So many topics about Paladins falling. But what about other classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Still looking forward to an "Anti-Paladin has fallen because he did good things" threads...

Won't work, Anti-Pals can do Good and not fail. Check it out:

"This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends."

So as long as it serves you, you can do Good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starbuck_II wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Still looking forward to an "Anti-Paladin has fallen because he did good things" threads...

Won't work, Anti-Pals can do Good and not fail. Check it out:

"This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends."

So as long as it serves you, you can do Good.

Just have a guy following the anti-paladin around offering to give him a nickel for every good deed he does.

Best. Plan. Ever. (says the antipaladin now rich in nickels!)


ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
Navigating shades of grey through a lens of black and white is the roleplaying challenge of playing a paladin.

You can do this with any character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
Navigating shades of grey through a lens of black and white is the roleplaying challenge of playing a paladin.
You can do this with any character.

You can do it with any character except the paladin! The paladin's choice is already chosen for him, I mean, unless he wants to be a warrior without bonus feats and any of his previous paladin related feats to go to waste. Other classes don't have that hammer of their head, so they can actually explore shades of gray a lot easier.

Scarab Sages

Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Still looking forward to an "Anti-Paladin has fallen because he did good things" threads...

I've already posted up thread about a cleric of Cyric I had fall for telling the truth when he really should have been lying.


MrSin wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
Navigating shades of grey through a lens of black and white is the roleplaying challenge of playing a paladin.
You can do this with any character.
You can do it with any character except the paladin! The paladin's choice is already chosen for him, I mean, unless he wants to be a warrior without bonus feats and any of his previous paladin related feats to go to waste. Other classes don't have that hammer of their head, so they can actually explore shades of gray a lot easier.

Very true. The paladin doesn't get to navigate anything ... he just crashes and burns.


Zhayne wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
Navigating shades of grey through a lens of black and white is the roleplaying challenge of playing a paladin.
You can do this with any character.
You can do it with any character except the paladin! The paladin's choice is already chosen for him, I mean, unless he wants to be a warrior without bonus feats and any of his previous paladin related feats to go to waste. Other classes don't have that hammer of their head, so they can actually explore shades of gray a lot easier.
Very true. The paladin doesn't get to navigate anything ... he just crashes and burns.

Not if you use even a tiny smidgeon of logic in interpreting things, but hey, why do that?


The GM and players have to be on the same page for playing a paladin to be fun. It has to be possible to play a paladin and do good deeds without breaking the paladin code. The example I mentioned above (break the code to save innocents only to let a BBEG kill lots of innocents because you broke the code) might be fun as a philosophical exercise (and only might), but generally is not fun in game.

If the player and GM discuss it beforehand, you can have fun with a situation where the paladin has to choose either the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods and risk losing paladin powers, and then have a quest for redemption. One of my house rules is a paladin doesn't lose spells or abilities for falling until the next day, so a judgement call while fighting a demon won't force a paladin to fall and lose abilities in the middle of a boss fight. I also have a "partial fall" if the players agree, so a minor violation of the paladin code will reduce the effectiveness of powers noticeable as a warning, without a sudden complete loss of everything.

Some of the paladin falls threads get into at what point is obeying the code more important than doing good and preventing evil. How bad is a sin of omission for a paladin? If the party has to sneak into a royal wedding to prevent the assassination of a visiting noble (which would trigger a war), can the paladin be silent while the rogue lies to get the group past the guards? I say yes, but some GMs and players might disagree. Then the game stops while the player with the least useful character spends twenty minutes arguing the paladin should fall immediately for not alerting the guards to the deception.


Zhayne wrote:

The answer is simple. Paladins have The Screw You Code, other classes do not, which has zero tolerance and no consequences other than Screw You. And since what's 'good' and 'evil' are purely subjective based on the GM's personal views, unless you both share a brain, you're hosed.

Terrible mechanic. Needs to die in a fire.

Never seen that happen in any game since the Paladin was published. Not saying it doesn't happen, but maybe it's better just not to play with jerks that re-write a entire game.


DrDeth wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

The answer is simple. Paladins have The Screw You Code, other classes do not, which has zero tolerance and no consequences other than Screw You. And since what's 'good' and 'evil' are purely subjective based on the GM's personal views, unless you both share a brain, you're hosed.

