Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[Aus_Snow]

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.

Actually, I've seen (and posted in) threads about both of those things.

 

[Sejs]

So we have a slight differing view as to timing. I think we can live with that.

Works for me.

 

[Rel]

If the upshot is that no matter how evil you've been in the past you can just say, "But I change my evil ways right...NOW!" and THEN when the Paladin smites your ass, HE is the one who gets the reprimand for killing somebody that's Good then I'll just pass on playing a Paladin in that game.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Unfortunately, humans (and most races in D&D) are less than logical. Not only have generally good hearted folks hung out with evil people (family, life long friend, etc) some have even taken the rap for said evil person out of a misguided sense of honor or responsibility.

So? This is only a problem if you presuppose the Paladin should impose perfect justice on a world rife with irrational and imperfect people.

Choices based on loyalty and honor can have disproportionate consequences.

In fact, much of the fun of playing an Arthurian-style knight in shining armor is that you might end up fighting other honorable knights that could allies with another turn of the wheel.... Arthurian knights are not pure in the consequences of their actions, they are merely pure for good or evil or honor in their personal motivations.

I only expect the Paladin to make reasonable straight-forward deductions based on the information available, not wring his hands over every theorectical possible alternative scenario.

It is also bizarre for you to require a Paladin to use someone else's class abilities in order to fulfill his explicit purpose.

 

[Storyteller01]

Or else...what?

I guess that one really boils down to a matter of is the DM the type who would play it straight, or are they the type who would try to pull the rug out from under the paladin because for some reason they think that sort of thing is fun. Haha! Those armed hooligans wearing the 'I *heart* robbing people' shirts were just farmers, despite all the signs to the contrary I was feeding you! Take that ya darn paladin, no powers for you.

Never done that, but I have explained that you'll need more than a gut feeling to not loose your abilities. The players roll with it.

Right, but you're not a paladin, and a paladin is neither a cop nor a security guard.

In a sense they are, albeit intrusted with more power (maybe, depending on the campaign). They defend the innocent, bring justice, etc.

Imagine instead in your position, that instead of Detect Evil, you have Detect Criminal.

Doesn't equate. Even in D&D evil doesn't equal criminal, especially in places like thay (Faerun).

If someone pings would you be justified in calling the law? Now further imagine that the law isn't nearly as pervasive as it is in our society, that there may or may not be anyone to call, and beyond that they may not be as well equipped to deal with the situation as you are.

We're talking about the same game that has many folks in a city capable of casting teleport, scry, sending (including making an item of sending that you can carry), fly, and any number of other support spells? This doesn't include your own spells or items you may be carrying at the time?

I disagree, you're on good footing, but it definitely shouldn't be the one and only thing you go off of, certainly. As for the 1984 quip? Hardly. Let's not be obtuse, here.

Might be obtuse, but I found it fitting. Killing targets because they pinged your DE, without any other justification, is the same as vaporizing someone for thinking the wrong thoughts. Again, JMO.

 

[Storyteller01]

So? This is only a problem if you presuppose the Paladin should impose perfect justice on a world rife with irrational and imperfect people.

What would happen to a paladin if he responded in the same manner, that innocents are expendable in the cause of destroying evil?

They may not be able to provide perfect justice, but they have access to tools that allow them to come closer than anything we do here in the real world. Applying the same jaded philosophy to a character that can heal with a touch, detect evil, create water, and detect lies at a level when he's capable of handling most brigands on his own just doesn't fit.

Since we're usuing military actions as an example; a marine in iraq was a gunner on board a HUMVEE, using a .50 cal machine gun. They we fired on by someone in a building, and fired shots over the target instead of indiscriminately through the building. Heads popped up, and he knew that if he fired through the building, he would have killed civilians. MOre fire came in, so the driver booked it out with the gunner providing cover fire.

In this case, civilians in the same area as opponents were not considered acceptable losses.

It is also bizarre for you to require a Paladin to use someone else's class abilities in order to fulfill his explicit purpose.

How so?

 

[Storyteller01]

If the upshot is that no matter how evil you've been in the past you can just say, "But I change my evil ways right...NOW!" and THEN when the Paladin smites your ass, HE is the one who gets the reprimand for killing somebody that's Good then I'll just pass on playing a Paladin in that game.

Almost worked for Belkar.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Paladins in my groups always get played as Lawful Stupid. :\

Lawful Evil FTW!

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Why Indeed?

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?

Mark ... and remember.

Then, demand justice!​

​

​

 

[FireLance]

Thanks, for the replies, everyone. Based on what I've read so far, there seems to be general agreement that it shouldn't be more difficult to play a paladin than any other Lawful Good character.

However, some of the points raised seem to imply that a paladin should be held to a higher standard of good than other Lawful Good characters. Again, why should this be the case (please avoid arguments based on the fact that a paladin loses his powers for committing an evil act; I'm interested in the rationale, not the rules )? Any time you encounter the phrases "a paladin should", or "a paladin should not", ought the word "paladin" be replaced by "Lawful Good character"?