Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sooperspook 11-13-05, 02:53 AM	Exactly as the title says. Personally i'm half n half about it. just wanted to know what everyone else thought. thanks all
syrinth 11-13-05, 02:57 AM	First off, discworld sig so ten points! secondly, I don't really know about power but I personally use Jaerom Darkwind's Paladin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=158114&page=1&pp=30) because it is so much cooler
Manyfist 11-13-05, 03:00 AM	I don't like the entire Alignment restriction. I am in favor of scrapping it and replacing it with Soulborn from MOI. :D
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-13-05, 03:11 AM	Alignment Restrictions are not balancing factors, they can only pretend to be. Paladin, however is not even really a strong enough class to warent fake balance. The only really broken thing it gets is metagam-- er -- detect evil at will. That said, the Paladin has the 'must not be adventuring friendly' CoC because he's supposed to be a rip off of Charlemange's Paladins who had to live by an arbitrarily strict code of honor. In a regular game, just making them live by the Romantic (not the real) code of chivalry is enough and more game friendly.
caeruleus 11-13-05, 03:29 AM	I'd hardly call being Lawful Good a "harsh" alignment restriction.
cere 11-13-05, 03:33 AM	Alignemnt in its descriptive form, NOT its prescriptive form is the worst handicap not only power-wise but more importanly ROLE PLAY wise ever invented. Paladins aer no way near compensated enough to not only be restriced mechanically, but made unplayable Role-wise.
a_psh 11-13-05, 03:39 AM	Basically, roleplaying restrictions do absolutely nothing in terms of mechanical balance. The paladin is pretty nicely balanced (at least compared to the ranger and fighter, which are in its niche... harder to compare it to, say, a rogue or wizard because those classes often do entirely diffrent things) without taking alignment or the code into account. Why saddle them with the code and LG requirement? Well, it's flavor certainly. But, more so than that, the paladin gains as much as he loses from all this. Sure, you have to follow your Code and be a paragon of Good, which can be limiting or painful at times. But the reward is that everyone in the game world knows it: a paladin has an easier time getting cooperation from (Good-leaning) authorities, winning the trust of NPCs, &c. Simply put, the very thing that might require you to, say, accept an enemy's surrender and haul him off to jail also makes it much easier to convince the sheriff that, in fact, you are bringing in a criminal in the first place. Trust. Almost instant trust. That's what the Code earns you, for the most part.
Manyfist 11-13-05, 04:34 AM	Paladin should of been an PRC. instead of an Base class, an Cleric/Fighter Mix would work well. Yet for some reason WOTC is pushing the Good over Evil, making Paladins RAW, W/O UA, off limits to evil players or neutral players. The code is very limiting on your RPing aspect, you're always the arrogant jerk who saves the innocent...etc. Paladins kinda of fall out of terms when facing a Good Aligned Enemy, it throws the Paladin through a loop. ;)
Wizard 11-13-05, 04:37 AM	The code is very limiting on your RPing aspect, you're always the arrogant jerk who saves the innocent...etc. Speak for yourself!
Manyfist 11-13-05, 04:51 AM	Speak for yourself! Speak the truth, unless you have an Party of soley LGs, then conflict will come in. The Code of Honor is a real hassle, and sure you may want to come off as nice, but sticking to the Code, then preaching about it... arrogance.
Jaid 11-13-05, 10:15 AM	paladins don't have to be arrogant. in fact, since they typically have a sky-high charisma, they should generally speaking be quite likeable. there is nothing that says a paladin must be a mindless LG zombie. there are different shades of LG, you know, and not all of them are "do what i say or i'm going to kill you/turn you in to the authorities/leave the party. the party as a whole would have to be good, but not necessarily lawful at all, for example. it is *not* the paladin's job to fight chaos, just evil. furthermore, lawful does not mean law-abiding, it means that they tend to have a strict set of beliefs that they follow (which *may* be the laws of the land), that they tend to prefer stability over change, that they tend to prefer operating in groups with clearly defined rules and responsibilities rather than one their own or without any guidelines, and so forth. good means they try to help others and do the right thing. i fail to see how that automatically equates to overbearing, stubborn, heavy handed tyrannical ruler of the party. for example, to use dragonlance, Sturm was most definitely LG. he had no problems with, say, tasslehoff being in the party. Raistlin was most definitely not good, nor was Kitiara, both of them probably being at best Neutral (at first, at least). also, when it came down to a choice between obeying a Knight of the Rose or doing what was right, he did what was right, not what was "lawful". he never preached to the other party members, preferring to show them by example. he didn't consider himself "better" than anyone else in the party, and in fact was in Awe of Tanis' ability to not need the code or the measure to know what to do. so yeah... *your* paladin may be a prideful, arrogant, jerk. that doesn't mean *mine* have to be.
