# Why aren't paladins liked?



## Quasqueton (Apr 22, 2004)

I would think that a party of at least nominally heroic adventurers would like the idea of having a paladin in their group -- the epitomy of heroic classes. They are usually trustworthy and dedicated. They are literally fearless and devoted.

But in all my years of playing and DMing D&D, and in reading various forums on D&D, I've never seen anyone actually happy to have a paladin in the group. Usually the big class that everyone wants in their group is a cleric.

The only thing that seems to be really useful to the group as a whole is the paladin's _detect evil_ ability. But from what I've read on this board, many DMs hate this ability, and most Players don't really care or give it a second thought.

Using a computer game as an example, paladins in Diablo II have abilities that boost everyone's powers. A group of adventurers in that game gain a lot of tangible benefits from having a paladin in the group. Allies of a paladin in that game deal more damage, can regenerate, etc.

But in D&D, the closest thing to a party boost the paladin gives is the aura of courage that gives +4 against fear effects to those within 10' of the paladin. Not really a great boon.

So, does the paladin class actually bring anything to a group that is worthwhile? When organizing a new group of adventurers, someone always mentions the need for someone to play a cleric. But too often there are groans of annoyance when someone mentions wanting to play a paladin.

Why isn't the paladin at the top of the list of classes to consider with a group of adventurers?

Quasqueton


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 22, 2004)

I think the biggest problem is that most people who play Paladins end up playing them as arrogant jerks who want to tell everyone what to do. I've not had much trouble in the games I run, the PCs don't love Paladins, but they get along with them just fine in the groups. 

I don't have a problem with detect evil at all, and in fact, I've used it many times to confuse the Paladin and prove to him that he can't just use it as a "detect and smite" machine without a lot of consequences.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 22, 2004)

I love paladins. Some of my favorite characters I've ever played were paladins. I think they typify a particular type/feel of fantasy--the truly heroic, high-fantasy ouvre--better than most of the other classes.

Now, that being said, I know why some people object to them. If you're playing in a group that's trying to portray more of the "scoundrel" type, or the "Heck with that honor thing, let's just get the job done" sort of characters, you can run into some conflict. A good roleplaying, combined with an understanding DM, can make a paladin work even in such situations. But since so many people seem to feel the paladin must be played as the arrogant, stick-in-the-mud guy who spends all his free time lecturing his companions, it's easy to see why people develop a misperception regarding the class.


----------



## Ferret (Apr 22, 2004)

Paladins eat babies. My mommy says thats bad.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Apr 22, 2004)

Paladins come with a lot of baggage, some people dislike that baggage.  Me?  I think paladins are easy to roleplay and easy to build a story arc around.


level roleplay
================
1-5 obnoxious jerk
6-10 doubt sets in
11-15 self loathing
16-20 redemtion, power with humility


----------



## blargney the second (Apr 22, 2004)

I think it's because the arrogance sort of overwhelms any other characteristics... nobody likes people who are excessively righteous!

-blarg

ps - I often play ethically questionable characters, so a paladin cramps my style pretty badly!


----------



## billd91 (Apr 22, 2004)

It depends on the heroic style of the game. Many games, while generally heroic, also have plenty of characters running around regular law and convention, doing questionable things, while generally doing good. Paladins can be a significant challenge to overcome in games like that.
It's not that they have to be all serious and arrogant and all that. But they are expected to do things above-board. For paladins, methods matter in achieving good outcomes and, if they ignore that by letting other PCs just kind of slide in their actions, their own paladinhood is threatened. 
Basically, having a paladin in the party can crimp the style some people want to play. While certainly heroic, there are limitations imposed on them and their associations that aren't there for most, if not all, other characters.


----------



## Psiblade (Apr 22, 2004)

The majority of paladins that I have played with in home games and rpga games were roleplayed with the holier than thou attitude. Also, the paladin abilities and history lend themselves to only a couple of fighting styles. I am actually of the opinion that if you have seen one paladin, you have seen the majority of them.  :\ 

-Psiblade


----------



## Hardhead (Apr 22, 2004)

I love Paladins, except for the fact that they're pretty weak except for a one level dip.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 22, 2004)

I played in a group where the Paladin was the backbone of the group.  I played a Bard who served as his squire.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 22, 2004)

Properly roleplayed, Paladins add a lot to the game. They should hold their comrades to a higher standard, which can create conflict with less scrupulous partymembers. This conflict can be constructive and dramatic and add to the roleplaying experience, as it does in my campaign, or it can be divisive and onerous, as it does in other campaigns that I have heard of. For a Paladin to work well within a group, the players of the other characters need to work with the Paladin's player to create a good roleplaying atmosphere that advances the story - even if that story is about the constant contention between the Paladin and the party Rogue. 

Paladins are roleplay-focused characters, which is good because in my experience they are not particularly impressive in combat. They are durable but typically not as ferocious an opponent as a Barbarian or Fighter. Still, they are a great addition to most campaigns, provided the player group is willing to make certain allowances for behavior and the DM is willing to put a great deal of effort into roleplaying moral and ethical dilemmas and fighting undead and evil outsiders.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 22, 2004)

Paladins are lawful good. Their code and religion make them even more lawful and good. Most people (and characters) are not lawful good. There's the problem.

Having a paladin severely limits what the other party members can do. A paladin doesn't generally treasure hunt, and they morally object to lying, stealing, cheating, fighting...things many people like to do in a game. It's hard to play a rogue when you have a paladin in the party. Paladins are also rather front-loaded (and it used to be much worse). And many people play them as being obnoxious. No one likes an overpowered character telling you what to do.

The paladin really ought to be a prestige class. Compared with all the other core base classes, it has no place in many campaigns.


----------



## Haradim (Apr 22, 2004)

In addition to what's been posted, many players are trained to believe that Paladins are almost impossible to play 'properly', and that they will simply be hounded by the DM until they Fall.

Unfortunately, between players who really *are* bad at playing Paladins, and the mentioned DMs, most people don't seem to realise that Paladins really aren't all that hard to play or be around (unless you happen to be morally bankrupt, of course).


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Apr 22, 2004)

As a DM and player, I don't tend to like Paladins for the following reasons...

 - Paladin should not be a core class.  Quite simply, its antithesis class of Blackguard is a prestige class that takes several levels of practicing being evil to really acheive -- but people can start off blessed just because they say so?  Get real.

 - Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Any character claiming to have to be lawful and good in one of my campaigns is in for a rude awakening about the sorts of not-very-good-at-all that can be can per perpetrated in the name of the law, as well as the sorts of good intentions that try to get around proper procedure.  (Not to point fingers, but just look at the president of the USA...)

 - Low will save.  (Blackguard, too.)  C'mon, these folks are the stalwart heroes of their respective causes with even more stringent discipline requirements than clerics and they've got a weak will?  Whatever.

 - Mediocre advancement with artificial class restrictions.  It's not like being a monk where you get cool stuff and are advancing high saves at pretty much every level.

 - Reliance on a pantheon which I generally don't much care for anyway.  Maybe it's my monotheistic upbringing and such, but I just don't care for stories where the "lawful good" gods aren't actively laying some righteous smiting on the forces of evil.  So what if they die trying?  They're telling their clerics and paladins to do likewise, aren't they?  You don't see paladins delegating their crusades to farmers, do you?  (As a DM, I resolved this with a bunch of readily available evil deities while all of the good deities are trying to smite the evil deities in dimensions where mortals who aren't wholly consumed by evil won't get hurt.  Thus, evil outsiders can effectively hide behind a shield of untainted mortal souls, giving the good gods quite the moral quandry... mortals, however, have the assorted natural and ancestral spirits that they can call upon to avoid being victimized by the evil outsiders -- and not all of the evil outsiders like each other, so we don't really miss having a proper crusade at all.)

If we were to fix paladins (and blackguards), we'd merge them into a single class with different skill requirements (hide?  in full plate?) kind of like how clerics are a single class regardless of alignment.  And that class would probably look an awful lot like the Singh Rager from _Oriental Adventures_, but with "Detect opposed alignment", "Cure/Inflict light wounds" as a spell-like ability, and that divine grace thingy in there somewhere, too.

Thems my thoughts.
::Kaze (had a dwarven paladin in that computerized _Temple of Elemental Evil_.  It didn't last.  He fell from grace when the druid was invited into a drinking contest and she won.  I think the script was "paladin not allowed to associate with people who can demonstrably hold their liquor," but it reads better as "no paladin of Moradin should ever let anybody else, much less an elfy-she-druid, win a drinking contest."  The paladin got kicked out of the party after that.)


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 22, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I think the biggest problem is that most people who play Paladins end up playing them as arrogant jerks who want to tell everyone what to do.



That's half the problem. The second half is others' perception of the paladin. Some of us tend to think that being a paladin means you're automatically a self-righteous jerk that always see himself as being a better civilized individuals than a lowly fighter or rogue. Today's real-life society no longer idolize that kind of saintly hero that is prominent in the 1980's. Now it's anti-hero worship; characters whom do not fit the good-guy type (a criminal fugitive, drug dealer, etc.) that becomes a hero fighting the antagonists for one shining moment or two.

We can vote for a flawed US President, but we cannot perceive the existence of a flawed paladin.


----------



## Dave Turner (Apr 22, 2004)

I see the question as "Superman vs. Batman".

Superman holds himself to strict standards, but doesn't expect Batman to.  He would stop Batman from murdering someone, but lets him slide on lots of lesser moral issues like lying or stealing.

A paladin could take the same approach.  As long as the roguish/less scrupulous members of the party were trying to achieve good results (in the moral sense), then why sweat the law/chaos details?  The best way to integrate paladins into groups is to emphasize the "good" part of the alignment.  Sadly, most focus on the "lawful" bit.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 22, 2004)

Its the code and requirements for following the code.

One of my best friends is playing a paladin in our current game and it has worked out and been cool, but . . . there have been a number of times where I have to bend my character's action to fit in with him and a number of times where he has caused conflict because he believes his code wouldn't let him do something he thought was morally fine and a cool idea. It has lead to a lot of in character discussions of my character convincing him why it is a good thing to do my plan, which takes a lot of time and gets real annoying after a while.

If I wasn't as dedicated OOC to working with the party and him I would be tempted to say "fine we're leaving you behind then."

My friend on the other hand thinks the code is the coolest part about being a paladin in D&D.

Power wise I think they are fine, heavily Defensive with good saves, AC, and hit points, plus party powers of healing and moderate offense with some undead hunting orientation.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 22, 2004)

Dave Turner said:
			
		

> The best way to integrate paladins into groups is to emphasize the "good" part of the alignment.  Sadly, most focus on the "lawful" bit.



You bring up a good point. In The Book of Exalted Deeds, it states that a Paladin must always choose Good over Law, if forced to choose. I think a lot of gamers don't understand the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness.


----------



## Hida Bukkorosu (Apr 22, 2004)

wow, you'd think a paladin of a dwarf god would recieve special blessings for holding their liquor.  

I mean, i'm sure moradin himself can probably hold his ale!


----------



## Quasqueton (Apr 22, 2004)

First I would appreciate it if the two posters who made a comment on the president, please edit that out. Nuff said on that off topic item.

So, with all this baggage for the paladin, what does he bring to the party as a benefit that the cleric or fighter don't do better? Heck, even with the drawback to multiclassing a spellcaster, a LG fighter/cleric would seem more beneficial to a party than a straight paladin.

What game aspects of the class should a twink/powergamer play up?

Quasqueton


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 22, 2004)

I usually emphasize the Good part of my paladins' alignment, with the Law part generally indicative of duty & honor; Law + Good is the person that tries to watch out for everyone.

Weak will saves actually aren't a problem for paladins, since they usually have decent wisdom stats and good charisma stats.  Since they have poor will, they usually wind up on par with clerics and druids (adding two stats to one save goes a long ways).  A paladin that I made for an epic campaign had 30's or higher across the board for saves.  It's not unusual to have a comabt-heavy session where the paladin didn't fail a single save, at high levels.

Core rules paladins are actually a bit underpowered, I think; you need to go to the splatbooks before you can get a paladin that'll kick just as much butt as the fighter or barbarian.


----------



## Sir Elton (Apr 22, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Why isn't the paladin at the top of the list of classes to consider with a group of adventurers?




I don't know about others, but the Paladin is usually the first class I think about when I want to play a game.  I want to play a merciful paladin all the time, a paladin who extols forgiveness, chastity, temperance, mercy, justice, valor, and spirituality as virtues (there's another one in there, I forgot the name).

He has loyalty to his companions, loves his god, and seeks to do the right thing all the time.  He wants what is best for his companions, but he goes by the rule: "Choose ye this day whom thou shalt serve."  He is merciful, he doesn't use his detect evil ability to smite anyone since that is against his virtue.  So if he encounters a bunch of squatting goblins he'd defend the goblins' right to squat in the dungeon.

He'd only attack if he has just cause.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 22, 2004)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> I don't know about others, but the Paladin is usually the first class I think about when I want to play a game.  I want to play a merciful paladin all the time, a paladin who extols forgiveness, chastity, temperance, mercy, justice, valor, and spirituality as virtues (there's another one in there, I forgot the name).
> 
> He has loyalty to his companions, loves his god, and seeks to do the right thing all the time.  He wants what is best for his companions, but he goes by the rule: "Choose ye this day whom thou shalt serve."  He is merciful, he doesn't use his detect evil ability to smite anyone since that is against his virtue.  So if he encounters a bunch of squatting goblins he'd defend the goblins' right to squat in the dungeon.
> 
> He'd only attack if he has just cause.



You sound like my kind of gamer.


----------



## Sir Elton (Apr 23, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> You sound like my kind of gamer.



I guess I do.


----------



## BSF (Apr 23, 2004)

Personally, I like paladins.  I didn't used to, but over the years I have seen so much story that you can weave in where they have to make important choices while being true to their standards.  I like them more and more all the time.

As for why people don't like them, well, poor RP from some people is a big factor.  Also, there are a number of situations that some players like to be a little fast and loose with morality and having a paladin in the group will definitely cramp that style.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Apr 23, 2004)

In our Scarred Lands game, our primary melee fighter (and the one who deals the most damage) is a high-strength, high-charisma paladin of Madriel (goddess of healing, mercy, etc.).  I don't think things would work as well for us if we swapped her out for a fighter; yeah, we'd be gaining a slightly nastier combatant, but we'd be losing a massive amount of healing per day, a vicious smite attack against all the BBEGs we run into, the only character with a really good diplomacy score, and a second-tier undead-turner.  In fact, in a few more levels the paladin will probably become the primary undead-turner, since our cleric has started in on a prestige class.  

Basically, as far as what makes our party effective in game terms goes, the paladin is practically irreplaceable.  We fight a lot of evil creatures, and a lot of undead; the extra feats a fighter would have just wouldn't make up for losing the things our paladin can do.  Not to mention the fact that the setting really makes paladins popular with ordinary people, particularly really charismatic paladins of a very well-loved goddess, and the fact that the setting has a lot of genuinely and obviously evil factions to square off against.

The LG ethic hasn't caused us any problems, mostly because without really thinking about it we've been following some of the advice in this thread.  We've been considering the "Good" part to be much more significant than the "Lawful" part, for example.  We've also been assuming that the Lawful part is dependent on the tenets of the faith the paladin follows, and that the paladin's responsibiliy is to adhere to them herself, not to try to enforce them on other people.

Our GM isn't interested in being a jerk about it, either.  As long as the paladin's player is satisfied that she's following her code of ethics appropriately and the GM is satisfied that she's not doing evil, she gets a fair amount of latitude.  For example, she'll try not to lie, but under some circumstances (say, talking with an evil person) she is clearly under no obligation to tell the complete truth and nothing but the truth.  As long as she doesn't compromise the cause of good and her own personal integrity, no one's going to start nitpicking.

It also helps that with the paladin, 3/5 of the party is good-aligned (the other two are neutral, of course), so party votes not only end up going the paladin's way, but few votes even occur that aren't about something the paladin would be willing to participate in anyway.  Even the neutral people are generally in favor of deeds which vanquish the tide of evil in the world, because it makes things better for them and it's awfully lucrative. 

It's a good fit for that game and that group, and not a bad class at all.  This latest experience has definitely made up for all the high school games I played in where the paladin's player thought his alignment was Lawful Obnoxious and the GM spent over half the game looking for ways to screw the paladin over.

--
a recent convert to 'paladins are cool,' but a very devout one
ryan


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 23, 2004)

If someone else plays a paladin in a party, then it cramps my style.

If I play a paladin in a party, then it will cramp someone else's style.

That's the problem. Most other forms of roleplay allow each player to determine his own character without it necessarily leading to conflict.

The paladin's code says they won't lie or cheat or use poison, respect legitimate authority and punish those who threaten innocents.

That's totally fine. The bad bit is the line in 'associates' which says that they won't continue an association with those who offends their moral code.

Which means a single paladin in the party means that you need to have an entire party restricted by the paladin's moral code. And if the rest of the party don't want that, you've got to leave, or worse still excise those who defy it. Which is not fun.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 23, 2004)

Mr. Kaze said:
			
		

> - Paladin should not be a core class. Quite simply, its antithesis class of Blackguard is a prestige class that takes several levels of practicing being evil to really acheive -- but people can start off blessed just because they say so? Get real.



That's because Good is quicker. Easier. More seductive.

 ...wait. Maybe you _are_ right.


----------



## Liolel (Apr 23, 2004)

I play a paladin, and I find it a perfectly fine class. Sure I'll admit its not the right class if you want to just kill monsters without a thought, while I have not had many problems along this line (there was the one case where we found a group of intelligant constructs who were made for an evil army but they didn't want to be in the army and weren't evil so the group let them go). Other situations require more thinking but it keeps the game intresting, and often prevents the party from taking the easy way out which when thought about isn't so easy. 

 Current problem, Hall of The Rainbow Mage Spoilers 



Spoiler



We were exploring the dwelling of a mage who had disappered and in the proccess we found the mage was evil and planning on taking over the region. Now we found the mages dead body. The question is what to do with it, If we bring him to his none evil reliatives they might pay to have him raised which is a bad thing. But if we don't bring his body out, we are deciving his daughter from ever learning the fate of her father, and ever seeing him again even just if to accept that he's dead. Third option is to tell his relatives the mages plans but I doubt they would believe us.


 
 Now that example was from a published module and I was the one who thought of the problem so the DM wasn't out to get me.

 The main reason's I think no one like paladins are 3 in nature
 1. Players that play paladins really badly (Wotc boards are full of examples like the paladin that burned hobgoblin infants out of spite.) and the dms that let the paladins get away with this. (the dm who posted about that above mentioned paladin let the paladin get away with it.)
 2. Players that play paladins who have focus on the law aspect and not the good aspect. (Lawful Stupid) (No lieing form anyone, no sneaking around and a dozen other stupid standerds applied to the whole party.)
 3. Dm's that when a paladin is in the group focus on making the paladin fall. (Worst case I read, and this was the dm admitting what he had done not a players guess was there were two buildings on fire with screams coming from each of them. One was some site that had a lot of innocent people in it, the other was a trap by the BBEG. Whichever one the paladin choose was the trap, and he would fall as he failed to save the innoncent people. Now thats the type of Dm you don't want to play with.)

 Those are the main three reasons for paladin hatred but theres several things you can do to most likely avoid it.

 1. Don't play a paladin in a group that as a whole has dubious morales. That is just asking for trouble.

 2. Play a paladin who focuses on good more then law.


----------



## milotha (Apr 23, 2004)

I've found that Paladins usually stifle the roleplaying style of most groups.  Having a Paladin with a goody-two-shoes holier-than-thou attitude in the party often puts a crimp on the more chaotic and neutral styles of play.  Not to say that a Paladin MUST be played like this.  It's just that I've seen too many Paladins played in this manner.  This can often lead to inter-party conflicts that are not fun.

Secondly, I've seen a lot of players view that playing a Paladin somehow makes them morally superior to the rest of the party.  Sometimes this can lead to ego trips on the part of the Paladin palyer, who then begins bossing around the rest of the party or NPCs.  This too can lead to inter-party conflicts.

Lastly, other than the Detect Evil ability, there isn't really any ability the a Paladin adds to the party that a cleric and fighter don't already cover.  Playing a Paladin is essentially a specialized cleric fighter, and there are so many other cool combinations of these classes, that have less stringent moral/alignment requirements.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Apr 23, 2004)

Mr. Kaze said:
			
		

> - Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any character claiming to have to be lawful and good in one of my campaigns is in for a rude awakening about the sorts of not-very-good-at-all that can be can per perpetrated in the name of the law, as well as the sorts of good intentions that try to get around proper procedure. (Not to point fingers, but just look at the president of the USA...)






			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> We can vote for a flawed US President, but we cannot perceive the existence of a flawed paladin.


----------



## kirinke (Apr 23, 2004)

well.
paladins are supposed to be the epitomy of their faith. that is, they are good and follow the spirit of their faith's tenants. Now that code my vary between deities. IE: different dieties, different codes. I would probably allow a paladin to be from any good aligned deity. after all, they're really just the chosen warriors of said deity.

Most paladins should be played 'down'. that is not holier than tho, because that would put off most potential converts. They should be subtle. know what i mean george?


----------



## Ogre Mage (Apr 23, 2004)

*Why we don't like paladins*

1.  Too many I have seen played as having a longsword shoved up their @$$.  They are stereotypically RPed worse than perhaps any other class.

2.  The paladin and rogue will constantly be in conflict and between the two, the paladin's role is more easily filled by another class.

3.  Lack of incentive to pursue the class to high levels.  The class is front loaded.

4.  Their moral code is a high standard very few could live up to and very many fail.

5.  A good aligned, battle-oriented cleric can do the paladin's job plus have full spellcasting progression.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 23, 2004)

I lurve Paladins. They have to be a core class, IMHO, because so much of D&D is based around archtypes that they embody. (Same goes for Ranger, IMHO.)

 -- N


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 23, 2004)

Two thoughts....

1.  My third character was a 1st edition paladin.  She was just a farmgirl until her deity (Heimdall) said "go forth in my name".  So she grabbed her grandfather's leather armor and old boar spear and went forth.  She certainly pissed off a lot of knight in shining armor types in the church of Heimdall.  They almost lost their faith in shock at the leatherclad girl with her farmers ways.  You see, she was lawful (her god said go) and she was good.  But she was very humble and country common sensed.

2.  In the posts above there seems to be a flavor of..."the paladin will make me adjust the way I play".  And if I was playing a undead hating wizard type, and the cleric wanted to have skeleton minions...wouldn't someone still have to adapt?  Or what if I want to work a business deal with the merchant, and the rogue wants to rob him?  A compromise must be reached.  Same with paladins...IMHO.


----------



## Lu Wei Fong (Apr 23, 2004)

Well, it seems to me that the problem most people are having with paladins is their "holier than thou" attitude. I can see how that would be annoying, but I think that people who play their paladins like that are playing them wrong. Arrogance and "holier than thou" attitudes are not really the attitudes of good characters. This is a world were good and evil are very real forces (not just confined to ethical debate), and where they each have devoted champions. Paladins are supposed to embody good, the lawful part just represents a personal code of honor, strength of character and integrity. Someone who is truly good would be quite the opposite of arrogant, they would be humble and understanding. Their doctrines would teach harmony, forgiveness, and compassion, not aloofness and religious ethnocentrism. If your paladin wants to convert others to goodness, they will know that actions speak louder than words, act accordingly, and hope that others take notice, they will not corner you in a bar and sneer at you for keeping the extra change the bar-keep accidentally gave you. People who preach and harp are probably just fighters who have been knighted or any other number of people with skewed ideas of righteousness. Remember, paladins don't talk the talk, they walk the walk.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 23, 2004)

> It's just that I've seen too many Paladins played in this manner.




The problem isn't solely with the players. A while back, a couple friends of mine were trying to get a Dragonlance game together. We were gonna start at 2nd-level, so I said I'd be a Rogue/Paladin. But then the DM got on my case, saying that you couldn't be a Paladin and still use Sneak Attack. Game never happened, but it was pretty apparent that that DM thought the one and only way to play a Paladin was as Lawful Stupid. 

To bad the Book of Exalted Deeds hadn't come out by then. Not only does that book NOT say anything about Paladins not being able to use Sneak Attack/Move Silently/Hide, etc, but it has an NPC Rogue/Paladin in it.


----------



## Selvarin (Apr 23, 2004)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I think it's because the arrogance sort of overwhelms any other characteristics... nobody likes people who are excessively righteous!
> 
> -blarg





My take on the matter is that too many people have the (negative) view that paladins are supposed to be either arrogrant or the Dudley Do-Right type. So, when they choose to play a paladin they push that as their character's defiing aspect. This also ties into the notion of Lawful Good as being 'Awful Good' by some. Besides that, many are played as proselytizing (sp?) zealots. Those who have faith can just as easily choose the 'lead by example' path, to make a subtler point about the way to handle things. 

Personally, I believe in allowing paladins to be either NG or LG. Not only does this give someone playing a paladin more flexibility but it takes away one component of certainty that others have about them. Since a NG paladin would be more interested in the ultimate good vs. a more ordered good, their code of conduct (or at least its interpretation of the same code of condut) will be slightly different.


----------



## ajanders (Apr 23, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So, with all this baggage for the paladin, what does he bring to the party as a benefit that the cleric or fighter don't do better? Heck, even with the drawback to multiclassing a spellcaster, a LG fighter/cleric would seem more beneficial to a party than a straight paladin.
> 
> What game aspects of the class should a twink/powergamer play up?
> 
> Quasqueton



Mounted combat, if it fits the campaign.
After that, I submit neither a twink nor a powergamer would play a paladin, because the code prevents them from getting all the treasure they want.
But you can do very well by picking a single style of fighting and sticking to it like glue: in fact, you must do this, because you don't have the feats to be a jack of all trades.  That's style, not weapon -- weapon focus is a very bad idea for a paladin: if it turns out your weapon focus is a bad choice, you can't recover.
Go with strength-based combat feats: Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 23, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Why isn't the paladin at the top of the list of classes to consider with a group of adventurers?



Because people never could get around the idea of Lawful Good being anything other than a stone around their neck, and the early advice and strictures listings on a paladin were nothing short of ludicrous. The commonest way to portray them was as a combo of Galahad and Superman, with an ultra-strong dash of Puritanism and a level of arrogant priggish self-righteousness that would make John Calvin and Cotton Mather blush. No wonder no-one ever wanted to even be near one. 

Rubbish. As soon as such nonsense stops being produced and beleived, you'll see more paladins being played. 3E has been pretty darn successful in this by getting people to look at the class in a new light.


