Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[Gold Roger]

I like Paladins and seriously don't get the fuss.

Every idealistic character will be a problem in a pragmatic group. Every overly pragmatic character will be a problem in an idealistic group. Unless of course, the out of line character compromises or is compromised by his player.

Imho, paladins are no problem, they just make an existing problem more obvious when the whole group isn't on the same page.

 

[Xyanthon]

Knight != Paladin.

Um, it really depends. The paladin's of Charlemagne court certainly exhibited knightly virtues. Later throughout the Renaissance and Romantic periods, paladins and knights are roughly analogous (King Arthurs knights have sometimes been refered to as paladins). Strictly speaking are paladins knight, no. However they have in common the fact that they purportedly serve some sort of higher ideal.

That is all really beside the point. Paladins are thought of as adhearing to a strong code of ethics. That code is an agreed upon set of standards to which the paladin must aspire. However, it must be a standard that is agreed upon at the outset of a campaign. For instance, most cultures have a prohibition against killing. However, if it becomes necessary to kill in the name of a god or ideal, then killing is not necessarily an offense that is punished by man or god (ie the crusades or any number of other wars).

So it really boils down to hashing those kinds of details out at the begining of a campaign. Afterall, it is really not fair to the player or DM when a situation arises in which a paladin does something which could be construed as questionable such as killing orc children. Define those sorts of things up front and then stick to them.

 

[delericho]

Paladins are called to do the right thing in the right way, all the time. That's a hard and demanding path to follow. So, yes, it will and should be hard.

However...

Much of that is a roleplaying concern, and doesn't need backed by game mechanics. Ideally, in fact, there would be no penalty for violating the Paladin code, nor even for leaving the LG alignment, except that you couldn't then continue to gain levels as a Paladin. The only problem with that is thatyou would then see more Paladin players just doing whatever they wanted, assuming the rules gave no guidance on proper behaviour for the class. And, if you remove the alignment restrictions (and don't put something equivalent in their place) you lose all the flavour of the class, which should be undesirable.

Therefore, I do think it's important that the DM apply the penalties as laid down in the rules, but it's also important to remember that those penalties only apply if the character grossly violates the code of conduct, commits and evil action, or ceases to be LG in alignment.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Um, it really depends. [. . .]

Historical Paladin != D&D Paladin.

 

[Ranger REG]

It seems to me that there is an unspoken assumption that being a paladin should be difficult, that DMs should go out of their way to make life hard for a paladin, and that deciding to play a paladin character is the equivalent of hanging a "kick me" sign on your back.

What I'm curious about is, why should that be the case? In previous editions of the game, the paladin was supposed to be more powerful than an ordinary fighter, so a role-playing restriction was inserted to balance out a mechanical advantage (to a lesser extent, this was also true of the ranger).

However, now that the paladin is better balanced against the other classes, why not give it a bit more leeway? If you're DMing a paladin and you're unsure whether the character did something against his code of conduct, or whether what he did was actually an evil act, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?

Because his deity sees all, as one would be expected coming from a dedicated god-fearing servant. OR someone who embraces a philosophy to attain enlightenment and should not be distracted from his Code of Conduct.

He's also to serve as a role-model for the common beings. Which is why he put himself into a position where he is constantly being challenged and tested, which he deems are created by his deity.

If you're the type of DM that removes a paladin's powers for the slightest infraction, what do you do to compensate?

Give him a chance to atone, to resolve what would be considered in some cases as a crisis of faith.

 

[Herobizkit]

And, if you remove the alignment restrictions (and don't put something equivalent in their place) you lose all the flavour of the class, which should be undesirable.

I completely disagree. To me, alignment is merely a label to strap your character to a certain area of spells that only affect those of matching or opposing alignments. Also, it gives an in-game excuse for holy/unholy and lawful/chaotic weapons.

A person can play a basically Lawful and Good paladin without writing it on his sheet. He can also play a Paladin with no alignment whatsoever and act accordingly in the vein of which religion he worships. A Paladin of Love (for example) would certainly be different than a Paladin of Justice, but mechanically (in-game) they're identical, and they shouldn't be.

Taking the racial tendencies into consideration as well, you could rule that because Elves tend toward Chaotic Good, their Paladins should be less stringent than "human" ones.

Flavour comes from description, not in-game mechanics. A Fighter/Cleric could conceivably call himself a Paladin; depends on how you define "Paladin" in your own campaign.

Therefore, I do think it's important that the DM apply the penalties as laid down in the rules, but it's also important to remember that those penalties only apply if the character grossly violates the code of conduct, commits an evil action, or ceases to be LG in alignment.

I agree, except for the last part; in essence, isn't ceasing to be LG the same as willing committing an evil action(s) and/or violating their code of conduct?

 

[Xyanthon]

Heh, ok I'll concede the point.

 

[delericho]

A person can play a basically Lawful and Good paladin without writing it on his sheet. He can also play a Paladin with no alignment whatsoever and act accordingly in the vein of which religion he worships. A Paladin of Love (for example) would certainly be different than a Paladin of Justice, but mechanically (in-game) they're identical, and they shouldn't be.

Those would all be examples of the putting "something equivalent in their place" that I mentioned.

The thing is, as written the Paladin is an odd fit with D&D. The inspiration it is drawn from is largely that of the knight errant, the Knights of the Round Table, the Peers of Charlemagne, and the like. But in each of these instances, the source material is generally tied quite tightly to Christianity. By contrast, the core rules assumptions in D&D about divinity are rather differently. Essentially, the paladin is a monotheistic class in a polytheistic world. As I said, it's an odd fit.

Now, personally, I really really hate the notion of Paladins of every alignment. I further argue that most paladins should, in fact, not be bound to any god, state or race, but rather should serve the forces of Good directly. And, as such, the paladin code should not make more than minor allowances for the fact that Tordek is a dwarf, and dwarves hate orcs with a passion (for example). Frankly, if it came to that, I would rather see the Paladin class retired, and replaced by a Holy Warrior or Crusader class tied to <whatever> (as done in Arcana Evolved). I'm also of the opinion that it is time for the Paladin to become a Prestige Class.

However, I will readily conced that the paragraph above is all personal opinion, and has no basis in the RAW.

I agree, except for the last part; in essence, isn't ceasing to be LG the same as willing committing an evil action(s) and/or violating their code of conduct?

I don't think so. I would suggest that a 'Paladin' who basically did nothing all day, every day, and who consequently never committed an evil act, nor grossly violated his code, would still eventually cease to be Good and become Neutral (since inaction is always Neutral). I'm sure there are other cases, but they're probably pretty minor.

In any event, the three conditions I gave (any evil act, grossly violate the code, cease to be LG) are the same three conditions given in the PHB.

 

[Felon]

I find it's actually the player that makes a big deal out of his own paladinhood than anyone else, thinking their paladin must take the forefront of any fight, mustn't use a ranged weapon (or even carry one), mustn't use stealth, must immediatly attack anyone he detects as evil, mustn't let himself get dirty, and so forth. In other words, they resonate with Dark Helmet's assessment of good.

 

[Storyteller01]

I'm not so sure that this board is the place to discuss good or evil, or the standards there of. In a previous thread, a vast majority of the responses said that any alignment could slit their friends throat at night if he was a danger to the group, and be justified in doing so. Even a paladin (some believed ESPECIALLY the paladin).

I'd say it's hard to play a paladin because no one really knows what it's like to be held to that strict a standard, and most of us really don't want to.

Anyways, I've always preferred Dragon Star's law of active morality. You can't kill someone just because they're evil. If you do, and you have no other justification (you didn't witness them commit any crime) you go to jail for murder.