Rhomphaia 11-13-05, 10:19 AM	Are paladins powerful enough to compensate for their code? Yes. Are they powerful enough to compensate for the crap that many DMs put them through? I don't think anything can balance that.
psionichamster 11-13-05, 10:31 AM	well, as a paladin, you are called by God(TM) or some higher power (like the force of Good Incarnate, or somesuch) to right wrongs and fight evil that's it. you must fight w/ honor, you must remain lawful and good, etc... you must also not hang around evildoers, as they are the enemy of good...blah blah blah nothing in the paladin class description, the LG alignment description, or anywhere else does it say a pally needs to be arrogant and preachy. far from it, in fact. IMC, at the moment, i have a paladin/monk who drinks, swears, and hangs around some dangerous, slightly homicidal people (including a ninja who's motto is "never leave a live enemy behind you" and an elf who kills all drow on sight). he's constantly trying to maintain some semblance of order among his party, and routinely steps in to try to keep them from killing the helpless (not successfully, too often...ninja are sneakier than paladins are typically capable of seeing) true, they experience conflict more than other classes, and they SHOULD at least give their enemies a chance to surrender. but nothing says they have to be mean-spirited jerks. nothing to say they can't be, either...i was bucking for a while that Batman could be a paladin, (another thread altogether), and he is not the nice guy, eh? namaste' the hamster
r_seldon 11-13-05, 10:47 AM	The problem is that DM's & pc's never make them distinctive to what ever deity they may worship. A paladin for Athena would be quite different from a paladin say for the the dwarven god Moradin. The characterization of the paladin probably came from that picture in the AD&D phb, 'Paladin in Hell'. Fully encased in full plate fighting demons. Everyone got the impression that paladins were like King Arthur's knights of the round table. And thus everyone played them the same way. Years ago I spoke to another DM about how everyone seems to play them the same way. His solution was to have the pc write out the code of the paladin based on the deity they served. This way he knew if the paladin was in the wrong. Here are some examples I thought of for my games. Athena: Be virgin, or at least celibate. Always female. Preferred weapon spear/javelin. More military planners than fighters(remember goddess of wisdom). Skills in charioteering, sense motive and possibly law. Moradin: Defender of the dwarven faith and people. Have some type of useful skill to earn your keep,(no living off others). Eventually marry and have children. Considering the long lives and low birth rate, it does not make sense to have celibate warriors of the faith. There is a halfling god who is lg, and is more like a ranger. I had a character that worshipped him, but I cannot remeber the name at this time. Defender of the halfling community. Knowlegable about ambushes and traps. A fair fight with the big folk is bunch of arrows in the back.(Strike hard and strike first!!) Everyone seems to confuse a paladins and all lg things as living in lala land. They would know the harsh reality of the world and would act accordingly. Taking example from literature, Arragorn could possibly considered LG, Sturm from DL is and Raistlin's brother was also considered LG. No one considered them 'Awful Good'. So make your paladins distinctive. Not every paladin follows the same code of conduct. As for palding being PrC, I am split.
WayneTheGame 11-13-05, 11:18 AM	There is a halfling god who is lg, and is more like a ranger. I had a character that worshipped him, but I cannot remeber the name at this time. Defender of the halfling community. Knowlegable about ambushes and traps. A fair fight with the big folk is bunch of arrows in the back.(Strike hard and strike first!!) Avoreen (Arvoreen, something like that) the Defender? Anyways, my thoughts are this: The problem comes not from playing a Paladin, but that so many people have their own view of how a Paladin should act, and its typically like a goody-goody who can never do ANYTHING unless its to save the innocent. e.g. no drinking (alcohol = bad!), no associating with anyone who isn't as morally upright as yourself (i.e. LG), etc. etc. Whereas *my* interpretation of a paladin is that you must do the RIGHT thing in any given situation. Meaning that if you're asked by a poor village to stop something evil from destroying their crop (thus dooming them to starvation for the coming winter), you go off and do it unless you have some urgent business that's more important (and even then you try to help them out a little, maybe giving them a little gold to stockpile food) Why? Because its the RIGHT thing to do; these people are asking you to help them out, and you're obligated as a warrior of good to assist them. Maybe they can't pay you in hard gold but offer you free room and board in the local inn, and as a paladin that's good enough for you. Too many people try to impose all sorts of restrictions on a paladin that it severely limits the character. I've even read on these boards of DMs who would INTENTIONALLY try to screw a paladin out of his/her paladinhood. If you ask me, THAT is the problem right there. The paladin is perfectly balanced provided you follow the general code; it's only when you have jerk DMs who try to enforce it to the extreme and say that you lose your paladinhood because some beggar accosted you and you didn't have any spare coins on you to give to him, or put you in a situation where no matter what you do you're going to fall from grace (kill a child to save a town, for example) that it becomes a problem. Just my thoughts.
