Quote from: estar;821994For me Elisabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion effectively teaches how an individual can be a classic D&D paladin and still be a human being and making rational choices.

I paraphrased this from the book.



I strongly recommend the book to anybody who wants inspiration to be play a paladin properly. As far as I am concerned it is the standard by which other treatment of D&D style paladin should be judge by.

http://www.amazon.com/Deed-Paksenarrion-Novel-Elizabeth-Moon/dp/0671721046/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298344549&sr=8-1

It is the basis on which I built my paladin for the Majestic Wilderlands.

I second this.  Just read this last year as a matter of fact.  Until then, I always used some of the knights from Excalibur as my inspiration.

Quote from: RPGPundit;821930That is to say, are they so completely hide-bound by their rules and alignment demands that they act irrationally?

Because it seems to me that this is what the critics of the class, and of D&D's alignment system, seem to believe is the "right" way to run a Paladin, and I really don't think that was either the intent or what the historical inspiration of the class demands.

I don't and most of the players in my group who play them don't. But I do think this is somewhat DM dependent. If the GM has an understanding of Lawful Good that demands Paladins behave stupidly or lose their abilities, then you'll probably end up with a bunch of stupid or dead paladins in the group. There is a lot of variation from group to group in how alignment is treated and how each individual alignment is interpreted.

My players know I take playing Paladins and Clerics fairly seriously. So when they wanna play one, we usually have a sit down so they can get a handle on how a concept they have might work within the constraints of a specific God and their religion. Since I don't play with Alignment - I emphasize that just because I'm not strictly using the Alignment-system that the precepts of their God's religion and various Orders within that religion are not in play. They absolutely are.

But the benefit is this lets the players explore that space honestly without having to worry about the rules, and just play. When they're get close to crossing the line... they'll know.

So - no.

I don't but that's because I generally don't run alignment as personality. Or paladins as clerics who can use swords. But if I did... Still probably not, but I'm not entirely sure what "Lawful Stupid" is supposed to mean. It sounds like "literalist and OCD", but any time critics give examples, it almost always turns out they are arguing in favor of Chaotic Evil paladins. And it always seems that it's the Good/Evil access they are misunderstanding the most, not Law/Chaos. " Why can't my paladin torture the captive?" "Why can't I behead these orcs who surrendered? They will eventually do something evil?"

Quote from: RPGPundit;821930That is to say, are they so completely hide-bound by their rules and alignment demands that they act irrationally?

Because it seems to me that this is what the critics of the class, and of D&D's alignment system, seem to believe is the "right" way to run a Paladin, and I really don't think that was either the intent or what the historical inspiration of the class demands.

What do you mean?
I am a critic of the alignment system, but not necessarily of the paladin class.
There are however several ways to play a paladin "correct" and some of these may easily be seen as downright idiotic by others, but that might not be the same kind of thing, as what you refer to as "act irrationally".
So, examples, please?

I play them like motivated devoted human beings.

In our current game, the NPC Paladin commander of the church fighters bequeathed to the PCs has protested several unscrupulous tactics by the players that she felt were selfish, evil or both. They seemed to originally dismiss her protests, but the cleric convinced them to listen to her council. Not without some complaining, of course.

She had lost her powers do to some unfortunate double-cross by a trusted fellow. She was hoping to atone for her sins. During the delve in the tunnels below Tashal, she became so enraged at The Horrors, she blindly kicked down a door to cleanse a room of the foul creatures. At that moment, her powers were returned to her.

I described the scene as her "glowing so bright you can not stare in her direction. Time stands still. The door evaporates before her, a visage of purity and courage, her charge into the room fills your heart with hope."

She has obviously garnered some respect from the PCs who now head her admonishments with some gravity. :-D

Kind of depends on what one means by irrational.

I've never run a Paladin. I've never GMed a Paladin. I'm not sure anyone in my D&D games ever rolled the requisite stats to be able to play a Paladin. (I know I never did.)

Elizabeth Moon's Paksenarrion was mentioned and that's a good example of a Paladin. Paladin's should be exemplars of their deity. That means that at some point in their career a situation will arise where the Paladin should act as an exemplar despite any personal risk. For a lot of players that is an irrational act. But I see that as the heart of being a Paladin. If you aren't willing to have your character step up and be a Paladin then run something with less stringent moral and ethical requirements.

One of the conceits of the Paladin class I *never* liked was that they were Lawful Good. That's why waaaay back in 1e they had a Dragon Magazine with Paladins of other alignments (A Plethora of Paladins I believe it was called) - it solidified my feelings that ALL Gods need to have their "crusaders" or such. It contributed greatly to my doubts about Alignment in general.

