kenobi65 said:
Why is it always paladins that we get these threads about? Why, out of all the classes, is it the paladin that seems to drive a significant percentage of the playing population nutty? I imagine it's because, unlike any of the other base classes, they've got the most explicit code of behavior presented in the PHB, but that's just my guess.
Why? Because of many reasons, as far as I'm concerned.
One would *think* that other classes with powers that are, in theory, based on their faith or behavior (e.g., clerics, druids, monks) should be equally scrutinized. Yet, one never sees threads on "my DM stripped my cleric of his powers, I think he was wrong!"
Let me first start off by saying that all classes, regardless of their origin should be scrutinized. Not just the faith/behaviour-based ones.
Well, to begin with, here we have the Paladin who is described as some lone champion of justice. Though I don't think that they need a class for that, since all 'good' heroes are champions of justice, regardless if they are cleric, paladin, rogue or wizard.
But other than that, the Paladin isn't particularly fleshed out in concept. Why would a bunch of people who become faithful to some god and a bunch of ideals then gain powers/abilities to become some warrior-priest? Where is the organization? Why wouldn't a paladin in a different environment and culture not develop different abilities. To say nothing of the differences in the edicts of their honour-code.
I agree with Crothian. Unless the GM goes out of his way to paint the picture as to what paladins are and what they do. Who they are responsible to, and what you should expect from paladins, then I think what you end up with is a miscommunication and lack of vision in regards to the concept and expectations of the class.
Throwing paladins out into a game world without a clear outline and purpose and have not solid basis in the culture or theme of the setting is like trying to explain why barbarians are living in the midst of a highly cultured and educated society.
Though most classes have a clear cut, or generalized concept. They have tried to generalize the paladin concept. But then they put in specifics like the paladin's code of honour or restrict their alignment options.
Paladins, if they wanted to make a generalized and encompassing class should have been designed so that you could choose a number of paladin abilities and spells based on the kind of paladin you want to be, namely, the character's alignment. Of course, this can easily be addressed with prestige classes. However, the alignment and classes abilities are too restrictive and specific. They should have at least made the alignment restriction limited to either good or evil. The lawful/chaotic I believe is mostly just a reflection of your moral/societal perspective.
I've always been of the mind that classes, and especially prestige classes were not only a way in which to label/design a character concept. But also some thought should have been given to the fact that classes are a product of the location/culture which the need for such classes developed.
I personally like to envision paladins as the military arm of an organized church/religion. So, a paladin would have a tie to a particular church/religion that sponsors them. Can you imagine a cleric without a religion? Should anyone then consider the paladin without concerning themselves with that paladin's religion?
If someone is going to become an adventurer, like anything else, there has to be some motivation behind this. Of course, that motivation is built into the concept of the paladin; To become a champion of good. This I believe limits the actions of players, who then in turn try to explain and justify not only this flaw, but also the conflicts in the concept and design of the paladin.
Not to mention. I felt the whole allowing the monk into the game to be a complete waste of time. It's a class I thought didn't match with the rest of the concept of a medieval fantasy paradigm.
When you think of a wizard, you gain all sorts of different ideas. You are not limited to the Merlin/Dumbledore concept. However, because of a limited, almost one-dimensional concept we have for paladins. When you think paladin, you think of the Knights Templar, and conceptually of the knights of the round table.
Conceptually, what is the purpose of the paladin? To be a slayer of evil, to be a champion for good. Not of a particular organized religion or church, but of good as a whole. I think that concept can be a little too vague as well as too restrictive.
Of course, when there is a miscommunication about the perception of what a paladin is in regards to how the players and the GM, of course this can be an excellent tool for the GM to use to develop an interesting game for their players. Not only in this one respect, but also in all respects. I think it's the GM's responsibility to try and clearly express to their players how they perceive their own game world, and it's contents. I try and show my players how I perceive what an organized growing religion is like. What thieving guilds are like or how I think a wizard's guilds should be operating.
I think if you go out of your way to paint a picture of the traditional axioms of a fantasy roleplaying setting for your players, they are able to get a clear cut vision of the basic key points that most players assume because they've seen the same examples used time and time again in other games, especially if they've been gaming for a while. Now of course this can be a factor in regards to any situation where the players would expect one thing because it was unstated by the GM and just assumed, not only in situations involving the perception in concept of the paladin; but in any situation, with any class.
In regards to those who say that paladins are not team members, or that paladins tend to force their views and morals upon other party members. Well, I think this is something that is part and parcel of allowing paladins in your game. If your paladin isn't a team player, then I would have to ask, why? As a paladin, I can quite easily imagine a character who would seek the help of friends and fellow believers who could either be convinced to join him upon a quest with the promise of a share of all treasure gained.