Silverthumb128 11-13-05, 11:21 AM	I'd hardly call being Lawful Good a "harsh" alignment restriction. Amen. Its only harsh if you can't roleplay. And in a roleplaying game... not good. Its like football without arms.
cere 11-13-05, 11:39 AM	And i think Wayne hit it right on the head. The problem with the paladin is the same problem with alignment. Its not a player issue, its a DM one. Most DMs (or rather EVERY single DM ive ever met in my entire life) have a STRICT picture of what a Paladin is in his head and punishes those who wish to roleplay something different. Im in the agreement that a Paladin will always do whats right. Im in the minority of gamers though. So Ive never played a Paladin due to BAD DMing. As a matter of fact Bad DMing is why i tend to shy away from Clerics too. So why create a Paladin who will be constanly punished and thus be Underbalanced its entire career, when I can play a fighter who lives by the code that I (and WOTC) believe a Paladin would?
WayneTheGame 11-13-05, 11:54 AM	Thanks for the vote of confidence, cere :) I'll expand on what I said a little bit, as well: To me, Paladin = the quintessential knight in shining armor. If I were to play one (and I hope I do someday :D ) I would play him half like Sir Lancelot and half like a Jedi Knight. The key to playing a paladin is, as I already said, to do what's right, regardless of the circumstances. That means you don't fight unless it's your last resort, and even then you try to end the battle as swiftly and mercifully as possible. If my party is ambushed by bugbear mercenaries who want our heads, I'm going to fight to defend my comrades, no questions asked. If we're asked to aprehend a thief, I'm not going to kill him in battle. I'll use the flat of my blade and subdue him, then turn him over to the authorities. On the flip side, any paladin I would play would have a tragic hero flaw that may or may not come into play, because nobody is perfect. The point is that if *I* think it would be great to have my character fall from grace and then work towards regaining it (or dying heroically, Vader-style) it's going to be MY choice. I don't want it forced upon me because the DM tells me there's a man getting mugged in an alley to my right, and a woman about to be raped in the alley to my left, and I can only save one of them so no matter what I'm going to lose my paladinhood for not helping someone in need. THAT Is what's wrong with paladins, and if you ask me alignment in general: DMs use it as a tool to screw players over instead of as a guideline for how a character should act. I'm sorry but no god is going to punish a follower if they try their best to help someone out; you can't be everywhere at once. Punishing a paladin by giving them a lose-lose situation is bad DMing, plain and simple.
Nephlite 11-13-05, 12:21 PM	Thanks for the vote of confidence, cere :) I'll expand on what I said a little bit, as well: To me, Paladin = the quintessential knight in shining armor. If I were to play one (and I hope I do someday :D ) I would play him half like Sir Lancelot and half like a Jedi Knight. The key to playing a paladin is, as I already said, to do what's right, regardless of the circumstances. That means you don't fight unless it's your last resort, and even then you try to end the battle as swiftly and mercifully as possible. If my party is ambushed by bugbear mercenaries who want our heads, I'm going to fight to defend my comrades, no questions asked. If we're asked to aprehend a thief, I'm not going to kill him in battle. I'll use the flat of my blade and subdue him, then turn him over to the authorities. On the flip side, any paladin I would play would have a tragic hero flaw that may or may not come into play, because nobody is perfect. The point is that if *I* think it would be great to have my character fall from grace and then work towards regaining it (or dying heroically, Vader-style) it's going to be MY choice. I don't want it forced upon me because the DM tells me there's a man getting mugged in an alley to my right, and a woman about to be raped in the alley to my left, and I can only save one of them so no matter what I'm going to lose my paladinhood for not helping someone in need. THAT Is what's wrong with paladins, and if you ask me alignment in general: DMs use it as a tool to screw players over instead of as a guideline for how a character should act. I'm sorry but no god is going to punish a follower if they try their best to help someone out; you can't be everywhere at once. Punishing a paladin by giving them a lose-lose situation is bad DMing, plain and simple. That is the problem the Code of Conduct is written to stiff Paladin's based on Dm whim. If the Code just said this: Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. He must do what he thinks is right and is in the spirit of the law. Work with your Dm to make a appropriate Code that fits his personality. Note this is not to be made to punish players for the DM's whim, but for flavor and roleplaying. As an example: Samantha the Defenders code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Associates: While the Paladin 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. Ex-Paladins A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates her code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate. Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities. There would be no problems. But nope: you can't decide what is right beause it is writtenand chosen for you. That is why I like Diety-less Clerics: Dm can't get you unless you think it isn't right not him.