Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 01-26-06, 11:05 PM	I'm just wondering: have any of you had success creating a paladin character who's fully in line with the paladin class idea and that isn't a bit of a jerk? Y'know, not just a reliable, steadfast warrior, but a guy you actually want to have around? I don't like the idea that LG = jerk, really. I think that there should be very lawful good people who are actually pleasant to be around (otherwise, things like, y'know, chaotic evil become more attractive to more non-commital types, under the guise of "lightening up."). Have you ever played or played with a paladin who was thoroughly recognizable as a paladin in character but also had a sense of charm and humor, whose righteousness didn't come off as judgmental pettiness, and whose interactions with others actually seemed to justify his charisma score?
David Berlapin 01-26-06, 11:28 PM	One of my favorite moments happened while playing a Drow Paladin. Our party was resting in the mayors house, as i walked to my room our rogue was trying to sneak into the female mayors bedroom. My paladin just walked by and said "i wouldnt do that if i was you". the next mourning my paladin was walking to the bath house with just a towel (which he wasnt actually wearing) and as he walked by the mayors room the rogue was bruised laying on the floor infront of the door. I simply said "i told you not to do it".
Of_Monkeys 01-26-06, 11:38 PM	Well I played with a guy who had a slightly relaxed (Non-jerk) version of a Paladin. Example: We were basically a chaotic group and troublemakers (good natured, but still troublemakers). Once we happened to be in a bar, the Paladin was at the bar getting drinks for us (He even offered to buy them!) when we got ourselves into a bar fight (No weapons just fist). He saw that we were in a fight, but didn't join in...he walked through the fight and set the drinks down on the table. He then sat down and watched the fight, occasionally I would get pushed next to him. I asked "You going to help?", he would just smiled. Eventually the other guys called it a draw and left. I stumbled up to the Paladin, who said "Have you learned your lesson? You know you are not supposed to start fights in town." He didn't heal us, he told us to "Sleep it off", and then he talked to the bar owner to arrange payment for the damages, which he took out of our next treasure find. At first the other players, were annoyed with his action and said he would have come running to help...he pointed out that he wanted us to learn our lesson and that since their were no weapons involved, no one was going to get seriously hurt. He planned for us to get what we deserved, and honestly it worked. We knew we couldn't hide behind the big tough paladin. Also he said he didn't want to get involved in the "Illegal" fight. Had weapons been involved or anything were we could have been seriously hurt, he said he would have jumped in. I believe him. He joked, he taught by example. He stood by and let us learn the error of our ways...wasn't "preachy". He helped when we needed it, and at times would watch us do stupid stuff and as long as we weren't in danger, let us "deal with it". :D Personally it was my favorite paladin ever. Great guy too. My Suggestion: This guy came off a the "Big Brother" you always wished you had, he can be maddening, he can be annoying, but when it comes right down to it. You are glad he is there and you have fun being around him. That is how I hope to play a paladin if I ever do. ;)
Anshin Mandango 01-27-06, 12:06 AM	well, I once had a Paladin character who made very very good use of his sky-high charaisma and the fact that he was immune to diease, nothing in the paladin code about staying chaste! ;) He was more of a diplomat then a warrior, and chose negotiation over conflict whenever possible, but if worse came to worse, he knew that it was his job to make sure everyone made it out alive. He was fairly tolerent to those he knew were gunuinely good people, with a policy of "if i don't see it, if i don't hear it, and if no one tells me about it, then i can't be expected to do anything" towards those of the party he felt he had no need to worry about, he was wrong, but as per his request, he wasn't informed of that error. he was always honest, fortwright, and dependable, and was always willing to lend a hand. He wasn't a particually good fighter with his mediocre str and dex, and he knew it, but he didn't need to be, the party already had a barb and a druid to take care of that, so he acted more as a combat medic, distributing wand charges and potions where needed or setting up enemies for sneak attacks with the rogue. This was doubly important because we had no cleric. Shield Other was probablly the most used spell he knew after CLW.
GreyGriffin 01-27-06, 03:33 AM	I tend to find that the "problem" with Paladins isn't them being Lawful Stupid, but instead the rest of the party typically being Chaotic A:censored:hole. I mean seriously... when a moral quandry comes up or an evil artifact is found, everyone in my group grumbles and mutters that the Paladin will insist on the 'right' course of action, and encourage others to follow his example, instead of taking the easy way out and slaughtering prisoners and tucking hypothetical Swords of Kas away for a rainy day. At least, that's my experience.
Roxlimn 01-27-06, 03:43 AM	Here's how I would play a fun Paladin: Situation 1: One of my favorite moments happened while playing a Drow Paladin. Our party was resting in the mayors house, as i walked to my room our rogue was trying to sneak into the female mayors bedroom. "You know, there are better ways to do that. I'll bet you right now that I can get the undergarments the mayor is wearing tonight before you can." Situation 2: We were basically a chaotic group and troublemakers (good natured, but still troublemakers). Once we happened to be in a bar, the Paladin was at the bar getting drinks for us (He even offered to buy them!) when we got ourselves into a bar fight. "Everybody stop right now!" Draw weapon. Everyone stops cold. "If we're going to have a fight, we should do it the right way. Everyone pick sides and gather round so we can place bets. No use wasting good drinks on a pointless scuffle. Place the tables all around. No eye gouges, groin shots, or biting, ok? Who's up first?" Paladins aren't against good old fashioned fun. They just like things nice and organized, and all in good fun. Nasty little moves won't get you a Paladin's approval, but a little harmless fun goes a long way towards letting all that nervous energy out.
