Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[Herobizkit]

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.

I am 100% in agreement. Monte did the Paladin concept right. As an aside, remember the AD&D2 Cleric's Handbook, and their priests of the Philosophy of Good? They rocked, AND got Paladins as followers... wonder why? *HMMMM....*

And since we're on the subject of Prestige Classes, why not just follow d20 Modern's model and have 6 "Basic" classes that can eventually "prestige" into "advanced" classes? I realize that D&D is largely about the "kewl p0w3rz" (and I readily admit, I like cool powers and I want them now now now; that's why I like to mutli-class so much), but I would think that without kewl powers, D&D could become more focused on the storytelling side of things.

And, completely unrelated, I'll just throw out my obligatory "change the Vancian spell system to the one used by psionics".

 

[Voadam]

Why aren't there a lot of threads about DMs revoking Druid powers? I feel that true Neutral is far harder to play than LG. I guess mileage really varies. Never see threads about Clerics getting their powers suspended, either.
The treatment of the subject is that there is no leeway at all for a paladin to make even the tiniest "mistake" and that the player of a Paladin will be getting a harshly graded pop quiz in Ethics for the next 30 hours of play time.

Druids lose their powers for a day if they wear metal armor or shields (unless they are FR Mielikki druids).

"A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities"

These are much less open to varying interpretations than

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities"

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Why aren't there a lot of threads about DMs revoking Druid powers? I feel that true Neutral is far harder to play than LG. I guess mileage really varies. Never see threads about Clerics getting their powers suspended, either.
The treatment of the subject is that there is no leeway at all for a paladin to make even the tiniest "mistake" and that the player of a Paladin will be getting a harshly graded pop quiz in Ethics for the next 30 hours of play time.

Druids don't have to be true neutral.

 

[Belbarid]

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.

Exactly- with the exception of a rigid code of conduct for which there are no excuses or exceptions, RP'ing a Paladin is not matierally different than RP'in a LG Monk.

And, with the exception of the fact that it's the grilled flesh of a cow, eating a steak is not materially different than eating a baseball.

And why is this considered difficult? The Paladin in the original example could have avoided the sticky moral situation of killing two non-Evil monks by previously acting less rashly.

My major gripe with alignments in general (other than basing them off of the severely flawed reasearch of a man who used psychiatry as a means for getting into he patients' pants) is that the underlying assumption is that you hold your actions up to some semi-arbitrary standard and get a judges' ruling on whether or not it's in "Alignment".

And yet, unlike most others, that is exactly the relationship between a Paladin and his code of ethics. For most it shouldn't be difficult, as I would imagine that your average Paladin became that way because his natural outlook on life matches that code. For others, it's more difficult because of differences between your natural tendencies and this code that you are held to.

It stinks on occasion, yes. Can't just end every argument with a ridgehand to the throat of the guy who disagrees with you. Gotta at least try to end things peacefully. But it's part of who the Paladin is.

 

[Belbarid]

This is an interesting discussion. I would say that playing a paladin is not hard, but it requires a mindset that is not always in sync with the general mindset of adventuring player characters. It is also important that you need both a player, and a DM who understands what the paladin class is and what it represents in the game.

Couldn't have said it better myself. As evidenced by my attempts, and failures, to do so.

 

[Rel]

But the example I really want to take issue with is the kicking of the dog. Honestly, are you serious? We're talking about deliberately inflicting pain on a creature that is not only innocent, but trusts you wholly, and (in most cases) is a loyal and honourable companion. How can that sort of betrayal not be considered evil?

In answer to your first question, yes I'm serious.

In answer to your second question, I allow that I might consider it evil. But not Evil.

The way I picture alignment in my head is that its a big, grassy field divided into the square of nine squares. There is plenty of room in each square for you to be standing near the middle or near one of the edges, even in one of the corners.

If you're a low down, no good dog kicker, (and I mean chronic dog kicker, not a good upstanding citizen who once kicked his dog for tearing a hole in the bathroom sheetrock because I'll tell ya that I didn't kick mine when he did that but I came awful close) then you are certainly standing somewhere near that line across the field where Neutral become Evil.

