DM's and their Paladins

[The_Gunslinger658]

Hi-
Keep in mind, the Paladin is like an NCO or Officer, they gotta lead the way, be it by attitude or example.
Chesty Puller or Roy Gieger are great example of Paladins, Chesty Puller leading from the front and setting the example. Or Roy Gieger with his rough and tumble get it done attitude.


Scott

Guess I haven't had a Paladin in one of my campaigns in a while, though I've been a player in the same party as them.

I don't have any real problem coming up with a code of conduct and being flexible with it enough to allow the player a lot of latitude.

OTOH, for my next campaign, I will be requiring it to be a GROUP decision to allow someone to play a Paladin. Because every time I've had one in my game or been in the same group with one, they've come to dominate the group's behavior and goals. Everything gets warped around the Paladin.

 

[Chimera]

Keep in mind, the Paladin is like an NCO or Officer, they gotta lead the way, be it by attitude or example.
Chesty Puller or Roy Gieger are great example of Paladins, Chesty Puller leading from the front and setting the example. Or Roy Gieger with his rough and tumble get it done attitude.

That's why I make it a group decision, not one person's decision to make a group leader.

I have no idea who those people are that you name. "Chesty Puller" sounds like good porn name.

 

[maddman75]

All paladins come from a certain land - they are the holy knights of the god there. There's a lot of different orders who all have different codes.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I guess I don't understand the "Paladins must be human" part of the issue. The lifted that restriction in 3rd ed. for a reason: It was a pointless restriction on what makes a paladin. It gives the player no mechanical advantage to be, say, an elf paladin. And it gives the class no advantage to be strictly human. The only thing it does is limit the imagination of the player by insisting on enforcing a rule that makes no sense.

Alignment restrictions I can understand -- alignment is a central aspect of the character concept. But why race?

On the subject of Judge Dread vs. Harry C, I would consider Judge Dread to be strongly LN, not LG. Whereas Harry would be either Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, or potentially Neutral Evil, depending on how you characterize his actions. But in neither case would Lawful Good apply.

So, who is Lawful Good? Well, what about Shane (although I admit you could consider him CG or NG as well). Hm, who else? How about the father figures in "The Chosen" and "The Promise" by Chiam Potok. In terms of fantasy, Faramir is definitely LG. Elrond MAY be LG (though you could make a very strong case for NG). Alustriel from Forgotten Realms SHOULD be LG, even if she isn't.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Roland, of Gilead-that-was, the line of Eld.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Chesty was the nickname of Lt. Gen. Lewis B. Puller, U.S.M.C.

 

[Dark Jezter]

So, who is Lawful Good? Well, what about Shane (although I admit you could consider him CG or NG as well). Hm, who else? How about the father figures in "The Chosen" and "The Promise" by Chiam Potok. In terms of fantasy, Faramir is definitely LG. Elrond MAY be LG (though you could make a very strong case for NG). Alustriel from Forgotten Realms SHOULD be LG, even if she isn't.

Don't forget Superman. He's LG if ever I've seen it.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Let me add: Philosophers: Immanuel Kant (LG), G. W. F. Hegel (LG), Thomas Aquinas (LG), Socrates (LG), Cicero (LG or LN), John Locke (NG), John Stuart Mill (NG), Karl Marx (CG or NE, depending on how you read him), Friedrich Nietsche (CN or CE, depending on how you read him), Spinoza (N), Rousseau (CN), Voltaire (CG), Lenin (LE, though he was not REALLY a philosopher), Bertrand Russel (NG), Sartre (CG to CN, depending on how he's read)

So, anyway, you can see that, if you know these figures, the alignments are open to a number of different interpretations. I'll be thinking of more examples overnight.

 

[Galethorn]

0.) I use Grim Tales in favor of D&D, so a Strong/Dedicated Hero is the closest you get to a mechanically real Paladin.

1.) There are no 'lawful good holy warriors of good and/or lawful gods'.

2.) However, there are 'noble (as in 'not a peasant') warriors with high ideals, who fight for what they believe in'. These guys (knights, thanes, war-chiefs, etc., depending on the culture) are, basically, the closest you get to Paladins in my game, from a roleplaying standpoint.

3.) You don't get poked in the vital bits with the 'moral dilemma stick' every session just because you chose to play an honorable warrior, but there's a certain amount of 'honorable work' you're expected to do, if you're in some kind of order, or made some kind of pledge to your lord. So, you're just held to a higher standard (and more greatly renowned) for those itchy moral dilemmas.

4.) You get a squire if you're literally a knight, but they're only really good for doing those sorts of things that the other players wouldn't; cleaning your horse, carrying your sword (if it's too big to hang at the hip), giving minor advice, acting as a herald, menial labor ("Cromley, get me a danish!"), and the all-important 'ever-present mouth for the DM to give background information' ("Cromley chuckles, 'My lord, the Crafters are only honorable compared to the other guilds in this city! They'll hire thieves and assassins if they need them.'").

5.) Unless anybody else wants to, you have to be the party leader. If you want to be the party leader, and somebody else does, you've gotta roleplay the situation out in character, if only for my entertainment.

6.) The only thing you lose for breaking your code is high-standing in your order/with your liege-lord. If you break the code/pledge badly enough, you might get a price put on your head, but you'll more likely get your position/land taken away.

7.) I'll probably let you bend the rules a bit with the Action Points, but only if it helps the game, and doesn't cheese off the other players.

8.) You get high social standing, which has lots of benefits, though they don't affect combat in any real way that wouldn't benefit the other players as well; mostly, it means you get extra social rights, like getting to own land in some kingdoms, or being exempt from certain taxes and restrictions.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

Whenever someone runs a paladin, I talk to him about what sort of code he's going to follow. If he ruins his own code, I penalise him. Much easier that way - because paladins really can be played in many different ways.

I understand that my view of LG and a players is completely different. So, to maximise fun, he does what his LG describes. I make them impose their own limits