Obscure One 01-27-06, 04:07 AM	The age old, "So a Fighter and a Paladin walk into a bar..." joke. Simply put most people find paladins annoying due to the alignment they must walk, however "good" and "lawful" are interpreted by individuals differently (eating meat for instance). Alignment reflects on one's outlook on life not their personality, so if you understand this little tid bit a Paladin can be just as pleasant to be around as a craftly little rouge or semi-annoying bard (that one may be a bad example).
Hariman 01-27-06, 05:33 AM	I think that part of the problem with so many paladins becoming Lawful Stupid is the perception of a paladin as "Arthurian Shining White Knight" complete with stick up posterior. (Although I've heard things about Lancelot. Forgive my innuendo, please.) Too many people try to play this Ideal, which is a tall order for a mixed alignment party There are also misconceptions about the "zone" a paladin is supposed to affect with his influence and where his influence applies. I don't think a paladin should ever have to atone for something that a party member did that he argued against/opposed. Now if he lets the other party members get away with evil/theft, there is a problem. (IE: If he doesn't know the party rogue is a thief, he can't be held responsible.) Of_Monkeys posted a great example. A paladin acting his alignment without being overbearing. I really don't have enough experience with paladins to say anymore than I have. Although I do feel the need to mention that the one paladin (Of Pelor) I did play didn't lose her powers when she stabbed an unconcious guy in the face. Pelor was willing to make an exception because the guy in question was an evil orc that was summoning the Gates of Hell itself, had allied himself with a vampire and had already tried to kill the party.
nastynate 01-27-06, 07:29 AM	People who have had unpleasant experiences with paladins in their party, have fallen victim to one of two situations. The first is a misunderstanding of the role a paladin serves in the world; this can be attributed to the DM, the player of the paladin, the other players preconceived perceptions, or any combination of the three. A paladin is an exceptional person. Unlike other lawful good characters he is always good. He doesn’t ever compromise his ethics, or make exceptions for the sake of convenience. This however does not entail that he expects the same behavior of everyone else. The paladin knows that he has chosen a lifestyle that others do not have the conviction to follow. What that means is that when his fellow adventurers choose actions that he would not himself choose, he doesn’t have to get preachy. So what if his fighter buddy gets into a drunken brawl? So long as there is no reason for him to interfere, the paladin can simply walk away, or shake his head in disapproval. He will chuckle to himself about his friend’s lack of discipline, and boorish behavior, and watch carefully to make sure nothing gets out of hand, but he has no reason to get involved unless something happens that requires his intervention. If swords are drawn, an innocent by-stander gets injured, or the town guards get involved, he may feel obligated to intervene. Most of the time however, he’ll just pay for the damages, and bail his buddy out of prison the next morning. A paladin must choose his battles wisely. He cannot single-handedly change the world. If he were personally responsible for the actions of everyone around him, he would have no hope of ever fulfilling his duties. He may offer suggestions and moral advice, but he cannot expect everyone to live by his example. If they did, everyone else would be paladins too; they aren’t however, and he isn’t so arrogant that he expects the world around him to change to match his idealized vision of the way things should be. If the world were a utopian paradise, the paladin would be happy, but he’d have no reason to exist. A paladin fights for a reason. Perhaps he lives in a nation under siege from the evil forces of orc barbarian hordes. Maybe his loved ones were murdered by brigands. Whatever his motivation, he has chosen a life of personal sacrifice, to further the cause of good. The paladin devotes his life to overcoming these threats, and other greater causes that may arise during the course of his adventures. He has not devoted his life to babysitting perfectly capable adults. In the big picture a chaotic bar-room brawl has little meaning. The paladin must concentrate his efforts on the things that really will make a difference, not on meaningless fights which will not change anything. The second situation that leads to paladin hate, is caused by poor party cohesion. It is not practical for a party comprised of three chaotic evil rogues to team up with a paladin. Inevitably their ideals and objectives will come into conflict. This is a problem that should have been addressed during character creation. When the DM and players decide what kind of characters they are going to play, too many people completely neglect the compatibility of their character concepts. There just isn’t any way for these type of characters to get along well for any length of time. If you try to keep the party together, you are either forced to come into conflict with the other PCs, or forced to act in a manner inappropriate to your alignment. Neither option is acceptable, when the conflict could have been avoided at the very beginning, by playing more compatible characters. While sometimes it is the paladin who causes the conflict, by throwing in his two cents whenever possible, it is often the other PCs’ fault. So many times I’ve seen a rogue try picking somebody’s pocket, and the paladin spots it…what is this rogue doing? Why would any intelligent person try something like this in the line of sight of his paladin companion? The rogue is not taking the consequences of his actions into consideration, in the context of how it will effect his party dynamic. The paladin cannot simply ignore the crime, so he is forced to act in a manner that will cause further problems. The paladin is required by virtue of his moral obligations to stop him, return the stolen money, and report the rogue to the authorities. The paladin isn’t the one who laid the groundwork for this disruption however, it was the stupid rogue who got careless. And the disruption doesn’t stop there. Now the