| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what if they want to play the «LG garbage»? I like the part of playing a paladin code.
I have no idea what a 5e Paladin is. I am not going to buy the 5e books. I am unlikely to ever read the 5e books so this is weird advice. It's not like 5e is the first d20 game to allow non-LG Paladins, 13A has a "Way of Evil Bastards" talent for players who want their Paladins to be grubbier and less noble, as well as the "Path of Universal Righteous Endeavor" for players who want their Paladins extra squeaky clean (and there are no alignment mechanics in that game whatsoever.)
I'm pretty sure people are already aware that you can reskin or rework classes to fit the needs of the game if that's what everybody wants. We don't need to call out specific games to do this. I mean, Pathfinder Unchained (they start on page 100) already has rules for "playing Pathfinder without alignment" that provide specific guidance on how to run Paladins.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the difference between a CG adventurer and a LG adventurer when dealing with an evil, but lawful, authority is that the LG has to worry about what comes after.
The CG is willing to Robinhood his way through and kill 100 guards (because they are working for evil).
The LG, particularly a paladin, has to worry about what happens when there are 100 less guards to defend the people from bandits.
That is the difference- Lawful tends to want to build up systems to manage things, while chaotic is more laissez faire and individualistic. The CG would only be concerned with removing a bad authority, while the LG would be concerned about putting in a good authority.
NG would do whatever works at the time. If there is a good option (such as the good brother of the evil king that had been driven out in the power struggle), then fine. But it will not put in an authority when it seems like it would lead to additional trouble (example- setting up a council that represents each region of the kingdom to discuss their interests; depending on the political climate, this could lead to civil war as factions form).
As a GM, you can prevent this kind of alignment problem by providing the players with nice solutions lined up (ie- the lawful player doesn't have to worry, since a friendly faction is already lined up to transition into power).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my Rise of the Runelords campaign about ten years ago, a paladin of Iomedae joined a party of Desna worshippers during Fortress of the Stone Giants. Not all the party was chaotic good; for example, the Thassalonian-scholar wizard was technically lawful neutral, but he worshipped Desna, too. Furthermore, my wife's character was a lyrakien bard whose day job was emissary of Desna. Officially, she was helping this tagtag group of heroes while on vacation; unofficially, Desna had asked her to lend a hand.
Throwing the paladin in didn't cause any problems.
The backstory of the paladin evolved from his early interactions with the party. Sir James was not fully a party member, though they gave him a share of the treasure out of fairness. Instead, he was also lending a hand. The paladins of Iomedae had formed a paramilitary organization in Varisia to fight evil, and clearly the evil goddess Lamashtu had targetted the town of Sandpoint. Nevertheless, Desna was known for her opposition to Lamashtu. Sir James led his own organization (the character took Leadership later) but followed the lead of the Desna party that had proven itself in uncovering evil conspiracies.
The tiny lyrakien bard took to riding around on Sir James' helmet, playing with its plume. Their philosophical differences were for playful arguments, because they were united in the battle against evil.
The players can work things out if they don't act like jerks.
The paladin's player was also surprised that I as the GM did not try to make the paladin fall but let him play Sir James as he wanted. I didn't see the point of such shennanigans against a well-played character. It would not have made the game more fun.
|
Note that Hellknights can be lawful good as well. In fact, some of the built npc examples are paladin 5 hellknight 2! The reasoning is that the official stance on the devils is that the initiation is to prove they are superior to the devils by killing one. As long as you believe strongly in Law, the HK have a place for you. Just like the druid Hellknight Signifer wearing dragonhide fullplate armour...
I think the Order of the Torrent tends towards LG (and supposedly has never had an evil member).
Oathbound Paladin can basically get a new Code of Conduct depending on which oath you choose. You can also be a Gray Paladin, which can be LN or NG instead of LG.
I somehow get the sense my player won't like Gray, but I can show it to him. As for Oathbound...
I got the idea from reading it that the Oath's code of conduct is in addition to all others, not in place of the standard code.
~~~
And I'm reading everything. Thank you, one and all!
I just talked to him and got more background.
He wants essentially to play Albert from The Count of Monte Cristo, after the events of the novel end. Only assuming that he landed in a temple of Sarenrae afterwards, instead of heading off to war.At the end of the book, Albert finds out his father is a mostly professional betrayer - at least three betrayals for profit (after selling the titular character to the law for a crime he didn't commit so he could have a woman for himself), leading to the death of others, the fall of a kingdom, and the implication that he's got a lot of very shady friends. Albert and his mother give up their money and opulent lifestyle in shame. (Fernand Mondego kills himself rather than lose everything.)