Bad roleplaying? Bad roleplaying!? You've got to be kidding me! I think it's bad roleplaying when any player ignores a situation that I think as a GM the character's morality or personality would conflict with. If you throw something in front of the players, like allowing the thief of the party to perform evil actions against innocent victims, and when none of the good aligned characters do not at least raise concern or explain why they aren't taking issue; then I find it poor roleplaying not to take some sort of action.
What Doctor Shaft described: Having the GM describe his game world to the players before characters are made is something I think all GMs should do. It just makes for better communication and understanding between the GM and their players.
Being uber annoying, and getting into personality/morality conflicts with the other characters is part of the game. Of course I think GMs should do something to either limit, control or eliminate this. Because it can be something that can deteriorate a game very quickly. Especially if the players themselves take the conflict personally.
Also, I cannot agree with the concept of being against anyone playing paladins who enforce their morality on other players. Of course, it is bound to happen time to time. Especially if the GMs allows players of conflicting alignments, namely evil, or just players being careless enough to perform evil actions in front of our theoretical paladin. If your playing a thief, what did you expect from the paladin when you let him know that you just stole something from the people who hired you?
But if the players don't go out of their way to resolve, justify or explain why they are ignoring something that is expected to conflict with the moral code of their character. Regardless if that character is a paladin or not. I consider that to be bad roleplaying.
If your paladin goes out of his way not to judge the moral actions of his companions, then of course that character is diverging from the original and accepted concept of the paladin. If the GM doesn't take issue with this; when the players don't explain their inaction, it is a fault of the GM. If the character would know of consequences of their actions, so should the player.
Then of course, if the GM doesn't enforce the conceptual strictures of a character concept, and the players don't choose to enforce them themselves, then I don't see it becoming a problem. Thusly, it can all be boiled down to a roleplaying choice, but only in a relaxed situation such as this. But this is the GM's fault for not cultivating and exposing this problem through some in-game plot. Your paladin isn't doing something to face the injustice of the other party members? Well, there should be some in-game consequence to these actions.
Can others see that clerics, druids, rangers and monks, all who have a belief component built into their character concept can all easily impose their morality upon other characters? I can. Clerics not healing party members until they agree to attend worship service, pray or just pay lip service to the cleric's deity. Druids and rangers both forcing the other party members to respect nature and to follow their ways when they are conducting themselves in the wilderness. Or requesting or expecting help from fellow party members when dealing with mundane/magical creatures which are viewed as being natural. Or even more importantly unnatural creatures.
Of course, the zealotry stereotype paladin is something which is very common. But cannot everyone else imagine a zealous druid or ranger?
Dragonblade said:
The problem is that people resent the notion that someone has the authority to judge them and their actions. This is fundamental human nature.
Again, I see this as a lack of communication and expectation in regards to the GM and players.
One of the problems I always see is when the players expect to have all the rights and expectations that they have in today's real world. I think it's ludicrous that players shouldn't expect their betters, namely nobles, lords and even those of a higher social status, not to have authority and to judge those below their station.
I, usually when this situation arises, will attempt to warn the player that their actions will have consequences, and will outline what the norm is in regards to my game world. Once the warning is given, the players are free to choose their character's actions, and reap their consequences.
I would also like to state that egalitarianism is something that tends to conflict with the class-structure of a medieval paradigm, especially when your going to have nobility and monarchies. Remember, egalitarianism is what over-threw the class-structure in the french revolution.
I don't think that real world morality would break down in a fantasy world. After all, morality is a collection of ideals, principles and judgements shared by cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs subjectively determine whether given actions are right or wrong. Nothing in that excludes it from being adopted into a fictitious gaming reality. It is just that dilemmas that involve morality can be made more complex by having a plethora of other sentient creatures and races which would all have their own morality.
Do we not have conflicts in our own real world where people have different views as to how animals should be treated?
I don't know how anyone can be agnostic in a game world where there is direct and positive proof that deities exist and influence the world on a daily basis. Atheism is another matter altogether; that's just outright stupidity.
Oh, yes...and beef stew and chocolate go well together. Just a little chocolate for flavour. Ever heard of a mexican sauce called mole? (pronounced Mole-lay).
), then organize the villagers and other such nonsense. And I do mean nonsense. Didn't it occur to the poster that the villagers aren't sheep? They're already trying to defend themselves. Clearly the evil mage can't do all the work by himself. No one said the paladin in question was a military genius - he is almost certainly less intelligent than the mage. And so on. Lead by example rubbuish *rolls eyes*
But you can't be as soft as doves if your objectives involve strangling some bad guy in the dark, after you slipped some knockout drops in his drink.
