Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MasonMurdoc 03-01-07, 12:58 PM	I myself love Paladins There awesome The true definition of a hero But I have a player whos wanted to make a Paladin with Tiger Steel Sheilds for about a year now. He finally got the chance to make him Now halfway through there first encounter he diceded he doesn't fit in and Paladins are boring He does fit in He has a twin brother(in-game) who is also a Paladin Anyway I just wanted to complain a little I'm not getting you started because what I would have said would have offended some people
crimsonwolf 03-01-07, 01:11 PM	paliden of freedom i love...
Stormbrand 03-01-07, 01:30 PM	The best reason to object to Paladins is that his Code affects the ENTIRE PARTY - Paladins are obligated to intervene against actions they are opposed to. Other PCs don't like being held to someone elses morality. Or see the Code as a 'weakness' - and that by playing a paladin the player inflicts that weakness on the rest of the party. The way around this, is to treat dishonourable methods as the 'easy way out' and demonstrate how Law and Good are most effective - because unless you have a silly DM, they are.
Leo 03-01-07, 01:41 PM	Since when it's being truly lawfull good an easy thing? Good and law are never the easy way out. That's why you have the chaotic evil side. It's easier to destroy than to create, easier to damage than to heal, easier to don't care about anything than caring about others. LG does things right, not easy. Also, the paladin just conflicts with the party if it starts doing evil deeds. He can acept neutral behaviors. Also, worst come to worst, you're never in doubt about killing an evil guy. Detect evil, confirmed, kill, rinse and repeat:D (Personally, I love paladins and play them whenever possible, and by possible, I mean rolling well enough to have all the necessary stats for good charimsa, wisd and strenght, then go out there telling everybody how to behave and killing every baddy that I can find)
MasonMurdoc 03-01-07, 01:44 PM	Since when it's being truly lawfull good an easy thing? Good and law are never the easy way out. That's why you have the chaotic evil side. It's easier to destroy than to create, easier to damage than to heal, easier to don't care about anything than caring about others. LG does things right, not easy. Also, the paladin just conflicts with the party if it starts doing evil deeds. He can acept neutral behaviors. Also, worst come to worst, you're never in doubt about killing an evil guy. Detect evil, confirmed, kill, rinse and repeat:D (Personally, I love paladins and play them whenever possible, and by possible, I mean rolling well enough to have all the necessary stats for good charimsa, wisd and strenght, then go out there telling everybody how to behave and killing every baddy that I can find) I like you, your cool :)
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-01-07, 01:46 PM	Alignments are part of one's personality. If you are truly Lawful Good, then Chaotic Evil is the hard way.
FrostHammer 03-01-07, 01:50 PM	Also, worst come to worst, you're never in doubt about killing an evil guy. Detect evil, confirmed, kill, rinse and repeat:D *buzz* Wrong answer. That may lose you your Paladin powers in my games, or some of the other games I've played in.
MasonMurdoc 03-01-07, 02:27 PM	*buzz* Wrong answer. That may lose you your Paladin powers in my games, or some of the other games I've played in. But Paladins are there to extinguish ALL evil Either by killin' :D, or converting. Showing mercy is also goo Killing them when there begging for mercy is evil in my books. Anyway I'll shh now coz I'm turning this into a Paladin discussion I'm not allowed to do that because of what I named it right?
The_Shaman 03-01-07, 02:50 PM	Pretty much the same here. Also, I think paladins are a bit like playing D&D on hardcore mode. Everyone should adhere to their alignment, but a paladin gets penalized a whole lot more when they don't act in accordance with theirs. Also, any good character should dislike being in a group with an obviously evil character, but the paladin is actually forbidden to do so. Plus, LG isn't easy even if it comes naturally for you. Doing the right thing may involve helping people without the prospect of a reward, inconveniencing yourself and the party in order to "do good", and in general flies in the face of the natural selfish/munchkinist tendencies most people have. Oh, and it impacts the whole party. If the paladin hears of missing children and a cult hideout, they are likely to say "we're on it" before the rogue mentions something about a reward. There's also the matter of the paladin ideal becoming somewhat unpopular. IT seems that popular culture now portrays the anti-hero as "cool" and "good" even if their actions don't conform to typical D&D lawful good morality. Hence, for many players the restrictions can be rather tough and they'd like them diluted to "Butt-kicking for goodness," which is imo not all a paladin is about. And, of course, the best part is that since paladins are so strongly tied to an alignment, it can end in some very unpleasant discussions about alignment if your DM has other ideas. What exactly is evil/good/chaotic/orderly is one of the big topics in D&D and if the DM can slash your character into a Fighter - if he disagrees, this can be a pain. Hope that the DM doesn't insert some of their personal beliefs in the campaign - or at least that they aren't different from yours. For example, your DM decides that since you're playing a darker campaign, you won't be able to negotiate with a prisoner for vital information - you either get it from him by force or the Big Evil happens. In this case, doing what seems to be good for you can cause your character to fall like a rock just because the DM doesn't agree. Other characters can go off the hook, but a paladin falls from a single willful evil act - so you're almost asking for trouble.
MasonMurdoc 03-01-07, 03:01 PM	Avoiding evil isn't to hard except at certain points Its the good vs good and good vs law that seem to be the main issue Because the wong act could lead to you falling Unfortunatly I haven't had the chance to face a dilema like that :'(
R4za 03-01-07, 04:30 PM	I like the principle of the paladin well enough, just not that by DnD standards lawful equates to conformity, hierarchy and absolutism as well as self-discipline, consistent principles and devotion to their practise. The Paladin of Freedom = sweetness incarnate, combining devotion to doing good with an ideal of good that actually makes sense.
MasonMurdoc 03-01-07, 06:43 PM	Is that all anyone has to say? Maybe I should have named it smething else
The Amazing Dancing Bear 03-01-07, 07:37 PM	I don't like them, largely because there's a class that does it so much better. The crusader is like a paladin in most aspects of gameplay and flavor. However, crusaders can be of any alignment (instant antipaladin) and are effective at all levels. The paladin has all of its awesome packed into its first five levels. After that, you get a little more smiting and a little more disease curing (and I have never had to deal with a situation at 20th level that can be solved with being able to cure disease 5 times a week as opposed to, say, miracle). The crusader is good for all 20 levels; not only that, but there's no alignment code. This means that you can keep the parts you like, and throw away the parts you don't; it's great, orphanages don't get set on fire because you're not allowed to lie. If you have the ToB, I'd advise your paladin players to consider switching their class; crusader's just that much more enjoyable.
The_Shaman 03-01-07, 07:50 PM	Is that all anyone has to say? Maybe I should have named it smething else Well, you were aiming high. Perhaps we should have started quipping a la "X signs you may be a cultist of an evil god".
boggler65 03-01-07, 07:57 PM	I feel that paladins are useless in any campaign except one that focuses almost entirely on encounters involving undead. Basically the morality of most paladins means that they are expected to solve viturally any encounter through means that don't involve combat whenever possible. They are also expected to obey laws. This hurts and severely limits most parties, which rely heavily on combat, thieving, and other disreputable pursuits to accomplish thier goals. Outside of an undead heavy campaign paladins must rely heavily on skills like diplimacy, sense motive, etc, skills which the paladin has, but due to thier low skill points cannot make effective use of. Bottom line, during most combat encounters they are just hamstrung fighters. During most heavy role playing encounters they are equally if not more limited due to thier morality and low amount of skill points. In the end it's my opinion that paladins hurt the game overall, causing detrimental out of character conflicts between players, occasionally screwing the party over completely and getting them killed or wasting opportunities for better rewards etc. That said I don't outlaw them in my game, I just usually make sure that the PC's behavior is not making life overly difficult for the rest of the players.
The_Shaman 03-01-07, 08:13 PM	Well, a paladin needs a party that can accomodate a paladin. It practically says so in the code:"While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good." Playing a paladin is IMO a cooperative effort. The player needs to remember the character is a paladin, and should act like such. However, the other PCs must also keep this in mind ("What do you mean, I shouldn't rob the old woman?"). So should the DM: given the efforts a paladin makes to be 101% good and truthful, protector of the innocent, defender of the weak, etc, etc s/he should be viewed with a good deal of deference by any non-evil NPC, and this respectability should figure in the game somehow, say by NPCs being more willing to help a paladin than any other armed scoundrel (aka adventurer) that drags its mailed posterior around. To put it in another way, roleplaying a paladin requires significant sacrifices, and should be rewarded with significant concessions.
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-01-07, 08:17 PM	Some people hate paladins because they have never progressed past the "I-am-evil-and-want-it-all: style of gaming. You know the type. Never met a prisoner they didn''t want to torture. Never saw an item that they didn't want to steal, and so on. Some people hate paladins because certian players act like complete idiots when they play them. Either the Lawful-Stupid variety or the Spanish Inquisition type. (That's the historical version, not the Monty Python or Mel Brooks versions) Others hate them because the DM constantly punishes good deeds. (There is one person in my gaming group that I will never play a paladin for. Every person we help out that appears for more than one session is a plant working for the other side. NEVER FAILS) Others hate them because the DM involved is a spike. (You woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Lose your paladinhood. OR You have a choice. You can either lose your paladinhood by allowing all these innocents to die, or you can face off against these impossible odds where the rolling is just prolonging the inevitable)
FrostWolf 03-01-07, 08:25 PM	I myself love Paladins There awesome The true definition of a hero Agreed. %100. But the thing is, the alignment is a hard one to play. Lawful good is kind of hard to manage. Now if your DM is willing to be light on the alignment stuff, and your willing to stay close, no problem! ON TOPIC: Do we REALY need so freaking many divine casters/hybrids in the core set? eather axe one or two, (Paladin, ranger, I'm looking at you guys)or add a few arcane hybrids to the core books.
periscope 03-01-07, 08:28 PM	I don't like them, largely because there's a class that does it so much better. The crusader is like a paladin in most aspects of gameplay and flavor. However, crusaders can be of any alignment (instant antipaladin) and are effective at all levels. The paladin has all of its awesome packed into its first five levels. After that, you get a little more smiting and a little more disease curing (and I have never had to deal with a situation at 20th level that can be solved with being able to cure disease 5 times a week as opposed to, say, miracle). The crusader is good for all 20 levels; not only that, but there's no alignment code. This means that you can keep the parts you like, and throw away the parts you don't; it's great, orphanages don't get set on fire because you're not allowed to lie. If you have the ToB, I'd advise your paladin players to consider switching their class; crusader's just that much more enjoyable. try the rebalanced paladin on the boards, they get their brass back (with a new shine!:D ) I got nothing against paladins, I just dont like the whole "order" thing. Good means doing the right thing, law is doing anything that supports order (i hate order, rules, uniforms and dress codes, ids, ties, im sorry im probably an anarchist and dont know it). If law=good, then a lot of my friends would be working the cotton fields right now and would "be happier that way" (i live in southern georgia 10 miles from the florida border). I found this and it sums alignment up pretty well: each part of an alignment has a phrase that goes with it. String them together for an extremely rough way to describe behavior. Lawful - In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system... Neutral - In a logical and balanced way... Chaotic - By whatever means necessary... Good - ...improve the situation of innocents and decent people. Neutral - ...maintain balance and justice. Evil - ...increase your own power and improve your situation. PS I did not make this, i just forgot where i got it from, if you made it kudos to you :salutes:.