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-13-05, 12:43 PM	paladins don't have to be arrogant. in fact, since they typically have a sky-high charisma, they should generally speaking be quite likeable. High Charisma means high force of personality, incredable good looks, or great eloquence. Ever hear the terms 'Cha 14, none of it looks' or 'Cha 16, all of it pretty'? It means one person's high Cha may make them likable while another's just makes them stubborn. there is nothing that says a paladin must be a mindless LG zombie. there are different shades of LG, you know, and not all of them are "do what i say or i'm going to kill you/turn you in to the authorities/leave the party. "A paladin will not associate with evil characters or characters that constantly offend thier morality." In a game where the main theme is slaughtering indigenious peoples and looting thier honored dead, the Paladin just doesn't fit because of the code. the party as a whole would have to be good, but not necessarily lawful at all, for example. it is *not* the paladin's job to fight chaos, just evil. Repeated chaotic acts will constantly offend the Paladin's morality. Also, you just took away 2/3 of the possible pigeon hol-- er possible alignments. i fail to see how that automatically equates to overbearing, stubborn, heavy handed tyrannical ruler of the party. The Code, once again, more or less does. If you keep doing things against the Paladin's code, he either falls or takes his ball and goes home. for example, to use dragonlance, Sturm was most definitely LG. he had no problems with, say, tasslehoff being in the party. Raistlin was most definitely not good, nor was Kitiara, both of them probably being at best Neutral (at first, at least). Sturm was a Knight of Solomnia, not a paladin. he didn't consider himself "better" than anyone else in the party, and in fact was in Awe of Tanis' ability to not need the code or the measure to know what to do. This is more the way DL represented Law vs Chaos. Chaos really was, complete, unfettered freedom and LAw was more or less mental shackles. This is why Takisis failed, while Chaos got very close to winning. so yeah... *your* paladin may be a prideful, arrogant, jerk. that doesn't mean *mine* have to be. Yours apperently doesn't have the Code. Which I appluad, by the way.
psionichamster 11-13-05, 01:03 PM	per the d20 SRD Code of Conduct A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Associates 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. repeated Chaotic acts? you mean, like betraying the party to its death? or pickpocketing on the street? lighting the orphanage on fire to see it burn, or organizing the homeless of the land into a "civic organization?" disobeying orders given in combat, or disobeying the paladin's orders in combat? the difference of the chaos involved in each of these examples is pretty steep, but it follows...how much chaotic behaviour will a paladin "allow" from his compatriots? also: in a typical party, how many people are playing LG or paladins? if the Pally gets so "offended by the moral outrage", the player is looking at making a new character, not the party making new characters. at least, in my games it'd be like that. In a game where the main theme is slaughtering indigenious peoples and looting thier honored dead, the Paladin just doesn't fit because of the code. so, you argue that paladins are completely wrong for DnD? because, at its root, its a game about adventurers, and that's what they do. go to some random sentient's dwelling (be it dragon, orc, drow, whathaveyou), kill or incapicitate the occupants and take their stuff. that sounds like "slaughtering indigenious peoples and looting..." to me. upon close scrutiny, so long as you ain't evil, and ain't trying to irk the paladin, most things a party will do are A-OK. just go easy on the torture, and take some prisoners every once in a while. namaste' the hamster
caeruleus 11-13-05, 01:51 PM	Speak the truth, unless you have an Party of soley LGs, then conflict will come in. The Code of Honor is a real hassle, and sure you may want to come off as nice, but sticking to the Code, then preaching about it... arrogance. Sure, a paladin in a party of characters who are not largely lawful and good can lead to problems. But that's not a problem with the paladin. A chaotic character in a party of lawfuls is just as much of a problem, if not more so. so, you argue that paladins are completely wrong for DnD? because, at its root, its a game about adventurers, and that's what they do. go to some random sentient's dwelling (be it dragon, orc, drow, whathaveyou), kill or incapicitate the occupants and take their stuff. that sounds like "slaughtering indigenious peoples and looting..." to me. What a horribly narrow view of the game. What a horribly narrow view of adventuring. :rolleye2:
