pcs accept it or it creates the same amount of inner party conflict.
Or some druids could insist that it is a bad thing to kill an animal that you don't plan to eat.I have often seen pcs force a certain play style on the other players and most of them have not been paladins.
I would say that the Rogue is absolutely just as guilty of this, as the class likewise "mandates" that everyone else play a certain way, and they likewise push their values (or lack thereof) on everyone else just the same.
I've also seen plenty of Fighters/Barbarians/Rogues push the party into combats just because they wanted kill stuff. I think that the main reason paladin (and clerics and the like) keep coming up is less that they are part of the problem and more that they have mechanical reasons to push back when other players are being jerks. Not always the case, but in my experience it's rarely the paladin that causes the issues, and if it is, it's never just the paladin.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've only ever played Paladins as humble. They've never told other party members what they can't do, only what he will not do.
You can play one and not be a prick about it. I promise.