bob_the_great 03-01-07, 08:43 PM	The best reason to object to Paladins is that his Code affects the ENTIRE PARTY - Paladins are obligated to intervene against actions they are opposed to. Other PCs don't like being held to someone elses morality. Or see the Code as a 'weakness' - and that by playing a paladin the player inflicts that weakness on the rest of the party. The way around this, is to treat dishonourable methods as the 'easy way out' and demonstrate how Law and Good are most effective - because unless you have a silly DM, they are. what he said
JTalbain 03-01-07, 09:25 PM	Wow, rogues have trouble stealing in a party with a paladin? Are they attached to him at the hip or something? I've never had a problem sneaking away with valuables under the Paladin's nose. It's not like he has Spot as a class skill or anything. That said there's some give-and-take involved. If the party rogue is wanting to steal stuff, he shouldn't feel the need to rub the fact in the Pally's face and likewise the Paladin's player shouldn't chaparone his sticky-fingered friend unnecessarily. I think that the reason people end up not liking Paladins is definitely because it interferes with their ability to play how they want to. Most of the people in my group describe the Lawful Good alignment as "Lawful Stupid", although, ironically, they don't realize I'm playing that alignment more often than not, so they have no problems with my characters. I think one of the problems is with the perception of alignment in general. People don't want to think of their characters as evil, even though their actions often are. Likewise, they expect any Paladin worth his salt will charge and smite anything the moment it turns up as evil on his radar. The players deep down realize that they might show up on it one day, in addition to causing other problems if the party has to ever wheel and deal with an evil NPC. The main reason people will play like an evil bastard and think their actions are good (or at the very least neutral) is that GMs also shy away from the subject of alignment. It's treated as an ephemeral, and it really shouldn't be. My advice, practice GMing karma. If someone constantly commits crimes, have a bounty put on their head. If they do enough to have their alignment shift to evil, have both the player and the character discover it in a shocking manner (possibly by having a "Lawful Stupid" Paladin Smite-on-Sight). Or even better, give them a Holy weapon or Robe of the Archmagi they can't use cause they're evil. The biggest reason people are evil in a game is the lack of consequences. If people realize being evil might actually be a detriment to them having fun, they're much more likely to stop. And in a campaign that practices that method of alignment enforcement, there's nothing wrong with the Paladin.
ElIsRa 03-01-07, 09:39 PM	I found this and it sums alignment up pretty well: each part of an alignment has a phrase that goes with it. String them together for an extremely rough way to describe behavior. Lawful - In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system... Neutral - In a logical and balanced way... Chaotic - By whatever means necessary... Good - ...improve the situation of innocents and decent people. Neutral - ...maintain balance and justice. Evil - ...increase your own power and improve your situation. PS I did not make this, i just forgot where i got it from, if you made it kudos to you :salutes:. I disagree with this assessment. I think that it goes more like this.... Lawful- By the book Neutral- By any means necessary Choatic- By whatever I say... Good- others above myself Neutural- You don't bother me, I don't bother you Evil- myself above others
frasmage 03-01-07, 09:51 PM	paliden of freedom i love... seconded but as a DM, the thing I hate most about paladins... they never fail a save. Kills all the fun :P
boggler65 03-01-07, 10:08 PM	...Ok I may have phrased my problem with paladins poorly before... so i'll make some tweaks. A paladin is lawful good, he is expected to obey not only the laws of his deity, the moral code which he adheres to, but also the law of the land. In my campaign I have decided that this means he cannot knowingly and willfully violate the law, nor can he be a party to the violation of any law. The bottom line is that if he did he'd be defeating the purpose of his lawful alignment. Just because a paladin has traveled to a land where slavery is legal, and slavery is a violation of his moral code, that doesn't mean that he has the right to attack legal owners of slaves. This is not an example of a DM being a jerk, it's just the inherent problem of the Paladin class, it's logical and it's within the rules. There are ways for clever players to resolve the situation without violating his code or alignment. But the problem is that most people cannot see it, or do not punish it. Thus most paladins would either ignore the slaves, or attack the slave owners... and then need to atone. I prefer the Arcana Evolved rules on alignment, mainly the fact that there are none. I challenge any one of you to actually find one person throughout history whose actions in both thier public and private lives are able to be classified by the DnD alignment system.
periscope 03-01-07, 10:19 PM	Ghandi, king jr, schwietzer (apologize if i misspell), mother teresa, schindler. Need I go on, they were all good (not sure about all on the order/chaos though: ghandi and king would probably be NG or CG since they were opposing the current law and wish to either get rid of it or make major revisions to it. Teresa would be NG or LG since hers was a legal organization working well within the law to help the needy. not sure about schindler and shwietzer.). I disagree with the lawful part of their alignment meaning that they must obey all laws of the land (see my earlier post). Paladins are lawful GOOD! Good takes presidence over their order instincts. Our games have the paladin converted to neutral good since their mission should be to good and good alone (though certain prcs let them deviate from this as long as they stay good).
MasonMurdoc 03-01-07, 11:13 PM	Paladins are only going to be a problem if you let it It also depends on the DM aswell To The Amazing Dancing Bear there is a flaw in your burning orphanage comment By telling the truth, would he not be aiding someone with an evil act? Its a small variation of 'help those in need(providing they don't use the help for evil or chaotic ends) So what is he more likely to be stripped of his powers for? As a DM, Player, and whatever else I would say the lie would be the 'Good' choice To Boggler65 Firstly, Paladins are effective against more than just undead. They are just as good as any martial class against most thing. Except the get a bonus against evil characters. Secondly Just because a paladin has traveled to a land where slavery is legal, and slavery is a violation of his moral code, that doesn't mean that he has the right to attack legal owners of slaves. This is puttng Law over Good. Unless I've missed something a Paladin doesn't always put Law over Good Every Paladins going to come across situations where its Law vs Good But it doesn't mean he'll always go for the lawful choice. It woul depend on a different things at different times Like what God you worship Plus it's stated in the PHB that if he willingly commits an evil act he gets the boot Nothing is mentioned about willingly being Chaotic is not mentioned So if a Paladin saw Slavers in a country where it was legal he would aat least rescue the slaves. Afterall, the Slavers could be not-that-evil people From what I gather, its the lawful that seems to be a problem. A little white lie, and a chaotic act done for good is not really a big deal, and can be made up for by doing more good. I think that the reason people end up not liking Paladins is definitely because it interferes with their ability to play how they want to. I agree, I used to be like that with mine. But it's best to check with the other players first In my campaign I have decided that this means he cannot knowingly and willfully violate the law, nor can he be a party to the violation of any law. What if the Paladin reaches a Law vs Good situation? Anyway, I think I've finished my evil rant I realise I probably got some things wrong seeing as I haven't been playing very long But I just used what I saw in the Paladin section of the PHB, and some minor knowledge But seriously, no offense was intended if I have offened anybody If so I'm sorry Bye
navar100 03-01-07, 11:40 PM	If the rogue in the party, during his own personal downtime, does some thieving in the city nightlife, so be it. When the party is playing the adventure and the rogue "finds" stuff and keeps it to himself, such as important need to know information, the treasure of the evil monster we're fighting the party was supposed to get, a vital clue, etc., then I have the problem with that rogue player, and it's not going to matter whether I'm playing a paladin or not. Perfect example: the Complete Scoundrel flavor text where no one is able to unlock a door until the gnome pretends to do some gnomish trick as he mocks the sorcerer and opens the door. In reality, on his own he found an object for which he concluded is probably the key. He never told the party he found it, and he doesn't inform them even then. I didn't like the holier than thou attitude of the others as they eached attempted to unlock the door either, but it is the gnome who's the donkey-pit. I, as a player, really, really, really loathe such players as that gnome. Be a "scoundrel" all you want to NPCs. I remember a 2E Dragonlance campaign where the PC kender thief convinced the enemy garrison to leave its encampent on a wild goose chase looking for us in the wrong direction then looting the empty tents. However, I will never tolerate PC scoundrels working against the party. We're all supposed to be friends. We're all supposed to be working together. It is only those types of players who really hate paladins, whether they play a rogue class or not. Those types of players only play the game for their own personal ego monkey spanking. I don't like such people in real life. I don't like gaming with them.
LittleCarp04 03-02-07, 12:30 AM	I play my Paladins like Judge Dredd, "How do you plea?" Baddy: "Not Guilty!!" Me: Wrong answer
boggler65 03-02-07, 01:38 AM	My argument... and I am not going to respond with specific quotes because I am lazy, would be the Lawful component of his alignment must take precedence over the Good component. The concept of "good" is subjective to race, culture, history, etc, whereas the concept of law is not. The law is the law. Continuing the slavery example. The paladin is travelling through a country where slavery is legal, he comes upon a group of armored men attacking a fleeing man, the men have shackles, nets, other instruments for capturing things. The man is nearly naked, and has a brand prominently displayed on his shoulder, his head is shaved, and his left ear is pierced. The bard travelling with the paladin is able to inform him that these are all marks of slavery. Furthermore the slave is only about a mile from the border to a neighboring country where slavery is illegal. Riding his mount the paladin could easily stop the slave while the pursuers on foot could not. The paladin is confronted by the slaves pursuers after he hinders them with a few half hearted attacks, and told that the fleeing man had been enslaved as punishment for arson, and furthermore had killed two of his jailers during his escape. The paladin has now broken the law (most slave states require anyone witnessing a slaves escape to aid in the slaves recapture) he has by proxy aided in the escape of a wrong doer, and has commited assault. Therefore even though he was ignorant of the finer points of the encounter he did know the law, and by not upholding it he has commited actions which now place him in severe danger of losing his paladin abilities. Perhaps the bard didn't know that in this country all slaves are convicts. Is slave labor wrong if used as a punishment for crimes? By imposing his own perception of good on the situation rather than the known laws the paladin has messed up big time. Just because the paladin and his deity view something as wrong does not mean that breaking the law especially to impose thier own morality onto someone who is neither breaking the law or commiting a truly immoral act is ok. Often times when a paladin upholds his own morality over the laws of the land he quickly finds out that he's gotten in over his head and inadvertantly done something to lose his powers. Basically breaking the law, even if you see it as wrong will quickly screw your character to death or loss of class abilities. As to the people who were listed as LG; I concede mother teresa, kudos. The rest though would most certainly not be LG... Ghandi? Ghandi in my opinion would have been in the eyes of his people neutral good, but in the eyes of the British, whose empire he was basically trying to destroy, he most likely would have been lawful evil. He was twisting the law and using others to achieve his agenda, inciting the masses to disobedience of the law etc. In my book he would be chaotic good. Schindler, touchy subject, but it's pretty clear that schindler was breaking or perverting not just one but several major laws. So even though those laws were most definently wrong and evil they were laws, they were supported by the majority, and schindler was breaking them. Thus schindler was also chaotic good. Martin Luther King Junior, same argument as Ghandi, King was chaotic good. Schwietzer? I am a graduate student of history (minored in ethics during my bachelors, hence my harsh treatment of paladins) and I have no idea who you're talking about. Check your spelling and get back to me, I'll look into it and give you my arguments for or against his "alignment."
