Why write another Paladin article? Yeah, there are probably as many people with opinions about the Paladin class as there are D&D players; and since, it seems, we're a quarrelsome lot, most of us have aired ours at one time or another. Still, the more opinions you have access to, the better and wiser your own become, just because there are so many other ideas with which to compare yours. I might as well add my own to the pile--you can take them or leave them!
So, what causes Paladin problems?
1. Too Much Powergaming
Powergaming makes sense; but sometimes it's taken too far. Sometimes, a player thinks too much about his character's power level to really think about much else; and that's when the problems start.
Let's say the Paladin commits a decidedly evil act. The RAW say that he loses his powers: So far, so good.
But say the Paladin commits an act that is on the borderline: Some of us would say it's evil; some would not. A player who wishes his PC to remain powerful would tend--consciously or subconsciously--to say that, no, he hasn't committed an evil act. If his DM disagrees, an argument ensues... and, presto: Paladin problems.
Solution:
Instead of worrying about power, worry about your character's story. Just don't play a Paladin if you know you won't like doing this--there are plenty of other classes, just as powerful and cool, and many with the same flavor.
2. Evil is Not Bad
No, really, it isn't--not from a role-playing perspective.
Why do we assume that the player of a Paladin who has his character commit an evil act has somehow failed to play well? Certainly, if the person had committed said evil act in real life, it would be a bad thing; but what D&D is about is telling a story. When a Good character commits an evil act, and it makes sense from a role-playing perspective, then that evil act is not a bad thing.
It bears repeating that alignment is not a straitjacket. The character's actions and personality define his alignment--not the other way around. If your PC's personality and actions mean that he would commit an evil act, then have him do so. If you go against your paladin PC's personality and have him refrain from doing something he would have done--even if that something is evil--then you've just used your own reasoning, rather than your character's, to make his decisions. It's metagaming, and it won't make the game any more fun for anyone.
The loss of the Paladin's powers is not a bad thing. It's a role-playing opportunity, a challenge for the player and for the DM. It provides a wonderful, built-in plot hook. It means that you get to develop your character's story even further. It means that, instead of slowly turning your character into a collection of statistics built for power, he becomes a person as real as any fictional person can be. Real people struggle; real people make mistakes. So do realistic characters.
3. The Diabolic DM
I've heard this more than once: "A player in my game has decided to play a Paladin! Now, let's see, how can I make sure he falls..." Usually, it's followed by maniacal laughter of one sort or another.
This is one of the worst mistakes you can make when you DM for a Paladin.
D&D is not, primarily, a game where the DM and the players are pitted against each other. The DM is a storyteller, not the master of a gladiatorial arena. Though there will be competition, especially when it comes to the clash between the strategies of the PCs versus the monsters; but it's not the aim of the game.
Don't attempt to make sure your player's Paladin falls. Always give the player at least one way out--multiple ones, if possible. Don't try to put him into lose-lose situations or try to tempt him to do something evil; the world should not be out to destroy the Paladin character.
Sure, a paladin will make evil enemies; and those enemies could tempt him to do evil--in fact, they should. The DM, however, should not.
Solution:
Every Paladin should have a very powerful ally: His deity.
You're the DM: you're playing the Paladin's deity. If the Paladin wants a way out of a bad situation without falling, his deity should provide one. Not that it mightn't take sacrifice; not that it should always be easy; but it should be there. A good tactic is to allow the Paladin to pray or meditate (either a few words as a free action, or prolonged meditation) to gain some idea of what his deity's precepts would ask him to do in a particular situation. (Mention this when the player first submits his Paladin character to you, not after he does something evil--"Well, you should have prayed!" is not a good excuse when the player never thought of it, though his character would have.)
Don't punish a Paladin's player for attempting to have the character follow the Paladin's code. Do the opposite: Reward him. Confirm the PC's faith in his deity by having things "work out all right" when he steps out in faith and follows his Code. Remember: In D&D, the gods are real.
4. The Video Game Mentality
Some people just don't think too hard when they play D&D. That's fine, really; D&D is meant for relaxation as well as deep thought, and some prefer the one over the other. Of course, when that same person just comes at the problems presented by the DM as though they were the monsters in a video game... then there are problems.
