I am sure this is not new ground so am happy to be linked elsewhere on this but :
I can't get my head around why (other than for 3.5 legacy reasons) the Paladin is a core class.
The Code of Conduct makes things a real challenge for the player, the GM and the rest of the group. Things can so easily devolve into arguments and debates over whether they should or shouldn't do things
You can get players annoyed because the Paladin won't let them do certain things or sticking up for the Paladin when he appears to break his code ("just because he is Lawful Good it doesn't mean he is stupid").
The reverse can happen where the Paladin can be annoyed with the group constantly testing his limits.
Also there can be GMs interpreting the Paladin's actions in a negative light causing everyone to disagree
It all seems like a bit of a nightmare that requires a really mature group to deal with.
I ran Reign of Winter with 2 Paladins, one who showed up on the day and announced he would be the second paladin. This ruined things for the group in general until one (and then eventually the second) were killed off as they played them slightly differently meaning even more actions were considered off limits (I know this is an unusual scenario that should not happen)
It doesn't help that they get some powerful abilities (notably Divine Grace) very early encouraging people to Dip with no intention of actually properly sticking to the requirements of the class
I am not certain what I was hoping to achieve with this post other than perhaps asking how other people deal with Paladins at the table?
Do they sit everyone down at the start to make sure everyone understands each others general interpretations. Does anyone restrict the usage of the class?
What other things help smooth out this potential group / game ending class? Has anyone had similar issues happen with Cavaliers / Clerics etc? It only ever seems to come up with Paladins...
are people not tired of this topic? it comes back every week.
Anyway my usual reply and I'm a gm:
I accept people might be tired of this topic which is why I added at the top that Inwas happy to be linked elsewhere. Which what you have done
I don't read all the sub forums every week
Thank you for the link. I will give it a look
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
are people not tired of this topic? it comes back every week.
Anyway my usual reply and I'm a gm:
The only thing that video tells me is to just tell alignment to go jump off a cliff. Even if mostly because I find that video to be a hypocritical rant that gets on my nerves to no end.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing for alignment to do. But if I have to do that because players at my table can't properly play within their own alignment (or I can't accept them playing certain alignments at that table), then quite frankly this isn't the game for me or my fellow players.
The big problem with ignoring the code is it makes the paladin too powerful
They are supposed to be restricted to gain the abilities
One look at the gray paladin archetype shows you what they have in mind in terms of what extra playing with the restrictions grants you . I think it might be a useful thing for me to print before the next game to share as a comparison
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because playing a paladin doesn't mean you have to play a 100% stick-in-the-mud party cop. If a paladin is making your group not have fun then it is probably the fault of the player for playing a paladin wrong, or it is his fault for trying to play a paladin in a party that is incompatible.
Honestly, it is like starting a thread like "Barbarians are angry, typically chaotic, and never lawful. They suck at intrigue campaigns!" I mean yes, but that isn't what they are supposed to do. Apples make very poor oranges after all.
Just my two CP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big problem with ignoring the code is it makes the paladin too powerful
They are supposed to be restricted to gain the abilitiesOne look at the gray paladin archetype shows you what they have in mind in terms of what extra playing with the restrictions grants you . I think it might be a useful thing for me to print before the next game to share as a comparison
The Paladin has never been too powerful.
Even without the code the Paladins main abilities are being really defensive and able to self heal. It's main offensive ability only works against evil creatures (which while comprising the majority of enemies there are still plenty of neutral enemies). Also you have a limited number of Smites per day, so you can't use it on every enemy. And the damage bonus from Smite is the same as a Cavalier's Challenge.
The code was meant to balance things in back in 1st edition, it hasn't done jack for balance since then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't make them too powerful. That is a fact that can be proven with undeniable math. Look at any full caster in comparison.
The code is a sacred cow much like alingment that should have been killed ages ago. People have argued morality for eons without coming to a conclusion. Some guy with rather antisocial GMing habbits certainly did not come up with the solution.
