How to make a player stop being a paladin

[Turjan]

At least paladins are always good for a discussion !

 

[Buttercup]

Yep, it's a good way of letting the player hate grow! After you do that, why don't you whizz on the sheets afterwards? It'll be good for role-playing!

My goodness, why so hostile? Feeling a bit under the weather?

My players like a variety of challenges. Presently, we have a player who can't be with us for a few months, so we're taking time out from the real campaign to play some shorter adventures. For the first one, I gave them characters I had made up. They liked it. I'm sure they would like this idea (of creating characters, then trading them with their co-players) also. Of course I'm not interested in alienating my players. I'm interested in giving them new fun challenges, and that's the light I took this idea in. Your response makes me think you've had some bad experiences at the gaming table. I'm sorry for that, but you probably shouldn't let it color your reactions to perfect strangers so strongly.

 

[Buttercup]

I see the problem with paladins not so much that they espouse a strong moral code, but that they actually live that moral code. To spout the teachings of a LG faith is easy. Actually living them is not so easy.

Good point.

 

[jgbrowning]

Flame on!

Well to quote the part of your post that you're glossing over...

Originally posted by Celebrim
It is the majority view that the defenders of morality are more immoral than the defenders of ammorality. It has become a easier thing to attack 'the establishment' than defend it, because the dissident expects to have the herd rush to defend him. Funny how the establishment has packaged your angst and sold it back to you. Sounds to me like the real reason you slam on paladins is because your are fanaticly chaotic, or at least like to think you are.

You've included me as a "defender of ammorality." (ie. from the latter part of your post.. moral relativism=ammoral) You've decided that i expect "to have the herd rush to defend" me. (Herd being a loaded term. By labeling any defenders of something as being part of the "herd" you're attempting to reduce the effectivness of that defense). You've said that i have had "the establishment" sell me my angst that you've ascribed to me. all of this is straw maning...

You've said that i'm fanatically chaotic, which is only funny.

Originally posted by Celebrim
And as for my specific accusations against you, I didn't just pull them out of the air. You own post contains them.

What does anti-establishment mean if not dissidence?

You associate Zealotry, a word rich in negative conatation, not with ideology in general, but with the particular (non-good) portion of the ideology of Paladinhood.

You then add the aside that the code of Paladinhood is particularly 'non-illuminating'.

You note that you believe Paladin are 'not free with possibilities', a phrase that richly describes what you clearly believe to be 'good' and which you assume does not extend to Paladins - which I find to be a debatable statement. Do you claim NOT to be an 'open minded free thinker'?

Anti-establishment means what it says.... it doesn't mean "prepackaged by the establishment" style of dissidence like you seem to believe. The fact that you think a particular hypocritical stance is "typical" says a lot about the stance your coming from. Just because you think typical anti-establishment means hypocritical doesn't mean that's a reality.

Paladins ARE not free with possibilites (ie. they, and druids and monks which i also mention, are limited by a code and/or morality) when compared to the other classes. Its not a debatable statement, they have to be a particular code/alignment, while other classes don't. Any class can have the same code a paladin has (excepting monks and druids) and not vice versa, so i dont see how you can think they're not "not free with possibilities" when compared in that manner.

The Paladin's code is "unilluminating" as described in the PHB. for a quick example.. compare the "average" paladin with SHARK's paladins. Unilluminating means that it needs to be clarified to prevent confusion, not that the concept of "lawful good" is an unillumination viewpoint of the world. That idea, the thought that i am somehow anti-lawful good is your interpretation. In RL, i'd classify myself as lawful good.

There is too much room for interpretation of something that is integral to the definition of the class. The paladin is defined as a single idea... that idea should be less open to intepretation for greater portablity from one gaming group to another. because breaking that idea, breaks the players chance to play the character.

Explain to me how my assumption that you are a moral relativist is unwarranted again?

Because you're ignoring the part, in ()'s of my post that also said i am a moral absolutist. Hrm... i guess that statement is also said by all the other "typical non-establishment gamer" types. Hrm?

Ahh... explain to me how my assumption that you think there is some enherent inferiority in having a 'western mindset' is unwarranted again?

i said i had an advantage that was only available by having a non-western mindset. if you want to put "there is some enherent inferiority in having a 'western mindset'" in my statement as well thats fine. I didn't say that, nor implied that. I'll now assume you'll say i did because you're associating me with a group of people who do, because i said "typical non-establishment" gamer. and those people do that (according to your defination)... Those people are also moral absolutists?

Look, the point is this. Sure, I mocked a certain mentality (which you may or may not have, but which I think there is good reason to think you have based on the fact you asked the reader to identify you with it) and I certainly did not fairly treat it as a valid way to view things, but no more so than you just mistreated the philophical beliefs of Paladins or people whose believes are thier real life equivalents.