Generally, in a video game, if it moves, it's either there to give you information or to kill you. There are a lot of very good, in-depth video games; but a computer can never be as flexible as a human mind, and can never offer as many options as we might think of.
Solution:
Hack-and-slash is fine for fighters; but it's not for Paladins. When you play a Paladin, remember that your character is thinking about everything he does in the context of his Code, his vows, his deity. You might not be thinking deeply about what your character does; but your character is. If you're a casual player, and you don't want to mix D&D and philosophy, don't play a Paladin--you simply won't have fun, especially not when your Paladin commits an evil act and you're no longer as "uber" as you were before.
5. Differing Moralities
Even if your D&D group is composed of people of the same race, culture, and religion, chances are that each one of you will have a unique opinion of morality. That's natural; we're human, and our opinions are as diverse as we ourselves are.
The problems come when people debate what "evil" is. The PHB definition is clear enough; but the "borderline" cases often aren't covered. That's when the different ideas we all have about what's right and wrong come into play: The player thinks what his PC did isn't evil; but the DM's own ideas of morality says it is. We often hold our opinions very dear--it's no wonder that these situations spawn arguments!
Solution:
It's best to agree on such things beforehand, by way of a written Paladin's Code that talks about the borderline cases. Make sure both player and DM agree that they can work with this Code.
6. Jumping the Gun on Alignment Change
Another thing that bears repeating is that one act only seldom changes alignment. Think back on your life and ask yourself whether you were more often changed completely and suddenly by a single act, or whether you came to understand new ideas and new ways of life gradually. Most of us can probably only point to one event, if that, which changed our personalities so dramatically that they were unrecognizable afterwards--what, in D&D, would be a sudden alignment change--but most of us will also affirm that we have changed during our lives, gradually but surely. That's the way most alignment changes should be made: The response to a trend in behavior rather than a single act.
Remember, also, that according to the PHB, the Paladin can commit small Chaotic acts, if he stays Lawful, and not lose his powers. It is only an Evil act which immediately turns the character into an ex-Paladin.
7. Honor and Duty
Many people forget about the Law angle of the Paladin; but it's almost as important as the Good part of things. No wonder people disagree about whether Chaotic acts are Evil or Good--often, they're neither. Not that the Paladin wouldn't abhor a Chaotic act; but still, most would rather do something dishonorable than something evil.
Solution:
When there is a difficulty in Paladin behavior, often times what we look at as Evil is actually Chaotic--contrary to the law, to discipline, to honor. Killing a helpless enemy, breaking a promise, or using guerilla tactics are strongly, moderately, and mildly chaotic respectively. Often times, a Paladin difficulty can be solved by looking at the "Honor" aspect of the Paladin's code--what looks at first to be Evil is often Chaotic, contrary to the Paladin's code but not immediately fatal to his class powers.
8. Experienced Players Only
The Paladin class is a heavily role-play-oriented class. It's not for everyone.
Players: If you're not the sort who gets into role-playing; or if you're inexperienced; or if you're not sure what D&D alignments are all about... don't play a Paladin.
DMs: If you or your players are new, if you're running a hack-and-slash campaign, or if you've got young, immature, or casual players... consider banning Paladins. Oh, I know it takes nerve to ban core material; but trust me--you'll have more problems from a player whose character you've just had to nerf, than you'll have if you ban one core class.
So you want a knightly character; and you don't want the problems associated with the Paladin class; or your DM has banned Paladins? No problem--try the Fighter, the Cleric, or one of the many Prestige Classes with the right flavor.
9. Hey--that's MY character!
In the most extreme cases, this problem is referred to as "railroading"; but it rears its head in more insidious guises as well. The character is the player's, not the DM's; yet, somehow, many DMs believe that they should be the ones to decide when a character's alignment changes.
That's true, to an extent, if the character's alignment has gone so far as to be obviously not what is written on the paper; but, in an ideal D&D game, the player is the one who knows his character best; and the player is the one who knows how best to change the alignment to fit his character.
You're the DM--you control the whole game! Let the player control his character, at least.
In an ideal D&D game (I know--it doesn't exist), the player should participate fully in the decision to have a Paladin lose his powers. It has a huge impact on character development, and, in the best case, the player and the DM should both know that, yes, it's time for the Paladin's deity to withdraw his favor.