It makes them too powerful in comparison to like-options. Martial v.s. Martial. Nobody's suggesting a Paladin without restrictions is better than a Wizard, that's a strawman.
Really, the only things that can compare to a Paladin are things like AM BARBARIAN and maybe the occassional Bloodrager or Ranger build.
I am sure this is not new ground so am happy to be linked elsewhere on this but :
I can't get my head around why (other than for 3.5 legacy reasons) the Paladin is a core class.
The Code of Conduct makes things a real challenge for the player, the GM and the rest of the group. Things can so easily devolve into arguments and debates over whether they should or shouldn't do things
You can get players annoyed because the Paladin won't let them do certain things or sticking up for the Paladin when he appears to break his code ("just because he is Lawful Good it doesn't mean he is stupid").
The reverse can happen where the Paladin can be annoyed with the group constantly testing his limits.
Also there can be GMs interpreting the Paladin's actions in a negative light causing everyone to disagree
It all seems like a bit of a nightmare that requires a really mature group to deal with.
I ran Reign of Winter with 2 Paladins, one who showed up on the day and announced he would be the second paladin. This ruined things for the group in general until one (and then eventually the second) were killed off as they played them slightly differently meaning even more actions were considered off limits (I know this is an unusual scenario that should not happen)
It doesn't help that they get some powerful abilities (notably Divine Grace) very early encouraging people to Dip with no intention of actually properly sticking to the requirements of the class
I am not certain what I was hoping to achieve with this post other than perhaps asking how other people deal with Paladins at the table?
Do they sit everyone down at the start to make sure everyone understands each others general interpretations. Does anyone restrict the usage of the class?
What other things help smooth out this potential group / game ending class? Has anyone had similar issues happen with Cavaliers / Clerics etc? It only ever seems to come up with Paladins...
Lots of questions here...
So I'll try and give some answers.
What I do, every time, I either GM a game containing a Paladin or play as a Paladin in a game.
Sit down with the GM and have a 5-10 min talk about what he thinks of your questions. What are his take on Paladins and their code. See if you can´t get on the same page with how, both he/she and you, think a Paladin should behave when faced with laws he finds questionable or if a Paladin is allowed to interpret parts of his code.
Doing this, tends to in my experience, make playing a paladin much less of a hassle and a far more rewarding experience.
If this isn't enough, or if both the GM or player can't get to any kind of common ground, for some reason (Bullheadedness for example). Then I would consider banning, the Paladin, for that particular game simply to cut down on the disagreement.
Further more while the paladin makes for fine roleplaying, she/he doesn't fit into all kind of games. You want to play heroic characters vanquishing great evils? No problem there!
You want to play a group of morally-questionable mercenaries carving out your own kingdom, with all the bloodletting that goes along with that? It becomes a lot harder to play the straight faced Paladin...
Now, in my opinion, the Paladin shouldn't have been a Core class. It would do much better as a Prestige Class.
My reasoning for this is, well maybe a bit of stretch. I think it would pull back some of Paladin dipping and it would also depower the class a little bit, by making it a less front-loaded choice. Especially if one would go so far, as to require divine spell casting as a class requirement (ie. 1st or 2nd level divine spells).
Now, in my opinion, the Paladin shouldn't have been a Core class. It would do much better as a Prestige Class.
My reasoning for this is, well maybe a bit of stretch. I think it would pull back some of Paladin dipping and it would also depower the class a little bit, by making it a less front-loaded choice. Especially if one would go so far, as to require divine spell casting as a class requirement (ie. 1st or 2nd level divine spells).
A variant prestige class for the Paladin did exist in 3.5e, called Prestige Paladin (there is also a ranger and bard). Might be good to update it to Pathfinder but I like it.
We just don't make Paladins.
There's something like fifty other classes that are way more fun and half the trouble.
Granted, if someone DID make a paladin I'd allow it and not try to sabotage them.
What's so funny about Truth, Justice, and the [Insert-Nationality-Here] Way?
