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

[mhacdebhandia]

Julius Caesar first roman Emperor (abhorred the carnal lusts of his subjects and opposed the "morale ambiguousness" of his age - some historical scholars believe this may have led to his execution.

Gaius Julius Caesar the Dictator was never Emperor. While he was granted the lifelong use of the title Imperator, that was an accolade traditionally bestowed upon any victorious general by acclamation of his soldiers upon the field of battle - indeed, receiving the honour from your soldiers was prerequisite for the Senate's granting you permission to hold a triumph (victory procession) upon your return to Rome.

Neither was Caesar the Dictator particularly known for sincere moral leadership in the sense you imply. Actually, your description better fits his grand-nephew and heir Gaius Octavius Thurinus/Gaius Julius Caesar "Octavianus" (from whence historians derive the name Octavian)/Augustus, who was the first Emperor by traditional reckoning and was famous for legislating morality concerning marriage and infidelity.

(I say "traditional reckoning" because there exists in modern scholarship a distinction between Augustus' rule as Princeps - very roughly, First Citizen - and the rule of his successor Tiberius Claudius Nero/Tiberius Caesar Augustus as Emperor. Augustus' reign is referred to as the Principate, and conceived of as a bridge between the Republic destroyed by the efforts of (takes a breath) Gaius Marius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, Gaius Julius Caesar the Dictator, Marcus Junius Brutus, Gaius Cassius Longinus, Marcus Antonius, and Octavian/Augustus himself, and the true Empire that only began under Tiberius.)

 

[Hussar]

FrankTheDM has a very good point. Very VERY few PC's IME are actually good. The default alignment in 3e is not good, it's neutral and the vast majority of PC's fall into this spectrum. Being good is HARD. Just being nice to people and not doing evil only makes you neutral in 3e. Read the description of true neutral again and I think you might agree.

The second a PC is more interested in the reward than in helping others, he's not good. Not that he's evil, but, he's definitely not good anymore. Whenever PC's take the most expedient route over what's morally justified, they aren't good. Again, they might not be evil, but, being good means ACTIVELY doing good deeds. Just thinking nice things is not enough.

It was asked before where it was written where a cleric of Cuthbert couldn't lie. Well, my answer to that would be, why would a diety of honor and LAW tolerate one of his chosen to lie and perjure himself? Lying is definitely something a priest of Cuthbert would not do. It goes against his entire dogma. Yet, Dm after Dm turn a blind eye to clerics but go out of their way to screw over paladins.

If players actually played the aligments on their sheet rather than just saying, "Well, I'm chaotic good, so I can do whatever the heck I please, cos, well, I'm chaotic dontchaknow?" we'd have a much easier time with paladins. But, players write NG on their sheet and then proceed to be the most selfish, mercenary bastards out there, doing absolutely nothing without reward and ignoring any moral implications of their actions.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Hussar, I agree with you there.

One thing though:

It was asked before where it was written where a cleric of Cuthbert couldn't lie. Well, my answer to that would be, why would a diety of honor and LAW tolerate one of his chosen to lie and perjure himself? Lying is definitely something a priest of Cuthbert would not do. It goes against his entire dogma. Yet, Dm after Dm turn a blind eye to clerics but go out of their way to screw over paladins.

That doesn't really answer the question, at least in the literal sense. Which brings me to the one significant issue that a number of people (myself included) have with the whole Cleric/Paladin strangeness: there is (virtually) no written rule stating that Clerics must do (or not do) anything in particular! Yes, there may be a couple of minor exceptions to this, sure. But basically, the Paladin is required in the actual RAW to do certain things, and not to do certain other things, on pain of losing his or her divine blessnigs. Not so the Cleric. Or the Druid, or Ranger. . . but I digress.

In the spirit of the 'law', you are of course right. I am content with my own house rules for divine obligations etc., but I still wish the rulebooks themselves were more balanced and 'logical' - inasmuch as rules for fantasy roleplaying can be - in this way.

 

[ajanders]

Just a thought...

The paladin's code is part of his religious training, right? Or, if the paladin has an abstract devotion to Law and Good, it's part of his philosophical knowledge?

Fine: use the Knowledge -- Religion skill to figure out what's in the code. it represents the years of paladin school just as effectively as Knowledge -- History represents years of bard school or Knowledge -- Arcana represents wizardly training.

No feats necessary, Exalted or otherwise. No box on the head. Just a skill check. Most of the questions here are either basic (DC 15) or slightly hard (DC 20). Get the party cleric to help, if you want.

The DM should then give you some guidance on what's appropriate for your faith. If they've defined your faith well, this should be no problem. If they've defined it poorly, at least you don't have to suffer for this lack of preparation.