This is why it takes mature players to play Paladins: Sometimes, you have to allow your character to become less powerful, for the story's sake. Even people who play Paladin-turned-Blackguards because they like a build that includes the Blackguard class have to go through a period of ex-Paladinhood.
Solution:
Let the player participate in the decision to have his Paladin fall, and you will have much less trouble. Warn the player before the PC commits an evil act--with things that have this much permanent impact on the game, you should sacrifice a little bit of suspension of disbelief in order to make sure everyone knows where they stand.
10. Define Your Terms!
Many Paladin problems could have been solved before they started. Is it evil to hurt one person in order to save many? Is it dishonorable to spring an ambush? These are the sorts of questions that should be answered beforehand--otherwise, they will cause problems.
Write your Paladin's Code down before you play the character. OK the code with the DM, to be sure it matches with the DM's world and his definition of the alignments. Then refer to it when your Paladin has to make a decision that's on the borderline.
The Paladin's player should talk to the DM about the ins and outs of Good and Evil in the game world, to be sure they understand each other. At the bottom of things, it's the DM who determines what the Paladin's deity thinks about his actions; so, unless there is a compromise, it's generally the DM's view of alignments that should be used when defining a Paladin's code. Later on, when there is a specific situation to resolve, defaulting to "the DM is always right" will be much more annoying to everyone involved; it's best to get these things resolved when the character is created.
The DM cannot control the character's actions; but he should be sure that the player understands the world the character will be living in--which includes the PC's deity's view of morality. The DM and player will not have the same opinion; but it is important to agree on which ideas will be the ones the PC's deity espouses.
The player and the DM should come to terms on things like these:
Is allowing evil (when you could easily prevent it) as bad as committing evil yourself? What if there's a choice between allowing a great evil or committing a small one?What do you do when you're forced to choose between two evils?What about hostage situations and other innocents that get in the middle of things?Are the young of evil species already evil? In our world, human babies are born "Neutral"; but are kobolds different? Young dragons? (I would suggest that anything with an alignment less extreme than "Always (alignment)" generally comes by the alignment through culture and genetic tendencies; anything with "Always" is born with that alignment. But that would be my own opinion, and many DMs have house-ruled differently.)To what extent do the ends justify the means? Do they, at all? (For example, is it all right to lie to protect an innocent? To kill? et ctera. I suggest here that, with a Paladin's Lawful bent, there will generally be very little allowance for unorthodox methods, though there may be some, especially with a NG deity.)11. Some Rules of Thumb for Paladins:
Paladins are not for newbies.If you wonder whether it's evil or dishonorable, it often is. Even if it isn't, people will look to you for an example; so be sure to act in an exemplary manner.Paladinhood is not about pushing the limits of "LG"; it's about becoming a strong representative of that alignment.Give the player a chance to retract his action: "That would be an evil act... are you sure you want to do that?" That way, you won't surprise a player with a sudden loss of powers.Before you play a Paladin, make sure no one else in the party is playing something that totally conflicts with your character. If someone else is going Evil, even secretly, there are usually problems.Talking works. Talk to your DM; talk to your players. Don't be confrontational; seek to understand the other's viewpoint.Losing Paladinhood is not irrevocable. Often times, the only thing that's needed is to make up for the evil you did, or to do penance in some form or other. An Atonement spell isn't too hard to get, either.DMs, don't try to "win" the game. Players, don't try to "beat" the DM.The DM is the one who determines what morality is like in his game. If he declares it's not an evil act to kill baby kobolds, then that's the way it is in his game, whether or not you agree with him (people are different: often, you won't). That doesn't mean your character has to agree; but your character doesn't control his deity or the world he lives in. Remember that.You've found yourself with a catch-22-- a lose-lose situation? First, look for a third option; they are often easily found with a little thought. Second, have the character pray for guidance; the DM will often give you a clue. Third, if all else fails, and you can't think of a way out, do what your character would do, then go to a cleric to receive atonement.There, that's what I know about Paladins. Feel free to add your own ideas to mine--I'm sure mine are nowhere near complete.
snip
2. Evil is Not Bad
No, really, it isn't--not from a role-playing perspective.
