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

[Aikuchi]

"Originally Posted by Torm
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."

Can't I say that for Druids class since they are restricted to Neutral alignments?
Or is it more inclined for classes that are doubly restricetd in alignments "Law" & "Good"?

I guess I have very different experiences when I seem to always have at least 1 paladin in every game I've played in the last 10 years or so. They dont last long but the allure of playing one always exists for every campaign either for a temporary player or permanent one (campaign-wise).

Druids seem to be rarer and more difficult to play although most of the games I've been in defer to neutrality more often than not because it seemed .... easier to rationalize their actions that way.

(Sigh) - I miss playing systems that concentrated less on the standard alignments in DnD d20. That one of the reasons why I liked playing the Oriental Adventure games nad its variants. There always seems more than just the guidelines of alignments to folow by when there are cultural ingame codes of conduct.

 

[ForceUser]

But if there are little to no moral challenges in a game the Paladin class certainly looks more promising.

To me, the moral challenges are what make the class interesting, provided that they are handled with maturity by all involved. And I love OA! I once ran an all-OA campaign set in medieval Vietnam!

I'll concur with you on this, Torm.

Ditto.

 

[Aikuchi]

To me, the moral challenges are what make the class interesting, provided that they are handled with maturity by all involved. And I love OA! I once ran an all-OA campaign set in medieval Vietnam!

I assume you had to alter a lot of the base classes to better reflect the Vietnam histories and culture ?

There are fantastic backdrops in Viernam as well and the kind of border wars they often had with their neighbours make for fascinating events to explore.

 

[Acid_crash]

I think one problem with the Paladin and D&D is that the D&D game, by the core rules, is that the alignments system a game of absolutes and fundamental forces and not really based on behavioral attitudes. Asking questions of "What is good?" and "What makes up a lawful society?" while good questions to ask, are fundamentally flawed as far as the D&D core engine is concerned.

The core engine is a game intended as a group of heroes laying the smackdown on evil and the reward is the treasure and experience to gain power to keep up the smackdown on evil. By this vein, if a Paladin sees an Orc, and the Monster Manual says it's evil, then the Paladin should, by all rights, smite the orc beast till its dead. Without question, without hesitation.

This is Dungeons and Dragons in its core. Adding a bunch of moral questions to the game is just asking for headaches, and this is where the headaches begin.
-----------
In the PHB, good is the helping of others whether or notyou benefit from it, and evil is hurting others whether or not you benefit from it (actually, this is from Heroes of Horror).

Heroes of Horror presents a Optional Alignment rule: Behavioral Alignment. Instead of being "true universal forces" as listed in the PHB, alignment simply measures a characters general attitudes towards life, the world, and the people around him. Good and Evil cease to exist as monster subtypes or spell descriptors, because beings and tools are defined by what they do and how they are used, not by a instrinsic moral value. (HoH, pg 76).

It goes on to list that a paladin still must be upright and honorable, help others, and in all ways uphold the tenets of the lawful good alignment. This represents codes of conduct those characters must follow, or personality traits common to the class.

Then - detect evil should detect the "intent" of an evil act, as it's being committed actively by the target. If a person/being commits many evil acts over the course of a time period then that they would register as evil no matter what.
-------------

All of the arguments seen lately, IMHO, stem from the simple fact that people seem to not understand the alignment system. Personally, I hate the alignment system as it is. It's supposed to be treated as a 'set of roleplaying guidelines' but how many times have you been in a game when a person commits ONE act that goes contrary to the alignment, and one or more other players begins to question that character, and says that he's 'not playing his alignment' and then sessions ground to a halt.

Lawful Good (pg 104, PHB): acts as a good person should as expected to act. Combines commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentless. Tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, speaks out against injustice. Hates to see guilty go unpunished. Allahndra, a paladin who fights evil 'without mercy' and protects the innocent 'without hesitation'. LG combines Honor and Compassion.

Based on this... if I were a Paladin and I was talking to a halfling and found that the halfling was somehow involved in an attack on my wife who was pregnant that almost killed her, based on this definition of Lawful Good, I'd be well within my rights to slay the halfling where he stands for his actions. No questions, no mercy. He is found guilty of almost slaying a woman, who is innocent, and therefore should be dealt with using the best means possible.

I don't see the problem with Paladin's.

The problem that is coming up is that Players and DMs are also Including Behavioral actions in the PHB description of the alignment, and that is what causes many conflicts.

Personally, they need to do away with alignments. Just causes way too many headaches.

They should also make the Paladin a Prestige Class. Prestige Class's are those classes that are more focused on a single motive, a single special ability, or are more restrictive in some sense than the more generic core classes. The paladin should NOT be a core, base class.

 

[Banshee16]

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!"

Why is this? What do people have against paladins, anyway?