WHOA NELLY!...... um where the **** in my post did i mock the philosophical beliefs of Paladin's or the people who believe "equivalently"?

I said it needed to be more limited. That it was unclear and leads to game difficulties that other classes, ('cept druids and monk, but to a much lesser state) dont have to deal with

Explain to me how my post is in any form-or-fashion remotely equal to:

Yes, I'm different just like everyone else.
I listen to alternative music...just like everyone else.
I a misanthrope...just like everyone else.
I hate the establishment...just like everyone else.
I'm a disident...just like everyone else.
I dis Western everything...just like everyone else.
See me excercise my open minded free thinking...just like everyone else.

Yeah yeah, I've heard this tired song before. Your smilies (among other things) betray the fact that you are part of the main stream herd and seeking its approval.

Um... it isn't. I didn't attempt to personally ridicule you... You may feel like I did, and for that im sorry, but nowhere in my post is a "Celebrim is a right wing Nazi loving monster!"

And you, once so attacked, quite predicatably responded by coiling up and disdainfully claiming your emotional and mental maturity over anyone who would dare mock that set of beliefs.

Just like i would tell a kid to stop calling another kid names.

I'm only suprised you didn't use the words 'shocked' and 'disappointed'. The fact of the matter is that I said very little about you that you didn't say about yourself, I just merely set it in a scoffing tone and that is what is really bothering you I think - or do you wish to deny that you are a moral realtivist who holds a non-western anti-establishment world view? Do you wish to retract that you are 'typical' and a 'outsider'? [/B]

well.... hrm... i'll stick with my "coiling up and distainfully claming maturity" sthick....

Or should i post like you did?....
I'll describe you this way then.....

=-=-=-=-=-=
[Start hyperbole]
Yes, I have a viewpoint that is morally superior. And just enough intelligence to make a post that hopefully people wont see though so i can keep pretending that my post was based on rationality, and not a conservitive mindset which is so fragile i lash out at any apparant provocation.

I'm not a misanthrope... i believe in behaving in a lawful good "godly" manner. And that includes publicly appearing like an insulting idiot.

I love the establishment... it allows me to feed like a pig at the trough while other people are forced into economic slavery to provide my pendoulous stomach.

I'm not a dissident... why should i fight a system that keeps me on top. i love hurting others for my benefit.

Western is the BEST! there isn't any culture that nearly as good. if there was, why does every other country want to be like us?

See me exercise my god-given rights! If you continue with your liberal insults and belittling i'll get my gun and shoot you! [end Hyperbole]
-=-=-=-=-=-=

See the difference between my style and yours? Do you want me to make a long list of the "reasons" behind my assumptions about you in the hopes that somehow, because i have a reason for thinking a particular way, that my insulting of you will be viewed as ok?

That's why I "coil up and disdainfully claim my emotional and mental maturity over anyone who would dare mock my set of beliefs."

you want to aplogize now? or should we continue?

joe b.

edit:I don't hate paladins nor you Celebrim, nor the mentalities behind the paladin, and unless your a child-killer or somthing the thoughts behind you Celebrim. I don't like people being abusive with me, even if they think they have a reason.

the last bit [hyperbole] is my attempt to show you that, by making assumptions about people, even if you think your right.. and then being abusive to them based upon your assumption is probably not the best way to act in a public forum. It makes you look like a jerk, hurts yourself and others, and damages the sense of community that EN world works hard at maintaining.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, I don't think that there is alot of point in continueing. As it stands, at its best I see the arguement degenerating into another familiar debate over the meaning of law and chaos.

I actually don't really see alot of difference between my style and yours, and in fact, you bit of hyperbole seems little different from the rest of the post save perhaps in that it is more frank. Frankness is a quality I admire greatly and more than I admire conforming to some social standard of behavior. Don't worry so much about being rude, and there is no need to state that you didn't personally attack me. I doubt I was even a blip on your radar at the time. And besides, you aren't going to wound me in any way.

I'm still not sure reading your last post what point you are trying to make about yourself, but I suppose our charactitures of each other will have to do for now.

I can defend any number of issues, and certainly didn't mean to gloss over any portion of my post. However, as I said to begin with, I don't see much point in continueing either. On the other hand, if you feel the need to continue to clarify, it won't bother me any. Perhaps we would reach the point we I'd feel the need to apologize, but frankly you still haven't said anything that makes me think I misunderstood you. Nor do I think that any misunderstanding (if there was one) was not reasonable given wording of your original post.

 

[jgbrowning]

I can defend any number of issues, and certainly didn't mean to gloss over any portion of my post. However, as I said to begin with, I don't see much point in continueing either. On the other hand, if you feel the need to continue to clarify, it won't bother me any. Perhaps we would reach the point we I'd feel the need to apologize, but frankly you still haven't said anything that makes me think I misunderstood you. Nor do I think that any misunderstanding (if there was one) was not reasonable given wording of your original post.