Why do we assume that the player of a Paladin who has his character commit an evil act has somehow failed to play well?
He or she hasn't necessarily played poorly at all. The Paladin HAS however, by committing an evil act set himself "outside of grace". He/she thus has "failed" to portray a Paladin in a manner that the RAW finds acceptable . He/she WILL loose their Paladial abilities until they atone; IF you follow the RAW. They are very clear and very absolute on this point.
Certainly, if the person had committed said evil act in real life, it would be a bad thing; but what D&D is about is telling a story. When a Good character commits an evil act, and it makes sense from a role-playing perspective, then that evil act is not a bad thing.
No. Here I disagree STRONGLY. An evil act IS still Evil from the role playing perspective. It might be something the player(s) involved feel was necessary, but it is still Evil.
It bears repeating that alignment is not a straitjacket.
While alignment is not a straight jacket, it has to have SOME meaning. Remember to that a Good person CAN commit evil actions and not instantly change alignment. The Paladin too does not change alignment because of a single evil action. He/she simply looses his/her Paladial abilities until he/she Atones.
The character's actions and personality define his alignment--not the other way around.
Not according to the RAW. The actions undertaken d3efine the alignment according to it. It unfortunately has to be this way for certain alignment important effects to operate.
If your PC's personality and actions mean that he would commit an evil act, then have him do so. If you go against your paladin PC's personality and have him refrain from doing something he would have done--even if that something is evil--then you've just used your own reasoning, rather than your character's, to make his decisions.
Not necessarily true at all. The Paladial Code clearly defines what sort of actions can not be undertaken. Since the person is a Paladin and bound by that code, it is THEIR reasoning that makes them refrain from committing said action.
snip
The loss of the Paladin's powers is not a bad thing. It's a role-playing opportunity, a challenge for the player and for the DM. It provides a wonderful, built-in plot hook. It means that you get to develop your character's story even further. It means that, instead of slowly turning your character into a collection of statistics built for power, he becomes a person as real as any fictional person can be. Real people struggle; real people make mistakes. So do realistic characters.
Here I agree with you completely.
snip
4. The Video Game Mentality
Some people just don't think too hard when they play D&D. That's fine, really; D&D is meant for relaxation as well as deep thought, and some prefer the one over the other. Of course, when that same person just comes at the problems presented by the DM as though they were the monsters in a video game... then there are problems.
Generally, in a video game, if it moves, it's either there to give you information or to kill you. There are a lot of very good, in-depth video games; but a computer can never be as flexible as a human mind, and can never offer as many options as we might think of.
Solution:
Hack-and-slash is fine for fighters; but it's not for Paladins.
Heck, it isn't even fine for Fighters who are LG. No more so than for a Paladin who is LG or a Rogue who is LG. When the alignments mean something they help to define what IS and is not acceptable. In D&D alignment is as real as the gods are.
When you play a Paladin, remember that your character is thinking about everything he does in the context of his Code, his vows, his deity. You might not be thinking deeply about what your character does; but your character is. If you're a casual player, and you don't want to mix D&D and philosophy, don't play a Paladin--you simply won't have fun, especially not when your Paladin commits an evil act and you're no longer as "uber" as you were before.
There's a fallacy here. It seems to be suggested here that Paladins are inherently more noble than other classes. There is no reason to enforce this opinion. A LG Cleric of a LG deity had bloody well better be every bit as concerned about his vows and his deity as the Paladin is, more so really, as the Cleric is a DIRECT servant and representative of the deity.
5. Differing Moralities
Even if your D&D group is composed of people of the same race, culture, and religion, chances are that each one of you will have a unique opinion of morality. That's natural; we're human, and our opinions are as diverse as we ourselves are.
The problems come when people debate what "evil" is. The PHB definition is clear enough; but the "borderline" cases often aren't covered. That's when the different ideas we all have about what's right and wrong come into play: The player thinks what his PC did isn't evil; but the DM's own ideas of morality says it is. We often hold our opinions very dear--it's no wonder that these situations spawn arguments!
The thing here is that you've completely forgotten Neutrality. Between Good and Evil lies the Neutral Action. If the Paladin, who strives to do Good by default, is constantly skating the line between Neutrality and Evil then he isn't portraying a Paladin very well. But since a single act can be all it takes, the best bet is simple. ONLY if the act absolutely falls into the RAW's definition of Evil is it enough to change the Paladin's alignment.
