Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[FireLance]

In another thread, the following statement was made:

But should a Paladin use lethal force against non-Evil sentient beings without first a serious, honest attempt to end the situation without killing? No. Absolutely not. Does that put Paladins at a major disadvantage? Sure does. It isn't easy being a Paladin. There's no excuse for failure to live up to their standards, and their death is, to them, a preferable end to moral failure.

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

 

[Crothian]

I think some people tend to over think the Paladin. It never seems to be such a chore to play one in the games I'm in.

 

[Nightfall]

Why should it be hard? Because no one figured out that you need a god of paladins as head of the goodly order! I mean look at Dragonlance! Or better yet Scarred Lands. We treat our paladins right!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In another thread, the following statement was made:



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.

They're following a difficult code and irritate more practical PCs.

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?

2e paladins weren't balanced; RP is quite different from mechanics. Two DMs can run a game, both with 25 point buy and the same campaign assumptions and magic items values, etc, and yet RP completely differently.

Also because of the difficult code.

 

[Nightfall]

Not to mention the fact some times when you have "godly" interference, it can distract a paladin.

 

[el-remmen]

In the games I run, playing a priest or paladin is as difficult as a player finds it to obey a code of conduct and set of precepts/sense of ethos. And only as difficult as they are a creative thinker, in terms of presenting philosophical arguments that can sometimes blur the edges, without coming off as a weasal.

While certainly some DMs make it harder than it should be, I also think that some people just weren't meant to play those kinds of characters, and probably shouldn't.

 

[WayneLigon]

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).

It shouldn't. It's the most misunderstood class in the game; in fact, I'll go so far as to say that it's willfully misunderstood. Being a Paladin is, with the exception of following the code of honor that you make up, is no more difficult than playing a LG wizard or fighter or any other class.

 

[Skyman]

Y'know, I've always been fond of the overzealous holy warrior, like that in Warhammer and Warhammer 40k. He has holy might that demons fear... but citizens fear him too because if he gets a whiff that they're working for his foes he might get it into his head to smite them.

Sure this is more of a Lawful Neutral attitude, but in a game with looser alignment restrictions than most DnD (Eberron style, perhaps) it could work. And paladins do seem to often be pretty much the same... allowing these character flaws could differentiate them more.

 

[Nightfall]

If people have that much trouble with a code of conduct, they shouldn't be monks either.

 

[frankthedm]

The big problem with paladins is that all players have too be in agreement what is and is not evil in game and the DM has to make the final calls. But to some folks, if only subconsciously, there is not a difference between in-game and out-of-game evil. When one person says ” this is not evil” in game, and someone else disagrees on a more personal level, a rift begins because someones personal beliefs have been challenged through the medium of the D&D game. This rift is what I believe makes paladin argument so hot blooded.

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?

A DM who cannot decide for his or her game whether if an act is evil or not, have no business allowing players to choose paladins.

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

The first thing I do for paladins is that I don’t drag modern morals into D&D. A Paladin is expected to show mercy to good and neutral foes, but they are also tasked with punishing the wicked. A paladin being merciful can stay his blade against a being only faintly evil, in the hopes of redeeming the lowly being, but to stay his blade against the truly wicked is a dereliction of his gods’ given duty.

Knowledge Religion is used to answer moral questions IMC so the right answer is just a few skill points away..

Guarded soul[Ex.] your soul cannot be killed through death effects or being fed upon by soul consuming entities, your body may die but your eternal reward is assured.

Can Multiclass without restriction into; the Monk order of the Platinum Fist, Cleric If deity is Lawful Good, Wizard or Sorcerer if Patron Deity Is Marduk.

And on Detect Evil: Aura strength is based on [mis]deeds for mortals rather than level or hit die. A truly horrible low level commoner can make some fiends jealous.

Using the Detect evil ability is as a supernatural ability, rather than as the spell. No components. While active it causes the Paladin’s eyes to glow with white angelic light. A paladin is expected to interpret aura strength as Urge to kill.

Faint: Proving your mercy would be for the best, but let not the wicked benefit from such.
Moderate: Enough foul deeds committed that a Merciful end is more than deserved.
Strong: Their path is chosen, Destroy without delay, but minimize the disorder that might occur in delivering justice.
Overwhelming: Cut this fiend down now! You need heed no law of the mortal world for a greater one had decreed the fiend’s fate.