I personally find that Paladins are one of the easiest classes to both play and to GM for.
Like in terms of motivations, values, and lines drawn it's hard to get more clear cut than a Paladin.
{. . .}
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.
{. . .}
And that brings up the point that classes that have an axe hovering over their necks in case they are naughty (or in many cases if they AREN'T naughty) should really be prestige classes -- especially Paladins/Antipaladins and Inquisitors. To some extent this applies to Clerics as well, but for practical reasons they probably need to be kept as a base class as well (although I would still like to see a rework, and I wouldn't be philosophically opposed to making them a prestige class, just concerned from a practical point of view).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
not really, every Divine class (aside from Oracles, who coincidentally are generally considered the best designed ones) can lose their powers, its just wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy easier for it to happen to a Paladin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^No, in AD&D 1st Edition, Paladin was a base class, originally called a "subclass" of Fighter, then reclassified as a "subclass" of Cavalier when Unearthed Arcana came out.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
"Fair"? ...that word does not appear in the CRB paladin text. (It does not appear anywhere in the Additional Rules section on alignments either.)
A paladin fights evil with "every means within my power". He does not get down on all-fours and try to bite a wolf with his teeth because that's "fair". No, he kills the thing with his "unfair" weapon.
-- My last paladin was multiclassed rogue and wore a Hat of Disguise while sneak-Smiting bad guys.
Tradition! they have been in the game since 1st edition! We also never had the trouble some groups apparently have with paladins back then.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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."Fair"? ...that word does not appear in the CRB paladin text. (It does not appear anywhere in the Additional Rules section on alignments either.)
A paladin fights evil with "every means within my power". He does not get down on all-fours and try to bite a wolf with his teeth because that's "fair". No, he kills the thing with his "unfair" weapon.
-- My last paladin was multiclassed rogue and wore a Hat of Disguise while sneak-Smiting bad guys.
"Fair" isn't' in the CRB code, but "honour" is.
YMMV (or your deity's mileage may vary) on what is considered honourable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are just a certain kind of PC that plays in a certain way. Those that see the paladin like a "fun destroyer", most likely simply like to plays in a way the paladin interferes with.
Guess what?
Whatever PC you like to make, chances are there are players who wouldnt want to have you in their groups either.
Paladins are just more often bound to always be strict and so on, which will lead to conflicts simply because while other PCs also dont match, each one time here and one there gives away, the paladin is often played in an unbending way, thus he comes as the guy that has to ALWAYS have his way, while others dont.
For this class to work you need a decent compromise from the player with the GM and atleast some understanding from the group.
For example: A paladin with a neutral necromancer in the party, the necromancer instead of testing the paladin or doing things in his way that would clearly bring about either PvP or just instant party over, takes care to avoid at all times provoking or doing something that would cause this to come up. In turn the paladin acts more like a "ward" of the necromancer, keeping an eye so he never goes fully evil and start using his powers for evil causes, trying to instead direct him to quests where he does good things, even if it is with his evil powers.
This works because both players respect each others PCs and GM is also onboard.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few things...
First off, if you don't like the role play requirements of the paladin class... Don't play one. If you want to use the bonuses and abilities without the role play requirements, you are NOT wanting to play a paladin. You just want a pile of abilities.
It is really that simple.
Second, (and I have said this many times,) if you want to learn how to play a paladin, read The Deed of Paksanarrion trilogy, by Elizabeth Moon.
Third, ANY player making a character to play a campaign with should be making a character that adds to the fun of the group. PERIOD. Class is irrelevant. Race is irrelevant. Alignment is irrelevant. Stats are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is does the character add to the fun of the GROUP.
Second, (and I have said this many times,) if you want to learn how to play a paladin, read The Deed of Paksanarrion trilogy, by Elizabeth Moon.
Third, ANY player making a character to play a campaign with should be making a character that adds to the fun of the group. PERIOD. Class is irrelevant. Race is irrelevant. Alignment is irrelevant. Stats are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is does the character add to the fun of the GROUP.
Both of these are excellent advice.
