Do paladins work in most games?

[doghead]

I like Paladins.

IMC, I separate alignment into Conduct and Sponsorship. A Sponsor is someone who gives you power, like a Cleric's God or a Cultist's Demon. Conduct is what you do -- it has no effect on your alignment descriptor, but it may tick off your Sponsor (if you have one).

In my current game, a Paladin has participated in a deal with a Night Hag to get information about an upcoming assault on a major city by Demons. The Night Hag wanted to make some further deals, to mutual profit, but the Paladin refused to participate.

To his God, he's done Good. He saved a city and did not give in to temptation.

I'm not going to screw with him for having not killed the Night Hag. However, she (and any other peaceful, [Evil] NPC) will continue to try to tempt him -- and the rest of the party -- into [Evil] actions.

-- N

I really like this. As a DM, I think you need to watch out for "the end justifies the means" moral laxness slipping into play. But otherwise, the Conduct and Sponsor thing makes alot of sense.

It doesn't help that many Paladin players, it seems, have no real idea of how to play them, aside from the unfortunate stereotypes of 'it's Evil - kill it!!' and 'it's against the Law/my religion/my honor - you, my friend, must now die!!'.

The class does seem to attract those happy with simplicities. Detect Evil. Its Evil. Kill it. Smite it. They haven't done it any favours.

So, if your character is created in a vacuum, you'll have problems. If the party of rangers, rogues and general Sneakiness is joined by the fighter in full plate, or the Bard League for Peaceful Negotiation is joined by the Barbarian, Gore the Slayer of Children, things will go wrong.

I hear that.

 

[Nightfall]

This is also why I want Player's Guide to Monks and Paladins. Hopefully some stuff to steer players to make better paladins. (Except Silas. Silas is my archtype at the moment.)

 

[Nifft]

I really like this. As a DM, I think you need to watch out for "the end justifies the means" moral laxness slipping into play. But otherwise, the Conduct and Sponsor thing makes alot of sense.

Doing a "morally neutral" thing for the sole good of others is just fine by my LG Sun God of Happy Paladins.

Doing a "morally evil" thing for the good of others is NOT fine.

Doing a "morally neutral" thing for personal gain is probably NOT fine.

Doing a "morally evil" thing for personal gain is downright evil.

-- N

 

[Crothian]

I've never had a problem with a paladin. I've had very strict paladin codes for people, but never any problems. We had some heated debates in character and some great role playing sessions, but it was always fun.

 

[ergeheilalt]

I play in a forgotten realms game with another paladin player. So far, we have a rather eclectic group.

Neutral Good Weapons Master
Lawful Good Paladin of Mystra (cohort wizard, we don't have an arcane caster)
Chaotic Neutral Fighter/Rogue (adventured with the paladin since the start)
Chaotic Good Rogue (archer)
Lawful Evil Tiefling Fighter/Rogue/Duelist/Vampire
Druid of Melikki

The paladin works fairly well. He thinks that the vampire (my character) wants to reform and become a good guy (which he does in some reguard). The Paladin routinely makes veiled threats and interfears anytime the vampire attempts to feed, but allows him dead corpses (which according to the vampire, are better than nothing). Ultimately, the issue will probably be resolved by giving the vamp a choice between death or a helm of opposite alignment.

There have not been a lot of fights (we've gamed for two and a half years together - we've gotten used to each other). We'd rather settle problems ooc than ruin friendships.

Erge

 

[Aaron L]

Never had any problems with any paladins in game, and we play a lot of paladins.

 

[Orius]

As a DM, my only real "problem" came from a Druid that decided she'd never enter a city. The campaign up to that point involved traveling to that city, and they would be there a couple weeks before setting out. When they arrived at the city, she refused to enter. There were some other difficulties, and she left the game that night.

This is the sort of thinking by players that cause problems in campaigns. Ok, many druids might be the type that would refuse to enter a city. However, that's a really bad personality trait for a player to give to a character, because unless the campaign takes place waaaayyyyy out in the sticks, or is in a very very very primitive setting, the party is likely to visit a city at somepoint in the campaign for any number of reasons. And when that visit comes up, there will be problems.

 

[pogre]

Oh, but Paladins are the DM's best friend! The plot hooks, man! The plot hooks!

 

[Nightfall]

Depends on how heavy you want to hang such a burden on one PC. Crothy,
you obviously have more morally definative people in your games, since most of my would frighten a few moral relativists.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think it really depends on the players and the party. A lot of people are only interested in killing things and taking their stuff they want to be able to do anything and not be bound my strict rules of conduct a paladin really won't fit into that group. Role play is often secondary to all of this.

I think the paladin in our party is a big mistake and it is not because we don't want to role play if he had made a paladin for our long running game before this it would have been fine. That party was more interested in being heroes and saving the world than gathering loot and tons of personal power we went on quests. The current party with most of the same players is very different most of the party is only interested in either getting powerful items or lots of personal power and I think this is the reason the paladin is just not working. The whole reason the player picked a paladin was to try and coax the party to be more good. It is not working.

Sometimes certain character concepts don't work in a particular game and trying to make it work often just creates friction. I have come to believe that just allowing any class and any alignment in can cause to much conflict and while some conflict can be fun to much just becomes to disruptive.

When I hear of tactics like tricking the paladin while you do something he would not like I just groan if the players are into role playing that should not work and the paladin should do something about it. The games where this works are usually role playing lite and so it works.

If the paladin is played well and the rst of the players work with the paladin it can be a very good game it can make you come up with different ways of doing things you can't always take the easy way out.