Do paladins work in most games?

[jasper]

most of time no all of time I had problems with paladins in group have been with immature players.
ExHong- Dag Piratecat was seen flirting with my girl Wednesday in Biology. His paladin has offen the honor of my samurai assassin.
Piratecat- Diablo groin stomp me during football practice monday. He said it was accident. His hobbit fairy mage must be Evil.
Diablo - I hate this edition. So I going to disrtrub the game and make the DM cry again.
Jasper. Diablo insulted me in math class this morning.. I wonder how his thief will react when the mummy rots off his hands.

With mature players even with some nongood in the party can work around the paladin or role play their way around the sit rep.

 

[orangefruitbat]

There are lots of ways to make a paladin which fits in smoothly:

1) code of honour similar to a jedi instead of lawful stupid
2) a martyr complex - perhaps take a vow of poverty?
3) hear her god's voice inside her head ala Joan of Arc
4) a paladin who leads by example instead of bossing others around
5) an unwordly ascetic
6) a redeamer of others, for example Mu Bai in Croaching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
7) a paladin which stresses goodness over law, humility over pride, and mercy over judgment
8) an intellectual, who evaluates decisions with precidents, prayer, and the tenents of faith before acting.
9) a normal man, who is tempted by sin, makes mistakes and tries to remedy them
10) a champion focused on a greater threat (demons, undead, evil gods, etc), who can forgive his companions for minor foibles as long as they serve the greater good.
11) a leader of men, the best they have to offer. For example, Aragorn (yes, Strider is a ranger. But by ROTK, Aragorn is decidedly paladin-like).

In any case, read Sepulchre's Story hour to see how a paladin can coexist with an ecofanatical druid, a scurilous rogue, an insane power-hungry mage, and a whole assortment of demons, devils, and the occasional diety.

 

[Will]

This is one reason I actually like alignments. Assuming people pick alignments accurately and play them, it can give you a good heads-up on whether they'll mix well.

One thing I do in my games is the 'core alignment.' All PC alignments must be within one step of this alignment. I normally pick NG, so you can have LG (paladins), N, NG, and CG.

Two problems I often notice with paladins is that they are stereotypically paragons of virtue, so it's hard to find that middle ground of being a reasonable character. I mean, they specifically do not hang with evil characters, and have the ability to detect evil.

In one game I was in, the campaign almost melted down when the GM allowed a player to bring in a LE character, with the paladin's god telling him 'deal with this.' The paladin, and the party, wasn't happy. After a bout of flames, and then discussion, the player decided to be LN but followed a LE religion.

 

[kigmatzomat]

This is one reason I actually like alignments. Assuming people pick alignments accurately and play them, it can give you a good heads-up on whether they'll mix well.

Two problems I often notice with paladins is that they are stereotypically paragons of virtue, so it's hard to find that middle ground of being a reasonable character. I mean, they specifically do not hang with evil characters, and have the ability to detect evil.

The key phrase here is "willingly" group with evil. So a paladin on a quest into an evil land has little choice but to deal with evil. But just because they don't plan to be around the nasty piece of crud any longer than they have to doesn't mean they have to *say* it.

In the game I'm running now, a non-human NPC paladin finds himself constantly saving the evil rogue from death. His battle cry has almost become "(loud sigh) I'll save you, Burne."

In one game I was in, the campaign almost melted down when the GM allowed a player to bring in a LE character, with the paladin's god telling him 'deal with this.' The paladin, and the party, wasn't happy.

I did something like this with a variant of the "staff of the 7 parts" plotline. 9 alignment-based artifacts that need to be gathered and recombined. These items inflict serious damage to those of incompatible alignments, pretty much requiring the assistance of "undesirables in it for their own personal improvement." By the same token, the nasty ones needed the others as well.

There was a degree of paladin-manipulating, but it was done to virtually every PC at one point or another. There were few real problems over the 3 years the game ran, despite having 12+ players and all 9 alignments. I think the large group provided a buffer. Well, that and the fact the paladin wasn't a hardliner and the chaotic evil cleric of Lloth thought of most of the party as friends. There were several surreal moments where the Cleric and Paladin agreed.

Paladin: "This necromancer is disruptive, has been nothing but trouble, and is not vital to our mission."
Cleric: "I agree. I think we should get rid of him before he causes irrevocable damage. "
Paladin: "?!!?"
Cleric: "I'm the impulsive one and he lacks style. Plus he's an arrogant git and his god is a piker."