The books are great and showcase a none stereotypical paladin.And problem characters almost always occure due to bad communications when producing a group of characters which results in a poor fit between some of the characters, or because one or more players is being difficult.
Never had a problem with a Paladin , I have run several groups with Paladins and several groups where a Paladin would have been a problem but no one played one because it would have been a poor fit
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have had far more trouble in 20+ years of gaming with CN characters literally ruining campaigns than i've ever had with paladins.
Why is CN even a core alignment!? It just encourages people who are going to be disruptive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few things...
First off, if you don't like the role play requirements of the paladin class... Don't play one. If you want to use the bonuses and abilities without the role play requirements, you are NOT wanting to play a paladin. You just want a pile of abilities.
It is really that simple.
Of course, that's true. That's all the Paladin class is, a collection of class features inspired by a certain theme. When you are using Paladin the Class to portray a character that is also Paladin the Concept, that's you making the same choice we want to be able to make. You are deciding that your Paladin the Concept needs to be expressed not just with a LG Inquisitor or a LG Fighter-multiclass-Cleric or a LG Warpriest but with Paladin the Class specifically.
You're wanting the pile of abilities just as much as us. We just want to be able to make that choice without it being forced, since obviously even were it not forced, you'd still be making the same choice anyway. Though let's fact-check that: if the Paladin had all the same fluff (was still inspired by the same concept) but no alignment requirement and no code of conduct beyond one printed in an optional sidebar, would you still be able to voluntarily play a LG, Code of Conduct Paladin? Or we can fact-check it another way. If the Fighter were only proficient with axes, then you'd have to use axes; since the Fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons including axes, are players the game over disallowed from using axes? Or another way. Paladins used to have to be Human only, and now they can be of any race, including Succubi. Does that mean that no one has played a Human Paladin since 3rd Edition started almost two decades ago?
The "wanting a pile of abilities" is entirely irrelevant since that's true of every class in the game. Fighter? Pile of abilities. Wizard? Pile of abilities. Monk and Barbarian? More piles of abilities. Warrior and Commoner? Worse off piles of abilities, but still piles of abilities. What you can do is not what you do with what you can do. It can be if you want (which is the choice you're voluntarily making), but let us have the same choice. When a player picks Paladin the Class, it is not (or at least shouldn't be) automatically assumed that Paladin the Concept was anywhere in their thought process. And making that assumption and requiring that forced marriage, I think, cheapens the entire thing. The Paladin the Concept is supposed to be this beacon of good and hope, an inspiration. How truly inspiring would it get to be if it weren't gated behind the fact that you can't just be Paladin the Class and choose to play Paladin the Concept but have to because you obviously shouldn't get that choice yourself?
Second, (and I have said this many times,) if you want to learn how to play a paladin, read The Deed of Paksanarrion trilogy, by Elizabeth Moon.
And if I'm wanting to play Paladin the Concept (even if I'm using Cavalier the Class or Fighter the Class or even Wizard the Class), I might just do that. But it's current forced marriage sours the entire concept as is.
Third, ANY player making a character to play a campaign with should be making a character that adds to the fun of the group. PERIOD. Class is irrelevant. Race is irrelevant. Alignment is irrelevant. Stats are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is does the character add to the fun of the GROUP.
Yep. So the Pathfinder game (which is not Golarion the game) shouldn't be making the assumption that picking Paladin the Class auto-equates to picking Paladin the Concept for my particular group. The introduction of that glaring assumption in the game regarding the Paladin is why this thread exists and why it isn't surrounded by thirty or so of its fellows about all the other base classes.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A paladin fights evil with "every means within my power". He does not get down on all-fours and try to bite a wolf with his teeth because that's "fair". No, he kills the thing with his "unfair" weapon.
-- My last paladin was multiclassed rogue and wore a Hat of Disguise while sneak-Smiting bad guys.
"Fair" isn't' in the CRB code, but "honour" is.
YMMV (or your deity's mileage may vary) on what is considered honourable.
