Paladins, Lawful Goodness, and higher standards

[Quasqueton]

Should paladins be held to a higher standard than a LG fighter, wizard, or cleric? Why?

Does a paladin's powers support being held to a higher standard than other LG characters?

Back in AD&D, a paladin was actually more powerful than his fighter counterpart. A fallen paladin was basically a fighter. But in D&D3, a paladin is equal in power to a standard fighter, and fallen paladin is basically only a warrior (much less than a fighter).

And how often do you see non-paladins with the LG alignment?

Why do DMs often feel the need to "test" LG characters? Or make them "twist" with moral dilemmas? Do CG characters ever get tested for their Chaotic or Good alignments? Do monks often get "tested" for their Lawfulness? Do barbarians ever get tested to uphold their non-Lawfulness (must they always rebel against law and authority) to keep from loosing their abilities?

"Hey, you obeyed the law of the town and actually put your life in danger to help that poor old lady! You're not acting Chaotic Neutral. You can't rage anymore until you atone for breaking your alignment."

Quasqueton

 

[reveal]

Should paladins be held to a higher standard than a LG fighter, wizard, or cleric? Why?

Does a paladin's powers support being held to a higher standard than other LG characters?

Back in AD&D, a paladin was actually more powerful than his fighter counterpart. A fallen paladin was basically a fighter. But in D&D3, a paladin is equal in power to a standard fighter, and fallen paladin is basically only a warrior (much less than a fighter).

And how often do you see non-paladins with the LG alignment?

Why do DMs often feel the need to "test" LG characters? Or make them "twist" with moral dilemmas? Do CG characters ever get tested for their Chaotic or Good alignments? Do monks often get "tested" for their Lawfulness? Do barbarians ever get tested to uphold their non-Lawfulness (must they always rebel against law and authority) to keep from loosing their abilities?

"Hey, you obeyed the law of the town and actually put your life in danger to help that poor old lady! You're not acting Chaotic Neutral. You can't rage anymore until you atone for breaking your alignment."

Quasqueton

I think what ends up happening is too many people see Paladins in different lights. Everyone has their own ideal of a Paladin and how he/she should act. When you have a DM and player who don't discuss their ideals beforehand, you get trouble.

I also think that DM's love "testing" LG characters is because some people who play LG characters tend to play them as, pardon the cliche, "Lawful Stupid." Always in the right and willing to tell anyone who will listen, or won't they don't care, that they are so.

I think a Paladin should be held to a higher moral standard than those of other alignments. I also think they should be held to different moral standards than other LG characters simply because a Paladin is forced to follow the code of his/her god.

I love playing Paladins and have played them as the guy who is morally righteous and as the guy who was righteous, only to fall and is working his way back into his god's good graces. I just try not to play them "Lawful Stupid."

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

In quite a few groups I've seen those are the very reasons a player chooses a paladin. I think it's expected that the GM will test them and it's part of the paladin experience.

IMO, it's one of those things where the player and GM really need to sit down before a campaign and work out 'how' the paladin works. The code of conduct is (deliberately?) vague and needs to be fleshed out to suit the individuals involved. Most of the 'horror' stories I've heard stem from a basic 'cross purposes' problem.

I'd forgotten they were actually more powerful in 2nd ed. Ah well. Was that offset by slower advancement?

 

[Deadguy]

We all know that the purpose of the Paladin Code is to allow a certain sort of DM to either:

1. Run the character for the player - "No, Dave, your Paladin of Bamble-Wheeze the Goody would never do that; what he will do is..."
2. Find excruciating rules-lawerly ways to strip him of his powers - "I'm sorry but you should have realised that in Bugbrainia wearing shoes in a private house on a weeknight after 8pm is a sign of following the Evil One. So I am going to have to strip you of your powers until you atone by defeating Noruas the Dark Lord single-handed with a putty knife!"

I get very tired with all the threads which amount to 'the Paladin in my group did something which only I knew was stupid, so should I remove all his powers forever or just let him atone after six hopeless quests?'. If you don't want PC Paladins in your game, it would be easier just to say so, than to screw them over. And it's amazing how few DMs bother to think through Paladins and their Code before allowing them in, and then wonder why the players 'play them wrong all the time'!

Quas is right that the Code is now a flavour element, and as all flavour it should be used to enhance the game, not as a stick to beat your players with!

 

[DragonLancer]

Its an in-character situation. The Paladin is not a member of a religious order (such as the cleric) he is just a warrior devoted to the cause of good and given special powers by the gods of good.
The path of the paladin is meant to be strict, its meant to be difficult. Not everyone has the wisdom nor the force of will to walk so narrow a path.