Otherwise the DM, in the form of the agents of the deity or purpose the Paladin serves, simply informs the Paladin that he is "imperiling his immortal soul" or some such in a dream or the like. It is difficult enough to play a Paladin without the DM making it Hellishly difficult by being unfriendly in his interpretations.
snip
Solution:
When there is a difficulty in Paladin behavior, often times what we look at as Evil is actually Chaotic--contrary to the law, to discipline, to honor. Killing a helpless enemy, breaking a promise, or using guerilla tactics are strongly, moderately, and mildly chaotic respectively.
Here, with the portion I underlined, I'll disagree again. This is not Chaotic. This is border line evil. Life and it's sanctity are moral (and thus Good v Evil) concepts, not ethical (and thus Law V Chaos) concepts, as per the RAW. Too, depending on what you are talking about as "guerilla tactics" they might be Evil (poisoning a well) or border line evil as easily as they might be Chaotic.
8. Experienced Players Only
The Paladin class is a heavily role-play-oriented class. It's not for everyone.
Players: If you're not the sort who gets into role-playing; or if you're inexperienced; or if you're not sure what D&D alignments are all about... don't play a Paladin.
DMs: If you or your players are new, if you're running a hack-and-slash campaign, or if you've got young, immature, or casual players... consider banning Paladins. Oh, I know it takes nerve to ban core material; but trust me--you'll have more problems from a player whose character you've just had to nerf, than you'll have if you ban one core class.
So you want a knightly character; and you don't want the problems associated with the Paladin class; or your DM has banned Paladins? No problem--try the Fighter, the Cleric, or one of the many Prestige Classes with the right flavor.
Here again I couldn't agree more.
snip
Mine in blue.
Isshia
Why do we assume that the player of a Paladin who has his character commit an evil act has somehow failed to play well? Certainly, if the person had committed said evil act in real life, it would be a bad thing; but what D&D is about is telling a story. When a Good character commits an evil act, and it makes sense from a role-playing perspective, then that evil act is not a bad thing.
Exactly.
It bears repeating that alignment is not a straitjacket. The character's actions and personality define his alignment--not the other way around. If your PC's personality and actions mean that he would commit an evil act, then have him do so. If you go against your paladin PC's personality and have him refrain from doing something he would have done--even if that something is evil--then you've just used your own reasoning, rather than your character's, to make his decisions. It's metagaming, and it won't make the game any more fun for anyone.
Well, in fact, by RaW, alignment defines the manner of acting, not the other way around.
Don't attempt to make sure your player's Paladin falls. Always give the player at least one way out--multiple ones, if possible. Don't try to put him into lose-lose situations or try to tempt him to do something evil; the world should not be out to destroy the Paladin character.
Sure, a paladin will make evil enemies; and those enemies could tempt him to do evil--in fact, they should. The DM, however, should not.
And some of those enemies are smarter then the GM could imagine, and it is quite hard to roleplay them up to whatever intelligence they may have. And a pit fiend is certain to find a way to put paladin into a situation of choosing the lesser evil. And then either offer blackguardom or slay the thing, or trap the soul, or something else as nasty when the paladin is powerless.
You're the DM: you're playing the Paladin's deity. If the Paladin wants a way out of a bad situation without falling, his deity should provide one. Not that it mightn't take sacrifice; not that it should always be easy; but it should be there. A good tactic is to allow the Paladin to pray or meditate (either a few words as a free action, or prolonged meditation) to gain some idea of what his deity's precepts would ask him to do in a particular situation. (Mention this when the player first submits his Paladin character to you, not after he does something evil--"Well, you should have prayed!" is not a good excuse when the player never thought of it, though his character would have.)
Not all paladins have a deity. Anyway, can clerics do this? What about other characters who happen to be devoted to their gods? What is the commune spell for, and other such magics?
Don't punish a Paladin's player for attempting to have the character follow the Paladin's code. Do the opposite: Reward him. Confirm the PC's faith in his deity by having things "work out all right" when he steps out in faith and follows his Code. Remember: In D&D, the gods are real.
