What is it like to play a paladin on RPOL? I've  played or DMed 5 games (not counting the game where I know that the paladin is a DM-PC, or the game DMed by someone who played with GG) on RPOL in which there was a paladin. Here's a paraphrased sample of In Character play that I've run into in EVERY ONE OF THOSE GAMES.


Funny. You didn't tell me how to play my rogue. Or cleric. Or sorcerer. What gives you the right to tell me how to play my paladin? The dogma of my order is between me and my DM, even when its the same deity as yours. Don't assume that you know more about how I should be playing MY character.


If this is you, you need to take a hard and long look in the mirror. The words that I would use to describe you are not usable in this forum. RPGs are collective play and we all deserve to have fun. It is EVERY player's responsibility to allow every other player to enjoy the game. This type of behavior can be a game killer, so KNOCK IT OFF! Give the paladin some room to compromise. There is nothing that says a lawful execution of the irredeemably evil creature is against the paladin code. So let it play out already. Let the DM present the ethical quandaries with NPCs so you don't cause an interparty war or make the paladin's player feel unwelcome. I have no idea why anyone would do this, but I've NEVER seen it at the table, only online. So my guess is that these people are cowardly jerks hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.


Guess what? Lawful Good is Lawful Good for ALL characters. It doesn't suddenly mean something else because the character is a paladin. The paladin needs to make judgement calls in every situation for the greater good, and will occasional be wrong. If you don't give them the room to be wrong, you sentence the paladin to a lifetime of Atonements, or the unavoidable fall from paladinhood. This DM is no different from Player B, and has no idea how to play a paladin.



Sound familiar? Look people, the paladin is already the hardest character to play well, and does not need other players or DMs making it harder. Paladins are HUMAN (Or elf, dwarf, whatever), not SAINTS. They are not perfect and should not be expected to be played that way. The rules say that a paladin loses his paladinhood for KNOWINGLY committing an evil act, or has an alignment change. They do not say you should be changing the definition of Evil, or looking for reasons to change their alignment. So if you have a paladin in your game, give him the space to play something other than Lawful Stoopid.

Thank you.

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head.  Everyone has their idea of the right way to play a paladin.  And, more often than not, it boils down to being "Lawful Stupid".

I played in a game where the Paladin and I(cleric) were both serving Pelor. Well, the fall out from that was epic, and ended with me asking the GM to change my God, because if I had to listen to him preach to me again about how 'his' god wouldn't do x and demand that I 'atone for doing y'...well I would have screamed.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:18, Mon 07 Nov 2016.

I've had to have the occasional private sit-down with a GM to clear up their misconceptions around that class. (I'll give you one guess which class I tend to favor.)

The unnecessary restrictions and finger-pointing are an artifact of 1st-edition AD&D, when the paladin was given unusually harsh ability-score requirements and a laundry-list of "thou shalt not"s. Too many DMs running that system took one glance at the list and assumed that it was their job to not only nitpick and police every single action on a paladin's part, but also to intentionally force them into situations that would violate those rules.

Too often, bringing in a paladin character was viewed as a direct challenge to the DM. "I dare you to make me lose my status." The thing is, in many cases the players never wanted that at all, just a different option that just a vanilla fighter or ranger. Also, there were numerous ways to play a paladin that skirted that list of rules without ever breaking it. This usually required rule-interpretations that would make a lawyer cringe.

(For instance, I managed to play a paladin that looked nothing like the Knight In Shining Armor trope. Dark leather, daggers, a mean streak, and a bad attitude... but never once violated that oh-so-important list. Gave the DM fits.)

What GMs need to be looking out for isn't little nit-picking things or turning the paladin PC into the party's moral police. Rather, paladins should be the bright example of how to deal with a world full of evil and still come out of it intact. Don't force the party to walk the line; show them that it can be done, and offer a hand when they falter. Instead of making the other PCs 'distract' the paladin so they can do bad things, show them that there are ways to get what they want without wrongdoing.

The other thing is, at some point, if a game progresses naturally, the paladin will encounter something that is so evil and irredeemable, that the only way to combat it is to intentionally violate that code. Sticking with the rules would only allow that evil to return and make things worse. Maybe it's a cult that can only be attacked from within. Or maybe the leader of a dark conspiracy refuses to yield to 'conventional' interrogation.

Whatever the circumstances, if a paladin is present, this event may be the thing that drives them to violate their code. They willfully give up their calling in order to do what is necessary to destroy a source of evil. When that happens, everyone should be afraid -- for you now have a fallen paladin who will literally stop at nothing to win.

Incidentally, if he succeeds and completely vanquishes that source of evil, his deity may reward him with an immediate atonement. If not, a priest of his faith will likely consider it a big first step toward regaining his paladinhood.

Falling from paladinhood, if it happens, should be a natural consequence of the player's decisions and the circumstances around him. GMs should relax about it, and let that be a key event in that character's life -- not just a stick to beat him with.

If you need a different analogy, consider the Jedi in Star Wars. There are numerous examples of Jedi turning toward the Dark Side of the Force, then finding their way back. In fact, it can be argued that the most powerful Jedi are the ones who flirted with evil, however briefly.

Ah, yes. Classic.

