Why all the Paladin hate?

[Sarvis the Buck]

As in the title. Often when I bring a paladin to a gaming table, there's an audible groan. The Barbarian sighs, and the Rogue starts looking nervous. Despite the fact that the Paladin is arguably one of the best classes in the game, with great immunities, Full BAB, the ability to heal, and effectively the only viable tank with its aggression drawing spells, it seems no one wants one on their side due to some belief that their lawful good nature will drive a campaign to a halt. Only once have I played a paladin when this was actually an issue. The rest? Zero issues. Makes me wonder why there is such a bias against them.

[AaronUnicorn]

I think there are two elements to it.

The first is an external bias. As a society, we generally don't like seeing characters who live according to high moral codes. Americans tend to prefer the scrappy underdog, the rebel, the loner who goes their own way, the cop who breaks the rules in order to get real justice.

We have a bias against characters like Superman and Luke Skywalker and towards characters like Batman and Han Solo.

Paladins live by that strong moral code, and remind most of us that in the real world? We fall very short. Most of us consider ourselves "good" people. But we'll tell a white lie, or break a minor law. And we're still good. The Paladin holds themselves above that. And that makes us question if we're as good as we think we are. Which immediately lends to people looking at the rules and seeing how they can make a Paladin fall.

The other part is one or two bad Paladin players, who let their characters be zealots and overbearing and squash the other party members. And that can be a hard taste to get out of one's mouth. Not all, or even most Paladin players do that. But enough do that we all remember "that guy."

[Matthew Downie]

If the other players are planning to play characters who are unconstrained by conventional morality, then it's pretty much a given that the Paladin will have to interfere or risk falling.

[Philippe Lam]

Many players play Lawful Good paladins as Lawful D***s or S*****s. As for me, as a GM the paladin has to put the group first before its beliefs, and not the opposite. I hate when they act like dictators (and as such selfish incarnates) when it's not needed. Good intent but bad execution. They should do so only if what the group does is too big to ignore.

As a player, that's why I'm playing them differently. Following its beliefs, without forcing their hand or otherwise compromise as best as possible. If it is not, I won't want to disrupt the table so quitting may be a solution if need be.

[WatersLethe]

Choosing whether to play a paladin usually happens during the discussion with everyone about what alignments the party is going to tolerate. I love paladins, but the fact is that they're a limiting factor on what the party as a whole can do, and I can appreciate that not everyone wants to be limited by another person's class choice.

[Val'bryn2]

Part of the hate is because it's the only class where your class features not only tell you how to play your character, they also tell your party members how they're allowed to play theirs.

[Neo2151]

People like to blame Paladins for not letting them get away with being Chaotic/Neutral Evil while their character sheets say "Chaotic Neutral"

That's basically where the hate comes from. ;)

[Tarik Blackhands]

There's also the flipside to the LG adamantine stick up the rear paladin:

There's plenty of GMs who take one look at the fall conditions and take it as their prerogative to engineer falls whether by springing it on their players ("Ambushes are dishonorable, FALL!") or catch 22s ("Killing goblin babies is evil, but letting evil survive is evil. WHAT A DILEMMA MR PALADIN")

That doesn't help the class's overall rep much either.

[SheepishEidolon]

Paladin sometimes attracts players who are far from LG in real life, or any G in general. While these players usually cause no real issues, with a paladin in their claws they suddenly feel appointed to be team leaders and automatically be right and just in their deeds, because they play a sacred warrior. The strong mechanics support their claims - sometimes to the detriment of fellow adventurers or the campaign.

To be fair, you can play other classes in destructive ways also. A cleric can also be a religious zealot, not healing party members with 'wrong' beliefs. A wizard might have too much fun throwing fireballs to take care of allies in the area of effect. A rogue could take what's not theirs - or Coup de Grace their way through sleeping party members they have a conflict with. To complete the classic four classes: A fighter might attack anything, no matter how useful a friendlier strategy would have been for the party.

[Philippe Lam]

While the issue is avoidable in home games because the group is already up, in case of one-shots or pick-ups it's random and that can happen.

Val'bryn2 wrote:

Part of the hate is because it's the only class where your class features not only tell you how to play your character, they also tell your party members how they're allowed to play theirs.