Terrible mechanic. Needs to die in a fire.

Never seen that happen in any game since the Paladin fort was published. Not saying it doesn't happen, but maybe it's better just not to play with jerks that re-write a entire game.

Wait, what haven't you seen? the code is pretty much written as a you listen and don't fall or don't listen fall without steps in between. The GM might rule otherwise, based on his subjective whims, but its sort of hard to change what's actually written down.


MrSin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

The answer is simple. Paladins have The Screw You Code, other classes do not, which has zero tolerance and no consequences other than Screw You. And since what's 'good' and 'evil' are purely subjective based on the GM's personal views, unless you both share a brain, you're hosed.

Terrible mechanic. Needs to die in a fire.

Never seen that happen in any game since the Paladin fort was published. Not saying it doesn't happen, but maybe it's better just not to play with jerks that re-write a entire game.
Wait, what haven't you seen? the code is pretty much written as a you listen and don't fall or don't listen fall without steps in between. The GM might rule otherwise, based on his subjective whims, but its sort of hard to change what's actually written down.

I have never seen a DM make a Paladin fall due to "screw you". It's always been warnings or a player choice.

The closest I have seen is when a Player and DM disagreed strongly about how a paladin should be played and so after discussing it like adults (rather than being a jerk) the two agreed, the Player could just bring in another PC, with no penalties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think the paladin problem leans more heavily toward "bad groups" than "bad rules".


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, I think the paladin problem leans more heavily toward "bad groups" than "bad rules".

What if told you... That the paladin rules allow and inspire the bad groups?


MrSin wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, I think the paladin problem leans more heavily toward "bad groups" than "bad rules".
What if told you... That the paladin rules allow and inspire the bad groups?

I would not believe you.


MrSin wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, I think the paladin problem leans more heavily toward "bad groups" than "bad rules".
What if told you... That the paladin rules allow and inspire the bad groups?

So does the option for friendly fire. That doesn't mean fireballs need to be removed from the game.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, I think the paladin problem leans more heavily toward "bad groups" than "bad rules".
What if told you... That the paladin rules allow and inspire the bad groups?
So does the option for friendly fire. That doesn't mean fireballs need to be removed from the game.

Slightly different thing... Besides, I would think friendly fire wouldn't hurt me so much! Biggest difference between fireballs are in the hands of a player and not something subject to the volatile nature of discussing morality. Fire cares not from where the burn flows! nor the too. Unless its living fire, but that's not what fireballs usually are... usually.

DrDeth wrote:
MrSin wrote:
What if told you... That the paladin rules allow and inspire the bad groups?
I would not believe you.

Its sort of an awkward thing, but the fact there are no rules for a fighter falling means you won't hear about a wizard falling much if ever, but the strict rules for a paladin falling means they become a magnet for it. Among other factors of course. The very fact that there is a rule to fall is why they fall, and why people feel they have to be tested, and why people feel its part of the balance, or that it has to be that way. If there were no rule, then it wouldn't happen nearly as often.

Mind you they still both fall with that gravity thing around. I think wizards just fly better in that case, being magical and all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Sure, because every GM is 100% self aware

Once had GM hundred per cent self aware.

Awkward game session. GM transcend body. Instigate blissful omnipresent hive mind. Almost world peace for Golarion. Luckily evil Liches stop him.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
...limiting the classes like this also inhibits character development and player options.

This is a solid point. But consider how many players you know who play every character exactly the same, regardless of class or race or any other factor. I think the alignment restrictions were an attempt to counteract that kind of intellectual laziness (ineffectual though they were.) This is why I'm fond of the Cavalier codes, which present (fairly generous) limitations without bringing up alignment.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
...limiting the classes like this also inhibits character development and player options.
This is a solid point. But consider how many players you know who play every character exactly the same, regardless of class or race or any other factor. I think the alignment restrictions were an attempt to counteract that kind of intellectual laziness (ineffectual though they were.) This is why I'm fond of the Cavalier codes, which present (fairly generous) limitations without bringing up alignment.