I don't think we want paizo making Paladin into a prestige class. They're pretty set on keeping 'single class, 1-20’ the best way to go.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin serves another function: what a group has to say about paladins can tell us quite a bit about which groups we might enjoy playing with. I don't like gritty grey plots; a game which I enjoy either playing or GMing is all about the party being heroes who fight for good. A group where a paladin is not welcome often indicates a group which is too grey for me to enjoy. And a GM who is too strict about the paladin code is one who I'm probably going to butt heads with about many other issues, too. And a group which says that there won't be problems because they've removed alignment or removed the alignment restrictions on paladins I won't enjoy, because to me the game will feel like it lacks moral depth.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Code of Conduct makes things a real challenge for the player, the GM and the rest of the group. Things can so easily devolve into arguments and debates over whether they should or shouldn't do things
In my years as player and gm, the only time I've ever seen the Paladin code be a problem is when a disruptive person deliberately makes it a problem. Paladins can be more difficult than, say, a fighter or a barbarian if you don't know how to play them, but that generally just takes a little coaching.
Paladins tend to be trouble mostly in debate on forums. The reality of it is that Paladins aren't any more difficult than any other class 95% of the time, and those rare 5% moments make for good role play.
I am not certain what I was hoping to achieve with this post other than perhaps asking how other people deal with Paladins at the table?
I deal with Paladins the same way I deal with any other class: if the player is disruptive I handle it OOC; if the player doesn't know how to play that class, I help them learn.
Honestly the biggest problem I encounter with Paladins is with brand new players who don't understand the class and play them like a fighter, forgetting most of the nifty abilities.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people actually like the code of honor and the idea of being part of something greater.
There are great for the right campaign
We are playing MM. We have 2 paladins, in a very high charisma, mostly pretty goody two shoes party.
Perfect fit
Some ROW, ShSt, seem better APs for darker types
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main problem people have with the Paladin is the rigidity in their code of conduct. (Most) People just can't stand (or tolerate) that short of unbending dedication and inflexibility, as if it pricks their conscious and makes them uncomfortable. Might have something to do with our "modern" concept of morality and the failure of players/GMs to suspend that during gameplay. But, that's just my opinion. Take it as you will.
“When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree by the river of truth, and tell the whole world 'No, You Move.”
― J. Michael Straczynski
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What other things help smooth out this potential group / game ending class? Has anyone had similar issues happen with Cavaliers / Clerics etc? It only ever seems to come up with Paladins...
Best thing I ever did with Paladins - and they are popular in my groups - was to turn the class from 'holy warriors' to more of an avatar of alignment. We have Paladins of Good, Paladins of Evil, of Law and of Chaos. By restricting them to only one branch of the alignment compass, it opens up a tremendous amount of flexibility and game play.
The analogy I use is Batman and the Joker - both as Paladins of Chaos, but one good aligned and one evil aligned. Both disregard the rules, the laws of men and even conventional thinking, but the end result is very, very different.
It takes a very minor change to the Class rules, basically just by re-wiring any instances of 'Evil' (like Detect Evil or Smite Evil) with the appropriate opposite alignment. A Paladin of Law would have Detect Chaos and Smite Chaos, for instance.
Its turned a very restrictive and awkward class to play into a host of diverse options and inspirations and has added a lot to the group.
It's just legacy. If any class should be a Prestige Class, it's the Paladin. It really, REALLY feels like just a subset of cleric.
The good news is, if it's a problem (and you're the GM), just ban 'em. Absolutely anything, core or not, can be nixed by the GM.
Really, though, Paladins are just an extension of the absurdity which is alignment, but that's a rant for about a hundred other threads.
Yes Paladins spoil everyone else's fun. Why are they a core class? Because they've been around since forever. The worst is trying to play a Rogue or Inquisitor with a Paladin in the group insisting that we fight fair and don't do anything dishonest, like sneaking around to scout for enemies, sneak attack the bad guys, or disguise yourself as someone else to infiltrate the bad guys.