 

[Herremann the Wise]

There are lots of ways to make a paladin which fits in smoothly:

1) code of honour similar to a jedi instead of lawful stupid
2) a martyr complex - perhaps take a vow of poverty?
3) hear her god's voice inside her head ala Joan of Arc
4) a paladin who leads by example instead of bossing others around
5) an unwordly ascetic
6) a redeamer of others, for example Mu Bai in Croaching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
7) a paladin which stresses goodness over law, humility over pride, and mercy over judgment
8) an intellectual, who evaluates decisions with precidents, prayer, and the tenents of faith before acting.
9) a normal man, who is tempted by sin, makes mistakes and tries to remedy them
10) a champion focused on a greater threat (demons, undead, evil gods, etc), who can forgive his companions for minor foibles as long as they serve the greater good.
11) a leader of men, the best they have to offer. For example, Aragorn (yes, Strider is a ranger. But by ROTK, Aragorn is decidedly paladin-like).

In any case, read Sepulchre's Story hour to see how a paladin can coexist with an ecofanatical druid, a scurilous rogue, an insane power-hungry mage, and a whole assortment of demons, devils, and the occasional diety.

I have read through this entire thread and this is by far the best post!!!

If played as a dominating pompous arse, then of course the party is going to be at odds with him or her most of the time. Then it becomes fun to "pick on the paladin" as a side distraction that becomes more interesting than the actual game.

However, if people followed some of the above ideas when playing a Paladin, then a lot of the small issues would not become big issues unlike what seems to have happened in the original post. Just remember though that there are always going to be small issues when playing a Paladin. If the players can't deal with these smaller issues in game, then by all means, ban the Paladin class. However, by doing this you are missing out on the most Heroic of Heroes D&D has to offer.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've had no trouble playing a lawful good character. According to the Double Diamond saga, a paladin is even allowed to mock another paladin (by mimicking his voice).

However I can't get past the inability to lie.

A half-truth is the worst kind of lie. Deliberately omitting info is lying... to say otherwise is just semantics. Not answering questions lets your opponent know when you would like to lie, but won't... and if you refuse to answer any questions, you can always be tortured. Being a paladin does not make you immune to torture, mind-reading, or whatever.

I might consider playing a paladin if a more reasonable CoC were enforced.

 

[Aaron L]

Ever read the Wheel of Time? Aes Sedai are physically incapable of lieing, but they still manage to mislead people all the time.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Any character that is defined by something like this (ie - my character will never ever participate in something that could be reasonably expected to happen in a campaign) is crap, and will inevitably cause the campaign no end of trouble, while at the same time adding nothing whatsoever to the game.

If, on the other hand, the character is defined in a more relaxed manner (ie - my character will be extremely uneasy if he has to participate in X), then it can add to roleplaying immensely. If the druids player was willing to work through the problem, then they probably would have enjoyed themselves and enriched the character. As it was, they made a disruptive trait, then made no effort to make it work.

I've had a similar problem with a person who played a pacifist in my Shadowrun game - with the sheer amount of 'humane' pacification tactics available in Shadowrun, being a pacificist is only really a minor problem if you're willing to look for solutions. This particular person's response to scenarios that potentially involved violence was to quit the game.

No harm no fowl

I'm not entirely sure what your paladin is doing with chickens, but I guess it's not in the CoC...

Ever read the Wheel of Time? Aes Sedai are physically incapable of lieing, but they still manage to mislead people all the time.

Yeah, but they're not supposed to be paragons of good. And, as a result of their weaseling around their vow, they are widely distrusted by just about everyone.

My recommendation: If your group are unable to roleplay in a mature manner (meaning - a manner in which they can resolve matters without destroying a campaign), and they're not all heroic, gung-ho heroes, the CoC of the paladin should be relaxed or omitted.

 

[Negative Zero]

i don't think a paladin works in most games. there are a few things needed for it to work. first of all, the player must be an exceptional roleplayer. particularly, he has to expand the thinking of a paladin type beyond lawful-stupid. most people, heroes included do not always make the right choices.

equally important, is that the GM and the players must want a paladin in the game. if they both don't, the resulting tension will ruin the game. other players will feel that the paladin is ruining their fun, and the paladin's player will feel like he's constantly butting heads with everyone else.

without either of these, i don't see it working.

~NegZ

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yeah, but they're not supposed to be paragons of good. And, as a result of their weaseling around their vow, they are widely distrusted by just about everyone.

That's exactly what I mean. What's the point of putting "you can't lie" in the code if you can weasel your way around it the way Vulcans, Minbari or Aes Sedai do?

(I've read the first two books of Wheel of Time, which probably isn't saying much.)