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

A thousand times this.

We had a GM that excessively loved playing Lawful Asshole Paladins GMPC's Mary Sue's. So when I got to run the next campaign, nobody wanted to touch a Paladin. So I made an helpful/rival Paladin NPC, based upon "The Tick".

One of my most memorable NPC's, it later turned out. He truly believed he needed to be the people's Hero, so he often times was an idiot, but a useful one.

(The PC's initially delighted in sending him off on hare-brained adventures, the worst of their rumor lot when in town; he kept coming back with good loot & stories!)

DnD 5e seems to have opened up the possibilities for a Paladin more Roleplay wise.
It doesn't feel so restricted like in the ADnD days.

Quote from: danskmacabre;822140DnD 5e seems to have opened up the possibilities for a Paladin more Roleplay wise.
It doesn't feel so restricted like in the ADnD days.

Yes. I have a CG paladin in the group I am DMing for.

As a DM I have only had a handful of paladins and as a player adventured with not much more than that. Most of those were at cons. James is the first 5e one I have gotten to DM for. Dev's been considering trying one if his Eldrich Knight falls.

I haven't played a Paladin, but I've been a player in a group with a Paladin and and been a GM for players who play Paladins including our current game. At no point has anyone ever been forced to play Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good or any variation of contrived restrictions, and the one Paladin that fell did it intentionally to become a Blackguard.

What we seem to do is avoid the stupid situations in the first place which often sound like the GM set a trap for the player to "test" their Paladin, like having an Orc surrender for no logical reason or stupid local laws that the Paladin is supposed to put over their own personal code of honor. In the rare occasion where we end up with something that is borderline that is about to happen, we halt the game and have a 30 second discussion with the group and then the GM makes a call on whether it would impact the player and then the player decides whether to proceed.

The one time someone else was a GM and said that the Paladin would be punished for something they couldn't know the group all agreed that wasn't fair, the GM understood, and we all moved on with our lives. A reasonable suspicion of evil when they can't magically know for sure would be silly to punish, although that seems to be a recurring theme of the examples of Lawful Stupid.

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.

Wait, human beings make rational choices?

In AD&D, Paladins were the most powerful class. The trade off was they were harder to play.

Now that they are neutered to be "equal" to the others, its not sensible for them to be harder to play anymore.

Of course, their flavor also fades.

Quote from: talysman;822014I 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?"

pretty much

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's funny, I never had paladins in my game follow a specific deity. The were Inspired by what was right and good, and had a strong sense of honor and fair dealings. LG seemed to be the right alignment for that.

I've discovered, however, that I have variant opinions on alignment, paladins, and the like. I've never had a problem with paladins sneaking into the enemy stronghold, or declining mercy to the diabolist who grows down his staff at the last.

yeah im not sure why deity paladins are so common either i would think a paladin would worship a bunch of deitys

Generally, no.

Now, occasionally, I'll have an idiot playing a paladin. Best example was a guy who never really "got" paladin-hood. "Is it ok for paladins to eat ogre-meat?", for example, and he was forever annoyed at the whole 10% tithing thing.

Finally, he got wounded severely, and needed healing. So he goes to the local druid, who lectures him on Neutrality, and tells him there's a healing pool he can use, provided he turns Neutral.

Paladin jumps on in for that healing!

He seeks Atonement, and is told that he is to report to Veos of the Temple, arch-priestess of Poseidon, a deeply Chaotic neutral god (and her husband is a Contemplative of the Far Realm, which is Chaotic with evil tendencies), and lecture them on the Code of Paladinhood (just the few lines from the AD&D PHB on the restrictions of being a paladin).

They grant an audience, because they seriously are Just That Chaotic that they figure it'll be amusing to get lectured on Law and Good by a paladin. The player's character shows up, and refuses to say a thing (he didn't want to memorize a paragraph of text). The Druids happily escort their new convert away, to the sound of royal laughter at the party's backs.

Anyway, years later, a new menace appears in the no-man's land north of the Chaotic country: The Druid-Paladin-Lich-King, riding a monstrous spider-baby hybrid (don't ask, it was another "thing" with the player). Players in a another campaign, set a century later, ended up raiding the DPLK's prized collection of masterwork grappling hooks.

Good times.

But no, I don't make my players play paladins as idiots.

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

Yes, because it is funny that way. My Paladins are also really annoying "Why are you questioning that goblin? It is evil!" followed by a slash. My Paladins often go on long walks, because people say they heard an orc or goblin nearby, while they interrogate a prisoner. They also try not to lie, which can be irritating, and try to always tell the truth, even when it is better to shut up.

They generally do not last long, though.

Quote from: RPGPundit;821930Because 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.

Probably not, but if you play a Paladin straight, then you very quickly get into moral ambiguity and Paladins do not suit moral ambiguity.

Quote from: soltakss;822285...if you play a Paladin straight, then you very quickly get into moral ambiguity and Paladins do not suit moral ambiguity.

Very true. Which SHOULD make for some interesting roleplay. Characters trying to maintain their humanity (for lack of a better word) in the face of overwhelming inhumanity (a la Rick Grimes) make for interesting folks. I think if you play that aspect of it, you'd have a kick ass character. If the GM wasn't too strict on funneling you down the LG road in every instance. Of course, saying one is LG and not acting it isn't a good thing, either. However, the "G" really shouldn't stand for "Stupid." Just hacking shit up without a care is a thoughtless way to play, with just about any character.

I think the biggest stumbling blocks to playing a paladin in conformity with his alignment are: 1) the Player himself is stupid, and often just showing off what a great role player he thinks he is by taking things too far and playing it TOO strict 2) a dumbass DM who intentionally places roadblocks out there to try and trip up the paladin just for laughs; note that this is different from actual drama caused by morally questionable situations for the betterment of the roleplaying experience.  The latter of which I can't adequately explain, but like obscenity I know it when I see it, and it is to be used most sparingly.  Like, once in a PC's life, if at all and 3) worst and most dangerous (and probably most common) of all, fellow party members who do evil things, unmindful of the paladin's moral strictures, like cast sleep spells on low level monsters and then slit their throats.  This too is a form of player meanness or stupidity.  If you're willing to do such things, unless there's a REALLY good narrative reason for you to be allied w/ a pally, you don't belong in a party with him.

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 normally don't play paladins nor do I encourage the class in games that I run, and a big part of that has been seeing the vast majority of Players treating the class as "Lawful Stupid" or Billy Graham in plate mail or a low tech version of Judge Dredd.

I never thought that made sense.

The paladin is my favorite class. I've played one in every edition of the game going back to AD&D. With that said, I've only played a Paladin stupid once or twice due to the beliefs and views of the DM on what he thought I should be doing. Most of the time, however, I act as though I know what is and is not righteous and because of that, only lost the powers once and the time I did it was because I felt my Paladin would be fine with torturing a demon for info 90 saving a girls life (one of those DM created road blocks specifically designed for me). And ultimately I was fine with the loss of power because we saved the girl in the end.

I will say, though, that I have always hated the LG-only requirements and have been so happy 3.5,  4th,  and now 5e has done away with them in the long run. If DMs want to enforce that in their campaigns,  that's A-OK with me but don't force every DM to that via official rules.