I stripped one of the clerics in my party of his powers last game. In order to get a frost giant shaman of great evil to reveal what he knew, so the PCs could finish their quest, the giant made them promise to consecrate his body when he died, so he wouldn't be condemned to the lower planes. The cleric (of Shaundakul) cast consecrate, and consequently lost his powers.

It's not *just* supposed to be paladins that this happens to. I think it's just that paladins are supposed to be perfect, so people expect them to walk a fine line.

Banshee

 

[ThirdWizard]

Based on this... if I were a Paladin and I was talking to a halfling and found that the halfling was somehow involved in an attack on my wife who was pregnant that almost killed her, based on this definition of Lawful Good, I'd be well within my rights to slay the halfling where he stands for his actions. No questions, no mercy. He is found guilty of almost slaying a woman, who is innocent, and therefore should be dealt with using the best means possible.

Based on this and other oppinions in various paladin threads, I think half the reason that these Paladin threads go on and on is because 1) people don't actually read the threads before forming an oppinion, 2) people insert their own biases into the situation, and 3) they see it as happening in their own campaign, when it actually happened in someone else's.

 

[Aikuchi]

(smiles) --

I agree with Acid

I'm more than glad to be able to make the Paladin class a prestige in my games allowing them to earn what a Paladin is rather than just ... be.

I dislike the Alignments as set by the Core books but most of the players are used to it and I'm loathe to try and please them all by searching for a more universal behavioral code.

Although, I do not mind the Samurai class in OA to remain as a base class.

 

[Aikuchi]

Based on this and other oppinions in various paladin threads, I think half the reason that these Paladin threads go on and on is because 1) people don't actually read the threads before forming an oppinion, 2) people insert their own biases into the situation, and 3) they see it as happening in their own campaign, when it actually happened in someone else's.

I've been lurking for several months before I found the verve to post in these forums.

What you've stated above as reasons: Isnt that the case with most of the threads in the forums?

 

[Acid_crash]

Based on this and other oppinions in various paladin threads, I think half the reason that these Paladin threads go on and on is because 1) people don't actually read the threads before forming an oppinion, 2) people insert their own biases into the situation, and 3) they see it as happening in their own campaign, when it actually happened in someone else's.

I based my decision on the alignment in question, and what that alignment itself dictates. I'm not gonna read a thread that's 500+ posts long to formulate what I'd do. Way too much time to read people argue back and forth the same points they said on page 1 all the way through page 10+ whatever it is now.

If you understood anything from my post, is that D&D, as structured, is a game of absolutes and universal forces. Anything else added to the game is from the individual players, and each group is different. But, if a DM is gonna ask the question: Should I strip my Paladin player of his powers because of "whatever situation" came about that causes him to question this? then its clear that he's adding more to the game than what the game is intended to handle.

If the Paladin did not commit an evil act, he did not break the tenants of his code and the alignment and therefore should not be stripped of his powers.

The game, of course, is D&D. D&D is a game of absolutes. Evil is evil. Good is good. 'halfling is detected to be evil based on his involvement in an attack on an innocent person, doesn't matter who the innocent person is, the fact is that the person is seemingly innocent at the time of the attack. Therefore, based on the system as designed, the paladin is within full rights to deal with the halfling by whatever means necessary, without hesitation.'

Based on this system of the most popular rpg in the market, based on the core book that we play by, this is the most fundamental of what D&D is. It's absolutes and universal forces. That is how it is designed. That is not how it is played, though, because people are taking the game to the next step, and the game as designed is not there yet with how people want to play it.

The way I see it, people want to impost behavioral expectations on the alignments, what's to be expected and what's not allowed, but everybody has his/her own interpretation on what is expected and what is not. Everybody has a different opinion, a different view, because we each are all different. This is where the system breaks down. It's an old fashioned system that shouldn't be included anymore. The reason it doesn't work as well as it should is that, at any time in our lives, we are quite possible any and all of the alignments in the game, based on the situation at hand.

It's all based on behavior and decisions, but the game, as designed, is based on absolutes and universal forces of good and evil. The writers also assume (IMHO) that everybody knows what is absolute of good and evil. Unfortunately, they are wrong.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I've been lurking for several months before I found the verve to post in these forums.

What you've stated above as reasons: Isnt that the case with most of the threads in the forums?

Well, definately to an extent. I'm sure I've painted many a situation as how it would relate to a game I was running. It's good to point out, though, perhaps.

Case in point, the Puzzles thread, which went into the classic skill versus roleplaying debate. I know what my group likes. If I want myself and my players to have fun, I know what we want, and I know which works best in my campaign structure. What I want out of the game is quite possibly wildly different than the poster before and after me. That's the nature of a game as open ended as D&D.

Maybe I just like to state what might be the obvious in lots and lots of words to make myself sound smart. Hey, does that describe most discussions here as well?