His mother joins a convent, and Albert joins the military, taking his mother's maiden name to replace his father's, so he can regain his own honor.
(Such a good book. Dumas is a great writer, even when it becomes obvious he was being paid by the word.)
Just reading the wiki on the novel told me that he pubbed it the way Dickens pubbed his books -- in magazines, paid by the word. :) Dumas probably could have cut out half of the deceptions & reversals, and still had a great story.
I'm posing my question about where this PC could be from on the Pathfinder Campaign Setting/General board.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no problematic alignments, there are problematic players. There are also concepts that, despite being well developed, dont mix well together. I've had a lot of LG characters in the games I have GMed and I never had a single problem with them.
I had trouble with a lot of different alignments, but always played by the same problematic players who, by the way, refuse religiously to play legal or good characters because they feel they are "stupid" and "whiney".
I generally find that people who find LG restrictive and/or use it as a way to stomp on other people's fun probably aren't thinking the right way about alignment.
I mean, there's no "judgmental" axis on the alignment spectrum, you can be a deeply moral person who believes that one's moral code is aspirational, that each individual will from time to time veer from the path of righteousness, and because this is a consequence of mortal frailty everybody deserves forgiveness for their transgression, up to being granted absolution if they sincerely seek it.
It's the difference between "that person committed a crime, I must smite them" and "that person committed a crime, I forgive them but I want to help them become a better person and to come to be a better place, while also making sure the injured party is taken care of."
I mean, one of the reasons the Paladin is super tanky out of the box is that you can talk to people up until they attack you; it will be fine. Seriously, a (middling) high INT Paladin who thinks a lot about moral philosophy is a really fun character to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some roles to consider when playing a paladin (from Bodhi's Guide to the Optimal Paladin/Antipaladin):
There are a number of different ways of playing the paladin apart from the traditional “I uphold the law and fight for good, and if you don’t, I’m going to come into conflict with you, and I’m looking at you, Rogue!” attitude. We’ll look into just a few that might help shine some light on alternatives to the standard paladin-at-the-table annoyance that seems to be the popular concept.
The Eternal Optimist: A more benevolent paladin type, you could quite possibly be the most naive person in the party. You’re always cheerful and look on the bright side of everything, and this can either be very soothing to other members of the party, or it can annoy them to no end. You have a tendency to take what people say at face value, at least until they prove you wrong. This character concept goes along quite well with the idea that Wisdom is a dump-stat for paladins, combined with their high Charisma. You’re quite likable to others most of the time, and people generally find you pleasant to be around, not a burden like some of the other paladin-personalities.
Useful Skills: Diplomacy; you have a tendency to try to convince others to play nice and fair just like you do.
The Harmoniser: This type of paladin does not wish to impose their view of the world upon others, but rather, through examples of good living and strength of faith rather than brutally imposing their view of the world upon others. They encourage rather than force, and attempt to gently chide those who may stray from the path of goodness and law. They do not tolerate genuine evil, but they prefer to remediate rather than punish whenever possible; to reform instead of destroy. If the redemption of the paladin’s foes is not possible, they will do what is necessary without hesitation, but with remorse for those who cannot be saved. This type of paladin is best suited to getting the group to gradually change their ways into those that are more lawful and goodly in nature. It can be difficult to justify a plan of gradual change with paladins who have low Wisdom scores, but this is a role that most players will be able to get along with.
Useful Skills: Diplomacy, for obvious reasons, and a splash of Knowledge (Religion) probably couldn’t hurt if you’re attempting to convert others to your faith.
The Holy Pain (i.e. Lawful Stupid): Unfortunately, most players seem to think that this is the way a paladin must be played. This is only one option that is available to players, and while it’s a popular option, it causes a lot of conflict with other members of your group. You essentially see every non-good, non-lawful act that your companions commit as a violation of your ethics and you attempt to force your way of acting and thinking upon them, often to disastrous results. At their worst, the Holy Pain will issue inconvenient challenges that may spoil the element of surprise, insist upon imprisoning foes who will ultimately break free from simple jails manned by careless non-player characters, or you’ll argue with your companions over minor actions all the time, particularly those of rogues or barbarians. If you really want to play this character concept, there’s nothing that stops you, but just be warned... This is going to make your paladin quite unpopular with the other characters and create disharmony in achieving your goals.