Wyrd Bearer 11-13-05, 02:04 PM	Personally, I'm just not a fan of paladins in general, mostly because every single one of them that I've seen played was by this one guy I knew who always twinked out his character as much as possible to the exclusion of background and ALWAYS played lawful stupid.... PC: "I use detect evil on the pirate." DM: "You get no reading." PC: "I attack him because he's a pirate." DM: "..." And then the DM would let him get away with it while the rest of us would cry foul because we wanted to solve the encounter with RPing instead of hacking. Now, for all that I dislike paladins, I don't hunt down players who play them and I actually let them write their own code of conduct that befits a lawful good character. I allow them to travel with evil companions, as long as the paladin attempts to try to reform them by teaching through good conduct, such as mercy and compassion and that the paladin doesn't stand for their companions evil acts (which often makes for wonderful player interactions, as long as everyone keeps their swords sheathed). They don't have to obey every single law of every single government they come across, they just have to work to preserve order and peace and work as best they can to not to break a law or to cause undue harm. I won't stand for a paladin lying, cheating, stealing or torturing, but I do know the difference between a helpful lie and a harmful one and won't punish the player for lying in a way that helps someone. Simply put, I don't punish paladins for being mortals. They're not solars, they're not living incarnations of the concept of "lawful good." They make mistakes, but as long as they admit when have and strive to avoid such mistakes, then they're fine by my book. Anyway, to answer the original question, I think that paladins have enough power as a class, as long as you give them opportunity to use their abilities and don't unduly punish them because they're not living up to the DM's perfect vision of the "ideal Authurian knight." Being a paladin isn't being forced to play lawful good, if you want to play a paladin, then you already want to play that alignment. So I don't see it as a harsh alignment restriction, just an awkward RPing restriction at the worst.
Sanosuke_Zanbatou 11-13-05, 02:22 PM	Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Any alignment is a point of view really. A Paladin to: the chaotic good rogue; "righteous do-gooding, goody two shoes" the neutral good fighter; "respectable and outstanding" the peons and serfs; "saviour and beacon of justice in an unjust world" the bad guy; "the guy that won't give up" The alignment 'restriction' is hardly that. It presents numerous roleplaying opportunities. If a Paladin comes across two unarmed sucubi(lol) in love, what does he do? Does he destroy the evil they represent, does he let them be because they have surrendered and pose no threat? A simple choice like that can start interesting quests. Anyways...my two coppers are...the 'restriction'...isn't. A Paladin is as powerful and underpowered as any other class. They all have strong and weak points.
psionichamster 11-13-05, 02:55 PM	so, you argue that paladins are completely wrong for DnD? because, at its root, its a game about adventurers, and that's what they do. go to some random sentient's dwelling (be it dragon, orc, drow, whathaveyou), kill or incapicitate the occupants and take their stuff. that sounds like "slaughtering indigenious peoples and looting..." to me. What a horribly narrow view of the game. What a horribly narrow view of adventuring. this was originally posted in response to V.A.'s claim re: paladin's outrage over the "slaughtering..." comment. sarcasm does not translate to simple text, i am afraid. oh well namaste' the hamster
caeruleus 11-13-05, 03:03 PM	this was originally posted in response to V.A.'s claim re: paladin's outrage over the "slaughtering..." comment. sarcasm does not translate to simple text, i am afraid. oh well namaste' the hamster My appologies. I took VA to be saying something that a paladin doesn't fit in that type of campaign, while I took your response to be (seriously) saying that all campaigns are like that.
Thubby 11-13-05, 03:18 PM	personaly, i think the class over all is a bit underpowered, the alignment isnt a real big problem, but the code of conduct can be a nightmare. teh paladin stops getting meaningful abilities after 5th level!!! and the spells dont even come closs to being useful.
Nephlite 11-13-05, 03:28 PM	personaly, i think the class over all is a bit underpowered, the alignment isnt a real big problem, but the code of conduct can be a nightmare. teh paladin stops getting meaningful abilities after 5th level!!! and the spells dont even come closs to being useful. Actually some Pal spells are great: but you could always get scrolls at level 5 of higher level spells but that would be costly. The Paladin's Smite Evil and Mount still improve with levels. But yeah, I say the Code of Conduct should be changed to what I posted in my last post.
a4igeek 11-13-05, 03:54 PM	I find my level 8 Paladin to be quite useful except for the lack of dex I have(bad starting roll). He is my party healer and main melee combatant. Divine Grace makes saves a breeze. Divine Health: Can't get any diseases. Great for campagnes where everyone around you is dying from plague. Lay on Hands: Good free healing points. Aura of Courage makes me imune to all fear attacks and helps my comrades. My Cha keeps my Neutral friends from going Chaotic. Though as a paladin the jokes of doing harm to others are poorly recieved. Plus I can't wait to set up my special mount that comes out of nowhere :) I haven't gotten any access to the higher spells but if you use a spell right it can change the tide of battle. And for when a Paladin has to go undercover. He need not lie.. but have the absence of truth(not saying anything). With Undetectable Alignment. In the persuit of Good and Order.