If the movies are any guide, it's permissible to snipe nameless mooks all day and night, but you must face Basil Rathbone in single-combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins, along with rogues (then thieves) are the fourth and fifth oldest character classes, coming out in the Greyhawk supplement in 1975. Only the fighter, magic user, and cleric are older. They are as old as Beholders or 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells. There was zero chance Paizo would not include them in the CRB.
As designed, they are mechanically sound, very strong against some of the most powerful enemies a party is likely to encounter, but still able to contribute in other situations as well. It does not really work as a prestige class.
I see the code of honor as a roleplaying opportunity that synergizes with the class' theme. The code does not make a paladin good. Rather, it is an extra duty the paladin willingly undertakes to show devotion to his/her faith, deity, or cause, and a prism by which to focus the paladin's efforts towards law, justice, and the greater good.
You aren't playing wrong if you don't want this in your game. Don't play it or ban it from the game. But paladins aren't going away from any game rooted in D&D.
I too have had issues with Paladins as well. Both as a DM and player. As a player it's having to deal with players who either play them in a terrible stick up the behind way. One can't sneak attack or try and ambush a enemy. To others who think they are Judge Dredd and can attack evil doers on a whim and a prayer. DM can also be a issue because too many try and bring a modern version of morality in a rpg where it does not translate well imo. Putting Paladins in no win situations to make them fall. Sometimes in league with players. If as a DM, players or both don't want Paladins at a table why even allow a player to take one.
It's also the alignment system which should have a set of rules to follow for every alignment. I used to play many of the Palladium rpgs and while I disliked the rules we never ever had problems with alignment. Players coming from D&D thinking they could play fast and loose with alignment found out the hard way it's not going to happen with the Palladium set of rules. Or any other rpg where what a player could do or not do was already in the rules. Before anyone tells it won't work it does work. It just requires a fundamental rethinking on the part of the fanbase. One which I'm not sure they are willing to do.
Otherwise the problems associated with Paladins will never ever go away and keep getting transferred from one edition to the next. Not just Paladins any class where a player can fall because of not following a alignment.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree, it's an operator issue, not a mechanical one.
I have seen more problems with rogues justifying narcissistic BS, and way more with casters going to war to prevent the most minor infringement on their idiom. Any zealous rules lawyer can be far more damaging to play than nearly any character concept. Pathfinder culture does exacerbate the issue with the common assumption that the written rules outweigh the GM, reasonably required to allow PFS to function, but not so valuable outside of the Society.
there is plenty wrong with the class its shoe horned LG alignment and its un customization code of conduct the smite vs only one type of thing when a different type of thing would fit the characters backstory better
again, warpriest
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've run multiple paladins. Rarely had a problem except one game where the GM put the entire party into a situation where we were all being screwed badly (captured by slavers: I was told if my paladin did not try to escape every day I would be abandoning my code and fall, despite stating I wanted to observe carefully to plan and get as many slaves out with me; the wizard had his hands broken over and over again and was issued permanent DEX penalties until he got a Regeneration; the cleric was tortured then made to heal other slaves; we all walked out when the fighter and rogue were put in a death match for no good reason other than GM being a jerk).
Another campaign had my paladin having to duel a noble who was evil. The party had a rogue who was mostly decent... just sometimes a little loose with people's items, and I would quietly remind him of this. He had a place in the party and I did too.
He snuck into the noble's home and found that the bastard had carefully poisoned a sword to use on me. He stole and and brought it back to me, to prove the guys was cheating.
"I'm disappointed in you. Not that you did this, no - it's part and parcel of your suspicious nature. No, I'm disappointed that you didn't have faith in me recognizing that might happen and thinking of a way to counteract that."
He took the sword back where he found it... then when the duel happened, produced two swords so both would have new blades without fatigue from combat.
THAT there is a Paladin/Rogue working relationship. It's not paladins that are a problem, it's the Lawful Jerkass players.
Honestly. And examples that paladins can't use disguise, or flank or allow back stab? Come on. In what world? He's trying to stab the same guy you are. He doesn't care if you hit the bad guy in the kidneys if he's aiming for his lungs.
