The first thing we have to look at to give the Paladin some depth is to dispel the current stereotype. Paladins walk around with a righteous aura, are over-confident, and strike down evil foes with a blaze of glory. What does this generally equate in peoples mind? That the Paladin has no choice whatsoever in the matter of picking up her sword and attacking her enemy or finding another solution to the problem. The choice is clear. Kill evil foes, or die trying. This can lead to Paladins to doing completely stupid things that cause their own death, or even worse the entire party's death.
What a Paladin does do is that she does the best she can to uphold the law and her word. In addition she rids the world of evil, and supports good. This does not mean all Paladins, albeit some may be like this, are going to charge and kill everything under the sun that comes up "evil" under her detect evil ability.
So this leads us to what a Paladin really is. A character. She has emotions, feelings, needs, ideals, motivations and a mind of her own. She has focused on that which is righteous, and is inclined to do the best in the world she can. Keep in your mind that the Paladin is a character in the world, not a merely a tool for justice. She does the just thing; she is not justice herself. All in all, keep in mind that the character you are playing is a character first, and a Paladin second.
With the mold broken and the real Paladin paved out, what can one do to roleplay one without reverting to the "Kill all evil at the drop of a pin" murderous beast? Here are a few reasonable alternatives for a Paladin to consider:
- Did you just encounter an evil commoner? Maybe he’s just a common bully. Interrogate him. Inform him of the ramifications of his actions. Tell him to deviate from his evil ways. Convert him. There is redemption for the fallen soul. After all, there's such thing as a fall from grace (The Blackguard PrC in the 3.5 DMG (pg. 182) is a prime example of this. Read that line again. "Evil deities like nothing more than to see a pure heart corrupted.) What is to say that one cannot change for the better?
- Is an evil leader controlling the land? It wouldn't be very lawful to just kill the tyrant for his political deeds. Expose his evil ways and remove him from power. You have made the world a better place, and you have spared a life that may one day just do some good.
- Did an evil rogue just sneak up on you attack you for gold? Of course, one must defend herself and others. When she reaches negatives or low hp, start attacking him with a merciful weapon or the flat of your blade at a -4 penalty. Take him to the authorities and lock him up. Was his greed really worth his life? Not even worth your time? Let him contemplate his actions. The threat is gone and the world is a better place.
- So that Evil Dragon is capturing people, and sadistically torturing them before he kills them? Then purge the land of the vile abomination. The world has no place for such heartless monsters.
- So you're getting pretty thrashed in a battle? Retreat. All it hurts is your pride. Some may inquire, "Is your pride worth your life?" No, it's your ideals that are worth your life, not your pride. Another day you live is another day to do more good. If your ally falls, you may feel your conviction to avenge him, but if you're in no condition to, you shouldn't commit needless suicide. This doesn’t mean you can be the first to run, in fact, you should probably be the last to run, but you can tell your allies to run and you’ll make sure they get away to safety before you disengage. If you have an ally to avenge go about doing it when you’re prepared.
- A Balor has been summoned by a cult. You know that your party and yourself are not capable of stopping the summoning, nor can you fight the Balor and have a hope of surviving. What do you do? Rushing to certain death is not a wise choice. The first thing you can do is warn all those that would be potential victims of the Balor. Find them a safe hiding spot. Find help if possible. If you know a Paladin 10 levels higher than you that could deal with the Balor while you and your allies deal with the cult, you may well save the day that way, and you're doing the right thing.
(Also Note this has nothing to do with Deus ex Machina; the party are the heroes. They created the plan, they dealt with the cult, they did more work than the higher level NPC, they were the heroes of the situation, the NPC was merely a resource in accomplishing the mission.)
The Paladin does not have an intelligence of 3 (Well at least most don't ;)). Thus she can think of strategic plans to rid the world of evil without acting on impulse. The Paladin should have reasons for her actions, not excuses. The contemplative Paladin is much more effective at thwarting evil than the head-strong Paladin that is predictable because she rushes into battle. Devils, in particular, are crafty and would know well how to lead a predictable Paladin to her doom.
The character with classes of Paladin only has one difference over a lawful good character in general: her Code of Conduct. What does the Code of Conduct restrict the Paladin to? Basically most of her actions must be lawful good. And none of them should be chaotic or evil. For the most part, any lawful good character would be along those lines. There is also another noteworthy phrase in the Code of Conduct (PhB pg.44): “Additionally, a Paladin’s code requires that she … punish those who harm or threaten innocents.” At no point does it say that the Paladin is required to kill all people who are evil, just punish them.
The Paladin can be a very flavorful, fun, and effective class if played with a bright character concept. Dare to be different. Dare to be a Paladin.
pal·a·din : A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
But then, what is Chivalry?
chiv·al·ry : The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.
The following is from Public Domain 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.
Chivalry
Chivalry (derived through the French cheval from the Latin caballus) as an institution is to be considered from three points of view: the military, the social, and the religious. We shall also here consider the history of chivalry as a whole.
MILITARY
In the military sense, chivalry was the heavy cavalry of the Middle Ages which constituted the chief and most effective warlike force. The knight or chevalier was the professional soldier of the time; in medieval Latin, the ordinary word miles (soldier) was equivalent to "knight." This pre-eminence of cavalry was correlative with the decline of infantry on the battlefield. Four peculiarities distinguished the professional warrior:
his weapons;
his horse;
his attendants, and
his flag.
Weapons
The medieval army was poorly equipped for long-distance fighting, and bows and crossbows were still employed, although the Church endeavored to prohibit their use, at least between Christian armies, as contrary to humanity. At all events, they were regarded as unfair in combat by the medieval knight. His only offensive weapons were the lance for the encounter and the sword for the close fight, weapons common to both light-armed and heavy cavalry. The characteristic distinction of the latter, which really constituted chivalry, lay in their defensive weapons, which varied with different periods. These weapons were always costly to get and heavy to bear, such as the brunia or hauberk of the Carlovingian Era, the coat of mail, which prevailed during the Crusades, and lastly the plate armor introduced in the fourteenth century.
Horses
No knight was thought to be properly equipped without at least three horses:
the battle horse, or dexterarius, which was led by hand, and used only for the onset (hence the saying, "to mount one's high horse"),
a second horse, palfrey or courser, for the route, and
the pack-horse for the luggage.
Attendants
The knight required several attendants:
one to conduct the horses,
another to bear the heaviest weapons, particularly the shield or escutcheon (scutum, hence scutarius, French escuyer, esquire);
still another to aid his master to mount his battle horse or to raise him if dismounted;
a fourth to guard prisoners, chiefly those of quality, for whom a high ransom was expected.