a4igeek 11-13-05, 03:55 PM	Oh P.S. With the Complete Warrior you can now cross class with a Paladin. :D without losing your abilities.
arkerpay 11-13-05, 03:58 PM	This discussion has largely ignored the fact that Clerics should face the similar alignment restrictions as a Paladin, but need to be tailored to their respective alignment. A Lawful Good Cleric should be an exemplary representative of his faith and should adhere to a similar code of conduct as a Paladin. A Chaotic Neutral Cleric on the other hand, should exemplify in word and deeds his god’s will. The whole controversy about alignment restrictions and Paladins usually boils down to two attributes that some players have: immaturity and antipathy to organized religion, particularly Christianity. I have observed that some players enjoy the game because they can basically act out as children which they cannot do IRL. A player who chooses to be a Paladin often ends up as a proxy for the players’ and GM hostility to authority figures in general and religion in particular. It’s just no fun for some players having an adult in the room when everyone else wants to act like a juvenile. However, this is almost never made an issue with Clerics, even Lawful Good Clerics. Having a party member who can heal is necessary to the game and a GM or players would be loath to cause trouble to the only PC that can put their guts back together. That being said let me address the original question asked about Paladins. Compared to a fighter of the same level, I do not think that the abilities a Paladin has makes up for the bonus feats a fighter has. Also, those abilities a Paladin has require high scores in Wisdom and Charisma, which are normally dumpstats for Fighters. As a result, Strength, Dexterity and Constitution suffer, making a Paladin a weaker choice. If you want to go the “Holy Warrior” route, take 6 levels in Fighter, then take the PrC Pious Templar from Complete Divine. arkerpay
Fool_Of_A_Took 11-13-05, 09:46 PM	I'd just like to say that I play Paladins all the time and I don't find the Code of Conduct *too* restrictive, though when it leaves you between a rock and hard place it can be infuriating. Now that I think about it, having Paladins write their own CoC is a great idea. Also, I think the Paladin class should be open to any good alignment, not just LG (or CG if you're using Unearthed Arcana), every Paladin I've ever played, both of Honor and of Freedom, have focused much more on doing good than being lawful or chaotic. And finally, not all Paladins are arrogant bigots, the Paladin I'm playing right now (actually a Paladin/Sorcerer/Spellsword, but once you take a single level of Paladin you're a Paladin for life.) is humble and quiet. He usually only speaks when he disagrees with someone's actions or if his silence could hurt someone (he's also almost always broke because he keeps giving away his gold).
StevenO 11-14-05, 12:06 AM	The Paladin should keep its alignment restriction for advancement. However they should be allowed to play a loose LG instead of the horribly strict code that some DMs impose. The real problem with the LG requirement is a DM with such a limiting definition of a Paladin's LG code that it becomes a pain to play instead of a guide to play. I feel that the Code restriction is an unneccesary carry over from 2nd edition when the Paladin was better than the Fighter in almost every way. In that edition, for an increased XP requirement, the Paladin gained a host of abilities when a fighter only (sometimes) had weapon specialization. Given the current alignment restrictions (once a paladin always a paladin) I feel the class would be better served as a template that offers aditional options to other classes.
The Human Target 11-14-05, 01:07 AM	I just think the class is way too focused (ie pigeonhold), and a little bland at a lot of levels.
sooperspook 11-14-05, 01:47 AM	Wow! 34 posts in just a day and a half! And in response to a passing thought i had... :D Anyway, as a DM and a player I tend to play paladins as focusing more on Good than Law. I mean, while having Order and stability is better than Anarchy , "Doing the Right thing"(tm) is more important than either. At least thats how i always read the Paladins CoC. " a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code". I've always taken that to mean the Good/Evil axis of alignment. Isn't that what is called the Moral axis while Law/Chaos is the Ethical axis? I could be wrong here. Can anyone confirm/deny? Btw, When I said 'harsh' restrictions I meant in the sense that it's a lot easier to stuff up as a paladin than as another class And thanks to everyone who posted :)
Dnjscott 11-14-05, 02:17 AM	I think Paladins get boring at high levels. After six.... not so much but repeated. Compare it to the Rogue or Ranger or Fighter, or Cleric, or... anybody... and your upper levels are a yawner, IMHO.
