Attention Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Druid and Other Players!

[Pentius]

Well then, I really hope this doesn't come across bitchy cause I don't mean it too but...then don't play a paladin.

I really don't see the problem/conflict here. "I want to be a paladin, but I want to be a paladin on my terms/without restrictions"...Well...No. Something people don't like to hear, but it really is that simple.

No worries. But as such, I didn't play a paladin. Not during my 1e years, not during my 3e years, not until 4e. Which is a shame, because it's one of my absolute favorite character archetypes.

When I say I don't want mechanical restrictions, I'm not saying I want to play a paladin like a lawless thug. I'm saying it's my character, it's my connection to the divine, its my code, and I don't want to lose it because the DM and I didn't see eye to eye on something. I'm saying I've never seen the mechanical restrictions, in play, actually force good roleplaying out of someone who wouldn't have done it otherwise. I've only seen people that were going to roleplay their paladin valorously anyway, and thus didn't really need the mechanical code, or that were only following the code begrudgingly, in order to get more power, and even if that makes them follow it, it doesn't produce satisfactory roleplay, imo.

Conversely, what I have seen the codes do, is allow situations where a player is doing what he is quite certain is the right thing and he falls, because he and his DM disagreed on the particulars of the alignment.

Neither having nor excluding fall mechanics stops dicks from being dicks, but I've only seen one of the two smack down decent players in the attempt. I'll take the other.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There was some mention that literature (old non-DnD literature) supports paladins losing their powers for not following their code. Where is that from?

Just using an internet source so all can see (reach for your salt shaker):

The site:
Timeless Myths

The sources used:
Bibliography: Arthurian Literature

It was only when the two left, that Lancelot was able to move and speak. Lancelot lamented that his sins prevented him from moving or speaking when he saw the incidence with Grail and the wounded knight. His sin was his adultery with Queen Guinevere.

When Lancelot came upon a priest in a small chapel, the priest told him the reason why he could not achieved this quest. Despite been the greatest knight before the arrival of his son, Sir Galahad, it was his adultery with Queen Guinevere that he would never understand the secrets of the Grail. It was the power of God that struck Lancelot dumb when the Grail appeared before him.

The only way for Lancelot regain pre-eminence as a great knight and to have any success in his quest, he must repent for his sins, and promise to never commit them again.

***

While Lancelot stayed with priest, repenting for his sins and praying to Jesus for forgiveness, Perceval met his aunt. His aunt warned him that for him to succeed in the quest, he must remain chaste and virgin. Not longer after leaving his aunt, Perceval nearly forgot her warning

While it isn't precisely what happens to a D&D Paladin, Lancelot is absolutely barred from progress/success in the Grail Quest after his sin of adultery with Guinevere. He is a servant of God who is being punished by being prevented from doing his duty. In other legends, his skill in battle- while still great as or greater than any other knight in Camelot- is still noticeably lessened after committing that sin. He still wins challenges, but he is diminished...and everyone notices (but doesn't know why).

In the story, Lancelot is essentially barred from doing anything until he fully repents. Directly implemented in game terms, that would be akin to retiring the PC for a while (maybe permanently) and play another PC, because everyone else is going on an adventure right now. Instead, they modeled it so that you lose your paladin benefits but still get to be a fighter until you Atone. You still get to play your PC- albeit diminished- while seeking redemption.

In the legend of Jeanne D'Arc, at one point after her capture, she threw herself out of a tower to fall 70'...but did not die. Suicide being a mortal sin, the mere attempt would probably be a violation of her vow with God. Arguably, this would be a reason why there was no divine intervention on her behalf to rescue her from burning at the stake. (Her surviving the fall could also be a sign that there was intervention enough to give her time to repent her sin.)

 

[Quickleaf]

When I say I don't want mechanical restrictions, I'm not saying I want to play a paladin like a lawless thug. I'm saying it's my character, it's my connection to the divine, its my code, and I don't want to lose it because the DM and I didn't see eye to eye on something. I'm saying I've never seen the mechanical restrictions, in play, actually force good roleplaying out of someone who wouldn't have done it otherwise. I've only seen people that were going to roleplay their paladin valorously anyway, and thus didn't really need the mechanical code, or that were only following the code begrudgingly, in order to get more power, and even if that makes them follow it, it doesn't produce satisfactory roleplay, imo.

Conversely, what I have seen the codes do, is allow situations where a player is doing what he is quite certain is the right thing and he falls, because he and his DM disagreed on the particulars of the alignment.

Neither having nor excluding fall mechanics stops dicks from being dicks, but I've only seen one of the two smack down decent players in the attempt. I'll take the other.