These attendants, who were of low condition, were not to be confounded with the armed retainers, who formed the escort of a knight. From the thirteenth century the squires also went armed and mounted and, passing from one grade to the other, were raised finally to knighthood.
Flags
Banners were also a distinctive mark of chivalry. They were attached to, and carried on, the lance. There was a sharp distinction between the pennon, a flag pointed or forked at the extremity, used by a single chevalier or bachelor as a personal ensign, and the banner, square in form, used as the ensign of a band and reserved to the baron or baronet in command of a group of at least ten knights, called a constabulary. Each flag or banner was emblazoned with the arms of its owner to distinguish one from another on the battlefield. These armorial bearings afterwards became hereditary and gave birth to the complicated science of heraldry.
SOCIAL
The career of a knight was costly, requiring personal means in keeping with the station; for a knight had to defray his own expenses in an age when the sovereign had neither treasury nor war budget at his disposal. When land was the only kind of riches, each lord paramount who wished to raise an army divided his domain into military fiefs, the tenant being held to military service at his own personal expense for a fixed number of days (forty in France and in England during the Norman period). These fees, like other feudal grants, became hereditary, and thus developed a noble class, for whom the knightly profession was the only career. Knighthood, however, was not hereditary, though only the sons of a knight were eligible to its ranks. In boyhood they were sent to the court of some noble, where they were trained in the use of horses and weapons, and were taught lessons of courtesy. From the thirteenth century, the candidates, after they had attained the rank of squire, were allowed to take part in battles; but it was only when they had come of age, commonly twenty-one years, that they were admitted to the rank of knight by means of a peculiar ceremonial called "dubbing." Every knight was qualified to confer knighthood, provided the aspirant fulfilled the requisite conditions of birth, age, and training. Where the condition of birth was lacking in the aspirant, the sovereign alone could create a knight, as a part of his royal prerogative.
RELIGIOUS
In the ceremonial of conferring knighthood the Church shared, through the blessing of the sword, and by the virtue of this blessing chivalry assumed a religious character. In early Christianity, although Tertullian's teaching that Christianity and the profession of arms were incompatible was condemned as heretical, the military career was regarded with little favour. In chivalry, religion and the profession of arms were reconciled. This change in attitude on the part of the Church dates, according to some, from the Crusades, when Christian armies were for the first time devoted to a sacred purpose. Even prior to the Crusades, however, an anticipation of this attitude is found in the custom called the "Truce of God". It was then that the clergy seized upon the opportunity offered by these truces to exact from the rough warriors of feudal times a religious vow to use their weapons chiefly for the protection of the weak and defenseless, especially women and orphans, and of churches. Chivalry, in the new sense, rested on a vow; it was this vow which dignified the soldier, elevated him in his own esteem, and raised him almost to the level of the monk in medieval society. As if in return for this vow, the Church ordained a special blessing for the knight in the ceremony called in the Pontificale Romanum, "Benedictio novi militis." At first very simple in its form, this ritual gradually developed into an elaborate ceremony. Before the blessing of the sword on the altar, many preliminaries were required of the aspirant, such as confession, a vigil of prayer, fasting, a symbolical bath, and investiture with a white robe, for the purpose of impressing on the candidate the purity of soul with which he was to enter upon such a noble career. Kneeling, in the presence of the clergy, he pronounced the solemn vow of chivalry, at the same time often renewing the baptismal vow; the one chosen as godfather then struck him lightly on the neck with a sword (the dubbing) in the name of God and St. George, the patron of chivalry.
HISTORY
There are four distinct periods in the history of chivalry. The period of foundation, i.e. the time when the Truce of God was in force, witnessed the long contest of the Church against the violence of the age, before she succeeded in curbing the savage spirit of the feudal warriors, who prior to this recognized no law but that of brute force.
First Period: The Crusades
The Crusades introduced the golden age of chivalry, and the crusader was the pattern of the perfect knight. The rescue of the holy places of Palestine from Moslem domination and the defense of pilgrims became the new object of his vow. In return, the Church took him under her protection in a special way, and conferred upon him exceptional temporal and spiritual privileges, such as the remission of all penances, dispensation from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, and as a means of defraying the expenses of the journey to the Holy Land, knights were granted the tenth of all the church revenues. The vow of the crusader was limited to a specified period. For the distant expeditions into Asia, the average time was two or three years.
Second Period: The Military Orders
After the conquest of Jerusalem, the necessity of a standing army became peremptory, in order to prevent the loss of the Holy City to surrounding hostile nations. Out of this necessity arose the military orders which adopted as a fourth monastic vow that of perpetual warfare against the infidels. In these orders, wherein was realized the perfect fusion of the religious and the military spirit, chivalry reached its apogee. This heroic spirit had also its notable representatives among the secular crusaders, as Godfrey of Bouillon, Tancred of Normandy, Richard Couer de Lion, and above all Louis IX of France, in whom knighthood was crowned by sanctity. Like the monastic, the knightly vow bound with common ties warriors of every nation and condition, and enrolled them in a vast brotherhood of manners, ideals, and aims. The secular brotherhood had, like the regular its rule imposing on its members fidelity to their; lords and to their word, fair play on the battlefield, and the observance of the maxims of honour and courtesy. Medieval chivalry, moreover, opened a new chapter in the history of literature. It prepared the way and gave ready currency to an epic and romantic movement in literature reflecting the ideal of knighthood and celebrating its accomplishment and achievements. Provence and Normandy were the chief centres of this kind of literature, which was spread throughout all Europe by the trouvères and troubadours.
Third Period: Secular Chivalry
After the Crusades chivalry gradually lost its religious aspect. In this, its third period, honour remains the peculiar worship of knighthood. This spirit is manifested in the many knightly exploits which fill the annals of the long contest between England and France during the Hundred Years War. The chronicles of Froissart give a vivid picture of this age, where bloody battles alternate with tournaments and gorgeous pageants. Each contending nation has its heroes. If England could boast of the victories of the Black Prince, Chandos, and Talbot, France could pride herself on the exploits of Du Guesclin, Boucicaut, and Dunois. But with all the brilliance and glamour of their achievements, the main result was a useless shedding of blood, waste of money, and misery for the lower classes. The amorous character of the new literature had contributed not a little to deflect chivalry from its original ideal. Under the influence of the romances love now became the mainspring of chivalry. As a consequence there arose a new type of chevalier, vowed to the service of some noble lady, who could even be another man's wife. This idol of his heart was to be worshipped at a distance. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the obligations imposed upon the knightly lover, these extravagant fancies often led to lamentable results.