When a PC comes to me to play a Paladin it's important to set up expectations of what it means in terms of the God they worship. I've vetoed some choices simply based on the fact I don't think that God would even have a Paladin order, but those would be rare.

I think while I allow for a larger variety of leeway. I tend to be a lot harsher for breaking the social compact of the calling. It's important for me to know why the PC is a Paladin in the first place. That establishment is usually the most important thing that everything else springboards from. Without it - it's just another character paying lip-service to some faceless deity with cool powerz.

Current AD&D game has a Paladin; definitely not Lawful Stupid. The player is very thoughtful about any course of action they take, and judiciously uses Detect Evil whenever possible. If you *know* something is evil, it's pretty hard to just look the other way.

I have seen way too many instances of Lawful Asshole, though. That is more annoying than Stupid by far.

Quote from: tenbones;822033One of the conceits of the Paladin class I *never* liked was that they were Lawful Good. That's why waaaay back in 1e they had a Dragon Magazine with Paladins of other alignments (A Plethora of Paladins I believe it was called) - it solidified my feelings that ALL Gods need to have their "crusaders" or such. It contributed greatly to my doubts about Alignment in general.

One of my favorite AD&D characters was a LN Paladin (Lyan, I think?). I agree that gods need crusaders, but I the word paladin itself refers to the knights of Charlemagne, hence the LG slant.

Quote from: Brad;822036One of my favorite AD&D characters was a LN Paladin (Lyan, I think?). I agree that gods need crusaders, but I the word paladin itself refers to the knights of Charlemagne, hence the LG slant.

And the premier exemplar is Roland. Who is lawful, colossally stupid.

"Well men we can attack and fight to the death against the infidels or I can blow my horn and quickly summon the rest of the army back to aid us. Obviously there is only one thing a brave and honorable paladin can do. Charge!"

Quote from: tenbones;822033One of the conceits of the Paladin class I *never* liked was that they were Lawful Good.

This. A million billion times, THIS. As you and Bren said, I understand why they were designed that way, but I think the hobby has put more than enough distance between the original idea based on a romanticized historical view of paladin-as-righteous-warrior and the desire to play with those ideas and turn them on their heads today.

I've also never understood why the game seems to insist on having clerics and paladins as separate classes. Thematically (at least as I see them), they both serve the same function as crusading agents of divine will. The game would be far better served by simply axing one and rolling its important bits into the other.

Quote from: Brad;822035I have seen way too many instances of Lawful Asshole, though. That is more annoying than Stupid by far.

I've encountered my share of Lawful Assholes as well. Though to be fair, not all of them were paladins. Some of them were fighters who didn't roll good enough CHR to become paladins.

Bingo on the Charlemagne reference.

And yes - it was the Lyan! I loved that class!!!!!

But the expansiveness of D&D requires and I'd say demands, that you don't limit yourself to the narrow view of what a Paladin is based on his morality independent of the God/power they worship. That's what made the idea that only Lawful Good Gods have Paladins seem silly. Which is why the ANTI-Paladin arrived before the other alignment Paladins which until now have never been strictly "canon" (am I wrong here?)

I'm perfectly fine with a Paladin that's Lawful Asshole, if that's something that falls within the purview of their calling. I can't imagine that someone who is a Paladin of a relatively peaceful and orderly God would be an asshole without a good reason. If the player wants to do that but still uphold the tenets of their faith - more power to you. Don't expect people to like you for it though.

Again, this goes back to the GM's role in enforcing the social reaction of the PCs actions in-game. Not by some cosmic hammer under the clause of Alignment, except in the case of doing things outside the cause of ones God. A Paladin (and Cleric for that matter) IS by nature a class that should be taken a little bit seriously in campaigns by virtue of what they represent. Clerics especially so.

I should say this too - I don't wanna bash someone beliefs in the Lawful Good Paladin is a shit concept. It's a perfectly fine concept, but as with *any* alignment-sensitive class, it's something that should be discussed with the GM by the player to make sure they're on the same page in terms of expectations. In my games, playing an LG Paladin can sometimes be a tough road because of the natural moral ambiguity of my games. But I'm not as strict either about what is Lawful and what is Good. You don't have to be Captain Trueheart 24/7 - but you damn well better be down with your God's idea of what's expected. And if that falls squarely into LG Trueheart-goodygumdrops territory - I can't help you.

Well, in Rolemaster I always wanted to play a Paladin with the alignment "Capitalist Individualist" but "Communist Literalist" would also be fun.

When it comes to D&D I like to think of alignments as ideals rather than rigid mind sets.  It's a question of what the character strives for not what they must be no matter what.  Gods, on the other hand, tend to be very rigid and the act of playing a paladin is all about the conflict between the realities and metaphysics.