Useful Skills: Diplomacy, ‘cause you’re going to need it a lot to get yourself out of trouble, and Sense Motive, because you’re going to be judging everyone all the time.
The Vindicator: There is a purpose in all that you do, and you will pursue your goals with intensity that can frighten others, but that’s okay... If they can’t or won’t help you, they can get out of your way. You won’t purposefully put others into harm’s way, and you’ll allow other members of the party to do what they feel is best, so long as your own goals are achieved. You’re not Mr. Personality, and you don’t care about playing nice, particularly with your enemies. You ask for no quarter, and you give none. You are judge, jury and executioner when it comes to dealing with the forces of evil. Your hard tack with your enemies can sometimes make others fearful of crossing you, worrying that you may turn your harsh judgments upon them (think Judge Dredd). You’ll take the law quite literally, but if you genuinely believe someone to be innocent, then they have nothing to fear from you. Your party members will accept you, but they’ll probably believe that you lack compassion.
Useful Skills: Intimidate will probably be your principal skill.
-----
If you're having problems with paladins in your group, you're quite likely encountering The Holy Pain or The Vindicator at your table. I would urge you to guide your paladin players toward either The Eternal Optimist or especially The Harmoniser.
Best wishes!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't help me.LG -- No stealing, no matter what.
CG -- It's got to be in a good cause.
NG -- ??LG -- No killing anyone with civil rights, no matter what. (Meaning monsters are okay, or citizens WITH a "license to kill" or in self-defense.)
CG -- It's got to be in a good cause.
NG -- ??LG -- No ignoring the defenseless, unless the law is against them.
CG -- It's got to be in a good cause. (Normally, protecting the defenseless is a good cause...)
NG -- ??
I think what will help is to not think of LG as being so rigid and contemplate a little more of the philosophy that could apply for each group.
Lawful isn't about things like "No... no matter what". It's about aspiring to uphold important moral and social standards of behavior that everyone can share and prosper through doing so. Deviating from those standards risks disruption for everyone but LG types don't have to adhere to them "no matter what" - they just try to minimize disruption when they can. The alignment isn't a straight-jacket.
Chaotic Good also isn't just about doing something because it's a good cause - it's because I think it's a good idea regardless of social or moral standards and from an individual's viewpoint. At the more extremes, from a very idiosyncratic viewpoint, bristling at authority, even helpful and legitimate ones.
Neutral Good is a pragmatic course between the two extremes. Moral and social standards are considered in balance with idiosyncratic, personal judgment. If you think of both Law and Chaos as philosophical directions with their own true believer adherents, Neutral is the pragmatist's choice.
|
|
The Harmoniser:The Harmoniser: This type of paladin does not wish to impose their view of the world upon others, but rather, through examples of good living and strength of faith rather than brutally imposing their view of the world upon others. They encourage rather than force, and attempt to gently chide those who may stray from the path of goodness and law. They do not tolerate genuine evil, but they prefer to remediate rather than punish whenever possible; to reform instead of destroy. If the redemption of the paladin’s foes is not possible, they will do what is necessary without hesitation, but with remorse for those who cannot be saved. This type of paladin is best suited to getting the group to gradually change their ways into those that are more lawful and goodly in nature. It can be difficult to justify a plan of gradual change with paladins who have low Wisdom scores, but this is a role that most players will be able to get along with.
IMHO This aligns most closely with the nature of Sarenrae.
Let him. Give him a free slotless Phylactery of Faithfulness. Then sit down with him and explain your world view on the paladin oath.
When he is about to do something that may lead to falling the Phylactery (you) will warn him.
I think this is a case where the gm should actually learn to paladin ....Let him. Give him a free slotless Phylactery of Faithfulness. Then sit down with him and explain your world view on the paladin oath.
When he is about to do something that may lead to falling the Phylactery (you) will warn him.
I'm sorry, but I can't translate this...
The Harmoniser:The Harmoniser: This type of paladin does not wish to impose their view of the world upon others, but rather, through examples of good living and strength of faith rather than brutally imposing their view of the world upon others. They encourage rather than force, and attempt to gently chide those who may stray from the path of goodness and law. They do not tolerate genuine evil, but they prefer to remediate rather than punish whenever possible; to reform instead of destroy. If the redemption of the paladin’s foes is not possible, they will do what is necessary without hesitation, but with remorse for those who cannot be saved. This type of paladin is best suited to getting the group to gradually change their ways into those that are more lawful and goodly in nature. It can be difficult to justify a plan of gradual change with paladins who have low Wisdom scores, but this is a role that most players will be able to get along with.IMHO This aligns most closely with the nature of Sarenrae.
