Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[Ridley's Cohort]

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

In general terms, I deny that someone who keeps the company of evil men for reasons of honor or oath or family obligation is truly "innocent" in any important sense of the word. PCs and NPCs alike must answer for how expendable they chose to make themselves by their actions, even actions that are coerced to some degree. The Paladin does not need to compensate for everyone else's errors in judgement by the RAW.

Actions have consequences, sometimes disproprotionate ones. That is at the heart of why the concept of Honor carries such powerful connotations of both tragedy and romance. And that cuts both ways. Most often it will cut the NPCs who keep the company of evil men.

In a less gentle age (or less gentle places in this RL age) no one would have thought such a harsh conclusion would be worth a second thought.

To require the Paladin to be a dreary little auditor whose precise and thorough bookkeeping must sort through everyone else's willful mistakes and fraud just sucks every iota of cool out of the character.

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.

So Paladins who cannot cast Detect Lies are not really Paladins? Do they get to use a completely different Code? And who can trust Detect Lies to determine the truth anyway with its 13-15 DC?

To even attempt what you are suggesting to the degree you are suggesting requires no less than Divination. So I guess Paladins who happen to be unable to cast Divination cannot really be Paladins? Or must they befriend Clerics who will cast 4th level spells for them for free?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

For the record, I do not have a problem with the idea that the Paladin class requires more effort to play than other classes. But I can see no justification based on the RAW or mythological tradition that the Paladin should be vastly more difficult to play than any LG Cleric. Perhaps I should say any Cleric period.

Certainly Arthurian knights pulled out their swords and went to town based on imperfect judgements. That their judgement was sometimes wrong while their motives were pure is what made them noble and praiseworthy in their own particular way.

Neither Lancelot nor Roland were the sharpest knives in the drawer. They were legends based on other virtues.

 

[Storyteller01]

In general terms, I deny that someone who keeps the company of evil men for reasons of honor or oath or family obligation is truly "innocent" in any important sense of the word. PCs and NPCs alike must answer for how expendable they chose to make themselves by their actions, even actions that are coerced to some degree. The Paladin does not need to compensate for everyone else's errors in judgement by the RAW.

Innocent, maybe not, but they can be good. And by that measure, any PC's or NPC needn't change their ways to comform to a paladins view. He chose to fight evil, including taking the risk of killing those who are there for reasons other than evil. If he kills those through willful negligence, it's on his head.

Actions have consequences, sometimes disproprotionate ones. That is at the heart of why the concept of Honor carries such powerful connotations of both tragedy and romance. And that cuts both ways. Most often it will cut the NPCs who keep the company of evil men.

It goes the same way for the paladin. Killing someone who happens to be in the area, who didn't participate in the fight, simply because they happen to know the evil guy. Just because they happened to be there doesn't make it right. If the paladin took no actions to prevent this other than 'CHARGE!!' then he should deal with the consequences.

In a less gentle age (or less gentle places in this RL age) no one would have thought such a harsh conclusion would be worth a second thought.

So when police were investigated for putting 40 bullets into a car for someone who might have had a gun, or the police officer who shot the Army airborne in the back, or the police involved in the Rodney King beating, or why any officer is required to report every use of their fire arm, or that security officers are required to show reason for their actions if they detain someone, its just a random fluke of morals? People are tried for war crimes simply because reality took a radical turn somewhere? Just because it isn't listed in the news doeasn't mean that action wasn't taken.

To require the Paladin to be a dreary little auditor whose precise and thorough bookkeeping must sort through everyone else's willful mistakes and fraud just sucks every iota of cool out of the character.

If we keep using Rl as an example, why should we expect less if our own military and police have to answer for there actions.

 

[Sejs]

If we keep using RL as an example, why should we expect less if our own military and police have to answer for there actions.

If we want to continue the metaphor, both agencies are allowed a degree of leeway in the persuit of their duty, and particularly the military within the idea of acceptable civilian losses. You don't go out of your way to incur them, but if they happen.. well, sorry, the job is necessary but it isn't pretty.

I guess really it boils down to the question of: does a paladin have to be Practically Perfect in Every Way (tm), or are they allowed to be human and screw up occasionally, just so long as their intentions were right?

 

[Set]

If the Paladin was mechanically purely better than the Fighter, then I could see putting some 'teeth' into the alignment / code of conduct thing, to help balance it out a little.

But it ain't. The Fighter kicks butt all over the Paladin. So the alignment thing, for me, becomes unnecessarily restrictive.