paladin doesn’t trust the rogue, and will be watching him. The rogue knows the paladin doesn’t trust him, so he’ll go out of his way to keep his nefarious activities hidden. In the end the whole party is competing amongst each other, rather than concentrating on their common goals, like tracking down the BBEG. Paladins are charismatic handsome knights, with a strong moral compass. They are kind, generous, and merciful. A paladin is usually freindly, and personable, with excellent etiquette and manners. They should have no problems getting along with anybody. For some reason people don't play them like this, but choose to play arrogant jerks, with no respect for other people and their beliefs... :nonono: On the other side people with paladins in their party often refuse to adjust their play-style to suitably compatable behavior, and expect no conflict to occur. If you've teamed up with Lancalot, you must realize that he will only tolerate a certain kind of behavior, so don't get P.O.ed when he objects to obviously chaotic or evil actions. He's a paladin...he's supposed to. Just my :twocents:
Lady Maedhros 01-27-06, 09:57 AM	Paladins are charismatic handsome knights, with a strong moral compass. They are kind, generous, and merciful. A paladin is usually freindly, and personable, with excellent etiquette and manners. They should have no problems getting along with anybody. He can be, yes. You don't have to be nice to be Good. You don't have to be Good to be nice. But you don't have to be an ass either. Of course, if you are an ass, it doesn't mean you're neccissarily a stuck-up ass, either. Personality and alignment are different. Witness: Ioren. Ioren was a real gem, a dashing sellsword. He always had a wink and a nod for the ladies (and some of the gents), he got along with people well, made friends easily. He tipped generously, bought people drinks, fought for the honor of women he'd just met. Everybody loved Ioren and he was the face of his party, the front-man, the guy you remember and say, "now there goes a hero." Ioren was a hardcore bastard, completely NE. It amused him to see women happy because of his attention. It amused him equally to see them heartbroken and weeping, and it was a source of particular delight for him when they blamed themselves for the pain he caused them (it was rare for them not to). His party members were his friends - they were "his" and he was very protective of them, and didn't really mess with them - but he was a merciless fighter, would happily take any job, be it save the kidnapped child or abduct and slaughter her in the first place. He'd carve things on fallen foes with the tip of his sword while he waited for his party to finish fighting, because it amused him. He was a nice guy, maybe the nicest you'd meet in years. But he was pretty damn evil. Now Aelyn was a champion, and she was a pain in the ass. She did not have time to talk to you, unless you were doing something wrong (and by this i mean, tying the saddlebags improperly, not picking pockets). She was sharp, disdainful, hated children and referred to anyone who didn't meet her (very high) standards with dismissive epithets - there's no need to make up derogatory slang for dwarves once you've heard the way Aelyn says "blacksmith." Get yourself abducted by ogres and if you're lucky, she'll toss you over the back of her horse and ride to town in silence. If you're not lucky she'll tell you, once, simply, in a few concise words that you will never, ever forget, just exactly how fortunate you are that she was around to deal with your damnfool mistakes. But she never said anything but the cold truth, and her words weren't abuse, but direct and authoritative advice. She was a bastion of Good, and was more selfless in deed than any five people are in word. She traveled with beat-up, mundane gear for most of her career and fixed it herself when it got damaged, putting more money into charity than endless "righteous" paladins and clerics. She wordlessly took a nearly lethal blow for a sorcerer who she despised for his weakness and foolhardiness and who detected as evil, and just as willingly took him on as a traveling companion in his quest for redemption (spurred by her defense of him). Almost nobody liked her, but very few would have argued if they'd nominated her for sainthood. But that's a little off-topic. Yes, paladins can be very fun, easygoing, and truly likeable. But it requires a strong roleplayer who really understands alignment, and those are rare enough that pallies prolly shouldn't be a core class.
Esponer 01-27-06, 10:08 AM	I've never played with an unpleasant paladin. I've played with plenty, plenty of unpleasant non-paladins, because they have the option to play Chaotic Stupid, the single most common alignment in D&D. The only time when paladins become "annoying" in people's eyes is when everybody else is playing with their sense of morality switched off and their sense of "omg letz killz sum children!!1" is firmly in place. When a paladin steps back and says, "Hey, sorry guys, but I'm not going to do that", that is not the paladin being annoying. It's the paladin not being a complete idiot, unlike the rest of the players. To be perfectly honest, most campaigns I'd run would have an alignment restriction of Good only, with the proviso that Neutral alignment (on the Good-Evil) axis is allowed providing you know what it means and don't interpret it as meaning you can kill babies as long as you're bored. Likewise, there's no chance in hell of me letting an Evil PC play in a campaign with a paladin unless they're both at the same level of optimisation and they both understand that I won't tolerate them tolerating each other "just because". It's really, really sad to see a group of players try and fail to find reasons not to kill each other. Just bloody kill each other, the loser can make a new character with an alignment that works with the winner's. It's better than seeing extremely poorly roleplayed campaigns. Of course, maybe Evil and Good can be roleplayed together, but it takes some very, very good players, and preferably them somehow not knowing each other's alignments. Anyway, paladins just rock. As long as you don't have a stupid DM who insists you behave in a ridiculous manner, and you aren't a stupid person who insists all paladins must behave in a ridiculous manner, then they are great.
