How to make a player stop being a paladin

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hmmm...oh, I don't know. I suspect there is some real problems with maturity here, somewhere. If the player is being a jerk, fine. Tell him not to be a jerk, but if he wants to play a Paladin, so what? It's a game, and trying to force people to play something they don't want to play to me seems just wrong. For example, I play Paladins all the time. I tend to make them different people, but as I explained in discussion once with my wife, in my campaign, the nature, requirments, and training of a paladin are going to combine to sort of screen out people who don't fit these set descriptors. Paladins as such, are always going to be very similar, for their calling, training, and so on precludes too much deviation from those requirements. If a person was radically different in temperment or values, well, they wouldn't be a Paladin. So, the bottom line is that Paladins are all going to be very similar in personality.

If a DM didn't like it, well, tough. Either let the person play a paladin, or don't play. I would resent a DM telling me not to play a paladin, and I don't expect that this person would appreciate being told such either. I know people who always play Rogues, or Druids, or Rangers. So what? People should be allowed to play whatever it is that they like.

And I have to say, as my friend Elder Basilisk said, be up front with the player. I can't believe all of the people that want to play all kinds of sereptitious mechanical antics to make the paladin suffer. That is just immature nonsense. If one wants to exclude all paladins from the campaign, fine. But be honest about it. Don't play stupid little baby-games. Such antics remind me of power-mad jealous 12-year old DM's. The exclusion of paladins, though, should be a campaign choice, not some mechanical intervention and fiat because the DM or other players just don't want another player to play a Paladin. That is just manipulative and petty.

For example, in some of my campaigns, there are lots of Paladins and righteous Clerics in the group. Rogues don't really fit in too well with such groups. If a player wants to play a Rogue, fine, but such a player needs to realise the risks and problems involved. Playing a type of Rogue that is oppositional with the Paladins and Clerics is just going to result in the Rogue being stretched on the rack, and executed, or such a character may simply be killed while out in the field. Either way, it isn't really aimed at any particular *player*--just a certain kind of character class, and a specific style of playing that character class. In such cases, all players are made fully aware of these realities before they roll up a character.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Basically cut and paste Sharks post here, since he said it better than I could.

 

[Turjan]

@Rhialto: Although I see your points, they should be dealt with in game, not by DM ruling. Points 1 and 2 should both take climactic ends. Either the Paladin should leave the party, or the party should leave him. This sounds harsh, but this would be the result of consequent role playing.

If all other players in the gaming group play games that include brutal acts and theft, there is simply no place for a paladin. Though Shark is right with what he's saying, it's nevertheless a legitimate path for the players to go down this road. But this means, on the other hand, that the player of the Paladin should look for a different gaming group, because he won't feel comfortable.

I'm not giving anyone any fault under these circumstances. You simply cannot please everyone. And this holds true even more for your 3rd point.

 

[Celebrim]

Hey, me and SHARK are on the same sides of a Paladin debate.

Seriously, this sounds like the DM's problem, not the players. Does the DM have a problem with people playing Rangers all the time? Wizards all the time? Rogues all the time? I've yet to be in a group were at least one player wasn't usually the same class in every campaign. Some people just like sticking with what they are comfortable/successful with. Some people identify a class strongly with thier fantasy self. Some players are admired by thier group for thier skills and resourcefulness as rouges/bards/wizards/clerics/whatever, and so continue to play them to recieve the respect of the group. So what. Identifying to some extent with the character you play is part of the fun - especially as a PC. Just because you like experimenting with alot of classes doesn't mean everyone should.

Obviously alot of people hate Paladins. I think Rhialto is on the right track as to what the real issues here are.

"This causes Paladins (in my experience) to have a problem with political/social adventures. They'd fight against Robin Hood simply because he's a thief and because the King is the Law."

And what do you think of Ivanhoe? It might take a while for an outlaw to win the respect of a Paladin, but it can be done. A Paladin is supposed to be very good judge of people and at judging good from evil in general.