Fourth Period: Court Chivalry
In its last stages, chivalry became a mere court service. The Order of the Garter, founded in 1348 by Edward III of England, the Order of the Golden Fleece (Toison d'or) of Philip of Burgundy, dating from 1430, formed a brotherhood, not of crusaders, but of courtiers, with no other aim than to contribute to the splendor of the sovereign. Their most serious business was the sport of jousts and tournaments. They made their vows not in chapels, but in banquet halls, not on the cross, but on some emblematic bird. The "vow of the Swan" of 1306, was instituted during the feast of the dubbing of the son of Edward I. It was before God and the swan that the old king swore with his knights to avenge on Scotland the murder of his lieutenant. More celebrated is the "vow of the Pheasant," made in 1454 at the court of Philip of Burgundy. The motive was weighty indeed, being nothing else than the rescue of Constantinople, which had fallen the past year into the hands of the Turks. But the solemnity of the motive did not lessen the frivolity of the occasion. A solemn vow was taken before God and the pheasant at a gorgeous banquet, the profligate cost of which might better have been devoted to the expedition itself. No less than one hundred and fifty knights, the flower of the nobility, repeated the vow, but the enterprise came to nought. Chivalry had degenerated to a futile pastime and an empty promise.
Literature, which had in the past so greatly contributed to the exaltation of chivalry, now reacted against its extravagances. In the early part of the fourteenth century this turning point becomes evident in the poetry of Chaucer. Although he himself had made many translations from the French romances, he mildly derides their manner in his "Sir Thopas." The final blow was reserved for the immortal work of Cervantes, "Don Quixote," which aroused the laughter of all Europe. Infantry, on its revival as an effective force on the battlefield during the fourteenth century began to dispute the supremacy which heavy cavalry had so long enjoyed. Chivalry which rested entirely upon the superiority of the horseman in warfare, rapidly declined. At Crécy (1346) and Agincourt (1415) the French knighthood was decimated by the arrows of the English archers of Edward III and Henry V. The Austrian nobility at Sempach (1386) and the Burgundian chivalry at Morat (1476) were unable to sustain the overpowering onslaught of the Swiss peasantry. With the advent of gunpowder and the general use of firearms in battle, chivalry rapidly disintegrated and finally disappeared altogether.
Elf paladin LG
Stats in order of importance
Cha and Dex
Wis and Int
Str and Con
Where light armor and wield a light weapon. Pick up ranks in diplomacy and sense motive. Try NOT being the leader. Sit back and use your detect evil and your higher than normal sense motive to peg the villain before he's even realized he's been pegged, then do something they will definitely not expect from a paladin. MANIPULATE the situation to stack the odds against the villain. Then if needs be, draw your light weapon and finesse it, show everyone exactly how good you can be with a blade.
Outside of combat and need something to do? Don't break down the character by having him/her always going to the nearest temple and praying, your god will probably like it more if your out doing something else, especially if you begin to enjoy it. Walk yourself over to the bad part of town, your detect evil will help you out there.
Instead of beginning some massive campaign to rid that part of town from evil, do something a bit more civilized. Take the time to understand everyone. That hooker doesn't want to waste her time talking to you because she needs to make money? Pay her for her time. Just cause you purchased her time doesn't mean you have to sleep with him/her. Think of the surprise of his/her face when they get more than what they normally get and all they have to do is have a friendly conversation.
Don't be afraid of making friends with criminals, often they are just trying to get by. Understand their plight. Work like the corruptor but do the opposite. Get into their circle, get them to trust you, get yourself to trust them, and quietly lead them to a point where they are better off. Im not saying turn the entire slum into a paradise, that would require High level magic and may never be stable. Think of it more like this. You can't save everyone, and if you did try you may kill your self in doing so. Spend more time just helping them find the path and making them aware of the benefits of walking it. The hookers may never stop hooking, and the beggars may never stop begging, but if they get to a point where they can trust each other to look after each other and get them to a point where they care about their fellow slummers it will be a better place for all. And most importantly, a slum that has been touch this way will be far more resilient against any form of corruption. Armor clad, lance wielding, shield carrying, sword swinging crusaders will have a much harder time doing this than someone who doesn't look like they're ready for war.
Paladin of Death: Worship a deity of death, because not all of them are evil and a good number are lawful (your allowed to worship something at least one step away from your alignment). If you really want to drive the point home buy yourself the grim reapers walking stick, dress in black (I don't know why: Sarcasm), and decorate with a plethora of bones. Death is only a natural order of the world and it is only right that things be issued down that path at a proper time to propel the cause of good. The unnatural animation of the dead, sentient or not, disobeys this law, unless specifically annulled by your deity.
Charisma Based Paladin: The easiest way to avoid a fight is to make sure it never happens. Negotiate first, fight only after those attempts have failed. So many villains make it a point to infiltrate groups and corrupt them from the inside out, there is no rule stating that you can not do the same for evil groups, or neutral groups. Just remember to be understanding, even good people do evil things at times, or even habitually. It doesn't mean they have to die.
Dex Based Paladin: Because no one is going to think your a paladin when your walking around like a rouge/swashbuckler. That and you'll be a better rider then anyone else.
Humble loner: Guy walks into bar (stop me if you've heard this one) he has tattered clothes and a walking stick. 3 guesses as to what he is. Monk? No. Bum? No. Paladin? Yes.
For example, let's suppose that the party's paladin finds out that an evil tyrant is ruling an entire kingdom and then confirms this through magical means. The paladin forms a crusade, fights an epic battle and defeats this fiend. There is much looting of the bodies and then the party of do-gooders rides off into the sunset. Unfortunately an even more evil tyrant is waiting and watching and smoothly steps into the resulting power vacuum and proceeds to oppress the entire nation.
For this reason it is important for the paladin to take, as has been stated, a more "strategic" view of the world and plan accordingly. The stereotype of the shining knight riding down the infidel is an extremely powerful one and apparently a difficult one to overcome.
Another excellent point that was raised concerns the proportion of the paladin's response. This is another area that I have seen grossly abused by both paladins and other supposedly good characters. If you come across two men brawling in a tavern and breaking the local law against public disorder (or whatever), this is not sufficient excuse to kill the two men and destroy half of the tavern in the process.
If you come across an archdevil or a major demon, have the party's spellcaster lay down fireball spells as cover while you move in for the kill. Should you encounter a pickpocket in the streets, put a little fear into them and turn them into the local authorities with a stern admonishment against the evils of theft (assuming of course that the local authorities are not part of an evil empire bent on world domination). The responses against these two types of opponents should not be interchangeable.
Finally is the question of the allocation of resources. A high-level paladin is a valuable resource for the forces of good and should be utilized as such. It is simply not economical for that high-level adventurer to chase down every cow-thief and con artist that they come in contact with. This is going to leave a lot of powerful cultists in the need for some powerful slaying while droves of petty criminals are being brought to trial by the paragon of lawful goodness.
