D&D 5E Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?

[SkidAce]

Its two sides of the same coin.

Seen plenty of lousy DMs use the excuse of the paladin's code to beat the player into playing his vision of right and wrong.

And...

Seen plenty of lousy players who want all the paladin benefits and and still want to get away with actually playing CN.


I think, the way you approach this debate is likely influenced (not determined) by which of the two you have run into the most.


My opinion...

 

[pemerton]

So if you have an archetype which depends on behavior, and then the player chooses not to emulate that behavior, what happens?

There is an expectation that if a player chooses an behavioral archetype, she will live up to that behavior.

I agree that there is such an expectation.

What happens if the player doesn't satisfy it? Good question, but I don't see how the GM unilaterally rewriting their character sheet is the best answer, or even a particularly good answer.

 

[Hussar]

Its two sides of the same coin.

Seen plenty of lousy DMs use the excuse of the paladin's code to beat the player into playing his vision of right and wrong.

And...

Seen plenty of lousy players who want all the paladin benefits and and still want to get away with actually playing CN.


I think, the way you approach this debate is likely influenced (not determined) by which of the two you have run into the most.


My opinion...

But, I think this gets to the heart of the issue. These are both sides of the same coin. Which makes paladins such a problematic class in the game. It just causes so many headache's at the table, that I think a lot of groups just eject them out of the game on principle.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I was referring to the bits where you say that you don't mind alignment rules, and that part of your reason for liking flexible paladins is that the D&D alignment framework doesn't make it feasible to proclaim LG as a uniquely superior alignment.

I completely agree with your reasoning here, but I push it the other way: because I want it to be viable for the player of the paladin to push the line that his/her god and outlook are uniquely superior, I prefer to drop the alignment framework which (if it is in place) makes that unfeasible.

Ah, gotcha. To be honest, I haven't missed alignment (actually mattering) as much as I thought I would in 2008.

In the past twenty years, I can count the number of paladins I've seen played on one hand. IME, virtually no one plays paladins because no one wants to deal with the hassle. In a traditional D&D game, you are basically handing the DM a character where the DM has giant claws embedded into your character which he or she can use to strip away your character at any time that the DM feels that you are not playing the character right.

*nod*

Traditional paladins are certainly a rare breed in actual play, IME as well. Even in a 4e group, I had a player tell me that he doesn't even consider playing paladins because of all the things which the traditional restrictions imply. Ever.

 

[Elf Witch]

I tend to look at this a bit more from a practical standpoint.

In the past twenty years, I can count the number of paladins I've seen played on one hand. IME, virtually no one plays paladins because no one wants to deal with the hassle. In a traditional D&D game, you are basically handing the DM a character where the DM has giant claws embedded into your character which he or she can use to strip away your character at any time that the DM feels that you are not playing the character right.

It's no wonder so few players want to play paladins.

I mean, seriously, how many paladin characters have you seen in the last three campaigns you played in? Other than the ones you personally played. Anyone in this thread has likely played a paladin, or likes playing paladins, which explains why we all have pretty strong opinions on the fact. I'm willing to bet that my experience is hardly strange here, with few, if any, players taking up paladin characters.

In almost every group I see, there's a cleric, a handful of fighter types (whether fighter, barbarian or ranger), a rogue, and a wizard. But a paladin? It's a mythical beast.

So, either make paladins easier to play or get them the heck out of the PHB so we can make room for classes that people DO want to play.

But, I think this gets to the heart of the issue. These are both sides of the same coin. Which makes paladins such a problematic class in the game. It just causes so many headache's at the table, that I think a lot of groups just eject them out of the game on principle.

That has not been my experience as a DM I have had a paladin in every campaign I have run that allowed the class, But I tend to run heroic campaigns and I have been told that I am a good DM for a player who wants to play a paladin because I don't set out to make them fall unless they want too. And I don't use no win scenarios there is always a way around anything. And I don't view lawful good as so black and white.

Paladin is my favorite class but I will not play one with every DM I know or with certain players because of their limited rigid thinking of what lawful good is.

I think rejecting them outright is not always the answer either what if someone really wants to play a paladin I would be unhappy if I could never play one with a group because they had bad experiences with another player.

I think there is a tendency to exaggerate some of this. I for example have issues with rogues and wish I could just do away with them because it seems to attract the lone wolf I steal from the party and get them in trouble in style player. My roommate who DMs hates half orcs because she finds that for the most part it is another lone wolf player with a giant chip on their shoulder and caused more inter party issues than any paladin.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

But some relevant questions include: (i) why are paladins any different in this respect from clerics?