If you're an active pet torturer who premeditatively maims and inflicts pain on baby hamsters for the sheer fun of it on a nightly basis, I'll probably go ahead and slide you over the line into Evil territory. Now you're no Orcish Baby-Slaughterer or Undead Overlord Who Pushes Castles of Orphans Into the Ocean, but you qualify as Evil. And if a Paladin walks up and demands that you pay for your crimes then he's got every right to inflict justice upon you.

The bottom line is that I tend to run worlds that are grim and gritty where life is cheap and animal life is even cheaper. That doesn't mean worthless. But given that a family pet like a dog is going to be at least turned away from the table if not outright consumed for nourishment in the event of a famine, I'm not going to slap a "big E Evil" label on some mean old bastard who kicks Fido once in a while.

One final word on the ever popular topic of Redemption: I believe in it. Our aforementioned hamster torturer is absolutely free to turn away from his Evil ways and atone for his acts in whatever way he is capable of. Maybe he can donate pet hamsters to needy orphans that live in that castle by the sea until such time as they're either consumed during a famine (the hamsters I mean, not the orphans) or the whole lot of them are pushed into the sea by an Undead Overlord. Keep at it long enough and you'll be out of Evil territory and possibly could even become Good someday.

BUT, the Paladin doesn't OWE you a shot at redemption. If you were interested in redemption then you could have redeemed yourself yesterday or a week ago last Tuesday. But once the Paladin is on your doorstep, any chance at redemption he gives you is a gift, not an obligation. If he leaves you sitting with your head in your lap then that's your fault, not his. Evil doesn't rest and he can't always be bothered to sit around babysitting you to make sure that you don't go back to your old, hamster torturing ways.

 

[Henry]

Now you're no Orcish Baby-Slaughterer or Undead Overlord Who Pushes Castles of Orphans Into the Ocean, but...

+1 Posrep, in spirit.

 

[Storyteller01]

Well, if the evidence points to the man and he admits to it by his attitude, by all means the Paladin should dispatch the man. Better to act somewhat efficiently at stopping evil than letting doubt completely bound your hands.

p.s. CSI didn't exist in ye darken times. Up until 1800s about the only way to catch a criminal was for the criminal to be caught red-handed. Short of spells, that is. Those can go a long way. But still a Paladin that needs to book evidence before acting is severely handicapped in a medieval setting.

So police should just shoot anyone simpy because they look the part?

CSI and D&D aren't yea dark ole days. The paladin can just as easily take a group with him, detain the bandits, and take them to his church for a good many divination spells as confirmation. If the typical player can do to town and buy god knows how many healing potions, the paladin should have no problem finding a church that can do this.

 

[Storyteller01]

Oh this reminds me of something else about my games: Evil is EVIL. You don't become Evil by stealing an apple off the vendor's cart, kicking your dog or cheating on your taxes. If you're really Evil then it's because you've done some seriously BAD stuff.

Not really. In this system, you can be evil just by putting on the wrong helm or ticking off the wrong mage. That evil warlord who slaughtered thousands can just renounce his ways and, poof, suddenly become good. Or someone can make you register as evil, just because they know the local paladin is a bit overzealous in his duties...

With the exception of specific creatures, alignment is fairly mutable.

 

[Sejs]

So police should just shoot anyone simpy because they look the part?

Looks the part, acts the part, and the evidence points to them you mean?

Then again, police have to deal with things such as due process - and paladins arn't the police. Police enforce the law, paladins smite evil. Apples and oranges.

CSI and D&D aren't yea dark ole days. The paladin can just as easily take a group with him, detain the bandits, and take them to his church for a good many divination spells as confirmation.

Again, this goes back to the question of why does the paladin need to haul the badguys in for questioning/send them to jail, etc.

Consider the setting. If they're bandits in the first place, there's more likely a bounty on their heads than some authority wanting to put them in a holding cell.