This is precisely my bone of contention, that the compulsion or urge to teach lessons is part of the class background. As long the actions I take with my PC are reasonable, nobody will tell me " You should do this or act like this. " as it will be a casus belli. I'm mostly playing Lawful Neutral as I prefer harsh but fair characters.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

There's plenty of GMs who take one look at the fall conditions and take it as their prerogative to engineer falls whether by springing it on their players

That doesn't help the class's overall rep much either.

As a GM I'm not the last to have a low tolerance about potentially engineering fall paladin conditions (compensating though if they show to be good teammates).

[Candi Payne]

I love adventuring with other paladins. They have cute butts.

Candi Payne, Paladin of Calistria

[Klorox]

How do you rationalize a LG palading worshipping a CN goddess?

[The Sideromancer]

Mythic Beyond Morality
No ranks in knowledge (religion)
houseruled alignment restrictions
actually an antipaladin.

What'd I miss?

[Tarik Blackhands]

The Sideromancer wrote:

Mythic Beyond Morality

No ranks in knowledge (religion)
houseruled alignment restrictions
actually an antipaladin.

What'd I miss?

Just calls self an airquote paladin for PR purposes with actual class being cleric/warpriest/similar.

[Senko]

Personally I've found a lot of the time it's Paladins = Sanctimonious Jerk. There's plenty of good examples of how a paladin can be a really impressive character and still a flawed person in fiction (Paksenarion in the deed of Paksenarion, Thistle in Swords, Spells and Stealth, Big Ears in Goblins) but most people don't play them well and when you add in the impact their character has on others and a lot of GM's tendency to try and engineer situations solely to make them fail it makes a lot of players not want to play with them. I've known some good ones but I've also known others who ignored the main quest with it's associated big bad evil to berate the prostitute for her low moral standards. Which doesn't even address the issue of things like "I am a Holy Warrior of (insert God here) this criminal is evil and thus I can't work with them even though they are the only way to get our group smuggled secretly into the city". Some people take the old restriction of "can't work with evil" very literally.

[BigNorseWolf]

Paladins are lawful.

Most adventuring parties are chaotic. They have no use for societies laws and mores which just get in the way of adventuring. They don't need the services that government provides because they are an army and social service unto themselves.

Which makes sense if you think about it. If society was actually working they wouldn't be calling in itinerant adventurers, the problem would have been dealt with by competent professionals on government payroll.

[Evil Kjeldorn]

Because there's a lot to hate?

[Good Kjeldorn]

Evil Kjeldorn wrote:

Because there's a lot to hate?

*Narrows eyes suspiciously*

[Senko]

I've actually seen some good justifications for that actually. For example the cost of maintaining a force with that level of skills/experience is pretty high and 90% of the time their either sitting around doing nothing or helping out peasants well away from the important people in the capital. Adventurers take care of having a tough, experienced and mobile force cleaning up the situations that arise before they can (usually) destabilise the kingdom. Of course you may have to deal with them thinking they can run the kingdom better but most adventurers don't want that hassle and for the ones who do? There's always other adventurers.

[Unassuming Local Guy]

Paladins should be more like Micheal Carpenter from the Dresden Files, I walk my path and I liked you to walk it with me but I'm not going to force you, also lets kill demons.

I'm currently playing a Paladin in a home campaign and I'm playing it pretty cool, no boy scouts you gotta obey the law stuff. My issue is more like whats been said up post about CG/CN characters being more E. Like a rogue who just takes things because he can, like focus on the quest bro stop being goofy.

EDIT: Also we have to remember IRL Laws and PF laws are different.

[RDM42]

Senko wrote:

Personally I've found a lot of the time it's Paladins = Sanctimonious Jerk. There's plenty of good examples of how a paladin can be a really impressive character and still a flawed person in fiction (Paksenarion in the deed of Paksenarion, Thistle in Swords, Spells and Stealth, Big Ears in Goblins) but most people don't play them well and when you add in the impact their character has on others and a lot of GM's tendency to try and engineer situations solely to make them fail it makes a lot of players not want to play with them. I've known some good ones but I've also known others who ignored the main quest with it's associated big bad evil to berate the prostitute for her low moral standards. Which doesn't even address the issue of things like "I am a Holy Warrior of (insert God here) this criminal is evil and thus I can't work with them even though they are the only way to get our group smuggled secretly into the city". Some people take the old restriction of "can't work with evil" very literally.

I tend to find the problem just as if not more often lies with the behaviour of the rest of the party.

[Kryzbyn]

I think one of the major problems is that it uses an RP means to balance a mechanically strong class. This opens too many things up to variation of interpretation, often to the detriment of the player of the paladin.

