That 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 run mine like Arthurian knights by way of Sir James Knowles. So...no.
Quote from: RPGPundit;821930That is to say, are they so completely hide-bound by their rules and alignment demands that they act irrationally?
No. Their gods generally want them to succeed, after all.
Another no here. If the GM wants to play the "Guess What I'm Thinking!" Gotcha Game, there's plenty of other times to annoy people. As for a god who imbues a mortal warrior who adheres to Its spiritual tenets, what would be the point of sending them off half-assed & confused?
Alignment and faith is something so ingrained that it's not going to be an 'oops, I tripped! didn't even notice...' That there is a Player to PC divide in knowledge is a real challenge. The GM has to be ready to field Players asking for clarity on their PC's inner space (thoughts, morals, motives, etc.) as well as their PC's outer space (location, environment, NPCs, etc.).
It is not an easy class for either across the screen. But that challenge is part of the point. There has to be real dialogue and trust from both parties.
Someone who is strong in their faith need not be hidebound, because people are flawed. That said, the way the Paladin behaves depends on the code. A code of service means the Paladin serves. It doesn't mean he serves stupidly. So, no. Our Paladins are examplars of good people. They are not perfect.
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.
well i consider any character built around some ideal of honor an idiot by defualt but other then that no there not idiots
and i think your right about the critics
Definitely No.
If the player is playing really Lawful Neutral "The Law is the Law" and is obeying evil or unjust laws then ta-ta paladinhood. As a paladin I do though expect you to at least keep your word. If you accept someones honest surrender and then kill them then ta-ta paladinhood AND no EXP for it.
If the player is playing really a Chaotic Evil Assassin then also ta-ta paladinhood. I dont give a flying fuck if you interpreted Lawful Good to mean that you can burn down an orphanage to distract the evil kings guards.
This is why I explain to players before a campaign that XYZ is how I read alignments and I expect you to more or less play what you have selected.
I downplay alignment and unless a player has gone totally off their own rails then generally I do not enforce lock-step adherence to alignment. I give the players a fairly big circle to paint in and if they insist on crossing the line then to me that means they didnt intend to play the alignment in the first place (assuming this is not some sort of weird character development) and here we are going to clash.
I've always disliked the Lawful Stupid cliche. That's said the struggle to balance a strict moral code and religious beliefs with the nuances of the "real world" would be one of the big perks of playing a Paladin, IMO.
Since I use neither alignments nor anthropomorphic gods (as such) in my 5e setting, that would be an emphatic no.
More generally in regard to 5e: In the year 2015, in a game where classes are (ostensibly) balanced and (in theory) no class is mechanically better than another, I scorn the idea that certain classes must adhere to control-freak RP strictures while others don't have to. The fighter, wizard, and rogue can act as they please without mechanical consequences for their choices; I see no reason to hobble the paladin (or cleric, or warlock) with punitive "you lose your powers if X occurs" mechanical shackles.
(In-game/social/RP consequences for behavior are another matter. The paladin can run afoul of her knightly order just as the rogue can get on the bad side of the local Prince of Thieves.)
Given this, I have taken great pains to design a setting in which clerics, paladins, and warlocks have as much personal agency as members of other classes.
Nooo.... but then, I don't often play paladins, mainly due to GM trust issues. There's too many ways for conflicting assumptions to screw you over.
I wonder how much "...so completely hide-bound by their rules and alignment demands that they act irrationally" is a defense against bad/adversarial/gotcha GMing, so the player can point to something in the book as justification. Not saying it's a good defense, not one that doesn't fail in the end as well, but I think it might be an influence.
I never ever played (nor ran as a GM) a paladin, so I cannot answer... In any case, as a GM I will never require someone to play "lawful stupid".
Most recently, yes, the Paladin I'm playing is an idiot. But, not in the way that Pundit might have meant. The current Paladin that I'm playing is reckless and a poor tactician, and is likely to get herself killed if left to her own devices in a dungeon.
As to the point he was making, though, I completely agree. A Paladin should obviously be bound by their codes, but they shouldn't be irrationally so. And more to the point, they should be a character. They should have personality, highs and lows, things where they shine and flaws. They shouldn't just be "OK, I'm a Paladin, so that means I'm Lawful Stupid" and that's the end of it.
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.
For 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.
QuoteMost think being a holy warrior means gaining vast arcane powers, that they would be nearly invincible against any foe. But truth is that while Paladin are skilled at fighting, that was the least of their abilities. A quest might involve no fighting at all, or a battle against beings no steel could pierce.
Above all paladins show that courage is possible. It is easy enough to find reasons to give in to evil. War is ugly as many know. But we do not argue that war is better than peace; paladin are not that stupid. It is not peace when cruelty reigns, when stronger men steal from farmers and craftmen., when the child can be enslaved, or the old thrown out to starve, and no one lifts a hand. That is not peace: that is conquest and evil.
Paladins do not start quarrels in peaceful lands, never display their skills to earn applause. But we are the sword of good defending the helpless and teaching by our example that one person can dare greater force to break evil's grasp on the innocent. Sometimes that can be done without fighting, without killing, and that is best.
But some evil needs direct attack, and paladins must be able to do it, and lead others in battle. Wonder why paladins are so likable? It is important, we come to a town, perhaps, where nothing has gone right for a dozen years. Perhaps there is a temple there and sometimes there is not. The people are frightened, and they have lost trust in each other, in themselves. We may lead them into danger, some will be killed or wounded. Why should they trust us?
Because we are likable, and other people will follow us willingly. And that's why we are more likely to choose a popular adept as a candidate rather than the best fighters.
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.
There was a dragon article way back in the day about how lawful good didn't mean "awful good". So no, I don't play my paladins that way.