Hariman 01-27-06, 10:24 AM	He was a nice guy, maybe the nicest you'd meet in years. But he was pretty damn evil. --- She wordlessly took a nearly lethal blow for a sorcerer who she despised for his weakness and foolhardiness and who detected as evil, and just as willingly took him on as a traveling companion in his quest for redemption (spurred by her defense of him). Looks like you've seen some great roleplayers in your time playing D&D. Bard is another class that requires some skill to play to it's full potential. There is the Prestige Paladin Variant in Unearthed Arcana, it's only flaw is that it is a prestige class. There are only so many people who will play a prestige class that already exsists as a base class. On a side note, one of the campaigns I play in had a paladin named Renn Tidebringer. He was a bronze skinned paladin who loved surfing. (Laid back surfer dude.) Very interesting former PC turned NPC turned ash. (Bought it fighting a pit fiend). Then again, the entire cast of the previous campaign was "Interesting". Lawful Good is probably about as hard to play well as sane, nonstupid, doesn't do the craziest/dumbest thing Chaotic Neutral. You've got to channel Captain Jack Sparrow to play CN right. Although you could lose the goofy mannerisms. EDIT: I actually started this post before Esponer posted his message. Yeah, Chaotic Stupid is a problem alignment. Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean is the perfect example of chaotic neutral. He's always out for himself, sides with the guy who looks like he's going to win and adheres to his own code of ethics. (Repay debts, no puppy kicking, etc, etc.) Just defining the alignments for some players can be a migraine. Getting them to play an alignment can be even harder. Oh, and the campaign with Renn Tidebringer? It also had Janus in the adventuring party. Janus was a Neutral Evil Cleric of Velsharoon who agreed not to kill/maim needlessly for the party's help in getting revenge on his old boss, Jonathan Nightbringer. Jonny had killed Janus' family and Janus got understandably mad. Janus had to submit to a zone of truth every so often and I know there had to be some major conflict between the characters. But they somehow managed to make it fun enough to play through the campaign for two and a half years with the same party. I guess it depends on the group as a whole as well as the individual player.
Roxlimn 01-27-06, 11:53 AM	I think the main sticking point is that Paladins are presumed to disapprove of the way their party members are acting. That's not necessarily the case. A Paladin can philosophically oppose what party mates do without necessarily rubbing them the wrong way. In fact, due to his high Charisma, it's probably more appropriate for him not to do so. Does a Fighter drink overmuch? Well, even if the Paladin thinks that this is foolish behavior, he doesn't have to say so out loud. Nothing is more irritating than a well-timed "I told you so," and I think that a Paladin who's serious about making this Fighter repeal his bad habit wouldn't alienate his friend because of his own pride and ego. "I told you so," doesn't so much mean that "You should mend your ways," as "I'm right and you're wrong." A Paladin can be above such concerns. For starters, the Paladin can take to drinking himself, as an example that it's not bad to drink, and that it's possible to have a good time without foolhardy overindulgence. This effectively extends the hand of camaraderie and understanding to the Fighter. Now he's got a "drinking buddy," who'll always stay sober enough to carry his senseless behind back home safely. Hopefully, the Paladin will get a chance to demonstrate to the Fighter that his excess endangers not only his virtue, but the very lives of himself and his friends. Subtlety and tact matters a lot on these matters. When the Fighter gets into a bar fight and gets both himself and the Paladin seriously injured, the Paladin doesn't have to say "I told you so," in any kind of language or phrasing. If the Fighter realizes what he's done, then you don't have to rub it in, and if he doesn't, it's unlikely that an "I told you so," would be beneficial. The Paladin, in drinking with his friend, is actively pursuing his class goals, but not doing so in an annoying manner.
(Psi)SeveredHead 01-27-06, 11:57 AM	I'm just wondering: have any of you had success creating a paladin character who's fully in line with the paladin class idea and that isn't a bit of a jerk? Y'know, not just a reliable, steadfast warrior, but a guy you actually want to have around? I don't like the idea that LG = jerk, really. I think that there should be very lawful good people who are actually pleasant to be around (otherwise, things like, y'know, chaotic evil become more attractive to more non-commital types, under the guise of "lightening up."). Have you ever played or played with a paladin who was thoroughly recognizable as a paladin in character but also had a sense of charm and humor, whose righteousness didn't come off as judgmental pettiness, and whose interactions with others actually seemed to justify his charisma score? Paladins aren't just lawful good. They're lawful stupid - well, most of them anyway. (Int is frequently a dump stat - probably for good reason.) Most groups I've been with don't go evil if the DM tells them not to. So none of this "pickpocketing in the LoS of the paladin" nonsense. Heck, no stealing at all - you got a lot of gold adventuring compared to pickpocketing, and getting yourself strung up by the law (or thieves' guild) doesn't help you any. That's stupid whether you have a paladin in your group or not. However, a DM has to write adventures specifically with paladins in mind. Picture a scene from a fantasy novel I read recently - the heroes need to get to point B quickly. They figure the best (not the only) way is by hiring smugglers to take them. Paladins can't do that - they're not allowed to associate with lawbreakers. Well, too bad - the world wasn't written with paladins in mind. The world just exists. Paladins have other rules that annoy PCs as well - you can't use poison, not even knockout poison. So you talk amongst yourselves and leave the paladin out when plotting. (If you break into the villain's castle, and you KO half of the guards instead of killing them, isn't this a good thing?) They don't like stealth for some reason, either, even if they're multi-classed with rogue. So instead of sneaking into the villain's castle, you're supposed to, um, kill all the guards. Yeah. So not only are you killing people you didn't need to, but you're making more work for yourself. Your party might end up dead due to such stupid tactics. Plus, Detect Evil is something of a plot wrecker. Sometimes. It's actually stoppable without magic items or spells, but it can catch a DM offguard pretty easily. Ther'es also the Aes Sedai nonsense going on, aka paladins can't lie. Paladins aren't supposed to lie, so you watch paladin players not take their CoC seriously by "leaving out information" or otherwise misleading people without actually lying. As far as I'm concerned, that's violating the CoC, so you end up fallen. I think paladins should be a PrC - not only is their RP restricted, but players would have the opportunity to see if they can play a pleasant paladin-type who follows the spirit of their CoC before actually taking the PrC. Most people can't do this, and so they can choose not to take the paladin PrC and not screw themselves and their own party, too. Does a Fighter drink overmuch? This would annoy any party, paladin or not.
