What *is* it about paladins that makes people nutty, anyway?

[fiddlerjones]

"Essentially, playing a Paladin requires difficult role-playing decisions for ANYONE who isn't the RW equivalent of one already."

Guess that's why I've always liked paladins, and been annoyed at people who overdo the zealotry end of things.

 

[Doctor Shaft]

I agree with Dannyalcatraz on several points. Paladin's carry a lot of baggage that MUST be sorted out before you even begin to play the character. The DM has to be on page about what constitutes "Good" in his campaign. The player has to then be clear about what kind of line he expects his character to walk. Merely having two people assume what good is, then stuff them in a game together is bound to create all sorts of dissension and character failure.

A DM I played with a year ago did the most brilliant thing ever with his game. Before we ever drew characters of any type, he described what his world would be like. He defined who the gods were, what they thought, and how morality, good, evil, etc., worked in his campaign. By setting the stage right then there, there was little room for "creative interpretation." If you wanted to be a certain character archetype, this was how the metaphysical side of his campaign worked. If you didn't fit, there would be no whining or excuses... the DM had the set the tone for his campaign. Paladin, monk, rogue be damned.

All those other minor points like, "What if I do this?" or "Can a Paladin make out with someone," becomes a moot point if you define the deity that paladin serves, and the order those paladins live in. It's just like any formal religion that exists in the real world: There's little confusion when the rules are made clear from the beginning. Everything else is just agenda.

 

[Remathilis]

Here is my long-winded answer.

Paladins are a class with a moral code behind them. They are a restricive class at best (LG align, MC penality). The problem IS, the code is too underdefined and many DM/PCs are not on the same page as to what it means.

Line by line:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

The code is sticky on "willingly" and "evil". Both are very vague. Willingly means the paladin should know the act is evil but does it anyway. However, the "greater good" arguement sometimes appears (aka kill Hiltler as a child to prevent the holocaust).

Evil, like good can be subjective (even in D&D) and commonly the cause of this headache.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority,

"legitimate authority" is another vague term. What if its evil and corrupt? What if it condones or even commits evil acts? Can a paladin be a freedom fighter (a traditionally CG role) What makes it legitimate? This could differ from person to person.

act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth),

Again, "greater good" issues raised here. Lying to protect the Queen from ambush? Cheating to rescue a slave who might be the "chosen one"? Sedatives and non-lethal knockout drugs to prevent bloodshed?

help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),

Order of importance? Should the paladin help get kittens out of trees on his way to vanquish the evil dragon?

and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

What kind of punishment? The european "stocks and fines" method of handling thieves is a bit different than the arabic "loose a hand" method. Is a paladin justified to use lethal force in any or all situations that threaten or harm innocents?

See? The code is bullocks as written because I can read into the code and see one thing (Hiding in a wooden horse is cheating) and you see another (Its to rescue the princess and save lives from a long siege war). Couple with the fact its one of the FEW times DMs hold direct power over a PCs actions (don't do that or else) which has lead to a couple DM abuse situations. (I lost my paladinhood for swatting a fly).

Druids (the next closest to having a code) got this much more before being allowed more diverse alignments (common question, how does one play balance? Switch sides during a fight?) Clerics of specific gods fall into this realm as well, but gods tend to spell out thier ethos a bit moreso. Bards, Barbarians, and monks just have "You can't be"s not codes that cost them thier abilities.

Ergo, the poor, misunderstood paladin gets caught with a so-vague-its-unplayable code. What to do

1.) ASK YOUR DM: Ask HIM what he thinks the code means. Some are much more liberal with paladinhood than others; allowing drinking, marriage, even white lies (or "certain points of view"). Others are puritian strict and will cast you into fighter-levels upon THINKING of doing an "evil act". Some put empathsis on GOOD, other on LAWFUL. Ask before you loose it.

2.) Error on the side of caution: Think your treading grey ground? Back off. Some DMs remove paladinhood for blackness, others for the absense of white.

3.) Check with other Players: Got a sneaky CN rogue, a CG half-orc barbarian and a LN brooding mage? AVOID THE PALADIN. Your gonna be in a whole lot of headache, esp if majority rules.

DMs, try some of these

1.) Avoid moral questions: Well, those that HAVE no real right answer. Esp those where there is NO way you can win AND keep your paladinhood. Thats unfair.

2.) Don't like them? BAN THEM: Its simpler than trying to prove how dumb they are. You might even avoid a sore or angery player in the process.