----------



## Olive (Apr 23, 2004)

ajanders said:
			
		

> Mounted combat, if it fits the campaign.
> After that, I submit neither a twink nor a powergamer would play a paladin, because the code prevents them from getting all the treasure they want.
> But you can do very well by picking a single style of fighting and sticking to it like glue: in fact, you must do this, because you don't have the feats to be a jack of all trades.  That's style, not weapon -- weapon focus is a very bad idea for a paladin: if it turns out your weapon focus is a bad choice, you can't recover.
> Go with strength-based combat feats: Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave.




What about divine might, extra turning etc? The campaign I run makes those things very useful, and the paladin character just loves smiting the demons.


----------



## Buzzardo (Apr 23, 2004)

From a purely munchkin point of view...

1st & 2nd Edition Paladins RAWKED!

3rd Edition Paladins..... well.  They don't.

A guy who has played in my group for years could always dependably take a paladin.  One look at the 3rd Edition PHB and he instantly converted to the new whoop ass can opener... the Glaive weilding fighter.

Buzzardo


----------



## Chupacabra (Apr 23, 2004)

Main problem with Paladin: you can't spell Lawful Good without AWFUL.

Folks get so wrapped up with being SO DARN Lawful and SO DARN Good that they play their character like they want to be the most gee-wizz Lawfullest Goodest most Lawfully Lawful person who ever was Good at being Lawfully Lawful Good, in a Lawful manner, mind you.  They end up inventing all sorts of "restrictions" upon their PC's behavior that inevitably gets applied to the whole darn party.  It ends up throwing a wet blanket on the fun of the group.  

An example: in the group I primarily game with we play two alternating campaigns.
Campaign One is Paladin, Bard, Cleric (me) and Wizard.
Campaign Two is Sorc/Cleric, Ftr/Wiz, Fighter and Rogue (me).

Let me just say I have WAY more fun with the second campaign.  The Paladin in the first group basically dictates what we as a party will and won't do.  If a PC proposes to do anything the least bit dodgy, the idea gets vetoed b/c the Pally "will not abide by any dishonesty or evil".  And by dodgy I'm not talking about poisioning a town so we can loot the shops, or even roasting a cave full of baby kobolds alive.  Instead, I'm talking about passing little white lies on to neutral or bad-guy NPCs or even using magic items looted off the BBEG's corpse (such items are frequently destroyed by the Paladin for being "evil").  The player really puts the AWFUL in Lawful Good.

I'm just gaming to have fun.  And if you were looking to have fun, would you rather invite Conan the Barbarian to your party, or Ned Flanders?  Therein lies the problem with the Paladin.


----------



## arscott (Apr 23, 2004)

From the Musical Camelot:

C'est Moi
Sung by Lancelot

A knight of the Table Round should be invincible,
Suceed where a less fantastic man would fail.
Climb a wall no one else can climb,
Cleave a dragon in record time,
Swim a moat in a coat of heavy iron mail.
No matter the pain, he ought to be unwinceable,
Impossible deeds should be his daily fare.
But where in the world
Is there in the world
A man so *extraordinaire*?

C'est moi! C'est moi, I'm forced to admit.
'Tis I, I humbly reply.
That mortal who
These marvels can do,
C'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis I.
I've never lost
In battle or game;
I'm simply the best by far.
When swords are crossed
'Tis always the same:
One blow and au revoir!
C'est moi! C'est moi! So adm'rably fit!
A French Prometheus unbound.
And here I stand, with valour untold,
Exeption'ly brave, amazingly bold,
To serve at the Table Round!

The soul of a knight should be a thing remarkable,
His heart and his mind as pure as morning dew.
With a will and a self-restraint
That's the envy of ev'ry saint
He could easily work a miracle or two.
To love and desire he ought to be unsparkable,
The ways of the flesh should offer no allure.
But where in the world
Is there in the world
A man so untouched and pure?
(C'est moi!)

C'est moi! C'est moi, I blush to disclose.
I'm far too noble to lie.
That man in whom
These qualities bloom,
C'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis I.
I've never strayed
From all I believe;
I'm blessed with an iron will.
Had I been made
The partner of Eve,
We'd be in Eden still.
C'est moi! C'est moi! The angels have chose
To fight their battles below,
And here I stand, as pure as a pray'r,
Incredibly clean, with virtue to spare,
The godliest man I know!
C'est moi!


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 23, 2004)

Clerics get a lot more power from their deity than paladins, yet a lawful good cleric is under a lot less restrictions than the paladin. Huh?

Furthermore, you can't lie. I can't stress this enough. It's the only clear thing in the paladin code.

IMC I say paladins are "discouraged" from lying (LG characters probably don't lie all the time), and certainly can't tell "big" lies to allies (but you can still tell a plain girl she's pretty).

I can play a lawful good character, and I can play one who isn't a lawful stupid paladinbot, but only if they remove the restriction on lying. Being unable to lie either means you're trying to play a Minbari ("a half-truth is the worst kind of lie") and trying to metagame your way past that part of the code, or your character is lawful stupid, or he loses his powers within two weeks.

And then the paladin can't associate with most parties...


----------



## FireLance (Apr 23, 2004)

I like paladins, but I will freely admit they are not for everyone.  It's really a matter of taste.  A paladin is about doing the right thing (good) in the right way (lawful), and some people don't want that.  As Ranger REG said, there is a significant culture of anti-hero worship, or at least anti-establishment hero worship (the guy who succeeds because he *doesn't* follow the rules or social norms).  If the other players want to run such characters, or the DM sets up a situation in which the PCs can only succed if they don't follow the rules, a paladin PC creates tension which may be good, but is more often than not bad.

A paladin works best in games where the most favourable outcome happens when the PCs act morally, even though it seems inconvenient, dangerous or illogical.  However, I guess many players would not like such games because they feel "preachy".


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 23, 2004)

Somebody raised this point already, but I want to point it out in case it's been overlooked.

"I don't want someone playing a paladin in my group, because it's going to prevent me from playing a morally-ambiguous rogue the way I want to."

Couldn't that just as easily be reversed, though? "I don't want someone playing a morally ambiguous rogue in my group, because it's going to prevent me from playing the paladin I want to."

True, the paladin's the one with the code, but I still think it a bit unfair that it's always assumed the player who wants to portray a paladin is always the one expected to sacrifice his desired character for the good of the group. Sometimes, the compromise should go the other way.

That said, I believe it's entirely possible to play a paladin in a group that's not all goody-goodies, as long as nobody's actually evil. So long as the paladin focuses on good over law, doesn't expect others to live up his standards, and leads by example rather than lecture, there shouldn't be a problem with it at all.

(Look back a few pages and reread the Batman/Superman comparison. It's spot-on, IMO.)


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 23, 2004)

> 2. The paladin and rogue will constantly be in conflict and between the two, the paladin's role is more easily filled by another class.




Why is that true?  Lancelot's squire was a forest bandit.  In a game I played, the party leader was a Fighter/Paladin, an old war veteran who had been called by his faith.  My character was a NG bard who served as his squire.  One of m jobs was to outmaneuver the Paladin's code... by making constructive suggestions to resolve moral conflicts, by forcing his hand through my own actions, and from time to time, lying to him.  

The only characters Paladins can't work with are evil ones.  A Paladin is expected to uphold a code, but they should know better than to expect the same of others.  There is no more inherent conflict between a Rogue and a Paladin and, say, a Dwarven fighter and an elven Druid, or a Barbarian and a LG Cleric.  

The key to playing a lying crook in the same party as a Paladin is to make sure you lie to the Paladin thoroughly.


----------



## nimisgod (Apr 23, 2004)

Ah the Paladin! The class that provokes the most arguments and discussions anywhere!

Personally, I like playing paladins. But I know that playing one can cramp everyone else's style. So, I think it's imperative that a player ask his group before he plays something as stringent as a paladin.

I find it strange though that that people claim that an LG cleric of righteousness isn't as strict as a paladin. It certainly shouldn't always be the case since clerics have codes of their own.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Apr 23, 2004)

As a player? I dislike paladins since they're the only class that has such highly built in DM Fiat for "You lose all your abilities." It's hard dealing with 2 skill points a level, especially when I want 5 skills off of a skill list. Stat distribution is a pain; Str, Con, Cha and Wis are all important, and I like having Int and Dex. The one smite per day (3.0) also rubbed me the wrong way, as does having mount powers in a dungeon (mostly useless).

As a DM? There's a strong possiblity, that in a moral situationally heavy game, the paladin will cause group strife and difficulties. There's also the player who picks one, then proceeds to burn children alive for money. Aside from those two, I love Paladins as players.


----------



## Trickstergod (Apr 23, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> (Look back a few pages and reread the Batman/Superman comparison. It's spot-on, IMO.)




Or, heck, one of the best sources of inspiration for paladins out there, Arthurian myth. 

Just finished up "The Once and Future King," myself all of about an hour ago. 

Little geek that I am I was all throughout it giving a mental checklist of "probably a fighter," or "probably a paladin," because some of the things done are quite heinous indeed. Bedivere lops off his ladies head. Gawain kills a woman in a rage. Lancelot betrays his idol and friend Arthur by sleeping with his wife. Arthur kills a whole shipload of babies. 

Not to mention the evil members of the court, such as Mordred and Arglevaine (or whatever the fellows name is; currently dead tired and the books not handy at the moment), who murder their own mother. 

Yet there's still the pure members of the Round Table, such as Galahad, of course, but also Bors, Percival and Gareth. Associating with a group that's downright Chaotic at times, what with Lancelots well-known philandering and Gawain's vicious rages. Heck, Arthur, who but for one particularly atrocious sin, still comes off as being the epitome of a paladin, yet ultimately relies on Gawain to lean on in his later years. 

It need be remembered that paladins embody compassion and mercy; if they didn't, they'd be Lawful Neutral, or laying the smack down on Chaos over Evil. They're also strongly influenced by the fact that Might doesn't make Right. They won't turn a blind eye to evil, but generally know a decent fellow when they see one, and, in my mind, would prefer that individual be changed via example as opposed to force. As Arthurian myth shows, paladins can truck with those of an ale-sotted, adulterous nature, so long as they're striving for something more. 

I personally love paladins to death. Probably my favorite class, if not clerics. I do, however, see where some folk might be a bit grumblesome about them. Still, that's either from bad DM's, bad players, or just a limited interpretation of the class, in my opinion. 

A little flip through something with Superman and Batman, or Arthurian knights, will show that paladins aren't always the big downers people make them out to be. 

Why, Neil Gaimans "Chivalry" puts Galahad into a most splendid light, and is a wonderful little story to boot...


----------



## Thanee (Apr 23, 2004)

arscott said:
			
		

> C'est Moi
> Sung by Lancelot
> 
> ...
> ...




Didn't quite work out, eh? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Tuzenbach (Apr 23, 2004)

"Because good is dumb!"


------Dark Helmet


----------



## Acid_crash (Apr 23, 2004)

Just ask the question: What would Superman Do?


----------



## FireLance (Apr 23, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> Just ask the question: What would Superman Do?



 Unfortunately, "Use X-ray vision" is not an option for most paladins.


----------



## Ukyo the undead (Apr 23, 2004)

The paladin are disliked, as everybody already said, because:

1)His style of play potentially cripple everybody else style.

2)He can be replaced by any other class, and if this class is a cleric, even if from the same deity, the group will have a more party oriented(i.e. useful) character.

Of course this problem can be easily solved, as long as we free ourselves from the "PHB says..." chain.

Use the paladin as a combat-focused cleric. Then use the cleric alignment headlines to figure out the paladin´s code.


----------



## Oscar carramiñana (Apr 23, 2004)

The big trouble is  a paladin cannot ally with evils in  hide missions are bad Pcs and even cannot lie, when a BBG surrender's  the paladin must  take prisoner and a prisoner is a heavy burden in a party not all PC's in a party are L/G


----------



## tetsujin28 (Apr 23, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> But in all my years of playing and DMing D&D, and in reading various forums on D&D, I've never seen anyone actually happy to have a paladin in the group.



Are you kidding me? Paladins rawk! We had _three_ in our group in our last D&D game!


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t (Apr 23, 2004)

There are two reasons why paladins aren't well liked:

1.  Too many immature players who think being a paladin is a liscence to kill, and act leven dumber than a chaotic evil barbarian would, on account that a chaotic evil barbarian wouldn't be killing random people for odd reasons.

2.  Too many immature DMs with some sort of chip on their shoulder who put their paladins in rediculous contrived situations to "prove that paladins are stupid".

The truth is, Paladins have a lot of stigam attached to them, mostly from those two groups.  A good aligned party would have no problems with taking a surrendering prisoner to justice, in fact, as a DM, you should slide them to neutral if they make a habit of not accepting surrender.  (Not all the way to evil, unless they were particularly creative in their surrendering BBEG habits  )  Not being able to lie is not a problem in the least, there is never an instance where you are required to lie at any time in a game.  (Silence is not a lie.  Telling someone to go screw themself is not a lie, it's a command.  Telling them "I can't say" is not a lie, especially when you really can't say.)

(For the inevitable "What if lying to the BBEG is the only way to save the world?" question, the answer is "That would never happen except under theoretical circumstances.  In any game, there are multiple choices that could result in sucess.  If you do that scenario as a DM, you are railroading, and railroading is bad DMing.)

On the other hand, you can't kill someone just because they are evil.  You can watch that person, but you can't slaughter them.  Even if you catch them doing something evil, killing them isn't a good idea, unless that is the only answer.  If you kill someone for stealing, you are lawful evil. 

A Paladin can use stealth, flanking, sneak attacks, favorable terrain, and other tactics.  A paladin can have sex, enjoy a beer with his buddies, have nice clothes and gear, and take his share of the treasure.  (Although being charitable is a good thing, being charitable to the extreme that you lose your ability to fight evil is not wise, you're a crusader, it's the priest's job to help feed the poor, you're keeping the poor from being eaten by ogres.  You're helping, but in a different way.)


----------



## kirinke (Apr 23, 2004)

hmmm. for really well-thought out paladin characters, check out Elizabeth Moon's 'The deed of Paksenarion'. Her portrayal of paladinhood is really pretty good. She does make them quite human, with all the flaws associated with humanity, but they continue to strive to do good, with the emphasis on good, rather than pure law.

she also portrays a fairly decent fantasy military.


----------



## Mystic_23 (Apr 23, 2004)

In a FR game I played in, I played a LG Cleric of Helm and another guy played a Paladin of Helm.  Despite both of us being Lawful Good we weren't overbearing or arrogant.  They actually ended up being played somewhat like College Frat Boys.  

The rest of the group nicknamed us "The Helm Twins".

Of course, this led to jokes such as "Helm Twins Powers Activate!"

If you don't get the joke, you're too young!

Laters.


----------



## mrtauntaun (Apr 23, 2004)

A lot of these treads focus on all of the same types of themes.  Myself, I love to play paladins, always have.  I enjoy being the shining becon of light.  I enjoy being a 'stick in the mud' about the little things, but as my characters grow older and advance in level, they tend to undergo a transformation.  They gain greater insight, come to know they can't go it alone, and to rely on his friends and allies.  It is up to the player to best play his character and interpreting the code.  If the DM demands strict adhearence to the code, then that's a bad DM.  I have even played a fallen paladin, an action i took quite deliberately because my character objected to the current situation.  A lot of players take the attitude "I've fallen from grace, screw it, im making a new character".  What a lot of players don't relize is that attempting to regain your blessed status can be an awful lot of fun!  Attonement can take many forms, and a creative DM can make for hours of enjoyable gamplay out of it.
I've also read that Paladins can not travel or work with Evil PCs.  Also not true.  If the Evil player is truly creative, and a bit sneaky, it can be pulled off.  Case and point, I played in a campaign (playing a paladin at the time) where my group was teleported back in time to a period of civil war, thousands of years previous.  Shortly after we arrived, my character died in my most glorious death EVER (but that's another story).  I had an apprentice, another player started taking paladin levels and was my pupil.  Now that he was without a teacher, he took the role of party leader and paladin upon himself.  The new character I created was evil to the core.  A NE wizard, but the DM allowed me to start with a magic ring which prevented attempts to detect my alignment, thusly revealing an absence of evil to the paladins detect evil.  Throughout the course of many, many adventrues, i convinced the other players i was a patriot being held prisoner unjustly by one of the warring factions.  I did everything a good character would, rescued the characters, stuck my neck out, etc, all because it fit with this characters goals.  He used the PCs to get what he wanted.  The players helped him destroy all other warring factions, which he told them were evil and cruel, and returned to their own time.  They were puzzeled why i wanted my character to remain behind, but when they consulted a history tome in their now-different present, they saw that my character became a ruthless dicatator, reignin for hundreds of years governing a vast evil empire.  I barely escaped that evening with my skin 
There are lots of ways to get around working with a paladin in the group, I hope this little (too long) tale helped open a few doors to that degree.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 23, 2004)

Count Arioch the 28t said:
			
		

> Not being able to lie is not a problem in the least, there is never an instance where you are required to lie at any time in a game.  (Silence is not a lie.  Telling someone to go screw themself is not a lie, it's a command.  Telling them "I can't say" is not a lie, especially when you really can't say.)




Telling them "I can't say" just gave them the answer they want. (Or they can just torture you.)

Now what if the best way to resolve a situation is to enter a thieves' guild? Of course they'll ask you who they are.

The paladin will say "I've got another solution, not quite as good, but it means I don't have to lie" and then wonder why the rest of the party is giving him hateful glares...



> A Paladin can use stealth, flanking, sneak attacks, favorable terrain, and other tactics.  A paladin can have sex, enjoy a beer with his buddies, have nice clothes and gear, and take his share of the treasure.  (Although being charitable is a good thing, being charitable to the extreme that you lose your ability to fight evil is not wise, you're a crusader, it's the priest's job to help feed the poor, you're keeping the poor from being eaten by ogres.  You're helping, but in a different way.)




Stealth as a last resort - straight from the Player's Handbook. A paladin/rogue can work because of flanking, but you'll just have to give up on the sneak attacks.



			
				Chupacabra said:
			
		

> Folks get so wrapped up with being SO DARN Lawful and SO DARN Good that they play their character like they want to be the most gee-wizz Lawfullest Goodest most Lawfully Lawful person who ever was Good at being Lawfully Lawful Good, in a Lawful manner, mind you.




Not surprising, since you're following a code _stricter_ than lawful good.



			
				Nimisgod said:
			
		

> I find it strange though that that people claim that an LG cleric of righteousness isn't as strict as a paladin. It certainly shouldn't always be the case since clerics have codes of their own.




The PH doesn't list cleric codes, other than "stay within your alignment" and certainly doesn't have strict things like "can't lie".


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 23, 2004)

> A paladin/rogue can work because of flanking, but you'll just have to give up on the sneak attacks.




No you wouldn't. Check the Book of Exalted Deeds. They present a Rogue/Paladin NPC and make NO MENTION of his not being able to use Sneak Attack. For a book which went into extensive detail as to how a Paladin must accept a surrender, and how you can use Diplomacy to redeem a prisoner, you'd think they would've mentioned something along the lines of "Oh, this Rogue/Paladin NPC we put here? He can't use Sneak Attack". The description of the Sneak Attack ability also references the Slayer of Domiel Prestige Class in the book, which is a Lawful Good Prestige Class in that same book which has Sneak Attack as a class ability.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 23, 2004)

Hope there's no problem with me posting this. Not like I'm posting the entire book, or even an entire Prestige Class, after all. Just a description of an NPC as well as abilities which can be found in the SRD.


----------



## Quasqueton (Apr 23, 2004)

So, with all the restrictions, why aren't paladins given a little extra power to make up for it?

If paladins essentially have to take the hard way (straight and up front), why don't they have some extra abilities to support this method of operation? Like a constant protection from evil (like in the older editions of the game)?  Or a bonus to AC based on Charisma (like monks have with Wisdom)? Or bonus hit points based on Charisma?

As it is, it seems paladins are expected to take the harder road, but they have no support from their diety (or the universal powers of Law and Good) to aid them above what is balanced with other classes without the "harder road" code.

Quasqueton


----------



## CrusaderX (Apr 23, 2004)

There's nothing wrong with the Paladin class, except maybe for the following:



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So, with all the restrictions, why aren't paladins given a little extra power to make up for it?




Agreed.  Following 3.5 rules, I'd give the Paladin a good Will save, and I'd throw in a free Mounted Combat feat when they gain their mount.


----------



## Parlan (Apr 23, 2004)

Count Arioch the 28t said:
			
		

> The truth is, Paladins have a lot of stigam attached to them, mostly from those two groups.  A good aligned party would have no problems with taking a surrendering prisoner to justice, in fact, as a DM, you should slide them to neutral if they make a habit of not accepting surrender.  (Not all the way to evil, unless they were particularly creative in their surrendering BBEG habits  )  Not being able to lie is not a problem in the least, there is never an instance where you are required to lie at any time in a game.  (Silence is not a lie.  Telling someone to go screw themself is not a lie, it's a command.  Telling them "I can't say" is not a lie, especially when you really can't say.)
> 
> (For the inevitable "What if lying to the BBEG is the only way to save the world?" question, the answer is "That would never happen except under theoretical circumstances.  In any game, there are multiple choices that could result in sucess.  If you do that scenario as a DM, you are railroading, and railroading is bad DMing.)
> 
> ...




Wow, heck of a good post!

Because they personify heroic fantas, I really like playing paladins, but only when the DM sees them as you describe above. If they want me to play lawful stupid, or are only going to try to prove how stupid the paladins code is according to "post-post-modern philosophy" or whatever, I d rather play something else.

Do you mind if I use this post to screen future DMs?


----------



## Cyberhawk (Apr 23, 2004)

I always thought that the movie Excalibur had two great examples of Paladins: Galahad and Lancelot.  Galahad being pure and noble finds the grail.  Lancelot is the great warrior..until he sleeps with the king's wife (chosing love over honor) at which point he becomes a Fallen Paladin.
Great dramatic stuff.  (and Lancelot even redeems himself in the end).

The only problem that I run into is that I continually run up against DMs on the 'lawful' part of the code.  I see it as "strong personal code" and they see it as "following the rule of law".   And since the Paladin has the morality code hard-wired into the class abillities it means a lot of "you just lost your abilities". ~good thing I'm not bitter or anything   ~


----------



## Voadam (Apr 23, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So, with all the restrictions, why aren't paladins given a little extra power to make up for it?
> 
> If paladins essentially have to take the hard way (straight and up front), why don't they have some extra abilities to support this method of operation? Like a constant protection from evil (like in the older editions of the game)?  Or a bonus to AC based on Charisma (like monks have with Wisdom)? Or bonus hit points based on Charisma?
> 
> ...




Paladins are deliberately designed to be mechanically balanced with other classes not considering their roleplaying restrictions.

If you took away their code, alignment and multiclassingrestrictions they are supposed to still be balanced with straight fighters and clerics.

Same thing for monks, barbarians, and clerics.

The restrictions are flavor restrictions, not mechanical power detriments.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 23, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So, with all the restrictions, why aren't paladins given a little extra power to make up for it?
> 
> If paladins essentially have to take the hard way (straight and up front), why don't they have some extra abilities to support this method of operation? Like a constant protection from evil (like in the older editions of the game)? Or a bonus to AC based on Charisma (like monks have with Wisdom)? Or bonus hit points based on Charisma?
> 
> As it is, it seems paladins are expected to take the harder road, but they have no support from their diety (or the universal powers of Law and Good) to aid them above what is balanced with other classes without the "harder road" code.



 Well, some of the restrictions were play-tester recommended, because without them, they didn't 'feel' right.  This is the most commonly cited source of the multi-classing restriction, for example.

 Paladins get plenty of support from their deity, if they actually follow one (and they don't).  Spellcasting, Detect evil, lay on hands and a variety of other powers that no fighter can possess without multiclassing, for example.  A divine companion in the form of a powerful mount is another example.  Divine Grace is a constant ability, as are Aura of Courage and Divine Health...both are tools that a paladin can use to go amidst danger and pass through unscathed.  The paladin's spellcasting abilities directly support his mission, as well.

 And this doesn't even consider the potential social aspects of the paladin.  A mercenary, thief or hedge wizard may not be welcome at court as readily as a champion of the king's justice and servant of the peace.  A paladin stands out, for the exact same code that sets him apart.  A peasant _knows_ that the paladin is trustworthy, that he will come to their aid when perhaps no one else will.  He incites fear and jealousy in the wicked, trust in the righteous and nobility in the brave.

 One need only look at some of the story hours to see some excellent paladins, played by folks who clearly see the value in them.  Look to Sepulchrave's story hour (in my .sig) for what I consider to be the Iconic Paladin.  Piratecat's story hour features two (count 'em) paladins of Aeos, both different and distinct.  My story hour features an elven paladin rightfully called 'the Paragon' by his diety's followers.  You could also look to Wulf's story hour (all in .sig below) for an example of a Paladin done horribly, horribly wrong).

 Paladins allow for quite a good deal of variety within the archetype.  I've never heard people complain about paladins so much as complain about specific players who couldn't do them very well.  And that's a whole different problem.

 In short, your answer is this: paladins are generally not a favorite of twinks.  The very restrictions that make them appealing to most players tend to make them far less attractive to the average power-gamer, IME.


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Apr 23, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> A paladin is about doing the right thing (good) in the right way (lawful), and some people don't want that.




Darn skippy, that's the definition of Lawful Good.  Not "Lawful until it becomes difficult to stay good," (that's Neutral Good) not "good until lawful behavior gives us an excuse to be otherwise," (that's Lawful Neutral) and certainly not "well at least more lawful good than that balor over there" (which is just plain Not An Archfiend).  Read the _Player's Handbook_'s alignment section -- it fairly explicitly states that if you're not going above-and-beyond to achieve your alignment, you're really just neutral.

People are saying that the _Book of Exaulted Cheese_ says paladins can behave in all sorts of morally ambiguous ways.  I don't buy it (and I didn't buy it, either).  If the paladin's alignment requirement were "Any Good," like the Blackguard is "Any Evil," then we could have a lovely discussion about the paladin behaving any darn way the paladin wants to promote the cause of good and beat the stuffing out of all that's evil -- consider that Jesus Christ was _not_ a Lawful sort of guy. (Frankly, I must admit that my favorite alignment is Chaotic Good -- it's just so much fun to role-play in a fundamentally corrupt power-grabbing setting when you've got a high charisma.)  But "Any Good" is not the requirement on the base class, so that's not the requirement on the PCs using it.