The_Shaman 03-02-07, 03:12 AM	Please note that a paladin may be "Lawful" but it doesn't mean they are going to be perfectly happy with - or follow - the law at present and in that country. A lawful character believes imo in that a benevolent and just, but orderly, society is the best one to live in. They believe in the value of laws and institutions, but they are free to disagree with the ones at present. If that happens, imo they would work to change the system, not take it apart - which is where the difference comes. The SRD mentions "obedience to authority" but a paladin might recognize higher authority than the local baron. Chaotic alignments are imo typical of anarchists or individualists, who either want no external law or would not accept one that places an abstract value (society, the nation, apple pie) above the individual. It is possible that a paladin's perceptions of good are not shared at the moment, but imo that doesn't mean they should stuff them somewhere in the time being. The country might have a set of laws that are tyrannical and unjust (LE), and imo the paladin would be as likely to uphold them perfectly as they are to obey the "law" whatever it is, in a hobgoblin fortress or a drow town. Likewise, they might want to adhere to their standards of honor and truthfulness even when these can be a problem - being a paladin is also about sticking by your code even when it lands you in trouble. If you have hidden fugitives, you can simply refuse to join the witch-hunt. Normally a paladin would not be easily arrested by even the most paranoid monarch. Anyway, I would agree with most historical examples. Just because someone wants to improve society (MLK, possibly Gandhi) doesn't mean they are chaotic. As for Schindler, he can be of any non-lawful alignment (he did consciously choose to disobey the law, not to work to change it).
Leo 03-02-07, 07:07 AM	*buzz* Wrong answer. That may lose you your Paladin powers in my games, or some of the other games I've played in. Hmm, effectively, I should give them a chance to redeem themselves. But what about just some subudual damage to stop them from hurting anyone?:D
kadeity 03-02-07, 08:24 AM	But Paladins are there to extinguish ALL evil Either by killin' :D, or converting. Showing mercy is also goo Killing them when there begging for mercy is evil in my books. Anyway I'll shh now coz I'm turning this into a Paladin discussion I'm not allowed to do that because of what I named it right? wait isnt that Lawful EVIL? anyway, my problem with paladin is that they are awesome as an idea, but not so great in execution. The actual class isnt so good. Really the CLERIC or CRUSADER classes make better paladins than the paladin.
a_rogue 03-02-07, 09:01 AM	I had a Lawful Stupid player who made our local gaming sessions into a nightmare. Every move by the party was wrong. "It isn't right." "We shouldn't run away in cowardice". He even stood his ground at the city wall while a huge fireball was thrown at him because "its not honorable to leave your place and abandon your friends". The entire gaming session was an ego trip as the paladin tried to be a one man show,trying to fill in everyone's shoes as fighter,sneak AND caster all in one. Eventually our GM was so fed up that he kept throwing difficult situations where the paladin was trapped between choosing law or good. Our other paladin was so fed up that he became a blackguard just for revenge.:)
periscope 03-02-07, 09:20 AM	My argument... and I am not going to respond with specific quotes because I am lazy, would be the Lawful component of his alignment must take precedence over the Good component. The concept of "good" is subjective to race, culture, history, etc, whereas the concept of law is not. The law is the law. Continuing the slavery example. The paladin is travelling through a country where slavery is legal, he comes upon a group of armored men attacking a fleeing man, the men have shackles, nets, other instruments for capturing things. The man is nearly naked, and has a brand prominently displayed on his shoulder, his head is shaved, and his left ear is pierced. The bard travelling with the paladin is able to inform him that these are all marks of slavery. Furthermore the slave is only about a mile from the border to a neighboring country where slavery is illegal. Riding his mount the paladin could easily stop the slave while the pursuers on foot could not. The paladin is confronted by the slaves pursuers after he hinders them with a few half hearted attacks, and told that the fleeing man had been enslaved as punishment for arson, and furthermore had killed two of his jailers during his escape. The paladin has now broken the law (most slave states require anyone witnessing a slaves escape to aid in the slaves recapture) he has by proxy aided in the escape of a wrong doer, and has commited assault. Therefore even though he was ignorant of the finer points of the encounter he did know the law, and by not upholding it he has commited actions which now place him in severe danger of losing his paladin abilities. Perhaps the bard didn't know that in this country all slaves are convicts. Is slave labor wrong if used as a punishment for crimes? By imposing his own perception of good on the situation rather than the known laws the paladin has messed up big time. Just because the paladin and his deity view something as wrong does not mean that breaking the law especially to impose thier own morality onto someone who is neither breaking the law or commiting a truly immoral act is ok. Often times when a paladin upholds his own morality over the laws of the land he quickly finds out that he's gotten in over his head and inadvertantly done something to lose his powers. Basically breaking the law, even if you see it as wrong will quickly screw your character to death or loss of class abilities. As to the people who were listed as LG; I concede mother teresa, kudos. The rest though would most certainly not be LG... Ghandi? Ghandi in my opinion would have been in the eyes of his people neutral good, but in the eyes of the British, whose empire he was basically trying to destroy, he most likely would have been lawful evil. He was twisting the law and using others to achieve his agenda, inciting the masses to disobedience of the law etc. In my book he would be chaotic good. Schindler, touchy subject, but it's pretty clear that schindler was breaking or perverting not just one but several major laws. So even though those laws were most definently wrong and evil they were laws, they were supported by the majority, and schindler was breaking them. Thus schindler was also chaotic good. Martin Luther King Junior, same argument as Ghandi, King was chaotic good. Schwietzer? I am a graduate student of history (minored in ethics during my bachelors, hence my harsh treatment of paladins) and I have no idea who you're talking about. Check your spelling and get back to me, I'll look into it and give you my arguments for or against his "alignment." Albert Schweitzer, sorry i misspelled. I was also only pointing out that they were good, i even said not sure on the law/chaos access.
The_Shaman 03-02-07, 09:25 AM	I had a Lawful Stupid player who made our local gaming sessions into a nightmare. Every move by the party was wrong. "It isn't right." "We shouldn't run away in cowardice". He even stood his ground at the city wall while a huge fireball was thrown at him because "its not honorable to leave your place and abandon your friends". The entire gaming session was an ego trip as the paladin tried to be a one man show,trying to fill in everyone's shoes as fighter,sneak AND caster all in one. Eventually our GM was so fed up that he kept throwing difficult situations where the paladin was trapped between choosing law or good. Our other paladin was so fed up that he became a blackguard just for revenge.:) A paladin who's being honorable and brave is generally doing a good job, imo. Paladins and clerics should be a bit dogmatic (they are representing the forces of cosmic goodness, after all) at least in areas directly connected to their order. I guess the problem is that the party members did not know what they'd be getting ahead of time. However, if they were annoyed he'd not let them break in the bank vault or would go "you go, I'll hold them back," I don't know if they wanted a paladin in the first place.
Gecon 03-02-07, 09:52 AM	The Paladin is the holy warrior. The holy warrior is, historically, the crusader, or the terrorist. Nuff said.
MasonMurdoc 03-02-07, 10:31 AM	wait isnt that Lawful EVIL? anyway, my problem with paladin is that they are awesome as an idea, but not so great in execution. The actual class isnt so good. Really the CLERIC or CRUSADER classes make better paladins than the paladin. Why is it Lawful Evil? If its the class's abilities you dislike Theres an awesome one on the Forums
kadeity 03-02-07, 10:54 AM	Why is it Lawful Evil? crusading against "evil", without mercy is just as evil as evil. your adhering solidly to LAW. your idea of GOOD is drowned out by trying to kill off all the bad. destroying everything youve deemed bad, without remorse, is like ethnic cleansing applied to ideas. SUPERMAN is lawful good. And he never kills anyone if he can avoid it. As Lawful good, You should try and show mercy. You should always give change a chance. Justice is NOT martial law. Being EVIL doesn't mean you deserve to die... and executing someone because of they are of opposite alignment is clearly evil. Lawful good doesnt mean your a blind Zealot. it means your trying to do good. always... which in case you didn't know is nearly impossible. my biggest problem with the paladin , without a doubt, is the idea that it is GOOD to just outright DESTROY EVIL. there are levels of evil. and just because someone is evil doesnt mean they are bad. seriously. Selfish people can be evil alignment, but it doesnt mean that they never do good things. One evil act doesnt make you evil, and one good act doesnt make you good... but an evil character can do good things. for example... Hagfarsh the Half-Orc is Neutral Evil. He despises humans with all his heart, but his hatred is born out of past pain, in which his family, his village, and all he had ever known and loved was destroyed by humans. He kills humans whenver he has the chance, and is exceedingly rude to them when unable to kill them without risk. In this way he respects the law some, but only becuase he knows if he doesnt sometimes he can end up in alot of trouble. He picks fights with them,and steals from them when he can get away with it. This makes him sortof chaotic.He burns robs and pillages their towns, and especially enjoys killing their women and children, which is clearly evil. But the same guy, Hagfarsh, takes these things he has stolen and gives them to Orc villages who are having a hard time. He feeds the poor and homeless Orcs. He takes care of his people... but this DOES NOT make him good... But without his help, and his evil acts, the orc village would perish. One day Half-Elven Paladin Whacky McWhackerson comes along on his shiny celestial horse, and sees Hagfarsh pulling a cart of bloodied goods. Whacky detects evil, and BINGO, Hagfarsh shows up BRILLIANTLY. To Whacky the course is clear. He hops off, smites the Halforc, and they begin fighting. Then when hes nearly killed the orc, Hagfarsh tries to beg for mercy on behalf of the village. Sadly,out of instinct he speaks his plea Orcish, and Our Elven Paladin pal Whacky doenst understand a word of it. "SILENCE INFIDEL" he shouts, and whacks the halforc unconscious. Then he recites some elven verse from some forgotten holy text, and COUP DE GRA'S the half orcs head right off. A month later the little orc village starves to death, whacky none the wiser. Whats wrong here? if you see nothing wrong, you sir are Lawful Evil. if you think "he should have given the orc a chance to repent, or atone, or given him some sort of mercy." then you might just understand what Lawful Good means.
FrostWolf 03-02-07, 11:02 AM	If you interpret Lawful as following ones own code of conduct, then there souldn't be a problem. "Follow ones own code of conduct and follow your dieties teachings (Lawful) And help the innocents in need, even above your own self (Good)." boggler65, The Paladin in your scenario would indeed be following his code of conduct and helping an assumed innocent. Right up untill someone told him said innocent was a criminal, then he would be at the head of the pack to bring him back. Now, about the whole "Save the child and damn the world" thing. 1-If a DM throws that at a party, then he didn't want anyone to play a Paladin in the first place and should have said so. 2- If that was to come up, I'd expect the Diety to throw the paladin a freaking bone, and eather give him some help, or not damn the mortal for chooseing one over the other. 3-the LG thing for a Paladin is the ONLY alignment "issue" I've ever seen, but there are two other classes that have restrictions, Monk and Druid, and I've seen quite a few CG druids, and NG Monks in my time. So back off.:P Also, there is no reason you can't have an ooze as a mount! :gel: :twocents:
MasonMurdoc 03-02-07, 11:16 AM	I said showing mercy is good I didn't say without merdy at all my biggest problem with the paladin , without a doubt, is the idea that it is GOOD to just outright DESTROY EVIL. Don't make like that then Hagfarsh the Half-Orc is Neutral Evil. He despises humans with all his heart, but his hatred is born out of past pain, in which his family, his village, and all he had ever known and loved was destroyed by humans. He kills humans whenver he has the chance, and is exceedingly rude to them when unable to kill them without risk. In this way he respects the law some, but only becuase he knows if he doesnt sometimes he can end up in alot of trouble. He picks fights with them,and steals from them when he can get away with it. This makes him sortof chaotic.He burns robs and pillages their towns, and especially enjoys killing their women and children, which is clearly evil. But the same guy, Hagfarsh, takes these things he has stolen and gives them to Orc villages who are having a hard time. He feeds the poor and homeless Orcs. He takes care of his people... but this DOES NOT make him good... But without his help, and his evil acts, the orc village would perish. Sounds Chaotic Neutral to me But thats just me One day Half-Elven Paladin Whacky McWhackerson comes along on his shiny celestial horse, and sees Hagfarsh pulling a cart of bloodied goods. Whacky detects evil, and BINGO, Hagfarsh shows up BRILLIANTLY. To Whacky the course is clear. He hops off, smites the Halforc, and they begin fighting. Then when hes nearly killed the orc, Hagfarsh tries to beg for mercy on behalf of the village. Sadly,out of instinct he speaks his plea Orcish, and Our Elven Paladin pal Whacky doenst understand a word of it. "SILENCE INFIDEL" he shouts, and whacks the halforc unconscious. Then he recites some elven verse from some forgotten holy text, and COUP DE GRA'S the half orcs head right off. A month later the little orc village starves to death, whacky none the wiser. Doesn't deserve to be a Paladin in my books But Paladins vary, some are like hat, others would forc hin to speak in common or knock him out and get a translator. Whats wrong here? if you see nothing wrong, you sir are Lawful Evil. if you think "he should have given the orc a chance to repent, or atone, or given him some sort of mercy." then you might just understand what Lawful Good means. I see loads wrong You clearly didn't read what iI wrote unless you got confused coz I put goo instead of good But the d on my keyboard is screwy If you interpret Lawful as following ones own code of conduct, then there souldn't be a problem. "Follow ones own code of conduct and follow your dieties teachings (Lawful) And help the innocents in need, even above your own self (Good)." Yes. this way works awesomely boggler65, The Paladin in your scenario would indeed be following his code of conduct and helping an assumed innocent. Right up untill someone told him said innocent was a criminal, then he would be at the head of the pack to bring him back True 3-the LG thing for a Paladin is the ONLY alignment "issue" I've ever seen, but there are two other classes that have restrictions, Monk and Druid, and I've seen quite a few CG druids, and NG Monks in my time. So back off. I'm guessing you mean they act it but aren't officialy it If so Paladins deserve just as much slack as them Especialy a Monk Also, there is no reason you can't have an ooze as a mount! Did you really? If so. AWESOME!!!