Having a Paladin in the party is like inviting cops to a rave: you're just not going to have any fun with them around. If I ever GM a Pathfinder game, which is something I'm considering, I am banning the Paladin class for sure.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh brother. This must be Extra Helping of Paladin Whinging Week.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
My experience is that, if a player's paladin is a problem for the group, the problem is not the paladin class, the problem is usually the player.
Yes, that is also a possibility, but far less likely, I think.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective, both as a player and a GM, how well a paladin works in the game depends on the campaign, the group, and the player. Paladins are a great addition to many "good guy" hero groups, especially when the campaign focuses on fighting truly evil villains and monsters. Conversely (as many have already said), they can be a terrible fit for "grayer" campaigns.
I've run campaigns where I would not have allowed a paladin PC. In my last Freeport campaign, for example, the party was the crew of a pirate ship, and IIRC, all but one of them were CN, "sauntering vaguely downward" (as one player put it). Definitely no place for a paladin! (In general, Freeport tends to chew up and spit out any paladins who try to clean up the town. It's a challenging role even as part of a good-aligned party in that setting.)
I've also run games where I wanted to see a paladin in the group. The most recent one was a longish dungeon delve to clear out a haunted graveyard and the surrounding catacombs. The paladin was invaluable for smiting undead and drawing attacks away from the rest of the party. And the camaraderie between the paladin and shadowdancer--a far from obvious friendship, that!--was roleplayed convincingly by both players.
When I first started playing PFS last year, one of the two pregens I played most often was Seelah the paladin, and I applied those early chronicles to a paladin of my own. There were a few scenarios that were difficult for a paladin, either because the mission was not the most honorable to begin with or because we discovered a moral dilemma partway through. However, our local GMs want to see people have fun, not screw them over needlessly, so they try to be lenient and give due warning if they saw a player angling towards a code violation. Also, a paladin working for the Society has to know how to choose their battles, and when to console oneself with the honor inherent in completing a contract. (I've actually had worse crises of conscience playing my CG rogue/cleric of Cayden.)
On the other hand, there was at least one PFS scenario where playing a paladin was the best possible choice I could have made. I tend to play Seelah as impeccably honest, but diplomatic and merciful when she has to speak ill of someone who isn't an outright villain. That hit exactly the right note in the roleplaying encounters in
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes Paladins spoil everyone else's fun.
Not in my experience, I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a Paladin cause significant trouble in a game, let alone "spoil everyone's fun."
The worst is trying to play a Rogue or Inquisitor with a Paladin in the group insisting that we fight fair and don't do anything dishonest, like sneaking around to scout for enemies, sneak attack the bad guys, or disguise yourself as someone else to infiltrate the bad guys.
In most games I've played a Paladin or seen a Paladin played there has also been a rogue or similar sneaky character. The only time it was ever a problem is when one player (and that player was usually the rogue) decided to be deliberately disruptive and try to cause drama. We handled this pretty handily OOC. If you actually have players who are claiming that scouting or infiltration are somehow outside of the Paladin's code, someone has a fundamental misunderstanding of what is or is not fair.
Having a Paladin in the party is like inviting cops to a rave: you're just not going to have any fun with them around. If I ever GM a Pathfinder game, which is something I'm considering, I am banning the Paladin class for sure.
Which is a pity, some of the most fun games I ever played in had Paladins.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well on the first part. To me it is a lot more impressive to have a moral fiber to do the right thing even when you would benefit from not doing so and not having consequences for it. Than the alternative where you have this axe hovering over your neck in case you are naughty. The latter is being good cause they will be punished otherwise, or they might still be good but then they did not need the incentive anyway.
Or the chose to become a Paladin because they already followed the tenants of the code. Generally people don't decide "I'm going to follow this monastic code because I want the power, it's going to suck though." They do it because they already think it's right.
Well it might not be a deity, but they are handed a code that is put up by an external force.
Or, y'know, they decided to take up the code because they think it's the right thing to do.
They did not figure out themselves what is good and what is wrong.