I'm all in favor of a "Good Above All" charismatic magical fighting PrC to foil the Blackguard "Evil Below All" PrC.  It's just that I really don't see the both Lawful *And* Good Paladin base class as printed in the SRD as being that class.

::Kaze


----------



## Voadam (Apr 23, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So, with all this baggage for the paladin, what does he bring to the party as a benefit that the cleric or fighter don't do better? Heck, even with the drawback to multiclassing a spellcaster, a LG fighter/cleric would seem more beneficial to a party than a straight paladin.
> 
> What game aspects of the class should a twink/powergamer play up?
> 
> Quasqueton




Lay on hands from a high level high charisma paladin is a potent one shot undead blaster for BBE that are too powerful to turn. The one from our party has killed a couple of potent vampires and a levelled mummy this way.

High hit points, AC, and great saves with good healing means they are great trapspringers.

Fighter BAB and use divine spell devices such as a wand of cure light wounds.

With their new mount ability they can have a mount in a dungeon combat where a fighter knight could not bring his warhorse.

Fills both warrior (fighting) and cleric (healing) roles in one class so good for small parties.

Detect evil at will is great for being ready for many ambushes or evaluating how much threat is ahead.

Cure disease can kill green slime.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 23, 2004)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with the Paladin class, except maybe for the following:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Following 3.5 rules, I'd give the Paladin a good Will save, and I'd throw in a free Mounted Combat feat when they gain their mount.



The Paladin prestige class variant from Unearthed Arcana solves this problem nicely. You're usually beefier, either because you have four levels of fighter and weapon specialization, or because you have four levels of cleric and greatly enhanced spellcasting (a fighter 1/cleric 4/paladin 15 casts spells as a 12th level cleric). Either way, the paladin is a bit tougher than the standard PHB class. Check it out.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 23, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Paladins allow for quite a good deal of variety within the archetype.  I've never heard people complain about paladins so much as complain about specific players who couldn't do them very well.  And that's a whole different problem.
> 
> In short, your answer is this: paladins are generally not a favorite of twinks.  The very restrictions that make them appealing to most players tend to make them far less attractive to the average power-gamer, IME.




OK here is a complaint about paladins as a class. They have a heavy mechanical consequence to roleplaying actions that can be interpreted very differently between PCs and DMs. Playing a paladin you risk losing your class powers if you take an action the DM decides is evil or grossly violates the code, if your DM is going by the book, or that violates how Paladins should be played if your DM is doing more than the book restrictions to uphold his vision of paladins and their divine relationship (I've read many many people saying they would penalize paladins for things that did not fall into the first two restrictions).


----------



## Zaarastara (Apr 23, 2004)

Paladins are actually my favorite character class to play and DM.  Although I am the primary DM among our gaming group, whenever I get a chance to play I always play a Paladin.

Now, paladins do not have to be holier than thou, obnoxious jerks.  For example, when spreading the message of his deity, my paladin, Valentine von Castlegranite, uses Perform: Storytelling.  I actually “wasted” a feat to get Perform as class skill and at level advancement I throw a skill point into Perform: Storytelling.  My 8th level Paladin has Perform: Storytelling +16.  People actually flock to hear him tell stories about his deity and the heroes of the church.  

Also, my paladin realizes that not all people can live up to the ideals that Val professes.  Therefore, he should not hold them to the same standard.  When they want to go out “partying” and “wenching”, he accompanies them.  He does not partake, but makes sure no ill befalls them.  He is a designated driver and chaperone, if you will.

As a DM one rule I have instituted is if the players do not role play their respect for a paladin, they do not receive any of the Charisma based bonus that the paladin exudes.  This alleviates some of the sneakiness of getting around the paladin’s virtues.


----------



## hong (Apr 23, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> And this doesn't even consider the potential social aspects of the paladin. A mercenary, thief or hedge wizard may not be welcome at court as readily as a champion of the king's justice and servant of the peace. A paladin stands out, for the exact same code that sets him apart. A peasant _knows_ that the paladin is trustworthy, that he will come to their aid when perhaps no one else will. He incites fear and jealousy in the wicked, trust in the righteous and nobility in the brave.



A peasant sees a guy on a horse, wearing plate armour, riding towards him. The guy has the symbol of Generic Lawful Good Deity #1 on his shield.

Is this a paladin, a fighter, or a cleric? Who knows? At low levels, there is _nothing_ outward to distinguish between these three classes, except on close examination (two guys have holy symbols; of these, one has a martial weapon).

A peasant sees Sir Valinor the Brave, Slayer of Dragons, Defender of the Crown, High-Captain of the Falconguard, riding towards him on his celestial steed. In his hands the famed Lance of Light shines, glitters and sparkles like a thousand-faceted gem, a sign of its holy enchantments that strike fear into the wicked everywhere.

Is this a paladin, a fighter, or a cleric? Who cares? At high levels, a character's deeds speak for themselves. Any high-level PC worth his salt in D&D will probably have slain hundreds of icky monsters, most of which would likely have been evil. You can be an honourable and upstanding martial champion regardless of what class you are: fighter, paladin or even barbarian, at a pinch.

Of the six PCs I've played since 3E's release, four have been warrior types in the LN-LG-NG corner of the alignment map. In Robin Laws' terms, I'm a specialist, specialising in the knight-in-shining-armour schtick. The anti-hero, anti-establishment archetype has never held that much of an attraction for me.

And yet, I've never played a paladin. Why? Because I don't want to get into tedious alignment wars with people over what my character can and can't do. I don't want DMs arbitrarily putting restrictions on my actions based on what they thought LG meant when they got up that morning.

For whatever reason, paladins tend to bring out extremist interpretations of ethics and morality in a lot of people (as has been demonstrated by certain other persons in this thread). I don't need that sort of humbug when I play D&D. While it's certainly much nicer if there's a specific class to handle the knight-in-shining-armour schtick, I can still make do without.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 23, 2004)

Mr. Kaze said:
			
		

> People are saying that the _Book of Exaulted Cheese_ says paladins can behave in all sorts of morally ambiguous ways. I don't buy it (and I didn't buy it, either).




You didn't buy it yet you feel qualified to comment on what it says? 

Here, let me lay out what it actually DOES say in regards to Paladins (Or rather, Good characters in general, all of which a Paladin must abide by).  

First of all, it DOES say that the utter avoidance of doing any evil does not make you good. It makes you neutral. Being good MEANS doing good deeds. 

Then it lists good deeds. Helping others, for one. Like in the example cited, when a villager comes running up to you and asks for you to save his village from some danger, you don't say, "What can you pay?". You help the villagers, even if they don't have a single copper to give you. 

Charity is another. Providing food, money, and other aid to the downtrodden when you can. 

Healing, which while not intrinsically good (You can use healing to heal the Evil Devourer of Souls before he heads into his next conflict, after all) does invoke Good energies. 

Personal Sacrifice. A good character helps others, even when it's inconvenient or costly for him to do so. Sacrificing anything from wealth all the way up to his own life. 

Worshipping Good deities and casting Good spells. 

And the most important items on the list, Mercy, Forgiveness, Bringing Hope, and Redeeming Evil. First with Mercy, whenever a bad guy surrenders, you MUST give them quarter. It doesn't matter HOW many times this villain has surrendered in the past, or what unspeakable crimes he's committed after surrendering and escaping captivity. If he asks for mercy, then you give it. In which case you bind him, take him prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible. 

Then there's Forgiveness. It starts at not taking revenge on someone. It ends with forgiving someone who's done grievous harm, but is attempting to make amends for what they've done. Say King Obould Many-Arrows from the Forgotten Realms swept through the village in which your family lives on a raid, raping all the women, including your wife and daughters, and then murdered your entire family. If you face him in combat, and he surrenders, then you must grant him mercy. If he later attempts to make a change for the better, became a good person, then you must forgive him, no matter how grievous the harm he inflicted upon you. 

And lastly, there's Bringing Hope and Redeeming Evil. The former involves doing all the above things, which also lead to hope being rekindled in the hearts and minds of people. When you heal a leper of his disease, you're not just curing the disease, you're instilling a new sense of hope in the man. 

As for the latter, it discusses how one can redeem a villain by talking to him. Talking to him about the evils he's committed, telling him the rewards to a good life, the benevolence of the deities of good, etc. If you succeed, you can successfully turn an Evil creature into a good one. 

Then the book goes on to a section entitled "The Straight and Narrow". The first part being Ends and Means, in which the Ends NEVER justify the Means. Doesn't matter if poisoning the viceroy will save the kingdom. That's an evil act, and the good outcome does NOT justify the evil act. 

Then there's a section called "Violence", in which violence can only be employed in a just cause. Attacking an orc village because they've been raiding the local countryside is okay. Attacking an orc village because they're there and they're Chaotic Evil is NOT okay. You can't take part in a war against a Good nation. Revenge is not an acceptable reason for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping any further acts of evil. The violence should also have good intentions. You should be attacking the orc village because they've been raiding the countryside, NOT because their camp is located on a gold mine and you want to get at that gold mine. Violence also isn't good when it doesn't discriminate from the evil targets and women and children. 

And the book goes on and on. Point is, what it says is the EXACT opposite of what you say it says. And if you'd actually read it, then you'd know that.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 23, 2004)

And if your issue is with a Paladin NPC in the book being able to use Sneak Attack, and a Lawful Good Prestige Class having Sneak Attack, well, if you think Sneak Attacks are "morally ambiguous", then you may also want to exclude Paladins in your game from being able to use Feats like Improved Critical and Improved Initiative. While you're at it, you may also want to bar them from making Critical attacks entirely, make them Delay their actions until their enemy acts, and not allow them to Flank opponents, so they don't catch them Flat-Footed or otherwise unable to defend themselves effectively from the Paladins attacks. 



> *critical hit (crit):* A hit that strikes a vital area  and therefore deals double damage or more.






> *Sneak Attack:* If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.


----------



## diaglo (Apr 23, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> For whatever reason, paladins tend to bring out extremist interpretations of ethics and morality in a lot of people (as has been demonstrated by certain other persons in this thread). I don't need that sort of humbug when I play D&D. While it's certainly much nicer if there's a specific class to handle the knight-in-shining-armour schtick, I can still make do without.




they always have. and always will.

the high CHA requirement in OD&D notwithstanding.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Apr 23, 2004)

I love Paladins and some of my players agree.  We have some basic "gentleman's agreements" where paladins are concerned that may violate the letter of the rules but not the spirit.

1) Campaign start: Paladins won't knowingly consort with evil but if they agree to do something good and it requires working with evil they will but they watch evil like a hawk.  If after a time they realize that the evil is selfish but with the potential for good (or at least neutrality) they might stay around them to convert them.  If they're really dangerous but haven't done anything justifying a good smiting they'll stay around to make sure they *don't* do anything to justify a smiting.  

2) Superman/Batman teamup:  Paladins won't break their code and they won't let someone do something evil.  They will, if need be, allow people to be neutral (I.e. threats, deception, intimidation, using painful force where incapacitation was otherwise possible, etc).  

3) Paladins are people too.  Depending on the setting and paladin, they may frequent prostitutes, drink, and even enjoy a good brawl.  But they're always courteous, tip well, never force someone to do something they don't want, and avoid causing harm.  (A paladin and a barbarian can get into a brawl and be laughing at the end of it, hence no harm done.)

4) Paladins fight the Good fight which also means they fight good.  They use tactics, ambushes, stealth, guile, explosives, and other combat-effective tactics.  They don't use women for body shields or children to find traps.  A paladin with rogue levels can, and does, sneak attack.  Combined with Smite and Divine sacrifice it can really lay a demon out.  Assassination is a darkly gray area but, IMO, as long as the opponent is blatantly & irredeemably evil it's a-ok.  A 6th level paladin who has one arrow of dragon slaying is perfectly justified in assassinating the red dragon.    

I've plaid lots of paladins, mostly as NPCs both in my game and in others that I'd kibbitz.  Some were the epitomy of the bad stereotype paladin (called the thief "trap springer", was haughty, etc) but at the same time he grappled Lord Soth while blinded to protect the rest of the party because it was the right thing to do.  (I'll note that that paladin was an NPC in another person's game and I was just following instructions)

Others, like my current paladin H'orst, are well liked by good and not-so-good characters alike.  H'orst drinks like a fish, socializes well, enjoys combat, is charitable to those in need, has no problem using his social status for a good reason but is otherwise "plain folks" and generally, IMO, the epitomy of a good paladin. But I'm sure he'd have already fallen in other games despite being an almost golden example of a pure & good soul in mine.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 23, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Is this a paladin, a fighter, or a cleric? Who knows? At low levels, there is _nothing_ outward to distinguish between these three classes, except on close examination (two guys have holy symbols; of these, one has a martial weapon).



 d00d, the fighter is the guy with the tower shield.  duh. 



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Is this a paladin, a fighter, or a cleric? Who cares? At high levels, a character's deeds speak for themselves. Any high-level PC worth his salt in D&D will probably have slain hundreds of icky monsters, most of which would likely have been evil. You can be an honourable and upstanding martial champion regardless of what class you are: fighter, paladin or even barbarian, at a pinch.



 I agree.  I wasn't trying to say otherwise...just pointing out to Quasqueton that some people _like_ the restrictions that the paladin operates under.  Mechanically, if you remove the code and multiclass restrictions,  the game somehow manages not to collapse (_despite some folks ideas to the contrary_).



			
				hong said:
			
		

> For whatever reason, paladins tend to bring out extremist interpretations of ethics and morality in a lot of people (as has been demonstrated by certain other persons in this thread). I don't need that sort of humbug when I play D&D. While it's certainly much nicer if there's a specific class to handle the knight-in-shining-armour schtick, I can still make do without.



 I dig.  You and Voadam both raise a legitimate point.  Personally, I've never had a problem with it...but then I've never played with people I don't like and/or generally don't trust.  Except that one time at a con...but I swear I didn't inhale.


----------



## Ranger5 (Apr 23, 2004)

Well I thought I would chime in with my .02.

I have played only 2 paladins in my gaming years. One was in 3rd edition and one is now, in 3.5. I never wanted to play one in 1st or 2nd edition because I was too hung up on half-elven fighters (thank you Tanis Half-elven).

My first paladin lasted only one session because the rest of the party died and the DM gave up. Basically we were sent in to a dungeon to route some orcs and rescue some villagers. Well we came across the villagers just a little way into the dungeon being help captive in cages. After dispatching the orc guards I suggested we free the captives, lead them back to the village (1 day away) and then come back. The rest of the party disagreed saying the orcs would notice and fortify their positions. I countered that the villagers could be killed while we are going the the rest of the dungeon and they were much to weak to make it back on their own. We finally agreed that I would lead the villagers back while the rest of the party would hold position. But once I was gone, they decided to continue on without me. They got killed when they met up with heavy resistance and did not have any healing, as I was the only one with healing. I got out though, with the villagers safely.

The second one is my current PC. He is great. I am having a blast playing him. The other 2 party members are a LN elven monk a N human cleric. And as for those who don't think the paladin can dish out a lot of damage, last session (I am 6th level) I smited a monster with a critical hit for 76 points of damage. And I rolled like crap.

Anyway, role-playing a paladin is a lot of fun too. Because of my high Cha and maxed out diplomacy I usually end op speaking for the party as well. And no one seems to mind either. Also for those you think the paladin should be more good than lawful, I fully agree. If the paladin was supposed to be a stuck-up, holier-than-thou, can-never-do-anything-sneaky-to-achieve-the-greater-good kind of character, then tell me why they have Undetectable Alignment as a 2nd level spell?

Just a thought.


----------



## eris404 (Apr 23, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> And yet, I've never played a paladin. Why? Because I don't want to get into tedious alignment wars with people over what my character can and can't do. I don't want DMs arbitrarily putting restrictions on my actions based on what they thought LG meant when they got up that morning.
> 
> For whatever reason, paladins tend to bring out extremist interpretations of ethics and morality in a lot of people (as has been demonstrated by certain other persons in this thread). I don't need that sort of humbug when I play D&D. While it's certainly much nicer if there's a specific class to handle the knight-in-shining-armour schtick, I can still make do without.




AMEN! Very, very well said.


----------



## diaglo (Apr 23, 2004)

in the last 4 years i've only seen one played and refereed correctly.

my hat is off to Mike Brock (the player) and Glenn Dean (the DM)


----------



## Mort (Apr 23, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> in the last 4 years i've only seen one played and refereed correctly.
> 
> my hat is off to Mike Brock (the player) and Glenn Dean (the DM)




The paladin class is the only one where both the player and the DM have to agree what "played correctly" means if there is any hope of things going smoothly.


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t (Apr 24, 2004)

Parlan said:
			
		

> Wow, heck of a good post!
> 
> Because they personify heroic fantas, I really like playing paladins, but only when the DM sees them as you describe above. If they want me to play lawful stupid, or are only going to try to prove how stupid the paladins code is according to "post-post-modern philosophy" or whatever, I d rather play something else.
> 
> Do you mind if I use this post to screen future DMs?




Of course, if I post things in public, you can use it however you want.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 24, 2004)

> They have a heavy mechanical consequence to roleplaying actions that can be interpreted very differently between PCs and DMs.




That is also true of Barbarians, who lose their ability to Rage if they turn Lawful.  It's true of Monks, who risk more than Paladins if they lose alignment; atoning is not enough, if they cannot correct their alignment problem before the next time they level.  It's definitely true of Clerics.  Clerics don't have an "easy out" just because they're not Paladins.  Clerics of Heironeous face essentially the same restrictions as Paladins, and they don't have a good BAB to fall back on if they violate their alignment behavior.  

Druids?  If you find a vein of mithril, and it is flooded under a lake with a unique ecosystem, you can't mine it.  Not to make a million gp's, not to arm thirty Rangers and fight off the Evil Overlord, not to fund a wildlife preserve.  

A Chaotic Good Fighter sees an innocent woman heading to the gallows... he can't not do something, and expect to keep his alignment.


----------



## Sir Elton (Apr 24, 2004)

*DMing Paladins*

I'm DMing a paladin right now, and we are having a blast.  We roleplayed through some tests of his abilities, plus his initiation as a Paladin.  He is now a Squire of the Lord Earl.  However, I made it so that he is a Squire Errant.

I got the player to spell out the Virtues that his Paladin believes in so that he could have a clear idea on how to play his paladin.  His character is a Paladin of Torm.  Eventually, because I'm allowing it, he plans to become an Asha'man from the Wheel of Time RPG.

The Player liked the Initiate and the Asha'man in the Wheel of Time RPG.  He told me how he liked the Composure skill.  I still get to test his PC's faith (the whole campaign is a Test of Faith for this paladin since he is my only player in the campaign).  And I get to introduce interesting NPCs for him to interact with. One of them is going to be a Psychic Warrior who might become his Squire in action if not in name.  We are going through Three Days to Kill at the moment.  After that, the real campaign begins, since it will start with his Knighting Ceremony.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 24, 2004)

I've had enormous fun playing a paladin (worked out quite a lot like "carrot" from Guards Guards! by Terry Pratchett). He was an escaped slave, and used his old chains as his weapon for freedom (exotic weapon spiked chain, expertise, improved trip). He was a great negotiator and he always looked for the good in his companions and highlighted it. They really missed him when he settled down.

In the game I DM there is a paladin who has been around for ages and is probably the central character. He has a huge charisma and NPCs naturally gravitate towards him. His fearlessness is one of his defining characteristics.

Then again, look at Piratecats storyhour. Mara and Malachite are both paladins, both different, both work wonderfully well.

Also look at Sepulchraves storyhour - Eadric is another model for a paladin.

If a DM chooses, paladins can provide brilliant role playing hooks that work for the whole campaign (see the ghouleax episodes in Piratecats or pretty much any of Sep's storyhour).


----------



## Cannibal_Kender (Apr 24, 2004)

Nobody in my group can play a paladin correctly. They use come off as arrogant jerks who solve their problems with the flat of their blade.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 24, 2004)

Cannibal_Kender said:
			
		

> Nobody in my group can play a paladin correctly. They use come off as arrogant jerks who solve their problems with the flat of their blade.



Just wondering: do they act the same when they play the other classes?  If not, the problem is they don't know how to play paladins in a non-jerk way, and the solution is to educate them.  There are plenty of suggestions in this thread.

If they generally act like jerks regardless of class, it's a player problem and I feel very sorry that you have to put up with them.


----------



## Endur (Apr 24, 2004)

I think Paladins are great, from both a player and GM perspective.  From a GM perspective, it gives the GM a lot more background info on the character than the GM might normally have (a "hero").  From a player perspective, it makes the character easier to play in some ways.

A couple of things to put into perspective.  First, I don't think the Paladin's code is stricter than Lawful Good ... I think the Paladin's code is the definition of Lawful Good.  

Second, I agree with those that say a Paladin is Lawful in order to maximize Good.  i.e. The Paladin is both Lawful and Good because he recognizes one is not possible without the other.  

Third, I think the Paladin class could just as easily have been called the "hero" class.  

There are also several ways to munchkinize Paladins, but you'll forgive me if I don't delve into those methods.  But basically they revolve around Smite Evil and Mounted Combat (and heaven forbid epic smite evil).


----------



## DonaldRumsfeldsTofu (Apr 24, 2004)

> Why aren't paladins liked?




Because they're fascists.  [/ideologue]


----------



## Endur (Apr 24, 2004)

No, no, no.  Paladins are Lawful Good.  Fascists are Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral.



			
				DonaldRumsfeldsTofu said:
			
		

> Because they're fascists.  [/ideologue]


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Apr 24, 2004)

Cannibal_Kender said:
			
		

> Nobody in my group can play a paladin correctly. They use come off as arrogant jerks who solve their problems with the flat of their blade.




There's a player in the party (a former Marine, which might explain things) automatically assumes my halfling rogue is a despicable creature and threatened to lop off a hand. Sheesh. He's taken the lawful to Judge Dredd extremes without much of the mercy (good) part. Unfortunately I didn't try to catch him in one of those morality questions like 'would you kill everyone in an orc village? even the innocent babies?'

Now in a Scarred Lands campaign, I play a NG priest of Corean. Apparently his behavior actually had at least one other player think he was more paladinic, even tho he occasionally utters an expletive (Farscape's frell). *shrug* He may be a priest but no one said he had to be a saint. IMO the same applies to a paladin (within reason). Paladins (and priests) aren't infallible. They're only human (or elf or dwarf or whatever race you're playing).

I am highly tempted to play a paladin (preferably a small one mounted on a dog  ) but as there's a morally ambigous necromancer (NE) and an ethically challenged Forsaken elf rogue in the party, I'd give up on it out of frustration.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Apr 24, 2004)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Druids?  If you find a vein of mithril, and it is flooded under a lake with a unique ecosystem, you can't mine it.  Not to make a million gp's, not to arm thirty Rangers and fight off the Evil Overlord, not to fund a wildlife preserve.




Why would a druid care about a unique ecosystem?  A sacred grove, yes, that is to be protected.  But druids aren't necessarily tree-huggers.  Some invoke the power of nature spirits to protect their tribe from enemies, some simply seek the power for its own sake, and some seek to appease the dark and ancient spirits of the woodlands with periodic animal sacrifices, lest they grow hungry and send out the Wild Hunt to bring back some prey.  Druids can be good or evil, lawful or chaotic.  And there are a number of potential relationships between the druid and the wild.

I'm an environmentalist IRL and playing a druid in game - so obviously I want to make a distinction.  The character is not me and does not remotely have the same mindset or priorities.  I realize this is a bit off-topic, but I think it's similar how some DMs will see a very narrow set of allowed actions for either class.


----------



## Selvarin (Apr 24, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> The Paladin prestige class variant from Unearthed Arcana solves this problem nicely. You're usually beefier, either because you have four levels of fighter and weapon specialization, or because you have four levels of cleric and greatly enhanced spellcasting (a fighter 1/cleric 4/paladin 15 casts spells as a 12th level cleric). Either way, the paladin is a bit tougher than the standard PHB class. Check it out.




Or a Clr 2/Ftr 3. In any case I prefer the prestige paladin and wouldn't mind seeing the blackguard as a 15-level Prc.


----------



## Selvarin (Apr 24, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> A peasant sees a guy on a horse, wearing plate armour, riding towards him. The guy has the symbol of Generic Lawful Good Deity #1 on his shield.
> 
> Is this a paladin, a fighter, or a cleric? Who knows? At low levels, there is _nothing_ outward to distinguish between these three classes, except on close examination (two guys have holy symbols; of these, one has a martial weapon).





Which is why it's a good idea to tie paladins to various L/G orders within a campaign setting. Heraldic (sp?) devices linked to such orders go a long way towards eliminating confusion.


----------



## DragonLancer (Apr 24, 2004)

I may be getting the chance in a few weeks to start play with a new gaming group, and if so I really want to play a Paladin. As his code, I plan on using a mix of the Knightly Code from S&S's Excalibur with some ideas taken from the Jedi code.

Brother McLaren, I heary agree with you about the different types of druids. They arn't all the same thing, and the same is true of Paladins. Each one is unique with his own foibles and personality.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 24, 2004)

Actually, all druids are alike... oh wait, that was in 2e.

If the DM is handing out mithral veins, he's not paying attention to how much gp he's giving to the players. Sounds like a DM problem to me.


----------



## Psiblade (Apr 24, 2004)

I like other people have stated have had just awful experiences with core rule paladins. They have tended to be the Lawful Good fascists type in both home games and LG. The whole holier than thou approach also tends to be problematic. I have been using a modified paladin (holy warrior) from the book of the righteous that has worked out well. Tying the holy warriors' attitude to their deities' attitudes works so much better from my experience.

-Psiblade


----------



## Geoff Watson (Apr 25, 2004)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That is also true of Barbarians, who lose their ability to Rage if they turn Lawful.  It's true of Monks, who risk more than Paladins if they lose alignment; atoning is not enough, if they cannot correct their alignment problem before the next time they level.  It's definitely true of Clerics.  Clerics don't have an "easy out" just because they're not Paladins.  Clerics of Heironeous face essentially the same restrictions as Paladins, and they don't have a good BAB to fall back on if they violate their alignment behavior.




Yes, but it only takes one Evil act to permanently stuff up a Paladin, while it takes consistent actions to change alignment.

Geoff.


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t (Apr 25, 2004)

My biggest problem wasn't with Paladins, but with clerics, oddly enough.

I was a paladin, the party cleric was a lawful good cleric of Heironeous.

You'd think we'd get along just fine.  You'd be wrong.

