Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[Kristivas]

Wow.

First off, yes.. playing a paladin is a bit harder than playing a LG character of another class. Other LG characters can, rarely, bend or even break the rules. Paladins don't have this luxury. Though, I don't make it stupidly hard, either.

Frankthedm said it best:

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.

I've pretty much been doing that in my games for a long time (without the glowing and whatnot, but that's awesome too!). A paladin's course of action was determined by HOW evil the person the person 'pingged' as. I'll give three examples of denizens in a tavern.

Shifty Barkeep - This guy runs the tavern. He is a very selfish man, and cuts costs. He'll water down ale, serve 'questionable' meat (not to the point it'll make someone sick, but just enough to be yuck), and shortchange if he can get away with. Though he smiles when folk are talking to him, all he cares about is their money and is disgusted by the populace in general.
Suave Bard - On stage, singing a merry tune with a smile that could charm your Mother, this guy's morals aren't nearly as clean as his appearance. There's only one thing on this performer's mind, and you can tell every time he looks over at your girlfriend. When they come willingly, fine. If they don't, a little slip of powder into their drink will do. If they resist in a more private spot, things might get a little rough, though never to the point of murder. He leaves town once the angry father's start looking for him.
The Guy in the Corner - This guy sits alone, drinking. There's a special kind of desperation in his eyes. Why? Because in his basement, a young boy is chained to the walls. Unspeakable acts, such as murder and worse, occur here.

Of those three, all who radiate evil, the last two would be deserving of the blade. The paladin wouldn't deal harsh justice to the barkeep, but he also wouldn't pay for services at his establishment to support his behavior. The bard, perhaps he would try and either arrest him or deal with him in a less-than-public setting. Jerking him off the stage would be acceptable, but splitting him in half in the middle of the tavern wouldn't be. As for the third scumbag, he radiates an evil so profound that the paladin cannot contain it within himself to sit by and let the foul villain draw more breath.

Now, does he know exactly what they've done? No, paladins aren't telepathic. Yet, the aura of their evil is as profound as their deeds.

There are questions of mortal law. It was against the law to jerk the Guy in the Corner up out of his seat and spill his entrails on the floor. In the game in which the happened, the paladin stood trail for it and was almost hanged. However, due to investigation on behalf of the party, the boy in the guy's basement was found before he starved to death. (yes, I used that tavern in a game to test out a paladin).

Part of a paladin's code is to respect legitimate authority. It make things a bit easier, I've changed it to: Respect legitimate authority, unless it interferes with the will of god (whichever god the paladin's using). That doesn't always make it easier for the paladin in game, though. If they're not careful, they can be jailed (or executed) for murder.

Now, the tricky part is the bandits example and prisoners. With the bandits, it all boils down to how evil they are. If they're robbing folk on the roads, they're harming innocents. Even moreso if they're killing people who resist. There's no need to drag them back to town and to the church for spellcastings. Dispense justice as needed to the real evil ones and punish the others.

As for prisoners, I guess they fall into two types. Those that surrender and those that are overcome/knocked out. If the ones that are knocked out are killed for the greater good (or convenience, as long as they're evil. I don't like to bog down the party) then it's all good. People surrendering are another matter entirely. If a foe surrenders to a paladin and the paladin accepts, then I would count it as bad to slit the guy's throat after he was manacled.

I hope all this helps a little. I used to hate the paladin class, mostly because a former friend of mine played the Lawful Stupid version. After trying it myself and reading more into how it should be done, I became more of a fan.

Oh, and no.. killing the baby goblin would be evil. As would clubbing it with subdual damage. You just don't strike infants.

 

[Rel]

In the above scenario, were I the player of the Paladin then I would hope that the DM would roll our Sense Motive rolls for us given the solution you propose. It would NEVER occur to me to attempt that roll independantly. If you've ever had a baby of your own then you will understand that they don't need a REASON to cry. They just need oxygen.

In the absense of a successful Sense Motive (or if the DM didn't roll one for us) then my solution would be to hurry the rest of the party along as best we can to be out of the goblin lair before they can rouse themselves sufficiently to attack us. If they DID gather to attack us then my Paladin would tell them that he had no quarrel with them and was happy to leave them in peace. He would point out that our party had walked among them as they slept and had not raised a hand against any of them as proof of this.

If they attacked me anyway then I'd kill any who did so.