Uh...yeah, they did. Paladins aren't just handed a code and say "Welp, I guess this is what's right and wrong." They take on the code because they've already decided what is right and wrong. EDUT: BWO put it a little Bette than I did, the Paladin chooses the code, not vice versa.
A paragon of good that never questions their own morality or the authority over them, yes truly am example to be followed.
Broad brush, much? Why do you assume that a Paldin never questions what is right or wrong? Paladins are people, as such, they may have to think long and hard about the morality of things. Some may do what feels right in the moment, others may have devoted years of study into ethics, moral philosophy, and theology. EDUT: BWO also brings up the fact that apaladins have more to lose, and that they may well one day choose to give up even their very faith if it is what is required to do what's right.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well on the first part. To me it is a lot more impressive to have a moral fiber to do the right thing even when you would benefit from not doing so and not having consequences for it. Than the alternative where you have this axe hovering over your neck in case you are naughty. The latter is being good cause they will be punished otherwise, or they might still be good but then they did not need the incentive anyway.
Well it might not be a deity, but they are handed a code that is put up by an external force. They did not figure out themselves what is good and what is wrong. A paragon of good that never questions their own morality or the authority over them, yes truly am example to be followed.
I see this alot and when I do I think of what my first Dm once said when I rolled up my first Paladin. You're not good because you're a Paladin, you're a Paladin because you're Good. The kind of people who become Paladins are the kind of people who would still be good and even if they weren't Paladins.
It's not that Paladins never question the morality of the authority above them (Which is in itself a product of modern cynicism with authority), it's that those authorities have already proven themselves to be that good.
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that a Paladin still has to decide for themselves what their morality is and what it means to be good for themselves, that's how they come into the service of a God.
The big problem with ignoring the code is it makes the paladin too powerful
They are supposed to be restricted to gain the abilitiesOne look at the gray paladin archetype shows you what they have in mind in terms of what extra playing with the restrictions grants you . I think it might be a useful thing for me to print before the next game to share as a comparison
No it doesn't Paladins abilities are weaker than some other less restricted classes ergo taking away the restrictions doesn't make them stronger, therefore not too strong.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"After I lost my fouth grandchild in the same number of weeks I was numb, adrift, and in danger of falling dangerously astray. But a helpful traveler came to me, and didn't preach to me, but instead offered to make some tea and chat for a while.
They were a follower of Grandmother Crow, who's no stranger to loss, but is there to comfort those who have lost, and while compassionate not afraid to give someone what is being determinedly unwise a stiff whack to the head with a quarterstaff.
When they left the next morning, they'd left a hand-carved holy symbol of Andoletta behind. Couldn't find the traveler again, but both the chat and the symbol were enough to start me tryin' to help others out. Did a couple 'f missions f'r the Society, and then I had a vision of me in shiny armor and holdin' th' line. Pretty straight-forward what that meant.
Everyone's faith is different, it's what they do with it that's important. I've met as many self-righteous crusaders on the path to darkness as I've met criminals wanting to reform their ways and step back t' Goodness.
Moral of the ramble? Look for th' good in people an' encourage it, and discourage the bad (even if it is for a 'good reason') when possible. Do that, an' y' shoul' be jus' fine."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing that you said there, has anything to do with the part you quoted. I don't know if you misread or what. So can't really respond. The code IS the excat same thing everytime. So either they just accept it as, so they do not have the will or desire to think for themselves, or all paladins are some weird hive mind for them all to come to the same conclusion every single time.
*coughs*
Andoletta’s paladins serve courts and other authorities. They seek to protect innocence and dispel foolishness. Their tenets include the following affirmations.
Children must be nurtured lest their innocence become callousness or ignorance. I will never be cold or negligent to a child.
Virtue relies upon wisdom, and wisdom relies upon true awareness. I will never leave a falsehood unchallenged.
I will be firm with the ignorant, but not cruel. Ignorance can be corrected.
I will respect my elders’ knowledge and wisdom, but won’t abide the spreading of complacency or ignorance.