[LordKailas]

I think part of it depends on the DM.

Does the DM have a "No evil characters" rule?

players only seem to have a problem with paladins if they were planning on playing an evil character, a sneaky character or a sadistic character.

It doesn't help that when a player puts down LG, they often seem to think that this means Lawful D**k.

So now you not only have a character that will curtail this players "fun" but they will also be a d**k about it too. The funny thing is that outside of protesting a paladin, many of these same players will deny being evil, sneaky or sadistic.

"No! It's fine for my cleric of compassion to torture the goblin, he's a dwarf."

It's entirely possible to play a paladin in a party without screwing over the party and/or causing drama. But the bad experiences tend to over shadow the good ones.

[BigNorseWolf]

One cause of friction is the assumption by the paladin and or the players that a paladin does the right thing (as if there was one THE right thing)

A paladin is lawfulgood. They have an opinion on which way is the best way. That opinion is only as valid as a neutral good tree hugging druid or a robin hood style freedom fighter.

[Zhayne]

Val'bryn2 wrote:

Part of the hate is because it's the only class where your class features not only tell you how to play your character, they also tell your party members how they're allowed to play theirs.

This, I think, is the main part of it, particularly the second clause. It also seems to more or less force alignment argum ... er, discussions by its very nature.

Interpreting the code also varies significantly by table, I'd suspect. For example, when I allowed paladins, I had no problems with them saying the literal truth. For example, telling a bandit scout "I have business with your boss". That business is kicking his butt, but he doesn't have to say that. Other GMs would ding someone for it.

I also don't care for them because the class is just too narrow. It feels like it should be a prestige class or cleric archetype rather than its own class. I de-emphasize alignment to such a degree in my games that the paladin just doesn't fit in, so I typically ban it.

[Redelia]

How you feel about alignment in general is going to have a lot to say about how you feel about paladins. In non-PFS games, I usually require good alignment. If you truly cannot get along with a paladin, I don't think I want you in those games, because you can't be a part of the stories I like to tell. To me, the stories worth telling are good defeating evil, sometimes at great cost. A paladin fits these stories well. Robin hood could fit those stories well. A non-good character does not.

[Philippe Lam]

The good of someone is the evil of others - But that's something the paladin won't care about because it can't, and this is a problem. Some will say that kind of compulsion is evil by nature.

For home game I don't steer players toward any alignment. What I do emphasize is that they shouldn't squabble thereafter. Forcing good or evil alignments only restricts opportunities.

[Scythia]

Because not enough DMs use Rule Zero. :P

In my games, Paladin has to match their deity alignment, and aren't required to police other characters. This works out much better.

[blahpers]

Val'bryn2 wrote:

Part of the hate is because it's the only class where your class features not only tell you how to play your character, they also tell your party members how they're allowed to play theirs.

No, it doesn't. The paladin, like any other character, is free to let the party make its own "mistakes" or even leave if the party's direction doesn't mesh with their own values or goals. Figuring out why one would stay in a party is not limited to paladins, and it's harder in some campaigns than others. Most druids would probably not going to stick around if the party decides that the best way to flush out the green dragon is to burn its forest down, and clerics have similar class-driven imperatives. Heck, our mythic LG bard left the party because we were just a bit too seedy for his tastes (the CN goblin was probably the "good-est" other member of the party at the time)--no class- or alignment-imposed rules needed.

[Sarvis the Buck]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

There's also the flipside to the LG adamantine stick up the rear paladin:

There's plenty of GMs who take one look at the fall conditions and take it as their prerogative to engineer falls whether by springing it on their players ("Ambushes are dishonorable, FALL!") or catch 22s ("Killing goblin babies is evil, but letting evil survive is evil. WHAT A DILEMMA MR PALADIN")

That doesn't help the class's overall rep much either.

I was in a game like that once. The other players got irritated that the story seemed to be ignoring their characters.

Seems like some of the hate is coming from Paladins being seen as "Perfect Lawful Good". I tend to play paladins who are just as flawed as a rogue or a bard, just in different ways.

[Lord Mhoram]

Unassuming Local Guy wrote:

Paladins should be more like Micheal Carpenter from the Dresden Files, I walk my path and I liked you to walk it with me but I'm not going to force you, also lets kill demons.