In fact, they are not. While we are using the paladin example, I believe that the same restrictions should apply to the priest that fails to live by the standards of his/her faith. If a divine being/moral standing provides you with powers, we need rules about what happens when you fail to live by the commandments of that divine being/fail to keep the desired moral standards.

(ii) why are paladins and/or clerics any different in this respect from a fighter or a rogue who has sworn an oath?

Because fighters and rogues don't derive their powers from their vows? Either we accept that class features can come from different sources or they all come from a character's inner strength. If you're given power by a higher entity, that same entity should be able to take it away. The DM can choose never to do that, but it should be a possibility because it makes no sense otherwise. As long as there are gods and they can bestow holy powers upon mortal servants, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to remove those same powers, if they want to. Then, story-wise, if it's possible for a cleric or paladin to lose access to his powers, the rules need to tell us what happens in this case.

And, most importantly, if the player believes that his/her PC is not failing to live by those standards, why does the GM need the power of override?

Well, this is a game where we give a lot of power to the DM because we generally believe in his ability to make fair judgement calls.

Anyway, I'll ask you something else: if both the player and the DM believe that the PC is failing to live by those standards, what happens? In the pre-4E game, it's pretty clear what happens. After that I'm not really sure anymore, because we don't have rules for priests or paladins who fell from grace.

 

[Greg K]

I mean, seriously, how many paladin characters have you seen in the last three campaigns you played in? Other than the ones you personally played.

Two. The last was my niece's friend that visited over a summer and played for three sessions in my campaign before moving to Utah. In my campaign prior to that was my god brother's character. I had one other player wanting to play a character, but he decided not to after I told him that i would not allow him to play one in a manner that he does when he plays Baldur Gate (which is Chaotic Evil after a session or two). He decided to play a barbarian.

In the campaign before the one with my godbrother's, one of my two best friend's played Daytonson (that was a ten year campaign. The one with my ste lasted 4 or 5 years). Before Daytonson, I have had a few others in various one shots and short term campaigns.

The only one that I had to take any action against a Paladin was my stepbrother's. He lost his turn undead an his protection from evil, because he put two other characters with multiple attempts at turning an undead dragon. On his second attempt, he had received an ignored an omen from his deity voicing her displeasure. On the third attempt the dragon was now in melee against the shaman and the rogue (the rogue ran ahead to protect the shaman). He tried to turn knowing the shaman and rogue were being attacked. He tried to turn again, and the deity took it as him being to afraid to both protect the weak and to be a symbol of hope and courage against evil. She also felt that the rogue had demonstrated what she symbolized (so she temporarily gave the rogue the protection from evil). Due to the Paladin's reluctance to protect his comrades, the wizard went down(unconscious) that last round while the rogue took a serious hit. The following round, the Paladin went into battle allowing the rogue to get behind him and the other party members to join (I don't remember all of the details, but the dragon had destroyed a bridge forcing the other members to take an alternate route).

After atoning, he received back his turn undead and protection from evil. Never had any other issues after that.

So, either make paladins easier to play or get them the heck out of the PHB so we can make room for classes that people DO want to play.

Or keep them for those willing to play the shining knight with divine blessing and let others play something else if they are not willing to play the archetype

 

[Hussar]

/snip

The only one that I had to take any action against a Paladin was Kurik. He lost his turn undead an his protection from evil, because he put two other characters with multiple attempts at turning an undead dragon. On his second attempt, he had received an ignored an omen from his deity voicing her displeasure. On the third attempt the dragon was now in melee against the shaman and the rogue (the rogue ran ahead to protect the shaman). He tried to turn knowing the shaman and rogue were being attacked. He tried to turn again, and the deity took it as him being to afraid to both protect the weak and to be a symbol of hope and courage against evil. She also felt that the rogue had demonstrated what she symbolized (so she temporarily gave the rogue the protection from evil). Due to the Paladin's reluctance to protect his comrades, the wizard went down(unconscious) that last round while the rogue took a serious hit. The following round, the Paladin went into battle allowing the rogue to get behind him and the other party members to join (I don't remember all of the details, but the dragon had destroyed a bridge forcing the other members to take an alternate route).

After atoning, Kurik received back his turn undead and protection from evil. Never had any other issues after that.