kadeity 03-02-07, 11:28 AM	I said showing mercy is good I didn't say without merdy at all the players handbook says at the top of page 105 "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." this is the crux of my problem with paladin. The very definition of lawful good, in the phb, is flawed. Killing ANYTHING without mercy, is not lawful good.
MasonMurdoc 03-02-07, 11:39 AM	the players handbook says at the top of page 105 "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." this is the crux of my problem with paladin. The very definition of lawful good, in the phb, is flawed. Killing ANYTHING without mercy, is not lawful good. Does anybody actually follow the PHB word for word? Besides some may be like that Some might not Thats a DMs call
The_Shaman 03-02-07, 11:57 AM	Keep in mind that fighting something is one thing; destroying it, killing it etc. may be another. Someone who pulls the Judge Dredd schtick may end up LN instead of LG (if not even worse).
Leo 03-02-07, 12:17 PM	You're forgeting one thing. In D&D, you become evil for doing evil deeds. If the detect evil ability points out evil, it's because there is plenty of inocent blood in the guy's hands, and he's hunting for more. The orc presented was neutral. And the whole situation is impossible. Orc society is cruel. The poor and weak are left to die, only the strong deserve to live. What the hell of campaign is that in wich orc are nice to each other? Didn't you read or saw LOTR? The orc don't even like each other! Also see OOTS. Miko, even tough now a blackguard, slays evil guys right and left whitout much trouble. It was when she slayed a chaotic good person that she become evil. Falling to the dark side is easy. Staying in the path of light is not. Why do anyone becomes a paladin? So others don't need to d it The paladin sacrifices everything he has in order to fight evil. And there's plenty of evil in the world of D&D. And it's the forces of good themselves that guide him, so if they tell him that guy X is evil, it's because he has done his share of evil things, and thus deserves to die to avoid more suffering from inocents and also as punishment.
Ebonyte 03-02-07, 02:45 PM	Check out Heroes of Horror for alternate ways to work with Alignment. The fact is, Detect (whatevertheAbyss) makes thigs way too easy. It becomes a simple "My spell said you're evil." Canny villains will use illusion and enchantment to mess with this instant solution, making good churches into charnel houses in the Paladin's eyes. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who does not think about it before doing something so drastic as killing another being, does not deserve to be Lawful. Law not only suggests order, but discipline, and perhaps, hopefully, wisdom. A paladin has a responsibility to take more time to consider their actions, to take a look at the larger picture, before riding up on that horse and smiting something his Geiger Counter of Evil starts crackling over. Also remember that the tortures and fires of the Inquisition and the Salem witch trails were done in the name of good, using what theythought to be fool-proof methods of "detect Evil". "Paladin" just feels too close to "Inquisitor" for my tastes. One of the perfect examples of why a Paladin, balanced or not, is risky to play was in Ravenloft. Elena Faith-Hold, a High Paladin, started enforcing more and more edicts on the people she ruled, thinking it would save their souls and make them more pious, more holy, more pure. She slowly outlaed other religions, dancing, singing, encforced fasting, and "purified" any who broke the laws. The forces of Darkness made her into a paladin by introducing her to an outsider disguised as an angel. She's a Blackguard, but still thinks she's a paladin. Her mount is a disguised nightmare. Her Detect Evil actually detects anyone whofeels strongly towards her, which is everyone, from those who are romantically inclined towards her or those who fear her. For more examples, check out Order of the Stick, Miko Miyazaki in particular. All that said, I see how and why a Paladin is something secial, something that CAN be good for a world and CAN be a LOT of fun to play. It's just not easy. If you ask me, Paladin should never have been a core class. Prestiege, sure, but Holy Knighthood isn't something you should just start with. It's something you see combat before, something where you know you can handle it befrehand. You've got to act as a Paladin on the field before they make you one for real. Before that, you're just a Lawful Good Fighter. And there's nothing wrong with that. Paladins should be uncommon... rare, even. They are the Jedi Knights of D&D, and ought to be just as rare and special. And if you can't handle the idea of adhering to the strict guidelines and sometimes double-standards of morality, then play a Fighter, a Monk, a Barbarian. They can be just as sef-sacrificing, just as noble, just as canny, and sometimes, just as holy. I've seen fighter nobler than a paladin in my games, and certainly many brave and virtuous souls of every class. Bravery, nobility, self-sacrifice, these are not exclusive class features to the Paladin. If they were... well, popular literature, as well as a great many games, would be much the less for it.
benstundze 03-02-07, 02:53 PM	the church
Jethren 03-02-07, 03:07 PM	My main, and perhaps only, gripe with the Paladin is that most people seem to insist on playing them as being totally paranoid. Thank you, but I don't need to know whether every NPC, monster, and kitty is evil or not...and if I have to wait on one more Detect Evil check in a situation where nobody has any reason to suspect it, I will kill the party Paladin myself. Seriously, in one campaign several members of our party were struck by an effect that changed our alignments while seperated from the rest of the group. When we returned, the Paladin immediatly used Detect Evil, ruining the encounter. None of us had said anything, nor were we behaving suspicious. I was angry enough that I would have cast earthquake even if I hadn't been in the evil group.
The_Shaman 03-02-07, 03:08 PM	Didn't you read or saw LOTR? The orc don't even like each other! You know, unless you're playing a d20 campaign in a LotR setting, that example is worth next to nothing. Settings are different. If I remember the Silmarilion, it implies that dragons are evil and serve - whatever Sauron's predecessor, the fallen Valar, was. This hasn't been the case in D&D since at least AD&D (the first books that I have). So, yeah, orcs are usually evil, but LotR is simply not a valid source of inferences on Grayhawk/Faerun/Eberron. And while evil deeds are one of the reasons to become evil, imo the reason why you do something also matters. In fact, technically a character need not have committed any particularly vile deeds to be evil. An example from the Realms: almost all lords of Amn are evil, but most of them are not engaged in anything illegal personally, and the worst many of them have done is try to waste one another's businesses. They are an oppressive and heartless bunch, and wouldn't mind sending a gang of ruffians to beat up someone who can't pay the interest on their loan. However, the fact that they can do it doesn't mean they want to do it - hunting for more, as you put it. As far as they're concerned, it's just a necessary expenditure. Aside from that, I'd agree. A paladin's lot isn't supposed to be a light one. To quote one of my favourite songs: being good isn't always easy.
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-02-07, 04:30 PM	Miko from OOTS would never have passed as a paladin in the games I play in. The actual paladin from that comic is Hinjo. Lawful does not mean "obeys all the laws." One is not chaotic just because they disobey them. If worship of, say, Torm was declared illegal in a kingdom, I doubt that not changing religion makes paladins of Torm chaotic.
kadeity 03-02-07, 04:51 PM	You're forgeting one thing. In D&D, you become evil for doing evil deeds. If the detect evil ability points out evil, it's because there is plenty of inocent blood in the guy's hands, and he's hunting for more. Its entirely dm discretion what your alignment is... and if it changes. The orc presented was neutral. And the whole situation is impossible. Orc society is cruel. The poor and weak are left to die, only the strong deserve to live. What the hell of campaign is that in wich orc are nice to each other? Didn't you read or saw LOTR? The orc don't even like each other! Neutral? he killed innocents fro revenge. and Fun. and just so you know, practically EVERY campaign now shows orcs differently. Also see OOTS. Miko, even tough now a blackguard, slays evil guys right and left whitout much trouble. It was when she slayed a chaotic good person that she become evil. i didnt say the guy stopped being a paladin. im saying that GREATER EVIL occured because of him not staying his hand. And Miko is a horrible example. She was a ticking time bomb. she was bound for blackgaurd anytime. The paladin sacrifices everything he has in order to fight evil. And there's plenty of evil in the world of D&D. And it's the forces of good themselves that guide him, so if they tell him that guy X is evil, it's because he has done his share of evil things, and thus deserves to die to avoid more suffering from inocents and also as punishment. um do you not think that the death of an evil character can somehow cause a greater evil? I mean by YOUR DEFINITION my half orc was evil for killing innocents. he killed WOMEN AND CHILDREN. Because he was a bitter and ACTIVE rascist, hellbent on ethnic clensing. what i want to know is how killing someone just because of their alignment... is any different than killing someone just because of their race? I mean is Slaughtering evil not still slaughtering? Does thinking cold blooded murder of a criminal is GOOD keep it from still being murder? In my campaign, paladins are rare. Knights are far more common. And if a Paladin were to kill someone who was evil, just ebcause they were evil, the knights would HUNT THEM DOWN. murder is murder. no matter who it is or why you did it.
Ebonyte 03-02-07, 05:03 PM	Miko from OOTS would never have passed as a paladin in the games I play in. The actual paladin from that comic is Hinjo. I agree. I just use that example to highlight the potential pitfalls a Paladin could easily fall into. I have a grudging, but considerable, respect for Paladins. It is that respect which leads me to believe that few are worthy of the title. And those few who are able to make the cut play an important role.
Nephlite 03-02-07, 05:12 PM	Seriously, in one campaign several members of our party were struck by an effect that changed our alignments while seperated from the rest of the group. When we returned, the Paladin immediatly used Detect Evil, ruining the encounter. None of us had said anything, nor were we behaving suspicious. I was angry enough that I would have cast earthquake even if I hadn't been in the evil group. Ruined? How did he ruin it? The DM should have realized Paladin had detect evil since level 1. Why do Pals use Detect Evil alot? So they don't strike non-evil and lose powers. Bad DMs make Pals paraniod.
kadeity 03-02-07, 05:35 PM	I have a grudging, but considerable, respect for Paladins. It is that respect which leads me to believe that few are worthy of the title. And those few who are able to make the cut play an important role. this is why i use the prestige class version of the paladin. so only the few worth of it get it. and becuase becoming an ex paladin when its only a prc isnt so harsh. especially since you can useyour cleric levels to cast atonement on yourself.:p
The_Shaman 03-02-07, 05:38 PM	Er, it is possible that the paladin gets paranoid. Could happen to any character, so what?
