Do paladins work in most games?

[CrusaderX]

I've never had a problem with Paladins in our games. They're really not much different than many Lawful Good characters of any class. Though I do usually play in parties of mostly good-aligned characters to begin with.

Oh, and great list of examples, orangefruitbat. Especially the Aragorn comparison. If a party doesn't want an Aragorn-type character with them, then that's the party's fault, not the Paladin's. Such a character would usually be a great beneift to most parties.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.)

I think that judging "lying" by a mechanical set of rules is a bad bad idea.

I'd especially hate to be playing a paladin in your game, where a lie of omission, regardless of the degree of omission, the situation of the 'lie', or the target of the 'lie' are unlikely to be taken into consideration. That degree of constraint leads to totally unplayable paladins.

I think that the decision should be an organic one - done on a case by case basis. Outright lies should be the only ones which are strictly administered, but other lies for less-than-savoury purposes should also be proscribed. The paladin should feel that he can occasionally bend the truth when he absolutely needs to, but that too much would constitute a transgression.

 

[takyris]

I remember a scene in Fried Green Tomatoes (shut up, it's a good movie). Basically, a woman is on trial for killing a man who was a soulless heartless evil person and deserved it, and it was in self-defense (um, this was awhile ago, and I might not be remembering it right: just go with me). However, she's going to be convicted of murder, since this is awhile ago, back when women didn't get off for self-defense unless they were rich.

The town preacher comes in as a surprise witness. He uses his own book to swear on and says, "She was helping me with a church-related function that night, so she couldn't have killed him."

The woman stares in shock as all charges are dismissed. She says to her friend, "I can't believe he just lied under oath like that! He's the holiest man I've ever known!"

Her friend says. "He didn't. The book he's holding was Moby Dick."

The preacher comes by and says, "See you in church on Sunday," and the woman, who has never gone to that church in her life, becomes a lifelong faithful parishioner.

If I were a DM and a paladin PC tried something like this, I would have his god punish him with this level of discipline: "Mister Paladin, you did not lie under oath and betray your faith, but you did knowingly lie, and I cannot let that pass, even though you did it to stop a corrupt court system for punishing a woman whose only crime was defending herself from an evil man. You shall carry out an act of physical discipline to let the pain in your body remind you of your duty. Ready yourself in push-up position... now, give me... two. Two really good ones. Right. Let that be a lesson to you. I don't want to see you in here again."

I believe that in old 2e days, there were things like this for clerics who broke weapon-wielding rules in times of need. IE, cleric who pledged to only use blunt weapons uses a sword to stop the demon prince from destroying the world. Cleric's deity waits until after the fight and then delivers 1d4 damage to the cleric with a "don't let that happen again, coughcough". But if the cleric picks up an axe for a bar fight, when there is a club available as well, he gets immediately hit for a fair amount of damage (maybe 1d6/level) and loses all spellcasting abilities for a day.

It's a difference of degree and circumstance. A good player and a good DM can work it out.

 

[Vocenoctum]

That's why a paladin in a shades-of-grey world has to act differently. Going into full crusade mode in a world where you're seen as a dangerous extremist won't work. In such a world, paladins have to be more intelligent, and be able to take a long view of their actions. In such a world, major victories against evil will be very difficult to achieve. The paladin will have to go for smaller victories that add up after a while.

While I agree, this is another arguement that isn't really about paladins. If you're running a ranger that attacks his favored enemy on sight, in a campaign where that favored enemy isn't always a badguy, it's as much problem as Detect Evil, Smite Evil.

If your campaign is a shades of grey type of game, you can't have any player that attacks anything he sees as a threat, paladin or not. IMO ofcourse.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

The worst part, was we had discussed the course of the game. They were headed to teh city for a purpose, and would be there a few weeks. She said her druid didn't like cities, but a few weeks wouldn't matter. She wouldn't live in one long term though. I confirmed that the campaign wasn't going to stay there unless the group decided to do so themselves.

a month later, (online game, one session a week) the party is at the gates, and she refuses to enter. She won't set foot in the place, and says that she had told me she wouldn't set foot in a city. "Uh, actually, that's almost the opposite of what you said. I even have the log if you don't believe me"
She didn't care, even when I explained it was only temporary. She started up an arguement from another time (with quite a bit of cursing on her part), and I told her to leave.

It's one of those situations where I'd have been better off kicking her earlier, but just didn't want to deal with it.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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?