Erm... I'm not sure if that's the why as to alignment, and to be honest that's pretty heavy handed compared to someone just having a friendly chat with you about it. "Hey Joe, why is your character always an Elf named Legolad?" goes a lot further, and doesn't directly inhibit everyone else. Might be more along the lines of an expectation like a barbarian not being from civilization so not being able to read or be lawful makes sense, but that turns into a bit of a train wreck when someone wants to be this guy who rages like a berserker in combat but isn't actually an illiterate and uncivilized guy who babbles incoherently in foreign languages(the olsdchool definition of barbarian. They babble!). Makes more sense if you think of a barbarian as a literal barbarian, but that's pretty limiting in itself.

Cavalier codes are pretty awful, imo. Pre-destined narrative. Can't just be a guy on a horse and the codes aren't right for every game, even if the actual order abilities are just right for your character and the game.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
...limiting the classes like this also inhibits character development and player options.
This is a solid point. But consider how many players you know who play every character exactly the same,

I have not seen any such players. I certainly believe they exist, but I've never encountered one. Maybe I'm just lucky.

Quote:
<stuff>...This is why I'm fond of the Cavalier codes, which present (fairly generous) limitations without bringing up alignment.

Oh, I agree on the cavalier codes, I do like how those were done.

The Exchange

MrSin wrote:
...to be honest that's pretty heavy handed compared to someone just having a friendly chat with you about it. "Hey Joe, why is your character always an Elf named Legolad?" goes a lot further...

I wasn't really talking about race or class or game mechanics; more along the lines of "my character is always a self-absorbed, price-gouging, vindictive jerk; my last character was a self-absorbed, price-gouging, vindictive jerk of an assassin, while this character is a self-absorbed, price-gouging, vindictive jerk of a paladin."

Though I agree that alignment restrictions didn't really have that effect (if that effect was part of the intention.) Instead the player just spends hours arguing that being a s.a.p.g.v.j. is "in alignment" for whatever alignment he ended up having to take to get the class he wanted. Big fun for everyone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Carson6412 wrote:
For other classes to fall, they need to not only be constantly breaking their code enough to change alignment, but they can also justify most actions to fit in with their character. For Paladins, there is no second chance, there is not justifying. There is only the first mistake and then the fall.

Are people still harping on about this? I created house rules to cover this shortcoming years ago!

For example, druids break their code of conduct and fall instantly if they ever use metal cutlery or sleep indoors - However if they fall asleep due to a Sleep spell or other outside influence it's no big deal. They can just get an Atonement spell.

Clerics have to convert a minimum of four faithful per day, or else they fall. The conversion must be sincere. Whether or not a conversion is "sincere" is up to each GM to decide. Happy doorknocking!

To make barbarians feel more "chaotic", they roll a D12 with my own custom table to decide how they react to any given stimuli, such as being talked to. 1-7 is labelled "RARGH SMASH".

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And fighters have to kill at least one being (of Dimunitive size or larger - no germs, no ants) per day!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
And fighters have to kill at least one being (of Dimunitive size or larger - no germs, no ants) per day!

Kill? Why kill? They aren't called Winners. They just have to fight. Even fighting indigestion should help them realize their true name and life style. Fight on Fight-bro!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
And fighters have to kill at least one being (of Dimunitive size or larger - no germs, no ants) per day!
Kill? Why kill? They aren't called Winners. They just have to fight. Even fighting indigestion should help them realize their true name and life style. Fight on Fight-bro!

Good point! (And an excellent chance for me to create a masked luchador!)

El Feo the Fighter: To keep my lucha powers, I must wrestle - and win! - every day! Prepare to taste a whole new rainbow of pain!
Shopkeeper: Uh... what?!
El Feo: Raaaaargh!
(mayhem ensues)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

I think part of the emphasis fallen paladins receive is due to the existence of the anti-paladin.

No other class with a 'code' or restriction or whatever has that. There are no anti-druids or anti-monks or anti-barbarians.

Because 'fallen paladin' can have its own discernible class, it brings focus onto the concept that does not exist for the others.


James F.D. Graham wrote:

I think part of the emphasis fallen paladins receive is due to the existence of the anti-paladin.

No other class with a 'code' or restriction or whatever has that. There are no anti-druids or anti-monks or anti-barbarians.

Because 'fallen paladin' can have its own discernible class, it brings focus onto the concept that does not exist for the others.

Oh, there are Anti-Monks, it is called the rules. I kid.

Druids of Melini (Unicorn Goddess that Drizzt Du'Urden followed) seem like anti-Druids: they are Druids who can wear/use metal weapons (remember in 3.0 you couldn't wield them).