A paladin's purpose in the universe is to protect the innocent and bring down evil. However, the paladin should exhibit some discretion in how they go about this and place a little thought before whipping out the holy avenger.
Unfortunately, most D&D settings are not historically accurate, nor is the game an accurate system that represents reality. The very existence of magic makes it a fantasy game.
When someone plays a character, they are playing someone they think up. I hardly find it the norm that someone plays a character for historical accuracy, but rather for flavor. Often they pick an archetype to emulate, but there are unique characters that are played often.
While the historical definition for the word Paladin may very well allow one to play a concept they want to, I find that more often it does not. In addition to that I find that the players of the Paladin class misinterpret it in a way as to use it as a straight jacket for role playing options as opposed a source to expand their ideas on. More so, I believe your post to be a great example of how being a paladin does not mean that you have no personality - especially because paladins in D&D tend to have high charisma.
A paladin is person who through his decisions has chosen a certain way of life, he never was forced into it. He is not an automation. You can play a paladin however you like, but simply taking a level in paladin does not change your character into something different than who s/he was before. However you play that paladin is up to you; but there are more options than people tend to realize.
Your character is defined by that, their character, not their class.
1. Lawful Good Alignment
2. Mount as a class ability.
In D&D rules it’s hard to build an acrobat Paladin on a horse (single classed anyway).
What's wrong with them? Nothing, except that they undermine the paladin's effectiveness. Associating with the criminal element may be done as an act of charity, but as much as we disparage the idea, it does matter what people think of you.
You're a paladin. A role model, whether you want to be one or not. What are people going to think when they see you hanging out with pickpockets and hookers? Can you imagine the kind of rumors that one crazy old lady could start? Chaotic Good laughs at the silly perceptions of others, and does its own thing. But Lawful Good needs to be mindful of the consequences of its actions -- that's why it is Lawful. It understands that, silly or not, that is what other people would think, and it mourns their ignorance even as it tries to figure out another way to help.
As far as associating with prostitutes goes. What he describes sounds great, even noble. These people have feelings too, even though they try to push them aside for their work. But in order to do what he describes, especially on a regular basis, one would need to be not just a paladin. You'd need to be incorruptible. An angel, perhaps, or a deity's avatar, would know what to say and who to approach, without being the least bit tempted. But not most paladins.
They ought to keep their distance, not because they're too good for them, but because they're not good enough.
"If it's an evil creature, I can commit all the evil acts I want to it. Its ok, because the creature is evil!"
Paladins regularly assault, rob, murder, defame, kidnap and otherwise do bad things to things "because they are evil." Considering the creature he is doing these things to probably are evil because they committed one of the above acts, it really comes off as the pot calling the kettle black. As if, once someone 'IS SUSPECTED' of committing an evil act, the floodgates open. Even the most righteous people in the universe (Paladins) are allowed to treat you in the most sadistic fashion.
So much for hope of redemption, so much for that person ever wanting to reform to the "good" system that brutalized and killed him. So much for hope.
No, paladins shouldn't ever use evil means. They should arrest, not kidnap. They should subdue, not assault. They should convert, not defame. They should break up evil activities, not rob the evildoer. They should never smite anything unless it is beyond redemption, such as a creature who is evil in essence (demon). If evil is based on the acts people have done, the paladin certainly can't use the same means to punish evil as the evildoer uses to gain his advantage. Paladins are better than that. They are the epitome of good.
What's could be worse for the good cause than a whole party of good aligned people? A paladin mustn't be lawful stupid.
Uh, important addition here:
What could be worse for the good cause than a whole party of dead good aligned people?
In the campaign setting I'm working on, the forest and rock gnomes have a tradition of mage knights (not to rip off any games, but it's a fitting term) in which the little knight can freely multiclass between Wizard, Paladin, Sorcerer and Ranger. Rock gnomes adhere to Wizard/Paladin or Sorcerer/Paladin, receiving steady (but not strict) training in the use of magic and blade to DEFEND their people, not to go out and slaughter stuff because it's evil. Likewise, the forest gnomes often follow up with the Sorcerer/Ranger or maybe even the Druid/Paladin path to protect their forest homes.
Basically, the gist of a gnome paladin is that he thinks first with his head and heart, doing what's right and maybe even applying a little light-hearted accent to his work to make the world a better place, but with his martial training against the giants and goblinoids that threaten his home he can throw down when his people or friends are threatened. Overall, he's taking the role of the DEFENDER, I'm highlighting this to distinguish between meatheads lunking around in platemail killing stuff as they detect evil it to death. First and foremost these folks are passive but not weak, they can take blows up there with the dwarves but are quick enough to dodge that hit just as easily.
Strength - Combat is a last resort, try to talk the guy out of it before he drives his dagger home, perhaps he'll see the error and make something of life. Don't let your sword arm go to waste though, not everything is willing to sit back and enjoy a nice cup of turnip tea to talk things out!
Dexterity - You're light and small, and because of this you might not want to wear that nasty old clunking suit of platemail like the dwarf just bought. Keep it to Mithral chain and Darkwood shields, you'd rather dodge the giant's club than let it dent up your shiny armor anyways. A band of hobgoblins might decide to let their bows talk, and a good eye with the crossbow is an indispensible skill.
Constitution - You're a protector first and foremost. You keep your friends and kin safe from those who'd wish them harm, and when your nimbleness isn't enough to evade a blow your natural toughness will keep you up in battle and might be the deciding factor in combat. This is an important stat for the gnome paladin because he isn't always as strong as the taller races, and this coupled with a good dexterity score is better than having an 18 strength because even though the half-orc is hitting harder, you're able to take the heat longer.
Intelligence - Paramount for any gnome, paying attention back at the academy will pay off on the road ahead. Not only will you be able to get through tougher situations where negotiation is key, but you can apply this score to combat-oriented feats like Expertise, which stems off as a prerequisite for many other devastating combat feats like Whirlwind Attack. Higher intelligence also means more skillpoints and better spellcasting if you're using the Wizard/Paladin setup. Nothing makes a strong paladin stronger than casting Mage Armor (+4 AC) and having Magic Missile to back you up. Not only this, but you can roleplay a brainiac paladin: His strategies are twice as sharp and deadly as his sword.
Wisdom - Like Intelligence is to the mage knight from the academy, the nature-dwelling aspect of this strong combination will benefit from heightened wisdom in druidic spellcasting as well as ranger spellcasting later on. Not only that, but if he's a Druid/Paladin, both classes will benefit from the greater degree of insight. This is also good for a paladin who "moonlights" for extra gold in between adventures with bonuses to his Profession skill. At an angle of roleplaying, gnomes are calm and understanding, hence the Neutral Good alignment. You can apply the higher wisdom score to this path of open mindedness and understanding, since that's a cornerstone of the gnomish paladin's ethos.