MasonMurdoc 03-02-07, 06:13 PM	[QUOTE=Leo;11641493] Also see OOTS. Miko, even tough now a blackguard, slays evil guys right and left whitout much trouble. It was when she slayed a chaotic good person that she become evil. QUOTE] Whoa Hold the phone She becomes evil? I thought she just had no powers Are you reading episodes I don't have access to?! :'(
Dolomite 03-02-07, 06:13 PM	I feel that paladins are useless in any campaign except one that focuses almost entirely on encounters involving undead. Basically the morality of most paladins means that they are expected to solve viturally any encounter through means that don't involve combat whenever possible. They are also expected to obey laws. This hurts and severely limits most parties, which rely heavily on combat, thieving, and other disreputable pursuits to accomplish thier goals. Outside of an undead heavy campaign paladins must rely heavily on skills like diplimacy, sense motive, etc, skills which the paladin has, but due to thier low skill points cannot make effective use of. Bottom line, during most combat encounters they are just hamstrung fighters. During most heavy role playing encounters they are equally if not more limited due to thier morality and low amount of skill points. In the end it's my opinion that paladins hurt the game overall, causing detrimental out of character conflicts between players, occasionally screwing the party over completely and getting them killed or wasting opportunities for better rewards etc. That said I don't outlaw them in my game, I just usually make sure that the PC's behavior is not making life overly difficult for the rest of the players. You shold also be making certain that the group does not make life hard for a Paladin either. I have played plenty of Paladins and been thru plenty of moral situations, but the ones that cause the most trouble is when the party does something EVIL. They pull some crap like killing a helpless individual or an outright murdering 3 people for their stuff and the Party gets bent when they are found out and the Paladin hands them over. A lot of people have a problem with even a well run Paladin cause they know that someone IS holding their actions to a higher standard and even if the Paladin is flexible and understanding will not tollerate evil. They may try to reform that person or the groups action , but they are bound to do something. Which leads to the group getting mad cause someone reminds them that there are some lines you can't cross and not pay a price for it.
Stormbrand 03-02-07, 06:19 PM	what he said Thank you. Think of the advantages - being trustworthy leads to being trusted. Being kind earns you plenty of goodwill. Being brave leads people to offer you support. Being merciful means you will have an easier time persuading a foe to surrender. Generally, Paladins see Law & Good as supporting concepts based on the principle that order creates more LASTING good. If you build a nation on lies and deceit, that is your foundation. Choosing fairness, openness and rule of law creates a stronger base that may continue to bring about good in your absense. I feel that paladins are useless in any campaign except one that focuses almost entirely on encounters involving undead. Basically the morality of most paladins means that they are expected to solve viturally any encounter through means that don't involve combat whenever possible. They are also expected to obey laws. This hurts and severely limits most parties, which rely heavily on combat, thieving, and other disreputable pursuits to accomplish thier goals. Outside of an undead heavy campaign paladins must rely heavily on skills like diplimacy, sense motive, etc, skills which the paladin has, but due to thier low skill points cannot make effective use of. Bottom line, during most combat encounters they are just hamstrung fighters. During most heavy role playing encounters they are equally if not more limited due to thier morality and low amount of skill points. In the end it's my opinion that paladins hurt the game overall, causing detrimental out of character conflicts between players, occasionally screwing the party over completely and getting them killed or wasting opportunities for better rewards etc. That said I don't outlaw them in my game, I just usually make sure that the PC's behavior is not making life overly difficult for the rest of the players. First of all, I disagree with nearly all of that. Secondly, please put gaps between your paragraphs so it is easier to read - I fixed some of it. Combat is a perfectly valid option for Paladins. Among their duties are punishing those who harm or threaten innocents, as well as help those in need. Nothing prevents a Paladin from solving an encounter with his sword unless he would be harming innocents (in which case, if Paladinhood is the only reason not to fight, the party is doing something wrong). Laws, technically a Paladin must 'respect legitimate authority' - not 'obey laws.' So a Paladin would cooperate with the city constabulary on principle. Upholding laws comes with the handy benefit of not being arrested. Unless in a tyrannical, evil society (which is not legitimate authority), it should be no great inconvenience to keep the authority informed of your actions. Better yet, become the equivalent to a Special Constable and have the authority to act that a civilian wouldn't. Skill points, Human Paladin, INT 10 (anyone who says INT is the Paladin dump stat has INT as their personal dump stat), can have 2 skills maxed and 2 more at half-max. This means that at least the Paladin can function in those areas. Wise selection can cover all major bases. I see no evidence of Paladins being hamstrung fighters. Their combat abilities play towards different strengths, but Divine Feats can be pretty powerful and the high saves work wonders against monsters and spellcasters. In that, I think the durability of a Paladin makes them far more versitile than Fighters. Finally, the impression seems to be that you view morality as a restriction. As someone integrity-obsessed in real life, I can tell you it is no such restriction. Examples would probably bore you, but the fact is the character at least would not feel restricted by the morality, and neither would a good role-player (not saying you are bad, just bad at paladins). ...Ok I may have phrased my problem with paladins poorly before... so i'll make some tweaks. A paladin is lawful good, he is expected to obey not only the laws of his deity, the moral code which he adheres to, but also the law of the land. In my campaign I have decided that this means he cannot knowingly and willfully violate the law, nor can he be a party to the violation of any law. The bottom line is that if he did he'd be defeating the purpose of his lawful alignment. Just because a paladin has traveled to a land where slavery is legal, and slavery is a violation of his moral code, that doesn't mean that he has the right to attack legal owners of slaves. This is not an example of a DM being a jerk, it's just the inherent problem of the Paladin class, it's logical and it's within the rules. There are ways for clever players to resolve the situation without violating his code or alignment. But the problem is that most people cannot see it, or do not punish it. Thus most paladins would either ignore the slaves, or attack the slave owners... and then need to atone. I prefer the Arcana Evolved rules on alignment, mainly the fact that there are none. I challenge any one of you to actually find one person throughout history whose actions in both thier public and private lives are able to be classified by the DnD alignment system. In your campaign. That is the problem - an artificial inconsistancy introduced into the Code. Inconsistancy is itself unlawful. Lawful does not mean 'strictly, blindly and unquestioningly follow laws.' It more means supporting the inherent rightness of systems, order and laws. It is the in-built assumption that laws have a right to exist, that the police are entitled to search your home, that fair trials lead to an overall better society than lynchings will. Respect for legitimate authority is merely another reason for a Paladin to seek to change slaving laws. If that does not work, then he will be unhappy about and not practice it himself, and take every opportunity to arrange for slaves to be freed or to create alternatives. Merely OWNING a slave is not a big deal, so long as the slave is well treated. Abusing or mistreating slaves comes under 'harming or threatening innocents' so the Paladin would have every right to attack the owners - provided he could establish guilt. Ghandi, king jr, schwietzer (apologize if i misspell), mother teresa, schindler. Need I go on, they were all good (not sure about all on the order/chaos though: ghandi and king would probably be NG or CG since they were opposing the current law and wish to either get rid of it or make major revisions to it. Teresa would be NG or LG since hers was a legal organization working well within the law to help the needy. not sure about schindler and shwietzer.). My opinion is that Martin Luther King is the perfect example of Lawful Good opposition. And a perfect example as to why Lawful Good works. Making major revisions to law is part of being Lawful - Lawful Good favours law to uphold fairness and justice, a law which does not do that is not doing it's job as a law, and thus needs to be changed. Chaotic would not seek to change the law, but simply overthrow the oppressors. Schlinder was probably personally CG, based on other aspects of his life. His undermining the nazis was strongly Good, although possibly mildly Chaotic.
Dolomite 03-02-07, 06:35 PM	the players handbook says at the top of page 105 "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." this is the crux of my problem with paladin. The very definition of lawful good, in the phb, is flawed. Killing ANYTHING without mercy, is not lawful good. And the Crux of playing a GOOD Paladin is knowing when to balance when to fight without mercy. There are times where you dont go all killing everything in sight that's evil cause you will become who you are fighting. But there are times when you are in a fight where there is not quater given or taken. Use common sense and some good judgement when aproaching a situation; detect evil is a good start to know where a being may lie on the moral scale, but because of spells that mask and outright fake alignments its only one partof the picture. A lot of time I dont use detect evil cause you have to STARE at a person tipping them off. I use sense motive and just plain observation to clue me into how a person is. Some of the most evil characters I have fought looked like the most normal people, but once you nail down how vile that character is, then their actions guide yours:: So if the guy you are checking out is just a abusive A hole to his children you try to guide and help him to be better. But is the guy is a cultist of a religion dedicated to slaughter and sacrificing children to bless their new altar well...... Mercy is not needed at that point, a six pack of Holy Justice should be liberally used, if not a whole case, on said person.
The_Shaman 03-02-07, 06:43 PM	You could. I mean when it's a life and death battle vs the forces of evil it's acceptable. It doesn't mean imo that showing mercy under these conditions (or just wanting to capture him) would be stupid, though (I've heard this argument): when you have him at 2 hp you hit for non-lethal damage and bring him to justice, you'll be doing something no less good - if not better - than if you chop at his head.
Karish 03-02-07, 06:51 PM	I personally dislike Paladins for the fact that every Paladin I have ever been in a party with has decided to at some point try to force his garbage down my throat. I play CN. I manage to do CN pretty well, oddly enough, by making my characters basically act like a CG character with no compulsion to help others unless it is someone he has grown to care about or if it is in his best interest. Breaks the law when it seems like a "stupid" law (ie: One cannot wear this in front of so-and-so, need a lisence to practice magic, etc). Last time I did this, I was a CN Elf Sorcerer. The Paladin is basically your standard "human with angel issues (Aasimar)", and thinks I'm just the epitome of scum as soon as he's introduced to me by another member of the party who introduced him to our gang. And nomatter what, even after saving the bastard's life when we were fighting a demon and his minions, he basically decides to verbally reprimand me, use Law magic on me when I disagree with his actions, or anything else he can to "promote me to become morally and ethically sound". Eventually, he even trapped me in a magic circle against chaos, telling me that if I broke the law again he'd kill me, and that he was going to turn me in for what I did (Oh come on, all I did was turn the noble's cape red! Who cares if that's his bitter foe's choice color). So I killed him.