James F.D. Graham wrote:

I think part of the emphasis fallen paladins receive is due to the existence of the anti-paladin.

No other class with a 'code' or restriction or whatever has that. There are no anti-druids or anti-monks or anti-barbarians.

Because 'fallen paladin' can have its own discernible class, it brings focus onto the concept that does not exist for the others.

There doesn't need to be an 'anti-paladin', though. You could very easily have paladins of every alignment (or better yet, no alignment because that swollen appendix is removed).

Additionally, power loss mechanics are lame and dull, another good candidate for removal.

The Exchange

Starbuck_II wrote:
Druids of Melini (Unicorn Goddess that Drizzt Du'Urden followed)...

Mielikki.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post and the replies to it. Personal attacks are not OK.


James F.D. Graham wrote:
No other class with a 'code' or restriction or whatever has that. There are no anti-druids or anti-monks or anti-barbarians.

What exactly would a anti-barbarian look like anyway? Would it be some guy in a monocle and dapper hat?

More seriously, a fallen paladin doesn't go anti-paladin instantly. A fallen paladin can actually be LG.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

MrSin wrote:

What exactly would a anti-barbarian look like anyway? Would it be some guy in a monocle and dapper hat?

More seriously, a fallen paladin doesn't go anti-paladin instantly. A fallen paladin can actually be LG.

Ha ha.. either that or a guy in a shirt and tie, with a clipboard, 3 stamp pads, and a check-list. Kind of the ultimate bureaucrat.

and yeah, of course a Paladin can fall without automatically switching sides.. I guess I just mean that because the anti-paladin exists, it draws more attention to that aspect of the class.

EDIT: I would also posit that part of the reason we see it more with Paladins is because people may have stronger ideas/feelings about what is 'good' and what is 'evil' as opposed to what is 'lawful' and what is 'chaotic' or what is 'nature revering' and what isn't.

The others are a little more nebulous, a little harder to define and, maybe for some, a little easier to compromise on. Maybe discussing Good vs. Evil just has the potential to push more buttons.. or push them a little harder

Liberty's Edge

I think it's a combination of a very strict alignment coupled with a few bad players and Dms that causes headaches with the Paladin class imo. Rare is the case where I have seen one played properly. Either they get played as Lawful Stupid. Where a player scans each and every pc/npc to see if they are evil. Playing LG to a almost stereotypical degree. Nothing says fun like a pc playing refusing to sneak into a dragons lair because it's mot "heroic". Making a lot of noise so the dragon wakes up. Then wonders why we ran away and left him behind. Or a player questions eacjh and every action. Evil or not. Again it's not fun as a player of DM and can to one feeling negative about the class.

The other kind is played as Dirty Harry with a weapon and shield. Killing any evil. Letting nothing and I mean nothing stand in their way. One game I had a BBEG hire some town guards to protect himself from the Paladin. The guards were not evil and disliked protecting the BBEG. I played the BBEG smart and he did hire the guards legally. The Paladin killed off the guards and the BBEG got away during the fight. No attempt at even detecting evil. Nor did the player get mine or the other players subtle and not so subtle attempts that maybe it would be a BAD idea to do so. Then wondered why the Paladin fell from grace. His response was "but I'm a Paladin".

Then one has the DM and group who dislikes Paladins as a whole. Don't want them at the table. If one does take the class both o out of their way to make the player running life a living hell. It's starts to show when a DM is going out of his way to make the Paladin fall when it's impossible choice after impossible choice. With no one else at the table going through the same thing. Groups can just as bad. Constantly trying to do things to get the Paladin to react or evil just so that the player can fall and make a less annoying class.

The Paladin class is not perfect like other classes. I do think the class needs a proper code of it's own. Or more leeway to what makes on fall from grace or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A paladin walks into a bar.

Turns out it wasn't licensed.

A former paladin leaves the bar.


memorax wrote:


The other kind is played as Dirty Harry with a weapon and shield. Killing any evil. Letting nothing and I mean nothing stand in their way. One game I had a BBEG hire some town guards to protect himself from the Paladin. The guards were not evil and disliked protecting the BBEG. I played the BBEG smart and he did hire the guards legally. The Paladin killed off the guards and the BBEG got away during the fight. No attempt at even detecting evil. Nor did the player get mine or the other players subtle and not so subtle attempts that maybe it would be a BAD idea to do so. Then wondered why the Paladin fell from grace. His response was "but I'm a Paladin".