He was constantly being rude to common people, was always insulting people for not giving him stuff for free, and when it was found that we were actually breaking the law at one point.  (DM railroading, I didn't appreciate it that much, but that's another post), the character actually told the mayor "I don't care for your laws.  I only care for war."  (This was after the mayor said that he would forgiv eus for our minor crime if we took care of the bandits harassing travelers to the capitol of the province.)

However, he didn't want to be a cleric.  He wanted to be a longsword weilding healer.  He was pretty good at it, he was just crappy at being a priest of a god of chivalry.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Apr 26, 2004)

I love playing Paladins.  It is funny that you bring up the Cleric though.  I've found players don't like Paladins because in most cases they equate "Lawful" with Law-Abiding.  They don't believe the Paladin will allow their characters the freedom to "be all that they can be".  As a DM I run Paladins differently, Paladins in my campaign are the hand picked champions of a god.  It could be some boy from out in the sticks who never lifted a sword in his life.  In my campaign Lawful simply means that the character has an orderly approach to life.  He never rushes in but always has a plan.  He prefers a rank structure so he knows his role in life and society.  Paladins only follow a knightly code if the player wants them to... a knightly Lawful Good Fighter could follow a much more strict code than a Paladin who was raised in the sticks.  Paladins have become a bit more popular in my game since I've made this distinction in the alignment and class.
Personally I think Clerics should be held accountable for their actions just as much if not more than Paladins.  A cleric who worships a god of law should be the one telling the rogue to give back pickpocketed gains.  Failure to do so (in my campaign at least) would result in forfeiture of spell casting abilities (and Turn Undead abilities) until attonement was made.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 26, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> I've found players don't like Paladins because in most cases they equate "Lawful" with Law-Abiding.  They don't believe the Paladin will allow their characters the freedom to "be all that they can be".



Again, this is only a problem if you have PCs that want to walk on the shadier side of the law.  PCs in my games are encouraged to be law-abiding because running afoul of the law is usually more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## The_Gneech (Apr 26, 2004)

I've heard all kinds of horror stories about paladins, but never actually encountered any problems with them in actual games. In the game I play in, one of the other players has a paladin and we get along like gangbusters. (My character is NG with some chaotic tendencies ... he obeys the law, but grumbles about it.) I actually wanted to play a paladin myself, but he'd already scooped me on it. 

My favorite memory associated with paladins is a semi-recent Phil & Dixie cartoon in the back of _Dragon_ magazine; the cartoon was about how much fun it was to humiliate goody-goodies, and some evil character whomped a paladin in the face with a pie.

The paladin, instead of getting angry or outraged, got a big, good-natured grin on his face and said, "Mmm, pie! Thanks!" ... much to the annoyance of the would-be tormentor.

A great moment, and a good model for paladins everywhere. 

   -The Gneech


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t (Apr 27, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> The paladin will say "I've got another solution, not quite as good, but it means I don't have to lie" and then wonder why the rest of the party is giving him hateful glares...





That's faulty reasoning.

Any character without full ranks in bluff as a class skill who tries to lie their way into a thieves guild is dog food.  Period.

Yes, the paladin can't lie his way into the theive's guild.  Neither can the Fighter, Barbarian, Druid, Non trickery domain cleric, Wizard, Sorceror, Ranger, Wu-jen, Shugenja, Samurai, Sohei, Psion, Psychic warrior, Wilder, Soulknife, or the hexblade.

In short, if the party is not 100% rogues, clerics with the trickery domain, and bards, lying into the thieves guild won't work for the party.  The fact that the paladin can't lie has nothing to do with it, not very many people can lie well enough to get away with that.  The fighter is just as much as a liability, he CAN lie, but there's no way that he could do so very well.  

And you can be damn sure that guild thieves would have at least full ranks in sense motive, if not magical means of truth discernment for people nosing their way into the guild that they don't trust, thieves trust other thieves least of all, they're not fools.

Sorry for the lateness of the reply.  I was going to let this slide, but it kept bothering me that no one contested this fact.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Apr 27, 2004)

Count Arioch the 28t said:
			
		

> That's faulty reasoning.
> 
> Any character without full ranks in bluff as a class skill who tries to lie their way into a thieves guild is dog food.  Period.




now you are the one using faulty reasoning. The point as I read it was that there are plenty of plans (or situations) where even an untrained lie (and paladins do at least usualy have the base cha to give it a shot) is neccassary. Claiming you can always "refuse to say" or be silent or whatever was silly, and if the example overstepped in mechanics the base point is still there. Bluffing into the inner circle? Sure, probably dog food. Using the names of the agents you intercepted just to get in the front door? No big. Saying "I choose not to give my name, but I'm with them" because there's no reason you'd ever need to lie? death to the entire plan.

There are plenty of gaming situations where the good and even largely lawful heroes are nonetheless undercover. Claiming that only those with "dodgy" motives find it hard to work with a (hard core, by the book, inflexible) paladin, or that its all about wanting to be morally amibiguous antiheroes is missing the point. Sometimes you want to do something a little different from riding your warhorse into the throngs of evil, smiting them head on then going back to the inn for a round of ale and the free dessert from your "kiss me, I'm a paladin" tee shirt.... its the difference between a character class that might not be suited to one of many adventure ideas, and one which is really only suited to one adventure idea.

(On a side note to various superman comparisions, I never understood how superman's supposed inability to lie could work with his secret identity. How many times could he give an evasive answer or ignore the question when someone asked "what did you do at lunch" or "I didn't see you when the building was attacked. Where were you" or whatever? The office physical: "Mr Kent, do you have any allergies?" "Er, kryptonite.")

oh and as much as it pains me to agree with hong, I hate campaigns where everyone with the paladin class has the kiss me I'm a paladin tee shirt and no fighters, or fighter clerics, or rangers with favored enemy undead hold the same place in society. I don't think paladin orders are the answer, I think the answer is accepting that the paladin is just another guy with a sword and has to work for a good rep like everyone else.

Kahuna Burger


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 27, 2004)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> (On a side note to various superman comparisions, I never understood how superman's supposed inability to lie could work with his secret identity. How many times could he give an evasive answer or ignore the question when someone asked "what did you do at lunch" or "I didn't see you when the building was attacked. Where were you" or whatever? The office physical: "Mr Kent, do you have any allergies?" "Er, kryptonite.")



 Superman can't lie?  Why not?  Is that a holdover from his 'can toss planets out of their orbit and then only fight Mohammed Ali to a standstill days'?  

 Seriously, as I understood it, Supes really doesn't like to lie, but is capable when he truly perceives the need. (even if he regrets doing it, each time).


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Apr 27, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Superman can't lie?  Why not?  Is that a holdover from his 'can toss planets out of their orbit and then only fight Mohammed Ali to a standstill days'?
> 
> Seriously, as I understood it, Supes really doesn't like to lie, but is capable when he truly perceives the need. (even if he regrets doing it, each time).



I think it was just a movie thing. specificly the first movie. I was never a DC head, so I don't know how bad it screwed with continuity. It was very clunky in terms of longterm plot and they obviously dropped it even in later movies. But it come to mind when people used him for paladin comparisons. Are paladins like the movie superman who blurts out the color of lois lane's panties because she asked him a minute before, and has to do what he promised the villain's girlfriend, or a more reasonable superman who is honorable but can and will lie to protect people? (or the dark knight returns superman who is just a tool?   )

kahuna burger


----------



## Grizpapa (Apr 27, 2004)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> oh and as much as it pains me to agree with hong, I hate campaigns where everyone with the paladin class has the kiss me I'm a paladin tee shirt and no fighters, or fighter clerics, or rangers with favored enemy undead hold the same place in society. I don't think paladin orders are the answer, I think the answer is accepting that the paladin is just another guy with a sword and has to work for a good rep like everyone else.
> 
> Kahuna Burger




The way I see it is that your problem isn't with "paladins" it's with people who play them like fools.

I've seen many good pro-Paladin posts on this thread. I've also seen some very misguided/misinformed anti-Paladin posts in this thread. So let's talk about that.

Problems with Paladins I've seen here:

1) People play them like idiots, Lawful Stupid, Arrogant, Holier-than-thou, etc.

2)DMs pigeon-hole the Paladin and because of whatever reason end up railroading them into losing their Palainhood.

3) The Paladin player gets in the way of my PC looting, and stealing for everything insight, live, dead or inanimate.


None of these are problems with the Paladin as a class. These are all social/people issues. Don't you understand that?

Issue 1 above: Paladin's Player is the problem. This type of player really doesn't understand what paladins are all about and they should not be allowed to play one. Any paladin that acts like that wouldn't be a paladin for long.

Issue 2 above: The DM is the problem. This is a definate DM issue, any DM that railroads a Paladin into a no win situation just to cause them to lose their powers should be shot. 

Issue 3 above: This is also a Player problem. If you want to play that kind of character you should make sure you're in a neutral or evil game. Unless your group is the kind that fuels itself with character friction and sees it as a valuable addition to the gaming experience.

So there you have, none of those is a problem with the class itself it's a problem with the people involved.


Of course these are all generalizations, issues differ between different types of Paladins.

I'll post more later.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Apr 27, 2004)

Grizpapa said:
			
		

> None of these are problems with the Paladin as a class. These are all social/people issues. Don't you understand that?




actually, no, its that I don't AGREE with that, or your poor attempt to summarize the arguments, or with the assertion that the problems some people have with paladins are based on being misguided/misinformed. And with that classic bit of arrogence and presumption, you have saved me the bother of reading the rest of your Kind Explaination.

You choose a bad part to respond to, btw. My comments there actually had nothing to do with paladins per se, but more people who build metagaming into their game worlds...

Kahuna Burger


----------



## jgbrowning (Apr 28, 2004)

I think the fact that paladins generate such rancor within gaming circles is enough to have a problem with them. No other class does this because no other class challanges what players think is morally right or wrong with case by case examples. Other classes spur heated debate, but that debate is usually more casual and less rancorous because people are talking about _the game_ as opposed to _what they believe is right and wrong_ in real life.

Too many DMs and too many players with personal axes to grind about what is "good" and what isn't, about what is "allowed" and what "isn't," about what is "good roleplaying a paladin" and "poor roleplaying a paladin."

I say we take off and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Get rid of them and lets play the game as opposed to some weird quasi-morality play that happens as each GM and Player comes up with their own idea about what a paladin really is and what a paladin can and can't do.

joe b.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 28, 2004)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I think the fact that paladins generate such rancor within gaming circles is enough to have a problem with them. No other class does this because no other class challanges what players think is morally right or wrong with case by case examples. Other classes spur heated debate, but that debate is usually more casual and less rancorous because people are talking about _the game_ as opposed to _what they believe is right and wrong_ in real life.
> 
> Too many DMs and too many players with personal axes to grind about what is "good" and what isn't, about what is "allowed" and what "isn't," about what is "good roleplaying a paladin" and "poor roleplaying a paladin."
> 
> ...



As long as there is a relationship of trust between a paladin's player and the other players, even a tense relationship between the paladin and the rest of the party can serve the story instead of detract from it. The real issue is maturity (or lack thereof), not a paladin's code of conduct. A mature group simply doesn't have a rancorous relationship with any character class.


----------



## jgbrowning (Apr 28, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> As long as there is a relationship of trust between a paladin's player and the other players, even a tense relationship between the paladin and the rest of the party can serve the story instead of detract from it. The real issue is maturity (or lack thereof), not a paladin's code of conduct. A mature group simply doesn't have a rancorous relationship with any character class.




Does a group need the same amount of maturity to deal with a typical fighter? IMHO, no.

The problem isn't simply maturity, although maturity is obviously a factor in every issue of contention. It's the fact that paladin's "code of conduct" is a rancorous issue that requires additional maturity (beyond all other classes) because players have to deal with what everyone thinks is _right or wrong in real life_. Which isn't something that is *required* by other classes to "play right."

Paladin's have caused so many more arguements, negative feelings, bad-mouthing, condesention, anger, than any other single class in the the history of the game because the core of the issue is _what is good and lawful in the real world_ as opposed to an actual game issue.

I think paladins rile people up, cause arguements based upon personal/cultural issues of "good," and in general, force conflict upon many different gamers. For this reason, and this reason alone, I don't like them. 

They are more detrimental to gameplay than any other class, and have a history of being such. This isn't to say that paladins can't be fun, exciting and great for a group as you wrote. This is just to say that they are a "problem" class. They cause more arguements and contention than any other class while adding little in exchange that a simple Lawful Good fighter/cleric cannot achieve; *without the contentious issue of abilities dependent upon mutualistic interpretation of real-life morality*.

joe b.


----------



## ph0rk (Apr 28, 2004)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> oh and as much as it pains me to agree with hong, I hate campaigns where everyone with the paladin class has the kiss me I'm a paladin tee shirt and no fighters, or fighter clerics, or rangers with favored enemy undead hold the same place in society. I don't think paladin orders are the answer, I think the answer is accepting that the paladin is just another guy with a sword and has to work for a good rep like everyone else.




I'd have to agree; many of the people I've gamed with (thankfully not recently) have thought or felt this way.  (Well, they acted that way )

Until you actually go do something useful, who is to say you aren't just a sneaky rogue or bard? (or trickery-cleric).  In other words: a con man. A fraud.  It ain't like there is a paladin badge or something.


----------



## Haradim (Apr 28, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Personally I think Clerics should be held accountable for their actions just as much if not more than Paladins.  A cleric who worships a god of law should be the one telling the rogue to give back pickpocketed gains.  Failure to do so (in my campaign at least) would result in forfeiture of spell casting abilities (and Turn Undead abilities) until attonement was made.




I agree. I never hear of Clerics that are actually required to be...you know, priests/bearers of the gods wills, save in a very general sense (along the lines of 'stay NG and you can continue to get spells from God X'). I've found it odd in the past; Paladins are expected to be highly rigid in their ethics, and very faithful to the word and will of a god, even to the point of trying to convert people around them, despite being far more Fighter than Cleric. Clerics seem to be expected to recover their spells once a day, and never bring up 'other responsibilities'. 

I suspect the uproar would be too furious to modify the Cleric, though. People often have problems with Paladins, a class that is very easy to simply not use, without really affecting the party. But Clerics are much harder to ignore, and I suspect the booing would overwhelm the cheering over such a change (no matter how appropriate and true to the 'Cleric' concept the change would be :/ )


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Apr 28, 2004)

The nukem solution doesn't deal with paladin players and would be undone immediately by 3rd party publications. Who would probably use the excuse for a 1st ed., UA style, cavalier power-up.

Ime the problems regarding paladins have been:

1) P*n*s envy by the player running the fighter.
2) A personal hostility from the rogue player who couldn't stand alignments, the paladin player and D&D's absolute morality basis.

The envy was overcome by a wyvern ambush that killed both offenders (who kissed and made up) and the personal antagonism was overcome by the rogue player's exclusion.

So I am another person that believes that the problem is not with the paladin class but between the people at the game table.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 28, 2004)

You know, after reading through this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that a DM or player's attitude towards paladins is going to significantly affect whether I enjoy playing with him.

You see, I enjoy running characters that are heroic, self-sacrificing and law-abiding, whether it's an elven fighter/mage/thief (2e) that ventures alone into a necromancer's lair to retrieve an evil artifact because the rest of the party is too busy infighting, or a human cleric that faces down a bodak alone because the party's main fighter failed his save against its death gaze.

If the DM sets it up so that the party can only succeed through illegal or morally dubious means, or a player feels "constrained" by my character's actions and beliefs, I don't think I'm going to like the game, whether I play a paladin or not.


----------



## DragonLancer (Apr 28, 2004)

DM's can take the whole Paladin walking the narrow path of LGness too far, but then I do think that during any campaign the DM should throw a moral quandry in there to test the paladin character. 
I'm not saying that the DM should force the character into a situation where he will almost certainly lose his paladinhood, but something that tells a story and gives the paladin some spotlight.

This can backfire though. I'll give an example from my last campaign.

During an adventure to recover a healing artifact, the party were tricked into believing that it was inside a sealed tomb of a holy saint. Without a shadow of a doubt the paladin went to smash it open and reclaim it. I asked was he sure he wanted to do that, and he said yes. So, he lost his powers for desecrating the tomb (he didn't just try to open it, he smashed it open).

The next story he was offered a chance to atone for this act (I didn't see it as that big an issue). He refused, saying that what he did was for the betterment of others and that any deity who would condone his champion because of that was not worth his service, and so he semi-retired the character (Who would return later in the game as a blackguard villain).


----------



## Voadam (Apr 28, 2004)

Grizpapa said:
			
		

> The way I see it is that your problem isn't with "paladins" it's with people who play them like fools.
> 
> I've seen many good pro-Paladin posts on this thread. I've also seen some very misguided/misinformed anti-Paladin posts in this thread. So let's talk about that.
> 
> ...




Issue 4

disagreement between paladin PC and DM over what constitutes "evil acts or gross violations of the code" causing the PC to lose his paladin powers when he does not think it was justified or forcing him to restrict himself from actions he feels are actually justified.

Issue 5

Constant risk of losing class powers for single actions.

Other classes have to do much more to lose their class powers under the core rules.


----------



## ARandomGod (Apr 28, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> DM's can take the whole Paladin walking the narrow path of LGness too far, but then I do think that during any campaign the DM should throw a moral quandry in there to test the paladin character.
> I'm not saying that the DM should force the character into a situation where he will almost certainly lose his paladinhood, but something that tells a story and gives the paladin some spotlight.
> 
> This can backfire though. I'll give an example from my last campaign.
> ...




But I agree with him. He should have picked out a better God, or at least looked more closely at the god he was under. 
I would never worship such a god, and in deed would scorn him. So would any paladin I'd play. On the other hand, there are campaigns wherein the DM doesn't have any LG gods that agree with me. And that's reason number 2 why I hate paladins. Reason number 1 is poor player playing. A well played paladin, with a GM who's doesn't lack the imagination to include a definition of LG that isn't the same stuck up pompus bastards that I wouldn't want a player to play -- that can be great fun, and not too restrictive.

"Descecrating" a tomb. And to help people. How is that not good?
I can see how it's perhaps less than lawful, but even there only in the rare (in my opinion) case that tombs are protected by law.

In fact, I could only interpret NOT doing so as evil. Sure, sure, maybe he should have tried something simpler than smash. But then, what should an atonement for smashing such a thing be other than to repair the site?
^_^
Well, perhaps a little more.

So, while I almost agree that there was a moral test there, I wouldn't say that there was enough to lose the paladin's paladonicness... Of course, I'm assuming he didn't try anything else, and the rules don't give guidelines for partial loss of powers.
I think I'd've given him guilty prophetic dreams, then thrown him into similiar situations, and see if he reacts differently.


----------



## ph0rk (Apr 28, 2004)

ARandomGod said:
			
		

> But I agree with him. He should have picked out a better God, or at least looked more closely at the god he was under.





Paladins do not pick a specific god: they serve good.

However, unless they were under a severe time constraint (minutes, seconds) smashing the tomb rather than opening it was disrespectful, and chaotic.  If the player can't see that, they should be playing a paladin anyway.  LG doesn't mean LG when you feel like it.

I mean, it *was* a tomb of a holy saint; in dnd thats nearly like the tomb of a diety.


----------



## Urbannen (Apr 28, 2004)

> Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
> Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
> 
> A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities.




According to the SRD, the paladin would not have lost his abilities for smashing open the tomb of the holy saint.  Smashing a holy tomb:
-Does not make the paladin cease to be Lawful Good.
-Is not a willful Evil act.  It's certainly not Good and is possibly Chaotic, but I can't see how it's willfully Evil.    
-Does not grossly violate the paladin code of conduct as the code of conduct does not include honoring holy relics.   

DragonLancer, I have to disagree with how you handled that situation, unless the code of the god expressly included the honoring of holy relics.  Your example illustrates to me how DMs can hamstring and punish players that play paladins without even realizing they're doing it.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 28, 2004)

I don't get it.

A guy with a very different moral code than some of the other characters? That's what we call _conflict_, folks.

Likewise, a guy who has to reconcile the practicalities of the world with the dictates of his ethical code and divine obligations? That is what we call _conflict_ and it is rather important to telling stories.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Apr 29, 2004)

Urbannen said:
			
		

> Smashing a holy tomb:
> [..]
> -Is not a willful Evil act.  It's certainly not Good and is possibly Chaotic, but I can't see how it's willfully Evil.
> -Does not grossly violate the paladin code of conduct as the code of conduct does not include honoring holy relics.



Fish, barrel, *blam!*

An excellent point.  The "Good" part of Lawful Good is the kicker where paladin abilities are concerned.  They should lose their paladin status if they do evil, and should be encouraged to do good instead.  If they're doing something that is neither evil nor good, it simply doesn't matter as far as paladinhood goes (until they've done so many ethically neutral things and so few good things that their actual alignment has shifted, anyway).

All too often it seems like people get hung up on the "Lawful" part first, like it's more important for a paladin to have an extensive checklist of regulations which must always be obeyed, and if one of them is bent or forgotten their god will shun them immediately.

And that's wrong, I think.  It's more important that the paladin perform good acts and never participate (willingly or otherwise) in evil acts.  The Lawful part's there to tell you _how_ the paladin seeks to accomplish that goal.  He doesn't consider "good" to be a relative term, or something which is subject to conditions or mitigating circumstances.  Good is an absolute as far as a paladin is concerned: you don't debate whether or not something is good, something IS or IS NOT good, and your job is to recognize it for what it is.  And the same goes for evil.  And since good is an absolute, it is actually possible to have a personal code which reinforces that, a code which you can follow that will actually prevent you from doing evil without getting caught up in angsty "but is what I'm doing truly a good thing?" digressions.

Breaking that code in and of itself means _nothing_, unless they broke it by doing something evil or unless they break it so consistently that their alignment shifts to Neutral or Chaotic.

In a very detailed campaign setting where paladins get affiliated with specific gods, it makes more sense to layer in paladinhood-endangering regulations like "you must always treat tombs with the utmost respect," so long as that particular proscription is something that makes sense with the paladin's god.  For example, a god whose portfolio includes shuttling souls peacefully to the afterlife and opposing the undead might very well require his paladins to protect the sanctity of burial sites, because popping open a tomb leads to restless and unhappy spirits and that in turn can create the undead.  Or whatever, you get the point.  But those are minor rules and traditions at best; sure, you could get zapped by your god if you break them constantly, willfully, and/or flagrantly, but not nearly as quickly as you'd be zapped if you went out and did something evil.

In other words, my take on paladins is that there can be extenuating circumstances which will excuse their violation of a code...but there is never, ever a valid excuse for doing evil.  Doing evil immediately buys you a one-way ticket to Ordinary-Fighterland, no refunds or exchanges, hope you know someone who can help you with an _Atonement_, don't let the cathedral door hit you in the ass on your way out.


...and honestly, what bothers me the most about DragonLancer's story is the part where he asks the paladin's player "Are you sure you want to do that?"

That's always been a very bad way for GMs to reality-check a PC's behavior, particularly when a hidden/nonstandard house rule is involved.  If this is a setting where paladins can lose their special powers just for cracking open a tomb and no mitigating circumstances can be argued for it, the player should really be told this explicitly.  Yeah, we all know that "Are you sure?" is GM-speak for "Here's your last chance to do something else and not be an idiot, because I will screw you mercilessly if you follow through on your first idea," but occasionally players get confused about that.  Providing them with some handy, helpful, in-character facts instead of a veiled threat seems to work a lot better.  (And for god's sake, you'd think that if a paladin's code demanded that corpses never be exhumed for any reason or that a particular ritual must be followed when doing so, the paladin would be the first person to know about it!)

--
nothing against mr. dragonlancer, it's just not the call i would've made


----------



## ph0rk (Apr 29, 2004)

Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> Fish, barrel, *blam!*
> 
> An excellent point.  The "Good" part of Lawful Good is the kicker where paladin abilities are concerned.  They should lose their paladin status if they do evil, and should be encouraged to do good instead.  If they're doing something that is neither evil nor good, it simply doesn't matter as far as paladinhood goes (until they've done so many ethically neutral things and so few good things that their actual alignment has shifted, anyway).




A good point, (no pun); paladins are supposed to be more good than lawful.

I don't think (and I wasn't there so I'll never know) that it was necessary to 'smash' the tomb vs opening it in a more respectful manner.  If I were running a campaign and a paladin showed a -constant- flagrant disregard for the dead, etc, I think that would call their alignment into question.


Unless they needed the item that instant it was a bit on the chaotic side, and that crap adds up.  (enough chaos and they're NG, not LG, and bye-bye paladin abilities).  Fine by me; but then I like chaos


----------



## DragonLancer (Apr 29, 2004)

The situation was that the party was in no real rush. The paladin and his party could have spent at least a day or two looking into other means, or even investigating whether the item was in the tomb or not. 

Instead of doing that the Paladin decided to just smash open the tomb of a revered and holy saint. That is neither lawful nor good, regardless of the reason. He showed no respect for the deceased nor his faith (which although good, was not the same as the Paladin's). If he had attempted to open the tomb in a more "reasonable" fashion, then I think things would have gone better.

As a DM I feel that the path of the Paladin should be strict. Its a case of walking a very thin line, and few Paladin's have the force of conviction nor the wisdom to avoid stepping from that path. Which is what this character did. As I said in my prior post, I didn't consider it that big an issue as it was done for a good cause, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he acted without thinking. He was offered a chance at redemption and refused because he felt that his deity should have understood his reasoning. Pride goeth before a fall, as they say.



			
				Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> ...and honestly, what bothers me the most about DragonLancer's story is the part where he asks the paladin's player "Are you sure you want to do that?"
> 
> That's always been a very bad way for GMs to reality-check a PC's behavior, particularly when a hidden/nonstandard house rule is involved.  If this is a setting where paladins can lose their special powers just for cracking open a tomb and no mitigating circumstances can be argued for it, the player should really be told this explicitly.  Yeah, we all know that "Are you sure?" is GM-speak for "Here's your last chance to do something else and not be an idiot, because I will screw you mercilessly if you follow through on your first idea," but occasionally players get confused about that.
> 
> ...




Well, it may not be the best way to do it, but I like to use this method as it allows the character (and player) to rethink the situation. I only use it in the case of characters who would suffer from their proposed action, in this case a Paladin. I could have just let him make that choice, or I could give him a chance to reconsider and perhaps make a better choice.


----------



## Bauglir (Apr 29, 2004)

On the subject of violating tombs,  I played through some of Rappan Athuk some time ago and I quite thoroughly dislike that module.