LOL
You make it sound so easy. Some DMs won't allow any of the above. Using it as a excuse to make the Paladin fall. Or a player running the Paladin brings the session to a screeching halt as he or she insists that Paladins CANNOT use disguise, or flank or allow back stab. It may have not happened in your games. It has over the years in mine though thankfully rare.
I used to lurk on the forums before I made a account and remember a poster who had a very very rigid of playing Paladins. Insist he could not do the above. Even if it meant getting his or her character killed off as well as everyone else. The Dragon is somehow asleep it was his or her duty to wake it up as fighting a sleeping foe was dishonorable and not what how a "true" Paladin behaves. I remember being part of a table where the DM told a similar player not once not twice that they Orc guards keeping a bunch of captured townsfolk prisoner. They were willing to ransom them back. Yet if any attempt was made to rescue the prisoners they would be summarily executed. The party did not have the right amount of funds for the ransom, so they decided to sneak into the camp.
The Paladin at the time seemed OK with it then when the party was entering the Orc camp. Being a 2E game their was no Stealth skill. The DM was a cool guy and liked us thinking outside of the box. As well those wearing heavy armor wore light armor like Studded and Leather which they had covered in dirt to blend in with the darkness. The only way we were going to fail is if someone warned the enemy. Would you know it. In the middle of the Orc camp the Paladin decides it's dishonorable to sneak around and made sure to alert everyone. Long story short we rescued half the townsfolk who did not blame us for the Paladins stupidity. The Paladin fell hard.
The alignments need to be modified to what a character can do in point form. If Chaotic Good is allowed to steal for others for example. It should be right be written that they can. The alignment system seems to cause more problems then it solves imo.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The solution to Paladin (for home games) issues is not allowing problematic player to play one and not playing one in a game with a fall-crazy GM.
I've played/GMd for multiple Paladins in the past 5 or so years and never had an issue. And there's a very common theme behind all the paladin horror stories that pop up in these types of threads. It's either the player or the GM being an a#**$$$.
| 4 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...
The easiest way to conceptualize these characters is to identify a fictional character that is well known. I think of paladins as basically Captain America.
Captain America (as portrayed in the moves, not the Hydra version) has a strict moral code that is a bit out of step even with his do-gooder friends (especially the chaotic good Tony Stark). But he is not a stick in the mud. He also is not a scold.
He has a sense of humor even when he is defending his moral code. And in some cases his moral code puts him in opposition to the civil authorities (Civil War). He realizes that reasonable, well intentioned people might disagree on a given course of action and part of being "good" is being patient and tolerant of other points of view.
But his main animating force is his sense of self sacrifice (also a good trait). He is willing to sacrifice himself for the cause but does not demand that same level of commitment from others. Thats what makes him a paragon and a source of inspiration.
So if your paladin are scolding rather than inspiring then -- in my opinion -- they are not playing lawful good.
Having recently read some 5e material, I have to say I like their approach. Paladins have no alignment restriction, but they still have an Oath with a code of conduct. Certain codes steer you towards certain alignments (Devotion is the most like the traditional LG Paladin) but some (Ancients, Vengeance) allow a lot more flexibility.
Furthermore, as always, I believe alignment ought to be dumpstered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rate Tony Stark as more Nuetral, with a fairly Authoritarian tendencies and erratic Altruistic tendencies, all heavily complicated by a decidedly Narcistic personality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would rate Tony Stark as more Nuetral, with a fairly Authoritarian tendencies and erratic Altruistic tendencies, all heavily complicated by a decidedly Narcistic personality.
Do you mean "authoritarian" or "autocratic"? I'd argue its more of the latter than the former. He seems to have no respect for laws or governments and excessive faith in his own judgements.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having recently read some 5e material, I have to say I like their approach. Paladins have no alignment restriction, but they still have an Oath with a code of conduct.In other words they just caved, and now any player can claim to be playing a paragon of virtue without actually having to behave like it.
Furthermore, as always, I believe alignment ought to be dumpstered.
I think it's the best thing about the game world: What you do matters, and actions have consequences. There's continuity.