Vileneeds of Q 01-27-06, 12:12 PM	Well i allways play the Pally. My favorite class when combined with a few fighter Lvl's. I allways play the Intelligent artsy aristocrat. Lawful = Code of behavior. Good = Just not harming others for the sake of doing it. The hard nosed police officer type pallys are too annoying, and down right NOT BELIEVEABLE. Think about it. One day a neutral alligned pc is going to take a real offence to the Over see-er type pally and end the problem. Happens in real life too......not a sermon, just a thought.
NZCardinal 01-27-06, 12:53 PM	Isn't the entire reason to play paladins because of the license to be unpleasant? Put it this way; Paladin walks into village. Villagers complain about bandits stealing money. Paladin goes on a rampage, finding and killing the bandits. Villagers rejoice. Paladin walks into village. Villagers complain about the kingdoms knights coming in and stealing money, arresting those who refuse to hand over their gold. Paladin answers "Thats taxation, its your duty to pay it to our good leige" Villagers refer to paladin as being "fascist scum", "protection racketteer" and "lowlife thug" Paladin walks into village. Villagers are high on shrooms. Paladin gets told by upset villagers how puritan thugs are punishing and persecuting the villagers for the simple sin of having fun. Paladin becomes an enemy of the state. Paladin walks into village. Villagers are high on shrooms. Paladin insists that taking drugs is illegal and that they stop immediatly. Villagers insist that they aren't hurting anyone, and tell the paladin to "Get lost, narc." Paladin follows whatever the letter of the law and... :fight!: Lawful good depends on your point of view. Lawful good to one person might be the height of evil to someone with different values. Depends on what the laws are. Is your paladin a fascist or a libertarian?
Esponer 01-27-06, 02:03 PM	Ther'es also the Aes Sedai nonsense going on, aka paladins can't lie. Paladins aren't supposed to lie, so you watch paladin players not take their CoC seriously by "leaving out information" or otherwise misleading people without actually lying. As far as I'm concerned, that's violating the CoC, so you end up fallen. I think paladins should be a PrC - not only is their RP restricted, but players would have the opportunity to see if they can play a pleasant paladin-type who follows the spirit of their CoC before actually taking the PrC. Most people can't do this, and so they can choose not to take the paladin PrC and not screw themselves and their own party, too. So you artifically increase the restrictions on the paladins' behaviour to make them as impossible to play as you can, and then complain that all paladins are annoying and that the class is too hard to play to be a standard class?
Jaerom Darkwind 01-27-06, 02:25 PM	Did anyone bring up this comic yet? http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=265
Wharin 01-27-06, 04:06 PM	Though not technically a Paladin (by virtue of them not existing on that plane of existance), Carrot Ironfounderson from the Watch storyline of the Discworld series would be a great example of how a paladin could act. You cannot help but not like him. But indeed, the only time that Paladins are really "annoying" (provided they are played "right") is in a campaign where the rest of the party members are very... um... morally ambivalent. Sometimes doing what is right is not always doing what is popular, and oftentimes what is popular is not right.
Roxlimn 01-29-06, 08:15 AM	Paladins are forthright, fair, just, and upstanding heroes. If a character isn't someone who likes to keep company with good, decent citizens, he's going to have a problem getting along with any Lawful Good character, Paladin or not. That doesn't mean that the Paladin is a jerk. In fact, it's the other guy who's a jerk. The Paladin simply tries to make sure that everyone else isn't screwed over by jerks in the world. Indeed, a Paladin is probably the best, most likeable guy you can have around, provided that you don't go around murdering people, stealing things that don't belong to you, or otherwise do things that will make normal people want to bang you upside the head. At least the Paladin will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Fuzzy_Logic 01-29-06, 09:36 AM	Everyone could do with anotyher look at the paladin class description. the requirements aren't as severe as one would think. lawful good and cannot commiut and evil act (no problem) respect legitimate authority (this one is mroe complicated. really despicable rulers are, by definition, not legitimate, IMO.) act with honor (not cheating, using poison, etc. thaty's fine. it does say not lying but only in the context of acting with honor. remember that paladins are knightly. IMC, paladins CAN lie when it's necessary, cna omit information the other person has no need for easily, and so on. however, the mroe important/worthy of respect the person in question, the mor ehonor is required. a paladin has no problem lying to get past some guards, but tryimphing over the BBEG through a dirty trick won't fly.) help thos in need punish those who threaten innoncents. all in all, it's not that bad. I'd also like to point out paladins can hang out wiht any good or neutral alignment, even chaotic neutral. nothing in the book says they can't break laws or associate with lawbreakers. nothing outlaws drinking. personally, I would allow paladins to associate with evil characters under limited conditions. for example, i havean evil PC with whom i don't think a paladin would have any real problem. he was an LE bard (the DM allowed lawful bards) and a memebr of the aristocracy. he adventures to protect his families interest and advance his won position. the cmapaign involves defending frontier territories from CE orc invaders. my bard might be unpleasant, but he's a helpful ally, a legitimate authority, and he's really dedicated to his "cause." he doesn't see anythign wrong with lying, murdering, whatever for his cause, but he really does want to protect his people. both for the wealth they provide him and because, as a nobleman, it's his job. this guy could adventure with a paladin. the paladin would insist that he refrain form any especially evil acts while they adventured together, but would secretly be glad to has a spy-type whose skills complimented his. the bard would, dutifully, curb his most nasty impulses in the name of group cohesion. they would share many personality trait,s like a love of law and orde,r and commiserate with each other after the chaotic stupid PCs antics. the paladin would grow to genuinely like my bard, who is, after all, charismatic, hardworking, dedicated, and so on. the paladin would be hoping that his example would inspire me to amend my ways, and in the meantime, i could help him protect the innocent. none of this goes, of course, for the clerics and priests of evil gods; a paladin must refuse to have anything to do with them. luckily, my bard was a devout follower of an LG god who is the patron of many paladins.