**Spoiler Alert**


Spoiler



We encountered a tomb that lacked the palpable sense of evil which pervaded the rest of the dungeon complex, apparently the tomb of an elven warrior who had wielded a powerful magical longsword.  The discussion inevitably turned to whether we should take the sword and use it.  The paladin said he was having nothing to do with raiding the tomb and went outside to wait.  Eventually, another member of the party (CG) decided that it was much more sensible to take the sword than to follow some 'pointless ceremonial tradition' and cracked open the tomb.  The result was (apparently specifically spelt out in the module) that the paladin lost his paladinhood _for not stopping the other party member from desecrating the tomb_.

As if this wasn't bad enough, two levels down was a similar situation, except in this case, choosing _not_ to open the tomb would mean lacking the item required to survive the encounter with some kind of gargantuan undead creature in the next room.

Feh!


**End Spoiler Alert**


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t (Apr 29, 2004)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Using the names of the agents you intercepted just to get in the front door? No big. Saying "I choose not to give my name, but I'm with them" because there's no reason you'd ever need to lie? death to the entire plan.




No, death to the entire plan when the doorman uses sense motive on the fighter and finds out that he's lying, he doesn't know said contact.

The people at the door will be MORE likely to have sense motive, not LESS.

Plus, who says the paladin is famous?  Who says the paladin doesn't have an obscure childhood nickname or something that no one's used for years?

"Hey, I'm Pip.  I'm with them" is not a lie, and allows them to get into the thieves guild, and is also immune to sense motive, because he's not lying.

Again, my logic is perfect, it is yours that is flawed.


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t (Apr 29, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> If the DM sets it up so that the party can only succeed through illegal or morally dubious means, or a player feels "constrained" by my character's actions and beliefs, I don't think I'm going to like the game, whether I play a paladin or not.




Precisely.

That's what I've been saying.  If the only way to get intot the thieves guild is because the DM removed any and all alternatives to lying atrificially, then the DM is the problem, not the paladin class.

Railraoding is bad DMing, whether or not you're trying to prove some sort of nietsche-esque point on the pointlessness of morality.  Adding philosophy doesn't make it any less lame.


----------



## The_Gneech (Apr 29, 2004)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> On the subject of violating tombs,  I played through some of Rappan Athuk some time ago and I quite thoroughly dislike that module. (spoiler snipped)




So in other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't? Sounds like the adventure designer was in the "DMs who hate paladins" camp!

The paladin, like the ranger, suffers somewhat from previous-version baggage ... in older versions of the game, paladins could stomp on the rest of the group. The high stat requirements (which were supposed to limit the availability of paladins, but c'mon, how often did that happen?) meant, in effect, that paladins started out more powerful than normal to begin with, then their out-of-whack class abilities just piled on. Thus, the paladins overwhelmed the rest of the party, causing resentment and general lameness. The previous-edition paladin was the ultimate solo adventure character, but rather problematic in a group. So DMs sometimes got in the habit of stickin' it to the paladin just to bring things back into something like balance.

The 3.x paladin, on the other hand, is pretty well an par with the rest of the group. With stat generation being what it is these days, a paladin starts with the same 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 (average) that everybody else does, and in terms of in-game ability is not that different from a specialized fighter. Thus, people who take paladin characters these days probably aren't doing it for powergame reasons, they're doing it because they want to play that particular archetype.

I suspect that in time, the paladin will be less of a problem child character class for just this reason, but people still need time to get over their leftover hangups. The game I play in, the paladin's player started with 3.0 and didn't come to the game with baggage, and he's never had a problem. It helps that the DM is not trying to stick it to him, either. The group rogue has done some commando-style _coup de grace_-the-verbeeg-in-their-sleep missions; a stick-it-to-the-paladin DM would have blasted the paladin for allowing that, I imagine. But these verbeeg were invaders who enslaved or slaughtered the villagers and took over, and we've been tasked by the rightful ruler of the area to take care of the problem. Thus, it's lawful (defend the realm) and good (free the enslaved villagers), even if it's not as "chivalrous" as slapping the verbeeg awake, saying, "Die, foul creature!" and then smiting it.

   -The Gneech


----------



## Voadam (Apr 29, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> The situation was that the party was in no real rush. The paladin and his party could have spent at least a day or two looking into other means, or even investigating whether the item was in the tomb or not.
> 
> Instead of doing that the Paladin decided to just smash open the tomb of a revered and holy saint. That is neither lawful nor good, regardless of the reason. He showed no respect for the deceased nor his faith (which although good, was not the same as the Paladin's). If he had attempted to open the tomb in a more "reasonable" fashion, then I think things would have gone better.




So did you consider smashing the tomb an evil act, a gross violation of the paladin's code of conduct, or a violation of a more strict restriction?


----------



## FireLance (Apr 29, 2004)

Well, after reading through a few paladin related threads lately, and noting especially the complaints about the lack of options for the paladin and the danger of the paladin losing all his abilities with a single mistake, I came up with the idea of the Oathsworn Paladin.  Basically, it works like those Vow of X feats in the Book of Exalted Deeds - the paladin swears to abide by certain virtues and gains some related benefits.  If he acts contrary to a particular virtue, he loses the associated benefits of that virtue, but not the others.

In this way, adding more virtues gives paladins more options, and losing paladinhood is a more gradual process unless you really are intent on going through the seven deadly sins before breakfast.

I've built a paladin exactly the same as the PH paladin built around the virtues of Righteousness, Mercy, Service and Faith and posted it in the House Rules forum.  You can discuss it here if you like.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Apr 29, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Well, it may not be the best way to do it, but I like to use this method as it allows the character (and player) to rethink the situation. I only use it in the case of characters who would suffer from their proposed action, in this case a Paladin. I could have just let him make that choice, or I could give him a chance to reconsider and perhaps make a better choice.



I get where you're coming from, I just disagree with the method.

I'm all for giving a warning when a character is about to do something they will suffer for, and giving them a chance to reconsider.  I just don't see the point in being vague about it.  I mean, I _want_ to warn them and give them a chance to reconsider their action, or I wouldn't say anything at all.  I'd like to think that if the gameworld is consistent, their character will already understand the potential consequences of what they're about to do; so why should I, as the GM, go out of my way to hide those consequences from the player, when we're not talking about a puzzle or some deeply hidden plot?  

If it had been me and I was dead set on revoking paladinhood for opening a tomb that way, I would've nudged the paladin's player with something like "It might seem very disrespectful to smash open this saint's final resting place like that, particularly if there are other methods which look less like desecrating a grave.  I won't tell you that you can't just whack it open with a crowbar, I just wanted to make sure you understood that you had other options which might better fit the tenets of your faith."

It's the same this-is-your-last-chance message that "Are you sure?" conveys, only it actually tells the player _why_ they should re-evaluate their decision, and puts it all firmly in the context of the game setting instead of making it a "devious GM versus stupid player" thing.  Instead of the player thinking "Okay, how is the GM going to screw me if I do this?" he gets to think "Okay, how would a paladin go about opening this tomb?", and that seems better to me.

Just a thought.

--
as a player, i never much liked playing guessing games with the gm about his setting


----------



## milotha (Apr 30, 2004)

This is the classic example as to why I don't like to play a paladin.  Every single person seems to have a different idea as to what consitutes "lawful" and "good" behavior.  It's almost impossible to grok what your GMs view on these issues is unless you know them well as a person.  I would never play a paladin under a GM that I was unfamilair with or who was a newbie GM.  Evenif you sit down and write out your code, you can't possibly consider every single circumstance. It's also especially annoying when the GM has a different view of your code, and does stuff like revoking your paladinhood when you the player didn't realize that you were breaking your ethic.

If I was my character, I would have spent all 24x7 of my life as this person, thus my character would know my code and ethics better than I the player would.  I find it really annoying when the GM doesn't directly inform the player of the potential consequences of their actions especially when the GM views that the player should know better.  I agree that "Are you sure." isn't a specific enough statement.  It's a rather vague warning.  It could have simply implied there is a nasty monster that will be unleashed as a consequence of this action, instead of your paladinhood will be revoked.  

As a GM, it is your duty to directly inform the player when they are violating their code of ethics, and not just dance around the issue.


----------



## DragonLancer (Apr 30, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> So did you consider smashing the tomb an evil act, a gross violation of the paladin's code of conduct, or a violation of a more strict restriction?




I consider smashing the tomb to be a non-lawful act. I never said it was an evil act, more a chaotic one. He didn’t consider his actions or consequences, and just went straight to it hammer & tongs. Plus, I do consider it a breach of the paladin’s code. It wasn’t tomb robbing but it was a form of desecration.



			
				Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> I get where you're coming from, I just disagree with the method.
> 
> I'm all for giving a warning when a character is about to do something they will suffer for, and giving them a chance to reconsider.  I just don't see the point in being vague about it.  I mean, I _want_ to warn them and give them a chance to reconsider their action, or I wouldn't say anything at all.  I'd like to think that if the gameworld is consistent, their character will already understand the potential consequences of what they're about to do; so why should I, as the GM, go out of my way to hide those consequences from the player, when we're not talking about a puzzle or some deeply hidden plot?
> 
> ...




Likewise, I understand where you are coming from. However, that method smacks (to be at least) too much of telling the character to change his mind, rather than letting the character decide whether this is the right coarse of action. As a DM I am not one for giving that level of advice on anything, whether it be moral quandaries, puzzles or traps. By saying “are you sure?” rather than giving the player advice along the lines of what you said, I am bringing their attention to the situation at hand without telling them what to do.

Admittedly if this action had been done another party member, say a wizard or bard, I wouldn’t have said anything. Its because the Paladin comes with that “baggage” that I offer him the “are you sure?”
The Paladin class comes with this baggage because of its in-game position in the game world. I don’t like trying to screw the characters, after all I want them to succeed and play through the story and campaign. I do want, however, repercussions from actions and for the players to realise that this is a "real" world they play in with real consequences for their characters, for kingdoms and a whole world full of NPC’s and monsters.


----------



## Torm (Apr 30, 2004)

As the god of Paladins, I felt maybe I should chime in, here.   

As a class, Paladins are foremost about DUTY. They should know the tenets of the god, or government, or organization, or whatever they are pledged as a Paladin to - inside and out. Out of character, this means that the player should have an extended conversation with the DM about how the DM views those tenets before they take the class. The DM has the final word on what those tenets are, regardless of whatever third-party sources the player may have read. So if they are going to pledge as a Paladin of Tyr, for example, they better make sure they understand who Tyr is in their DM's campaign.

Which is not to say that the player should have no input - there are probably plenty of aspects of being a Paladin of the chosen type that the DM hasn't thought about - he is, after all, managing many other characters and NPCs. Within reason, and especially if it helps build story rather than being used as a munchkining tool, the player should be able to expand on his role.

The reason "Paladins" become disliked is frequently because the player has his view of his role backwards - he wants to stick with the party, but since he has this duty, he tries to make it a priority for all, even though they aren't similarly bound. To keep the group together and fulfill his duty he becomes pushy and bossy and tries to make them subservient to his needs.

Paladin players need to realize that their DUTY to their party - their pledge to be a loyal member of the group - is only slightly less important that their primary duty. Most of the time Paladins serve their primary duty passively (go forth and fight for good in general and talk up your cause while you're out there) as opposed to actively (Castle Suchnsuch is a direct threat to your cause. Destroy it.) and when this is true they should allow their duty to the party to take dominance. When they ARE actively pursuing their higher calling, they can ask the party to help but understand if they won't, and separate from the party for the time if necessary.

Now, as a player, is where being a Paladin becomes funny and the line between fantasy and reality blurs just slightly. IF, a player playing a Paladin finds himself separated from his duty to his group by his higher calling often enough to be a problem for his gaming group and/or his DM, he should let the Paladin go NPC to deal with his duty and take up a new character to join the party, even if he has to sacrafice character levels or even start over at 1st, to do so. Its what a Paladin would do!

So speaks Torm the True.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 30, 2004)

The important thing is that the DM shouldn't be out to yoink the paladin's status.  The Paladin shouldn't lose his powers unless he makes the DM take them away.  This requires some level of agreement between the DM and players as to what paladinhood is, but not a lot.  The books already spell out Lawful and Good.  Paladins shouldn't lose their powers over fine technicalities, they should lose them for setting aside their holy purpose and code.  

There may come situations where the DM and player do not see eye to eye... in that case, I believe the player should accept that in choosing the path of the Paladin, he is submitting himself to powers of Good.  Submission, even, to the possibility he does not fully understand the expectations placed on him.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Apr 30, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> By saying “are you sure?” rather than giving the player advice along the lines of what you said, I am bringing their attention to the situation at hand without telling them what to do.



Which works fine, as long as both you and the player agree that what he's about to do is going to cause a problem for his character.  

Obviously, that wasn't the case this time around.  The player looked at the situation, looked at what he understood a paladin's responsibilities to be, and decided that he wasn't breaking any code and his god wouldn't have any reason to punish him for it.  You looked at the same situation and decided that what he was doing was chaotic enough and sacreligious enough to warrant immediate loss of paladin abilities.

Giving him a more explicit heads-up on the issue (even just saying "Are you sure?  Because in this setting, desecrating tombs will make you lose your paladin abilities") would be a better alternative, I think.  You're not telling him what to do with his character: you're telling him what YOU are going to do to his character, and you're informing him how your gameworld operates, which can only help him to avoid getting into fixes like that later on.  He's perfectly free to continue ransacking graves all day long if he wants to; once you've informed him of the consequences, your hands are clean.

Hell, if the player thought it was important to get into that tomb immediately, he might very well have cracked the seal on it anyway and made the game really interesting by actually _choosing_ to violate this code, and that's just cool.  And probably the guy wouldn't have refused an atonement under those circumstances, so you wouldn't have had to convert his character into a villain.

Which I will admit wasn't such a bad result, all things considered (fallen paladin villains are great!), but I'm still a bit disturbed by the thought that you'd slap the character down for breaking a rule he was never actually informed of.  Obviously, ignorance of the law is no excuse; I just think there's also no excuse for not educating someone who is ignorant of the laws before you let them run around breaking 'em.

--
just something to consider


----------



## DragonLancer (Apr 30, 2004)

I can see what your saying, and I do agree to a point. However, I think that any player would be aware that the desecration of a tomb (especially one of a revered holy saint) is grounds for revokation of a Paladin's abilities. 

I have in the past (and the recent) considerd writing out a code of conduct for Paladins in my game, but theres always too many grey areas, where different circumstances have differing reasons and outcomes.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Apr 30, 2004)

Right, so digging through someone's grave isn't paladinish. I agree with that. However, I am extrememly wary of wholesale  destroying someone's character like that. Slap them on the wrist? Definately. Maybe take their smites away, and, as they do more good deeds, give them a level back each time (you now smite like a lv 1 paladin). Maybe take their spells away, or have their caster level or duration halved until they make good. Maybe, for the purpose of paladin abilities, reduce their cha by 2. All good slaps that get the point across, but aren't characer destroying moments.

Because striping someone of their abilities is, if not a character destroying act, does cause major changes. It definately kills the mood. It might do so forever. Your player could decide you're out to get him. And then, how do you give him his abilities back without it feeling somehow cheap and stupid? (By the way, for purposes of the paladin, I hate the atonement spell. Atonement comes from within, not without) And it definately undermines his confidence. How does he know you aren't going to take his abilities away again? 

Though it's quite possible that this isn't the first time DragonLancer's player did somehting like this. In fact, it's possible that this is the repition of a long running set of thoughtless actions. If he's talked to the player before, and said things like "kicking the old woman was very unpaladinlike, I may have to take steps if you keep it up," then I think the act of stipping the paladin of his abilities was probablly warrented. And, I think it's likely that this is the case.

But as a general rule of thumb, don't sideswipe your players quite that bad, unless, of course, they enjoy that sort of thing. But I find that it does a lot to stretch and often break trust between the DMs and players.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Apr 30, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> I have in the past (and the recent) considerd writing out a code of conduct for Paladins in my game, but theres always too many grey areas, where different circumstances have differing reasons and outcomes.




In lieue of that, consider using an existing in-game mechanism: a knowledge-Religion check.   "Hmmm, is this something that really peeves my god?  Why yes, clerics across the continent got splitting headaches during the Sword of Parasiel incident.  Maybe there's a key...."

That at least turns it into an off-line discussion after the game.  You can then do minor ret-con and say the ruling only applies to this particular priest/temple/tomb/region/order if the player's ideas makes more sense than yours.


----------



## DragonLancer (Apr 30, 2004)

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> Because striping someone of their abilities is, if not a character destroying act, does cause major changes. It definately kills the mood. It might do so forever. Your player could decide you're out to get him. And then, how do you give him his abilities back without it feeling somehow cheap and stupid? (By the way, for purposes of the paladin, I hate the atonement spell. Atonement comes from within, not without)




I'm going to stand up here and say that if the character is going to do something that goes against his code, then he is going to suffer the consequences. If a player doesn't like having repercussions for his actions, then (1) he's playing the wrong class, and (2) he's perhaps in the wrong group. I have mentioned this to the player and he's happy with the group, although he has a couple minor gripes with my DMing style. but the rest of the group is very happy.



> Though it's quite possible that this isn't the first time DragonLancer's player did somehting like this. In fact, it's possible that this is the repition of a long running set of thoughtless actions. If he's talked to the player before, and said things like "kicking the old woman was very unpaladinlike, I may have to take steps if you keep it up," then I think the act of stipping the paladin of his abilities was probablly warrented. And, I think it's likely that this is the case.




Throughout that paticular campaign the other players were often telling me that they felt his actions and words were not appropriate to a Paladin, and even suggested that he lose his powers on a couple occasions. I did not strip him of them at those times but I did suggest to him out of game that he change his attitude.



> But as a general rule of thumb, don't sideswipe your players quite that bad, unless, of course, they enjoy that sort of thing. But I find that it does a lot to stretch and often break trust between the DMs and players.




I don't see why. I don't go out of my way to screw the players, but as I have said, they need to accept consequences. Its not a trust issue, its a roleplaying issue.


----------



## Voadam (Apr 30, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> I consider smashing the tomb to be a non-lawful act. I never said it was an evil act, more a chaotic one. He didn’t consider his actions or consequences, and just went straight to it hammer & tongs. Plus, I do consider it a breach of the paladin’s code. It wasn’t tomb robbing but it was a form of desecration.




Non-Lawful act = irrelevant for losing paladin powers.

A breach of the code does not revoke the paladin's powers, only GROSS violation of the code. The code requires acting with honor, respecting legitimate authority, helping those in need and punishing the wicked.

So do you consider busting into the crypt in these circumstances a GROSS violation of the code, either in disrespecting the legitimate authority of the sanctity of the tombs or acting dishonorably.

Losing a paladin's powers is a binary decision: did he act evil or grossly violate the code? If so then all powers revoked.

from the srd:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.


Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

Unless you are using different guidelines from those in the PH/srd in which case the question would become have you made these different requirements/restrictions known to the player.


----------



## Mort (Apr 30, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> I can see what your saying, and I do agree to a point. However, I think that any player would be aware that the desecration of a tomb (especially one of a revered holy saint) is grounds for revokation of a Paladin's abilities.
> 
> I have in the past (and the recent) considerd writing out a code of conduct for Paladins in my game, but theres always too many grey areas, where different circumstances have differing reasons and outcomes.




Thinking "Any player would be aware..." is one of the most dangerous things a DM can do.  What may be obvious to one person may not even be on another person's radar.

If there is no written (or otherwise expressely clear) guide; the DM should, in no uncertain terms, let a player know the character is about to fall.

Otherwise, how is the character deliberately comiting an evil act, if the player didn't know it was evil?


----------



## DragonLancer (Apr 30, 2004)

Lawful also includes respect for the deceased. This wasn't a temple to some evil deity or demon prince. It was a tomb of a revered saint.
I think I am safe in saying that most DM's would consider that, on some level, against the code of the Paladin.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Apr 30, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> However, I think that any player would be aware that the desecration of a tomb (especially one of a revered holy saint) is grounds for revokation of a Paladin's abilities.



Fair enough, and if it's working for your game more often than it causes problems, more power to you.  I'll just submit that in this particular case you described, it's obvious that _this particular_ player was not, in fact, aware that his actions would be grounds for losing his paladin abilities, that he was a little peeved about how this ruling was made, and that disagreement could have been avoided completely if you'd given him a more specific warning.  Adjusting your style in that regard might make your game better for both of you.

And given that other people in this thread have said they wouldn't strip the paladin of his powers for that action, I think it's safe to say that it's possible for even a smart player to not be aware that a paladin can lose his abilities immediately for doing something like that in your game.

--
goggles of hindsight +5


----------



## sword-dancer (Apr 30, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> During an adventure to recover a healing artifact, the party were tricked into believing that it was inside a sealed tomb of a holy saint. Without a shadow of a doubt the paladin went to smash it open and reclaim it. I asked was he sure he wanted to do that, and he said yes. So, he lost his powers for desecrating the tomb (he didn't just try to open it, he smashed it open).
> 
> The next story he was offered a chance to atone for this act (I didn't see it as that big an issue). He refused, saying that what he did was for the betterment of others and that any deity who would condone his champion because of that was not worth his service, and so he semi-retired the character (Who would return later in the game as a blackguard villain).




Short Said, The Player was right, and The Paladin was Right!

He didn`t desecrate the Tomb, he openden the Tomb to take an item from the Saints resting place, to help people.
Usually Saints are persons woh helped good people, and if the saint was a healer, to use something from his grave would have not only his acceptance, but definetly his approval.



			
				DragonLancer said:
			
		

> I can see what your saying, and I do agree to a point. However, I think that any player would be aware that the desecration of a tomb (especially one of a revered holy saint) is grounds for revokation of a Paladin's abilities. .



No, I wouldn`t have even wasted one thought that it could be considered desecration, i would´ve considered it almost automatically furthering the goal of the causes the saint stood for.


----------



## Torm (Apr 30, 2004)

Would not a LOT of this depend on whom they are a paladin OF? To use FR deities as an example - A Paladin of Lathander or Kelemvor might find the destruction of a tomb in a way that does not interfere with the inhabitants progression in the afterlife to be an improper act, but for a Paladin of Mystra, it might not be improper at all. After all, Necromancy is a school of magic like any other. A Paladin of Mystra, in turn, might find it improper to destroy a magic artifact (other than at the command of the church), where a Paladin of Me would have no such problems.

The player needs to know not just what their DM's view of Paladins in general is, but the guidelines for his deity as the DM sees them....


----------



## DragonLancer (Apr 30, 2004)

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> Short Said, The Player was right, and The Paladin was Right!
> 
> He didn`t desecrate the Tomb, he openden the Tomb to take an item from the Saints resting place, to help people.
> Usually Saints are persons woh helped good people, and if the saint was a healer, to use something from his grave would have not only his acceptance, but definetly his approval.




Sorry, but he was not right. He didn't _open_ the tomb, he smashed it to get in. If he had opened it I wouldn't have done what I did, but he took a weapon to it.


----------



## pawsplay (May 1, 2004)

> However, I think that any player would be aware that the desecration of a tomb (especially one of a revered holy saint) is grounds for revokation of a Paladin's abilities.




I think that is an unsupportable position for a D&D game.


----------



## ph0rk (May 1, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Non-Lawful act = irrelevant for losing paladin powers.





Unless they make a habit of them; which this player seemed to do.


----------



## Haradim (May 1, 2004)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I think that is an unsupportable position for a D&D game.




Unless tomb invasion/robbery (assuming no permission is gained to enter said burial grounds) is the primary means of adventure and loot distribution in a given campaign, it would not be difficult to add such a stipulation.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (May 1, 2004)

I am usually loathe to use real world examples but where I live, if you desecrate a grave, you get the bash.

Q.) Why would a stereotypical paladin think that smashing up a saints tomb is aok? 
A.) Because it has a magic item that he could put to good use.

Given a desperate enough need I can see that argument as holding firm but there are two things I would consider: motive and method.

If I suspected that the player was actually motivated by greed or his method was disrespectful I would warn the player that his character is about to commit a sin. I would tell the player, face to face the why because they need to know and their character would know.

What would be an acceptable action (assuming the motive was pure) would be for the paladin to oversea the opening of a holy sarcophagus, carefully remove the sword, close the tomb and name the sword "the sword of St bla". Or something like that so long as it was respectful.

I would point out that players that pull this "I can put it to better use for the cause of good" can be operating under a double standard. I say that because they usually won't relinquish a treasure to a better owner. In this case the owner was dead so fair enough, but what if they try to pull this stunt on a living person? Again you have to question the motive.

All of this aside, if there is a paladin or any other highly codified character in the campaign, the dm should not be punishing them unduly for having a bit of grit to their character. Sure the odd sacred tomb gives a bit of campaign world perspective but those situations should not be the primary means of aquiring treasure.

The dm should tailor the campaign to the characters: fighters need fights; wizards need magic and paladins need chivalry.

Paladins are not liked by some because they don't want to see chivalry in the adventure.


----------



## jgbrowning (May 1, 2004)

This is why I don't like paladins. Like I said, the class's abilities are dependent upon a mutual interpretation of what the player and GM believe in real life. I think everyone agrees that everyone has rather different ideas on how to handle the matter. That's what's wrong with the paladin.

To those who want to play a paladin I say, "Just play a lawful good fighter and you can pick the paladin abilites in place of your bonus feats. That way we don't have to argue if you do an ocassional chaotic or evil act."

The architype (holy warrior/pious fighter) doesn't have to have all the extraneous RL baggage tied into it's mechanics.

joe b.


----------



## milotha (May 1, 2004)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> This is why I don't like paladins. Like I said, the class's abilities are dependent upon a mutual interpretation of what the player and GM believe in real life. I think everyone agrees that everyone has rather different ideas on how to handle the matter. That's what's wrong with the paladin.
> 
> To those who want to play a paladin I say, "Just play a lawful good fighter and you can pick the paladin abilites in place of your bonus feats. That way we don't have to argue if you do an ocassional chaotic or evil act."
> 
> ...




I'm in total agreement with you on this issue.  See my previous posts.  

And if you want the spell abilities take some levels of cleric of a lawful good diety.  

This whole revoking of paladinhood status is for the dogs.  It's just an excuse for the GM to run your character instead of you.  I've always avoided playing paladins because their code limits/restricts your options so much that you are no longer role-playing you are playing a cliche'.


----------



## Voadam (May 1, 2004)

ph0rk said:
			
		

> Unless they make a habit of them; which this player seemed to do.




Dragonlancer did not say he thought this was the tipping point that pushed this character from lawful good to neutral good and therefore no longer eligible to be a paladin. He said this action was non-lawful, a desecration of a tomb and therefore on some level a violation of the code. He never said he changed the PC's alignment, therefore the paladin was still LG. Dragonlancer's position is that this action, bashing his way into a saint's tomb is sufficient to be considered a breach of the code.