I totally agree!
I totally agree!The Harmoniser:The Harmoniser: This type of paladin does not wish to impose their view of the world upon others, but rather, through examples of good living and strength of faith rather than brutally imposing their view of the world upon others. They encourage rather than force, and attempt to gently chide those who may stray from the path of goodness and law. They do not tolerate genuine evil, but they prefer to remediate rather than punish whenever possible; to reform instead of destroy. If the redemption of the paladin’s foes is not possible, they will do what is necessary without hesitation, but with remorse for those who cannot be saved. This type of paladin is best suited to getting the group to gradually change their ways into those that are more lawful and goodly in nature. It can be difficult to justify a plan of gradual change with paladins who have low Wisdom scores, but this is a role that most players will be able to get along with.IMHO This aligns most closely with the nature of Sarenrae.
It's why I highly recommend it. :)
Enlightened Paladin
Does not have paladin code
Instead seeks self perfection
Still has to be lawful good
Gives alot more flexibility. Plus has some cool features (like Cha to AC when in light armor)
Enlightened Paladin
Does not have paladin code
Instead seeks self perfection
Still has to be lawful goodGives alot more flexibility. Plus has some cool features (like Cha to AC when in light armor)
On Archives of Nethys, it's called the Iroran Paladin and is restricted to followers of Irori, which is why it has that monk-ish feel to it.
On Archives of Nethys, it's called the Iroran Paladin and is restricted to followers of Irori, which is why it has that monk-ish feel to it.Enlightened Paladin
Does not have paladin code
Instead seeks self perfection
Still has to be lawful goodGives alot more flexibility. Plus has some cool features (like Cha to AC when in light armor)
And I've already brought both of those up in a prior post, discussing the mechanical advantages of the archetype. (note- Iroran is the actual material printed by Paizo, "Enlightened Paladin" is d20pfsrd's attempt not to run afoul of copyright law with Golarion gods).
And I will reiterate- they do in fact have a paladin code... it is just that the fluff implies that you write it yourself. That is admittedly still a very low bar you can set for yourself. You pretty much just have to codify your table's murder hobo ways into a set of rules ("hunt down everyone thief taht manages to steal one of your items to the ends of the earth and out planes")
|
I'm pretty sure people are already aware that you can reskin or rework classes to fit the needs of the game if that's what everybody wants. We don't need to call out specific games to do this. I mean, Pathfinder Unchained (they start on page 100) already has rules for "playing Pathfinder without alignment" that provide specific guidance on how to run Paladins.
I wouldn't assume that. As a lawful-leaning person it took me years of playing to to get to the point where I could follow "the rules say this" with "but in these circumstances it would be better to do something else." I've definitely seen discussions where people have been skeptical of the idea that a barbarian "rage" doesn't have to involve frothing anger, or that you can remove the asian flavour from the ninja and samurai classes. And in the case of paladins there's a misconception floating around that the flavour restrictions that go along with the class are actually a mechanical balancing factor, and that if paladins were for example allowed to use poison then they would be overpowered.
So, to the OP: It sounds like you're already playing a heroic game in which the players approach grey areas thoughtfully. A paladin, particularly if they follow Sarenrae, should have no problem in such a game, even if you apply the code strictly as-written. Paladins don't fall as easily as you might think. They're not responsible for their companions actions aside from not permitting clearly evil acts (anyone in your group like harming innocents? No?). Paladins can even commit minor unlawful acts without falling, aside from the things specifically called out by the code (eg not lying). And if you do accidentally run into a paladin trap, there's always Atonement.
If you want to interpret the code more loosely, great. As you've seen a lot of people do just fine with "as long as the player can provide a reasonable moral interpretation for their character's actions, it's good." It's also perfectly acceptable to customize the code, especially for a paladin of a NG deity since such a patron will be less concerned with perfect standardization of their paladins. This site has some interesting stuff in it.
Just talk with the player about how you both think this character should act, check that the rest of your group is OK with it, and have fun!
Feh. I claimed I was playing a NG, and got shouted at that the PC was CG, because she was willing to change her mind a lot. Or yes, break promises, if there seemed to be good reason. But not for the joy of doing so!!!!