I've seen this both at the table and online. I think the main reason for it is that the paladin is the only class that's really defined by its alignment. Other classes have alignment restrictions, but they're sort of tacked on. For the paladin, it's a major part of the character. I think this gives a lot of people the idea that if there's a paladin in the game then there have to be moral quandaries and inter-team strife, just because that's what people think the class is about: either they're going to fall, or they're going to be a stick in the mud or party police officer.

LonePaladin's reference to Jedi is an important one. In the most well-known Star Wars stories, the question is about a Jedi's fall, or whether or not the Jedi will fall. If they're just more awesome than everyone else, without extra things to worry about, it's not interesting for very long.

When alignment is downplayed, or the paladin is balanced against other classes, I don't see this kind of thing at all.

Thank you for reminding me. This was something they did with the paladin in 4th-edition D&D: the paladin simply has a different set of abilities for their theme, with no real restrictions on their behavior. It probably made the class accessible to a lot of groups who may have otherwise avoided it, because its behavior became suggestions rather than limits.

Not to so much detract from your point but rather emphasize it: Many GMs will show the EXACT same behavior when it comes to the Wish spell.

In Fourth Edition, Paladins aren't really treated any differently from any other Divine class, as far as I can tell (I'm not a fan of those classes so I've not played one myself, but going from what I've read in the PHB...). As far as I'm aware, their alignment should be the same as that of their god, but from what I remember I don't think it has to be...though obviously an "Evil"-aligned character following Bahamut would probably be a bit weird ;).

Fourth Edition doesn't have the old Nine Alignments, anyway, just Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil. And a deity like the Raven Queen (domains of Death, Fate, and Winter) is Unaligned - you could totally be a Paladin/Cleric/Avenger etc who worships her :).

If I had someone playing in my game who wanted to be a Divine class, I would just let them play their character (treating a Paladin no differently from any other Divine class)...and if they started doing something that seemed wildly against the tenets set down by whichever deity they were following, I'd question them about it first and find out why their character was acting this way all of a sudden - they might have a good reason for it, some internal conflict within their character that the player hadn't yet "voiced" in a post.

5E has no alignment restriction either. I mean, they all fight evil and/or chaos (some focus on undead, some on outsiders, some I believe on naughty fey) but they don't have to be LG. You can be a CE paladin in 5E, you just still hunt other bad guys. (Punisher?)

Even in 3.5, both players and DMs can be way too strict. A LG angel is MADE out of lawfulness and goodness. A LG human is not. The important thing is that there is an ideal you aspire to, you don't have to never ever stray from it.

DRAGONLANCE SPOILER: I mean, the most LG character I've ever seen is Sturm Brightblade. He's not a Paladin (or even a Knight of Solamnia) but he is by far the most deserving and honorable I've seen. He still cuts corners or breaks rules a few times when he has to. He even gets seduced by Kitiara, because he is only human. (And even death knights and ancient dragons get seduced by her SOMEHOW, so how could he resist?)

SPOILER OVER.

Paladins don't even need to be sticks-in-the-mud. I played a Gnome Paladin of Garl Glittergold, which is perfectly rules legal. I was having lots of fun, because my god was all about fun. To a lesser extent, a paladin of Pelor shouldn't be all serious and gloomy. Pelor's a nice god. A Paladin of St. Cuthbert, for example, might be super strict and overbearing. That god is all about beating people up for misbehaving. You have to take the god into consideration because that's the ideal for the character.

Rules clarification: 3.5 only says that paladins have to be LG, with no specification of gods. Now, clerics have a rule, they can only be one step away from their god. (So a LG cleric can worship a god who is LG, LN or NG.) And there are examples in the books of Pelor paladins. So I generally follow the cleric rule for them too. But RAW, you could totally be a LG paladin of a god who is neither lawful nor good. Might be a bit hard to follow their teachings though.

I've played many classes, but seldom a paladin. Happen to have taken over one, and neither the players nor the GM has harassed the noble knight who is non-self-important.

Per the rules, it does. I was going to post that paladin's don't even have to choose a deity, since clerics don't, but per the rules they do. However, "(o)nce invested, a paladin is a paladin forever. How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those power from that day forward" is up to them. The book suggests that other members of their faith will punish transgressions, but that's going to be up to the GM, and in any case the paladin retains their class abilities, and even their alignment.

What if they didn't? I think this gets back to the original post: under what circumstances would you question a rogue or fighter or wizard? Each of them, particularly the rogue, could have strong ties to a guild or enclave that expects them to act a certain way and even has earthly agents to make sure they do. In a world of magic, anyone's "people" could have rigged safeguards such that if they get out of line they lose their class features.

They don't, of course, or don't usually. So, at what point would you say to the fighter, hey, they way you're acting is a bit weird?

Or, better yet, the barbarian or bard: at what point would you take them aside and say, look, I've noticed that you're being kind of lawful. If you don't get more chaotic, I'm going to make you stop advancing in your class.

Monks are even closer to paladins, in that they have to be lawful, yet I've never heard a story about a monk being threatened with becoming an ex-monk. Or a druid! Has anyone ever heard of an ex-druid? Becoming non-neutral (which can happen in two or four different ways, depending) or ceasing to "revere nature" has the same effect on them as it does on a paladin. Yet I've never seen a druid complain about this.