Whether it is a GROSS violation of the code seems more than arguable to me.


----------



## Voadam (May 1, 2004)

Torm said:
			
		

> Would not a LOT of this depend on whom they are a paladin OF? To use FR deities as an example - A Paladin of Lathander or Kelemvor might find the destruction of a tomb in a way that does not interfere with the inhabitants progression in the afterlife to be an improper act, but for a Paladin of Mystra, it might not be improper at all. After all, Necromancy is a school of magic like any other. A Paladin of Mystra, in turn, might find it improper to destroy a magic artifact (other than at the command of the church), where a Paladin of Me would have no such problems.
> 
> The player needs to know not just what their DM's view of Paladins in general is, but the guidelines for his deity as the DM sees them....




No, unless the specific campaign/DM says otherwise (I believe FR is one such where paladins must worship a god and get their powers from that god) the conditions for paladin status revocation are the same for every paladin. A DM is within his rights to change this and alter the restrictions to fit various specific religions/deities/orders/cultures but that is a variation from the norm in the PH that should be explained up front so there is no misunderstanding about rules consequences to actions.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (May 1, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> I'm going to stand up here and say that if the character is going to do something that goes against his code, then he is going to suffer the consequences. If a player doesn't like having repercussions for his actions, then (1) he's playing the wrong class, and (2) he's perhaps in the wrong group. I have mentioned this to the player and he's happy with the group, although he has a couple minor gripes with my DMing style. but the rest of the group is very happy.




I agree. In fact, I feel that everyone should have to deal with re-precussions with their actions. With one caviat. And that's that consiquences are within the scope of the campaign's feel. 



> Throughout that paticular campaign the other players were often telling me that they felt his actions and words were not appropriate to a Paladin, and even suggested that he lose his powers on a couple occasions. I did not strip him of them at those times but I did suggest to him out of game that he change his attitude.




And here's why I can agree with your choice of actions. This isn't his first deviation, so it's not like you're coming down on him like a ton of bricks, or out to screw him. It's just his unpaladinishness making him unpaladinish.



> I don't see why. I don't go out of my way to screw the players, but as I have said, they need to accept consequences. Its not a trust issue, its a roleplaying issue.




Because if you hit someone hard as the first level of consiquence, they're likely to just leave the situation entirely. So, instead of trying to play more carefully and shape up, they just stop playing a paladin. 

And the trust issue is only an outcome of the consiquences of roleplaying, not a cause. But, in my expierence, it's relatively easy to start assuming that any action will meet with horrendous consiquences if it happens a couple of times in a row. So, under normal circumstances, I'm saying "Don't come down like a ton of bricks too many times in a row." The problem is that the paladin situation of losing all abilities all at once is a fairly strong hit and a fairly radical one (in terms of both numerical and role-play/character development) I tend to use the kid gloves and do things by baby steps. It gives my players enough time to shape up.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 1, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Sorry, but he was not right. He didn't _open_ the tomb, he smashed it to get in. If he had opened it I wouldn't have done what I did, but he took a weapon to it.




Had they a key to open the door?
Which other *obvious* and certain possibilities to open the grave did they´ve?
Did he intentional  something unpiety(right word) with the corpse of the saint?

At worst the pally goes a bit over the top, which isn`t really a violation of the code.
OTOH could you post it`s code ?


----------



## Peskara (May 1, 2004)

milotha said:
			
		

> I've always avoided playing paladins because their code limits/restricts your options so much that you are no longer role-playing you are playing a cliche'.




I have only gotten to play a paladin a couple of times, but I've found that the demands of faith and their law-abiding nature forces me to come up with more creative solutions to the problems they're presented with in-game. Of course I've never had to deal with a DM intent on screwing the paladins out of their powers or making life extra-difficult for them either so that may be why I have a more positive outlook on the class. That, and I find that level of faith and commitment mondo-cool.


----------



## DragonLancer (May 1, 2004)

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> Had they a key to open the door?
> Which other *obvious* and certain possibilities to open the grave did they´ve?
> Did he intentional  something unpiety(right word) with the corpse of the saint?




The obvious means of opening it was to just lift the lid. The party had no reason to assume that the tomb was trapped or unopenable.


----------



## sword-dancer (May 5, 2004)

Then it was more than going a bit unpolite over the top, i could and would not disagree with your decision.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 5, 2004)

Paladins used to be one of my favorite classes but not any longer I have found that nothing can disrupt a game faster than a paladin's sense of morale outrage.

There is another way of leading and trying to influnce people to do good besides threats to fellow party members if they don't see eye to eye with you. And that is lead by example. Show your fellow party members that doing good things has its own rewards.

My current character is a neutral sorcerer with a lot of necromantic (no play with dead) spells. Trapped in the abyss, outnumbered, with limited resources she made the decision to cast symbol of pain her only spell with an evil descriptor and one that had never been cast before the paladin had never seen her cast any spell with evil in it.

She wanted the spell which was cast on a rock to be able to be triggered in the path of the evil creatures chasing them to slow them down and give the party a chance to escape. Well the paladin did a spellcraft check to see what spell was being cast tried to dispel it and then even when the rest of the party did not have a problem with it refused to travel with the sorcerer unless she destroyed the item and when she gave in and mage handed it away from the party he told her if she tried to activate it he would slay her where she stood.

My character at that point made the decision to save herself and throw her lot in wth the devils who will be soon attacking the demons because as far as she can tell lawful evil is lot easier to deal with than lawful good.


----------



## Grizpapa (May 11, 2004)

*Kahuna Burger defines "arrogence"*



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> actually, no, its that I don't AGREE with that,
> or your poor attempt to summarize the arguments,



FYI #1: It's "it's" and not its.

Actually, it was pretty accurate in terms of the thread up to that point. 
I will admit it was slightly more charged then I would have liked but I had had enough at that point and felt the need to post something. While I did originally intend to follow my post up with further explanation, I never got around to it as I had to leave to go on vacation.

Unfortunately, this thread has quickly gotten out of hand and I doubt I'll have enough time to spend to catch up after page five.




			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> or with the assertion that the problems some people have with paladins are based on being misguided/misinformed.



Which time and again have been proven in this very thread. 
Maybe it's just "your poor attempt" to read the other posts or to even grasp what the other people in the thread are writing. 




			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> And with that classic bit of arrogence and presumption, you have saved me the bother of reading the rest of your Kind Explaination.




FYI #2: It's "arrogance" and "Explanation" not "arrogence" and "Explaination".

While I did include a quote from your, aren't your the one being arrogant in assuming that the whole post was directed at you. Why yes, yes you are.

As far as you not reading the rest of the post, I could careless as long as someone else with a dissenting opinion read it.

So in summation: 
You have proven that you did not bother to read the entire thread up to that point or you would have realized that the "you" was plural and not singular.

As such you have also proven that you and not I are the "arrogent" one but I already had that impression from other posts you've made on these boards.

You have also proven that you are "misinformed" when it comes to using "basic" spelling and "basic" grammer.

I have proven that I should have stated in plain English that the post was directed at not just you but to also the others with low opinions of paladins.

I have also proven that I am wasting my time dealing with someone who is beneath me, especially at this late hour.

With that I bid you good day.


----------



## Chasmodai (May 11, 2004)

Paladins cramp my style? Hah. Who cares what they say. They wanna stop you from pickpocketing some merchant, they gotta see you first. 

That's what I usually do when playing a CN rogue-type with a Paladin in the party. Tactics-wise, if the paladin wants to be difficult and not be... dubious in methodology, no skin off my nose. Trouble starts and I'm not even there anymore.

Besides, if a Paladin who wants to be the epitome of Good and all that is Noble refuses to do something shady (even if it is for the greater good) because it would violate some moral code of his... isn't really the epitome of Good and all that is Noble anymore. 

I would like to play a Paladin one day. A Paladin who would challenge the 'code' if it argued with his own judgement of the greater good. A Paladin who probably wouldn't be a Paladin for very long.


----------



## LordBOB (Jun 12, 2005)

Paladins are " Goody - to - shoes "  MY FOOT!!!!!   Paladins, in my opinion, are the backbone of the group.  Sure other characters could replace the Paladin easily but they have some nice abilities.

1.  " Lay on Hands" as well as the other healing spells that Paladins can obtain adventually.  This makes the Paladin a self Healer so the cleric can worry about healing the others in the Party.  Also the immunity to diseases is a nice thing.

2.  The Lawful Good alignment is the only reason my entire group isnt in jail or dead right now.  All they want to do to is steal and shot stuff, they end up pi.ss.ing of the NPC's and get close to being stabbed in the face.  I am able to calm everyone down and things go smoothly for a while.

3.  We have a fairly good AC and hitpoint so we are able to get in there and smash the enimies and let the shooters finish them off.  This keeps everyone else out of harms way so they dont get as the fighters do.

4.  Protection from evil.  This power has saved me many times.  My DM  still hasnt learned that I am the only person that can truly stand up against some of the demons he throws at us.  He makes them use natural attacks and they cant hurt me with their hands so I end up slaughtering them.


Other powers like detect evil and smite evil are also awesome.  Personally I think they are better than the clerics ability to do them.

When my group wants to rob someone blind my DM either explains how it isnt against my code b/c they are evil or trying to kill us or something like that.  Or I have a nice talk with a NPC while they are planning how to do it so i dont " Hear them"  that way when they do it im off fighting something or saving someone, they get the job done and they dont explain how they got it.  Dont ask Dont tell.

One thing I think the fighter/barbarian/Paladin needs is something to regenerate HP.  I have a +2 Helm of regeneration.  Gives me +2 AC and regains 1 HP a Minute.  This way very little effort is required in restoring my HP.  The only time i get healed is when we would be fighting immediatly.


Those who dont agree that Paladins are a necessity to the groups are a little wacko.  But than again you will always have different opinions thna I do.


----------



## Corinth (Jun 13, 2005)

Read your Schiller, folks.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 13, 2005)

I've noticed a recurring theme in this thread, namely, why not just have a fighter/cleric over a paladin?

Well, realistically, why should a LG cleric be ANY different from a paladin.  The only reason paladins exist in the game is because people refuse to properly play clerics to their alignment.  A LG cleric should be every bit, if not more, righteous and rigid as a paladin.  

Think about it for a second.  A paladin receives his code from his diety (generally).  That diety usually also has a priesthood.  Now, how logical would it be for a diety to hand down one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another?  Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for the religion to have one set of rules for everybody?  Sure, you might have special dispensation issues, but, then again, usually that's not to INCREASE the strictures an agent of the diety has to operate under.  

Even if a cleric is not lawful good, every cleric out there must adhere to the strictures of his or her religion.  Clerics, whether it's outlined in the PHB or not, ALL come with a code.  That it's not specifically outlined in the PHB just means that each faith will have a different code based on its alignment, not that the code doesn't exist at all.

It blows my mind when people say they'd rather have a priest in the party than a paladin.  There should be absolutely no difference when it comes to restrictions from having either one in the party.  Sure, a chaotic good priest of Farlagn (sp) would have fairly lax strictures regarding many things.  But, then again, the God of Travel might have some serious problems with imprisoning things or shackling them, or even tying them up.  Wouldn't limiting movement be seen as wrong to a priest of the God of Travel?  This is a fairly spur of the moment example, but, I'm sure with a bit of thought, you could come with more.  

I have no idea why people get so bent out of shape about having a paly in the party yet welcome a priest with open arms.  It's shows more that far too many players play the cleric of combat medicine rather than a true follower of a faith.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Jun 13, 2005)

People don't want to play a "goody-two-shoes". Which is the only way a lot of people understand Lawful Good to be (which simply isn't the case).


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 13, 2005)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> 4.  Protection from evil.  This power has saved me many times.  My DM  still hasnt learned that I am the only person that can truly stand up against some of the demons he throws at us.  He makes them use natural attacks and they cant hurt me with their hands so I end up slaughtering them.




How?  As soon as you attack them your protection from their natural attacks goes away.  And they can try to beat that protection anyhow if they have spell resistance, which most demons do.

From the SRD:

"Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect. *The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature.*"


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 13, 2005)

... oh, it's a paladin thread.  That explains it.

Folks, remember - keep the discussion civil.  Let's not get into any bickering or name-calling, okay?

Thanks.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 13, 2005)

Grizpapa said:
			
		

> You have also proven that you are "misinformed" when it comes to using "basic" spelling and "basic" grammer.




Grammer?


----------



## LordBOB (Jun 13, 2005)

the thing i never understood was what was meant if they recoil, i think it means the Feetle position.  I thought of it as falling to the floor like a baby and curling up.  We have done it where this happens, the demon is knocked prone and we stab it in the head instantly killing it.

If i was wrong about the rules with protection from Evil I dont want to be Right.  My DM hasnt caught it so i wont tell them.  Lucky we dont encounter many evil things yet so it isnt a problem ( yet )


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 13, 2005)

Mr. Kaze said:
			
		

> Low will save. (Blackguard, too.) C'mon, these folks are the stalwart heroes of their respective causes with even more stringent discipline requirements than clerics and they've got a weak will? Whatever.



Heh. Wish I'd seen this before posting in House Rules just now. I could've simply pointed this way. A bit less effort that way. 

edit --- Oh yeh, the topic. Well, basically something like (for example) a fighter/cleric would wipe the floor with them. Stuff like that. Anyhoo, I've changed them in a few ways. All better now.


----------



## Numion (Jun 13, 2005)

What happens to a paladin that utters the following sentence: "I am lying"?


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 13, 2005)

Paladins and thread necromancy make strange bedfellows.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 13, 2005)

Lu Wei Fong said:
			
		

> Well, it seems to me that the problem most people are having with paladins is their "holier than thou" attitude. I can see how that would be annoying, but I think that people who play their paladins like that are playing them wrong.



I wouldn't have a problem with that, at least in my current group.  We don't have the type of boneheaded RPers that make the paladin a headache for everyone else.

The problem I have is that that paladin is just plain _boring_.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 13, 2005)

The paladin is game wise too torn between being a fighter and being a cleric with neither the combat ability of a fighter nor the healing ability of a cleric.

It requires either very good rolls or high point buy to have a very effective paladin.

Want to cast spells? Have a high wisdom.

Want to get some bonus to hit from Smite? Have a high charisma.

Want to actually be able to do some damage in combat? Need a high strength, and other combat related stats per normal fighters.

About the only thing that's a stat dump for them is intelligence and 3.5, that's a bad move.

Still, I enjoyed Brother Kane, High Shadowbane Inquisitor of Helm in the last campaign I played in.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 13, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I would think that a party of at least nominally heroic adventurers would like the idea of having a paladin in their group -- the epitomy of heroic classes. They are usually trustworthy and dedicated. They are literally fearless and devoted.



For many, many adventurers these qualities are a mixed blessing.

The thing is, "nominally heroic" covers a multitude of sins, and paladins stereotypically possess a few qualities that make the sort of actions which make that "nominally" necessary at best difficult and at worst impossible.

For instance, there's a difference between heroism and valour. Paladins stereotypically lean towards the valourous confrontation of evil, which can throw a wrench into the works for a group which has otherwise settled upon a more cautious/sneaky/deceitful/_et cetera_ plan of action.

Even a paladin played intelligently (i.e. not a suicidal Lawful Stupid idiot whose response to a "ping" on _detect evil_ is "Chaaaaarge!") can be a hindrance in this regard. Some people relish these interpersonal conflicts among their characters and enjoy playing out their resolution. Others abhor them.


			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So, does the paladin class actually bring anything to a group that is worthwhile? When organizing a new group of adventurers, someone always mentions the need for someone to play a cleric. But too often there are groans of annoyance when someone mentions wanting to play a paladin.



Paladins, to state the obvious, are useful emergency healers, reliable backup fighters, and so on. Like the bard, they're a jack of several trades, master of none, and sometimes bring with them useful roleplaying associations - a reputation for honesty and trustworthiness, connections to temples and churches, _et cetera_.


			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Why isn't the paladin at the top of the list of classes to consider with a group of adventurers?



The number one reason I can think of is simple:

Many people don't actually always play the kind of selfless, heroic, kindhearted Good adventurers with whom paladins best work. I would venture to suggest that many people don't ever produce a party where every member would be (ungrudgingly) acceptable to a paladin.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 13, 2005)

You can't keep a good paladin thread down.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 13, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I would think that a party of at least nominally heroic adventurers would like the idea of having a paladin in their group -- the epitomy of heroic classes. They are usually trustworthy and dedicated. They are literally fearless and devoted.
> 
> But in all my years of playing and DMing D&D, and in reading various forums on D&D, I've never seen anyone actually happy to have a paladin in the group. Usually the big class that everyone wants in their group is a cleric.
> 
> ...




Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread, I am at work and can't do that, but I do have an opinion.

DMs mostly have a hard time with the Paladin cause it is harder to have an evil character lie to the party.  Sure, others in the party could sense motive, but if the character is determined to be evil, then most people will just assume that the character is lieing.  The detect evil ability really just annouys the hell out of the DM.  Sure you could give the evil people rings or magic items to hide their evil, but realisticly you can't do that all the time.

As for players, most people hate that paladin in the party for two reasons, one, they are the ultimate in morales and it prohibits players from certain actions, like sneaking around or pretending to be someone they are not.

Two, people look at the paladin as perfect, cause of their morales, so they are set to high standards and the DM usually makes them swear some oath, making them adhere to even higher standards.  This gives them the perception of being perfect, even if they are not, and when you think about it, no one wants to play a perfect character or have a perfect character in the party.  

Having flaws is part of life, everyone should have some.


----------



## NeoDarke (Jun 13, 2005)

I don't think being Lawful Good really means anything. true i've never played D&D. but the Paladin characters i've played in NWN, and on the RPG Forum of one of the site i'm a member of, my Paladin wasn't all in the head. but he was smart enough to make use of everyones skills.

and for that matter he didn't really have a problem with his team lying. if lying means they can get out of a fight, then so be it. nobody said playing a Paladin meant you had to be "holyer then thou" and all way follow the rules. you could always follow your own laws on how the world should be. and if they don't always mesh with the laws of where ever your at then "oh well". so I say the next time you play, just for the fun of it roll up a Paladin who does his best to fit in with the team. i'm talking drinking games with the Barbarain and Fighter, Trying his/her best to out "Woo" the Bard, and Rogue.

have fun with it. Paladin's on't have to be RPG heavy, they can be just as crazy and silly as anyother classes.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> As for players, most people hate that paladin in the party for two reasons, one, they are the ultimate in morales and it prohibits players from certain actions, like sneaking around or pretending to be someone they are not.
> 
> *snip*





See, right there.  That's what I'm talking about.  Paladins are the ultimates in morals?  Can someone please explain to me why a paladin would be more moral than a LG cleric or monk?  Or any other LG character for that matter?  The problem isn't that paladins are being played improperly, the problem is, no one plays LG properly.  The cleric is just the healing battery and cares nothing for the souls of the party or people they meet.  The monk sits in the corner and mast... I mean meditates and has nothing to say when the party does sneaky underhanded things.  It's ridiculous.  

Again, I say, the only reason that paladins exist in the game is because so few people actually play their clerics the way a priest should be.  The primary focus of all priests (and druids, rangers and monks) should be spiritual.  That means, if the character is good, then morality should be a major issue for these characters.  Lawful good even more so.  No, chaotic good is not a license to ignore the laws of the land.  It simply reflects a more individualist streak in the character.  Lying, stealing etc, are EVIL according to DnD morality.  Characters with divine ties that start ignoring that should be getting slapped with the flaming booger of god once in a while.  They KNOW there's an afterlife.  They've bloody well seen it some of them.  They KNOW there's a god.  They've had tea if the character is high enough level.  Paladins should not be stepping on the toes of any of the good characters.  Any group that is primarily non-good shouldn't include a paladin anyway.  I'm so tired of hearing that whinge that if someone plays a paly, it cramps everyone's style.  Play yer alignment and there's no problems.


----------



## jasper (Jun 14, 2005)

their pearly white smile is too prefect.
their holy than thou glow keeps others up at night. I am an adult I don't need a night light.
They don't fart or have gas.
Perfect hair never seen one who had helmet hair.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> See, right there. That's what I'm talking about. Paladins are the ultimates in morals? Can someone please explain to me why a paladin would be more moral than a LG cleric or monk? Or any other LG character for that matter? The problem isn't that paladins are being played improperly, the problem is, no one plays LG properly. The cleric is just the healing battery and cares nothing for the souls of the party or people they meet. The monk sits in the corner and mast... I mean meditates and has nothing to say when the party does sneaky underhanded things. It's ridiculous.
> 
> Again, I say, the only reason that paladins exist in the game is because so few people actually play their clerics the way a priest should be. The primary focus of all priests (and druids, rangers and monks) should be spiritual. That means, if the character is good, then morality should be a major issue for these characters. Lawful good even more so. No, chaotic good is not a license to ignore the laws of the land. It simply reflects a more individualist streak in the character. Lying, stealing etc, are EVIL according to DnD morality. Characters with divine ties that start ignoring that should be getting slapped with the flaming booger of god once in a while. They KNOW there's an afterlife. They've bloody well seen it some of them. They KNOW there's a god. They've had tea if the character is high enough level. Paladins should not be stepping on the toes of any of the good characters. Any group that is primarily non-good shouldn't include a paladin anyway. I'm so tired of hearing that whinge that if someone plays a paly, it cramps everyone's style. Play yer alignment and there's no problems.




Think back to King Arthur and his knights of the round table.  There can be no denying that they set themselves to a high morale standard.  In 1st edition AD&D, they were all Paladins, this set the stage for morales associated with Paladins and thus Lawful Good characters.

That is not to say that the Lawful good character could not be a bit sneaky at times, or even kill without cause, no one is perfect, even Lawful Good characters, even says so in the alignment description, but Paladins have always been held to a higher standard, thus they are hated for limiting that parties actions and giving the DM nightmares.

You can play a paladin many different ways, but most would agree, if you stray from the ideal of the King Arthur knight, you are playing him wrong.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 14, 2005)

Hardhead said:
			
		

> I love Paladins, except for the fact that they're pretty weak except for a one level dip.




They're not weak at all. Healing, smiting, BAB as fighter, enhanced saves, HP's as fighter, mount, immunity to fear and diesease. My paladin is FAR from weak, especially when it comes to evil opponents.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> See, right there.  That's what I'm talking about.  Paladins are the ultimates in morals?  Can someone please explain to me why a paladin would be more moral than a LG cleric or monk?  Or any other LG character for that matter?




Actually, according to the Book of Exalted Deeds, paladins are not "merely" LG, they are de facto Exalted.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Actually, according to the Book of Exalted Deeds, paladins are not "merely" LG, they are de facto Exalted.





But that's my point.  Why should paladins be MORE holy than the priest that commands him?  In a LG church, paladins are going to be lower down on the heirarchy than the priesthood.  So, shouldn't a Gawd who has paladins set the bar for the paladin's boss at least as high?

No, I don't mean that paly's have to be the "Arthurian Knight" stereotype.  That's absurd.  A Paladin from a North American Indian setting would certainly not be the same as one from a quasi Euro setting.  That's not my point at all.  My point is, that paly's are not restricting if the other players who play divine types ACTUALLY play their alignment and don't just write it down on the paper.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But that's my point. Why should paladins be MORE holy than the priest that commands him? In a LG church, paladins are going to be lower down on the heirarchy than the priesthood. So, shouldn't a Gawd who has paladins set the bar for the paladin's boss at least as high?
> 
> No, I don't mean that paly's have to be the "Arthurian Knight" stereotype. That's absurd. A Paladin from a North American Indian setting would certainly not be the same as one from a quasi Euro setting. That's not my point at all. My point is, that paly's are not restricting if the other players who play divine types ACTUALLY play their alignment and don't just write it down on the paper.




It sounds like you are not trying to figure out why Paladins are hated as much as you are trying to figure out why others play Lawful Good differently or not to your expectations.  It is not just the general masses that assume that a Paladin is held to a higher standard, ENWorld is chalked full of threads that start out, "My paladin killed a child molester, why did my alignment change?"

These threads are very long because people have many opinions on the morales of a Paladin.  It is just a fact, more so than the cleric, they are the arm of the church.  They are the fibers of the Dogma.  Sure, a cleric may lead the masses in daily life, but a paladin has, more often than not, and more so in AD&D than D&D 3.0, sworn an oath to thier God to up hold thier Dogma, so they must be the morale pillar that other look too, a cleric is bound by no such oath, even if they are of the same alignment.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But that's my point. Why should paladins be MORE holy than the priest that commands him? In a LG church, paladins are going to be lower down on the heirarchy than the priesthood. So, shouldn't a Gawd who has paladins set the bar for the paladin's boss at least as high?
> 
> No, I don't mean that paly's have to be the "Arthurian Knight" stereotype. That's absurd. A Paladin from a North American Indian setting would certainly not be the same as one from a quasi Euro setting. That's not my point at all. My point is, that paly's are not restricting if the other players who play divine types ACTUALLY play their alignment and don't just write it down on the paper.



Paladins have to be the most righteous examples of holiness (by Class) that exist. It's their raison d'etre, schtick, whatever. I also seem to recall that there is some historical precedent for Paladin-types to be considered (or at least to consider themselves) a 'law unto themselves'. If so, their place within a heirarchy could be er, kind of outside of it perhaps.

Hm, and I don't think Paladins per se should exist in a Native American setting, except as aliens. The weaponry, the armour, the abilities, the inbuilt cultural assumptions: all wrong.

But I am in complete agreement regarding your actual point.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 14, 2005)

I think a major reason is that the paladin class doesn't really fit many settings. The default D&D setting is polytheistic, with a variety of competing, sometimes hotsile, but mostly neutral (to one another) or friencly religions.

On to this framework, the original D&D class system layered on elements drawn almost directly from the Catholic church circa 1400. Clerics who can turn undead throwing holy water at demons from Hell, and paladins with their divinely granted prowess and knightly code. Since its inception, D&D has made strides in diversifying clerics somewhat, but paladins remain evil detecting smiters of evil riding holy warhorses. And, in a polytheistic setting, crusading paladins (or really, crusades of any sort) don't fit.

Try making a monotheistic setting. They might fit better.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But that's my point.  Why should paladins be MORE holy than the priest that commands him?  In a LG church, paladins are going to be lower down on the heirarchy than the priesthood.  So, shouldn't a Gawd who has paladins set the bar for the paladin's boss at least as high?