Considering Butcher is a gamer, and has explicitly stated he wrote Micheal to be the perfectly played paladin, I would agree with you. And so would Jim. :)

[blahpers]

Lord Mhoram wrote:

Unassuming Local Guy wrote:

Paladins should be more like Micheal Carpenter from the Dresden Files, I walk my path and I liked you to walk it with me but I'm not going to force you, also lets kill demons.

Considering Butcher is a gamer, and has explicitly stated he wrote Micheal to be the perfectly played paladin, I would agree with you. And so would Jim. :)

+1. Though it isn't the only way to play a paladin, as the same books also demonstrate.

[JohnHawkins]

Never had a problem with a Paladin, but I have rarely had a problem player. As far as I can tell problem Paladins are usually caused by Problem players or otherwise dysfunctional groups and if there had not been a Paladin character something else would have caused all the friction.

[Kryzbyn]

The only time I saw a problem in play with a Paladin was the result of a player interpersonal conflict being brought into the game. One person was playing a shady character, and the other was over zealous in trying to get him caught and prosecuted. He fell into the trap of Lawful Stupid in the process, and his character was made to look like a fool in front of his superiors on multiple occasions. Had that game continued, either the players were going to physically fight, or the paladin in-game was gonna fall. Thankfully, the players in question let the grievance go, but the game had already died by then.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I miss my Rogue/Cleric of the god of assassins ;)

[Talonhawke]

Candi Payne wrote:

I love adventuring with other paladins. They have cute butts.

Candi Payne, Paladin of Calistria

Not sure if that'g legal? At least not for PFS

[Athaleon]

Party: "We have no obligation to help these people."

Paladin: "That's where you're wrong, kiddo."

[Omnitricks]

I don't hate Paladins.

I hate Paladins who tell me what to do when it isn't their job, or ruining the party's plans for the sake of their precious alignment.

Edit: Curses, ninjaed by someone else before I could change it before anyone noticed XD

[Kryzbyn]

You mean precious?

[AaronUnicorn]

Redelia wrote:

How you feel about alignment in general is going to have a lot to say about how you feel about paladins. In non-PFS games, I usually require good alignment. If you truly cannot get along with a paladin, I don't think I want you in those games, because you can't be a part of the stories I like to tell. To me, the stories worth telling are good defeating evil, sometimes at great cost. A paladin fits these stories well. Robin hood could fit those stories well. A non-good character does not.

I quite like this outlook.

[Athaleon]

Redelia wrote:

How you feel about alignment in general is going to have a lot to say about how you feel about paladins. In non-PFS games, I usually require good alignment. If you truly cannot get along with a paladin, I don't think I want you in those games, because you can't be a part of the stories I like to tell. To me, the stories worth telling are good defeating evil, sometimes at great cost. A paladin fits these stories well. Robin hood could fit those stories well. A non-good character does not.

I'm usually the same way—in fact I play Paladins often—but I think alignment was a mistake that ought to have been dumpstered decades ago.

[SorrySleeping]

WatersLethe wrote:

Choosing whether to play a paladin usually happens during the discussion with everyone about what alignments the party is going to tolerate. I love paladins, but the fact is that they're a limiting factor on what the party as a whole can do, and I can appreciate that not everyone wants to be limited by another person's class choice.

I'm annoyed that I have one player that has played a non-chaotic character three times. Twice was because he played a monk and once he was True Neutral.

I tried playing one with my group once and it didn't end well.

[Backpack]

So a paladin of serenrae and a barbarian walk into a bar. The bartender says which of you lose your class powers? pally's are LG which means in any one scenario over half of your options are removed for decision making. Lets use the pally and barb, so you beat the bad guy and your options are take a bribe and let him go. Kill him, he cant be redeemed. or turn him into the police. Well you have one option because of the pally, because all other options are "wrong."

Half my pc's get put in my bag if i go to a con and someone plays a paladin.
Oh you summon undead, nope
oh your eidolon is evil/demon/devil, nope
oh you're a mind control caster, nope
oh you're a barb who takes no surrender, nope
oh you worship an evil god, nope

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Paladin hate comes from dickish behavior. GMs and other players being dicks. Paladin players being dicks. Either or both.
Also, stupidity, seemingly intentional. Intentionally trying to make things fail rather than trying to make them work, refusing to see the point of something rather than base mechanics, trying to force certain characters into groups or situations that don't fit them.

The solution is to be a decent person yourself, play with decent people and not be a dick or an idiot about things.