I think the only difference with a paladin is that their Code gives them all these easy buttons to push. If other classes had things spelled out in the same way, I think GMs would mess with them, too.

I recommend not going down the road of applying alignment to fictional characters. Surely you've seen the 3x3 chart of how Batman exhibits every alignment.

Ultimately, alignment is simply not mechanical enough, and too poorly explained for the situations in the original post to be anything other than aggravating. Everyone has their own ad hoc mechanics for it, like the GM mentioned in the original post who has "neutrality points." They want alignment to work like hit points, but it doesn't. It's almost entirely judgment based, and so it's easy almost to the point of being accidental for people to game they system or just look like they're gaming the system.

There's this sense, I think, that a non-LG paladin is somehow gaining some advantage, that they're getting the best of both worlds in the form of divine power and completely free will. Except, they're not that much more powerful than a rogue or barbarian. They're also not as powerful as a wizard, beyond a certain level, and the wizard has free will too.

By stick in the mud, I meant having to block ideas by the other party members, on the off chance that they would get the paladin in trouble. Fun's fun, but does the paladin stand by when the rogue goes to loot a crypt of Bahamut? Or when the assassin kills a few people - wait, no, that couldn't happen, because the presence of a paladin restricts everyone else from playing certain classes. It even prevents them from behaving in a way that would cause the GM to make them evil, because then they can't be in the paladin's party anymore.

Those issues are all workable, but it's not hard to see that others might see the mere presence of a paladin as restrictive, and look for ways to needle them.

I like that some editions and some settings don't worry as much about alignment. If alignment does have to matter, I find it works best when it's purely a matter of mechanics, rather than behavior, with alignment neither driving nor being driven by behavior. Like bloodtype: it determines how certain physical interactions proceed, but it can't change you and you can't change it. You can't be certain classes, you can't wield certain weapons (and you might take extra damage from some weapons), and you can't cross certain spell boundaries, and that's that. The boardgame Talisman had alignment that worked that way.

To the question of why is it okay to tell the paladin how to play their character, the answer is that in several editions, that is baked into their rules.  If the GM is telling you "a paladin of x wouldn't do that", then they're probably hinting that what you're about to do is the kind of thing that will lose your powers.  That said... the viability of a paladin in the editions that require behavioral codes is really dependant on the GM and player relationship.

If you want to play a paladin, it's a great idea to work with the GM to nail down your actual behavior code before the start of the game and all that implies.  Pathfinder actually includes a god-by-god set of tenants for paladins that makes some of this easier.  It also helps to understand where your GM stands on some of the big grey issues of alignment.  For instance, if a tribe of goblins that have been eating babies tries to surrender, do you have to accept that surrender?  If they're still holding a bunch of babies hostage, what kind of actions can you actually do to get answers from them or even allow others to do?

The point where things are likely to get messiest are when the player expects to be under rules X while the GM expects them to abide by rules Y.  If you can't handle Y, you probably want to play a different class with that GM.


Some GMs get way too hung up on the "the bad guy is right there, but you can't arrest him because you're a LG paladin and you have no legal grounds" trope, too.  Or the "I'm going to force you to fall" trope.  Those tend to be the types of GMs that railroad other stuff, too, but it seems like they feel particularly justified when it comes to paladins.


That's just in good fun, though.  Wish is written to be that way, in most editions, and a GM that doesn't make it at least a bit dangerous to use for big stuff is going to have to end the game pretty quickly after the PCs figure that out.

I think that playing a (3.5/PF at least) Paladin is just another type of roleplaying challenge, much like playing any character who is not yourself is - it's just that their specific challenges are more spelled out than those of other situation.

I mean, playing a spy of the plot's Big Bad without making the playing experience hell for either yourself or others is probably an harder challenge than playing a Paladin, yet I've seen it done masterfully - and that was one pretty evil, muderous spy as well. Everybody seemed to enjoy the playing experience.

It's just a matter of having fun while letting others have fun on their own terms, as well - so long as the players work together instead than against each other, the problem usually sort themselves out. Just to make the point, I'm currently playing a Paladin in a party that include a patently evil character - but I just happen to be playing an extremely naive Paladin who's specifically both a bad judge of character and entirely too trusting. To the point that said Paladin has been able to figure out totally innocent explanation for things that should have been glaring red flags. But this way I get to keep playing the character I want (since my Paladin isn't knowingly working alongside an evil character), and the other player get to keep playing their own character as well... and everybody is happy.

That's the goal in the end - if the players and GM are willing to work it out, a solution so that everybody is happy can usually be found; it's all a matter to work together. And yes, this is often harder to achieve in play-by-post than in real life, if only because it's easier to be uncompromising with people you're never met... but in the end, it all comes down to people trying to have fun together, and working at it in good faith.

And if people can't do that... then how are they going to roleplay together at all? The only way roleplay can work is if everybody is doing their part; if people can't figure out a way to handle having Paladins in their group, then I would bet there's other issue that group will have to face before it can actually play things properly.

This is all just my opinion though - anybody can make of it what they want.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:33, Mon 07 Nov 2016.

I agree. When a class doesn't have alignment or behavior restrictions (or when no one cares about them), there's less for the GM or other players to latch onto. Some people will add stuff, like a family or their honor, or some goal, so that now there are buttons to be pushed again, but some people don't like having their buttons pushed so they either avoid such games or they make orphaned loners. A paladin, right out of the gate, is not a loner.