Nor do i. since you admire frankness though i'll add this:

i dont understand why i received such a post from you.. i understand that you may think i'm pretty antithetical to your beliefs/moral/reason, but i don't understand why you feel the need to so acerbic in your original post. i do tend to think that there's a difference between being honest and brutally honest. mostly its the brutality part that i don't think does anyone any good.

that was really the gist of my post, the other parts are tangents.

anyway, i'd like to apologize to you, though you may not see the need, i do. i honestly dont think those things i posted in my hyperbole section and i dont want you to think i do. a real conversation would have a completely different tone probably.

maybe we'll meet at a con one day? we can talk then *devilish grin*

joe b.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Two things I've really noticed....
Everyone likes to beat up on Paladins.
Nobody has made a comment about the fact that this guy likes to play Paladins, and he seems to be being punished for it.

I have a player who constantly plays a paladin. The whole party is basically sick of the same character over and over again.

As oppossed to everyone else, where one guy insists, every time, on playing the wizards, the other guy either the ranger or the druid, the third guy the rogue or the monk, ect ect ect.
God forbid he develope a favorite of his own.
What's the real problem here?

Second of all he is the only person in the party who tries to make his character unstopable. I need help.

Ya, I buy this problem. Tell me ONE PLAYER who doesn't try to make his character unstoppable. ALL players try to. It's called "surviving" and all of them want to do it.
This is really vague.
How about a real explanation.

His defence in this is that a paladin is the most self-sufficient character class in the game.

I know, let's go to his house and beat him to death with a copy of the OGL, where it says, in chapter 12, section VIIa2: "THOU SHALT NOT FORM AN OPIONION! The penalty shall be death!"

I skipped most of the threads, since they seemed to be the same stuff argueing about how paladins suck in thier opinion.
I want to know what the real problem was, or whether or not this was just a troll......

 

[mythago]

God forbid he develope a favorite of his own.

It is tedious when one person essentially plays the exact same PC over and over again.

That's a little different than the "screw the paladins" mentality, which I don't get.

 

[jdavis]

Man I didn't realize how touchy people were in their hate of Paladins, it's not like he was playing a halfling.

Is the problem that the player is always playing a Paladin or is the problem that the player is trying to play a unstopable character? Those are two different problems.

If the problem is that he is playing a Paladin, well just make sure he plays one correctly, as by this thread that is much harder than is seems. My last three characters were all elf rogues,(all had the same name even, for that matter the first two were both killed by Giant Spiders, the third one decided to avoid spiders at all cost) it's what I like, they are not cookie cutter characters, but they all have simularities. It has no negative effect on my group. If the guy likes Paladins then that is just what he likes.

If the problem is that you have a power player in a roleplaying group then that has nothing to do with his choice of a Paladin. If you play this game long enough you learn how to MIN/MAX any character class to it's optimum. But where is the fun of making a cookie cutter character everytime. Does he take the same feats everytime, does he use the same armor and weapons everytime? If he is following a formula to make the character a hack/slash machine, then I can see where a group who likes to role play every situation out would have a problem. If he doesn't fit in with the group dynamic then that is a out of game problem. We had a player leave our group because he said we talked too much and tried to figure things out rather than just fighting stuff, well he was right to leave and find a group more to his liking, we play the game the way we enjoy it. You can either ask him to find a new group or you can try to get him to change. As DM maybe you need to change things up a little, work the game toward what the group likes and see if he adapts to different situations, he might suprise you.

 

[Fenes 2]

Two things I've really noticed....
Everyone likes to beat up on Paladins.
Nobody has made a comment about the fact that this guy likes to play Paladins, and he seems to be being punished for it.

Ya, I buy this problem. Tell me ONE PLAYER who doesn't try to make his character unstoppable. ALL players try to. It's called "surviving" and all of them want to do it.
This is really vague.
How about a real explanation.

Hmm... I take care to include weaknesses in any PC I build. The very idea of building an "unstoppable PC" is abhorrent to me. As a DM, I take care to explain to any player but there is no such thing anyway - as a DM I can stop any PC anytime - and that I don't tolerate attempts to build one. I don't want such minmaxed "unstoppable" PCs because they often rise the bar too high for the other PCs, i.e. what has a slight chance to hurt the PC kills off the rest of the party as collateral damage.

As far as always playing the same PC goes... I seldom have that problem, since our campaigns last for years, and I don't kill off PCs. That means that after one campaign, most players will opt for a change for the next campaign. However, if a player has fun playing the same PC concept, and it does not detract from the group's fun, then I am all for it. I do not think it is my or anyone else's duty to force anyone to happiness.

And the idea of passing the PC to the right may work for a one shot or short campaign, but I would never go along with it for a longer campaign. If I am going to play a PC in such a campaign, then it will be a PC of my chosing.