Chaotic types do tend to be mercurial, but saying that a character has to be Chaotic because they change their mind too often is like saying they have to be Lawful because they're stubborn. Reading too much into one trait, IMO.
|
A lot of people misunderstand paladins. It stems from their code and their strict lawful good alignment. But here's the thing:
Lawful good JUST means you are a generally orderly person and are good. The Paladin code is a bit more restrictive, but not too much. Don't kill surrendering opponents, don't lie, cheat and steal.
So, your a CG character decides to kill an opponent who surrendered? Role-play it. Tell him that in your opinion it was wrong to do that. Maybe as flavor make a Diplomacy check against him (no mechanical effect, true, but it it makes an impassioned arguement). It doesn't have to end in party or player strife. Paladins are responsable for THEIR characters, not anyone else's.
As long as your Paladin is chill, and your players don't deliberately troll him, it need not cause problems.
Paladins are a lot more militant and a lot less "nice" than people seem to imagine -- they're given Smite Evil for a reason. They CAN be nice, but they do not have to be. They're given their powers to protect the innocent and destroy evil.
I feel like your deity (or whoever is endowing you) is giving you Smite Evil for those times when you run into undead monstrosities, demons, and similar inveterate evil (and as an encouragement to seek out suck) not so that you can really whomp on whatever pickpockets or blasphemers you run into, though.
You're given limited access to smiting in part so that you save it for something that really deserves it.
|
|
Balkoth, you are correct but keep in mind that there is a difference between refusing to accept surrender and killing an opponent after accepting surrender. It's relatively common for paladin problems to come up when the party allows surrender (often for interrogation purposes) and then can't figure out what to do with the prisoners. Of course in a heroic group this can be a sticky situation even without paladins. If OP's group has dealt with the "goblin babies" dilemma then they should be able to deal with prisoners even with a paladin in the group.
Note some groups allow a paladin to execute a surrendered opponent in punishment for particular crimes, but other groups prefer paladins to deliver criminals to an appropriate authority for official sentencing - it's one of those things you need to sort out with your table.
As long as your Paladin is chill, and your players don't deliberately troll him, it need not cause problems.
It's even OK for other characters to troll the paladin as long as the players are on board and keep it within agreed limits.
One of my favourite game anecdotes involves a party sorcerer intentionally provoking my LG Inquisitor (originally written as a paladin but I wanted skill points) by insulting the Noble Lady who my knight had sworn loyalty to. I told him to stop, he didn't, I smacked him with the flat of my sword, he lit both of us on fire, I healed us up and he never insulted the Lady again. You see, the sorc had seen my knight as weak because he never reacted to the sorc insulting him...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry to have backed off from this thread. Unfortunately, I am ill with vertigo right now. I have been unable to look at gaming things or spend time with reading/typing on the screen since Tuesday the 20th. I hope that treatment will be successful next week.
PCScipio, thanks for your well wishes. It sure took me longer than I'd hoped to be able to spend any serious time at the computer. (Phys therapy is on-going, but I've recovered to a great extent.)
The problem, now that I'm reading things through, is that I don't have anything to add. I'm grateful to you all for all of your encouragement! Weirdo, I especially want to thank you for your cts recently. Very clear & helpful.
LG -- "We built our civilization on rules and laws: This social contract brings peace and prosperity, so it is more important than any one person."
NG -- "Order and peace are important, but laws shouldn't be so ironbound that they let people suffer needlessly. Individual circumstances need to be taken into account."
CG -- "Some laws and restrictions are just ways for the rich and powerful to stay on top. They are the tools of tyrants and oppressors, used to stop people from succeeding in life."
You pretty much just have to codify your table's murder hobo ways into a set of rules
You know, I am rather tired of folks calling adventurers "murder hobos". Once I did play with a group that could be justifiably be called that : "You see a old man, wearing robes and a staff at the side of the road, he is trying to get your attention." "We kill him and take his stuff."- but I would never play with that group of immature bozos again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is an excerpt from my campaign intro I always include when I GM for a new group.
0) On paladins. If you want to play a holy warrior dedicated to X deity, please consider the inquisitor or warpriest. They don't have the oath as part of the class.
1) If you want to play a paladin, you as player and I as GM will need to work it out before the game. What does your paladin's oath require in certain types of moral/ethical quandary situations. Things like; goblin babies, surrendered opponents not near authorities, authorities are bad guys, slavery (or whatever) is legal in this country, redemption of devils/demons, pretty sure of guilt, lack of evidence, what crimes warrant capital punishment, etc... These must be worked out and written down before game day.
2) I will allow a lot of leeway, but there are limits. I can not be convinced that horrible evil for the eventual greater good (torture, cruelty, mass murder, slavery, etc...) is acceptable paladin behavior.
