What is considered ok for paladins in your game?

[Deadguy]

To present the opposite, I would say that your Gnoll Paladin damned well should cover up!

Look, the alternative is to either:

(1) Forego large swathes of land where the paladin cannot seek to do good (particuarly hard if your quests lead you there!); or

(2) Walk openly and keep getting drawn into fights with people who are probably quite innocent, just racist.

This Paladin isn't ashamed of who he is. He just wants to protect people from themselves - from acting on his shape rather than his true nature. That's surely a very paladin thing to do!

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

To present the opposite, I would say that your Gnoll Paladin damned well should cover up!

Look, the alternative is to either:

(1) Forego large swathes of land where the paladin cannot seek to do good (particuarly hard if your quests lead you there!); or

(2) Walk openly and keep getting drawn into fights with people who are probably quite innocent, just racist.

This Paladin isn't ashamed of who he is. He just wants to protect people from themselves - from acting on his shape rather than his true nature. That's surely a very paladin thing to do!

But all you have said is that it would be hard on the paladin if he did not cover up.

To bad. Being a paladin is hard.

 

[Deadguy]

But all you have said is that it would be hard on the paladin if he did not cover up.

To bad. Being a paladin is hard.

I knew someone would come back with that! And I have one thing to say: Nonsense!

Put it another way - imagine the Paladin has to go to such a place. He has someone to rescue from the clutches of evil, or suchlike (be honest, that's a very typical D&D adventure, let alone a Paladin trope).

What you say is that he should go boldly and get challenged by the first patrol he crosses? He gets drawn into a fight with people who are only doing their job (I am guessing that 99.9% of Gnolls are the usual 'enemies of the free peoples'). He probably gets killed. Even if he doesn't, he's a marked Gnoll. At the very best he might get pulled before a local lord or magistrate to prove himself.

And all the while, Evil wends on its merry way. All because this Paladin was too stupid to cover himself up and get on with his quest like he's supposed to do. By his Code.

It isn't about himself. It's about living up to the Code: to being a hero and saving people from Evil. It's not about strutting the stage like some swaggering bullyboy, showing off his Paladinhood (!). Paladins are about doing good deeds, not self-publicity. If he has to do this deed secretly, such that no others know of it, well, the Paladin (and perhaps his God) know, and that's all that matters.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

But now you have created a specific scenario.

The question regarded a standard all-of-the time policy.

 

[Deadguy]

But now you have created a specific scenario.

The question regarded a standard all-of-the time policy.

But "policy" can only be properly examined in the context of what it means in practice.

To put it another way: your policy for paladins would be "they can't ever disguise themselves (they're too proud to do that)"

And I have shown you a scenario where following that, the Paladin has failed in his duties because he refuses to take a simple precaution. He fails to protect the innocent who are in danger; he fails to protect those who attack him from their own ignorance; he fails because he put himself ahead of living up to the duties of the Code.

I know I am not going to convince you on this. I am afraid I classify your interpretation (only of this point, mind) as veering toward the "Lawful Stupid" end of Paladin behaviour. Paladins aren't Swashbucklers, they're Heroes, and heroes take some basic steps to avoid needless confrontations and to succeed in saving the day.

Now I will add to this: if much of the world opposes Gnolls, then it's foolish of a DM to permit a PC to play one. Unless virtually all the adventures are out in the wilderness or down holes in the ground, then the player of the Gnoll PC, when the party returns to civilisation, will either:

(1) dominate game play, as he has to come up with schemes to evade capture; or

(2) get left out ("See you, Grawl. Guard the horses, and is there anything you want from town?")

Neither way will help the storyline or group cohesion.

 

[Rashak Mani]

(Axiomatic when I said not attacking Men at Arms or Lackeys I meant not SNEAK ATTACKING !! If they face you in open combat waste them... your mission and saving lives is more important... unless you can avoid shedding their blood in a reasonable way.)


I agree with the Paladin should act heroically statement and so forth... how heroic is it to Backstab someone ?

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

To put it another way: your policy for paladins would be "they can't ever disguise themselves (they're too proud to do that)"

Nope. You have mis-stated my policy.
They can disguise themselves whenever it is needed to achieve a high goal.
They can not disguise themselves just to make things easier for themself.

If the gnoll character wants to play that way, fine. Be a dedicated and highly religious fighter.

But if you want to get the perks of being a paladin, you have to accept the lumps as well.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

Some clarification on the Gnoll Paladin thing: My character's rationale for hiding his gnoll heritage in certian areas is to protect himself and others who might attack him needlessly. H efeels he cannot promote the cause of good if he is constantly being pulled into battles by "innocents" who think he is a monster. My question is really, should a paladin, even a gnoll paladin, proudly display who and what he is, bigots be damned. I think that although a Paladin should be proud of his god and try to spread good and his own faith wherever he goes, he still would not endanger himself and the local populace needlessly. My DM agrees with me on this point, I just wanted to see if it would fly "by the book".

thanks for the replys, they are appreciated.

Dirge

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

(Axiomatic when I said not attacking Men at Arms or Lackeys I meant not SNEAK ATTACKING !! If they face you in open combat waste them... your mission and saving lives is more important... unless you can avoid shedding their blood in a reasonable way.)


I agree with the Paladin should act heroically statement and so forth... how heroic is it to Backstab someone ?

Ok, but I really disagree.
The paladin should fight to win.

I remain boggled that so many people say that no paladin anywhere nay ever use snaek attacks.

Kill evil, save the innocent. That is heroic.
Would you say a lawful good rogue could not be heroic?

 

[Deadguy]

Nope. You have mis-stated my policy.
They can disguise themselves whenever it is needed to achieve a high goal.
They can not disguise themselves just to make things easier for themself.

If the gnoll character wants to play that way, fine. Be a dedicated and highly religious fighter.

But if you want to get the perks of being a paladin, you have to accept the lumps as well.

Put that way, your position becomes even more irrational! So they can disguise themselves to sneak about Baron Evil's Castle of Doom to rescue the princess, yes? But this Gnoll guy can't disguise himself to stop stupid prejudiced guards from attacking him on sight, because that makes it too easy for him!!

I mean, come on! I do understand what you mean about taking the lumps, but that comes about through not having a choice but to rescue the princess, or refusing to submit to Baron Evil even at the cost of his life. It's not about using some commonsense to protect the lives of some people who don't realise what they're doing in fighting him!

I usually like your reasoning, Axiomatic, but on this one, we have really got to agree to disagree (and remind me never to play a Paladin in a game you run )