If your DM is actually just planning to put it to you because you're playing a paladin, then they have to say that explicitly in front of you and the rest of the group, and you can act on that as you deem appropriate. I suggest chucking pretzels at their head. Your group may have other ways of handling the situation.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

FrankTheDM has a very good point. Very VERY few PC's IME are actually good. The default alignment in 3e is not good, it's neutral and the vast majority of PC's fall into this spectrum. Being good is HARD. Just being nice to people and not doing evil only makes you neutral in 3e. Read the description of true neutral again and I think you might agree.

it depends on what you mean by "just being nice". My cleric way back when would setup shop in any village we went to and offer healing to one and all, usually just healing skill and such but when necessary, spells too. he considered that "just being nice." i considered that "just being good."

The second a PC is more interested in the reward than in helping others, he's not good. Not that he's evil, but, he's definitely not good anymore.

thats a stronger take on alignment than i see it. Specifically the "the second a PC..." cuz i never see alignment as anything that a single action or a single choice can change. Well maybe a particularly heinous act on a grand scale can change with one act, but not just the slip between which you value more, the aide you give or the reward you gain.

Would you seriously rule "you are not good" for a character who healed someone because of the money? What if he gave the money to charity? What if he thought of giving the money to charity before healing? After?

My read on 3e alignments is that no one is expected to be perefect, no one is even expected to be all the things an alignment asks. So, every good character isn't expected or demanded to be every thing mentioned in the good alingment but probably most of them, so why can't an otherwise "good character" (one who meets all the other things listed under good) be also greedy? Why cannot greed be the one part of good (not generous) that he isn't "good at" and yet he still be good?

if you demand for any of the alignments that someone be EVERYTHING listed under the alignment all the time, then i can certainly see why one would think NEUTRAL is the default.

However, i don't think thats what the rules describe.

Whenever PC's take the most expedient route over what's morally justified, they aren't good. Again, they might not be evil, but, being good means ACTIVELY doing good deeds. Just thinking nice things is not enough.

doing good deeds becessary to be good? sure.
Doing all good deeds all the time? not necessary.
Doing only good deeds? nope.

It was asked before where it was written where a cleric of Cuthbert couldn't lie. Well, my answer to that would be, why would a diety of honor and LAW tolerate one of his chosen to lie and perjure himself? Lying is definitely something a priest of Cuthbert would not do. It goes against his entire dogma. Yet, Dm after Dm turn a blind eye to clerics but go out of their way to screw over paladins.

now you get into specific dogma. Lying may be a sin in that dogma, but that doesn't mean its a religious order that forbids all sin, as opposed to one which allows for atonement.

In the image of the cuthbertian faith i used, fighting evuil was the most important thing. They were actually treated as LN because their tactics in fighting evil went so far into the extreme to be "not good".

If players actually played the aligments on their sheet rather than just saying, "Well, I'm chaotic good, so I can do whatever the heck I please, cos, well, I'm chaotic dontchaknow?" we'd have a much easier time with paladins.

Why? Why wouldn't we just see a lot more neutral and a lot less good and have a lot more characters who didn't even make the minimal effort to seem good now and again? if the Gm sets the bar on GOOD as far as you seem, it becomes unattainable, so why would they even try?

But the bigger issue in my book with such a standard is this... Is the Gm setting that bar going to run adventures that also cater to that style of play? Are his bad guys going to be setup so that "non-ambush" tactics are just fine? Are his scenarios going to be setup so that not needing to lie doesn't in itself foil the chances of success? is he going to setup sceanrios where "reward" or "payment" isn't at the heart of the quest?

See, perhaps the biggest problem with the paladin code isn't with other players notn being good enough, but with most of the "standards adventure/scenario types" not being scripted with "paladins moral code" in mind and the GMs who blindly do "the usual" without considering how that "usual" intersects with the characters involved until the OBVIOUS conflicts boil over.

Allowing a paladin in the game is the Gm saying "that character is appropriate for this campaign" and if the adventures that then follow highlight or focus on scripts contrary to that character or worse yet bring these issues into crisis (without consideration for resolution) then that Gm has just done that player a disservice.

But, players write NG on their sheet and then proceed to be the most selfish, mercenary bastards out there, doing absolutely nothing without reward and ignoring any moral implications of their actions.

its easy to say "some" players do anything, and i am reading an implied "some" there in front of players in your statement.

if a Gm is running a game with a paladin and being the most mercenary selfish bastard is shown in his game as worthwhile, then he is likely not running a game where a paladin is a suitable character.

the paladin is an icon, an exemplar trying to lead by example and show the right path, while perhaps the hard path, to be in truth the right path. if the Gms world and adventures make that a LIE, then he probably should have not approved the paladin in the first place.

More players IMX follow the lead the Gm sets than don't.

 

[Thotas]

My earlier remark about a Knowledge (religion) check was some what off the cuff at the time; but FranktheDM's enthusiatic agreement got me thinking more ... having then seen ajanders similar statements affirms it even more.