3) A ping on Detect Evil does NOT justify unprovoked murder. A person/creature can be evil and not yet have committed any crime that warrants death. Also remember Detect Evil does not ping if a non-cleric under 5th level.
4) Detect Evil is a spell like ability. People can tell you are using a spell like ability. They are likely to react. Especially if they can’t tell it is Detect and not Disintegrate. There is some RAW disagreement on this one, though most seem to agree with what I wrote. So let us discuss it and decide for our group. Similar discussion for silent, still, and eschew spell casting. Can others tell? RAW says yes.
5) Other players can raise a point or ask a question about the paladin code during game play, but multiple 2+ hour game stopping arguments about a paladin always / never / must / can't / should / wouldn't / whatever will probably cause me to rage-quit. It is between the player and the GM. The rest of you just shut the heck up about it. {{ This is only during game time. Out of game time, please feel free to discuss it all you want. That is a reasonable and encouraged activity. }}
6) I’m not going to be real strict on divine caster’s beliefs, duties, rites, etc… Just come up with something that you think makes sense and try to stick with it.
This has really helped a lot.
To begin with, in my experience, most people that say they want a paladin type character - actually want to do things that a warpriest or inquisitor is better equipped to do. (Some pick it for the smite, bonded weapon, or + to saves; but that is a totally different subject.)
Next discuss some of the potential story-tastic problem situations. Orc babies, evil person surrenders but not near any authorities to turn him in (keeping a competent villain prisoner is really tough), something the paladin thinks is bad yet is legal where it is happening (slavery in Cheliax), etc... Discuss how he might handle it and whether both of you can live with that.
Our biggest recent problem was a paladin who didn't feel like he could retreat or surrender when the rest of the group was sure the fight could not be won. Actually led to a pretty good plot element with a very heroic death and the party trying to find some way to get him resurrected even though they didn't have the cash.
|
|
The problem, now that I'm reading things through, is that I don't have anything to add. I'm grateful to you all for all of your encouragement! Weirdo, I especially want to thank you for your cts recently. Very clear & helpful.
I'm glad! The paladin class can be a bit intimidating but it can also be a lot of fun - I hope you and your players enjoy it.
To begin with, in my experience, most people that say they want a paladin type character - actually want to do things that a warpriest or inquisitor is better equipped to do.
That's how my paladin turned into a LG inquisitor. I wanted to play an honourable and self-sacrificing divine knight. Then I realized I wanted the knight to be well-read, a good judge of character, and not all that confident - so not a Cha-based class with 2 skills/level and Aura of Courage but a Wis-based class with 6 skills/level and features like Monster Lore and Stern Gaze. I've got a couple more paladin concepts in the wings but I'm glad that I found the right class for Sir Landeval...
I have found this to be brilliant concerning the Paladin Dilemma. People are far to quick to want to make a paladin fall and this thread summons up why that is bad brilliantly in my opinion. Read though it, it goes over the issues many people have with the Paladin and I have found it to be rather helpful.
The Harmoniser:The Harmoniser: This type of paladin does not wish to impose their view of the world upon others, but rather, through examples of good living and strength of faith rather than brutally imposing their view of the world upon others. They encourage rather than force, and attempt to gently chide those who may stray from the path of goodness and law. They do not tolerate genuine evil, but they prefer to remediate rather than punish whenever possible; to reform instead of destroy. If the redemption of the paladin’s foes is not possible, they will do what is necessary without hesitation, but with remorse for those who cannot be saved. This type of paladin is best suited to getting the group to gradually change their ways into those that are more lawful and goodly in nature. It can be difficult to justify a plan of gradual change with paladins who have low Wisdom scores, but this is a role that most players will be able to get along with.
I'm a little surprised to hear this is a concern for you, Bitter, but I suspect perhaps you just haven't seen good examples of how LG can be played. The above is probably my favorite, and was the way that I played my first pally back in 2E. (Thanks for sharing these, by the way, Bodhizen.)
He ended up totally changing the way our group viewed paladins, and ended up becoming the best friend of the party thief and the party wild mage (the two that he gave the most personal attention to.)
The next paladin I played was part of a husband/wife duo. When they met, he was a young member of the city watch and pious servant of Bahamut, and she was a troublemaking rogue always on the wrong side of the law. He was the first person that gave her a chance, and she was the first person to show him that there's more to life than duty, so they left their old lives behind and became adventurers.