AllWillFall2Me 03-02-07, 06:58 PM	Now, a common problem people associate with Paladins is the incompatibility of them with Evil party members. This is a result of their code, and is in fact a good sticking point, which is why I tried a new concept. My players constantly play scoundrel types, with one being a compulsive liar, another being the dashing rogue, etc. Now, I've long wanted actual Good characters, people who tried to help others without the motivation of profit. So I came with the following idea. My group's newest party is starting out at 12th level. The party concept is "The Redeemers". You see, long ago, a Paladin considered the good that villains could do if they were on the side of light. The next villain he battled, he subdued rather than killing, and then kept him as a prisoner, with several Marks of Justice, and took him on adventures with him. He slowly taught the villain the benefits of working for others, and one day was able to remove the marks, and set out a new hero. The current party is led by a disciple of that Paladin. Whenever a city that knows him defeats a villain they feel could be rescued, they contact him, and he takes the villain on adventures, to experience teamwork and cooperation. Currently, the party consists of: LG Human Paladin 4/Monk 2/ Argent Fist 6 (Argent Fist is an Eberron monk/Paladn Hybrid, it was the most appropriate class.) LG Aasimir Rogue 3/Cleric 3/ Shadowbane Stalker 5(Complete Adventurer, Paladin's faithful assistant) CN human Swashbuckler 3/Rogue 3/ Vigilante 6 (Most recent "graduate" of system, is not yet pure, but even when evil only preyed on evil. Learning moral boundaries.) LE Human Knight 12 (Most recent Pupil. Understands obedience and cooperation, is learning pity and compassion) So, really, it just takes a bit of thought and cooperation with the DM to make rational, effective Paladins who don't ruin groups. Also, there's the slightly cheating clause of "What i don't know can't hurt me" The paladin in our party makes frequent "I FAIL MY LISTEN CHECK!" jokes. I read on these boards somewhere that the not lying clause just requires effective roleplay. The example given: A bruised,dirty child runs past the Paladin into a doorway. A large, angry man charges violently into the alley. he stops, and upon noticing the Paladin, he asks "Did a child just run through here?", pointing at the door. The Paladin makes a Sense Motive check, and determines that the man means the child no good, and responds "You'll have to get through me to find out." The Paladin has not denied nor asserted the question, but he has protected a (presumed) innocent. That's what being a paladin is about.
DEMONisbest 03-02-07, 07:06 PM	If the rogue in the party, during his own personal downtime, does some thieving in the city nightlife, so be it. When the party is playing the adventure and the rogue "finds" stuff and keeps it to himself, such as important need to know information, the treasure of the evil monster we're fighting the party was supposed to get, a vital clue, etc., then I have the problem with that rogue player, and it's not going to matter whether I'm playing a paladin or not. Perfect example: the Complete Scoundrel flavor text where no one is able to unlock a door until the gnome pretends to do some gnomish trick as he mocks the sorcerer and opens the door. In reality, on his own he found an object for which he concluded is probably the key. He never told the party he found it, and he doesn't inform them even then. I didn't like the holier than thou attitude of the others as they eached attempted to unlock the door either, but it is the gnome who's the donkey-pit. I, as a player, really, really, really loathe such players as that gnome. Be a "scoundrel" all you want to NPCs. I remember a 2E Dragonlance campaign where the PC kender thief convinced the enemy garrison to leave its encampent on a wild goose chase looking for us in the wrong direction then looting the empty tents. However, I will never tolerate PC scoundrels working against the party. We're all supposed to be friends. We're all supposed to be working together. It is only those types of players who really hate paladins, whether they play a rogue class or not. Those types of players only play the game for their own personal ego monkey spanking. I don't like such people in real life. I don't like gaming with them. You know there is something called role-playing, right? When I play a scoundrel, Im a scoundrel. No difference between a DM played NPC and a PC, all represent characters i interact with. And since when do all the party members need to be friends? Sure they are supposed to work together, but each and every one of them has their own agenda. Btw there are even evil campaigns, where clearly not every party member would be a friend of each other.
benstundze 03-02-07, 08:21 PM	church, they don’t give others good rewords for quests, only paladins prosper. ben
Nephlite 03-02-07, 10:46 PM	Now, a common problem people associate with Paladins is the incompatibility of them with Evil party members. This is a result of their code, and is in fact a good sticking point, which is why I tried a new concept. My group's newest party is starting out at 12th level. The party concept is "The Redeemers". You see, long ago, a Paladin considered the good that villains could do if they were on the side of light. The next villain he battled, he subdued rather than killing, and then kept him as a prisoner, with several Marks of Justice, and took him on adventures with him. He slowly taught the villain the benefits of working for others, and one day was able to remove the marks, and set out a new hero. The current party is led by a disciple of that Paladin. Whenever a city that knows him defeats a villain they feel could be rescued, they contact him, and he takes the villain on adventures, to experience teamwork and cooperation. Currently, the party consists of: LG Human Paladin 4/Monk 2/ Argent Fist 6 (Argent Fist is an Eberron monk/Paladn Hybrid, it was the most appropriate class.) LG Aasimir Rogue 3/Cleric 3/ Shadowbane Stalker 5(Complete Adventurer, Paladin's faithful assistant) CN human Swashbuckler 3/Rogue 3/ Vigilante 6 (Most recent "graduate" of system, is not yet pure, but even when evil only preyed on evil. Learning moral boundaries.) LE Human Knight 12 (Most recent Pupil. Understands obedience and cooperation, is learning pity and compassion) So, really, it just takes a bit of thought and cooperation with the DM to make rational, effective Paladins who don't ruin groups. Also, there's the slightly cheating clause of "What i don't know can't hurt me" The paladin in our party makes frequent "I FAIL MY LISTEN CHECK!" jokes. Sorry, the Paladin fell. He feel hard. So hard that the demons are like', Damn, we didn't even fall that hard from grace." I read on these boards somewhere that the not lying clause just requires effective roleplay. The example given: A bruised,dirty child runs past the Paladin into a doorway. A large, angry man charges violently into the alley. he stops, and upon noticing the Paladin, he asks "Did a child just run through here?", pointing at the door. The Paladin makes a Sense Motive check, and determines that the man means the child no good, and responds "You'll have to get through me to find out." The Paladin has not denied nor asserted the question, but he has protected a (presumed) innocent. That's what being a paladin is about. So hewill fight the forces of good? What if that man does mean that child no good. What if that child is a dusguised demon. Maybe the Pal should think before he acts like detect them both. how foes he even know the kid was an innocent.
ZionI 03-02-07, 10:57 PM	I really hate paladins......because they show up at your doorstep at all hours of the day on a weekend, ruining your time to sleep in from a hard work week, and then want to give yuo a crapload of "literature" to read, and don't stop coming back once you take their "literature" once!!!!!! Wait........those aren't paladins...........oh boy.........I'm sorry for that.........I need more sleep man.
periscope 03-02-07, 11:29 PM	I really hate paladins......because they show up at your doorstep at all hours of the day on a weekend, ruining your time to sleep in from a hard work week, and then want to give yuo a crapload of "literature" to read, and don't stop coming back once you take their "literature" once!!!!!! Wait........those aren't paladins...........oh boy.........I'm sorry for that.........I need more sleep man. lol reminds me of the guys that show up at 7:00 am on a sunday going "have you found" such and such ( i dont think im allowed to say the j word here as it pertains to religion though correct me if im wrong). IF ITS THE DAY OF REST THEN DONT WAKE ME UP! Also, he has no reason to suspect said child is a demon or something of that nature so by protecting him he is being good, just a little misinformed (we've all had situation where we've made ourselves look like idiots).:D
Huzzah! 03-03-07, 12:57 AM	Do you really think a devil/demon would; a) disguise himself as a wretchling human child and b) allow a drunkard to whip on him?
navar100 03-03-07, 04:02 AM	You know there is something called role-playing, right? When I play a scoundrel, Im a scoundrel. No difference between a DM played NPC and a PC, all represent characters i interact with. And since when do all the party members need to be friends? Sure they are supposed to work together, but each and every one of them has their own agenda. Btw there are even evil campaigns, where clearly not every party member would be a friend of each other. But "roleplaying" is not free license to be a jerk to the party. Fine, be your conniving thief. My paladin will turn you in because that's just me "roleplaying". If I'm unable to do it myself, I'll inform the proper authorities. Make a new character. I'm not even going to tell you I'm doing it. You have no idea. Kill my paladin? Congratulations, you just committed murder. You're a wanted man. My next character is a cleric of vengeance sent to hunt you down. You won't even know I'm coming. I can be a jerk too. Why should party members be friends with each other? How regularly do you hang out with people you hate? You can't choose your family. You can't choose your co-workers. You can choose the people you want to hang out with by your choice. Why should my character travel around with someone whom he doesn't trust, doesn't like, and can't depend on? Go ahead and play your game. I didn't say you couldn't. I'm just saying I don't like such players, and in my opinion it is those types of players who don't like paladins. I no longer have the patience with such players. If it is an everyone is evil game, I go in knowing that. For my personal taste I like them as a one-shot adventure for kicks. As a meant to be serious campaign, I don't. For those who do like them, have fun.
Stormbrand 03-03-07, 01:08 PM	Do you really think a devil/demon would; a) disguise himself as a wretchling human child and b) allow a drunkard to whip on him? a) Definately. b) No chance in hell, can you imagine what would happen to the poor drunkard? (although for targeting what he thought was a child is reason enough to leave him in infernal clutches). However, I agree, anyone preaching leave the child to suffer because 'it might be a demon in disguise' is being downright rediculous. But "roleplaying" is not free license to be a jerk to the party. Fine, be your conniving thief. My paladin will turn you in because that's just me "roleplaying". If I'm unable to do it myself, I'll inform the proper authorities. Make a new character. I'm not even going to tell you I'm doing it. You have no idea. Kill my paladin? Congratulations, you just committed murder. You're a wanted man. My next character is a cleric of vengeance sent to hunt you down. You won't even know I'm coming. I can be a jerk too. Why should party members be friends with each other? How regularly do you hang out with people you hate? You can't choose your family. You can't choose your co-workers. You can choose the people you want to hang out with by your choice. Why should my character travel around with someone whom he doesn't trust, doesn't like, and can't depend on? Go ahead and play your game. I didn't say you couldn't. I'm just saying I don't like such players, and in my opinion it is those types of players who don't like paladins. I no longer have the patience with such players. If it is an everyone is evil game, I go in knowing that. For my personal taste I like them as a one-shot adventure for kicks. As a meant to be serious campaign, I don't. For those who do like them, have fun. Agreed. Actually, I would like to do an evil, villain campaign. However, inter-party sabotage is an outright no. Generally, I think the players should remember D&D is a cooperative hobby, so should treat each other respect and courtesy, these make for the best games. Disruptive players make for less fun all-around.
RuckusFox 03-03-07, 02:07 PM	Lawful Evil Paladin: Hey guys! Let's raze, loot, and dismantle the town in the valley in righteous holy fire! =D FOR OUR LORD!!!! Ninja: ... >.> So like I said...I was standing in the vault room with two bags of platinum in my hand when all of a sudden-- Lawful Evil Paladin: C'mon guys! We can even rape the women if you want! We...must...PILLAGE!
Master_Of_The_Storms 03-03-07, 03:16 PM	the current "paladin" in my group sets a bad example for them, or maybe thats what paladins are, dicks. For one, alignment. My friend is a Lawful Good paladin, if he were to see a Chaotic neutral man, He would instantly think that person is untrustworthy. OR, for some odd reasons, he thinks evil people cant do good things. That kinda makes me mad. You know Asmodeous (sp?) The friggin Lord of Hell felt love for his wife and daughter. But I digress, If it glows when he speaketh detect evil, then blood shalt be spilt. Sounds kinda like a psychopath to me...
Jethren 03-03-07, 03:36 PM	Ruined? How did he ruin it? The DM should have realized Paladin had detect evil since level 1. Why do Pals use Detect Evil alot? So they don't strike non-evil and lose powers. Bad DMs make Pals paraniod. Neph...that's metagaming. The Paladin, who had adventured and joked around the campfire with us all for the past year or so, saw a group of us returning from a mission that he knew we had gone on. Nobody was acting suspicious. He had no legitimite reson to distrust any of us. We were his friends. Assuming that the Paladin will use his ability to Detect Evil on people he knows and trusts...people who have saved his life in the past...is just assinine. Why should the DM have to plan around the party Paladin abusing his out of game knowledge to avoid a supprize attack?