They can't tell a lie, and they can't do a chaotic or evil act.
If they omit some detail and the result is bad, then it's still a Code Violation. If they just don't volunteer information, then I don't have a problem with it.
It's not like they have to detail their entire life whenever someone says "how are you doing?"

I don't mind it being in the Code, though what I dislike is that too many people see the paladin as a mounted knight, and highly trained at that. It's part of the "Paladin as PrC" arguments, and I've always disagreed with it. A holy warrior would seem to be more born than trained IMO.

 

[Endur]

I think Paladins are playable. However, keep in mind that a Paladin is a very different role-playing character depending on the party he is in.

If the party is entirely lawful good, then the Paladin is just a supernatural fighter, but essentially no different from anyone else in the group.

If the party has a wide range of alignments, then the Paladin's role changes considerably. All of a sudden, he is the moral backbone of the group. It is his role to remind the other party members that they they are heroes on a Sacred Quest to Save God, King, and Country. Some Paladins do this by lecturing; some do it by acting by example; and so on.

But anytime a party has a range of alignments, there is going to be a certain amount of conflict (paladins are not necessary for party conflict).

I am starting to think that if I ever DMed I would not allow a paladin umless the party was made up either all lawful good or lawful neutral types and they all basically had the same goals for their characters.

I really think a lot of fun is being spoiled for everyone in the game including the player playing the paladin. I have had to ask myself why he chose to bring this character in with the party having several amoral types and a leader who at his best was lawful neutral at his worse lawful evil. I had doubts when it happend I even spoke to the DM and expressed them and it seems that my doubts are being fulfilled.

 

[Endur]

This is a good point to bring up. And this is really a GM problem. A game shouldn't be about "one player", even if that one player is playing the "chosen one." There should be room for every player.

Also, other players should not have to change thier characters to make them fit with what one other player wants to do.

Maybe all the players could have multiple characters, a neutral character and a good character and you could have a good party and a neutral party. Some days you would play neutral party, other days good party.

When I want to play a character, I want to influence party decision making, but its not my intention to control it. If your character is making too many decisions for the group, that raises a question as to why there is a group in the first place.

Also, other players shouldn't worry if they do something that will violate the Paladin's code of conduct. After all, they don't know whether or not the Paladin is going to lose his powers. It is the paladin's responsibility to make sure he avoids violating the code or pay the price of doing so.

I was talking to my roommate who also plays in the game about this and she had a good point since he became the pladain slowly the game has started to become all about him. He makes all the decisions makes oaths for the rest of the party everything we do has to be filtered through him because he worries about violating his code.

Maybe in the hands of a different player it would not be like this because he plays him with a rod up his hindside with no flexiabilty so in essences in a way we have become his henchmen.

Since he became the paladin my roommate changed her druid for a bard because she knew that there would be to many clashes and I have changed characters twice and I am seriously considering changing again.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

This is a good point to bring up. And this is really a GM problem. A game shouldn't be about "one player", even if that one player is playing the "chosen one." There should be room for every player.

Agreed the chosen one should be for one on one campaigning.

Just to throw out a unique outlook on something... I think we've all heard the line that goes something like this:

"Deties works in myterious ways...*

* Note: changed for D&D and not the real world.

Now why couldn't their paladins?

 

[Orius]

The worst part, was we had discussed the course of the game. They were headed to teh city for a purpose, and would be there a few weeks. She said her druid didn't like cities, but a few weeks wouldn't matter. She wouldn't live in one long term though. I confirmed that the campaign wasn't going to stay there unless the group decided to do so themselves.

a month later, (online game, one session a week) the party is at the gates, and she refuses to enter. She won't set foot in the place, and says that she had told me she wouldn't set foot in a city. "Uh, actually, that's almost the opposite of what you said. I even have the log if you don't believe me"
She didn't care, even when I explained it was only temporary. She started up an arguement from another time (with quite a bit of cursing on her part), and I told her to leave.

[rant]An online game? Ugh, that makes it even uglier. I know from very bad experience how insanely difficult it can be to get a stable group together, and how one player's quirks can trash a session, and encourage other players to leave.. A city-hating druid PC is bad enough when you're friends playing face to face. You got peer pressure to convince the player to be more reasonable, and if that fails, you can toss some dice. But online it's even worse, because the players don't really know each other, and really don't bond in the same way. Not to mention the frustratingly high turnover rate.[/rant]