rampant 01-29-06, 10:08 AM	where did this whole paladins hate stealth crap come from, 2 words Shadowbane Inquisitor, or batman for those who don't have CAdv why wouldn't anyone play the PrC if they could mostly the same abilities but you get better spells, ooohhhh one less smite and remove disease big eppus deal compared to righteous might and harm finally as far as paladins being jerks basically its a symptom of various people the other players, the player, the dm, somebody stereotyping and overeacting
Rogue Shadows 01-29-06, 10:19 AM	Batman's a ninja or, at best, an ex-paladin/fighter/rogue. He's a vigilante, which is by definition chaotic. As for Paladins...the class itself is fine (I modded it, so I know it must be good, because I don't mod crap), it's the people that play it which bother me. Everyone I've met who plays a Paladin goes one of three routes 1) Holier-then-Thou 2) Our Hero happens to be the Chosen One and the only one that can defeat the BBEG. Even if there is no BBEG, as I've done a few times. 3) Doesn't actually play a Paladin, he plays a fighter. If the Paladinc code of honor was New York, then he is in Beijing.
Kyuketsukiouji 01-29-06, 10:27 AM	I think too few people actually read the description of what a paladin is and think too much of what they imagine a paladin to be. A paladin can't associate with evil people or commit evil acts, yes. But that doesn't mean they have to reproach everyone else for not living to their standards. I played a paladin who was the self effacing, quiet, healer type. Fought with a quarterstaff (Divine Strength is my friend). Didn't go around upbraiding people who littered and didn't donate their money to the poor. Never raised his voice in anger at anyone, let alone party members. He was just a quiet, constant friendly presence in the party. And one day the party bit off more than they could chew, and he had to nail the doors to a tomb to prevent an army of undead from escaping. Which he did, quietly and efficiently, as usual. From the inside. Paladins come in all sizes and shapes, and not everyone has to be an insane Judge Dredd type.
Derren S. 01-29-06, 10:50 AM	I agree with GreyGriffin. Many paladin problems don't come from the paladins but from the other players. Thats because it is currently "in" to play dark, rebellious characters, a stereotype with doesn't mix with the "shining knight" paladin type. It also doesn't help that imo the "results justify the means" behavior gets more and more accepted.
Von Crown 02-03-06, 08:11 PM	One thing I'm surised hasn't come up much is the Diety aspect. I as a DM have been working diligently for a while now on surgically removing the alignment system, because that can make for a much more interesting games from an RP perspective. For example- Standard System The PCs arrive at small village ruled by a local Baron. The village has been having orc poblems for a while, which have been going on for some time now. The PCs go and eradicate the orcs, one the way wiping out a nest of wyverns. The PCs go back to the village and everyone is happy. My System The PCs arrive at town, blah blah blah up to the PCs heading off to the orcs. On the way,they might notice that the area has very little animal life to be found. Then they findthe wyverns, which attack them out of hunger. The PCs kill the Wyverns, then head on to the orcs. The orcs take up arms when they arrive, but during the battle shout cries of the human's hostility. The PCs are puzzled by this, and offer the orcs a chance to talk. The orcs tell the PCs that food has been scarce ever since the wyverns arrivedd ue to overhunting on the wyverns' part. The orcs sent an emmisary to the village to talk about the possibility of trade, but the humans attacked the emmisary, even thoughthe emmisarycaried the <insert made up orcish-sounding word here>, showing that they hadno hostile intentions. The PCs gp back to the village and ask when the conflic with the orcs started.they hearthat it started whenone of the baron'smenkilled an orc scout that was carrying what looked like some sort of war banner... you get the point. No "evil marauding bad guys", just a misunderstanding. Anyways, I got abitaway from the point, there. Basically,peopleusually thinkthat they're the "good guys", sopaladinscan go any which way, so long as they think they have the moral high ground. You get stuff like the Salem Witch trials, run by paladins of one church, you get stuff like the crusades run by another, but they usually arethe ones trying to get everyone else to do what they think is right, just because I'm in the line of thinking that that goes along withthinkingthat there's solid, universal evil that goes around putting signs on certain creatures backs that say "Smite Me". I'd say that trying to ipose moralson others goes along with the smiting bit, just because by using "Smite Evil", they're acknowledging that things they think are evil need smiting. If they didn't think that the world needed a little eradication of what they describe as 'evil',they'd be clerics, not paladins (and I'm not saying there are no clerics going around preaching). If they wanted to go around being nice and healing people, they'd be clerics. I'm not saying areeable paladins are impossible, I'm just saying that from where I stand, they're pretty rare. And most paladins are really wasting a perfectly good stick. A side note: I did it again, dangit. I went otype a little thing that ad a little something to do with alignment, and I ended up typing for like an hour...
NZCardinal 02-04-06, 01:24 AM	Very true Von Crown. The law/chaos, good/evil alignments become very blurry when you account for different points of view and values. Most of the differences come down to whether the character holds individual freedom in high regard. Take euthanasia (performed by someone with the best intentions), could that be lawful good? Yes, it provides a humane end to suffering. Could it be a chaotic evil action? Yes, murder is murder. Other existing modern examples on a global scale could be abortion, homosexuality, drug use, copulation before wedlock, smoking a cigarette, failure to grow a beard, the free press...