Charisma - This is vital to the paladin class as well as a Sorcerer/Ranger or Sorcerer/Paladin in the mage knight spectrum. Not only does it add bonuses to your spellcasting as a sorcerer, but your social skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate get bonuses as well. Your Leadership feat, along with your high charisma and good reputation, will earn you droves of friends and followers to help your cause. Last but most important of the high charisma benefits is the fact that paladins can add their modifier to their various special abilities like Divine Grace and Smite Evil.
- Dexterity, Charisma and Constitution are your three most important attributes as a gnomish paladin: Your reliance on dexterity complements the bonus from being a Small character, and you can't wear or carry the heavier armor effectively with hindered lifting limits and a lesser speed so you might want to make use of this. If you're using the mage knight setup, you can go without armor or get a Mithral chain shirt and cast Mage Armor on yourself for an extra 4 to your AC. Next comes charisma, where you rely on your gnomely charm to talk misguided "villains" out of their deeds and to enhance your divine abilities as a paladin, as well as raking in followers - overall, the goal is to keep your weapon sheathed, and a higher charisma is a step closer to that goal. Your natural resilience goes well with focus to a good constitution, since you're a defender in combat against those attacking your people. On the battlefield, a high constitution with a high dexterity means that in the rare instances of getting hit, you can take the blow and keep on.
Lastly, intelligence is key for enhancing your wizard spellcasting prowess as well as giving more skillpoints - things that the paladin doesn't get a lot of. Not only that, but with a higher intelligence your "Gnight" you open up the window to a brilliant strategist who picks his fights ahead of time and sets them up to result in the best success and the least possible harm: Remember, you just want to keep your people safe.
- Why not the other two stats, those are important too, right?
Sure are, but your strongest points are those listed above. Gnomes aren't as strong as some of the taller folks, and so relying on that -2 to Strength might not be a good move, let alone the decline in load capacity for being small. Wisdom won't really help out the gnome paladin until 4th level, and by then he might be around 6th or 8th level overall if he's multiclassing as a wizard or sorcerer.
- What kinds of weapons and mounts are good for a gnome paladin?
Gnome paladins will wield swords for the most part, mainly shortswords combined with shields, but mine uses a longsword as a bastard sword (two-handed) and gains the added bonus of wielding a weapon two-handed: luckily the dice blessed him with a decent strength score though and I hope for the same luck as you roll up your own gnome knight's stats. The use of picks as the weapon of choice was always a fresh and smart idea to me, since there's a high critical (x4) to counteract the potential for not doing much damage with a lesser strength score; not only that, but gnomes are known for their love of gems and precious metals, and maybe the knights inherited the use of battle picks from their ancestors as these were their only weapons deep in the ancient stone. Pursuing the dual-wielding feats might be a good idea, since your high dexterity opens the door for the Ambidexterity feat and thus the Two-Weapon Fighting feats.
As for mounts, if your gnome comes from a more "earthy" community of hillside burrows and subterranean libraries you may want to get a dire badger: They're a vicious combatant, made all the more so by your mount bonuses, plus you can speak with it using your Speak with Animals ability. A more mobile mount would be a Giant Owl; it's already able to speak, it's quiet, and it's a bit more whimsical for a knight to ride than an angry badger if that's what you're going for. Svirfneblin or Tinker Gnome paladins would make use of Rust Monsters - They get fed with scrap metal from the workshop and are actually kind of cute with them big ol' eyes and their tickly li'l antennae, not to mention staving off the threat of attackers by having their stuff get turned into heaps of tetanis! Last on our list of nifty mounts is the riding dog: It's readily available, mobile, accepted in non-gnome society and drawing fewer odd looks than a giant owl and hardly as many screams as the rust monster or dire badger.
Well, there you have it. My big honkin' guide to making a gnome paladin. Hopefully you all will read this and pick up on it. These are all just suggestions though: The beauty of 3rd edition is the versatility of how you can make your character.
The Paladin does not have an intelligence of 3 (Well at least most don't.) Thus she can think of strategic plans to rid the world of evil without acting on impulse. The Paladin should have reasons for her actions, not excuses. The contemplative Paladin is much more effective at thwarting evil than the head-strong Paladin that is predictable because she rushes into battle. Devils, in particular, are crafty and would know well how to lead a predictable Paladin to her doom.
I would say the more important factor here is Wisdom. Strategy would develop from intelligence, but acting wisely - innately stems from Wisdom, something most Paladins definitely have.
You now then have the problem of the player, "Wisdom is only possessed by the learned". It doesn't take wisdom to come up with a cunning plan to defeat a devil, but it does take a players wisdom to stop and think of one. Paladins aren't for everyone, and someone who plays one badly (through no great fault of their own) might be in for a fall.
If anything, that is reason to develop the Paladin as a prestige class and develop the base Paladin as something less strict but in a similar fashion.
Humble loner: Guy walks into bar (stop me if you've heard this one) he has tattered clothes and a walking stick. 3 guesses as to what he is. Monk? No. Bum? No. Paladin? Yes.
I have, in fact, played that paladin. Huge guy wearing peasant or beggar clothing. He had sacks for shoes and rags for clothing because he was too charitable and humble to do much else. It was a great character, I think. Heck, I would have liked the guy.
Wouldn't each Deity want some kind of outstanding hero for their religion? Shouldn't Corellon Larethian have Paladins of his own that fight the Evils of the Orcs and their god Gruumsh? Other than the faithful clerics of their religion, there isn't much being said in that kind of matter! I believe that a paladin shouldn't be confined to an alignment so much as it would be confined to a religion. Think about it. I mean even the most evil clerics are the most devout to their god, why wouldn't a follower of Hextor feel as potently drawn to the blade and a paladin of heironeous?
In all I'm just saying that a Paladin should be allowed to choose a religion to follow and his class should adjust accordingly just as clerics do. Seeing as though every other class has an opposite (being either more magically or physically inclined I mean) shouldn't the Paladin be the more Physical version of cleric anyway? I mean the Ranger is the physical version of Druid, and the Bard is the Magical Rogue. All in all I just think a paladin should be more religion based and not just based on being limited to one religion and Alignment.
The qualm I've always had with Paladins is this simple equation:
"If it's an evil creature, I can commit all the evil acts I want to it. Its ok, because the creature is evil!"
Paladins regularly assault, rob, murder, defame, kidnap and otherwise do bad things to things "because they are evil." Considering the creature he is doing these things to probably are evil because they committed one of the above acts, it really comes off as the pot calling the kettle black. As if, once someone 'IS SUSPECTED' of committing an evil act, the floodgates open. Even the most righteous people in the universe (Paladins) are allowed to treat you in the most sadistic fashion.