3.) Talk with a potential paladin: TELL him what you are expecting, and ask what he thinks the code means. Compromise on areas where the two ideas are off. If they are WILDLY off base, suggest a different class (cleric, holy liberator, even blackguard).

4.) DEFINE the CODE: Nothing wrong with having an idea BEFORE the paladin enters play. Write it out if you have alot of paladins come through.

These steps lead to happy, productive paladins. Now go out there and smite demons!

 

[Dragonblade]

In my opinion, it is because the Paladin class is, by it's very nature, not a team oriented class. And this is a team oriented game.

I completely disagree. Paladins are the epitomy of team-oriented, as long as the team is composed of like-minded team members.

The problem is that people resent the notion that someone has the authority to judge them and their actions. This is fundamental human nature.

People focus on the paladin, because if the paladin can be proven morally fallible, it lessens the indignation and resentment that they feel about being judged. People like to feel comfortable in justifying their actions, especially morally questionable ones. If a paladin can be proven fallible, or their beliefs can be proven to be morally questionable, then it gives people an excuse to proclaim their own moral framework as equally valid as the paladins. And in their minds, removes the divine right of the paladin to judge and punish them.

 

[Torm]

Playing a Paladin requires commitment to try to role-play zelotry- tough for anyone who is fundamentally a centrist or predisposed to compromise.

One can be a zealous defender of the values of egalitarianism - my characters generally are, aside from the specific requirements of their faiths (ie defending Magic as a Paladin of Mystra.)

Playing a Paladin requires commitment to try to role-play religious belief- tough for anyone who is fundamentally agnostic.

Not necessarily, in a game where one can usually find a deity that matches their general values - as opposed to the real world, where one is supposed (I guess? ) to match one's values to one's deity.

Playing a Paladin requires commitment to try to role-play a mindset that can alternate between the poles of merciful and wrathful, sometimes within seconds- tough for anyone who is fundamentally interested in maintaining the status quo.

This one is true, but not really at the heart of the matter.

Playing a Paladin requires commitment to try to role-play a mindset that can alternate between the poles of maintaining or overturning the status quo, depending on region- tough for anyone who is fundamentally a cultural relativist.

See the first response, above.

I think the reasons people get nutty about Paladins are fourfold:

1. They have a much more specific alignment requirement than any other class, with a much more dramatic punishment for violating it.

2. WOTC didn't do a very good job of defining alignments, and, even if they had, a lot of people would assume they know from the sound of the words without reading the definitions, and get it wrong, just like they do now.

3. A lot of people seem to have some sort of problem with the goody-goody in the party, either because her marching in full plate tends to disrupt their hide and move silently (a real, practical problem that is one reason my Paladins tend toward a chain shirt), or because when they roleplay they want to unleash their anti-aspects (the naughty or evil things they wouldn't really do, but kinda want to sometimes) and the Paladin gets in the way. Plus, if the latter is the reason they're roleplaying the characters they are, it has to make them wonder about the person whose anti-aspect is a Paladin!

And 4. Even if people understand alignment, some people just flat CAN'T play Paladins - something I don't think you can say as easily about other classes.

Essentially, playing a Paladin requires difficult role-playing decisions for ANYONE who isn't the RW equivalent of one already.

I will admit that this is a perspective I have no solid frame of reference for.

 

[ForceUser]

As exemplified by the answers in this thread and others, there is no consensus or even a clear understanding of what a paladin is. In my 18 years of playing D&D, I have seen a paladin played well only once. Even then, conflict arose from time to time between the player and the DM regarding interpretation of the paladin's code and duties.

I think that in future editions of the game, Wizards should clearly define a paladin's code (and variants thereof) within the context of their default fantasy D&D world. For now, however, having a successful paladin in a group requires a common vision between players and their DM, which in my opinion can only exist between good friends or folks who have gamed together for years. There is a very short list of players that I would allow to role-play a paladin IMC. At risk of starting a heated debate, I'm going to lay it on the line:

It is impossible to accurately roleplay a character of faith if one does not have an understanding of, appreciation for, or resevoir of faith and/or spirituality in real life.

There. I said it. Those folks who are paladin-haters--for years I've read your threads, I've considered your comments, and I've decided that you have no clue what role-playing a spiritual person entails. How can you? By your comments I can tell that many of you have little or no understanding of actual spirituality in your own lives. And you know what? That's fine. The above isn't an indictment, it's an observation; however, I submit that you're out of your depth when arguing the finer points of a paladin's code.