Subedei 02-04-06, 02:46 AM	How about the Paladin who stops worrying about petty wrongs and focuses on his JOB....that is, fighting evil - REAL evil. Lawful good doesn't mean you're a fundamentalist christian, it means you live by a code - that's it. I think the alignment you're looking for NZC is neutral or lawful evil, chaotic evil actions generally don't have so much of a point. I'd argue it's more neutral than anything else. To simplify how I see these alignments as much as possible: A lawful evil character might commit murder to further his own goals, he's evil because he's willing to go that far for personal gain. A chaotic evil character might kill someone because he enjoys it - very different.
bassist33333 02-04-06, 03:17 AM	Well...I've made an ANTI-Paladin (Blackguard) that was pretty goddang awesome. I suppose he was still a jerk, seeing as he was pure evil and his pasttimes were burning buildings and killing innocent children, but..........Well he was cool, anyway.
NZCardinal 02-04-06, 03:24 AM	Thanks Subedei, however, I'm not *looking* for an alignment to qualify my examples. As you have just shown, what might be either LG or CE to different people becomes Neutral or LE for you. Diverse world innit?
Hariman 02-04-06, 03:47 AM	How about the Paladin who stops worrying about petty wrongs and focuses on his JOB....that is, fighting evil - REAL evil. Lawful good doesn't mean you're a fundamentalist christian, it means you live by a code - that's it. I think the alignment you're looking for NZC is neutral or lawful evil, chaotic evil actions generally don't have so much of a point. I'd argue it's more neutral than anything else. To simplify how I see these alignments as much as possible: A lawful evil character might commit murder to further his own goals, he's evil because he's willing to go that far for personal gain. A chaotic evil character might kill someone because he enjoys it - very different. IMO, Chaotic Evil is means that your character will buck all Law Based Societies unless there is something to his benefit. He'll kill at the drop of a hat, doesn't care about the greater good OR the greater evil and only obeys the law when he has no choice. (He'll surrender to police, but He'll stab them in the back if he gets the chance.) He abides by no code of honor or justice, save perhaps Might Makes Right. Often leaves a wake of bodies, broken hearts, broken homes, empty purses and injured innocents. The kind of guy who would kick a homeless man for being lazy and a puppy for begging for food. (Any evil would do this.) But he's not totally unpredictable. He might walk around and act like the nicest guy you've ever seen but all the good acts he does are hollow. He might also just beat a man instead of killing him if he thought killing wasn't safe. He has no regard for life or law, but will respect them out of fear, if nothing else. Lawful Good is the exact opposite. A LG character walks around deliberately adhering to a Code of Justice and Honor. He holds life in the highest regard and only ignores the laws of the most evil sort. (Firstborn child taking laws, etc.) He'd probably offer the homeless man a job as a porter and adopt the puppy as a pet. He leaves a wake of greatful people, mended fences and protected innocents. He's rather predictable at times, but not stupid. He might back down from fighting an evil greater than he is and come back with stronger allies or when he himself is stronger. He will likely try to bring criminals in alive, weep for dead enemies, and obey laws he doesn't agree with. As long as the law isn't outright evil. Now in that comparison, nowhere does it say that the paladin has to be rude or overbearing. Think "Boy Scout" or Superman, Green Lantern. An honest Police Officer is another good example. (All business while on duty, more relaxed off duty, friends know that anything illegal is something to not bring up around him.) Paladin's might be better played if DMs wrote out what exactly was expected of them and what jurisdiction they hold at what times. Playing a Paladin like a Police Officer would probably make it a little easier. (Less Restrictions while off duty, but still has to be LG)
Bolorhaig 02-04-06, 03:54 AM	in our last campaign, one player changed chars mid-level and played a paladin through to the end of the campaign (paladin lvls 9-15 or so, is what i remember). the player, damian, should be named here as a nod to the excellent job he did of pulling off LG paladin throughout the entire game. nastynate et. al. have commented here about the critical difference between the paladin's disapproval and his prohibitive behavior toward party members whose behavior he might disapprove of. their comments are the most salient to the original question, which was essentially, "is it possible to play a non-jerk paladin?" the answer is a resounding yes. however, only if the player(s) and the DM understand the difference between and personal code and a prescriptive one. the paladin is required to hold to a personal code of behavior above and beyond even that of other LG chars. the paladin is NOT required to, i would say is even forbidden to, FORCE his code on others of whom he disapproves. damian played his paladin as a kind, honest, firm, and brave champion of the helpless and hopeless. when others he cared about made mistakes, he tried to help them fix it. when others around him were harmed, he tried to help them. when stuck in a moral quandry (which as DM i only purposely did to him once, b/c i figured every paladin ought to go through it once), he tried to find the way out that hurt the fewest and benefitted the most. he used his advanced social rank to influence those he encountered to be better people - never to further his personal interests. he was a :censored: hero. want a pretty good example of a paladin in modern text? try superman in frank miller's "return of the dark knight". it's about the best written LG you're ever going to see from a modern writer. BTW, to the writer here who said euthanasia might be considered a LG act...not until it's legalized, dude. the paladin is L-A-W-F-U-L Good, not <whatever you think is right>-Good. the difference is superman vs batman, and has been nicely emphasized in the comments of the writers here who mention the problem of trying to get a philosophically ignorant, rhetorically knowledgeable (sp?) college student to understand that if moral codes can't be absolute, then neither can the conviction that allows them to negate the absolution. bolorhaig
NZCardinal 02-04-06, 04:06 AM	Euthanasia is legal in some places, it's not in my country and apparently not in yours either however.
