Lawful Stupid Paladins (Got your Attention?)

[mirzabah]

I have a confession to make: my favourite character of all time was a Lawful Stupid paladin. In my defense, I will say that I felt he was a bit more three-dimensional than the stereotype. He was just a little *ahem* ambitious... and furthermore, this was entirely in keeping with his actual INT score.

With that off my chest, I agree that paladin is the class that people most often (and most annoyingly) get wrong. LG does not stand for "lobotomized goodie-two-shoes".

 

[Storminator]

I have a confession to make: my favourite character of all time was a Lawful Stupid paladin. In my defense, I will say that I felt he was a bit more three-dimensional than the stereotype. He was just a little *ahem* ambitious... and furthermore, this was entirely in keeping with his actual INT score.

With that off my chest, I agree that paladin is the class that people most often (and most annoyingly) get wrong. LG does not stand for "lobotomized goodie-two-shoes".

I DM a paladin in a PBeM. The player wanted an insane druid, but that didn't work in my campaign, so she's playing her first ever paladin (after decades of playing).To quote her, Kirenne is "lawful stoooopid!"

Her typical tactic when faced with a mob of enemies is to wade thru the group to the guys in the back, leaving the rest of the party to deal with those she's passed up. She's constantly surrounded by foes and she just kicks tail.

She did sneak into the castle from the back, but only because an NPC really needed her protection and she didn't trust the rest of the group to see to his defense.

PS

 

[Henry]

...What I mean by Lawful Stupid is those Paladins who seem to have no sense of self preservation, those kooks who won’t hold back for the one round that it would take to let the Wizard hurl a fireball at a gaggle of ghouls, or the one who refuses to do anything anymore subtle then kicking in the door, the front door. That is what I mean by Lawful Stupid, those Paladin’s with so much zeal that they’d attack an Evil creature that was many times more powerful then him (apparently so, not asking for Metagaming) with his bare teeth even if it will be for no gain?

That's how I beleived paladins were played... when I was 12.

Now, I know that the actions you describe are those not of a lawful good being with a code, but those of a suicidal and foolish individual. It CAN be a way to play, and a fun one, but you have to know that playing this way will either lead to a new character, or one who is broke from the number of resurrections being paid for.

The other hallmark of a paladin than Charisma is WISDOM. No one wise will willingly do the silly things you mention here. Self-sacrifice is one thing, when the party is in dire straits and the only thing that can help them is for one person to sacrifice their lives for that few extra moments needed. However, a paladin who KNOWS he has no way to hurt the enemy will withdraw to find something that CAN hurt the enemy - another paladin, a weapon to use, or will simply return when he has the power to stop the evil. To NOT return is not being a proper paladin; to throw your life away when there is a better way available is not proper behavior either.

I will never forget the story told by Roger Moore in an early Dragon magazine, about a friend of his who played one heck of a paladin. This paladin was not the wisest paladin out there, but in the end, he exhibited qualities that saw him through the toughest battle of his life.

The story, going straight from memory, goes something like this:
---------------------------------
The mid-to-high-level party, having just defeated various dark minions of Hell, now stood before the revealed ringleader, a Pit fiend of enormous power. The party, having realized that the pit fiend's magic resistance and its immunity to lesser magic weapons made it near impervious from them, and already somewhat wounded, made plans to flee. They would tackle it another day, when they were stronger.

The paladin, however, wanted to end the threat NOW. He wouldn't have it. He plunged into battle with the Fiend. The party began to run like **** in their various means of transportation, while the paladin launched like a mad wolverine. He became disheartened when his sword had no effect, and the Pit Fiend (the DM) was enjoying his frustration too much to kill him outright.

Then the Player of the Paladin remembered the magic dagger (+2 or +3 I recall) in his boot. He whipped it out, and layed into the Fiend with a MAGIC DAGGER. The fiend launched into it too, and the fight was on.

The Fiend was soon badly damaged, nickled and dimed as it were, and looking to flee. So he flew up hoping to escape. The paladin, however, latched on, and kept stabbing, and shouting things that were VERY unpaladinlike. He kept stabbing every round, EVEN AS THE CREATURE DIED AND THEY BOTH FELL SCORES OF FEET, and kept cursing and stabbing. They both took tons of falling damage, but the PALADIN LIVED. Climbing out from under the beastie, he spat on it, and walked back to rejoin the group, with something like 2 hit points remaining.
---------------------------------

Somewhat paraphrased, but one of these days I have to look up the actual story in my CD Archive and re-post it. It was one of my favorite "paladin" stories ever.

 

[KnowTheToe]

Playing the Paladin Lawful stupid could have been a fun way to play a character, but it has nearly become the standard. I have read no stories about glorious Paladins that charged head first into every dangerous situation they encountered without putting thought in how to successfully overcome the obstacle.

 

[Undead Pete]

One of my favorite characters was a Paladin in a Greyhawk campaign a few years back.

His name was Zebulon of Beer (being a city listed on the Greyhawk with which I had always been fascinated).

I rolled up his stats and got mostly awesome results: a couple 18's, a 17, a couple 15's....and a 5.

Now, I was given the option to adjust them (subtract 2 points from 1 stat to add 1 to another), but I decided to go for it and assigned the lowly number to his Intelligence.