Yeah, and I think this is where the original poster's theory comes into play, the one where he thinks that maybe the online nature of this gives people who want to be bothersome more license to do so.

I call that "being bought in." A group that wasn't bought in would try to find ways to force your character to use detect evil or would punish you for not knowing the other PC was evil. A group that is bought in just wants everyone to have fun.

I think there's enough room to accommodate willing parties.

If you have a paladin and an assassin and both PC's want to work together - easy enough....how many Hong Kong action flicks involve a cop working with a contract killer who wants to get out?

This is only one quick example - but like others here have said, they key is a willingness to work together.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:43, Mon 07 Nov 2016.

Paladins of Sune (CG Goddess of Beauty in Forgotten Realms) were totally a thing in 3.5. And Paladins of Mystra (NG Goddess of Magic) too, I played one a long time ago and it was really interesting.

I think that everyone just needs to calm down, pull up a chair, read some Order of the Stick.

Or Looking for Group.

Or 8-Bit Theater (though the last on has nothing to do with this discussion).

All are classic examples of how people can work together, and even roughly get along, no matte how many Paladins are invited. ;)

In reply to Tyr Hawk (msg # 17):

The Order of the Stick is a great strip, but it's written by one person who determines the actions of all the characters. A real group composed of those characters would have gotten rid of the evil character and probably have ditched the fighter, or worse. They've adequately explained why the wizard and cleric don't just take care of everything on their own, but I've rarely seen that work out in real games. It's worth noting that both the wizard and the cleric have, in their own ways and almost single-handedly, become threats to the rest of the party and the world. But that's a different discussion.

The sections of the story with Miko the paladin are interesting, because the author seemed to want to touch on what everyone dislikes about paladins. Note that one character's goal is to cause the paladin to fall.

The other, more reasonable paladins are an instructive take on the class, though.

Regarding the Paladins of Sune - I think the Mara quest line in Skyrim is a good example of how a "Paladin of Love" would work.  Although "Paladin of Love" keeps making me think of Elvis.  :)

3.5 had variants for Paladin types at each of the corners (the LG one, then Freedom for CG, Tyranny for LE, and Destruction for CE).  I actually like that mix, though you can get there through other means.

Regardless, though, it's on you the prospective paladin player to get with the GM and hash out exactly what is expected of you above and beyond just being a LG type.

Also of some note, the stock 3.5 paladin cannot work with an evil character (it's written there, explicitly, in the class).  Heck, it uses the phrase "associate with", so you can't even be part of the same country club.  Which sucks because Asmodeus worshipers always throw the best parties.

That's the best advice I've heard. Get with the players too, if possible. Given how quickly a paladin could tear up an undead or demon/devil based game (or any mystery in which the killer is the only evil character), paladins should come with a warning to have such a discussion. Though, that should be a sign to the designers to just change the class.

I recommend reading the Complete Book of Paladins.  Anyone who thinks a paladin who is lawful good needs to be played like a goody two-shoes doesn't really understand the history.  Playing a chevalier, for example, means bringing down holy horror on your enemies, even when they may be unarmed--some things that would be considered lawful evil by our mindsets but not in a historical context.  Their belief system may be seriously flawed with racism, sexism, or simply deifying their king to oppose all objectors.  These are the people who would burn witches at the stake, torture to get confessions, etc.

A paladin is essentially "a man with a mission" and lawful good is them playing to their particular ideology, which is subjectively "lawful good" to them in their particular moral structure.

For me, I think there is a reason why I would expect a certain amount of...um..."specific behaviour" (for want of a better way of putting it) from a Paladin. Well, not just Paladins - any Divine class. Because they are Divine classes. Martial classes get their power from their own training and physical abilities. Arcane classes wield the power of the elements and such-like, tapping into the natural forces of the world and/or themselves to do stuff. Primal classes are similar, but get their power from Nature instead, from natural spirits or straight from the earth/air, etc. Psionic classes draw their strength from their own minds, to using things like telepathy and telekinesis to channel their energies.

But Divine classes get their power from the gods, and the gods have their own ways in which they like to do things, and in which they like their followers to act. A person who has chosen to follow the ways of a deity must therefore have at least some idea of what following that deity entails in order for that deity to go "Hmm, yeah, that person's got the right idea - I'll give them some power with which to actually go about doing it". I mean, it's no good claiming to be a follower of Bahamut and then going on a crusade to murder every metallic dragon you come across because you think "all dragons are evil", for example ;).

That said, there are no Divine classes currently present in the game I'm running and I never choose to play them either. I don't like gods in stories - even though they do tend to actually exist, they are really just a load of massive OP entities who poke around with the mortals and make stuff happen because they want it to, so by the end it's often a case that everything ultimately happened not because of any choices the mortals made, but because the gods pushed them into it and manipulated them to get their own way. Any character I play (in a setting that has gods who are actually there) will be aware that the gods exist but otherwise won't really care for them that much.

In reply to Ameena (msg # 23):

I'd like to point out that the deities don't control free will though. After all, if they did, there'd be no need for atonement spells, Paladin's couldn't fall, etc.

I think that you lost the point of my original message, where is was another player, not the DM, telling me this.