[Jurassic Pratt]

Backpack wrote:

Half my pc's get put in my bag if i go to a con and someone plays a paladin.

Oh you summon undead, nope
oh your eidolon is evil/demon/devil, nope
oh you're a mind control caster, nope
oh you're a barb who takes no surrender, nope
oh you worship an evil god, nope

All I can say is that you have an issue with a*&!@!*s playing paladins, not paladins as a whole. Someone who's not being a prick could work with basically any of those as a Paladin.

The only one on that list that could be a definite issue is someone who animates undead. And that could be an issue with just anyone who worships Pharasma not just paladins.

[Sarvis the Buck]

Athaleon wrote:

Party: "We have no obligation to help these people."

Paladin: "That's where you're wrong, kiddo."

I mean, sure. But you'd get the same argument from a Good-Aligned Wizard or Ranger. Or at least you should.

[Athaleon]

Sarvis the Buck wrote:

Athaleon wrote:

Party: "We have no obligation to help these people."

Paladin: "That's where you're wrong, kiddo."

I mean, sure. But you'd get the same argument from a Good-Aligned Wizard or Ranger. Or at least you should.

You would, but it happens less often because those classes (generally) don't face any sort of mechanical consequence for changing their alignment. Alignment, for a Paladin who wants to stay a Paladin, is prescriptive, full-stop. They have a code of conduct on top of their alignment restriction, and they cannot be an accessory to Evil and/or Chaotic Shenanigans:

"I don't steal or use poison, the Rogue does that for us."
"I don't execute captives, the Barbarian does that for us."
"I would never dream of desecrating a corpse, but I tool around with a Wizard who animates undead, and he's really useful."

A Paladin is just not a good fit for many parties, but people who get attached to a character don't want to abruptly retire them and reroll, hence the impasse.

[Icyshadow]

It's easy to hate on the guy who makes you look bad by comparison.

In all seriousness, there are a LOT of reasons for people to dislike Paladins. Some are good, others less so. I still think a Paladin has a place in most player parties.

[Kjeldorn]

Theres a lot I see myself agreeing with:

AaronUnicorn wrote:

Paladins live by that strong moral code, and remind most of us that in the real world? We fall very short. Most of us consider ourselves "good" people. But we'll tell a white lie, or break a minor law. And we're still good. The Paladin holds themselves above that. And that makes us question if we're as good as we think we are. Which immediately lends to people looking at the rules and seeing how they can make a Paladin fall..

True, but I think this is less a problem of the gaming community, then its an affliction of modern society. The loss of grand narratives (insert your favorite ideological/religious vision of the future here) have left us a society that fear those who truly believe anything.

Val'bryn2 wrote:

Part of the hate is because it's the only class where your class features not only tell you how to play your character, they also tell your party members how they're allowed to play theirs.

True, but most of these things can be worked out, if you sit down and have a talk with the GM and the rest of the group.

Nothing should be so set in stone, that it drains the fun out of a gaming session. Even if its written in a rulebook.

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Paladin sometimes attracts players who are far from LG in real life, or any G in general. While these players usually cause no real issues, with a paladin in their claws they suddenly feel appointed to be team leaders and automatically be right and just in their deeds, because they play a sacred warrior. The strong mechanics support their claims - sometimes to the detriment of fellow adventurers or the campaign.

To be fair, you can play other classes in destructive ways also. A cleric can also be a religious zealot, not healing party members with 'wrong' beliefs. A wizard might have too much fun throwing fireballs to take care of allies in the area of effect. A rogue could take what's not theirs - or Coup de Grace their way through sleeping party members they have a conflict with. To complete the classic four classes: A fighter might attack anything, no matter how useful a friendlier strategy would have been for the party.

Completely true.

Although most of this can again be traced back to players having different ideas of "what a character would do in situation x".
Playing your character is fine.
Playing your character to the detriment and annoyance of the other players aren't. So even your stick in butt Paladin has to roll with the party, just like the kleptomaniac rogue has.
That means taking a deep breath, sighing and letting the fighter desecrate the corpses in crypt, "because they might rise as undead".
It means humoring the Paladin, when she/he asks you don't start braking the fingers of the captives, to get them to tell you about the secret escape tunnel that every castle has.

Kryzbyn wrote:

I think one of the major problems is that it uses an RP means to balance a mechanically strong class. This opens too many things up to variation of interpretation, often to the detriment of the player of the paladin.

Again, in my opinion, completely true.