I don't really see clerics as "the bosses" of paladins.  In fact, I normally see that most clerics are the type who sit around in churches telling people, "Do not be tempted by evil.  Always make the right choice." then taking the tithe money to the orphanage and healing the sick there and sleeping soundly.  The clerics are almost never faced with the temptation of evil.  

The paladins are the enforcers, the ones that go out into the field and face evil down every day.  They have to be absolute in their beliefs and morals because a single lapse could make them fall to evil.  They've seen people turned, they've seen True Evil first hand.  They know how easy, how tempting it would be to give in, so they have to guard themselves.

Of course, most PC clerics should develop a similar attitude.  However, the difference should always be that clerics should be more about promoting the ideals of their god and the worship of their god while paladins are more about destroying evil and promoting good.


----------



## Ultrazen (Jun 14, 2005)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> the thing i never understood was what was meant if they recoil, i think it means the Feetle position. I thought of it as falling to the floor like a baby and curling up. We have done it where this happens, the demon is knocked prone and we stab it in the head instantly killing it.
> 
> If i was wrong about the rules with protection from Evil I dont want to be Right. My DM hasnt caught it so i wont tell them. Lucky we dont encounter many evil things yet so it isnt a problem ( yet )




um....

no, no, never mind. 
just have fun and hope no one ever gets tripped.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 14, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> where a Paladin of Me would have no such problems.




There is no Torm......just Raziel.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 14, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... oh, it's a paladin thread.  That explains it.
> 
> Folks, remember - keep the discussion civil.  Let's not get into any bickering or name-calling, okay?
> 
> ...




Sod off Smurf!!!


----------



## MoonZar (Jun 14, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I would think that a party of at least nominally heroic adventurers would like the idea of having a paladin in their group -- the epitomy of heroic classes. They are usually trustworthy and dedicated. They are literally fearless and devoted.
> 
> But in all my years of playing and DMing D&D, and in reading various forums on D&D, I've never seen anyone actually happy to have a paladin in the group. Usually the big class that everyone wants in their group is a cleric.
> 
> ...




Hello,

I think that's because people play paladin to much radicaly with no flexibility, all is white or black but never grey.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 14, 2005)

Well monk powers come from their lawfulness.  Traditionally, there have been such things as corrupt priests (the idea that they get powerful in the church hierarchy, but are still nasty).  But in a game world that makes less sense, since presumably the clerics get their powers from their gods, and so should tow the line or their will lose their powers.  So in that sense, it seems that the gods, etc., hold paladins to a higher standard than they hold their priests.  Or maybe paladins get their power partly from gods, and partly from something else that holds them to such high standards.  So I can see the point.  But I would argue that this means, not that paladins should be held to lower standards, but that LG clerics should be held to higher standards.


----------



## Mark (Jun 14, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I don't really see clerics as "the bosses" of paladins.




Yup.  More like colleagues, in most cases.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 14, 2005)

Wow, my longest and oldest still active [revived] thread 

Here's something to consider re: gods and paladins. By the book, paladins are not required to have a god patron. They aren't even required to have religion at all.

Quasqueton


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jun 14, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I don't really see clerics as "the bosses" of paladins.




Paladin to Cleric: "You're not the boss of me!"


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 14, 2005)

Wouldn't the bulk of priests in an organized faith be laymen best embodied by the expert class?

Skills: knowledge (religion), concentration, farming/scribe/carpentry, sense motive, another knowledge, diplomacy.


----------



## NeoDarke (Jun 14, 2005)

I have an idea. How about aiding both of the Shadowbane Classes from the Complete Adventurer into your game? That way when whoever starts to go on about Paladin's can't do this/be that. You have 'em run into one of them and just sit back and watch the madness start .


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 14, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The paladin is game wise too torn between being a fighter and being a cleric with neither the combat ability of a fighter nor the healing ability of a cleric. Please note below.
> 
> It requires either very good rolls or high point buy to have a very effective paladin.
> 
> ...




Personally I think that Paladins can quite adequately fill the roll of Fighter, ESPECIALLY against evil opponents. I'll admit that I have taken the Fist of Raziel PrC which is very nifty for Paladins however it's not the be all and end all of my character with regards to killing the bad guys. I'll say again.....Fighter BAB, Fighter HD = Fighter.

Divine Grace = X x Iron Will, Great Fortitude and Lightning Reflexes feats. A Paladin will consistently make saving throws where everyone else fails.

I disagree that they get anywhere near the role of Cleric but as someone mentioned, their Lay On Hands is an excellent one shot heal self whilst the Cleric tends to others.

Going back to my Fighter point, just in case you want to argue the point that they get tons more combat related feats, the Paladin gets his mount which grows to be a tough critter and if you're clever, you'll generally try for something other than a horse!

Immunity to fear and diesease, fear especially, are awesome abilities and have saved my groups hides on several occasions, (especially since I lend allies a bonus to fear).

Back to the point though, I really don't see the problem with Paladins as a class whatsoever unless you happen to be playing with a group where it will really come into effect ie. a group of evils: this is just common sense. At the beginning of any campaign something like this should be discussed and if a Paladin is just not going to fit in then it shouldn't be allowed otherwise your just asking for trouble. 

Ok, meant to finiss this rant several hours ago but a mate decided to pop by and several beers later meant that any continuation on this was impossible......

Paladins rock, nuff said.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 14, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> a cleric is bound by no such oath, even if they are of the same alignment.




Bull, a cleric and paladin are bound by the same oath if they worship the same power however the paladin is more likely to use a sword.

Please consult, once again, your community supporting, paying, colleagues.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 15, 2005)

Y'know, I didn't even look at the post dates on this thread.  Ah well, a good paly discussion is always fun.

Particle Man wrote:



> But I would argue that this means, not that paladins should be held to lower standards, but that LG clerics should be held to higher standards.




That's it exactly.  That is 100% my point.  I've seen far too many people ignore the alignment of their character when they play.  While alignment shouldn't be a straightjacket, that's true, it also shouldn't be simply a strange acronym on a piece of paper.  ((LG?  What the heck is lug?))

While I may have overstate the case for clerics being the boss of paladins, it is still quite probable that a church paladin is going to have to answer to the higher ups in the church, which, in turn, likely means clerics.  A priest of Heironious is bound to the exact same actions as a Paladin of Heironious.  It makes no sense for the cleric to be given more latitude than the paly.

On the North American Paladin idea - why not?  A holy warrior protecting his tribe against evil humanoids that dominate the area.  Sure, a barbarian may be more typical, but, with a decent backstory, there's no problem with a Paladin acting in that role either.  His code remains largely the same, although his attitudes would be almost entirely different.  But, that's a side issue anyway.  My point was that paladins in no way are required to follow the proto Euro thing.  If I want to design a Roman paladin, I should be able to.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 15, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> Bull, a cleric and paladin are bound by the same oath if they worship the same power however the paladin is more likely to use a sword.
> 
> Please consult, once again, your community supporting, paying, colleagues.




While a DM may require your character to take an oath as a cleric, it is not a class requirment, meaning it is not listed in the player handbook.  They have an obligation to act in the dieties best interest and Dogma, but they are not bound by an oath that they must swear to a god and if they fail in that oath, they don't lose those powers granted by them.  They also don't their powers if they change their alignment.

The DM can of course require an oath and can revoke the power of a cleric at will simply saying that your God is mad at you, but it is not a game mechanic like it is for a paladin.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 15, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's it exactly.  That is 100% my point.  I've seen far too many people ignore the alignment of their character when they play.  While alignment shouldn't be a straightjacket, that's true, it also shouldn't be simply a strange acronym on a piece of paper.  ((LG?  What the heck is lug?))



I see far to few people ignore the alignment of their character when they play.  Alignment is not proscriptive, nor does it tell you how to play your character.  Even the PHB states as much.


----------



## BullMarkOne (Jun 15, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> They also don't their powers if they change their alignment.




Actually, see pg 33 of the D&D 3.5 players handbook, under the heading Ex-Clerics, left column, most of the way down the page.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> While a DM may require your character to take an oath as a cleric, it is not a class requirment, meaning it is not listed in the player handbook.  They have an obligation to act in the dieties best interest and Dogma, but they are not bound by an oath that they must swear to a god and if they fail in that oath, they don't lose those powers granted by them.  They also don't their powers if they change their alignment.
> 
> The DM can of course require an oath and can revoke the power of a cleric at will simply saying that your God is mad at you, but it is not a game mechanic like it is for a paladin.




A cleric is expected to adhere to a gods principals/beliefs/whatever. I would expect, even though it's not specifically stated in the PHB, that if a cleric of the god of healing refused to heal needy and good people, for his/her god to deny him access to his/her spells.......common sense.

Also if a good cleric turns evil you're telling me that the good god will still grant him/her spellcasting abilities? I don't think so therefore a cleric will lose their powers if their aligment shifts too radically, it's just much easier for a paladin to lose his.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

BullMarkOne said:
			
		

> Actually, see pg 33 of the D&D 3.5 players handbook, under the heading Ex-Clerics, left column, most of the way down the page.




Ya beat me to it. I didn't think we needed it specifically printed in a book however as it just seemed like common sense.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 15, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> A cleric is expected to adhere to a gods principals/beliefs/whatever. I would expect, even though it's not specifically stated in the PHB, that if a cleric of the god of healing refused to heal needy and good people, for his/her god to deny him access to his/her spells.......common sense.
> 
> Also if a good cleric turns evil you're telling me that the good god will still grant him/her spellcasting abilities? I don't think so therefore a cleric will lose their powers if their aligment shifts too radically, it's just much easier for a paladin to lose his.




Well, I'm at work, have to look at that when I get home, however, it is not the point.  What is the point is that a Paladin has too take an oath, a cleric does not.  Why is that a distiction in this debate, cause it automatically sets the paladin to a higher standard than the cleric or any other class.  Not only do you have to adhere to your Dogma, but if you fail in the oath you lose a lot.  

And it may be common sense that a healing cleric who doesn't heal get nipped in the bud from his God, but again, it is not directly stated in the PHB in the same way that the Paladin code is.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I see far to few people ignore the alignment of their character when they play.  Alignment is not proscriptive, nor does it tell you how to play your character.  Even the PHB states as much.




Pardon?   If alignment is not proscriptive, or, heck, even descriptive, then what's the point of having an alignment at all?  I did say that it should not be a straight jacket, but, then again, it should accurately describe the moral outlook of your character.  If your LG character goes around kicking puppies and setting fire to old women, then I would argue that the character is perhaps not LG.  Does it mean that the character must act LG all the time?  Nope.  There are times when a LG character might act counter to his or her alignment (granted, not if he's a paladin), but, then again, a cleric runs some of the same problems as a paladin for stepping out of line.  

It's interesting to note that the description for becoming an ex-cleric is almost identical to that of a paly's.  Right down to the point of specifically stating the cleric has a code of conduct.  Although, granted, a cleric can regain his status through an Atonement spell whereas the paly might not be able to.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, I'm at work, have to look at that when I get home, however, it is not the point.  What is the point is that a Paladin has too take an oath, a cleric does not.  Why is that a distiction in this debate, cause it automatically sets the paladin to a higher standard than the cleric or any other class.  Not only do you have to adhere to your Dogma, but if you fail in the oath you lose a lot.
> 
> And it may be common sense that a healing cleric who doesn't heal get nipped in the bud from his God, but again, it is not directly stated in the PHB in the same way that the Paladin code is.




I suggest you take another look at the books my friend......

From the SRD:

'Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).'

This would seem to suggest an 'oath' of sorts and is also a direct statement in the PHB.

So realistically the cleric and the paladin have nearly the same standards; it's only slightly easier for the paladin to fall.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It's interesting to note that the description for becoming an ex-cleric is almost identical to that of a paly's.  Right down to the point of specifically stating the cleric has a code of conduct.  Although, granted, a cleric can regain his status through an Atonement spell whereas the paly might not be able to.




Exactly however a Paly can Atone just the same as a Cleric can.

I'm would say that I'm surprised the Paly gets all the schtick for a holier than thou attitude when a cleric would seem to be played the same by all accounts. You have to factor in then that the cleric is the party's mobile hospital and all of a sudden that gets overlooked.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 15, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> Exactly however a Paly can Atone just the same as a Cleric can.
> 
> I'm would say that I'm surprised the Paly gets all the schtick for a holier than thou attitude when a cleric would seem to be played the same by all accounts. You have to factor in then that the cleric is the party's mobile hospital and all of a sudden that gets overlooked.



Well, that's not entirely true.  The paladins have a code of conduct that is seperate from their god (the default paladin doesn't even need a god, and it's sort of implied that they stand for an IDEAL rather than a god).

So, a God of Justice and Evil Destruction might say "all my followers must destroy evil wherever they find it and combat tyranny".  All clerics have to follow that.  However, Paladins are ALSO restricted to the Paladin Oath, thus preventing them from lying, associating with evil, etc.  

Clerics who are LG MAY be able to make small lies without losing their alignment, not a big enough infraction.  However, Paladins are breaking their oath and may lose their powers.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 15, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> I suggest you take another look at the books my friend......
> 
> From the SRD:
> 
> ...




Well, I am sure that you are correctly quoting the PHB, I will take your word for it, however, two things come to mind.

One, clerics don't all have to be Lawful good, Paladins do.  This allows different standards because they don't have an as strict alignment.  Even assuming that you are lawful good cleric worshiping a lawful good god, you are not under the same standards of a lawful good paladin.  Because you don't have a direct oath (unless your DM makes you take one) you can cheat a little in your role as a cleric.  A lawful good cleric could lie to protect the innocent (or even the evil) and still retain spells but if a Paladin were to lie about anything (assuming lying is covered in their code, and it should be), he would be cast from the order and have to atone.  If I recall, the original post was 'why do paladins get a bad rap,' or something like that, not how is a cleric comparable to a paladin.

Two, I think the main reason paladins get the bad rap as a Goode two-shoes is cause of first edition AD&D.  If I recall correctly, (and again, I would have to wait until I get home to look it up, I should just keep books at work  ), Gary Gygax actually had a code of conduct for a paladin in the PHK and I don't think he had one for a cleric.  Why does this matter?  Because, many people started out playing AD&D and they remember the code and they remember the paladin had to act a certain way and that way was to not lie, to not cheat, to not be underhanded, to not kill for no reason, to be courteous to the ladies, ETC.  Back then, as now, it was extremely hard to have a paladin in the party because everyone had to consider thier actions if the paladin was around.  This gets to the main point of the thread, because it has been ingrained into our minds that that is the way a paladin acts, and therefore the way lawful good should act.

Many people mistake Lawful Good for paladinhood.  They are not the same, they are exclusive of each other.  A lawful good character of any other class is completely different in scope than a paladin and that is the main point.  In the end it is only secondary that a cleric has to be on thier best behavior, the point is that we hold a paladin to a higher standard of lawful good than any other class.  Whether it is because of the knights of the rounds table, because of the knights of dragonlance or because of the way the original paladin in AD&D was constructed, we put them on a pillar and expect them to not fall of.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Well, that's not entirely true.  The paladins have a code of conduct that is seperate from their god (the default paladin doesn't even need a god, and it's sort of implied that they stand for an IDEAL rather than a god).
> 
> So, a God of Justice and Evil Destruction might say "all my followers must destroy evil wherever they find it and combat tyranny".  All clerics have to follow that.  However, Paladins are ALSO restricted to the Paladin Oath, thus preventing them from lying, associating with evil, etc.
> 
> Clerics who are LG MAY be able to make small lies without losing their alignment, not a big enough infraction.  However, Paladins are breaking their oath and may lose their powers.




A Cleric doesn't need a god either but that's neither here nor there.

The description of the Paladin and his code etc. can be looked at from a lot of angles. Whilst it states that you should act honourably and not lie you only lose your abilities if you become anything other than LG, willingly commit an evil act or GROSSLY violate the code of conduct. Now I would take this to mean that lying to some BBEG is not grossly violating your code if it is for a very good reason. If you're just lying to anybody that's a different matter.

The code set out in the PHB is IMO a guideline that needs tailoring dependent on what campaign you are playing in.


----------



## William Ronald (Jun 15, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> A Cleric doesn't need a god either but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> The description of the Paladin and his code etc. can be looked at from a lot of angles. Whilst it states that you should act honourably and not lie you only lose your abilities if you become anything other than LG, willingly commit an evil act or GROSSLY violate the code of conduct. Now I would take this to mean that lying to some BBEG is not grossly violating your code if it is for a very good reason. If you're just lying to anybody that's a different matter.
> 
> The code set out in the PHB is IMO a guideline that needs tailoring dependent on what campaign you are playing in.





I agree that the PHB code is one of many possible paladin codes.  For example, two paladins following different philosphies or faiths may have very different codes.

For example, some people believe that one must always tell the truth -- even if someone gets hurt because of this.   An extreme example of this is someone who believes that all lying is wrong -- and will tell the BBEG that the innocent refugees are hidden in the ship's cargo hold.  (Okay, I am losely paraphrasing Immanuel Kant.)  Others will argue that it is permissible to lie for a greater good, such as preserving life.  So, you can have many different kinds of paladins -- who can be at odds with each other. Similarly, some paladins may frown on stealth or the use of missile weapons for religious or cultural reasons. Others may tolerate or favor these tactics based on their beliefs.

I have seen DMs who have railroaded paladins, as well as the occassional player who thinks his character is a Lawful Stupid pala*dim*.  Perhaps DMs need to have their players who sish to play paladins work on a specific code based on the character's beliefs.

In another matter, any character -- and not just paladins -- can have conflicting agendas with other characters.  I think a good question to ask is how well a character fits into a group.


----------



## LordBOB (Jun 15, 2005)

yes Paladins do have to follow a STRICT code of conduct and yes if they mess up Badly they loose their powers.

Playing a Paladin is indeed rough but I manage ok.  I am currently being trained by another Paladin as a Sword Dancer and at times ive had to attone for my actions ( or my groups ). 

One time My group Broke a promise not to harm the people we were talking with and for no reason they started attacking.  I said I wouldnt harm them unless they harmed me and I Was true to my word.  I literally walked out from a fight and stood in the back watching.  One party member was down and the otheres were wonded, so I decided to go and heal them, my enemies attacked me so I announced that they broke their promise and I Was now free to attack them.  I went in and cleaned up what was left.

I was rewarded by my DM for keeping true to my word and the other players were deeply punished ( 2 of them lost their most powerul weapon).  My Paladin Teacher saw my actions as wrong b/c of the way I went about the whole thing.  I had to do a little attonement but nothing serious.  

So trying to keep in the whole code of conduct thing is indeed a hard thing to do.  You might get praised by 1 person and yet punished by another.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, I am sure that you are correctly quoting the PHB, I will take your word for it, however, two things come to mind.
> 
> One, clerics don't all have to be Lawful good, Paladins do.  This allows different standards because they don't have an as strict alignment.  Even assuming that you are lawful good cleric worshiping a lawful good god, you are not under the same standards of a lawful good paladin.  Because you don't have a direct oath (unless your DM makes you take one) you can cheat a little in your role as a cleric.  A lawful good cleric could lie to protect the innocent (or even the evil) and still retain spells but if a Paladin were to lie about anything (assuming lying is covered in their code, and it should be), he would be cast from the order and have to atone.  If I recall, the original post was 'why do paladins get a bad rap,' or something like that, not how is a cleric comparable to a paladin.
> 
> ...




Ok so we're arguing over paladin/cleric but hey, we've had an arguement over paly losing powers over breaking a tomb. My point still stands that no one complains about the cleric because he's the healer.

Unearthed Arcana has CG paladins and evil paladins which I think is fair enough. What god wouldn't want paladin enforcers of their own? So the LG arguement is somewhat moot if you're happy using those rules and therefore a 'paladins code' is going to vary.

Read my previous point with regards to lying, if you stripped my character of it's status for lying for the greater good then I'd up and leave. Saying that you cannot do something ever for whatever reason is absolutely bl00dy ludicrous. There WILL be that one time when it's absolutely unavoidable and to penalize someone for that is ridiculous. I think the only exception to that rule is willingly commit the evil act and even that, I'm sure, a few people could possibly challenge.

I'm sorry if something is so ingrained in your head just because of someones say so but as the Borg do, you should adapt. In all my years playing D&D I've never had a problem with paladins nor has any of my companions had a problem with me playing one. Sure I've peed some of them off because playing a good character regardless of the other axis means responsibilities but, hey, they've peed me off and they play good characters as well who should know better sometimes.

You say any other LG character is COMPLETELY different to a paladin and I think that's maybe where it all starts to fall down. If any other LG character is sooo different to a paladin then they wouldn't be LG. A good character of any description is good because they do good deeds and therefore whilst not restricted say to the paladins code would more or less follow a fair bit of it just because they were good. It seems to me that people who object to paladins and play good characters shouldn't really have that alignment. Either that or too many people are playing characters that are evil/chaotic neutral/neutral etc. and therefore at the start should say to the character who wants to play the paladin to not do so and stop whinging about it when they let them.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> yes Paladins do have to follow a STRICT code of conduct and yes if they mess up Badly they loose their powers.
> 
> Playing a Paladin is indeed rough but I manage ok.  I am currently being trained by another Paladin as a Sword Dancer and at times ive had to attone for my actions ( or my groups ).
> 
> ...




I'm not surprised you had to attone, you should have at least tried to disarm the others/your colleagues and use your diplomacy to diffuse the situation. By simply walking away from it all I would suggest that you had grossly violated your code and should have lost your powers.

Paladins like you give the rest of us a bad name.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

William Ronald said:
			
		

> I agree that the PHB code is one of many possible paladin codes.  For example, two paladins following different philosphies or faiths may have very different codes.
> 
> For example, some people believe that one must always tell the truth -- even if someone gets hurt because of this.   An extreme example of this is someone who believes that all lying is wrong -- and will tell the BBEG that the innocent refugees are hidden in the ship's cargo hold.  (Okay, I am losely paraphrasing Immanuel Kant.)  Others will argue that it is permissible to lie for a greater good, such as preserving life.  So, you can have many different kinds of paladins -- who can be at odds with each other. Similarly, some paladins may frown on stealth or the use of missile weapons for religious or cultural reasons. Others may tolerate or favor these tactics based on their beliefs.
> 
> ...




Hear hear.


----------



## LordBOB (Jun 15, 2005)

well ive should of pointed out that i tried most of the battle to stop my friends from attacking.  I indeed didnt try and disarm them b/c they would of stabbed my in the back or something.

Unfortunantly you judge me without knowing me.  Maybe you should have asked what else happend before you passed judgement.  I didnt feel like telling the ENTIRE battle.  If I had than I would still be typing the battle.

I dont know why i would give paladins a bad name, but im sure your going to tell me why so there is no point in trying to argue with you since you already have a view about me.

you play Paladins they way you want and ill play the way I want.  I know it was wrong but if I had broken my promise than I WOUDLNT BE A PALADIN.  

Which one would you choose:

1.  Keeping your promise no matter how difficult the situation was and keep your powers.
2.  Break the promise, kill innocent people, and loose your powers

sounds pretty simple to me


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> well ive should of pointed out that i tried most of the battle to stop my friends from attacking.  I indeed didnt try and disarm them b/c they would of stabbed my in the back or something. Yes you should have pointed that little fact out, would have saved me a post! So you didn't try and disarm them because you feared retaliation? 1. Paladins are immune to fear!   2. Your party made a promise which included you therefore you were obliged to try and uphold that promise: the others were trying to defend themselves from your companions and then yourself. You were the bad guys in this situation, not them!
> 
> Unfortunantly you judge me without knowing me.  Maybe you should have asked what else happend before you passed judgement.  I didnt feel like telling the ENTIRE battle.  If I had than I would still be typing the battle. Please refer to my other comment. I judged you on what you said which was 'my party made a promise not to attack, then did so and I just walked away'. Maybe you could have just explained that and i then would not have judged you and, as you have probably just noticed, it didn't need the recounting of the entire battle and thua an evenings worth of typing!
> 
> ...




Please don't take my comments personally, it's just some constructive criticism and you could have explained your role without having to detail the entire encounter. However, as I've stated, you did NOT act as a paladin should AND you've stated that those you attacked were INNOCENT!!!    That would suggest you willingly commited an evil act.

Didn't you even try to use Detect Evil?

Why on earth did your party attack tose INNOCENT people?

Are you starting to maybe get the idea why your actions are so NOT like those of a paladin?

By the way Bob........welcome to ENWorld!!!


----------



## LordBOB (Jun 15, 2005)

ok stop


they were innocdnt b/c they werent doing anything to us. They were evil but not like a demon evil.

I promised to not attack them as long as i wasnt harmed. When i went to help my comrads I was shot and therefore harmed. I said that they broke thier promise and this allowed me to attack without fear of breaking the promise.

I didnt kill innocent people anymore b/c they were endangering my life making them guilty. I simply defended myself.

I did not fear retalation, I KNEW they would and if I did anything than I would have my team mates attacking my and the other dudes attacking me and I didnt want that. Im simply used reason not to try and disarm my friends.

I am indeed sorry that I thought you were passing judgement on me. I should of thought my story out a little more before posting it. In the future I hope to advoid these mistakes. 
Im sorry


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> ok stop
> 
> 
> they were innocdnt b/c they werent doing anything to use.  They were evil but not like a demon evil.
> ...




The plot thickens!!!   

I still stand by my original arguement as your 'teacher' can, and has, verified.


----------



## LordBOB (Jun 15, 2005)

and you are right. I have attoned for my actions and I plan on doing my best to stay away fromt hese situations


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 15, 2005)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> and you are right. I have attoned for my actions and I plan on doing my best to stay away fromt hese situations




If you think you have problems check out Sepulchrave's 'Tales of the Wyre'.......there's a freaked out paladin if ever I saw one.

I'll try and post a link if someone doesn't beat me to it.


----------



## LordBOB (Jun 15, 2005)

i would indeed like a link if at all possible cause i dont have many of the older books


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 15, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> Ok so we're arguing over paladin/cleric but hey, we've had an arguement over paly losing powers over breaking a tomb. My point still stands that no one complains about the cleric because he's the healer.
> 
> Unearthed Arcana has CG paladins and evil paladins which I think is fair enough. What god wouldn't want paladin enforcers of their own? So the LG arguement is somewhat moot if you're happy using those rules and therefore a 'paladins code' is going to vary.
> 
> ...




Okay, here is the short of it, now that I am home.

All pages 3.5 PHK

Page 30, under alignment, he can be one away from his Gods alignment and says nothing about swearing a code of conduct.