Anyway, holy forum post Batman! The response has been awesome! Way more discussion then I ever expected. engine, you rock, man! You totally get it and explain it better then I could.

Also, if you have a Player B, be aware that his/her choice may not be intentional. We all have blind spots. My opinion of Player B should be taken with copious amounts of salt. Making the same assumption that I did could lead you down the wrong road.

Conversations drift.  It's what they do.

In this particular incident, was the other player doing this IC or OOC?

If it's OOC, you can just flatly say you're a different sect.  Even D&D gods have the equivalent of denominations and offshoots.  One god could have five separate religions devoted to them (NG, LN, TN, CN, NE) and all of them have very different opinions on the will of that god - and all of them still get spells, so none are more or less correct than others.  Even within the same alignment, there can be one, two, or twenty different factions that emphasize one teaching or another.  As long as you weren't advocating something clearly evil, it can be put down to those kinds of differences.

If it's IC and you don't really want to argue back (using the factions concept), you should just let them know OOCly that you're not really interested in RPing that kind of thing.  If that doesn't work, let the GM know and/or get out of that situation.  Just because you want to play a character that's a holy warrior doesn't mean you have to consent to religious arguments in-game.  Life's too short to RP crap you really don't want to RP.

In reply to Westwind (msg # 1):

A Paladin is a difficult class to play and a difficult class to run.  On the one hand, you don't want to be a wet blanket and spoil everyone's fun, no matter which side of the screen you're sitting on.  On the other hand, you picked Paladin.

The class, even more than Cleric, is defined by his ideology.  The Paladin in 5e is even divorced from the explicit connection to the divine, instead fueled by his own oaths of commitment to a code of conduct.

In general, as a player and a GM, I think that having strong feelings about what the other PCs are doing at the table is admirable.  Characters should squabble and bicker and have differing opinions, and stand up for what they believe in.

The Paladin just puts that front-and-center, and that can be awkward when you run into the game behind the roleplaying.  Things that normally get handwaved like killing bandits and looting tombs suddenly become moral quandaries.  He can often seem like a damper simply by expressing relatively normal societal views and imposing them on the game's space.  I don't think anyone here would really argue against someone who told them that killing was wrong if they could avoid it; or that we shouldn't disturb the tombs of the interred and steal all their stuff.

Playing a Paladin, then, does require you to really communicate with your fellow players and the GM, to really get the expectations down about things like the Stormtrooper Expendability Quotient and the non-grave-robbed distribution of loot.

There is one other perspective on Paladins, though, that's often understated.  It's often assumed that they are paragons of virtue, that their behavior should be beyond question.  However, I prefer to view Paladins as an aspirational class.  They see their code of conduct as an ideal, one that they know they can never perfectly embody.  Seeing the Paladin as a worthy who is reaching for greatness rather than someone who already stands on the pedestal creates a much richer emotional context.

This also makes their potential fall from grace more telling and more impactful, if you choose to use those mechanics.  Taking this view of a Paladin, if they keep trying, honestly trying, they are good enough.  But if they actually actively turn away from the path, if they truly sacrifice their morals, they are not simply stepping down from a place on high, they are giving up a lifelong pursuit.  And how far they fall, from mere Fighter to heinous Blackguard, depends on how much they resent what they have given up.

In reply to Ameena (msg # 23):

I'd say the answer to that is both yes and no.    Divine classes get their power from the same place as the gods, so it could be reasoned that one doesn't necessarily have to act in a manner that would be approved by that god.   But then again, you probably wouldn't pick a god you didn't agree with in the first place.

In reply to Hunter (msg # 28):

That isn't really supported mechanics wise. Paladins that chose a diety gain their power through following the tenets of that diety. Paladins that decide to not follow that diety's tenets (however that plays out) lose their power, spells, class abilities, etc, and are unable to continue leveling as a Paladin, until they have used an Atonement.
Now, I do think that you have something here with the part about not picking a diety that didn't fit ideologically, however, that's part of why Paladins are LG. The concept of the class has parts that are defined by the pantheon available to them as a class.
You fins things similar with the clerics, who must be within two alignment steps of the Cleric.

I always wanted to play a paladin that was coerced into being a paladin. He was "chosen," or given a Mark of Justice, or something. Sort of like Spike, on Buffy.

Great concept; doesn't work with RAW; at least not 3.5 or earlier. You could do a paladin-type; but not one with all the powers of one.

In reply to willvr (msg # 31):

Rules that don't encourage refluffing of mechanics are one of the key reasons I don't play 3.5 or earlier. Thanks for reminding me.

In reply to engine (msg # 30):

In PF, you'd do that by picking an Oracle, or possibly a Celestial Sorcerer, or something else of the like. There's plenty of options for playing a "called against their will" character, it's just not something that the Paladin class is well suited to.

Note that all my Paladinic descriptions come from Fourth Edition which seems a lot more lenient in that respect. I'm pretty sure the PHB even suggests you can be an "evil" Paladin who deals Necrotic damage instead of Radiant. A Paladin is just a warrior who chooses to follow a particular deity and in doing so gains powers from them, afer all.

