What *is* it about paladins that makes people nutty, anyway?
- Thread starter kenobi65
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Awkward said:
This works just fine so long as the monster in question isn't in possession of a sheet of lead.
http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=202
WizarDru
Adventurer
Dru's quick thoughts on Paladins:
1. Unlike Clerics, Paladins carry emotional baggage on their backs. People don't have preconcieved notions about a cleric of Wee Jas or St. Cuthbert, per se. The Paladin is an archetype: the holy knight. Percival. Gawain. Lancelot. Arthur. Paladins just evoke those images much more strongly than any cleric, and hence they affect people's opinions of them.
2. As has been mentioned several times, Paladins have a code. More importantly, it is implied that there is a single code. The idea is tied more closely to the Paladin that their code is more absolute than the relative code of a cleric. Consider that a follower of a diety can be one of several alignments, while a paladin MUST be Lawful Good. This implies to many DMs a rigidity in the Paladin's code that a cleric isn't necesarrily bound to. A cleric could go from being LG to NG and still worship Pelor. But a paladin of Pelor could not do the same.
3. No matter how specific the rules of the code, there will be disagreements about morality and specific situations. Only if a DM and PC are in agreement can conflict generally be avoided. Some DMs or players specifically seek out those conflicts, to varying degrees of enjoyment.
4. A player's spirituality has no bearing, IME, on their ability to play a paladin. Some of the finest paladin's I've seen have been from players who did not profess any strong metaphysical prediliction (cost of that sentence: 50 cents). This is no different from an actor who can successfully portray a role, IMHO.
5. Some people have been burned by players who played Paladins poorly and assume that the problem lies with the class, not the players. That's clearly open to interpertation. I remember some "Lawful Stupid" players under AD&D, but I also know that some of the finest moments in my current campaign have been from the paladin in our game.
6. I like Paladins.
1. Unlike Clerics, Paladins carry emotional baggage on their backs. People don't have preconcieved notions about a cleric of Wee Jas or St. Cuthbert, per se. The Paladin is an archetype: the holy knight. Percival. Gawain. Lancelot. Arthur. Paladins just evoke those images much more strongly than any cleric, and hence they affect people's opinions of them.
2. As has been mentioned several times, Paladins have a code. More importantly, it is implied that there is a single code. The idea is tied more closely to the Paladin that their code is more absolute than the relative code of a cleric. Consider that a follower of a diety can be one of several alignments, while a paladin MUST be Lawful Good. This implies to many DMs a rigidity in the Paladin's code that a cleric isn't necesarrily bound to. A cleric could go from being LG to NG and still worship Pelor. But a paladin of Pelor could not do the same.
3. No matter how specific the rules of the code, there will be disagreements about morality and specific situations. Only if a DM and PC are in agreement can conflict generally be avoided. Some DMs or players specifically seek out those conflicts, to varying degrees of enjoyment.
4. A player's spirituality has no bearing, IME, on their ability to play a paladin. Some of the finest paladin's I've seen have been from players who did not profess any strong metaphysical prediliction (cost of that sentence: 50 cents). This is no different from an actor who can successfully portray a role, IMHO.
5. Some people have been burned by players who played Paladins poorly and assume that the problem lies with the class, not the players. That's clearly open to interpertation. I remember some "Lawful Stupid" players under AD&D, but I also know that some of the finest moments in my current campaign have been from the paladin in our game.
6. I like Paladins.
Munin
First Post
Everyone who considers playing a Paladin, or allowing one in his game, should watch the movie Van Helsing.
Van Helsing was a Paladin. He was an icon of good. He fought evil. He lived by a code (he refused to kill Frankenstein's monster, for example). He was lawful. He even had detect evil (he was able to discern that the aforementioned monster was not inherently evil).
More importantly, he kicked butt, was not a pompous jerk, wasn't judgemental or self-righteous, and was generally a pretty cool guy. That, in my opinion, is how a paladin should be played.
Van Helsing was a Paladin. He was an icon of good. He fought evil. He lived by a code (he refused to kill Frankenstein's monster, for example). He was lawful. He even had detect evil (he was able to discern that the aforementioned monster was not inherently evil).
More importantly, he kicked butt, was not a pompous jerk, wasn't judgemental or self-righteous, and was generally a pretty cool guy. That, in my opinion, is how a paladin should be played.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I thoroughly enjoyed playing a paladin based on Corporal Carrot from the diskworld books (see "Guards Guards!" and "Men at Arms").
He makes another very interesting take on the paladin archetype, albeit without a religious aspect.
Cheers
He makes another very interesting take on the paladin archetype, albeit without a religious aspect.
Cheers
Truth Seeker
Adventurer
Ah, a wisdom path has shine... 
Munin said:
Munin said:
Chuckle...ironically enough, I created Arrias (my Living Greyhawk paladin) just after seeing "Van Helsing", and based him on the movie character. While I don't think that Van Helsing is a particularly classic interpretation of the paladin archetype, I do agree with you that it works.
Arrias's Page, in case anyone's interested.
davidschwartznz
First Post
Yes, a strict lawful good character can be like that, but I would argue that he doesn't have to be. As I said, alignment is nebulous, and it doesn't cover certain things that many people think it does. Anyone - lawful or chaotic, good or evil - can be scrupulously honest or a baldfaced liar. To keep this short, I'll just give my favorite example, Star Wars (look away now, if you've been living on Mars for the last thirty years, in a cave, with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears): The Lawful Good Jedi lie to Luke about his father, becuase they believe it's best for both Luke and society. Who tells him the truth? Chaotic Evil Darth Vader. And for very selfish and destructive reasons.lukelightning said:
Odhanan
Adventurer
There is actually some kind of contradiction in Paladins, since they have to be lawful good (as per knights of the round table or any variation of knighthood orders with strong moral codes) but can, in the world of D&D, represent various gods and have different codes of conduct.
A paladin's (PC or NPC) code of conduct has to be known before being able to play a particular paladin. And in most cases, this isn't thought about prior to the game, hence the many issues/contradictions and debates about the nature of good and evil arising in the game.
This comes down to thought about who the paladin represents and how (following which precise principles and rules) prior to the game.
A paladin's (PC or NPC) code of conduct has to be known before being able to play a particular paladin. And in most cases, this isn't thought about prior to the game, hence the many issues/contradictions and debates about the nature of good and evil arising in the game.
This comes down to thought about who the paladin represents and how (following which precise principles and rules) prior to the game.
- Status
Similar Threads