(The last paladin I played was in 4E and was LN, so I don't think my tiefling paladin/warlock of the Raven Queen is likely to be terribly helpful in the context of this discussion, but she'd best translate to the "Vindicator" type above... and would probably just be a Warpriest of Pharasma in PF.)
My last little bit of advice regarding paladins - having played them and run for them - don't feel like *you* need to go out of your way to throw moral dilemmas at them, no more than you'd steal the wizard's spellbook, make the party cleric lose their faith, or try to turn the monk chaotic.
Sometimes this stuff happens organically, but in my experience, most of the time, it never comes up.
|
|
I think you should stick to the no paladins policy unless the group as a whole agree.
I played in a campaign once where we were told no prestige classes.
Later on new characters were allowed to take prestige classes, I accepted it, but found it annoying to be honest.(mostly because the rest of us were not told right away)
there should be plenty of archtypes around that could resemble a paladin
I could totally play a lawful stupid character without being a Paladin. What's the difference?
If a character is problematic for the group because of her beliefs or her goals or her ways, the problem is not her class.
So, it's good if every player agrees beforehand on what is or is not acceptable for the group; of course if it's an evil campaign, paladins won't be a choice. But in most cases, why not? Just don't play the paladin in a stupid, exaggerated stereotypical caricature of the class, and everything will be ok.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BARBARIAN ONLY ADVICE AM THIS.
AT SOME POINT, URGE WILL BE HAD TO MAKE JOKE ABOUT PALADIN TOUCHING SELF EVERY ROUND OR TWO AS SWIFT ACTION.
RESIST URGE. OR DON'T. BUT KEEP JOKES TO GENERAL MINIMUM, UNLESS PARTY FINDS THEM FUNNY IN WHICH CASE SMASH JOKE BUTTON INTO GROUND.
tl;dr
My advice is to tell your player the same thing as in your op. Tell them that what you despise the most about Paladins is that the severity of breaking their codes based on subjective interpretation can sometimes cause them to create rp problems, even if the player itself wants the party to take a universally decided course of action, but their character must be tricked or convinced to go off and do Paladin things while they get it done, or else they will be forced to intervene.
Remember that the subjective interpretation is your own. YOU will decide if the Paladin falls, so YOU can decide how lenient you want to be with the code, and can therefore tell the player that if such a scenario rears its head, the player (and character by extension) need not jump through meta hoops to make sure they don't fall.
If Lawfully ambiguous happenings are afoot that your group must condone or participate in, the Paladin doesn't need to fall when they simply come along and make sure their friends don't get themselves hurt, if that's the way you want Paladin codes to work. If they start enjoying/leading in acts of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor (CG), then you may want to give them a flag/warning, but there's still no need to make them fall with no chance of course correction.
I've found that PC Paladins work best when both PC and GM are on the same page regarding their code; as long as they both understand and agree on the terms and limits, Paladins are just as fun to play as other classes.
I could totally play a lawful stupid character without being a Paladin. What's the difference?
If a character is problematic for the group because of her beliefs or her goals or her ways, the problem is not her class.
...
I could agree. I've seen several paladins played well and had lots of fun with them from both sides of the screen. Even ran a couple of decent ones myself. Though I now prefer the inquisitor for what I think a paladin should be able to do.
Having said that, there is a lot of emotional/historical/interpretive baggage associated with the paladin.
Back in ye'olden times when AD&D first came out. It was generally understood and agreed by most players/DM's that a paladin was to be played as lawful stupid. The GM was also to try and set up situations that could cause the moral dilemmas that might cause a fall (or even better, a fall then redemption). That was just how most people seemed to handle the class and we had fun with it that way. Also, the class was considered comparatively quite powerful with respect to the other classes, and the oath was recognized as the balancing factor. It was intended to make things difficult. Remember that was also when the game had an almost adversarial relationship between the PC's and DM's. Many of the published modules had around a 30% fatality rate. Homebrew was usually much deadlier. A fall wasn't that big a deal since you were probably switching characters in a few adventures anyway. Not everyone played that way, but most of the gamers that I met back then did. Some think it should still be that way.
Then there is all the disagreement over how the oath should be interpreted. A few years ago, I was GM for a group that had many multiple 2+ hour game stopping arguments about a paladin always / never / must / can't / should / wouldn't do whatever. No matter what I said about whether I accepted it or not, I couldn't get them to stop arguing about it. Finally, the player of the paladin and I left the table and watched about half a movie before the other 4 players even realized we weren't there, the game session was over, and it was time to go home. They were just barely starting to realize I was tired of it. I told them very bluntly, "It's not even your character. Next time it happens - rocks fall, everyone dies, campaign over, someone else can be GM. I've had it. Period."