All of this presupposes that there is a good reason for not attacking the goblins in the first place. If they are known evildoers then my Paladin would feel obligated to bring about the cessation of these evildoings. It could be that the reason we're sneaking through their lair and that time is of the essence and that more important things require our attentions for the greater good. And that's fine too. But, since the goblins are awake and talking to me anyway, I'd tell them that they'd do best to stop whatever badness they'd been up to because I'd be back later to call them to account for whatever it was they'd done wrong.

 

[FireLance]

Because the paladin class is one with a moral element built right into its core idea, and why play such a character if you don't want to use that moral aspect and have it challenged?

Well, I can think of as many reasons as there are paladin class abilities.

Jokes aside, I agree there should be a moral dimension to playing a paladin. What I take issue with is that many of the "moral challenges" faced by a paladin have no upside, only a downside. When the paladin does the right thing, it is only expected, but when he doesn't do the right thing, it's atonement time.

For me it is the equivalent of playing a fighter but never wanting to be challenged to a fight, or playing a cleric and never getting to try to turn undead, or playing a druid and never having to deal with aspects of nature (such as defending it, or acting as its selective force ).

If I didn't get experience points (at least) for winning fights and turning undead, I wouldn't want my fighter to fight, or my cleric to turn undead, either. I wouldn't mind if, by doing the right thing, my paladin character has to face a more difficult challenge, say a CR 4 fight instead of a CR 2 fight, since I'd receive a greater reward for the greater challenge. This is one of the questions I tried to pose in my original post - if you enforce the downsides strictly, what upsides do you give?

And so, since that moral element is at the core of the class, and the core elements of classes are there to create challenge, and moral challenges can be especially difficult (as many people have already said in this thread), being a paladin, is and should be "hard".

This is another problem with moral challenges - ensuring that they are appropriate to the character or the player. You wouldn't expect a 1st-level fighter to defeat a hill giant, or a 1st-level cleric to turn a vampire, but there is no equivalent system (apart from the ever-present "DM judgement") to determine if a specific moral challenge is "too tough" for a particular paladin character or player.

So, maybe it's time for another question: As a DM, how do you ensure that the moral challenges you present to your paladin characters and players are fair in terms of the difficulty, potential rewards, and potential consequences?

 

[el-remmen]

As a DM, how do you ensure that the moral challenges you present to your paladin characters and players are fair in terms of the difficulty, potential rewards, and potential consequences?

Well, in my eyes, the challenge is its own reward, and not everything you run across is going to be "fair".

Again, I am of the belief (in the games I run at least) that if you don't like that kind of thing you should not play a paladin - and if you do like that kind of thing, then you'll eat it up and love it.

Though, I feel like I need to re-iterate that I also don't believe in making things impossible for characters - and it is important to know your players and be able to read/discuss what they want/don't want.

 

[Numion]

Again, I am of the belief (in the games I run at least) that if you don't like that kind of thing you should not play a paladin - and if you do like that kind of thing, then you'll eat it up and love it.

Or, you could just find a DM whose vision for Paladins matches your own. And keep smiting!

 

[el-remmen]

Or, you could just find a DM whose vision for Paladins matches your own. And keep smiting!

That too.

 

[CrusaderX]

I think, by Christianity, you meant to say "Norse and Celtic paganism." Charlemagne's knights were a significant development in Christianity. However, the Knights of the Round Table tales are drawn from a pagan milieu, with only the barest veneer otherwise. Arthur is a Bretonish chief, Merlin (Myrddin) is a druid hero, Lancelot's stories were stripped from Bedwyr, Galahad is half-fey, Morrigaine is a goddress, the Lady of the Lake is a goddess, Excalibur is from the same legend as Aragorn's broken blade which is also retold in Poul Anderon's The Broken Sword. And, of course, martial honor is a pagan virtue, not a Christian one.

Galahad is the main inspiration for paladins, and according to the stories, he was the son of the Lady of the Lake by Lancelot's adultery, was fair in form but immensely strong, completely morally pure, killed Saracens on the spot for disrespecting the cross, and occasionally would just smite someone for not being as noble as he.

Joan of Arc is another source... she was a visionary, who led an army, who ended up perishing when her moral mission failed to coincide with certain political realities.

The most significant RPG-related paladin I can think of is Paksenarrion, created by Elizabeth Moon, who is a pagan character and must contend with ritual purity related to a deity of harvest and nature, and spends much of her time wondering about the true nature of her powers.

