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.