Exactly. The gods are real. The evil as well as the good ones. Reality should not conform to paladins just because they are, in their own twisted way, paragons of good. The above could be applied to pit fiend blackguard and the code the devil has.
Solution: It's best to agree on such things beforehand, by way of a written Paladin's Code that talks about the borderline cases. Make sure both player and DM agree that they can work with this Code.
This one is very good advice.
Let the player participate in the decision to have his Paladin fall, and you will have much less trouble. Warn the player before the PC commits an evil act--with things that have this much permanent impact on the game, you should sacrifice a little bit of suspension of disbelief in order to make sure everyone knows where they stand.
Yup.
Many Paladin problems could have been solved before they started. Is it evil to hurt one person in order to save many? Is it dishonorable to spring an ambush? These are the sorts of questions that should be answered beforehand--otherwise, they will cause problems.
Good is not utilitarian-neutrality is. Good has principles it will hold to, especially LG.
Lose your powers. Otherwise, houserules have been made.
Generally, no allowance from the paladin. Deity may not agree. But probably will.
Unless the gaming group is established and mature.
I suppose clarification is in order when I say that "Evil is not bad". I mean that having your character commit an evil act isn't necessarily bad for the story you're building, or bad for the game. To the character and to the people in the game world, of course it's a bad thing for a character to commit an evil act, whether he's a Paladin or not. However, having your Good character commit an Evil act does not necessarily make you a bad player. If the story demands it, then it makes you a very good role-player, because you've just decided that the story matters more to you than keeping your character powerful (i.e., having a paladin keep his powers) at the expense of turning him into something less interesting than what he could otherwise have been. In other words: It's an evil act, but it can be very good role-playing.
Re. Alignment and Personality:
I suppose they define each other, if it comes down to chicken-and-egg dilemmas. Still, I am advocating that the player should base RP of the character on the character's personality rather than his alignment, because the alignment isn't precise enough to define an individual character--there are only nine alignments, but there are many more different personalities a character can have. When alignment changes, it should be because the character's overall personality has changed, simultaneously taking the alignment along with it. Personality determines both alignment and actions; so, of course, all three things should match up when it comes to any given character. Personality, however, is more detailed and more fundamental, and thus easier to use to determine both actions and alignment. Alignment is a stat that gives you a little information; but personality is the whole story.
Re. Guerilla warfare:
Nope, poisoning wells is definitely evil, as it hurts innocent people. I'm talking about the sort of thing that happens when you have a small force attempting to fight a large one: Ambushes, hit-and-run fights, traps, et cetera.
I think the big point, really, is to look at both parts of the alignment spectrum, not just Good/Evil or Law/Chaos. Sometimes applying one axis is simply more useful than applying the other.
Re. Alignment and Personality:
I suppose they define each other, if it comes down to chicken-and-egg dilemmas. Still, I am advocating that the player should base RP of the character on the character's personality rather than his alignment,
By RaW, in game, alignment defines actions. Out of game, actions determine alignment. Or at least they should.
there are only nine alignments,
and there are only two possibilities for being alive--either you are, or you are not, (undead is still not alive) but there is INFINITE diversity within that dichotomy.
Isshia
The answer is, it's different for PCs and NPCs, and it's all based on motivation.
For PCs, your actions determine your alignment. You declare yourself Lawful Neutral, because your character concept demands this. But as you go through the game-world, you don't constantly ask yourself "What would lawful neutrality do?" You ask, "What would my character do?" and the alignment follows naturally from that. A PC character (or a deep NPC, honestly) will have motivations and personality traits that should determine how it acts.
NPCs operate the other way around, in general -- primarily because they get much less "screen time", and they're not thought through as fully as a true PC. A DM creates an NPC badguy -- let's say this one happens to be Chaotic Evil. It's very likely that the DM will simply look at the sheet and ask, "What would a chaotic evil character do right now?" The character isn't deep enough to have its own motivations; alignment is all the motivation an evil creature needs to be evil. We don't want every evil lieutenant to have some emotional background and reasons for being evil -- that's a waste of time in most cases.
So, basically, the issue is whether your character is a flat, one-dimensional placeholder or a fully developed person. Flat characters are driven by their alignment; developed characters are driven by background and personality.