The Paladin in Poul Anderson's novel Three Hearts and Three Lions is one of the main inspirations for the D&D Paladin. The book deals with Christian vs. pagan themes, with the Paladin clearly part of the Christian forces.

 

[pawsplay]

No, I actually did mean Christianity.

Although I'm aware the original is significantly different (and, if there's any historical basis to it, it will be different still), the version of the Arthurian tale that is most familiar to most people has been very heavily Christianised. Lancelot is clearly a Christian paladin who later falls due to his adultery with the queen. Galahad is likewise a Christian paladin. The quest for the Holy Grail is quite clearly Christian in character.

Lancelot is an addition by a French author who was fond of the tales; as I mentioned, most of his best stories were stolen from Bedwyr, Arthur's original right hand man (he still appears in a minor role as Bedivere in most of the stories). Galahad is the son of Lancelot and the Lady of the Lake, who is the most baldly pagan element of the story, a fey/goddess/sorceress who lives eternally in a lake.

The quest for the grail? That's taken from the story of the Fisher King. It's known in other versions as a cauldron... it is the pagan tale that is behind Lloyd Alexander's Prydian Chronicles. So I don't think the fact that they took a couple of lines to echo Christ's life and inserted them into the story of the Fisher King makes it "thoroughly Christian."

If Lancelot is a "Christian paladin," why does he decide to leave his lands and lord to seek out the greatest warrior in the land so that he might be bested? That sounds more like something Thor would do than, say, Peter.

Saying the Arthurian tales are heavily Christian and therefore difficult to adapt to D&D's polytheism is unsupportable, since they were heavily pagan tales were easily converted to Christianity. Sure, they would retain Christian echoes.... just as the tales themselves contain tones, themes, and symbols that are pagan in character.

 

[delericho]

Lancelot is an addition by a French author who was fond of the tales; as I mentioned, most of his best stories were stolen from Bedwyr, Arthur's original right hand man (he still appears in a minor role as Bedivere in most of the stories). Galahad is the son of Lancelot and the Lady of the Lake, who is the most baldly pagan element of the story, a fey/goddess/sorceress who lives eternally in a lake.

All true. But, if you ask the average man off the street to name characters from the Arthur story, one of the first few names to be mentioned will always be that of Lancelot. Therefore, despite the fact that he's a later addition, he can rightly be considered an key part of the story.

The quest for the grail? That's taken from the story of the Fisher King. It's known in other versions as a cauldron... it is the pagan tale that is behind Lloyd Alexander's Prydian Chronicles. So I don't think the fact that they took a couple of lines to echo Christ's life and inserted them into the story of the Fisher King makes it "thoroughly Christian."

Again, I refer to the version of the story as most familiar to most people. In which the quest is for the Holy Grail, the vessel that caught the blood of Christ, and which can only be recovered by the most virtuous of knights. That the story's roots lie elsewhere is largely irrelevant.

If Lancelot is a "Christian paladin," why does he decide to leave his lands and lord to seek out the greatest warrior in the land so that he might be bested?

Because the story would suck if he didn't?

Saying the Arthurian tales are heavily Christian and therefore difficult to adapt to D&D's polytheism is unsupportable, since they were heavily pagan tales were easily converted to Christianity. Sure, they would retain Christian echoes.... just as the tales themselves contain tones, themes, and symbols that are pagan in character.

You know, I have a conversation very similar to this one every Christmas, when someone inevitably feels the need to point out that it was originally the Pagan midwinter festival that was taken and Christianised. As with that argument, my response here is that the roots do lie where you said, but the version of the tale known to most people is the Christianised version, and it was that version that forms the basis (in part) of the Paladin class. Hence my contention that said class is primarily inspired by Christian influences.

 

[pawsplay]

Hence my contention that said class is primarily inspired by Christian influences.

If those "Christian influences" are themselves pagan tales given a Christian semblance, how Christian are the influences? I am saying that the Arthurian tales are primarily inspired by pagan influences, and hence their influences would be primarily pagan as well.

I'm not saying they aren't Christian. What I am saying is that there is very little essentially Christian about the tales. Change a few details, it becomes a Christian tale. Change a few more, now it's set in the Forgotten Realms.

There is no difficulty at all in using the "Christian" Arthurian tales as inspiration for non-Christian fantasy games. The Knights of the Round are no worse a fit in Greyhawk than they were in a legendary Christian world in the first place, imported as they were from a body of pagan folk tales.