Thanks for invoking the Dick Rule

If a game has mechanical penalties for not following your class' code then it needs to somehow be flexible enough to account for two scenarios: the dick player (lawless thug paladin) and the dick DM (Your example above).

A great example was the thread about the paladin killing the rapist en flagrante delicto. He was defending an innocent, but he killed an unharmed man from behind in order to do it. The mechanical penalies would need to distinguish between this sort of situation - possibly conflicting elements within the code itself - and a situation where the paladin kills someone unprovoked for their magic sword.

 

[Lord Ipplepop]

With every edition I've played, my Paladins have always been 1ed versions of the class. Very strict codes of conduct with harsh penalties.
As for clerics, they are built to serve their deities and to forward their agendas. If they are not going to do their deity's bidding, then why would the deity permit them to have the benefits of spell casting and all of the other neat things clerics get?
With monks, they are the DnD equivalent of the Shaolin priests, who are required to keep their mind and body strong and in tune with the ethos. Without a strict adherence to a well defined code of conduct, this is not achieved.
Druids... Mother Nature is truly neutral: She doesn't play favorites, and she doesn't give second chances. If her ministers and her earthly companions are not willing to protect that which she has created, and is too busy trying to wrangle nature into what they wants and not what she wants... well... if mama ain't happy, then no one is happy.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think the problem is one of archetypes. Paladins have a pretty strong archetype - Knight of the Round Table, Age of Chivary and all that jazz. You get a very specific image of what a paladin is, just from that. So, the strictures make sense - after all, the Knights of the Round Table had the same sort of strictures, so why wouldn't the class based on that archetype not also have them?

Clerics, OTOH, never really had a good solid archetype. What, exactly, is a cleric? Is he a preacher? Is he a holy warrior? What? And, no strong archetypes really jump out for the class. ((Yes, I am aware of the Crusades underpinnings of the class, but, they aren't really all that strong - after all, since when were Knights limited to maces?)) So, because no one has a really strong image for what a cleric actually is, no one really worries too much about how the cleric acts. So, when your LG priest does something that's a bit dodgy, he gets the pass, because, well, it's not too bad, it's justifiable, and he doesn't have a code of conduct hard wired into his archetype.

Excellent observations.

I think it's the inconsistency that I have the biggest problem with. If clerics are as restricted as paladins, or if paladins are only as restricted as clerics, there isn't this asymmetrical archetyping. But having one class be be a one-size-fits-all chasis, and another class being a xerox copy of a few very specific figures just gets under my skin.

If you're referring to magic-users (mages/wizards, I mean) as the reality warping guys...then I would say a d4 Hit Points, no armor and hardly any useful weapon are quite the restrictions. Whether they offset to/balance against the extent of a paladinic code is up to debate, I suppose.

RP restrictions don't balance mechanical restrictions, IMO.

A Paladin is chosen by his god, with the specific duty of being that god's exemplar of physical might. He is the living embodiment of the divine's vengeful side. He or she may not even be willing to serve in that capacity (see Jeanne D'Arc).

To my way of thinking, a paladin isn't chosen any more than a cleric is. Arguably, this conflicts with D&D literature but honestly...I've never been all that concerned with D&D literature.

There was some mention that literature (old non-DnD literature) supports paladins losing their powers for not following their code. Where is that from?

My own experience with literature actually written back then is pretty limited. Mort d'Arthur and that's that. No special powers for most characters (Lancelot was super-human, but none of his powers "map" onto the paladin class) and even jerks like Mordred and Agravaine could be knights of the Round Table.

I have a degree in English, and I took a whole course on Arthurian legend, which focused mainly on Le Mort D'Arthur.

To be blunt, all of the knights were a-holes. Arthur and Lancelot included. They didn't care about protecting the innocent or the weak; they didn't care about justice or fair treatment. They liked Arthur because he led them in bloody victory and in loot, and they generally respected other Knights of the Round Table and noble [read: sexy and wealthy] ladies.

But our idea of chivalry and honor is grossly distorted from how it actually worked. Arthur's knights, Lancelot included, regularly attacked and killed peasants and outsider knights just for being in the way. Their creedo was basically 'Might makes right, so long as we thank God afterward.'

One particular story starts when Guinevere is kidnapped and taken to an enemy castle. In order to get in and rescue her, Lancelot decides to commandeer a horse-and-cart to hide in. When the owner of the cart objects to having his cart stolen, Lancelot simply kills the peasant with a slap of his mailed glove. (Apparently Lance was that strong.) And that's how Lancelot got the name 'Knight of the Cart.'