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-03-07, 04:04 PM	My paladins tend to ping people after they have gone off alone, but then my group has people who are stupid and put on strange magic items without checking first. But honestly, player's often get paranoid when DM's pull a portion of the party aside, write notes, or chuckle evilly after anyone has been seperated. The paranoia is obviously metagaming, but many people tend to do it. One group that I was in, we knew our characters were in for a bad night every time notes were passed or the DM talked to anyone without the rest of the group present. In such an enviornment, it is best to take party abilities into account, and required if those abilites are "at will."
navar100 03-03-07, 05:18 PM	the current "paladin" in my group sets a bad example for them, or maybe thats what paladins are, dicks. For one, alignment. My friend is a Lawful Good paladin, if he were to see a Chaotic neutral man, He would instantly think that person is untrustworthy. OR, for some odd reasons, he thinks evil people cant do good things. That kinda makes me mad. You know Asmodeous (sp?) The friggin Lord of Hell felt love for his wife and daughter. But I digress, If it glows when he speaketh detect evil, then blood shalt be spilt. Sounds kinda like a psychopath to me... Just how good is someone really when he loves his wife and daughter but will kill another man's wife and daughter without a second thought? The paladin is entitled to find a chaotic neutral man untrustworthy. The chaotic neutral man is untrustworthiness personified. He's not evil, just can't be trusted. A paladin fights against chaos as he does against evil. It just happens his code is more forgiving if he commits a chaotic act than committing an evil act. What a paladin does when meeting a chaotic neutral man is a different matter. Tell him no secrets? Check. Do not tell him where something valueable is located? Check. Keep an eye on him? Check. Kill him outright upon first meeting because he's chaotic neutral? Miko had a "better" reason.
navar100 03-03-07, 05:19 PM	Neph...that's metagaming. The Paladin, who had adventured and joked around the campfire with us all for the past year or so, saw a group of us returning from a mission that he knew we had gone on. Nobody was acting suspicious. He had no legitimite reson to distrust any of us. We were his friends. Assuming that the Paladin will use his ability to Detect Evil on people he knows and trusts...people who have saved his life in the past...is just assinine. Why should the DM have to plan around the party Paladin abusing his out of game knowledge to avoid a supprize attack? That's a problem with the player, not the paladin.
navar100 03-03-07, 05:29 PM	My paladins tend to ping people after they have gone off alone, but then my group has people who are stupid and put on strange magic items without checking first. But honestly, player's often get paranoid when DM's pull a portion of the party aside, write notes, or chuckle evilly after anyone has been seperated. The paranoia is obviously metagaming, but many people tend to do it. One group that I was in, we knew our characters were in for a bad night every time notes were passed or the DM talked to anyone without the rest of the group present. In such an enviornment, it is best to take party abilities into account, and required if those abilites are "at will." It is important not to use metagaming such as this. Also, sometimes for game play there will have to be note passing. The game can be fun when something is happening all but one player doesn't know about. It's fair for an NPC bad guy to use Charm Person or Suggestion in a battle, for example. However, if note passing is happening every game, then as a matter of personal taste it's a game I won't like playing in. I've played Paranoia and have found not to like it. I've played in games where a party member is secretly working for the bad guys. I have found not to like it. For my taste, the DM is not the bad guy but only the DM should be playing the bad guys. Making other players paranoid by DM/player passing notes to each other just saying "nod your head and smile" is not my cup of tea. There is no One True Way to play the game, but that kind of play is well down the road of A Way You Should Not Play The Game in my road map. Still, it is just a matter of personal taste.
boggler65 03-04-07, 12:16 AM	But "roleplaying" is not free license to be a jerk to the party. Fine, be your conniving thief. My paladin will turn you in because that's just me "roleplaying". If I'm unable to do it myself, I'll inform the proper authorities. Make a new character. I'm not even going to tell you I'm doing it. You have no idea. Kill my paladin? Congratulations, you just committed murder. You're a wanted man. My next character is a cleric of vengeance sent to hunt you down. You won't even know I'm coming. I can be a jerk too. Why should party members be friends with each other? How regularly do you hang out with people you hate? You can't choose your family. You can't choose your co-workers. You can choose the people you want to hang out with by your choice. Why should my character travel around with someone whom he doesn't trust, doesn't like, and can't depend on? Go ahead and play your game. I didn't say you couldn't. I'm just saying I don't like such players, and in my opinion it is those types of players who don't like paladins. I no longer have the patience with such players. If it is an everyone is evil game, I go in knowing that. For my personal taste I like them as a one-shot adventure for kicks. As a meant to be serious campaign, I don't. For those who do like them, have fun. The bottom line is with an attitude like that you would be a detriment to any game that I have ever run. And if you were to intentionally try to screw over another player just because you like your paladin and not his rogue I would ask you to leave my game and not return. Plain and simple. That said players knowing each others alignment is in and of itself meta-gaming. There is no reason anyone other than a paladin or a character who has actually cast a spell to determine alignment would have that information. Ok I probably wouldn't kick you out for a first offense, but I unless the character was actually evil and you had used detect evil on him and were thus certain you would become a fallen paladin. If it was just a selfish CN swashbuckler you'd definently become Chaotic or neutral in alignment for such an action, since the character that you ****ed over was in your party and was not truly evil. Furthermore if the character killed you you would not be coming back as anything at all without my approval. Playing a cleric of vengence is clearly meta-gaming and just immature behavior, if you pursued that crap you most certainly would no longer be a part of my game. Also I see no reason to allow players to know each others alignments in game. It's not necessary or realistic. I realize that most GM's havn't got this kind of time, but seeing as how I do not end up starting a new game every month or two, and never have more than 2 groups playing at a time; I always ask players to do the character creation with me, in private, I take into account the player characters backstory and then try to offer them opportunities in game to exhibit thier history without everyone just knowing everything about everybody else. If I have 1 player who wants to run a paladin, and the rest want to run other characters that I feel would cause problems amongst my group during the game I usually ask the player who wants a paladin to chose something else. DnD is a group experience and the selfishness of one person should not be allowed to have a negative effect on the others. Usually though my groups are not immature and these types of problems do not come up, especially when the player characters do not know everything about every other player at the table. It's called roleplaying. I highly recommend the alternate approach of keeping such things as alignment seceret from other players, as long as the players are reasonably good at roleplaying this only enchances the game and generally eliminates the problem paladin. Most of the time if I have a character with an opposing alignment it doesn't become an in-game issue until the point in the campaign when I, the GM, and the player intend it to. It's also important to keep in mind that the detect evil ability does not actually tell you a specific alignment, it's ambiguous. If a random human commoner just killed someone the paladin would get the evil vibe, but also if a different human commoner just picked a nobleman's pocket to get money to pay protection to a local thieves guild that would show up as evil. My paladin's don't just get to have the moral high ground by running around willy-nilly detecting evil. They have to roleplay and face decisions and recognize simple base human nature from real evil that needs to be stopped.
navar100 03-04-07, 12:37 AM	I never said just because I'm playing a paladin I would try to screw over the rogue. The complaint you have against me is actually agianst the "rogue" I'm counter arguing against, a that type of player. I'm talking about the gnome in Complete Scoundrel who never informs the party he found the key to the locked door. I'm talking about the guy who when scouting ahead learned some very important to know piece of information but does not tell the party because now he knows something no one else does thus he's "superior". He has a "secret". That's a selfish player. It is that type of player I don't care to play with. I've played in enough games with such players to know the game just becomes very unfun for me. If you support that type of play and say I must leave the table, I do so gladly. If I'm playing a paladin and the rogue on his own downtime robs a merchant but when we were in the dungeon and will be again backs me up, helps me out, warns me of traps, equally shares the treasure, is honest with me, that type of rogue I'll never have a problem with. If I do know in character he steals during downtime, roleplaying-wise I will object but for the sake of the game I don't go high holier than thou on him. I'll ask him to mend his ways but I know out of character he never will and I won't try to force him to.
Bhaal006 03-04-07, 01:00 AM	In D&D good and evil are absolute, black and white, good is always good, evil is always evil, fine your the DM you can do it your way, but the system was designed this way to ease gameplay, otherwise alignment becomes perception and the paladin can never smite anything because the LE villian thinks as himself as good, by the way if slavery is used as a form of punishment the bard misinformed the paladin, the running man is a Convict not a slave, you'd think the'd have different ways of marking the two, to avoid confused paladins.
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-04-07, 04:02 PM	I'm talking about the guy who when scouting ahead learned some very important to know piece of information but does not tell the party because now he knows something no one else does thus he's "superior". He has a "secret". In the games I have played in, this specific action has come close to having characters killed once the fact that they have held back important information from the party became known. (At the hands of the LN fighter, not the paladin) As Mat from the Wheel of Time told his scouts, there was a hangman for them the very first time they didn't tell him something important. On the point of CN characters, I personally have seen far too many players choose that alignment because the DM won't allow evil characters. Call it Chaotic <expletive deleted>. I have seen a few done very well, but the majority always seem to be people who like messing with the other players. Back to paladins, I have seen them done poorly, and seen them done well. The problems they pose in groups tend to fit into 3 categories. One The player has trouble pulling off the alignment. Paladins are expected to use some restraint. That 8 year old thief who stole your rations may very well just be trying not to starve. Killing him is probably not a good idea. Catching him and finding some way to help him is probably a better (although much more difficult) plan. Two The player and the DM have different ideas about what the paladin's code entails. It is probably best to get at least a general idea about what the DM expects before playing one. Three The code is incompatible with others characters in the party. (sometimes other players in the group) If your group always has a guy who seems to play a sociopath, this is the wrong group in which to play a paladin. Coupled with perceptions of what a paladin is supposed to be like, (and memories of what other paladins have been like) major problems can often arise here. Other players might see the prescence of a paladin as an excuse to be on thier worst behavior, or they might believe that in order to do anything they will have to keep the paladin in the dark as much as possible.
paladin2019 03-04-07, 04:46 PM	So, wow, this is big. I'll kick in my 2 cp Paladins are boring. It is not part of the American psyche (don't know about the rest of ya, sorry) to root for the big winner, the guy who's good all the time. We like Han Solo and Malcom Reynolds, the guys who have nothing but find something to believe in. They are the common man who rises to heroism despite his flaws. Let's add Excalibur's depiction of Perceval and Tolkien's Hobbits here, too. Why? True or not, this is the way we see ourselves. Galahad is the true paladin; he comes onstage a hero and doesn't change. Even Lancelot, with his fall from grace, is more human, and thus more engaging.
