When a PC offends a paladin's CoC

[IcyCool]

Well, a paladin's code of conduct is a code that the paladin is bound to live by. Note that his companions are not bound by that code, and he should not expect them to be. Unless they are evil, he can adventure with them. So, if the paladin came down to "He leaves or I do", then as a player and a character I'd look at him and say, "He stays, you go."

 

[lukelightning]

Paladin vs. Cleric

Keep the cleric.

Paladin vs. Druid

Keep the druid.

Paladin vs. Wizard

Keep the wizard.

Paladin vs. Sorcerer

Keep the sorcerer.

Paladin vs. Fighter

Keep the fighter.

Paladin vs. Barbarian

Keep the barbarian.

Paladin vs. Bard

Keep the bard.

Paladin vs. Ranger

Keep the ranger.

Paladin vs. Rogue

Keep the rogue.

Paladin vs. Monk

Keep the monk.

I guess you can figure out my opinion of paladins.

"A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."

Seems like the easiest thing would be for the paladin to leave, assuming the rest of the party has no problem with this character.

 

[Umbran]

Well, a paladin's code of conduct is a code that the paladin is bound to live by.

Check the writeup. By the SRD (emphasis mine): "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."

If this is a conflict of character personalities in-game, then the resolution is also about character personalities in-game. So, whether the paladin gets to stay or not depends on what I myself am playing, and history between the characters, and the nature fo the conflict. If I'm playing a CG character, I may not care much about the occasional lie or theft. But I may well come down on the paladin's side if it is about senseless kiling.

In a very broad generalization, I'll note that the paladin is generally reliable. The person who has repeadedly offended the paladin probably isn't. When trying to determine who to keep, consider not just what they can do, but also what they are likely to do.

 

[painandgreed]

Unless the campaign is based upon a holy quest and all the other players should be of proper alignment and disposition that there'd be trouble even if there wasn't a paladin in the party, get rid of the paladin. Always get rid of the paladin as they are simply too disruptive to party dynamics. In this case, if the paladin has the problem and nobody else in the party does, it's time for the paladin to take a hike.

But in general, other players can't violate the paladin's code. A paladin's code is for the paladin to follow. He is the one that is above everybody else and everybody else are not held to the same expectations.

 

[merelycompetent]

Like many others: It depends.

I like JoeGKushner's answer best.

Personally, I prefer to avoid the problem at the start. Strictly IME:

You can play your Paladin as the paragon example of all that is lawful and good. You are here to set an *EXAMPLE* of the epitome of spiritual achievement. You show by how you live your life and perform heroic deeds what others can achieve... by following your example. You should serve as an inspiration for the lying thief, the uncouth barbarian, the greedy wizard, or the amoral mercenary to become better than what they are. Your god's view, and your personal view, is that it is better to gain a convert than a corpse. Requires the metagame condition that the other PCs cooperate with certain Paladin restrictions (such as "don't kill the BBEG after he surrenders"), and the DM not shaft the players with every bad guy who surrenders trying to murder them in their sleep.

Or, you can play your paladin as a crusader, out to squash anything else remotely resembling evil, and put to the sword anything that violates your code or the Lawful Good alignment. The "Convert or Die," approach falls in this category. Requires the metagame condition that the other PCs have their characters toe the line of the paladin's code also or be okay with conflict (even combat) between PCs. The DM must be prepared for this conflict, because it will probably happen suddenly and can wreck a plot or campaign in the time it takes to roll a d20.

Both types can be fun. The more like the second type the Paladin is, however, the more opportunities for trouble. It really depends on your group's play style.

If I'm running a campaign, the players are required to create characters who can work together. So my campaigns tend towards the first type of paladin. Either type is Ok in a one-shot I'm running (so long as the players know what they're getting into).

As for which one I'd remove: The PC (paladin or non-paladin) who continuously crosses the line between being DM-friendly and DM-unfriendly gets a talking-to, and can lead to retirement of the character or removal from the game. If I'm a player, whichever of the involved PCs is being the biggest pain in the posterior gets my vote for the boot.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Without more information this thread is meaningless. Drop all the players and go play solitaire.

The Auld Grump

 

[Voadam]

Given a choice between one who must follow the code and one who consistently offends the code. Hmm. I think I'd go with offending the code. I'm in a brutal gritty mood.

 

[Voadam]

Mechanically speaking? No. A Paladin isn't "worth it" even without the code of conduct restrictions - except in very unusual circumstances, like playing a whole campaign knee-deep in fear and disease causing enemies.

I've played in that type of campaign. Two PCs, my ranger wizard and a paladin. The tank/healer is a great part of a two man team.

 

[Vegepygmy]

How about if I rephrased the scenario: Which would you rather have in the party? A paladin or X?

Depends on the paladin. Depends on the X.

 

[tzor]

For me it has nothing to do with class verses class. I would suppose it might have to do with my character's alignment, but suddenly the logic here seems obvious no matter what my general alignment tendencies. I go with the paladin every time.

Why? Because a party has to trust each other. For a non evil party this means that we have to assume, as a general principle that no member in the party would deliberately try to harm or decrease the power of any other member of the party. The party needs all the power it has, and anyone trying to take away power from the party is not in unity with the party's goals, or my goal, since I'm obviously in the party for some reason.

Trying to take a paladin down from paladinhood is about as obnoxious as throwing dispell magic on the party, or stealing the cleric's holy symbol. For that reason I cannot trust the one opposed to the paladin, so the paladin wins every time.