When you say you have a qualm with Paladins, I assume that you mean people who play Paladins rather than the class itself. ;) I agree with you that your actions determine whether you are good or evil. A Paladin who 'assaults, robs, murders, etc.' is committing evil acts and is not a Paladin at all. Anyone who plays paladins in this manner in any campaign I run would quickly suffer from an alignment change and find that their god has abandoned them.
I actually had a Paladin who, though not nearly as bad as the ones you describe, still had a tendency to follow a detect evil spell with an immediate beheading. So, one day he was payed a visit by several high level clerics and paladins of his religious order and arrested. He then went through a series of trials (the spiritual kind, not the judicial kind) that ultimately taught him the value of compassion and that a Paladin as a representative of a Good God upholds Good just as much, if not more, than the Law.
My favorite PC that I play (when someone else actually DM's :D ) is a half-elf Paladin. There are two concepts I try to explore with this character:
1. As a Paladin of a Neutral Good deity (Pelor) he is more concerned with upholding the greater Good than enforcing law and order. To emphasize this he carries a mace as his primary weapon instead of a sword. His lawful nature is expressed in a strict personal code which he understands is necessary to his calling, but isn't to be enforced or expected of others.
2. A Paladin, a class whose many powers are based on Charisma and Wisdom, should be both diplomatic and wise. A character who has high scores in CHA and WIS and who is also LG would be well liked and respected for their honesty and integrity.
I apologize for being long-winded but here's one more thought: Paladins are not cops. They are disciplined holy warriors who serve divine powers and the agenda of their particular deity (who is not always Lawful ;) ). Too many people play this class LN or even LE, using their 'good' alignment as a justification to engage in wholesale slaughter.
I have, in fact, played that paladin. Huge guy wearing peasant or beggar clothing. He had sacks for shoes and rags for clothing because he was too charitable and humble to do much else. It was a great character, I think. Heck, I would have liked the guy.
Same here. VoP Paladin who owned a waterskin, a white robe, a pair of grass sandals and a staff.
Divine Might, Divine Shield and plenty of charisma took care of the fighting needs. Going around giving all your wealth to the poor made for good roleplay.
A lot of people disagree with me here in some respect, thinking that every gnome is nothing more than a halfling who overdosed on crack and came out of the womb with TinkerToys.
I actually have a Gnomish rogue for a campaign that's about to start. After third level I plan on taking all Paladin until he dies or gets booted. He's going to have a +15 to Diplomacy at 2nd level, with only a 15 Charisma ^_^
Thanks for all these posts, they've really shed some light on how I should play this character.
Paladins don't have to be any more or less fun loving, quirky, smart, wise, austere, or anything else than any other characters. They just have to be lawful good, and follow a personal code of conduct (which doesn't separate them from a lot of other lawful good "heroic" characters).
One of the most important things about playing a paladin is ironing out what your DM thinks about them. If your DM doesn't like paladins, don't play one. D&D is about having fun, and it's no fun if you end up getting in arguments over disagreements about your ethos.
I picture paladins as heroes. Back in the day, it was a human-only class which was nice. It was a reason to play humans--a larger than life knight-in-shining-armor who was willing to die to drive back the hordes of darkness. When I play one, I always go for the "big" evil. While thwarting all evil is important, a paladin IS a rare resource for the forces of goodness, and most will be out driving back orc invasions or smiting evil necromancers bent on world domination, not chasing down pick-pockets or preaching.
I've always considered that the difference between paladins and clerics. Clerics are the ones who preach and convert. Paladins lead by action, not word. They radiate charisma and cause children to idolize them. I love to see other people appreciating the most maligned class in this game. I see so many posts and threads downing them, and I haven't been able to understand why.
Here's something I think Paladins are missing.
Wouldn't each Deity want some kind of outstanding hero for their religion? Shouldn't Corellon Larethian have Paladins of his own that fight the Evils of the Orcs and their god Gruumsh? Other than the faithful clerics of their religion, there isn't much being said in that kind of matter! I believe that a paladin shouldn't be confined to an alignment so much as it would be confined to a religion. Think about it. I mean even the most evil clerics are the most devout to their god, why wouldn't a follower of Hextor feel as potently drawn to the blade and a paladin of heironeous?
In all I'm just saying that a Paladin should be allowed to choose a religion to follow and his class should adjust accordingly just as clerics do. Seeing as though every other class has an opposite (being either more magically or physically inclined I mean) shouldn't the Paladin be the more Physical version of cleric anyway? I mean the Ranger is the physical version of Druid, and the Bard is the Magical Rogue. All in all I just think a paladin should be more religion based and not just based on being limited to one religion and Alignment.
Oddly enough I play in a campaign where all the gods have a chance at getting Paladins. But the guys who are CE don't get many and probably try to get them over to Blackguard as soon as possible. Part of becoming a Paladin involves each of the gods offering a gift, and answering one question and the Paladin chooses the god as the god chooses him or her.
It's just that the power mix associated with being a paladin starts with wanting to blindly follow the ideal of the deity. Lawful. Why it has to start out good is unclear, but the results are kind of entertaining, but the way the world laws work in this campaign. The Paladin is born through great need and sacrifice but that just makes them available. They have to hook up with a god to get the powers. And if the need/sacrifice/situation they're trying to resolve needs the "gift" of a chaotic evil deity, so be it. They bind themselves to the deity and pursue its ends because they're lawful, and they accept their inevitable corruption in the name of whatever greater good made them a Paladin in the first place.
Most Paladins in this world don't live very long. The lack of fear they get at level 3 proves a pretty major handicap in a world where Hubris is a major sin against the Gods. (They also have the problem that in choosing one god they rejected all the others, and some tend to take it personally.)
Heracles: "Follow me and I guess I'll make you strong and stuff, smash your enemies and whatever"
Aezilis: "Somehow I don't think it is very likely you'll be the choice"
Heracles: "I didn't want a chick paladin anyway"
Aezilis thinks, "tempting to take his offer just to **** him off...."
==============
Aezilis to Minerva (god of Wisdom): "My question is, 'Which deity would YOU choose if you were me?'"
Minerva: "The fact that you knew to ask that question means that you don't need me as your patron."
Most people play the "Knight in Shining Armor" style Paladin (Strength and Constitution build), roaming the land vanquishing evil with a longsword and no mercy. Personally I dislike this style of play since it is overused and treads the line of breaking the Paladins code of conduct. However, with the proper repercussions from both the DM and the PC's conscience this can be fine. However, if the merciless Paladin is allowed to behead every pickpocket they encounter with impudence then the game and the Paladin become unbalanced and just plain aggravating.