But again, I would not restrict this stuff solely to Paladins - they aren't the only Divine class, so why should they be singled out if they engage in behaviour that falls widely outside the tenets they're supposed to be following? I don't recall reading anything in the Fourth Edition books about "punishing" Paladins (or any other Divine class) who "misbehave" and I'm not at my computer right now so I can't check my PDFs. But I'm pretty sure it's a "handle it however you like" thing as opposed to "here is a rigid list of rules of stuff that will break a Paladin" thing :P.

This part is RAI: I think restrictions are more about being linked to a god than being divine.

For example, a Mystic (Dragonlance) or a Divine Bard (Unearthed Arcana) casts "divine" spells but they pull the power from inside them. By RAW, 3.5 clerics and paladins don't have to follow a god either, they may simply be following some cosmic idea.

On the flip side, warlocks are arcane but they get their powers from a patron. Or, for example, Wizards in Dragonlance get their magic from the gods and yet still cast arcane spells.

A warlock should be more worried about his actions than a divine bard, is what I'm saying.


This part is RAW: Also, for the "paladin who got drafted" concept...this is what the PHB specifically says:

"No one ever chooses to be a paladin. Becoming a paladin is answering a call, accepting one’s destiny. No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is  either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin’s nature by any act of will. It is possible, however, to fail to recognize one’s own potential, or to deny one’s destiny.  Occasionally, one who is called to be a paladin denies that call and pursues some other life instead."

ALL paladins get drafted. Either you hear a god (not actually the default), or you get this feeling inside you that says "this cannot stand, you must protect them". And yes, you can grudgingly follow the path without being happy about it.


RAI again: ALSO, there is NOTHING that says (in 3.5) that Paladins cannot associate with evil people. If you look carefully, the text says that they WILL not, rather than MAY or CAN not. Here are the various parts about a paladin's restrictions:

Alignment: Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. Additionally, paladins swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness. (Nothing here.)

Other Classes: ... While they cannot abide evil acts by their companions, they are otherwise willing to work with a variety of people quite different from themselves. ... (Evil acts =/= Evil alignment)

Ex-Paladins: 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... (Refers us to the code of conduct.)

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. (Again, only ACTS are a problem.)

Nothing in any of these. So where does the supposed restriction come from?

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Now, the second sentence is clear. The paladin MAY NOT have anyone who isn't LG working under him. But obviously this doesn't apply to party members working WITH him, as paladins don't require an all-LG party.

Look at the first sentence. To me that sentence is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's just saying "paladins wouldn't do that". I mean, think about it. Look at other things the book says.

"Paladins take their adventures seriously and have a penchant for referring to them as quests. Even a mundane mission is, in the heart of the paladin, a personal test"
OR
"Any two paladins, even from opposite sides of the world, consider themselves comrades."
Heck, even:
"Humans, with their ambitious souls, make great paladins."

These sentences are all very clear and direct. Are we to assume they are never ever broken? Can we not imagine a crappy human paladin who thinks simple missions are an insult to his prowess and doesn't get along with other paladins? Of course we can. I think the "a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil" is similar. It is not something paladins do, sure, obviously. Why would they? But if they were forced to cooperate with someone who is evil but isn't currently doing anything evil, I rule that they wouldn't fall. If they wanted it to be that way, they would have worded it stronger, like the henchmen rule.


As an aside, yes you can have an evil character not doing evil. Once I had a CE Rogue, with 14 Wis and 16 Int. The setting was Majesty (the computer game) and I was a Gnome, which in that setting is an extremely oppressed race, living in the huge Human capital. If I could I ignored some laws or stole little things, but otherwise I was a decent law-abiding citizen. I even joined the army, though in a sort of scout/special forces unit.(So, more freedom than a soldier.) The other players asked, OOC, why I wasn't more...rampage-y. I said "If I get to level 20 one day, I promise you I will come back and slaughter the entire city. But I'm very, very weak and I have high mental stats. I am aware that if I start stabbing people the city guard would take me down in minutes. Why the hell would I do that? I'm not a demon, I'm just a selfish asshole. If I see a human lying alone in the gutter with money on him, I might slit his throat, but that's really about it."

A paladin in the same party as that character would have disliked my character (and it would be mutual) but I don't see why he should fall as long as I behaved and he was fully committed to stopping me if I step out of line.

In reply to Egleris (msg # 33):

All the more reason to try to make it work.

In reply to engine (msg # 36):

If a character needs a Mark of Justice to make them do something, they're being coerced. Intention factors into alignment A LOT, so you'd need to be Lawful Good outside of "being a paladin" for your idea to work.

Not that it wouldn't, but you need a motivation beyond "geased into it"

In reply to RosstoFalstaff (msg # 37):

Thank you for demonstrating one of the primary problems with paladins and alignment.

I don't know if this is where you're coming from, but what I see swirling around the issue of paladins are people who don't just want to play a paladin, but really wish they were a paladin, and that paladins really existed. This leads to very rigid and stark ideas about morality and law and goodness, that don't mix well with any other ideas, no matter how interesting they might be.

The reaction to my idea, which is one with some precedence in popular fiction, was swift and strong. That's the kind of reaction I see when someone is trying to preserve not just game rules but the ideals they adhere to in real life.

But whatever. I've already played a Lawful Good goliath-reflavored-into-oni who derived his behavior from a magical effect applied by the last member of a paladin order he slaughtered when he was stronger. Nothing had to be houseruled, and nothing broke. If anyone was itchy about it, they had the good grace to accept and add on. Perhaps they felt coerced into not saying anything, but the effect was the same as far as I could tell.