Bolorhaig 02-04-06, 04:34 AM	well, illegal in my state anyway... however, NZC brings up an important point: the paladin tradition comes from a euro-christian cultural basis. <this is, of course, refering to the paladin as written in d&d and often idealized in literature such as the song of roland, la morte de artur, and others. for this discussion, i'm ignoring the clear origins of the mounted, european knight, since the tradition actually entered europe from the muslim near and middle east.> medieval culture held that no one was allowed to commit suicide - it was a sin from the very beginning, as even a sin in pre-christian rome (which influenced euro-christianity tremendously). really, they weren't allowed to kill others either, since it was a commandment, but those clever euro-nobles got around that by buying heavenly dispensations from the church that made it ok for them to kill non-christians. anyway, point is, the idea of local authority should come into play frequently for a paladin. if he isn't trying to conform to legitimate local authority, he's essentially playing CG and not LG. maybe euthanasia is legal in some place the paladin finds himself. then, while he might personally approve or disapprove of the practice, he would try not to judge it and would certainly not force someone else to give it up. the attitude that "my personal right/wrong is more important than any collective notion of right/wrong" is the most slippery slope that good players face when role-playing. democratic philosophy has, for good or bad, convinced american culture that if it's ok for me, then it's ok to do it. you want to put a paladin player in a REAL quandry? put the char in a situation that has an absolute, clear-cut, "lawful" and "good" solution, but one you know that the player personally would detest because he/she disagrees with philosophically. watch him/her rationalize their convoluted way out of that for a couple hrs...depending on your attitude, it can be either nauseating or validating. bolorhaig
Cantankerous 02-04-06, 04:44 AM	Hi, Paladins are only jerks when played by jerks. To be a Paladin one does NOT need to be stuck up, opinionated or rude. That is the damned stupidest stereotyping in D&D... and some of the most prevalent. The unfortunate reason, atleast in the US, is the squeeky wheel syndrome. The vocal part (and ONLY the vocal part really) of the Fundementalist Christian community, the part that screams the loudest that they are righteous and everyone else is Hellbound, very unfortunately, what most people, especially young people, seem to think of when someone deeply relgious is brought up. While a Paladin, almost by definition IS deeply relgious, it is NOT ture that a deeply relgious person MUST BE a total jerk. Unfortunately, it's the total jerk who is more noticeable. Lawful Good is a GREAT alignment, but the sad fact is, most supposed Paladins, maybe especially those who act like jerks, are not Lawful GOOD, as the Paladin class is built to stress, but is rather LAWFUL (and the worst atributes of Law are usually the ones they stress the hardest) good instead. Good as is protrayed in D&D has NOTHING to it about judgementalism or idioticly confrontational behavior based on "I am a Paladin, so you MUST obey me". Neither does Law, really, for that matter, but because of the line in the definition of Law in the RAW Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. that states what I've highlighted, alot of people can't seem to get it through their heads that a Paladin does not have to stress that ONE aspect of Law to the near exclusion of all the other aspects and any of the aspects of Good when they are playing Paladins. Indeed, this almost directly conflicts with one of the primary precepts fo Good, a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. It's hard to be almost sadisticly judgemental (which is what a jerk Paladin is) and be concerned for the dignity of the person you are acting like a jerk towards. Since in the Paladin's case, Good trumps Law in order of importance, when a person is playing a Paladial jerk they are NOT playing the Paladin correctly. Paladins in my games are notorious for breaking these idiot stereotypes. They tend to be jovial, often full of jokes and good humor, as such things simply make people feel better, something Good appreciates. They do NOT tolerate Evil, and they tend to disdain Chaos, but for the most part they do not attempt to impose their own sense of morality or ethics on anyone else. They lead by example, not by mouth. They make folk WANT to act in a Lawful Good manner by their own actions and are smart enough to understand that trying to impose their own morality on others by force is exactly the WORST way to do that. Isshia
AngelDust Anderson 02-04-06, 05:40 AM	I realy like paladins, thay ere one of the most interesting classes when played well. I one played a paladin who was always ready for a good laugh as long as it was not at anyones expence. He kept a bottle that constanly was full of a glue-like substance (came off after an hour or so) and a set of signs that said the paladin equivelent of "kick me", they said "smite me!". He would occasionly stick them on the back of people who he detected as rather evil but had not done anything wrong. He was fun. Heavy on good, not quite so heavy on law. So yes a well played paladin is very good to be around. -Anderson
Roxlimn 02-04-06, 05:49 AM	Bolorhaig: however, NZC brings up an important point: the paladin tradition comes from a euro-christian cultural basis. <this is, of course, refering to the paladin as written in d&d and often idealized in literature such as the song of roland, la morte de artur, and others. for this discussion, i'm ignoring the clear origins of the mounted, european knight, since the tradition actually entered europe from the muslim near and middle east.> As long as we're being all world-centric anyway, the concept of a "holy warrior" isn't European in origin, except as in the tradition of the Celtic and Scandanavian berserkers. The idea of warriors dedicated to God was built upon ideals common to Byzantine and Islamic traditions, and later imported to Dark Ages Western Europe together with the idea that you could be nice to women as a matter of intent. For that matter, the idea of a divinely inspired warrior predates even those applications. Chinese warriors invoked the spirits and the Heavenly powers to aid them in their fight. You could say that the Emperor, invested with the Mandate of Heaven, was the ultimate Paladin, complete with accompanying Mounted Heavy Cavalry, long before it came to the Middle East and thence to Europe. The concept of a Paladin in ALL of these traditions included as core values charisma and good graces - the ability to put people at their ease and inspire them (not browbeat them) into doing what was right, even the most blackhearted of rogues could be inspired by the mercy and sheer personal magnetism of a Paladin. It was thought that this social power was an indication of Heavenly favor. It's only in D&D where the concept of a criminally boorish and spiteful Paladin is the norm rather than the exception.