Sephyrill 11-14-05, 03:36 AM	I don't think the code is that restrictive, either. I believe that it can be helpful for players whose characters tend to be of "labile behaviour" because the player has problems with a continuous characterization (and that occurs more often than everybody thinks ^^) for it is a guidance of what your character would/should do However, you should try to write your own CoC and discuss it with your DM. It is always hard when you and the DM disagree about ethics and the general behaviour of this or thet class. And what shall that "power" question mean? Should a class be more powerful because it is more difficult to play it? Definately no. There are classes that are better for beginners and some that are more "experts only", but they should all be balanced (especially when you think that the experienced ones can build powerhorses quite easily) And of making the Paladin a PrC... this is only a matter of opinions. I don't have a problem with the Paladin as a core class (but then you should consider allowing the 3 other Unearthed Arcana Paladins, too) or as a Prestige class (which I can fully understand), though I think that the prestige Paladin is pretty strong due to the better spellcasting of the cleric ;) we had a wide variety of Pallys in our group, one of them (ok, he was a CG Paladin of Freedom) even allowed a NE Character to stay in the party as long as he did nothing evil (because 'tis his own decision that we must respect and we shall not control anyone's thoughts ^^) We have had party problems when a paladin and his apprentice came into conflict with our Chaotic selfish (err Neutral) Mage about his behaviour towards the rest of the party. And we had paladins who fell from grace because they violated against the meaning of their god's portfolio as well as we had paladins who were willing to give their lives in blocking a monster's way so the party can escape. There is not that big difference if you play a "normal" and "real" LG character or if you play a paladin alignment-wise. However, depending on your deity, there should be some "godly additions" to your code that makes your paladin special (as the examples for Athena, Moradin... indicated) Also "Law" does not mean that you must be a rules-fanatic. You are simply more organized, more into hierarchy and more cautious about the rules. But - and that is even in the PHB - when a Paladin realizes that the Law of some place is against good or against the people or "simply unjust" then he has the right, if not even the duty to disobey and go against it.
r_seldon 11-14-05, 10:15 AM	If the paladin is LG personified, would DM make the PrC "Champion of the Faith" follow the same strictures for his/her alignment? Would the CoF for Corellian, lose his powers if they acted in a non chaotic or good way. Or how about a CoF for Hextor? Showing kindness, you lose your powers? Come on. If you are not going to hamper CoF, why hamper paladins. The best way the avoid conflict is to get with the DM about what is expected as a paladin/CoF.
Fara 11-14-05, 10:59 AM	"a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code". This, to me, is the main problem with the PHB code of conduct. How in the nine blazes is a Paladin, the Paragon of Virtue, the very embodiment of exaltedness, supposed to redeem evil if he's not allowed to associate with evil characters?
Sephyrill 11-14-05, 12:53 PM	to "associate" can have many meanings. The sentence in the PHB, in my opinion, means that a Paladin will never "bind" herself to evil beings and accept their doings. Nor will she accept an evil character in her adventuring party if he does evil acts. That does, however, not mean that a Paladin may not negotiate or walk together with someone evil. It is not forbidden that somebody thinks in an evil way and that's the problem with detect evil. You simply don't know by detection only in which way your opponent is evil. A merchant who overprices and sells things of low value at a high price, pretending that it is of good quality does something evil. Mildly evil, but evil. It would be ridiculous if the Paladin wasn't allowed to interact with this guy
Rhomphaia 11-14-05, 01:05 PM	I take that part of the code to basically mean that a paladin simply cannot accept nor facilitate evil acts. Evil people the paladin can associate with, adventure with, and even befriend, but once they perform an evil act, the paladin must do something about it to bring the character to justice or help them see the evil in their ways. However, the code becomes more complex when you take this interpretation of it. If the paladin's companion does something evil (even a small one, like stealing some candy or something) is it evil for the paladin to make restitution on behalf of the evil character (even though the paladin might be trying to show the evil character that the act was wrong) because it lacks 'punishment' for the evil character and thus facilitates evil acts? What about murder? How does the paladin react to a friend that has commited murder or another heinously violent crime?
Nephlite 11-14-05, 02:11 PM	I take that part of the code to basically mean that a paladin simply cannot accept nor facilitate evil acts. Evil people the paladin can associate with, adventure with, and even befriend, but once they perform an evil act, the paladin must do something about it to bring the character to justice or help them see the evil in their ways. However, the code becomes more complex when you take this interpretation of it. If the paladin's companion does something evil (even a small one, like stealing some candy or something) is it evil for the paladin to make restitution on behalf of the evil character (even though the paladin might be trying to show the evil character that the act was wrong) because it lacks 'punishment' for the evil character and thus facilitates evil acts? What about murder? How does the paladin react to a friend that has commited murder or another heinously violent crime? Ah, you see that is why Mercy and Justice are bioth ere for a norm,al Paladin: Mercy =Goof Justice=Lawful. What one doesn't claim, the other must. If a Evil character after doing the act feels remorse and repents saying he will never dot that act again (and means it): than mercy csan claim him. And the Pal can try to make restitution for him. But If a Evil character after doing the act pretends he did nothing wrong and "they deserved it" than justice must claim him. And the Pal must bring him to justice and the punishment thereof.