If that wouldn't fly at your table... frankly, who cares? What do you get out of lancing a cool idea that is never going to show up in your game?

In reply to engine (msg # 38):

I'd argue the subjectivity of "cool".

No idea has immunity from criticism, not even "good" ones

To tell the truth, I find this whole thread puzzling.  I've GMd games on RPoL with paladins, and played a couple of paladins in games.  One game I ran for over ten years, and the paladin was in it from start to finish.

And I've never run into any of the issues you people are describing, from either side of the GM screen.

So I'm going to have to guess that the problems all revolve around the mix of GM and players.

In reply to RosstoFalstaff (msg # 39):

Of course you would. That was my point.

The question is why criticize it, particularly here? What was the feeling you had when you saw that idea? What would it mean to you to let it go uncriticized? Would it impact your game? Would it impact your ability to play a paladin, knowing that someone wasn't following the rules? These are actually honest questions, because I think they relate directly to the issues presented in this thread: someone sees someone playing a paladin a certain way that doesn't quite jibe with theirs, and they have to say something, something they might not say to someone's face, because they have deep feelings on the matter.

There's a roleplaying concept referred to as "the Right to Dream." To me, it means that people want to treat things about their game as true, to the extent of those things existing in the real world. Some people do this for other media, too, like their favorite movie. When someone does or says something that doesn't quite fit with their dream, it interferes with their "right" to treat those things as real (or at least possible), and it irritates them. They'll act quickly to disprove it, or repair their "reality." A good example is the dedicated Star Trek fan who, when told that going faster than light is impossible, will shift quickly into denial mode or post links to stories of pie-in-the-sky "Real Soon Now!" future breakthroughs. People who deliberately try to undermine a persons' fantasy reality, like going up to a person in a Gryffindor scarf and saying "You know Hogwarts isn't real, right?" tend to be considered fairly rude.

What I'm getting at is that, with the paladin's close bearing on real-world morality, or what people dream real world morality is like - black and white, absolute, tangible, pure, willing, etc. - any deviation from their concept of paladin is actually an impingement on their wider belief system. More than any other class, I see people who imagine themselves as real-world paladins, paragons of an absolute, magical virtue. More power to them, except when they cause the kinds of problems mentioned in the original thread (not all of which would be caused by such people).

I didn't intend my idea to poke at anyone's personal concept of what morality is, or what they wish it were. I didn't even mean it as a house rule or violation of any mechanics. Any group that did think it was a cool idea could make it work, without breaking anything, and clearly anyone who doesn't can block it to their heart's content. That's called "buy in" and having it is what makes any fictional concept work. If one doesn't have it for this idea, fine. It's not really necessary to say here though, is it?

Only game I've been in where a paladin put a serious dent in the game that wasn't easily worked around was when the paladin in question didn't want to allow the rest of the party to use coup de gras on subdued/disabled monsters. Didn't matter that they were evil and had been trying to kill us, or that we lacked the materials/personnel to take/manage prisoners, or that leaving them would have put the party between multiple forces.

While it looked like he was RPing his deity well enough, there was an impractical level of inflexibility in evidence, too, and it brought the game to a standstill.

With that level of conflict, the paladin and group would have (realistically) decided to part ways, as his views vs the rest of the party were plainly incompatible -- but where does that leave the game? Either the one player can't RP his character as desired and stay in the group, or the rest of the group has to conform to that one player's choices.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 40):

I agree.  I've been playing for 35 years and never ran into these issues.  They result in discussions or arguments between characters sometimes, but there has always been a play around of some kind.

In reply to Fyrerain (msg # 42):

Personally, I see that as part of the challenge of the Paladin, and playing them well.

The Paladin class is, by definition, the champion of their diety. (Yes I'm deliberately leaving off non diety paladins, but this applies to them also. Simply switch the word "diety" out for "moral compass".) The Paladin is the literal embodiment of what is not only just, but what is pure. In some ways, more so than the Cleric because of their dedication and calling to that diety is literally soul deep.
They don't have the compromise that a lot of characters do. The class just doesn't have it. Yes, they are imperfect creatures, still trying to overcome that hesitancy, or the urge to strike out at a foe who is just barely in line. That doesn't stop them from knowing what is right for them to do. It might not be popular, but I also don't see a lot of Paladins caring about popularity. They care about what the deed that is noble of heart would have them do.

And so, you have this paragon of morality and uprightness who is literally going to be a challenge to the other characters. Not just in the hard stuff, but the easy stuff too. Personally, that's what I like about having a Paladin in the party. They fulfill the role of person who's going to step on toes because you (the character) know they're right, but it's not convenient, or as profitable, or whatever else the circumstance might be.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:02, Thu 10 Nov 2016.

In reply to Lord_Johnny (msg # 44):

LOL Yeah, it can make for great scenes -- finding ways to work around a paladin's morals can sometimes be highly entertaining. And which deity/whatever they follow can and should affect how they behave.

As I said, I've never had a problem other than the once, but when it stops the game (despite considerable IC and OOC discussion involved), then it's a problem.

