I have a very detailed world, but that's not why my game is popular...

[The Crimson Binome]

Because they were playing Paladins.

One Paladin is a tragedy. A party of Paladins is a Pestilence.

What do you have against paladins?

 

[TwoSix]

What do you have against paladins?

The better question is, what DOESN'T [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] have against paladins?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Sometimes, I think people are just creating posts to hurt me, man.

Seriously, though. What's the deal? I've always had good experiences with paladins in my games. As a player, they help to carry the tanking and healing burden. As a DM, they help to keep the party on track instead of wandering off into random nonsense. What's not to like?

 

[aramis erak]

I find OTT gonzo unfun. Both as player and GM. Which is why I have decline the last 4 invites to be a player.

I can't even watch more than 4 episodes of Red Dwarf at a sitting. (or 1 of the recent seasons.)

 

[aramis erak]

I've often found there's a fine line between "awesome stuff" and "stupid sheet". The problem becomes when being able to do awesome stuff becomes the expectation, and then the party starts doing the stupid and thinks it's awesome stuff, and wondering why they're not allowed to do whatever.

Thinking on this some more...

The players owe it to the GM not to make the game unfun for the GM nor for the other players. Players can, in fact, have a great time in more constrained settings and styles of GMing, as, if not, I'd not have a steady group.

The OP's post comes across as a form of monte-haul entitlement more than actual good GMing. Which is fine for some, but for others will fall flat. I don't think it's as literal as the OP wrote it.

It's not even stupid substitution for awesome - it's unfettered "Say-Yes" mentality rearing it's gruesome and destructive head. "Creativity is enhanced by constraints" is a standard of educational psychology, and it's equally true in games - being creative within a framework is easier than outside it, and taken at face value, the OP is advocating no restraints.

A true, no-restraints game is prone to that misperception of stupid for awesome. Why? Because the GM doesn't say no to stupid.

Player: "I will myself to fly!"
Normal GM: "You fail Next"
Old School GM: "Roll 100 on a d20+Wis. On a 1, fall and hurt yourself."
Commedic Old School Killer GM: "You hover... you get Wis seconds across the crag, then fall in. Take 10d6 falling damage; save vs death for half"
Epically Monty Haul GM: "Roll 21+ on d20+Wis; if you succeed, add 1" psionic flight."
Epically Say Yes: "Ok."

If the OP really means "Set a difficulty they can reach for all the wacky stuff," that's very different than simply allowing it.

 

[Lanefan]

Seriously, though. What's the deal? I've always had good experiences with paladins in my games. As a player, they help to carry the tanking and healing burden. As a DM, they help to keep the party on track instead of wandering off into random nonsense. What's not to like?

In older-style games such as mine, Pallies are rather restrictive about the company they will keep - no Evils, and no long-term Chaotics. As most of my players (and me) like playing Chaotics - our long-term average alignment is probably CG - they'll feel very limited in their options if someon drops a Paladin into the group.

Further, playing Evils is allowed; and a Paladin and an Evil in the same party often leads, sooner or later, to the death of one by the other. There's ways around this, of course; the simplest of which is that the Pally is divinely directed to work with the party it finds itself in, but this gets stale after a while.

What I'm looking for and haven't found yet are solid Codes of Conduct for CG, LE and CE Paladins that can match what the Code of Chivalry gives for the usual LG types; so I can expand the class into other alignments.

Lan-"and they carry some real-world religious baggage with them as well, which isn't to everyone's taste"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Thinking on this some more...

The players owe it to the GM not to make the game unfun for the GM nor for the other players. Players can, in fact, have a great time in more constrained settings and styles of GMing, as, if not, I'd not have a steady group.

The OP's post comes across as a form of monte-haul entitlement more than actual good GMing. Which is fine for some, but for others will fall flat. I don't think it's as literal as the OP wrote it.

It's not even stupid substitution for awesome - it's unfettered "Say-Yes" mentality rearing it's gruesome and destructive head. "Creativity is enhanced by constraints" is a standard of educational psychology, and it's equally true in games - being creative within a framework is easier than outside it, and taken at face value, the OP is advocating no restraints.

A true, no-restraints game is prone to that misperception of stupid for awesome. Why? Because the GM doesn't say no to stupid.

Or smart, or anything else.

Player: "I will myself to fly!"

There is never in any situation anything wrong with a player declaring this or anything else as an attempted action for their PC.

Normal GM: "You fail Next"
Old School GM: "Roll 100 on a d20+Wis. On a 1, fall and hurt yourself."

And equally there is never in any situation anything wrong with something like either of these two responses to a clearly ridiculous or impossible action declaration.

If the OP really means "Set a difficulty they can reach for all the wacky stuff," that's very different than simply allowing it.

Even that carries risks, as if the roll succeeds you then have to find a way to narrate the wacky stuff into ongoing events and - worse - explain it and codify it so if the same thing comes up again it's resolved in the same manner.

Don't get me wrong, though: this stuff can be fun - but the old principle applies here too: if everything's wacky, nothing is.

Lanefan

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As most of my players (and me) like playing Chaotics - our long-term average alignment is probably CG - they'll feel very limited in their options if someon drops a Paladin into the group.

I guess that makes sense. Personally, I see 'chaos' as 'evil' by another name; someone who wants to play a 'chaotic good' renegade anti-hero is every bit as disruptive as someone wanting to play a 'lawful evil' honorable killer. If having a paladin means that everyone else is within one degree of LG, then that's less chance for significant party friction.

 

[Sadras]

What I'm looking for and haven't found yet are solid Codes of Conduct for CG, LE and CE Paladins that can match what the Code of Chivalry gives for the usual LG types; so I can expand the class into other alignments.

I have not looked at the them in a long while, but have you seen the Vampire the Masquerade and Vampire Dark Ages Paths?