Jerks 11-14-05, 03:40 PM	While I personally find the paladin class too front-loaded from a design standpoint it stands up well in power level to the other martial classes. Even without spells the Paladin can give Rangers and Fighters a run for their money. In fact, the paladin in our current party has to be reminded that he spells. He never even bothers to set them unless we remind him to bone up on buffs/healing for the big adventures. Having played both D&D and Star Wars I think the "problem" with Paladins is indeed GM interpretation (as stated previously). Jedi are a nice class in d20. Definitely more powerful than Tech Specialists, but not the omnipotent God-like creatures they were in the d6 version of the game. They are a nice class, but I have never played one with my current GM because we don't see eye-to-eye on our interpretation of the nature of the Force. He's way more strict on things than I think is displayed in the literature or guidelines of the book so to avoid playing a character that is partially controlled by someone by the GMs whim I prefer to play classes that he has less invested in. He runs Paladins much the same way. The paladin player is under constant threat of having all abilities stripped away if he so much as thinks about entertaining a chaotic or neutral thought.
r_seldon 11-14-05, 04:33 PM	Maybe the paladin should be taken out of the core classes and be blended with the Champion of Faith PrC. That should solve some of the problems.
LaoKhanWei 11-14-05, 10:00 PM	Yeah, I'll have to agree with others in saying the alignment restriction doesn't matter. I don't even use alignment restrictions in my games, I only require that their character's backstory makes sense. As for Paladin effectiveness...Hmmm...They're not bad. Great in short encounters against anything evil, otherwise fighters, rangers and barbarians are just plain better in all ways.
Nephlite 11-14-05, 11:22 PM	Yeah, I'll have to agree with others in saying the alignment restriction doesn't matter. I don't even use alignment restrictions in my games, I only require that their character's backstory makes sense. As for Paladin effectiveness...Hmmm...They're not bad. Great in short encounters against anything evil, otherwise fighters, rangers and barbarians are just plain better in all ways. The problem with your argument is: you din't even have alignment restrictions so you can't judge the Pals since you removed it. But anyway just let the Pal write his own code of vonduct with Dm's help will help alot. The Dm can't cheat you after writing it and you'll know how he thinks. r_seldon, some of us likes Pals too much.
r_seldon 11-15-05, 08:26 AM	I like paladins also, but I hate the way they are sometimes expected to act and held to a higher standard than they should be. Alignment should never be a restriction of good role playing. I see it more of a guideline. As for a paladin never knowingly associating with evil characters, once again it is how he DM wants to do the game. It is possible for a paladin to have evil associates. Example, a paladin is sent on a mission to rescue retrieve a certain person/item. The only guide is a traitor who knows the best way in(like Gollum). A paladin lord ruling knows that some of the ruling barons surrounding his keep/lands are evil but needs to associate with them on matters of state. Example, the Atriedes and Harkonnens from Dune. A paladin may have a family member or friend who has become evil and is always trying to convert him. Once again, no DM should be looking to strip a pc of his class benefits because of there alignment.
Rhomphaia 11-15-05, 08:40 AM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=532213 I know this is probably tooting my own horn a bit, but this thread pretty much shows my thoughts on paladin balance issues.
nastynate 11-15-05, 09:19 AM	The alignment restriction is never a problem for me. I've played half a dozen paladins over the last fifteen years or so, and frankly I play them no differently than I would play any lawful good character. Your only challenge is when the law and the good apects of your alignment come into to conflict, like when there is some tyrannical overlord taxing his people into starvation. Generally DMs do tend to hold paladins to a higher standard, but that is because the paladins very abilities hinge upon his adherance to those standards. Any other character who suffers from a slip of moral consideration will lose nothing, but a paladin stands to loose all of his powers. You will occasionally find yourself making mistakes. Feel guilty, atone, and move on. You will occasionally find your party members are not pillars of morality. That's O.K. The paladin understands that he holds himself to a higher standard than most people. Unless they are savage murderers and theives, you should be fine. As for class balance, I personally think Paladins don't have much going for them. Smite Evil, and Divine Blessing are really the only universally good abilites they have, thus a lawful good fighter is usually a more powerful character. But you play a paladin becuase he is the champion of good, and the higher standard he is held to, not because of the abilites granted by his class. At least that's how I see it.
MistWolf 11-18-05, 10:11 PM	...Its like football without arms. In America, they call it Soccer