 

[Gregor]

"I'm sorry but you should have realised that in Bugbrainia wearing shoes in a private house on a weeknight after 8pm is a sign of following the Evil One. So I am going to have to strip you of your powers until you atone by defeating Noruas the Dark Lord single-handed with a putty knife!"

That has to be one of the best things I have ever read on this forum. Thanks VERY much for that piece of comedy genius. I think my day will go alot better now!

Cheers,

 

[Talmun]

Strictly speaking, Paladins are held to a higher standard...the class description says they do not willingly associate with evil characters, this isn't necessarily true of a LG fighter.

That being said, I would be careful about enforcing that kind of thinking to much, you shouldn't punish a player because he chose to play a pally.

 

[Hjorimir]

While I agree that it is important for a DM and player to make sure they both have an understanding of what it means to play a paladin, I also advocate tough spiritual quandaries that enrich the experience of playing a paladin in the first place. I should note, however, that I place the same high standards on all divine casters as is relevant to their particular faith. The clerics have just as much responsibility (if not more so) to uphold their tenets of their faith and provide a living example of what their deity represents. I also apply this philosophy to druids.

I’ve made it perfectly clear that it will be challenging to remain within the Grace of their deity and to expect tough situations. But I have a wonderful group of players who are excited about such challenges as they try and bring the game to a higher level of immersion.

 

[ForceUser]

/rant on

Quite frankly, I loathe the "moral quandrys" that go along with dealing with paladins. I no longer find them entertaining. As a DM I avoid them, because I have learned the hard way that I don't have the answers if I do place a character in those situations. Opinions often differ on what's the right solution is to a moral quandry, even if the paladin's code is clearly spelled out it's still interpretive and subject to a judgement call on the part of the DM. And a liberal DM is going to be looking through a different lens than a conservative one, and the difference in interpretations causes problems. The truth about moral quandrys is that there is no absolute right answer, thus making the paladin's world of blacks and whites, rights and wrongs difficult to adjudicate.

Furthermore, there's something about slapping the label of "paladin" on a class that makes a lot of people think it's somehow more special than, say, a fighter. It's not. It's just another way of approaching the game - not a better way, not even necessarily a more interesting way. Just a different way. Fighters, after all, rock. Once the dice are dropped they make paladins look like milktoasts in the combat effectiveness department. I am beginning to believe that only masochists choose the paladin route, hoping for a payoff down the road.

I mean, it's fun thinking of yourself as a righteous warrior, no doubt. It's an ego trip to think that GOD IS ON YOUR SIDE. Just ask a thousand fanatic Islamic terrorists. But there is more ambuguity inherent in adjudicating a paladin's moral code than in anything else in D&D. Speaking as a DM, that's a headache I don't need.

/rant off

 

[milotha]

Should paladins be held to a higher standard than a LG fighter, wizard, or cleric? Why?

Does a paladin's powers support being held to a higher standard than other LG characters?

Back in AD&D, a paladin was actually more powerful than his fighter counterpart. A fallen paladin was basically a fighter. But in D&D3, a paladin is equal in power to a standard fighter, and fallen paladin is basically only a warrior (much less than a fighter).

And how often do you see non-paladins with the LG alignment?

Why do DMs often feel the need to "test" LG characters? Or make them "twist" with moral dilemmas? Do CG characters ever get tested for their Chaotic or Good alignments? Do monks often get "tested" for their Lawfulness? Do barbarians ever get tested to uphold their non-Lawfulness (must they always rebel against law and authority) to keep from loosing their abilities?

"Hey, you obeyed the law of the town and actually put your life in danger to help that poor old lady! You're not acting Chaotic Neutral. You can't rage anymore until you atone for breaking your alignment."

Quasqueton

No, I don't think that Paladins should be held to a higher standard than a Lawful Good Priest, or a Monk or a Barbarian.

I think that the fact that Paladins are held to a higher standard for these reasons:
1) In the older versions of D&D, this was true. As you pointed out, Paladins were more more powerful, and this was a method of balancing them.
2) There are numerous archtypes of having the Paladin's honor, faith, goodness, etc testing. Consider the Arthurian mythos.
3) It's written in the book, and some GMs just love to mess with players. There is something about the Paladin's combination of both lawful and good that just begs GMs to mess with it. It's just easy to force someone in D&D into a bind when they are this polarized.
4) So many people believe that a lawful player must always obey the laws, whereas, a chaotic player can just say "Yes, that law fits my view of the world, or no that law doesn't fit my view of the world."