What developed over the next few months was a character who will always be firmly entrenched in the annals of my campaigns, responsible for the catch phrase "You WILL worship my god!" (spoken with a Texan drawl).

Sadly he was killed by, of all things.... a ROT GRUB

My DM was a sadist.

 

[Pielorinho]

I've never had to DM a paladin, but I'm DMing a cleric of a paladinly God. Most of the rules I've established are pretty straightforward, but there's one unusual one:

-Dishonesty dishonors the God. Don't be making namby-pamby excuses for your dishonesty.

So sneaking into a castle at night might be all right, depending on teh circumstances. Using spells like invisibility might be all right. But they're both questionable. And lying to guards, or wearing disguises, or anything like that isn't okay.

That's because dishonesty is an evil in and of itself, and for a paladin, the ends don't justify the means.

In fact, I think that's a vital part of paladinhood: the ends never justify the means.

Part of the fun of playing a paladin, I think, would be exploring a different moral code. It would probably be a code much more restrictive than what we normally use. That doesn't make it stupid; it just makes it restrictive.

Daniel

 

[LoneWolf23]

I think the subject of what Paladins are like was best covered in RPGNet's "Anthropology 101" article series, which explored some of the more popular races/classes of the D&D genre.

Essentially, the Paladin is a more politically correct image of the Christian Knight of Medieval Myth: Joan of Arc, Sir Galahad, Sir Percival, Charlemagne's knights, etc. Warriors who have devoted themselves to Christ's ideal of sacrificing one's self for the sake of others.

The Paladin is supposed to be a Champion; a warrior ready and willing to lay down his life to protect others (like his party members). This doesn't mean he has to throw it recklessly. Quite the contrary, in fact: If he's careless, he may die too soon, and not be there when his friends need him most.

As for things like Lying, Cheating and Fighting Dirty... I also keep the image of the Paladin as a Champion of the People in mind. He's trying to be a Warrior for others to Admire. As such, he's trying to be honorable and courageous, not cowardly and dishonorable.

Being Truthful means you earn the trust of others, who then know you're reliable. While Lying and Cheating may be useful, it does make others begin to doubt whether or not you're honest when they deal with you.

So just remember: when you're playing a Paladin, you have to remember to be Honest, Brave and Forthright. Being a Goody-Two-Shoes is optional.

 

[Altin]

Paladins

Good call by the person who reminded us all of Archetypology 101, which has to be one of the most awesome fantasy columns on the net. For those who aren't familiar with it, I direct you to http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/archetypology.html (the Paladin article is the 9th in the series, from memory but all are worth a read).

But back onto the topic at hand: the Paladin. Right off the bat, I should confess that I love Paladins to death. I find them to be by far the most complex and challenging class in the D&D spectrum and their bad rep pains me greatly. I have a bias, is what I'm saying.

I've always liked to apply to the paladin the famous description of another, quite distant archetype - the private detective. I quote Raymond Chandler, slightly modified for context:

"Down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. [He] ... must be a complete man and a common man, and yet an unusual man. He must be a man of honor ... with ... a disgust for sham and a contempt for pettiness"

Does this mean Lawful Stupid? It doesn't have to. But nor does it mean Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good, which is what most Paladins end up being played as (the former is the well-known inflexible and stern stereotype and there are a few examples of the later in this thread).

The challenge of the paladin lies in the inherent contradiction between the Lawful and Good parts of his alignment, often further complicated by the fact that the world he interacts with is seldom clearly either. The 'lawful stupid' paladin is, in my opinion, a response by people who can't be bothered working out how exactly one reconciles what is good and what is right (ie. in accordance to their code) when these come into conflict.

The point of the Paladin is not merely that he fights the good fight but also that he fights it in the right way. Why is this important? I paraphrase the famous Nietzsche quote: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.". If the Paladin is corrupted on his way to victory, if he lowers himself to the cowardice and underhandedness of his enemies, then he has lost much more than had he died on the battlefield.

This means the Paladin fights always with one hand tied behind his back. There are things to which he will not stoop and this makes his vulnerable. But does it also make him Lawful Stupid? Not necessarily. Morality and ethics define mostly what one will not do, rather than direct one's actions. Part of the challenge of playing this class is finding ways to defeat the foe without compromising one's principles. This may not always be possible and that is why Paladins often make great angst characters; rare is the man of honor who sleeps easily at night.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Yours,
Altin

 

[BeholderBurger]

I think I may have just took a turd in my panties.
Oh no .....urghhhh.

Anyway what were you saying..sory to interrupt

 

[Kargin el Tomath]

As you can tell from my signature below I play a Paladin. I play a stupid one too boot.

On purpose.

The reason for this is to expose not only how stupid they can be but to also see how much he can get away with before dying (as in charging the enemy without thinking first, or kidnapping the magistrate of waterdeep becasue he is actually a Red Robe Wizard of Thay).

But I do understand, your dilema and question. Look at it this way. A Paladin can do a sneak attack or cut a foe down who has no weapon or forget the damsel in distress....if they have a reason for it.

For example. "I let the damsel in distress die to run off and fight mindflayers because if they weren't destroyed they would invade the village close by. Her one life is in no comparrison to the hundreds that lived there. If i could have saved both...I would have."

It's all in finding your reasoning.