Page 33, under ex-clerics, only talks about grossly violating code of conduct required by his god.

page 42, under alignment, must be lawful good (none of this up to one step away crap) and they must swear to an oath, either to a God, a king or whatever.

Page 44 ex-paladins the main point here that is different from a cleric is that , he has higher standards, if he ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commit an evil act or grossly violates the code of conduct.

The big difference here is of course the commit evil act. A lawful good cleric could commit an evil act if it was a one time thing or he thought it was really the only way to handle the situation and not lose his powers, not so with a paladin.  There is no bargining room for a paladin.

page 103, under alignment, last paragraph:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straight jacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not a lawful or good behavior.

page 104, under lawful good, a lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps, those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

To get back on track with our debate, a lawful good cleric has the liberty to act differently than a lawful good paladin. While neither should lie and neither should do evil acts and neither should be greedy, the cleric has the luxury of being able to do that on occasion while the paladin doesn't.

page 44 again, under code of conduct, a paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities is she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help of evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

So again, there is a difference between the two, the paladin and any other character who happens to be lawful good. Again, they are the highest in morals and the ultimate symbol of the Lawful good alignment. In addition to the alignment, they can not cheat from it like other classes can because they have a code the forbids it. If your paladin lied, then he should have lost his powers. Like it or not, they are never supposed to. 

I would say that 75% of all paladin are miss played, either because the player doesn't understand the way a lawful good character (times 10)should act or because the DM doesn't monitor the paladin and doesn't keep him in check.

Also, I don't mind having a nice civil debate, but please don't compare me to a borg and let's try to keep this to PHK. I know that there are other paladins of other alignments, but the main question on this thread was about the basic paladin from the PHK, let's keep the focus there, otherwise, this will get out of hand.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 16, 2005)

I'll reply to this tomorrow my friend, too many beers does not a good arguement make, (and please don't tell me I'm gonna lose me powers coz I'm drunk   ).


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 16, 2005)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> i would indeed like a link if at all possible cause i dont have many of the older books




It's somewhere in the story hour forums my friend, not in any books however I sure would like to read a book on his story hour coz it's brilliant. In fact just check the story hour forum out full stop, I've read several of them and have not been dissappointed in the slightest: ENWorld fortunately hosts some excellent writers who should have published works and be recognized for the sheer joy they give to us mere mortals.

God bless you all.......

And with that, I'm going to bed!


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 16, 2005)

But before I do.......here ya go Bob.....

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=58227


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 16, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> I'll reply to this tomorrow my friend, too many beers does not a good arguement make, (and please don't tell me I'm gonna lose me powers coz I'm drunk  ).




No, but you might lose your powers to do, what you woo, to women


----------



## NeoDarke (Jun 16, 2005)

well in that case, if your a paladin, then don't lie. It did not however say anything about telling the *whole* truth. just tell them as much truth as you think they need to know, and leave it at that.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 16, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> Ok so we're arguing over paladin/cleric but hey, we've had an arguement over paly losing powers over breaking a tomb. My point still stands that no one complains about the cleric because he's the healer.
> *snip*
> You say any other LG character is COMPLETELY different to a paladin and I think that's maybe where it all starts to fall down. If any other LG character is sooo different to a paladin then they wouldn't be LG. A good character of any description is good because they do good deeds and therefore whilst not restricted say to the paladins code would more or less follow a fair bit of it just because they were good. It seems to me that people who object to paladins and play good characters shouldn't really have that alignment. Either that or too many people are playing characters that are evil/chaotic neutral/neutral etc. and therefore at the start should say to the character who wants to play the paladin to not do so and stop whinging about it when they let them.




Well put.  Yes, a cleric does not need to be LG.  However, that's never been the point.  The point was a LG cleric is under just as many restrictions as a paladin.  The fact that a LG cleric HAS a code of conduct handed down to him from on high means pretty much the same as the paly's code.  In both cases, if the character grossly violates that code, they lose their powers.  If the LG cleric commits an evil act, that would generally constitute a gross violation of his code and thus would strip him of his abilities.  Pretty much in an identical way to a paladin.

I do agree with Rocco that a number of paly's get very loosely played.  That's true.  And I also agree that paly players tend to get steamrolled by DM's who have the Arthurian Knight stamped across their forehead when it comes to paladins.  ((On a side note, I've gotten slapped with that one.  Despite spending much time creating a code for a paladin for a DM, we still constantly argued over things and I eventually retired the character as unplayable with that DM))  

However, the idea that only Paladins have to adhere to a code is ludicrous.  The fact that the divine casters need to Atone to get their abilities back (Druids too need to atone - gotta revere nature, can't lose the neutral aspect of their alignment) means that their code is handed to them from somewhere - either some sort of philosophy or a diety, take your pick.  Yes, the code for a CE cleric of Spam would be _different_ than a LG cleric's code, but it would still exist.  IMVHO, there are far more healing battery clerics wandering around who have never once questioned any of the party's actions than poorly played paladins.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well put. Yes, a cleric does not need to be LG. However, that's never been the point. The point was a LG cleric is under just as many restrictions as a paladin. The fact that a LG cleric HAS a code of conduct handed down to him from on high means pretty much the same as the paly's code. In both cases, if the character grossly violates that code, they lose their powers. If the LG cleric commits an evil act, that would generally constitute a gross violation of his code and thus would strip him of his abilities. Pretty much in an identical way to a paladin.
> 
> I do agree with Rocco that a number of paly's get very loosely played. That's true. And I also agree that paly players tend to get steamrolled by DM's who have the Arthurian Knight stamped across their forehead when it comes to paladins. ((On a side note, I've gotten slapped with that one. Despite spending much time creating a code for a paladin for a DM, we still constantly argued over things and I eventually retired the character as unplayable with that DM))
> 
> However, the idea that only Paladins have to adhere to a code is ludicrous. The fact that the divine casters need to Atone to get their abilities back (Druids too need to atone - gotta revere nature, can't lose the neutral aspect of their alignment) means that their code is handed to them from somewhere - either some sort of philosophy or a diety, take your pick. Yes, the code for a CE cleric of Spam would be _different_ than a LG cleric's code, but it would still exist. IMVHO, there are far more healing battery clerics wandering around who have never once questioned any of the party's actions than poorly played paladins.




Nice to have people agree with me every once and a while 

Concerning your second paragraph though, if you look two of my posts back you find references to page numbers and code/alignment/etc.  The big difference is that a cleric doesn't have the stipulation of committing an evil act.  Now a LG cleric should have something about that in her code, but it doesn't have to be there, so I LG cleric may get a one time shot at killing an innocent while A paladin would never be allowed this.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 16, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Okay, here is the short of it, now that I am home. I'm still home but sober this time.
> 
> All pages 3.5 PHK. PHK? Not come across that abbreviation before or if I have it's not ringing any bells.
> 
> ...




I don't particularly want this to get out of hand either and it's been good having this debate with, (this has got to be the most energy I've put into one topic.......go post count go!!!).

In the end I suppose Paladins are great in some campaigns and are just not in others and once again I'll state that this should be discussed by all and agreed on BEFORE you start playing. Take a look at some of the people who are for and you'll see that they're nowhere near as bad as some might make out. A few are in some of the most prominent story hours which must count for something.

I seem to recall that there was an arguement regarding the maturity of the players and DM when it came to involving Paladins in play and I think this has some weight to it, they are complex characters to play and thus any group should seriously consider this, (and Clerics also, they still have some explaining to do IMO!).


----------



## Morpheus (Jun 16, 2005)

Do you remember the scene in _Army of Darkness_ when the evil Ash is created and he goes on and on until he says, "Goody two-shoes! Goody two-shoes!" Well, he's talking about paladins right there. Then, the "good" Ash replies with what all players wish they could say after shooting the evil Ash, "Good. Bad. I'm the one with the gun."   It's a question of absolutes and not all players see the game that way.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 16, 2005)

Morpheus said:
			
		

> Do you remember the scene in _Army of Darkness_ when the evil Ash is created and he goes on and on until he says, "Goody two-shoes! Goody two-shoes!" Well, he's talking about pladins right there. Then, the "good" Ash replies with what all players wish they could say after shooting the evil Ash, "Good. Bad. I'm the one with the gun."   It's a question of absolutes and not all players see the game that way.




Great film.....and I loved that scene.

The other great was in Evil Dead 2......

Demon bitch - "I'll swallow yer soul, I'll swallow yer soul, I'll swallow yer soul...."

Ash - "Swallow this", (inserts shotgun into demon bitch's mouth), BOOOOM!

Classic.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 16, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> Great film.....and I loved that scene.
> 
> The other great was in Evil Dead 2......
> 
> ...




Actually, wasn't if a BOOM stick 

Anyway, I think we are ont the same page now.  In the game that I play in, we could only start out as a rogue or a fighter, (yeah, it kinda sucked) we had to find the other classes.  Of course, everyone designed characters based on the fact that they would find the class they wanted eventually.  Now, the moral of the story, some idiot always brings it upon themselves to finish off the party.  If there is a rogue, someone will play a mage, if there is no fighter class, some one will fill in, if there is no healer, last man standing will play a cleric.  In this group, for some reason, there has always been that one person who said, 'I'm LG, I'm going to be a paladin,' we were happy when he died.

He took another path, but another person who died with him took up the mantle of LG.  There will always be some one who tries to balance thae party and in the case of the Paladin, you just can't do it.  It is really hard to have a rogue in the party and a paladin.

Rogue: I got the information we needed.

Paladin:  How did you do that?

Rogue: *Bluff* bought it off an orphan.

Paladin: *sense motive* you liar, we can not use that, it has been tainted by your underhandedness.

Having a rogue in the party gives you options and is usually not a problem (unless they start down the assassin path or start stealing fro the party, which seems to happen a lot), but having a paladin in the party means that you as a party have a higher standard to how you play because he can't do things the way others do.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 16, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Actually, wasn't if a BOOM stick  It was indeed a BOOM stick, "Shop smart, shop S-Mart!!!".
> 
> Anyway, I think we are ont the same page now.  In the game that I play in, we could only start out as a rogue or a fighter, (yeah, it kinda sucked) we had to find the other classes.  Of course, everyone designed characters based on the fact that they would find the class they wanted eventually.  Now, the moral of the story, some idiot always brings it upon themselves to finish off the party.  If there is a rogue, someone will play a mage, if there is no fighter class, some one will fill in, if there is no healer, last man standing will play a cleric.  In this group, for some reason, there has always been that one person who said, 'I'm LG, I'm going to be a paladin,' we were happy when he died.
> 
> ...




Our DM only allows to play good or straight neutral characters so maybe we have an easier time of playing with Paladins in the group. If I was that Rogue in the example above I would have turned to the Paladin and said "I'm sorry I don't want to reveal my sources because that's my business and not yours, I don't go prying into everything you do so I would appreciate it if you didn't pry yourself" Or you could just simply state "None of your business". There's loads of ways around the Paladin just so long as when he Detects Evil you do not happen to be tainted!

We have an NPC Rogue in our world who pops up from time to time who knows my Paladin. Now I know he's pretty dodgy but he's not evil and therefore I'm not on his case all the time. A Paladin should expect that the people around him for the most part simply cannot live up to his standards and shouldn't force that burden on others.

I just hope Paladins will be tolerated more in the future. As someone said it's not just them that can piss the rest of the group off the Rogue can too when he insists on robbing everybody/thing blind and gets the rest of the party involved as a result of his actions.


----------



## NeoDarke (Jun 16, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Rogue: I got the information we needed.
> 
> Paladin:  How did you do that?
> 
> ...




Umm... would I be the only Paladin who *wouldn't *ask how the rogue got it? I mean he's a rogue for trying out load. What you don't know can't hurt you, or your party. I'd be more of "Great! Now we can get out of here."


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 16, 2005)

I like playing paladins I just never really get the chance.  

 Last time I played a paladin I felt like I was screwed by the DM cause he didn't want me to play one and the party wasn't very supporitive.

 I hate to admit it but it seems if the party doesn't want a paladin in the group you might as well play something else.  Even if you don't play a jerk type and thats sad.  I never felt like I coudn't play a rogue or a ranger but a paladin you need to get confirmed by the senate or something like that.   Plus it always seem they try to make you fail.  Maybe thats just the groups I play in.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 16, 2005)

NeoDarke said:
			
		

> Umm... would I be the only Paladin who *wouldn't *ask how the rogue got it? I mean he's a rogue for trying out load. What you don't know can't hurt you, or your party. I'd be more of "Great! Now we can get out of here."




Well, a good paladin, and by good I mean one who plays one to the letter and intent of the code not LG, we already know he is that, would ask where information came from.  This would be an example of a paladin who fell into the 75% catagory of not being played properly.  

Sorry man, if you are a paladin and you know for sure that the player is a rogue, you have an obligation to not steal and to take information from someone who might steal, you have an obligation to stear them towards another end, to bring them to the light as it were.

Now, if the rogue never did anything underhanded in front of the paladin and he didn't know he was a rogue, he could easily take the information and not worry about his oath, but to say, 'Great! Now we can get out of here," is just taking the easy way out and that is not what a paladin is all about.

Sucks having a paladin and a rogue in the party cause it really limits the rogue.  Of course your DM can turn a blind eye to this kinda thing cause in real life if someone told you this you, 90% of us would be like, 'Great! Now we can get out of here," and that is why paladins are not played properly, cause DMs and PCs use them for smite evil abilities and put the oath to the back burner.  This is even more true when the game has very little role-playing and a lot of 'munchkining'

As a paladin you have a obligation to guide others and not do wrong, whether it is wrong you have done or others have done.  By taking information gotten through less than honest means, you might as well have beat the man yourself to get the information.

Think of John Wilkes Booth as an example.  Once he shot Lincoln and fled he was taken in by a doctor and treated.  The doctor was put on trial for treason because of his involvement in helping John Wilkes Booth.  Now I am not suggesting that the doctor was a paladin, but the context of the story is the same.  He should not have aided John Wilkes Booth because he had killed Lincoln.  Now you could argue that as a healer he should have valued life and that gets into grey areas, but that is when the PC tries to devine from the DM if it is breaking the oath to heal him or not.  In this case the doctor had a rat bastard DM 

Well, I'm sure I'll get plenty of replies over that loosely based senerio, but if you look to it to determine whether you as a paladin should do something as trival as taking aid from a man whom you know had gotten it from a less than honest source, then you too are just as guilty of the crime.  

Can't do the crime, don't play the class.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 16, 2005)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> I like playing paladins I just never really get the chance.
> 
> Last time I played a paladin I felt like I was screwed by the DM cause he didn't want me to play one and the party wasn't very supporitive.
> 
> I hate to admit it but it seems if the party doesn't want a paladin in the group you might as well play something else. Even if you don't play a jerk type and thats sad. I never felt like I coudn't play a rogue or a ranger but a paladin you need to get confirmed by the senate or something like that. Plus it always seem they try to make you fail. Maybe thats just the groups I play in.




You get the same on the other end of the stick, hard to play an assassin in most games.  While they are not black listed as much as paladins, they do get a bad rap.  You are right, you pretty much need everyones permission to make a paladin.

Correction - you can make a paldin anytime, just can't play them most of the time


----------



## CrusaderX (Jun 17, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, a good paladin, and by good I mean one who plays one to the letter and intent of the code not LG, we already know he is that, would ask where information came from.  This would be an example of a paladin who fell into the 75% catagory of not being played properly.
> 
> Sorry man, if you are a paladin and you know for sure that the player is a rogue, you have an obligation to not steal and to take information from someone who might steal, you have an obligation to stear them towards another end, to bring them to the light as it were.




I completely disagree.   Paladins have to be Lawful Good and follow a code of honor.  That's it.  And it really needs to be stressed here that _not all codes are the same_.  It should go without saying, but Paladins need not be mindless clones of one another.  If a Paladin is Lawful Good and follows a code, he's a Paladin, regardless of whether he does things your way or not.

One of my favorite role-models for Paladins is *Samurai Jack*.  Jack isn't a Paladin, of course, but he's definitely a Lawful Good warrior with a strong code of honor.   The Paladin similarities are very apparent.   So what Jack can do, as far as most moral decisions go, my Paladins can do.

If Lawful Good Jack received crucial information from the Chaotic Scotsman, Jack definitely would not say "we can not use that, it has been tainted by your underhandedness". 

Neither would my Paladin.   Jack, like my Paladin, would use that information, and go kick evil's butt.  He wouldn't appove of the Chaotic character's methods, but he would also be wise enough (Paladins are usually big on Wisdom, after all) to see the bigger picture here.  Such a Paladin is not being wrongly-played, by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## NeoDarke (Jun 17, 2005)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, a good paladin, and by good I mean one who plays one to the letter and intent of the code not LG, we already know he is that, would ask where information came from. This would be an example of a paladin who fell into the 75% catagory of not being played properly.
> 
> Sorry man, if you are a paladin and you know for sure that the player is a rogue, you have an obligation to not steal and to take information from someone who might steal, you have an obligation to stear them towards another end, to bring them to the light as it were.
> 
> ...




I don't really see how having a Paladin and a Rogue in the same party harmful. To be hostest with you, as a Paladin i'd rather sneak through "who knows where" with the underhanded information (that the Rogue got BTW), then have to go through who knows how many guards who very well maybe good guys (But just happen to work for some evil SOB who your sneaking to or whatnot), because that's the only job they could get.

For that matter, the Paladin's I come up with are very down to earth. They understand that the world isn't how it should be (I.E. how there faith says), and that there is alot of evil out there in the world, destroying all that matters the most to everyone. And most of them follow there own codes of honor more then the law of where ever there at. Because when you look at something and you know deep down that what it is, is worng. But the law of the land says otherwise. What are you going to do?

I mean lets say your Paladin used to be a slave, and now here he is. A free man, and a Paladin of his order. And he goes into some land which just happens to has slaves, and that the law says it is not worng to own somebody. What would you do? I know what I would do. I'd do everything I could to free them. If that ment I'd nolonger be a LG Paladin, Then so be it.

And here's a book I think some of you should look at. The book is called Paladins by Joel Rosenberg. I thought it was a great book, and you see the pain some of these men go through, for Church and King.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 17, 2005)

Okay, again, reread the post above where I detail the pages.


Also, the original post was concerning why are paladin disliked or given a bad rap, not what a paladin can and can't do.  But since it is turning into that, here goes, I am correct.  The Paladin is supposed to be played as the moral back bone of society.  Just cause you as an out of character player may take a rogues dishonest information and run with it doesn't mean it is the correct thing for a paladin to do.  That would be an extremely liberal interpation of what a paladin can and can't do.

The bottom line is that if your DM is cool with you side tracking the paladin code, and yes I do know there is more than one code you can play by, and you are having fun and the party is having a good time, no worries.  However, if you are running around knowingly taking dishonest information just for the sake of convenience or taveling with evil or known law breakers or whatever, then according to the books, you are not playing him right.

Just be happy you didn't play a paladin in first edition AD&D, pay close attention to rule number 4:

Page 22 PHB

The following strictures apply to paladins:

1. They may never retain more than ten magic items; these may never exceed:
armor, 1(suit)
shield, 1
weapons, 4
any other magic items, 4

2.  They will never retain wealth, keeping only sufficient treausres to support themselves in a modest manner, pay henchmen, men-at-arms, and servitors, and to construct or maintain a small castle.  Excess is given away, as is the tithe.

3. An immediate tithe (10%) of all income - be it treasure, wages, or whatever - must be given to whatever charitable religous institution (not a cleric player character) of lawful good alignment the paladin selects.

4. Paladins will have henchmen of lawful good alignment and none other; they will associate only with characters and creatures of good alignment; paladins can join a company of adventurerers which contains non-evil neutrals only on a single expedition basis and only if some end which will further the cause of lawful good is purposed.

5. If possible, paladins will take service or form from an alliance with lawful good characters, whether players or not, who are clerics or fighters or noble status.

In addition the paladin could not atone for his sins if he commited an evil act, period.  You had to become a fighter.


This is surely where the paladin got a bad rap in the history of D&D.


----------



## Ed Cha (Jun 17, 2005)

I like the paladin class. I just don't think it's played right most of the time. Being lawful good doesn't mean you have to be a goody two shoes. You could be self-righteous pompous ass who thinks you're doing "good".


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 17, 2005)

I always thought the 1st edition paladin was something with a bit flavour to it, but we never saw them because the stat generation method was 3d6 in order.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2005)

Without more specifics as to how the rogue got his information, it's pretty impossible to make a determination as to whether or not the paly can use it or not.  I mean, if the rogue hung out in a whorehouse all night using the gather info skill, can the paly use that info?  I don't see why not.  Hanging out in a house of ill repute is hardly an evil act.  

Now, if the rogue beat the crap out of some little old woman for the info, then there is a problem.  Then again, if the rogue beats up old women, he's evil and the paly shouldn't be adventuring with him anyway since even 3e paly's can't have evils in the party.

As I said, without more info, we can't really say one way or the other.  Now, granted with a paly in the party, you can't have that evil rogue.  Oh, boo hoo.  The majority of parties out there are neutral or good aligned anyway.  No evils is a pretty common thread for many campaigns out there.  

If people ACTUALLY played alignment once in a while instead of just putting lip service and then acting in whatever way they feel like, then you would see paladins get a lot more popular.

((BTW, 1e paly's got a lot easier to play after the original Unearthed Arcana came out.  Being able to roll 9d6 for Cha, made making paladins much easier.)


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 17, 2005)

I'd have to agreee with Hussar on the Rogue and his information thing. Just because a Rogue got information from somewhere doesn't mean he got it in an underhanded way or it's tainted. Also just because you are a Rogue, it doesn't mean you are dodgy: some examples..

1. Trap/Lock-Smith.
2. Tout.
3. Scout.
4. Infiltrator.
5. Spy.
6. Diplomat.
7. Acrobat.

The above and IMO, virtually any other Rogue other than evil or CN ones can quite happily party with a Paladin without clashing. Seems like the people arguing against any sort of harmony between the two play Rogues in the worst pssible way, (remember they changed the name to Rogue from Thief people.......and so too can you now change!).


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 17, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Without more specifics as to how the rogue got his information, it's pretty impossible to make a determination as to whether or not the paly can use it or not. I mean, if the rogue hung out in a whorehouse all night using the gather info skill, can the paly use that info? I don't see why not. Hanging out in a house of ill repute is hardly an evil act.
> 
> Now, if the rogue beat the crap out of some little old woman for the info, then there is a problem. Then again, if the rogue beats up old women, he's evil and the paly shouldn't be adventuring with him anyway since even 3e paly's can't have evils in the party.
> 
> ...




Well, I agree with you on this.  But I guess when I said gathered information in an underhanded way it would be assumed that it was by beating the crap out of others, not just casing a joint.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 17, 2005)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> I always thought the 1st edition paladin was something with a bit flavour to it, but we never saw them because the stat generation method was 3d6 in order.




It was hard to get the 17 CHR that you needed to be a paladin

On the plus side, in 1st edition, they did have other methods of rolling up your character, if not in the DMG, then they were in Unearthed Arcane, Again I am at work and can't confirm page numbers.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 17, 2005)

Ed Cha said:
			
		

> I like the paladin class. I just don't think it's played right most of the time. Being lawful good doesn't mean you have to be a goody two shoes. You could be self-righteous pompous ass who thinks you're doing "good".




That is true, you could, but you still ahve to follow the code in any event.  Just because you think it is right doesn't mean it is.  If you have a truely dedicated role-playing group, as opposed to a hack-in-slash game, it may be acceptable to play a paladin like this.  However, if he over looked to much, even a self-righteous pompous ass who thinks he is doing good would have to admit that he was wrong if he pushed things to far.

King Priest of Istar from Dragonlance would be a good example of this mentality, look what happened to him in the end.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jun 17, 2005)

What the hell, I am agreeing with people.  Quick, someone tell me that a paladin can kill a child molester with out losing his powers so I can argue somemore.


----------



## kanithardm (Jun 17, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> The only thing that seems to be really useful to the group as a whole is the paladin's _detect evil_ ability. But from what I've read on this board, many DMs hate this ability, and most Players don't really care or give it a second thought.




I hate PCs with this ability, because when they use detect evil i start to glow?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 17, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> I just hope Paladins will be tolerated more in the future. As someone said it's not just them that can piss the rest of the group off the Rogue can too when he insists on robbing everybody/thing blind and gets the rest of the party involved as a result of his actions.




Funny thing is, though, rogues don't _have_ to do that. The only rogues I've ever seen do that are kender. Paladins, on the other hand, are virtually required to piss the group off.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If people ACTUALLY played alignment once in a while instead of just putting lip service and then acting in whatever way they feel like, then you would see paladins get a lot more popular.




Alignment is often seen as a straightjacket. There are more than nine ways people can behave, after all. That might make paladins more popular, but make the game worse for everyone else.


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 17, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I would think that a party of at least nominally heroic adventurers would like the idea of having a paladin in their group -- the epitomy of heroic classes. They are usually trustworthy and dedicated. They are literally fearless and devoted.
> 
> My party seems happy enough with me playing a Paladin, (this is the first time I have btw). I am trustworthy and dedicated to the party which, IMO and regards to the latter, is very important, and with regards to the former, is part of being a Paladin.
> 
> ...




I suppose I'd better answer the original post and not just argue with others on tangents.....please see the above.......


----------



## Darmanicus (Jun 17, 2005)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Funny thing is, though, rogues don't _have_ to do that. The only rogues I've ever seen do that are kender. Paladins, on the other hand, are virtually required to piss the group off.
> 
> How so? Shouldn't a Cleric then do the same then if he's played properly? Course he should. Of course you're not gonna say that to the Cleric though because in your eyes he's more useful.
> 
> Alignment is often seen as a straightjacket. There are more than nine ways people can behave, after all. That might make paladins more popular, but make the game worse for everyone else.




I just don't see a problem with them!


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2005)

> Alignment is often seen as a straightjacket. There are more than nine ways people can behave, after all. That might make paladins more popular, but make the game worse for everyone else.




WHile that is certainly true, as I said before, alignment should at the very least attempt to accurately describe a character's moral and ethical outlook.  A character which consistently ignores his alignment in favor of particular actions should not be that alignment.  For example, a CG rogue who steals all the time to line his own pockets is NOT good.  At best he's CN, and possibly CE.  Stealing is considered a morally evil act generally, particularly when the motivation is simple greed.

While, yes, characters generally can get away with straying from their alignment from time to time, it should be a major thing for the character and something he or she feels very bad about afterwards.  Just as a moral person who lapses and does something evil feels guilty.  Consistently ignoring your alignment should result in an alignment change.


----------