My suggestion is go back and find some of the recent threads on being a Paladin and cut and paste out some of the various suggestions on how to play Paladins and how to make Paladins different from one another. Then suggest that you don't mind if he wants to play a Paladin, but you'd prefer that he use a little more imagination when creating the character.

OF COURSE, that is only fair if the other characters in the party are not card board cut outs themselves, and the campaign does actually have some depth beyond hack-and-slash, neither of which I'm truly convinced of at this point.

 

[Rhialto]

@Rhialto: Although I see your points, they should be dealt with in game, not by DM ruling. Points 1 and 2 should both take climactic ends. Either the Paladin should leave the party, or the party should leave him. This sounds harsh, but this would be the result of consequent role playing.

Or the party could try to stop acting like a bunch of goons and try to figure out creative ways to solve their problems that don't involve destroying towns. Just a thought...

If all other players in the gaming group play games that include brutal acts and theft, there is simply no place for a paladin. Though Shark is right with what he's saying, it's nevertheless a legitimate path for the players to go down this road. But this means, on the other hand, that the player of the Paladin should look for a different gaming group, because he won't feel comfortable.

I'm not giving anyone any fault under these circumstances. You simply cannot please everyone. And this holds true even more for your 3rd point.

Thing is Turjan, somehow, given what's written here, I'm somehow forming the idea of your classic party with a CG rogue who's a kleptomaniac, a LG cleric with the morals of Charles Whitman, your NG wizard who's a pyromaniac, and your LG fighter who's so vicious the Mafia would fire the guy. And presiding over it a DM who sees it as his duty to squash their characters like bugs. Now, I may be wrong here, I freely admit it, but that's just the impression that I'm getting. I've based this partially on the fact that when offered many solutions, the DM immediately goes for the most vicious, underhanded one, and then mentions "talking about it" as an afterthought. Unfair?--maybe, but you can tell a LOT about a man by the paths he takes...

 

[Turjan]

Hmm... I think you forgot the "CN" renegade drow dual-wielding Rgr/Ftr/Rog who's killing every shopkeeper and guiding old ladies over the street afterwards .

 

[Rhialto]

That's only if you get the DM's permission.

Anyway, he died last week...

 

[Turjan]

Okay, I admit, the part with the old ladies was an exaggeration .

 

[Endur]

Paladins and the 1e code

I agree with both sides.

First, D&D intends Paladins to be self-sufficient. i.e. high saving throws and resistances, similar to the Monk class. But they suffer in having reduced combat abilities compared to fighters or barbarians. Paladin is a balanced class. It is not an unbalanced class.

Second, imposing the 1e code is not a big deal. a 10% tithe of gold is pretty minor. It will add up over time, but think of how much influence you gain with the people by constantly contributing to charities and the church.

Even the 10 magic item limit is not a big deal.
armor: 1
shield: 1
weapons: 4
misc magic: 4
Gee, how many magic items does your Paladin need anyway?

armor, shield, longsword, boots of speed, girdle of giant strength, bracers of health, cloak of charisma

ok. That's 7 and that's all I need. If you have a friendly spell-caster who will cast Bull's Strength, Eagle's Splendor, and Endurance, you can switch those three items for other stuff.

As for the alignment restrictions, they make sense. If you are lawful good, you really don't want to adventure with a bunch of chaotics or evil characters. Its agonizing to feel obligated to defend some party member that is being prosecuted for crimes that the party member actually committed.

Tom

 

[Synicism]

I don't really think that a paladin has to be so easy to "mess with." I mean, when I think of a paladin I think of a warrior who acts as the sword of Law and Goodness.

For those of you who read David Eddings, I think of Sparhawk and the other knights. They could be right mean bastards at times. A paladin isn't a saint, and I don't think he loses his class abilities merely because he fails at a task. Trying to prevent evil and failing because you're overpowered or improperly equipped isn't an evil act.

That said, tell the problem player you simply want him to try playing something else for a change. You might suggest that ALL your players play something other than their "favorite" classes.