~ ~ ~
Part of the reason we all need of break from reality is because real-life is depressingly free of actual justice delivered swiftly, when at all. We wish we could get away with it like Paul Kersey from time to time, and these games let us vicariously take out the trash.
|
|
LOL
You make it sound so easy. Some DMs won't allow any of the above. Using it as a excuse to make the Paladin fall. Or a player running the Paladin brings the session to a screeching halt as he or she insists that Paladins CANNOT use disguise, or flank or allow back stab. It may have not happened in your games. It has over the years in mine though thankfully rare.
I'm going to say it: That was a jerkass GM. He should have given an option. There's no rule that no one else can sneak, after all.
So the rest of the guys sneak in, and the paladin is the beacon... or as we call it where I come from, the distraction.
I mean, if the rogue sneaks off and works to free the hostages while the paladin does their thing, it's not the paladin's fault, is it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's the best thing about the game world: What you do matters, and actions have consequences. There's continuity.
actions have consequences in the realm of the DM and trust me as a DM who mostly ignores alignment, you don't need alignment to do that what I see alignment more often does is give DMs an excuse to punish players. Plenty of games will have actions have consequences without the alignment system.
Part of the reason we all need of break from reality is because real-life is depressingly free of actual justice delivered swiftly, when at all. We wish we could get away with it like Paul Kersey from time to time, and these games let us vicariously take out the trash.
You're projecting. I play pathfinder to be a g~%!#@n magical badass, not to act as the world police, I don't hold the opinion that my idea of justice matches everyone else's, or that it is necessarily the right one. So forcing it down people's throats is not something I fantasize about doing.
Justice is a fantasy I'm not really interested in and its not what I play pathfinder for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me a Paladin is not defined as someone who is a devout holy warrior of some deity or another. A Paladin is defined as someone who is so honorable and virtuous that they fall into the ranks of the deities of goodness and law because the Paladin is akin to said deities. That is, a Paladin is someone who is so righteous and noble that they derive powers from the same source that the heavens do (this is why a Paladin has a much easier time losing their powers than other divine spellcaster.) But there's no reason a Paladin actually needs to follow a deity at all, IMO.
The Paladin is the class you play when you want to RP "the best person in the world" who is strong, admirable, noble, and always does the right thing. There are some games where that sort of thing isn't appropriate, but that's not really that different from how any class might not fly because of the premise of the campaign. The crux of the issue, I feel is that people don't try to play sorcerers in "low magic games" but people do sometimes play Paladins in Paladin-inappropriate campaigns.
In other words they just caved, and now any player can claim to be playing a paragon of virtue without actually having to behave like it.
Call it what you want, the game is better for it. And did you miss the part about how Paladins still have to stick to their Code of Conduct?
I think it's the best thing about the game world: What you do matters, and actions have consequences. There's continuity.
Why would actions suddenly cease to have consequences just because alignment is gone?
Part of the reason we all need of break from reality is because real-life is depressingly free of actual justice delivered swiftly, when at all. We wish we could get away with it like Paul Kersey from time to time, and these games let us vicariously take out the trash.
Once again, why exactly is an alignment system necessary to this style of campaign?
You can be a holy warrior of hers. But not a paladin, which is a lawful good holy warrior.
Quibbling over definitions.
Having recently read some 5e material, I have to say I like their approach. Paladins have no alignment restriction, but they still have an Oath with a code of conduct.In other words they just caved, and now any player can claim to be playing a paragon of virtue without actually having to behave like it.
Not... really. Each of the Oaths has several tenets that you have to follow, else you will be declared an Oathbreaker which can result in some bad stuff.
It's more that Pathfinder Paladins would all be Oath of Devotion Paladins in 5e, while a Pathfinder Hellknight might be better represented as an Oath of Vengeance Paladin in 5e. Some of the more zealous, smite-happy Paladins of Torag and Iomedae would probably also be Oath of Vengeance Paladins.
My personal favorite oath is the Oath of the Ancients, which is all about protecting love and beauty in the world. It has a lot of cool nature-based effects, including the ability to weaponize moonbeams and restraining enemies with spectral vines. It's pretty awesome.