Then you have the idiots that think it fits into the paladin code to do absolutely anything as long as you intend for it to eventually allow some very good thing to happen. The player that sells an entire city-state into slavery so he can get in good with the slavers and get close enough to the BBEG to stab him in the back. yeah... no...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having said that, there is a lot of emotional/historical/interpretive baggage associated with the paladin.
Back in ye'olden times when AD&D first came out. It was generally understood and agreed by most players/DM's that a paladin was 'supposed' to be played as lawful stupid. The GM was also 'supposed' to try and set up situations that could cause the moral dilemmas that might cause a fall (or even better, a fall then redemption). that was just how most people seemed to handle the class and we had fun with it that way. Remember that was also when the game had an almost adversarial relationship between the PC's and DM's.
I don't think that view of paladinhood was as widespread as you think. While I remember dealing with some adversarial DMs back in the day, the groups I knew never had major problems with paladins. Our dungeonmasters' views about paladin were shaped by books like Three Hearts and Three Lions and movies like Excalibur. We had more problems with douchey PCs who couldn't play well with others than with narrow-minded paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back in ye'olden times when AD&D first came out. It was generally understood and agreed by most players/DM's that a paladin was to be played as lawful stupid. The GM was also to try and set up situations that could cause the moral dilemmas that might cause a fall (or even better, a fall then redemption). Many of the published modules had around a 30% fatality rate. Homebrew was usually much deadlier. A fall wasn't that big a deal since you were probably switching characters in a few adventures anyway. Not everyone played that way, but most of the gamers that I met back then did. Some think it should still be that way.
I am sure that this was the way it happened in your experience. But in this old Grognards experience, not so much. To play a Paladin as Lawful Stupid was considered a cheap immature joke. A stupid barbarian- crafty but without any education- sure. But not a paladin.
And, sure low level characters did die pretty often. But once you got to middle level, the death rate was likely the same as PF. I remember playing a short campaign where the DM wanted us to bring in a dead character of 7-9th level, and despite having portfolios of dozens of characters, several of us had to make one up. Raise Dead was a thing, even then.
... I don't think that view of paladinhood was as widespread as you think. While I remember dealing with some adversarial DMs back in the day, ...
Like I said, it wasn't everyone. However, it did seem to be most of the people I ever met who gamed much at all. {shrug}
... the groups I knew never had major problems with paladins. ...
None of us had any problem with it, because we agreed that was how things were intended to be.
... Our dungeonmasters' views about paladin were shaped by books like Three Hearts and Three Lions and movies like Excalibur. We had more problems with douchey PCs who couldn't play well with others than with narrow-minded paladins.
Exactly. Which books, movies, or historical figures you used as your inspiration defined much of how it was played.
One of the King Arthur movies (I no longer remember which one) seemed the perfect example. Lancelot was the none too bright, take the high road, any who disagreed were headed to evil definition of paladin. He made a poor choice, fell from his pure power (not however, into the pit of evil), moped around with angst and no powers, then has his revelation, redemption, and finally heroic death.
Many popular books had similar examples.
Historically, a lot of people felt that the leaders of the Templars, Crusaders, and Spanish Inquisition were perfect examples. Paladins started down a path intending only good, led themselves into impossible situations, and unknowingly (or at least admittedly) followed the trail to vilest evil.
... To play a Paladin as Lawful Stupid was considered a cheap immature joke. ...
Uhmm... well most of us were kids... so immature is kinda part of the definition.
...
And, sure low level characters did die pretty often. But once you got to middle level, the death rate was likely the same as PF. I remember playing a short campaign where the DM wanted us to bring in a dead character of 7-9th level, and despite having portfolios of dozens of characters, several of us had to make one up. Raise Dead was a thing, even then.
Rarely did anyone want to play the heal-bot cleric up to the level of having raise dead available. The wizard was nearly impossible to get up to the true power levels, yet it was the only one that truly continued to rise in power. Most of the others started to level off at name level, yet the monsters didn't. The few published modules we had were all quite deadly at whatever recommended level. As I said all the homebrew stuff I saw (including my own) was creatively more deadly.
Anyway, maybe you guys are right and it wasn't most gamers. I guarantee it was enough to be at least a fairly significant minority. I can still find plenty of people to reminisce with memories similar to mine.