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

[babomb]

(perhaps harkening back to when you needed 17* charisma to play one as well as other attribute restrictions).
...
*I think it was 17 - do I remember wrong here?

In 2e, a Paladin required 12 Str, 9 Con, 13 Wis, and 17 Cha.

Nearly all paladin problems would be solved if paladin players and their DMs talked about the code before play. That's it. When I DM, all paladins, clerics, and druids have to talk to me first, although the paladin discussions are a little more involved.

 

[ForceUser]

New to this forum, forgiveness if I crossed any lines.

Welcome to ENWorld!

Isnt the Paladin thing rather subjective?
If we're talking about faith and spirituality in regards to the actions a paladin takes as a representative of that concept, are they the champions of that virtue (concept)?

How does that differ them from clerics much?

The 'Lawful Good" alignment restriction simply narrows what the generci mechanic ofr a paladin should be played for according to the PHB. I'm pretty sure when it comes to trying to roleplay a paladin who is a champion for a cause (or deific portfolio) that there are many expressions to it.
The LG alignment is simply one listed (not imposed) in the book.

In a strictly D&D sense, the paladin must perform "concrete acts of goodness, positive means by which he fights against the darkness of evil." It is certainly subjective--DMs and players must reach a clear consensus intially, and be willing to work together when differing interpretations arise. Unless the player's acts are grossly out of alignment and code, the DM should be lenient.

So what is the discussion here?

The 'roleplay' of the difficulty in handling the paladin class or the people who had trouble grasping the concept of a paladin (which may or may not confine themselves to the book definition and may argue otherwise with their DMs).

I'm Asian, and I consider myself rather spiritual but when I practice Shintoism or Taoism there isnt a deity I'm particularly campaigning for or a cause but simply a set of life rules. Hopefully I'm spiritual but does that make it difficult for me to roleplay a paladin? Or are the values of Lawful Good' too different for a Oriental leaning?


Sincerely speaking.

I am an idealist. I would like to believe that the values espoused above--compassion, respect for life, concern for the welfare and dignity of sentient beings, etc.--are commonly found in all human cultures and in their belief structures. I don't doubt that an Asian believer in Shinto could roleplay a paladin, though I'm sure it would be through the lens of your culture and not ours. Actually, I would love to witness such a character in play, just to see where cultures are different and similar with regard to interpreting the paladin.

 

[ForceUser]

There's a problem there. Just because I believe in Y, not X, doesn't mean that my belief should be defined as being a believer in not-X, except according to X believers who are putting themselves into a position of importance which they don't necessarily deserve. By doing so, you give X respect that it's not due in my eyes, because X isn't even on my radar, and doesn't even warrant consideration based on the evidence I'm choosing to pay attention to.

If your definition stands, I'm not atheist (1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.), nor am I agnostic (1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.) because my opinion on god is a non sequitur to my belief system, and it's neither a reaction nor any more doubtful than anyone else's beliefs. The question which defines these terms doesn't apply, and is not put....except by theists!

Ha! Saizhan.

*bows*

I think we've been cruising the same websites.

 

[Aikuchi]

Oddly enough, the Druid discussions are more involved in my games here
Paladins are second
clerics, rangers and bards last in line in that order.

 

[davidschwartznz]

In my mind, it's not an issue of having different answers; it's an issue of not asking the questions in the first place.

I agree that not everyone is critical of their own beliefs. But I don't think anyone can be a roleplayer for any length of time without being critical of their own beliefs. I'm reminded of a roleplaying game I read where the intorduction was apologetic for the term "roleplaying game", because in the author's opinion they are neither roleplaying nor a game. Concerning the former, he defined roleplaying as (paraphrasing) "a psychological exercise where one takes on the personna of someone else in order to learn about other people and themselves." If you're not learning somethign about yourself (even unconsciously) when you play a RPG, then IMO you're not doing it right. To truly roleplay, you have to be able to empathise with someone unlike yourself; and if we're defining that as spirituality, then roleplaying is spiritual.

I'm not sure I buy the idea that playing a Paladin well requires any more introspection than playing anything else well.

(PS As for it not being a game, his opinion was it's not a game unless someone can win. I try to avoid people like that.)

 

[Torm]

I wonder....perhaps a house rule that trades in Detect Evil for "What would Torm do?", whereby you can ask the DM whether what you're considering doing is above board, if there's any doubt.

OR ... you could just ask me here. Although, that might slow down gameplay while you wait for an answer. Torm's a busy deity.

 

[ForceUser]

I agree that not everyone is critical of their own beliefs. But I don't think anyone can be a roleplayer for any length of time without being critical of their own beliefs. I'm reminded of a roleplaying game I read where the intorduction was apologetic for the term "roleplaying game", because in the author's opinion they are neither roleplaying nor a game. Concerning the former, he defined roleplaying as (paraphrasing) "a psychological exercise where one takes on the personna of someone else in order to learn about other people and themselves." If you're not learning somethign about yourself (even unconsciously) when you play a RPG, then IMO you're not doing it right. To truly roleplay, you have to be able to empathise with someone unlike yourself; and if we're defining that as spirituality, then roleplaying is spiritual.

I'm not sure I buy the idea that playing a Paladin well requires any more introspection than playing anything else well.

(PS As for it not being a game, his opinion was it's not a game unless someone can win. I try to avoid people like that.)

I like the cut of your jib, Simpson!

I think that there are different levels of participating in RPGs. (*hauls out his DMG II, pg. 7*)

Sounds like we both might fall under the category of gamers who "prefer characterizations and narrative [and] believe that these are the most important elements of a game."

However, in my experience, many other players enjoy a more superficial (but no less legitimate!) experience of rock-'em-sock-'em adventures. I doubt such players spend time analyzing what they've learned from D&D (except for tropes such as "avoid dragons whenever possible").

 

[ForceUser]

OR ... you could just ask me here. Although, that might slow down gameplay while you wait for an answer. Torm's a busy deity.

Dude, I'd just like to say that I love your sig. Wish I'd have thought of it first!

 

[Aikuchi]

I realize that my players would like the Paladin class play them as they see how the class is represented in western archtypes. we play here in Asia and I doubt we have the smae in-depth treatment or background cultural understanding of a 'paladin' behavious. Much of that would be traslateble to a similar albeit altered 'Bushido' code instead.

A westernised variant of the Samurai.


Hmmm.s

 

[ForceUser]

I realize that my players would like the Paladin class play them as they see how the class is represented in western archtypes. we play here in Asia and I doubt we have the smae in-depth treatment or background cultural understanding of a 'paladin' behavious. Much of that would be traslateble to a similar albeit altered 'Bushido' code instead.

A westernised variant of the Samurai.


Hmmm.s

It would be like Akira Kurosawa doing a version of John Boorman's classic Excalibur film.

Man, that would be sweet.