JTalbain 03-04-07, 06:25 PM	Actually, about the Paladin who found the escaped slave.... I believe that slavery is considered an evil institution by D&D standards. Upon discovering that the escaped slave was a criminal, he can actually still help him in order to free him from his slavery, since opposing the evil actions of an evil institution he is committing an act of good. He could also choose to allow the slavers to take the man back and deny him protection. He is choosing to stand aside and let what will happen happen. This is the definition of Neutral. He can't, however, knowingly seek out and recapture the man to deliver him back into slavery. Assisting the evil society with committing an evil act would be the same as committing the evil act himself. For all those that think "The law is the law, but good is subjective": No, Good is NOT subjective. The point of the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness was not to provide the cheesey PrCs that they are most often used for, they were to illustrate the absolutism in the D&D alignment system. Things are good or bad, lawful or chaotic. The particular government may see itself as Lawful Good, but that doesn't make it so. As for the paladin "Smite-on-Sight" method of dealing with evildoers: The Paladin is not expected to destroy all that is evil. Killing someone in cold blood just because they show up on Detect Evil is an evil act. Also an unlawful one, since cold-blooded murder is probably against the law too. It can make the Paladin distrustful of someone, it can make them not want to associate with them, and it can be confirmation that his Smite Evil will work, but it isn't grounds for execution. The virtues associated with Good are patience, mercy, benevolence, and compassion. In other words, the Paladin has every reason to give someone a chance to atone. If, however, they are foolish enough to commit evil in his presence, all bets are off...
navar100 03-05-07, 02:01 AM	So, wow, this is big. I'll kick in my 2 cp Paladins are boring. It is not part of the American psyche (don't know about the rest of ya, sorry) to root for the big winner, the guy who's good all the time. We like Han Solo and Malcom Reynolds, the guys who have nothing but find something to believe in. They are the common man who rises to heroism despite his flaws. Let's add Excalibur's depiction of Perceval and Tolkien's Hobbits here, too. Why? True or not, this is the way we see ourselves. Galahad is the true paladin; he comes onstage a hero and doesn't change. Even Lancelot, with his fall from grace, is more human, and thus more engaging. We like heroes. When the chips are down and there's an easy way out, the paladin will stick to his principles, tough it out, then come out ahead. We like the guy who makes the tough choices, the road less traveled, who does or does not do things because it's the right thing to do. Only becuase I recently saw the movie for the first time so it still sticks with me, Yul Brynner's character in "The Magnificent Seven". Being a gunslinger may not connotate easily into being a paladin by the essence of its profession, but when I was watching the movie, everything he did I kept thinking "paladin". Even when the villagers betrayed him, he fought back. Perhaps for a sense of personal ego, pride, and honor as well as to if not more than to fight the bad guys, but he went back. He was no Han Solo. He was no James Bond. He was the Good Guy.
Stupid Mop 03-05-07, 03:43 AM	For what it is worth, a lot of my friends of I are huge Star Wars fans in addition to D&D. We find that playing a paladin is a sort of high fantasy version of playing a jedi, which is always very cool.
paladin2019 03-05-07, 06:55 AM	We like heroes. When the chips are down and there's an easy way out, the paladin will stick to his principles, tough it out, then come out ahead. We like the guy who makes the tough choices, the road less traveled, who does or does not do things because it's the right thing to do. I think the true hero is the one who has a choice to do or not do this. One who doesn't have a negative consequence for not doing it and does it anyway. Han Solo had an out. He had his cash but he came back to save the day. He didn't have to and would have been much better off if he hadn't. Same with Mal. He didn't have to keep the Tams under his wing when he found out who they were. Again, he would have been better off if he didn't. But he did. The paladin is different. There's no question he will do the right thing. When he does, it's no surprise. It's anti-climactic. It's mundane. The character hasn't grown, hasn't learned something. Only becuase I recently saw the movie for the first time so it still sticks with me, Yul Brynner's character in "The Magnificent Seven". Being a gunslinger may not connotate easily into being a paladin by the essence of its profession, but when I was watching the movie, everything he did I kept thinking "paladin". Even when the villagers betrayed him, he fought back. Perhaps for a sense of personal ego, pride, and honor as well as to if not more than to fight the bad guys, but he went back. He was no Han Solo. He was no James Bond. He was the Good Guy. And I would offer the counter of Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura's roles from The Seven Samurai (since I am more familiar with the original). Kikuchiyu was was much more interesting than Kambei. It wasn't until the final battle that he truly understood what it meant to be who he pretended to be. He learned and grew. Kambei was already there. We didn't see how he got there and he didn't change. But he had to exist as one example for Kikuchiyu to look up to, to temper him and help him find who he could be. So, yeah, the fighter and the paladin.
The_Shaman 03-05-07, 08:25 AM	I think the true hero is the one who has a choice to do or not do this. One who doesn't have a negative consequence for not doing it and does it anyway. Han Solo had an out. He had his cash but he came back to save the day. He didn't have to and would have been much better off if he hadn't. Same with Mal. He didn't have to keep the Tams under his wing when he found out who they were. Again, he would have been better off if he didn't. But he did. The paladin is different. There's no question he will do the right thing. When he does, it's no surprise. It's anti-climactic. It's mundane. The character hasn't grown, hasn't learned something. That needn't be the case. A paladin's devotion to good does not change, but that doesn't mean their character does not change. They can shed misconceptions or acquire new ones, they have to advance the cause of goodness on a grand scale - crusading far away - or try to work out the little details closer to home. A paladin is not a celestial, but a human who is trying to bring goodness closer to the world. Also, they do face the choices every character makes in doing the right thing or not - and like every character, not doing the right thing might have some enormous benefits - up to and including staying alive. Only paladins - and by the way, clerics, druids, and other divine-associated classes - are more aware of the wider consequences of their choices. And I would offer the counter of Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura's roles from The Seven Samurai (since I am more familiar with the original). Kikuchiyu was was much more interesting than Kambei. It wasn't until the final battle that he truly understood what it meant to be who he pretended to be. He learned and grew. Kambei was already there. We didn't see how he got there and he didn't change. But he had to exist as one example for Kikuchiyu to look up to, to temper him and help him find who he could be. So, yeah, the fighter and the paladin. They are both valid archetypes. Your point is somewhat justified because Kikuchiyu's inner conflict is more central to the story and gets more attention. However, that needn't mean Kambei is completely static (as he also overcomes his own weaknesses when he joins the village's cause and imo at the end when he talks to the young guy). Moreover, just because he doesn't reveal that much about himself in the course of the plot it doesn't mean he's unchanged by his environment. And, by the way, I preferred the paladin-jedi analogy to the one about the paladin and the fighter. Just because a fighter need not act as a paladin to keep his class features does not mean he shouldn't. Paladins aren't the only characters that can opt for a truly exalted outlook, you know. For all we know in-game the famous hero Batpesho might be a lvl 12 rogue despite being a role model for every paladin on the continent.
Leo 03-05-07, 09:17 AM	Honestly, I see the paladin as the ultimate follower of good and law. Problem is, we're in the medieval ages. Problems are solved by killing stuff. Let's see Pelor, for example. Oh great god, the demons are attacking the material plane and slaughtering the inocent! What do you think Pelor will say? Never fear. I shall send my solars and rally my celestials to subudal damage them, arrest them with antimagic manacles so tey can't escape and then teach them the benefits of good untill they repent! or Never fear. I shall send my solars and rally my celestials to wipe them out of the face of the earth! Problem is, orcs, goblins, demons...They're not of our species. They are other species. And most of them are bloodthirsty and would wipe all other species of the face of the universe given the chance. the paladin won't exactly seek to return the favor, but should he be provoked and attacked whitout reason, don't expect much mercy. Sure, complicated reasons can arise, but remember this: it's not thral world. In D&D there are gods. Powerfull mighty gods who are waging war on each other for centuries, good and evil, chaos and order(and even neutrality in the middle of that). We are the soldiers on the middle of the battle, and we are not suposed to question too much the ideals of the gods. We are expectd to follow them. so, in case of doubt, ask the DM:D. After all, it's his job to define good and evil in the campaign. Anyway, killing in self defense is hardly a murder. When there are 10 orcs attacking you, there's no much time for subtelty.
navar100 03-06-07, 03:26 AM	I think the true hero is the one who has a choice to do or not do this. One who doesn't have a negative consequence for not doing it and does it anyway. Han Solo had an out. He had his cash but he came back to save the day. He didn't have to and would have been much better off if he hadn't. Same with Mal. He didn't have to keep the Tams under his wing when he found out who they were. Again, he would have been better off if he didn't. But he did. The paladin is different. There's no question he will do the right thing. When he does, it's no surprise. It's anti-climactic. It's mundane. The character hasn't grown, hasn't learned something. And I would offer the counter of Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura's roles from The Seven Samurai (since I am more familiar with the original). Kikuchiyu was was much more interesting than Kambei. It wasn't until the final battle that he truly understood what it meant to be who he pretended to be. He learned and grew. Kambei was already there. We didn't see how he got there and he didn't change. But he had to exist as one example for Kikuchiyu to look up to, to temper him and help him find who he could be. So, yeah, the fighter and the paladin. I like Han Solo too. I think he changed alignment from Neutral to Good. I saw The Seven Samurai. I know whom you are talking about. I liked him too. This is all a matter of personal taste. You may find the paladin boring. That doesn't make the paladin boring. Even if when I know how a character would behave, I happen to enjoy how he manages to do it in various situations he may be placed. It's analagous to Columbo with Peter Falk. Normally, the fun of murder mysteries is finding out who did it. With Columbo, we know who did it, even Columbo, but the fun is finding out how Columbo finds the proof. (With Tony Shaloub's Monk, we get both types of fun depending on the episode.) I happen to find paladins way cool, fun to play, and will enjoy stories with paladinesque heroes.
Stormbrand 03-06-07, 02:00 PM	So, wow, this is big. I'll kick in my 2 cp Paladins are boring. It is not part of the American psyche (don't know about the rest of ya, sorry) to root for the big winner, the guy who's good all the time. We like Han Solo and Malcom Reynolds, the guys who have nothing but find something to believe in. They are the common man who rises to heroism despite his flaws. Let's add Excalibur's depiction of Perceval and Tolkien's Hobbits here, too. Why? True or not, this is the way we see ourselves. Galahad is the true paladin; he comes onstage a hero and doesn't change. Even Lancelot, with his fall from grace, is more human, and thus more engaging. I think the true hero is the one who has a choice to do or not do this. One who doesn't have a negative consequence for not doing it and does it anyway. Han Solo had an out. He had his cash but he came back to save the day. He didn't have to and would have been much better off if he hadn't. Same with Mal. He didn't have to keep the Tams under his wing when he found out who they were. Again, he would have been better off if he didn't. But he did. The paladin is different. There's no question he will do the right thing. When he does, it's no surprise. It's anti-climactic. It's mundane. The character hasn't grown, hasn't learned something. And I would offer the counter of Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura's roles from The Seven Samurai (since I am more familiar with the original). Kikuchiyu was was much more interesting than Kambei. It wasn't until the final battle that he truly understood what it meant to be who he pretended to be. He learned and grew. Kambei was already there. We didn't see how he got there and he didn't change. But he had to exist as one example for Kikuchiyu to look up to, to temper him and help him find who he could be. So, yeah, the fighter and the paladin. Or... Paladinesque characters are not well-represented by the media you are familiar with. Read Druss the Legend, read the Elenium and Tamuli with Sparhawk, read the Warlord Chronicles with Arthur & Galahad. All of these have excellent examples of paladin-like characters. Maybe you assume the story is simpler for Paladins, but navar100's example of the gunslinger going back after the villagers betray him, is an example of the character's virtue shining through adversity. If adversity is presented to the character's virtue, then it becomes interesting.
JTalbain 03-06-07, 07:26 PM	Sorry, the Paladin fell. He feel hard. So hard that the demons are like', Damn, we didn't even fall that hard from grace." Why exactly is that falling from grace? Because the Paladin was trying to get them to repent? Because he was trying to help them, and in the process, help others? How exactly is this against the Paladin code?
Skritz_the_Lizardmen 03-06-07, 10:28 PM	Well...the hinder other caracter roleplay. I mean...a Warforged necromancer who collect body part to graft them on himself. What kind of Paladin would allow that???? But it hindered my RP.