I suppose I shouldn't have said "PC vs NPC" before; it's just that MOST developed characters are PCs, and MOST flat characters are NPCs. In a hack-n-slash game, you're more likely to see alignment-driven PCs who have no real background or personality. In a deep immersion RP game, you're more likely to see NPCs that act because of beliefs. I'm just making generalizations right now, but this IS the difference, as far as I see it.
For PCs, your actions determine your alignment. You declare yourself Lawful Neutral, because your character concept demands this. But as you go through the game-world, you don't constantly ask yourself "What would lawful neutrality do?" You ask, "What would my character do?" and the alignment follows naturally from that. A PC character (or a deep NPC, honestly) will have motivations and personality traits that should determine how it acts.
As I said, in game, the alignment is what shapes actions. For every character there is. A lawful neutral character sees the world the way he does because he happens to be LN. Other things have an influence, of course. And the energy can fluctuate, the lawful presence can leave the character, in which case the character no longer is lawful neutral. This is from the perspective of gods, the game and all who know things. The out of character reason could have been a PC acting inappropriately for lawful alignment.
NPCs operate the other way around, in general -- primarily because they get much less "screen time", and they're not thought through as fully as a true PC. A DM creates an NPC badguy -- let's say this one happens to be Chaotic Evil. It's very likely that the DM will simply look at the sheet and ask, "What would a chaotic evil character do right now?" The character isn't deep enough to have its own motivations; alignment is all the motivation an evil creature needs to be evil. We don't want every evil lieutenant to have some emotional background and reasons for being evil -- that's a waste of time in most cases.
I disagree. But that is because I don't use alignments.
So, basically, the issue is whether your character is a flat, one-dimensional placeholder or a fully developed person. Flat characters are driven by their alignment; developed characters are driven by background and personality.
Pray tell me how can games without alignments work?
By RaW, in game, alignment defines actions.
No, no no no no no. Alignment NEVER defines anyone's actions.
Alignment is a thermometer, not a straightjacket. If you do evil things, your alignment changes to evil. You do not have to do evil things because of your alignment any more than the temperature has to change because the thermometer did.
Or take another example. Your plane did not arrive on time, so you say it is late. The plane did not pause in mid-air and wait just because you said it was late.
Same with Alignment. You act a certain way, and your alignment changes to match the way you act. The way you act does not change to match the alignment.
A lawful good Paladin could slaughter an entire village of babies, and the words "Lawful Good" on his character sheet couldn't stop him. He would likely shift alignments and lose his paladinhood, but it is still HIS CHOICE about what to do.
The minute you say "You can't do that, you're !", you've already lost the argument
Alignment is a thermometer, not a straightjacket. If you do evil things, your alignment changes to evil. You do not have to do evil things because of your alignment any more than the temperature has to change because the thermometer did.
True, but no from the world's point of view. Out of game, that is the reason. Should I say OOC, true, but IC, not true?
A lawful good Paladin could slaughter an entire village of babies, and the words "Lawful Good" on his character sheet couldn't stop him. He would likely shift alignments and lose his paladinhood, but it is still HIS CHOICE about what to do.
And the slaughter was because the good influence left, because an evil influence grew larger, or combination thereof. For example, the item that changes one's alignment.
The minute you say "You can't do that, you're !", you've already lost the argument
Never have I promoted that. Let me quote myself:
And the energy can fluctuate, the lawful presence can leave the character, in which case the character no longer is lawful neutral. This is from the perspective of gods, the game and all who know things. The out of character reason could have been a PC acting inappropriately for lawful alignment.
The minute you say "You can't do that, you're !", you've already lost the argument
I say these all the time:
"Change your alignment, its fun!"
"You did what? Welcome to Evil!"
"That was good... so are you!"
and
"What would you do if you were ? No, not your character, you."
That last one is best followed by "that's not what I would do if I were ." ... gets that experience vs description issue cleared up sometimes.
and Callista,
I like it1 - yeppers
2 - no argument at all
3 - aww! bu but but .. bwahahaha!
4 - I actually disagree here
5 - when in doubt democracy
6 - eh
7 - er :fork:
8 - disagree
9 - I wish
10 - YES! YES! YES! YES!
11 - one of those two bits makes me think of a system I have used with pleading paladins before:
The Countdown
That was one evil, that was two, three, four ... one more!