But, not the same one as the OP presented -- no one involved was trying to tell the paladin's player how to play his paladin. We just wanted to find a compromise between the paladin wants and the rest of the group. That apparently wasn't an available option for that particular player's vision of his character. C'est la vie.

@Engine -- Interesting notion on why players choose to play paladins... might explain why I've never been one of 'em; I'm much too cynical. All the years I gamed growing up and since, I've only played a paladin once -- and that was on a challenge. We had a guy in our group who rarely played anything other than paladins, while I almost invariably played a thief. At some point, it came up he felt he could play a better thief than I could play a paladin, and thus my one and only paladin PC. :D
This message was last edited by the user at 20:19, Thu 10 Nov 2016.

In reply to Fyrerain (msg # 45):

Definitely something to that, but I also feel that there is a point that this falls on the GM. For instance, I do not let players in my game play an evil alignment. Not trying to inhibit them, but I also know that they would have a LOT of friction if someone plays any good alignment. And, honestly, part of it is that I'm a NG aligned person myself. It's HARD for me to not want to snatched up evil characters and shake em silly. So...in order to lessen the impact of that tendency on my enjoyment of running or the player's enjoyment of playing...no evil.

That's why, to an extent (and it is a finite extent) I don't have a problem with someone going "hey, that's evil. Your character wouldn't do that." There is a point at which, for me at least, I play a character that doesn't leave my mind. Yes, I can get into my character, but usually only so far. And when that point is reached, I need help occasionally. Because there are things my characters just wouldn't do because of their alignment (or class) that the frustrated player is more than willing to do. Frustrated player shouldn't break their own character.

That said...that's my perspective. Not everyone is going to agree (as clearly the OP does not), and that's okay. I don't think it's a huge issue though, because they're trying to help you not have a really bad session, and you need atonement. *shrug*

This discussion reminds me of Hacksaw Ridge by analogy.  If PFC Doss can make it in the military with his convictions despite being bullied and put in danger, it seems like a paladin can make it in a fantasy adventure without it tearing apart a game.

The only time I've ever had a problem with a paladin, was actually as a player in 2nd edition, when someone decided to charm the paladin (another PC was the charmer) into breaking their word.

Years ago. There was an article in The Dragon called "A Plethora Of Paladins". It discussed paladins of "other" alignments.

I have played a Lyran; a Paladin of Lawful Neutral alignment. His focus was The Law. I found him more difficult to play than a true paladin and I have played a bunch of paladins. He was constantly being put on the spot to give his word to "fix" something.

In reply to Grimmond (msg # 49):

My slant on a LN Paladin would be in the style of Judge Dredd. That could be fun I think.
This message was last edited by the user at 14:33, Fri 11 Nov 2016.

Not having played 2nd in a long time. I'm not sure if that Charm would have worked. Didn't think you could "Force" someone to do something that was completely against their nature.

I've dabbled in playing a Paladin several times back in the days of yore when I actually played AD&D. Paladins can be extremely fun. The worst part is that everyone assumed that paladins were forced to do extremely "stupid" things.

Had a GM that put one of my characters in a situation where it was a damned if I do damned if I don't. A village was being attacked/raided by vampires. However during the course of the investigation our party discovered that many in the village were corrupt. Do I save the corrupt village thus advancing evil? or do I let the vampire raids happen potentially harming innocents.

Answer was "simple" I vowed to protect the village for the day, as in day, not night ambiguous answer rule!. Used that time to get who I could out while protecting them from the corrupt (with the help of the other players) and let the Vampires ransack the corrupt that night. I stuck to my vow and still allowed evil to be destroyed.

I'd suggest looking at the Book of Exalted Deeds. Offers both nice mechanical options and RP outlooks for "good" characters. (Unlike the Book of Vile Darkness, which is a terrible book for creating cartoonish villains.)

I also love the Gray Guard PrC from Complete Scoundrel.

“How’re we supposed to see the pally comin’ when ’e wears armor blacker than ours?”
—Griv “Goblin Father” Chos, unfortunate cultist guard

You're not wrong, and is the intent of my original post. I'm hoping a little exposure can help guide these players and GMs to play better games.

Out of curiosity, it is reasonable to believe that players in a RPOL moderator's game are more likely to behave?

By the time I was a moderator, I already had a good group of players that I knew fairly well, and players from that group generally tend to be involved in all of my games.  So I can't really say if [random group] would be better behaved for a mod.  :)

Though I'm not sure why they would - in a game, all GMs have equal authority.

Latecomer with an anecdote - for entertainment purposes only. :)

Back in the mists of time, circa 1980, we had a FtF group (what else?) including a guy who liked to play Paladins. Yes, I think it reflected his RL morals.

Most of the rest of the group played evil characters (which probably reflected their RL morals, too, but we’ll say no more about that).

When Mr Paladin first chose to play LG, everyone took the pizza, but when he insisted, and his character started dictating what they should and shouldn’t do, they had their characters sneak up on him in the night, stab him in the back with a poisoned dagger, and steal his money.

He immediately rolled up another Paladin and they did the same thing.

Later, I created my one and only Paladin, just to play Devil’s Advocate, and mine got murdered, too. It became a rule amongst the group that if anyone played a Paladin, they would die.

Mr Paladin started playing Rangers.

Paladins seem to polarize opinions.