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...
Paladins have been part of AD&D since 1E. It has always been an issue even in the late 70's and early 80's with how the paladin is played and managed. Most problems are due to how the DM manages the Paladin in game and how the player attempts to play the Paladin. I have played several paladins throughout 36 years of playing D&D. One of my longest running characters was a paladin and it was never an issue due to the DM and myself sticking to some basic rules on playing the class. They are not lawful stupid and navigating the code is more about weighing each decision he makes against the code, the good of the party, and the PC's world view. Each Paladin I ran was different in his world view. The fist one I played I was 12 or 13 and he as a Dudley Doright kind of player and I had a lot fun with him... The second paladin I ran was in my 20's. He was a redeemed soul, a part time drunk, and loyal to his friends and staunch in his beliefs and the code he lived by... It was a fun character and especially when he fell off the band wagon after intense moments in our campaign...made some interesting RP moments in the group. The third one I ran was a PF paladin and I am still running that character after five years. She is a Red Sonja type personality with a code...she is a fun character and the DM is unafraid to push the boundaries on taking us outside our comfort zone so it is always interesting playing her.
So I agree it is more of an operator/DM issue than anything else.
SD
I can't get my head around why (other than for 3.5 legacy reasons) the Paladin is a core class.
Interestingly enough, the only reason it was a core class in 3E is because it was a legacy (aka "sacred cow"). They tried to make it a prestige class originally, but got pushback during playtesting and instead made it a full class like it was in earlier editions.
I tend to believe that it should have been done that way- either as a prestige class or else just a multiclass combo. In Pathfinder, I think an archetype could have been done pretty well I think (although those didn't appear until later in the game's cycle.)
I'm going to say it: That was a jerkass GM. He should have given an option. There's no rule that no one else can sneak, after all.
I'm going to say it. Your are completely wrong so far out of left field that it's the right field. He did allow everyone to sneak. Why do you think I wrote in my post that they stripped down to light armor so that they could sneak in. The DM liked the idea of what and how we wanted to do it so much no rolls were required. We all were told ahead of time when we went to discuss terms on neutral ground with the Orcs. All they wanted was a ransom and they would leave. The DM had created a story that they were a Orc raiding party that lost many of their number and wanted to save face by returning with some gold. Any obvious attempts to rescue the hostage and they would be killed. Hence why we choose to sneak in and not be subtle and obvious
So the rest of the guys sneak in, and the paladin is the beacon... or as we call it where I come from, the distraction.
First rule of D&D never split the party for whatever reason. Second the DM was telling the Paladin player more than anyone else the consequences of playing Lawful Stupid and was playing a Paladin poorly and choose to jeopardize the plan on purpose. Even when told the consequences of doing so. I don't know about anyone else when the person in charge of the hostages says "if you try anything we start to kill them one by one" then ruins everything by announcing his presence at the top of his lungs when the party is trying to sneak into the enemy camp. Means he was responsible for the death of the hostages. The rest of the party possibly to a small extent. The other players stuck to the plan.
I mean, if the rogue sneaks off and works to free the hostages while the paladin does their thing, it's not the paladin's fault, is it?
We decided to go in as a group. Not individuals. Maybe that was a mistake on our party. Yet like I said the DM was so impressed at our idea of sneaking in when it was dark. To wear lighter armor to make less noise and to camouflage our appearence that the only way to fail is for someone to do something truly stupid. Which the Paladin player did and his character deserved to fall hard. Then we kicked him out of the group. Once chance, two three to improve one behavior at the table enough is enough.
The DM was so used to other groups that just charged into the Orcish camp hostages be damned and not roleplaying. It ruined what could have been a great combat the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Because the idea of an Honorable Holy questing knight as a character concept is one of the most recognizable and oldest story ideas dating back all the way to Legends of King Arthur. The Knights of the Round Table were not JUST warriors, they were Holy Knights traveling the realm, following a code of honor, serving the church, and defending the helpless.
THAT is why Paladin is a core class, same reason Wizards and Druids and are, they are a very old and classic character archetype.