Scenario: the DM is out to screw me over for playing a paladin. The moral trap presents itself, and I ask for the right to a k(r) check. Evil DM has to be pretty slick to deny me. So, I take a 10. If it's a simple thing as far as EDM is concerned, I'm golden, as long as I haven't both used Intelligence as a dump stat and neglected to take any ranks in k(r). If it's more complicated and taking a 10 results in failure, then I had a less than 50% chance and any god that is truly good will be willing to forgive my human frailty as long as I'm striving in the right direction. (It might be wise for me to take a rank or two when I level up to demonstrate my character's sincerity.) Maybe some effort to make up for my mistake will work as a plot hook for next adventure?

And if this solves the problem with the Evil DM, it will surely make things just that much better with good one, right?

 

[FireLance]

You should also give the party experience for overcoming the moral dilemma, whether they resolve it properly or not (see link in .sig) .

 

[Thotas]

Firelance, using the system in your sig would warrant xp in my view ... but what I described doesn't. My taking a 10 is almost cheating; either I've ducked the challenge completely, or I've made an excuse for my failure. But that was my "evil DM" scenario. Under a good DM, I'd be more likely to try actually rolling the dice and rolling with the punches from there. Or asking the DM about some relevant details of the religion and making my own judgement from there.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Just a note:

Carrot actually never lies. I remember the quote from one of the books where Angua is shocked that Carrot not only bluffs the arms guard, but bluffs him by completely telling the truth. Carrot repeatedly says that he will be forced to obey a command that he doesn't want to if the arms guard tells him to go away. Completely true. And very, very intimidating. Never mind that the order is for him to peacefully leave.

This is a perfect example of a paladin in play.

No, he actually lies. I know which part of the series you're talking about. That's not the item I was thinking about, however. My friend has all the books in the Watch series. One of these days, I'll make a note of all the actual lies he tells and post them in a paladin thread

As far as other classes having codes, well, under clerics it mentions that grossly violating the tenets of your faith results in a loss of clerichood. I remember the shock on one of my player's faces when I actually enforced this rule after his lawful good priest of Corean sat back and watched orcs torture and eat prisoners. Granted the prisoners were pirates, but, they were still human. Poof, instant warrior with good saves.

I almost never see clerics grossly violate their codes, however. Their codes aren't as strict as paladin codes, for starters, so it's harder to grossly violate them. Furthermore, non-lawful clerics are very common.

The question boils down to: do you require paladins to tell the absolute, unswerving, unpainted, unaspected truth regardless of the consequences or whom those consequences might fall upon?

I would expect a paladin to follow the spirit of their code, not just the letter, hence the reference to Aes Sedai tricks. Aes Sedai are spellcasters with an oath not to lie "written into their bones". However, plenty of Aes Sedai tell the literal truth (often leaving out information) in an attempt to manipulate those around them. No wonder so many people hate Aes Sedai. When a paladin tells a lie without actually telling a lie, I would force a Bluff check, and tell them I'm keeping track of that. Eventually they'll do it too many times, and the next day they're a warrior with a few more hit points.

Why cannot greed be the one part of good (not generous) that he isn't "good at" and yet he still be good?

This is explained as acceptable in the alignment section when describing Tordek.

It was asked before where it was written where a cleric of Cuthbert couldn't lie. Well, my answer to that would be, why would a diety of honor and LAW tolerate one of his chosen to lie and perjure himself? Lying is definitely something a priest of Cuthbert would not do. It goes against his entire dogma. Yet, Dm after Dm turn a blind eye to clerics but go out of their way to screw over paladins.

Just because you're lawful doesn't mean you can't lie. I think you're going to have to do better than that.

Honorable people lie frequently too. Read some history books It was amazing the number of honorable samurai who told lies. Kusunoki Masahige is the model of the oft-misinterpreted samurai code. He fooled an attacking force by faking his own death and that of his family, fake funeral included, and then he ran away! He also used stealthy tactics. He's known for dying in battle for the emperor. His name was used to inspire kamikaze pilots in World War II. Tell me where it says honorable characters can't lie.

If players actually played the aligments on their sheet rather than just saying, "Well, I'm chaotic good, so I can do whatever the heck I please, cos, well, I'm chaotic dontchaknow?" we'd have a much easier time with paladins. But, players write NG on their sheet and then proceed to be the most selfish, mercenary bastards out there, doing absolutely nothing without reward and ignoring any moral implications of their actions.

This is because alignment isn't accurate or appropriate for a lot of games. Too many DMs expect players to play every aspect of their alignment all day, every day, for fear of losing XP or something. I think more people should play neutral, and not have alignment act as a negative straightjacket.

 

[Voadam]

I mean, take for instance a real life historical religious figure. Certain guy with the initials JC. He hung out with people of ill repute...didn't indulge in their activities or made it easy for they themselves to indulge in those activities, but he hung out with them because those were the kind of people who needed him most. See what I mean?

No.

That's fine and good, but paladins have a different set of guidelines they must follow and have specific prohibitions on who they can hang out with.

From the srd:

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

So while someone who is good can associate with the fallen and evil in need of redemption, and have followers who are not themselves LG, a paladin cannot.

Those are the rules as written.