But I do play my current paladin like an idiot. Because he has an INT of 7. :)
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.
Some specifics
Paladin are divine champions of their deity in the Majestic Wilderlands. However while I have multiple deity there is a single supreme being, God or the One as he called in the mythology of the Wilderlands. The deities are nominally the One's representatives and their duties are instruct the mortal races.
However the demons revolted and in the ensuing war and some of the gods were badly effected and started advocating more "exterme" philosophies. For various reasons the deities withdrew physically from the Wilderlands and agreed to operate through faith and revelation rather than personally like they did before and during the demon wars.
The gods that remained faithful to the One's vision decided to anoint certain mortals as divine champions, these are the paladin. While each of these gods differ slightly in exactly how to achieve One's vision they all agreed what those goals are. So while there are Paladins of Mitra, Paladins of Veritas, etc they are all working toward the same goals.
And for each of them the core of what is to be a paladin is the willingness to serve their deity at all times. And while no mortal knows the exact rules that the deities set for themselves they seem to be relaxed for the paladins. Namely in the fact they receive regular revelations from their patron deity. The paladins has named this the Call and it lies at the heart at what they do.
It is the Call that causes some of the more irrational aspects of paladins in my campaign. Not because paladins act stupidly but because they are beholden to no one but their deity. While they respect authority and position, the Call takes precedence above everything else.
This annoys many of those in authority to no end. Not only paladins will answer their Call over simple obedience to authority, the very fact they are in area means that a paladin is needed. And that often means there is trouble, trouble that often causes those in authority headaches. And there is the annoying factor that it is most often an issue of pride. The deity don't have their paladins overthrow rulers, unless they are evil. However because of their Call the paladins are outside the normal social structure.
Which is why Paladin are high charisma individuals as opposed to the best fighters. Because a likable paladin is more likely to sooth over ruffled feathers, gather needed allies, etc.
And in the Majestic Wilderlands as far as paladins goes I don't use Moral Relativism. Paladins are there to what is right and good.
Now for some practical advice. What I do in play with a PC Paladin is establish the expectation that he will receive regular signs and portent as to what his quest is. The vague rules I have setup for the deities allow this on a regular basis but they are still limited in how direct they can be. The deities will not interfere with free will.
In my current campaign I have a Paladin of Veritas, the High Lord of Truth and Creation. The players has come to recognize that Veritas will not offer guidance to what he calls free will moments.
This campaign set against the backdrop of a Civil War in the territories of the City-State of the Invincible. However the paladin character is in the region because of an ancient evil dragon named Pan Calderaux is going to take advantage of the situation. And that is going to be healthy for anybody in the region.
The character gets regular signs and portent about Pan Calderaux mostly in direction to find clues that the players has to piece together to figure out the dragon's plot. However when it comes to anything involving the civil war, Veritas doesn't offer the Paladin guidance as it is considered a matter of free will between mortals.
The player tries to keep out of the civil war mess but he and the party are having trouble. They find one faction far more sympathetic than the other and keep helping people getting swept up in the chaos. Of course this means they find themselves opposing the other faction which means they have effectively picked a side in the war. And some of the other character hold stronger opinions on the rights and wrongs of the war and have managed to escalate the situation even further. In fact the party is dealing with the fallout of these players shooting and killing the High Sheriff of the area. And they not dealing with the lead on Pan Caulderaux that led them to the sheriff's town in the first place.
It is the referee's responsibility to create a framework around the paladin. The class is not like a fighter, thief, or magic-user where the character can bounces around from adventure to adventure doing whatever the hell they want. The RAW paladin is a agent of his deity or of a greater force first. And to bring that to life and to give the player some guidence the referee needs to do some work.
The same for classes like Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks. Classes that have a strong background as part of their elements. If the referee doesn't put the work then the average players will be left guessing.
This is not to say there are players who suck at playing paladins or any other class with a strong roleplaying element. I strongly encourage these players to play a fighter or another class that has more freedom in their actions.
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.
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?
:D
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.
Quote from: Batman;822404I 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.
The rules can't really force you. After all, the rules are like the Pirate's Code.
QuoteAnd thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner.
I think it displays a stupid kind of modern cynicism that people think of paladins that way. As though the notion of someone being that virtuous has to mean they're either corrupt, intractable, or just stupid.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822766I think it displays a stupid kind of modern cynicism that people think of paladins that way. As though the notion of someone being that virtuous has to mean they're either corrupt, intractable, or just stupid.
Or just a modern cynicism of religion.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822766I think it displays a stupid kind of modern cynicism that people think of paladins that way. As though the notion of someone being that virtuous has to mean they're either corrupt, intractable, or just stupid.
Blame cynical modern writers. Or even some of the non-cynical ones.
I was thinking earlier today about how 19th and early 20th century writers like Tennyson and T H White stuck somewhat to the idea that the Knights of the Round Table were intended to be models of virtue, even if few knights could maintain a virtuous path for long. Then we lesser writers and Hollywood getting obsessed with the love triangle because DRAMA, and the gritty reaiists, and the grimdark retellings. By now, everyone just sees knights as yet another loner action hero. They think Rambo and Rorschach are paladins, because they won't give an inch. Hey, uncompromising zeal is basically the same thing as chivalry, right?
Quote from: jeff37923;822769Or just a modern cynicism of religion.
I think it goes beyond religion, though certainly that can be a part of it. I think its the post-modernism problem rearing its ugly head again, where if there's nothing that's actually True, then anyone who stands for some kind of Truth is either a monster, a hypocrite, or a deluded idiot.
Just as to the baby-boomer relativist paradigm Authority implies Illegitimacy, any kind of actual convictions implies hypocrisy.