The second more common Paladin archetype is the "Oath of Poverty" style Paladin (Any build style). The tall handsome man wearing burlap and giving all his money to the church. I don't really have a problem with this style and have RPed one such character myself I find that many people forget the human side of their character and become boring characters. Also since Paladins are built as warriors this path tends to kill their overall effectiveness.
A very close third is the "Diplomat" style Paladin (Charisma and Wisdom build). The Paladin that tries to find the least violent means to ending evil. I find most players that I would consider "experienced" fall into this category. I like this style in theory, but I find even experienced players falling to the trap of being overly nonviolent.
There are several tweaks to these builds and of course oddities (like a Half-Orc Paladin with 3 intelligence...) but 99% of Paladins fall into one of the three categories, for good or bad. Personally I find that my favorite style, and the one that gets the best reaction from other players and DMs is a mix of all three:
1. The Paladin must be a shining example of good and therefore must employ mercy and diplomacy in their dealings.
2. The Paladin must respect life, seeking to redeem instead of slaughter.
3. The Paladin must also know when force is necessary, and use it appropriately
4. The Paladin must not seek personal glory, fame and greed corrupt. Tithe regularly.
5. The Paladin must know his own limits; you can accomplish more in life than you can as a martyr.
6. The Paladin must be willing to lay down his life for his ideals, but not suicidal.
Most of all, the Paladin must be human.
On the flip side I really enjoy playing characters with severe flaws. A Paladin who struggles with being heavy handed in his dealings and who finds himself falling in and out of grace can be very fun to play if played properly, however before you do this have a discussion with your DM. He or she may not want the complication of constantly having to deal with your character's interpersonal struggles and their ramifications on the game.
And for everyone who hates Paladins, read the BoED and play one, you might actually enjoy it. Beside Paladins aren't any more stereotyped than crusty old, know-it-all wizards, or smashy barbarians, or sneaking rogues creeping up behind you. The most rewarding role-playing is often the struggle to make a character that breaks or redefines a stereotype.
But after all this, is he the stereotypical paladin? He spends his weekends and free time helping the poor and needy regardless of their god. He is a colorful loving and flawed character. He doesn’t act with total reckless abandon but he is prone to. He hardly utilizes his mount. Although I may be a full-plate wearing shielded crusader of zealous glory. I wish although this may be the first image that people have come to mind it would not be a frowned upon build because it’s perfectly playable, enjoyable, and party friendly. The key thing I have found to escape the bland stereotype paladin is to find a supplement book or other source that will help you expand your build while also accentuation your flaws. One of the most useful books I have found is the Quintessential Paladin not the second one the first one that is a brilliantly written supplement that expands the uses of the stereotype flaws into actual working abilities
- Steve, Destroyer of Evil and Slayer of Yaun'Ti
1. Context- How is the evil act perpetrated? What are the options for response? In a city, where the pally gets pickpocketed, it will probably be against the law for the pally to detect evil and smite the heck out the miscreant. If the rogue is a lowly pickpocket with a case of the stupids, the paladin could and should be stripped of his rank, powers, and thrown in jail for killing such a small criminal. On the other hand if that rogue backstabs the pally then the paladin would probably be justified in using deadly force to protect him or others nearby.
2. Scope- Is this miscreant a young adult starving and stealing for food or is this a cold-hearted assassin who is attempting to snuff out the life of a servant of light. I have heard DM's in my 20+ year exposure to D+D stipulate that a Paladin must always use subdual attacks to knock out the evil doer unless it was something like a demon, undead, etc. If I am a 4th level paladin and a 1st level thief attempts to pickpocket me and then attack me when I stop him, I should probably use a subdual attack and then turn him over to the guards. Against a Blackguard, if we are both near death, I am not about to potentially fail and try to knock him out, I will kill him. If, on the other hand if the BBEG has some potential to be redeemed and he has just taken a pounding from spells or a massive critical and is very low on hps while I am hearty and hale, I would also choose to show mercy and subdue rather than just kill.
3. Criminal contact- On the one hand attempt to save criminals and show them a better way is laudable, heck isn't that what the Bible told us Jesus did... consort with prostitutes and other unsavory folk? (Ed note: I know, referring to the Bible in a D&D thread will probably mean I go to Hell). The other side of the coin a true Paladin would not have a network of snitches and skels for information. A chaotic-good city flavored Ranger maybe, Paladin no.
Just my two cents.
Holger Carlsen especially comes off as a guy who really isn't very sure about this whole champion of light business, and as a result tends to err on the side of mercy when he has the choice. (When he doesn't, out comes the holy avenger.) Nor did he wander the countryside, killing all the evil people. He even found some of them likeable in small doses (Morgan le Fay, Lord Alfric), but he NEVER let them lead him into something he knew was wrong.
Does anyone else have any sources?
Just like creating a Monk with a chaotic personality (Chaotic lack of discipline being the problem in this case) wouldn't work very well, creating a Paladin who doesn't value honor, order, and Good isn't a good idea. Ask yourself this: If this character is not Lawful Good, why would he ever be called to become a paladin?
Start with the personality; then decide whether your character is better suited to being a Paladin, or simply a Good- or Lawful- aligned fighter or cleric (or, for that matter, a LE blackguard!). If the personality doesn't match LG, you're just asking for either a fallen paladin or very strained role-playing.
And speaking of paladins specifically designed to fall and take Blackguard levels: Just. Don't. If your character's development leads him down the path of evil, that's an entirely appropriate choice to make. But starting a character at LG at level 1 and predestining him towards Blackguard levels at level 10 really stunts the role-play early on; and the eventual turn to Blackguard really seems arbitrary and forced. I've never seen it done successfully; and I don't think I ever will. You don't know your character's whole story when you create him; and predetermining his reaction (turning to Evil) to circumstances you don't know yet is really not a great idea, RP-wise.
I know some people plan characters up to level 20, and that's fine. But in this case you really don't even have to worry about your character's development, stat-wise, because whether your paladin becomes a blackguard or not, he'll be about equally powerful, and can easily make use of the same feats. If you're set on making sure to optimize your character, it's easy enough to make out two sets of plans: One for a paladin that stays LG, and another who falls and eventually takes Blackguard levels. Easy enough.
I have no problem imagining or playing a paladin who has a network of informants on the street that keep him appraised of what the local thieves' guild is up to. In fact, that would be a most practical tactic to employ against the guild. The mistress of a local brothel, while not exactly a paragon of society, can be a powerful ally against the greater forces of evil, especially if the guild master's chief lieutenant shares her bed frequently and has a tendency to say too much when he's drunk. In this case, he's just like any cop in modern society. The code is not preached by having informants.