None of my players have ever chosen a Paladin, and I'm not nearly so sadistic as to have ever saddled them with one as an NPC, so I've never had to deal with one as a GM, but I've been in a good half-dozen groups that contained Paladins (or knights following paladin-like ideals in GURPS fantasy), and *EVERY SINGLE TIME* it led to inter-party conflict and hard feelings. Perfectly fine players, who played many team-friendly characters, turn into rampaging jerks the second they have the Paladin's Code to hide behind.

In my experience, the Paladin, for all it's 'Lawful Good' nature, ends up being a completely selfish class, as the entire party is now expected to abide by the RP restrictions of one of it's members, for which they really don't gain anything special to make it 'worth' having to rein in their own role-playing and combat tactics to risk offending Polly Pureheart. Instead of order and compassion, it brings only strife and discord, finger-pointing and ultimatums, sometimes about loot distribution, other times about 'honorable tactics' and too often about 'prisoners.' I've been in several games where the Paladin's actions got other party members (or the entire party) killed, either because he wouldn't hold his tongue in front of an evil overlord sort, or because he wouldn't sit around planning a battle or prepare or even stop to heal before starting a new combat, but charged in loudly announcing the parties presence to the enemy. Every time the player would whip out the, 'I didn't have a choice, I'm just playing the class' excuse.

Long ago, we called bull on that excuse. Last time I played a Paladin, it was a Paladin of Rao, Greyhawk diety of peace, reason and serenity, who led by example. He wasn't a Cleric, it wasn't his job to spread the good word, or attempt to impose his own morality on others, only to follow it himself. As a follower of the god of diplomats, he was most certainly capable of, and even skilled at, saying whatever needed to be said to minimize ill-feelings or violent acts.

In my experience, most people play Paladins about as noble and 'Lawful' and 'Good' as Barbarian / Blackguards of Erythnul... The class just seems to bring out the worst in people.

 

[Rel]

In my experience, the Paladin, for all it's 'Lawful Good' nature, ends up being a completely selfish class, as the entire party is now expected to abide by the RP restrictions of one of it's members, for which they really don't gain anything special to make it 'worth' having to rein in their own role-playing and combat tactics to risk offending Polly Pureheart.

This is precisely one of the reasons that I attempt to make the playing of a Paladin as easy on the player as I can without completely ditching the flavor of the class. And the last time I had a Paladin in the group there was exactly zero drama revolving around that character.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Innocent, maybe not, but they can be good. And by that measure, any PC's or NPC needn't change their ways to comform to a paladins view. He chose to fight evil, including taking the risk of killing those who are there for reasons other than evil. If he kills those through willful negligence, it's on his head.

Of course. We happen to widely disagree what constitutes a reasonable definition of "willful negligence" in the context of a D&D campaign.

Killing someone who happens to be in the area, who didn't participate in the fight, simply because they happen to know the evil guy. Just because they happened to be there doesn't make it right.

I agree it does not make it right.

But the Paladin is not required by the RAW to always be right. He is only required to not be Chaotic or Evil on purpose.

The fact that a certain act would normally be considered Chaotic or Evil in light of full and complete information, does not mean the same act is necessarily Chaotic or Evil when made based on a reasonable guess from incomplete information with honest intentions.

 

[CrusaderX]

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.

I agree, it shouldn't be any more difficult. If only more people saw it this way!

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"?

Yes. Or, more specifically, when you ask "should a Paladin do this?", try asking "should a Lawful Good Cleric of Heironeous do this?". Because, really, they're all but the same character, and they really should be completely indistinguishable from each other. Yet one still carries a knee-jerk stigma among some players, while the other, not so much...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yes. Or, more specifically, when you ask "should a Paladin do this?", try asking "should a Lawful Good Cleric of Heironeous do this?". Because, really, they're all but the same character, and they really should be completely indistinguishable from each other. Yet one still carries a knee-jerk stigma among some players, while the other, not so much...

There is also a huge double-standard when it comes RPing alignments.

RPing Lawful Good is real easy compared to roleplaying Chaotic Good well in a world that is often dominated by rulers inclined towards Lawful Neutral, without spoiling the campaign. Doubly true for a cleric of a Chaotic Good god.

But most DMs and players cannot be bothered to think through such issues.

 

[delericho]

But the Paladin is not required by the RAW to always be right. He is only required to not be Chaotic or Evil on purpose.

Almost right:

He is only required to not be Chaotic to not be Chaotic or Evil (or indeed, Neutral), and to not commit any Evil actions on purpose.

Because a Paladin who ceases to be Lawful Good, regardless of how this is done, ceases to be a Paladin. And it's very easy to slip from grace without ever actually realising you've done so.