Yeah, I'm going to say he shouldn't have fallen.

Guards helping evil are serving evil. You can kill them freely.
Why would detecting evil help? They still serve evil.
What were they supposed to do? Let the bad guy get away?

The Exchange

Villain: Note to self. For guards, employ only orphans. With disabilities. Who are going to send most of their pay to their families. Their adopted families, obviously.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When a monk falls, he should have put more points into Acrobatics.


Woah this thread is still doing stuff? Neat! This is like, the most popular thread I've started in like a month.

I think Kimera hit it on the head for me. And everyone else too. Guess it makes sense, pallies have a lot of baggage going for them.


insaneogeddon wrote:

The second a paladin walks into a society run by an evil king or group he is boned. You either follow the law OR be good.

I love it when paladins are in my kingdom on kitten kick tuesdays or sodomy Saturdays!

Civil Disobedience and Bothering by the Book, homeboy.

And hide the kittens on monday. ^_^


Well the idea of the falling holy knight (paladin) is not just a rules issue it is part of the meta-narative many games run along. So it is not just a rules issue.

I do agree some GMs work really hard to screw Paladins which is lame. There are enough morally questionable things for a lawful good character without having to build a no win situation. Or a situation where only the GM knows the right answer and then punishes the paladin for not knowing the right answer.

Clerics don't fall because they have to step way out of alignment bounds for it to be an issue. Although I expect good clerics to be good.

I also have told players playing Dervish of Dawn Bards that I will hold them to the ideals of Sarenre pretty firmly. Much firmer if they were just Dervish Dancing Bards or Bards for that matter.

Liberty's Edge

Starbuck_II wrote:


Yeah, I'm going to say he shouldn't have fallen.

Guards helping evil are serving evil. You can kill them freely.
Why would detecting evil help? They still serve evil.
What were they supposed to do? Let the bad guy get away?

No he should not have let the bad guy get away. Yet he could have tried to do subdual damage to the guards to knock them out. The guards were hired to do a job fair and square. Did they like protecting the BBEG no. But they were payed. It was a job nothing more. Like police officers having to protect a rapist or a murder. Does that make them also rapist or murders as well. I think not. The player was a little too trigger happy. Attacking anything he suspected of being evil. Paladins are not vigilantes last time I checked.

Liberty's Edge

Gnomezrule wrote:


I do agree some GMs work really hard to screw Paladins which is lame. There are enough morally questionable things for a lawful good character without having to build a no win situation. Or a situation where only the GM knows the right answer and then punishes the paladin for not knowing the right answer.

I actually walked away from two such groups. One playing a Paladin. Another a seperate class. One was because of a DM screwing over the Paladin. The other was both the DM and players. I don't ge that kind o behavior. If as a players , Dms or both one dislikes Paladins. Why even allow a player to play one. It's painful to watch. Even more to play in such a group. Why wasste either sides time imo.


memorax wrote:
The player was a little too trigger happy. Attacking anything he suspected of being evil.

Alternative character interpretation, its a lot of trouble to do subdual, much less to everything you run into, and you usually don't think twice about the guards who are busy stabbing you. In a lot of situations post initiative, its really hard to just ignore or figure things out and the expectation is usually that you fight to the death(or subdual, I guess.)


memorax wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:


Yeah, I'm going to say he shouldn't have fallen.

Guards helping evil are serving evil. You can kill them freely.
Why would detecting evil help? They still serve evil.
What were they supposed to do? Let the bad guy get away?

No he should not have let the bad guy get away. Yet he could have tried to do subdual damage to the guards to knock them out. The guards were hired to do a job fair and square. Did they like protecting the BBEG no. But they were payed. It was a job nothing more. Like police officers having to protect a rapist or a murder. Does that make them also rapist or murders as well. I think not. The player was a little too trigger happy. Attacking anything he suspected of being evil. Paladins are not vigilantes last time I checked.

So, he had a right to kill guards who protect evil.

If Police officers are acting as guards for a terrorist. They are dirty cops and you can kill them freely.

51 to 100 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / So many topics about Paladins falling. But what about other classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.