Similarly, obedience does not mean you cannot question authority. This is especially relevant when the paladin's orders force him into a moral conundrum. Do you ignore the plight of innocents because you have orders to return a holy relic to the general before a great battle, or do you stay and assist the good town folk? Of course any good paladin would render aid to those in need -- orders be damned. You go, Sturm! (Sturm wasn't a paladin, I know, but he should have been.)
One important element in playing a paladin as a PC is the role both the player and the DM both have in the formation of the paladin for the purposes of making the paladin and the game in general enjoyable. The player needs to have a genuine understanding of what the alignment “good” is. “Good” is not per se anti-evil. Good, when expressed in the most simplest of terms is the passive and active promotion of others at the expense of ones self.
“Good” expressed at the level of the paladin implies the reliance on a higher power or principle, and in the case of the player that means the DM. While it is the job of the DM to challenge the players, in a variety of ways, the DM needs to be generally supportive of the player of the paladin because in one sense that player relies more on the DM that the higher power and principle is indeed all the good that it is supposed to represent.
In the same manner role-playing takes place at a variety of levels, from the character to the party level. (In the real world, you can leave your friends – you can even leave your spouse – but in the game the characters of the players generally have to always be somewhat together because there is for the most part only one DM.) Parties with paladins tend to be mostly “good” aligned. Even without paladins in the mix, good and evil PCS are a recipe for long term potential game problems.
This idea of compatibility and reliance on a higher power or principle comes into play with any group of non evil characters, but it is most visible when a paladin is in the mixture. Likewise the paladin must always filter his or her pursuit with goodness and law (in that order) with humility. The arrogant paladin is the paladin that is on the path to blackguard.
Yes the paladin can wear well polished armor, ride his mighty horse and smite the legions of evil. At the same time, he should also be perfectly willing to walk into the leper colony or the plague village and change bedpans. The paladin always needs to be reminding people that it is not his power but the power of the higher power or principle that he represents.
By combining humility and cooperation with other players and the DM, it is possible to create a rewarding and fun to play paladin character.
I actually try very hard to play my paladin to the intended stereotype---I mean the stereotype that we should have of paladins, not the smite-on-sight one we actually have. I think that people who claim that paladins are "uninteresting" just don't have a handle on the class. It can be so varied, all while completely obeying the CoC.
Some nifty tricks for paladins:
The absolute best way to deal with a pickpocket is to grapple him, wrestle him down, and see how much money he stole. Then give him twice that, and send him on his way, with admonishment to rebuild his life. Note that my politics are heartily against this solution, but as an individual act, it is matchless in both mercy and efficacy.
Just remember this---the ends never justify the means for a paladin. No alignment change to evil was ever done purposely---a paladin knows that the road to Hell (as well as an alignment change and loss of powers) is paved with good intentions. What you're not allowed to do is pretty clear---check your PHB. The point is that a CG character can rationalize their way through an evil act if "it's for the greater good." Paladins cannot. Period. For those of you who cool enough to know philosophy, paladins are deontologists rather than utilitarians. For those of you, um, less cool, paladins abide by absolute moral principles of action rather than a general "greatest good for the greatest number" principle. The only reason this can work is because of the presence of the god they follow; see the next tip.
The next tip is a bit tricky, but it may be warranted depending on your style of play. Paladins have faith. Some DM's (including my own) may try to put your paladin in an impossible moral situation, in which any action they take is evil(see the Midnight Apocalypse Curse). If this happens, have your paladin pray. He or she follows a god, and as a representative of that god, is fully entitled to all help that god sees fit to provide. And that god will perform a small(for him, anyway) miracle long before he'd lose a devoted champion. If the paladin's life happens to be on the line, and the DM decides that there's some greater purpose in the paladin dying, then this is bad DM'ing---the DM has just issued an unspoken ultimatum: "Change that 'LG' on your character sheet to 'XE,' or your character dies."
The first tip was a specific application of this more general tip---a paladin will seek redemption before a violent solution to problems. Keep in mind, however, that some beings (most undead, notably, along with demons and such) are irredeemably evil. In other cases, there is simply not time to redeem foes before they accomplish great harm, such as a huge horde of orcs. Keep in mind that the paladin code prohibits killing innocents---redemption of evildoers is nice, but not at the risk of other innocents.
An interesting thing to note about this particular prohibition (the killing of innocents) is that the paladin's deity may or may not abide by this rule. This is not because the deity is a hypocrite---it is because there is such a thing as an afterlife (at least in D&D...the question of whether there really is one is left to you, reader), and the innocents that die by an act of the paladin's god are well-rewarded in the afterlife. The point is that paladins don't believe there is something inherently evil about death---death is a natural part of life. What they do believe is that they are in no way qualified to judge which life is worth more than another, while an omniscient deity, who foresees all the consequences of his actions, is so qualified. That's why paladins can feel justified in not killing one innocent to save many---they are abiding by the will of their god, and the responsibility is therefore on him. Truly, they should seek for every possible way to avert disaster, but if an answer that doesn't involve breaking the code doesn't show up, a paladin is perfectly justified in simply dropping to his knees, bowing his head, and praying. I cannot stress enough how important a paladin's god is---without him, it is impossible to live the paladin's CoC and have it make any sense at all.
Another important effect of the paladin's reliance on deity is that he feels no need to deal out justice. He will leave that to his god. All "punishments" a paladin deals out are motivated by one or both of these categories---defense of the weak, and your parents' kind of punishment---discipline with the goal of education. Actually, very little will fall under the latter reason---compassion and empathy will usually have far better effect in terms of redemption than smite evil. It was not Luke Skywalker's skill with a lightsaber that turned Darth Vader---it was his love for him that did it.
Party composition---most people play a paladin's aversion to having evil characters in their party as a sort of self-righteousness. Nothing could be further from the truth. More than any character, a paladin is humble. A paladin's aversion to having evil characters in his party stems from worry that he will aid people in performing evil acts, or be forced to condone those acts after the fact. A paladin will show nothing but kindness to the party rogue unless things get seriously out of hand. Note that I said "kindness," not "doormat-like behavior." You decide which is which.
Another thing to remember is that paladins will tolerate evil people, as evidenced by the fact that they won't go around killing evil people in the streets (indeed, even in the wilderness, as long as Joe Evil doesn't actually do anything). However, under no circumstances will they tolerate evil acts. Hence, just because I don't smite you because you're evil doesn't mean that I'll just sit there while you do the thing that's the reason you're evil.
I realize that this post perhaps took on a more serious tone than I intended, but I think it is nevertheless good advice for those who would take on the most difficult and soul-searching of classes. I can promise you that if you play a paladin correctly, it is very possible that PC's as well as NPC's will begin to see you as a role model. Paladins don't have a high Cha so they can smite and such---they have a high Cha because of their code of conduct.