Combined with rigorous code definitions, and a little old school persuasion -
The Countdown has seen more than one paladin go Ur-Priest.
1. Too Much Powergaming
Powergaming makes sense; but sometimes it's taken too far. Sometimes, a player thinks too much about his character's power level to really think about much else; and that's when the problems start.
I agreed with most of her post.... makes good points but weak in others as highlighted by the counterpoints. It does get tiresome when I hear posters whine about power-gaming.
If a player has fun with it... uhh what's the problem? I mean it’s nice if there is a "Theme"... Awesome Holy Archer... expert Lance Master. If someone wants to play a Pal 5/ Gnome Giant Slayer 5/ Ninja 7... let them have at it so long as the Lawful Good alignment is upheld throughout. Granted the DM "should" make it a little challenging for that player vs simply saying "ok you meet the min. requirements" You can now PrC into Fist of Raziel... make it fun for the player! A quest makes it feel earned.
I've been playing paladins regularly since 1st edition. In my opinion, I would empower myself to take abilities to enhance my cause. I wouldn’t knock someone who played a "straight up" Paladin or any class for that matter. "To each his own" I say.
The issue about power gaming... why not? I mean... since I've been playing and DMing D&D 3.0/3.5, I haven’t seen many players choosing to play a fighter (I have only run NPC fighters) not select weapon related feats like Weapon Focus and Specialization... or Improved Critical... Close Combat Feats. EVERY class power games to some extent. Interesting I've never seen a Player running a Dwarf Fighter put all his ability score increases into CHA. Why don’t I ever see fighters be "more well rounded" and take Deft Hands... or Investigator? To be corny.. nothing wrong with being all u can be
If I recall Torm the Demi-God is a 20th level Paladin and 20th Level Fighter. Why didn’t he multi into Bard? Hmm call it pushing the envelope but perhaps by maxing out his fighter levels (non-Epic) he felt he could better serve his holy cause by improving his fighting skills. Go figure.
I have a saying I go by ever since I was a young teen playing Paladins. "I'm Lawful Good... not Lawful Stupid". If I'm playing a paladin with a group of adventurers and we see an overwhelming superior force approaching... I'm not going to simply charge headlong into the mist of them swinging. A Paladin (the kind I play) by virtue of his training is a master of tactics or aspires to be one... knows this would be suicide... EXTREMLY poor tactics... best to stay low with the group to find the best way to defeat the problem(s). What's to gain by exposing the group’s position and possibly decimated his fellow companions by a brave (foolish/unwise) stunt?
To take another angle of the above situation, if it means that I have to sacrifice myself in order to buy time for my fellow team members to escape, then so be it. I go down fighting. "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one"
I say Power Game as a Paladin if that's what you enjoy to improve your position and/or Deity in the game. Always “Paladin 1st” …. “PrC 2nd”. There is no such thing as an “Ex-Marine.” You moved on but at the core you’re still a Marine.
1. Too Much Powergaming
Powergaming makes sense; but sometimes it's taken too far. Sometimes, a player thinks too much about his character's power level to really think about much else; and that's when the problems start.
Let's say the Paladin commits a decidedly evil act. The RAW say that he loses his powers: So far, so good.
But say the Paladin commits an act that is on the borderline: Some of us would say it's evil; some would not. A player who wishes his PC to remain powerful would tend--consciously or subconsciously--to say that, no, he hasn't committed an evil act. If his DM disagrees, an argument ensues... and, presto: Paladin problems.
I don't see how you can call this power gaming. Would the player really have had their character commit an act which they considered to be evil in the first place? I often check with my DM whilst playing my Exalted Vow of Poverty Monk (lol... powergaming in a different sense) whether or not a course of action is evil. Then-again, the DM for that game classes anything that's not *really* evil (almost BoVD evil) as neutral.
Solution: Instead of worrying about power, worry about your character's story. Just don't play a Paladin if you know you won't like doing this--there are plenty of other classes, just as powerful and cool, and many with the same flavor.
Better solution: Tell the Paladins that you think the act they have proposed is an evil one before they do it. That way you can have the moral discussion beforehand and you can't really accuse the paladin of being overly defensive of his character abilities, because he can simply agree with you and change his course of action.