Now, that said, I will say this--why should anyone need such an understanding to participate in an RPG? Frankly, you shouldn't. As long as you and your DM have an arrangement, as long as you're not harshing anyone's mellow, and as long as your role-playing adds to the group dynamic rather than detracts from it, then don't worry about accurately depicting faith in your campaign.

In my campaign, however, you ain't playing a paladin.

 

[rounser]

Why is this?

I think here's part of it:

Real world morality breaks down in a world of monsters. In the real world, we have humans and animals, and know how to treat both. D&D has "monsters", and you can't file them under either heading - some are vermin, others are intelligent and able to repent. Real world codes of ethics can't handle this scenario, let alone a pseudecode of ethics like the paladin has, which is ambiguous about real world ethical scenarios, let alone fantasy ones featuring "absolute evil".

That, and everyone loves a morality debate, because deep inside, they know that they're right, and the other guy's take on the ethics of the situation is flawed...LOL.

 

[LostSoul]

However, I believe the root cause of most of these threads is due to differing expectations between player and DM.

I totally agree with this.


I'd also say that the Paladin and his Code are examples of poor game design in 3e.

We have a game that's all about killing things and taking their stuff. One of the classes is a melee/mounted Evil smashing class. In effect, it's saying that by taking the hit in general combat (Fighter) or heavy damage & mobility (Barbarian) or whatever, you focus on killing Evil things and surviving their attacks.

No problems there.

Then the game tells you how you have to play the Paladin. Be Lawful Good or else. The game is no longer just about killing things and taking their stuff; it's about being Lawful Good (whatever that means) while killing things and taking their stuff.

So if you ever veer away from the Code - and different people have different interpretations about what the Code means - you're not going to be effective at your thing. You can't kill Evil things any more.

So take the fact that people have different ideas about how someone should play the class, add in that any violation of the Code means your character is not effective at his focus, and throw in the fact that a lot of the moral choices you can make have been already codified and laid out for you; put all that into a game that's unabashedly about killing things and taking their stuff, and you get a recipe for disaster.

With the right group, you can get great roleplaying. But if there's some disagreement, and you went into the game thinking that playing a Paladin was as simple (in terms of your group's dynamics) as playing a Fighter or a Wizard, you're going to be headed for some problems.

Why is that?
- Because if you want to kill things and take their stuff, being Lawful Good probably isn't going to be a priority to you - but you won't be able to kill things and take their stuff if you aren't Lawful Good. It forces you to play a way that you may not want to (ie. what your DM thinks you should do), and it's not like the class is unbalanced even with all of its abilities.
- If you want to be Lawful Good, you run into the problem where people have different ideas about what Lawful Good is.
- And if you want to make moral choices about Law and Chaos, or Good and Evil, the hit to your ability to do things in a game about killing things and taking their stuff is so great the choice is a no-brainer.

Now there are some simple solutions for this:

- Let the player decide what it means to be a Paladin, and when and if he loses his abilities.
- Take away the Paladin's powers piecemeal, so he can veer from Lawful Good and still be (mostly) effective at his thing.
- Define the Paladin's code before the game begins so everyone has an understanding of what it means to be a Paladin, and what types of behaviour are unacceptable.


Anyway, that's my theory.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Paladins

ForceUser,

Please define 'spirituality'.

Thank you.

Ken

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dannyalcatraz
Playing a Paladin requires commitment to try to role-play religious belief- tough for anyone who is fundamentally agnostic.

Torm
Not necessarily, in a game where one can usually find a deity that matches their general values - as opposed to the real world, where one is supposed (I guess? ) to match one's values to one's deity.

You're still talking about role-playing religious belief- not neccesarily MONOtheism- but belief in a divine or at least higher purpose to life than satisfying the animal needs of eating, sleeping, shelter, and reproduction.

Agnostics (A- without; gnosis knowledge) do not know whether there is a divine or not. Some do and some do not actively seek out the answer to the question of whether there is or not.

But if you are Agnostic, or if you are an Atheist, it is difficult (not IMPOSSIBLE) to role-play someone who is deeply committed to the divine, and especially so if you are roleplaying a class that is by nature prosetlyzistically and militaristically so. Paladins are the Military Missionaries of their faiths.

Dannyalcatraz
Playing a Paladin requires commitment to try to role-play zelotry- tough for anyone who is fundamentally a centrist or predisposed to compromise.

Torm
One can be a zealous defender of the values of egalitarianism - my characters generally are, aside from the specific requirements of their faiths (ie defending Magic as a Paladin of Mystra.)

Yes, but zealots, by their very nature, are opposed to compromise, which was my point. You can be a zealot for ANYTHING...but you won't approve of a contrary opinion.