Then again, not everyone would agree with my thoughts of class design.
But generally I prefer my "base class" to be as empty of any flavour material as possible.
If you want very flavour dependent classes Theres also room for that, its just far easier to tailor those as prestige classes.

Scythia wrote:

Because not enough DMs use Rule Zero. :P

In my games, Paladin has to match their deity alignment, and aren't required to police other characters. This works out much better.

Very very true and very very sensible.

Open minds leads to open arms...and all that :P

Athaleon wrote:

Party: "We have no obligation to help these people."

Paladin: "That's where you're wrong, kiddo."

This has been partially touched upon, but it what it often get down to.

It often becomes Rorschachian - no compromises.
This is were I would step in as the GM and attempt to mediate. If folk still hunker down in their corners and claim to "just be playing characters and their alignment.
Then I put someone up for the chop, someone has to go or the game grinds down to a halt. As the example above shows, its unfortunately often the Paladin. He gets to retire gracefully and the player rolls up someone new, who more in line with the rest of the scoundrels.

Athaleon wrote:

...I think alignment was a mistake that ought to have been dumpstered decades ago.

Unfortunately, I find myself agree with this more and more.

Especially with the groups I'm GMing. They tend to respond to Alignment by playing it up as little as possible, or simply by giving their alignments "lips service". The funny thing is though, that as soon as we running a system without the "Pathfinder/D&D model", the greater chance for one of them to make a truly kind, altruistic and morally sure character. I just guess you can't "force" people to play good people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

All in all, I prefer to let the players run their characters as they see fit. If that means that they bend the code slightly or are just shy of Lawful Good, then so be it.
Funs the name of the game, and if a games flavour or rules are dragging that down, it goes out the window really quick when I'm GMing.
If I had the power, the Paladin wouldn't be a base class, and the individual player would have a greater influence, on both the Alignment and Code aspect of the class.
A prestige class, that could cover the entire Alignment spectrum, with suggestion on how the players could make their own 8-10 point codes, would be a dream come true.
But as, with just about everything else, I'm open to suggestions and more then willing to negotiate the precise terms.
^^

[Madokar Valortouched]

The biggest problem I ran into while playing a paladin is that the group never sat down and clarified WHAT a paladin was supposed to be. The campaign went on for a year before the GM told me after a session I fell because I attacked a party member who was mentally dominated and going to slay a silver dragon (which was also mentally dominated into killing the party member)

The logic of the group was "Bros before Foes", but apparently, it was also my "third strike" according to the GM. Before this, I performed a coup de grace on a kobold that the party shaman put to sleep in the middle of combat, and I punched an urchin who was party to a bunch of pickpockets who stole the keys to Hell off of my person.

After all this was said and done, the group sat down, we had a long talk about what it means to play a paladin, and we all came to an agreement:

1)Whenever we start a new campaign, players and GM have to establish what constitutes a paladin's fall the game even begins.

2) Rather than the player having to interpret what the GM believes to be behaviour worthy of causing a fall (and for there to be a hidden counter against the player), the GM has to pause the narrative and warn the paladin player that their actions are grounds for a fall from grace.

That last rule has been expanded so that ANY action that is out of alignment is warned against before the deed is committed.

[Gaurwaith]

Backpack wrote:

pally's are LG which means in any one scenario over half of your options are removed for decision making. Lets use the pally and barb, so you beat the bad guy and your options are take a bribe and let him go. Kill him, he cant be redeemed. or turn him into the police. Well you have one option because of the pally, because all other options are "wrong."

If the world were more immersively real, it wouldn't be so clear what is right and wrong. Adventures might present you with a set of choices, some of which are "good", and some of which are "bad", designed to appeal to different classes, but real dilemmas are often more complicated. What if the fellow is really evil and deserves to die? What if he's likely to escape prison, or could still do bad things from within a cell? What if he's a son and father and brother, and if he goes to jail it will place additional strain on his family? What if he has no family but is taking care of his grandparents, and there's a famine on, so they'll die if he goes to prison?

What if instead of a generic bad guy who exists so you can beat him and feel good about having overcome an encounter, it's a real person with actual motives that make sense? What if those motives require actual understanding in order to make a moral decision?

Suddenly playing a paladin doesn't take away options, it forces you to be engaged with the story because the gameplay and story are integrated.You're genuinely concerned about acting in accordance with the moral values of your character, and have to write a real person for whom those motivations make sense.