Arthur himself is far from noble, as we imagine him. You know how in the bible, the Pharoah tries to kill Moses before he grows up by having all male children murdered? Well, Arthur does just that when he hears the prophesy that his son will one day kill him. He has all of Britain's recent male babes drowned; obviously Modred escapes, much as Moses did.

Arthur and his knights rule Britain for many years, so by the end of the saga, they lose some of their vigor. But I don't remember any divine weakening that wasn't a direct result of exposure to the Grail, so I'm skeptical of the idea that Lance's indiscretions have anything to do with his fighting prowess.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To my way of thinking, a paladin isn't chosen any more than a cleric is.

Why not. The farmgirl Jeanne D'Arc had no desire to be a warrior- she thought herself mad before she realized that the voice in her head was God. Going back further, the young shepherd David was specifically chosen by God to lead the Israelites, not just as a ruler, but as a warrior.*

Anyone can volunteer- or even be volunteered- for joining the priesthood. Only a precious few people in legend actually have their god speak to them and give them a mission.




* hmmm...perhaps Paladin is actually a PrCl for Commoners?

 

[steeldragons]

RP restrictions don't balance mechanical restrictions, IMO.

Ok...we seem to be at an odds of perspective again....

In what way are hit points, allowed armor and weapons not mechanical restrictions?...and/or rather, more accurately....in what way are all of the aforementioned an "RP restriction"?

How do you not see one balancing out the other...But more importantly, WHAT?! Low HP, no armor and limited weapons are an "RP restriction"...please explain...cuz I plain, just don't gedddit.

???
--SD

 

[Lanefan]

I voted for the first two poll options as to me it varies by class. Monks, Paladins, Clerics to some particular deities - they're pretty restricted in alignment and if they stray there's gonna be trouble. Other classes e.g. most Clerics, Thieves, Assassins, Cavaliers I'm not so concerned about - yes they have some alignment limits but it's not the end of the world if they blow it now and then.

Say you're playing in a game with no RAW restrictions, like 4e D&D. You mention to your DM how you miss having actual restrictions, and he says "Normally I go by RAW, but because it'd make you happier, I'll put restrictions on your character. And impose appropriate penalties if your PC fails to follow those restrictions."

Is this a) a good solution, b) a tolerable compromise, or c) a possibly patronizing sham?

It's a good solution if applied evenly game-wide rather than just to one player's character(s). Otherwise it's kinda pointless.

See also: bards, warlocks, 'thieves cannot be LG,' 'rangers must be Good,' and others. One of my pet peeves is the haphazard way that D&D applies alignment restrictions. I don't see the point either.

Well, that's where you-as-DM need to pull out the kitbash tools and rethink said restrictions. I did, a long time ago, and came up with this (original limits in brackets where-if I remember them):

Rangers [must be G] can be any
Cavaliers [not sure] must have a good or lawful component
Bards [must have a N component] can be any
Monks [must be L] must be lawful
Thieves [cannot be LG] cannot be good (in play, this is slowly weakening)
Druids [must be N] can be any as determined by deity followed (they are "Nature Clerics" here)
Assassins [not sure, it varied] must be evil
Necromancers [new class] cannot be good
Paladins [must be LG] must be lawful good

Lan-"chaotic-something, depending on my mood"-efan

 

[Pentius]

Well, that's where you-as-DM need to pull out the kitbash tools and rethink said restrictions. I did, a long time ago

Well, as your poll found, a lot of us did pull out the kitbash tools, and ended up just cutting alignment out entirely.

 

[Hussar]

Why not. The farmgirl Jeanne D'Arc had no desire to be a warrior- she thought herself mad before she realized that the voice in her head was God. Going back further, the young shepherd David was specifically chosen by God to lead the Israelites, not just as a ruler, but as a warrior.*

Anyone can volunteer- or even be volunteered- for joining the priesthood. Only a precious few people in legend actually have their god speak to them and give them a mission.




* hmmm...perhaps Paladin is actually a PrCl for Commoners?

Depending on edition, a paladin does not have to be "called". 3e makes this explicit as a paladin doesn't even need to serve a specific diety. Even earlier editions are largely silent on the issue - some are called, some are trained into it.

By the same token, there's nothing saying that cleric's aren't called. The idea that you simply train into being a cleric the same as being a wizard, isn't really specified in the rules either. Clerics can be called, same as paladins.

IMO, I think both of them should be callings. If a given god is granting reality warping powers (Steeldragons, I was referring to clerics in my last post), capable of destroying mountains and bringing back the dead, I'd think you'd want someone who's actually got the divine seal of approval on his shoulder.