Or keep them for those willing to play the shining knight with divine blessing and let others play something else if they are not willing to play the archetype

See, I think this anecdote can elucidate why players and DM's come into conflict. The player is using a paladin power (turn undead) against an undead dragon. If he succeeds, he ends the fight in one shot. This is effectively a save or die power for the paladin and arguably the most effective thing he could be doing. Certainly a pretty darn good idea.

The DM decides that no, it's not a good idea and uses in game elements (an omen voicing the deity's displeasure) to force the player to play his paladin in the "right" way. Paladin players figures, "bugger that" and keeps trying to turn. The DM decides, pretty much unilaterally, that the player is playing his character "wrong" and strips away paladin abilities.

If it worked out for your group Greg K, great. But, I could see this turning into a flaming row as well. You basically disagreed with the player's tactics and tried to force him to do what you felt was the right thing to do. The player didn't do what you wanted, so, you used the game mechanics to win the argument.

Solely based on what you wrote here, I would be supremely annoyed as the paladin player.

 

[Greg K]

See, I think this anecdote can elucidate why players and DM's come into conflict. The player is using a paladin power (turn undead) against an undead dragon. If he succeeds, he ends the fight in one shot. This is effectively a save or die power for the paladin and arguably the most effective thing he could be doing. Certainly a pretty darn good idea.

Nobody had a problem the first round he tried to turn the undead dragon (which if I recall was a dracolich (confirmed by the player)). It was when he was told that the dragon would be in range to melee in another round that it was a bad idea. The second round he tried it again . Player's looked at him in disbelief, because, if the paladin fails, there is nobody to protect the shaman. Everyone at the table knows from the handout at the start of the campaign that the deity he served is nicknamed the "Defender". She came down to the mortal realm to defend the races from a more powerful deity and won despite being almost being killed herself. Her paladins are supposed to represent her deed. They are supposed be the bastion of courage, hope, and good. They are supposed to be the defender of the weak and lead by example from the front of the line. If his turn attempt fails, he has left the shaman alone unprotected (that was the point of the omen and everyone at the table was telling him this). (Edit: and the deity she fought was associated with the Undead so the dracolich (as are all undead) associated with that deity she fought).

On the third attempt, the players were getting annoyed. There was nobody between the dragon and the shaman. Then, the rogue called the Paladin a coward and rushed up to protect the Shaman placing his own well being jeopardy to protect the Shaman. The Shaman gets attacked and knocked unconscious. The rogue takes a hit and is holding on (if the rogue did not take the hit, the shaman is dead!)

The DM decides that no, it's not a good idea and uses in game elements (an omen voicing the deity's displeasure) to force the player to play his paladin in the "right" way.

Yes, I am going to play the deity and enforce the tenets! The player knew going in the deity the character was serving and her tenets before creating the character. The other PC players were telling him that, that by standing back and not being in the front line protecting the characters until help could arrive, the character was not representing his deity and what she stood for. After the second attempt failed, he should have been on the front line.

Solely based on what you wrote here, I would be supremely annoyed as the paladin player.

If knowing what the players knew about the deity going in and you were still annoyed, everyone at the table would tell you shut the hell up or leave, because you agreed to play the Paladin of a particular deity and follow the tents laid out and failed to do so. You failed to represent your character's deity and her teachings and put other lives in jeopardy (and someone almost dead). Meanwhile, someone else ran up to do what your character swore to do when pledging himself to serve your deity.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If knowing what the players knew about the deity going in and you were still annoyed, everyone at the table would tell you shut the hell up or leave, because you agreed to play the Paladin of a particular deity and follow the tents laid out and failed to do so. You failed to represent your character's deity and her teachings and put other lives in jeopardy (and someone almost dead). Meanwhile, someone else ran up to do what your character swore to do when pledging himself to serve your deity.

I must be missing something. If the turn attempt succeeded, didn't that mean he successfully defended his friends from the threat? Wouldn't that go "Look, I turned the dragon, he is no longer attacking you, you are all saved. Bask in the glory of my deity who helped me defend you from the dragon!"?

The only reason the action he was taking wasn't defending them is because he failed in the roll? Wouldn't that meant that if he ran up and attacked the dragon in melee and missed but the dragon then attacked his friend anyways that he was equally failing in his duties to protect the weak?

Yeah, I believe I would be equally annoyed if this happened to me in a game: "You mean I not only have to defend the weak and innocent above all else, but I have to do it using the exact actions you tell me to? Why am I even playing my character? Just make him an NPC and be done with it."