New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Purvis, MS
    Gender
    Male

    Default My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    The Paladins Code of Chivalry

    Recently, there have been a number of threads on the Code of a Paladin on the Paizo boards. It has been rather suprising to me how many people appear to want to treat this Code as merely a mechanic of the class to justify the raw power of the Paladin. That isn't the point of the Paladin's Code of Conduct. It shound not be merely a means to off-set those parts of the class that grant power. Abiding for a set of rules only to gain power is not what a Paladin is about.

    The Paladin's Code is--it should be, rather--a guide for how they live their life. It is with good reason that Paladin's are restricted to a Lawful Good alignment. This is because the Paladin--above and beyond all other classes--is a character of staunch moral and ethical beliefs, who sacrifices his own freedom of actions (of choices) to uphold a higher sacred trust.

    Paladin's are not just fighters by another name; they are more than a knight in shining armor. They are--or rather, should be--pious and virtous, honorable and merciful, charitable and chivalrous. In all things. And this isn't something that a Paladin has to do to retain his powers; it is something that the Paladin does because that is who and what he is.

    His Code does not restrict him; a Paladin's ethics and morals and his very life makes him live up to his beliefs.

    The origin of the Paladin was based on the knights of Charlemagne, and on Sir Galahad from the Arthurian legends. Such beliefs are not suited for everyone--neither Arthur himself, nor Lancelot, nor any other of his Knights of the Round Table were Paladins. Because that is a hard path to follow. It is an act of faith and belief that the Paladin must live, everyday, so that he is true to himself.

    Let's look at the Code of Conduct as presented in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

    A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willing commits an evil act.

    Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using posion, 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.
    There is nothing that inherently wrong with this Code, except that it is vague. Many players, whether because they want the rules spelled out for them, or because of a desire to garner a Paladin's power without restriction on his actions, treat these words as nothing more than law that can be twisted, obeyed by the letter while forsaking the spirit of the words.

    That should not happen when you play a Paladin. A Paladin lives by the the spirit of the law, not the letter. He, and his deity, know that absolute and unswerving allegiance to a Code is a path towards Evil. Laws must be adjusted for circumstances, to show compassion and mercy, to ensure that Good is upheld. Evil actions, and the breaking of the law must be punished, but a Paladin never (in my opinion) exacts a punishment greater than the crime.

    For my own game, I modify the Code of Conduct above. I use a version of the old Medieval Code of Chivalry which represents what Paladin's in my game should life up to. Cavaliers, and many Fighters even, are taught the Code of Chivalry, although they can freely ignore it (as many Knights did in history). Paladin's though, should break the code only in the most dire of circumstances, and only for the right reasons.

    I shall give oath to fear God and maintain His Church; to serve the liege lord in valor and in faith; to protect the weak and defenseless; to give succor to widows and orphans; to refrain from the wanton giving of offence; to live by honor and for glory; to despise pecuniary reward; to fight for the welfare of all; to obey those placed in authority; to guard the honor of fellow Knights; to eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit; to keep faith; to at all times to speak the truth; to persevere to the end in any enterprise begun; to respect the honor of women; to never to refuse a challenge from an equal; to never to turn the back upon a foe.

    Not so different from the Pathfinder Code, now is it? I prefer this one, however, though some might think it more archaic. Why? Because it fits the theme of the class.

    1. to fear God and maintain His Church. Paladin's in my game must choose a Lawful Good deity. I run a Greyhawk campaign and although such Gods and Goddess as Pelor and Ehlona (both NG) represent GOOD, neither can have Paladin's in their service. There are no 'paladin's of an ideal'. This is because the very concept of Paladin means little without a God (or Goddess) and a Church. This places Paladin's in the strict heirarchy of their Church, their religion, their faith. They are not priests, nor clerics, but are Holy Warriors dedicated to the ideals of their chosen deity.

    2. to serve the leige lord in valor and in faith. Paladin's hold a dual responsibility. Not just to the Church whose faith they hold dear, but to the secular authorities of the realm. They are Knights and their service is that of all Knights who have sworn oath. Having the right, in game, to add 'Sir' or 'Dame' before one's name is a very powerful tool in the game itself. As such, a Paladin should, of his own will, faithfully serve his temporal lord, much as his does his spiritual one.

    3. to protect the weak and defenseless. This is the core of a Paladin. He adventures not for reward for himself, but to serve those in need, as much as he does his Church and his Leige. He defends those who cannot otherwise defend themselves, and he does his best to ensure that they do not suffer at the hands of others.

    4. to give succor to widows and orphans. Charity. Paladin's are charitable and generous by nature. It goes hand in hand with helping people who need the aid and assistance of the Paladin. If he is able, he does not let others go hungry or without shelter. He is no miser who hoards his wealth, for the Paladin knows that what he uses to help others will be returned to him in full.

    5. to refrain from the wanton giving of offence. Respect. Paladin's respect all life. They are not braggarts, nor do they fling witty cutting barbs designed to insult or injure another's sense of self-worth. They hold themselves to a higher standard--and they live by that standard.

    6. to live by honor and for glory. Not to say that Paladin's don't have flaws, LOL. They seek glory, but the best Paladin's seek glory not for themselves, but for their Church and their Liege. They do their best to live their lives in a honorable fashion. A Paladin's word should be his bond; for he will not break it if it can be avoided.

    7. to despise pecuniary reward. Ah, the wailings of munchkins doth arise in full. A Paladin doesn't need a monetary award to do what is right. He acts because he can, not because someone offers him money. Wealth, for it's own sake, is never something that a Paladin desires.

    8. to fight for the welfare of all. This stanza refers to Justice. A Paladin should believe that all life is worthwhile. That all people should be treated with a basic modicum of dignity and respect, regardless of their station in life or what misfortune's may have fallen onto them. The Paladin will oppose those who do not care for the basic welfare of their own people, be he a Lord or a Knave; a Church elder or a King.

    9. to obey those placed in authority. This is not the same thing as all authority, no matter how legitimate such authority might be. This refers to those placed in authority over the Paladin. His Church, his Leige, and those whom they appoint as his superior and commander. Sheriffs and baliffs and magistrates who serve them; generals and commanders who lead their troops.

    10. to guard the honor of fellow knights. A Paladin is not one to let anyone speak ill of a brother in service of the Church or the Leige. Such men, by their oaths, have sacrificed themselves for the greater good; and for that respect is due, not malicious speech or gossip. If he suspects that a fellow Paladin or Cavalier or Cleric or Fighter has put himself in a position where their honor is compromised, a Paladin must speak up and confront them.

    11. to eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit. A Paladin does not take advantage of others. He does not use poison. He does not ambush his foes from hiding, or assault them in the darkness of an alley from behind. Others might, but not a Paladin.

    12. to keep faith. Faith, in this instance, does not mean belief in a God or Goddess or in following the precepts of a Church. Rather, it means that the Paladin will remain true. He can expected to hold onto his given word, he can be trusted, he is stalwart and noble in bearing and his actions.

    13. to at all times speak the truth. Truth is a very important issue for a Paladin. A Paladin does not lie, where it can be avoided. However, I would just remind you that truth is very much, at times, dependent upon one's point of view.

    14. to persevere to the end in any enterprise begun. Paladin's do not give up. They do not stop. They do not quit when the going gets tough. Once a Paladin makes a commitment, he is expected to carry through and finish what he has started.

    15. to respect the honor of women. Here is the reason that many today feel that Chivalry is misogynist in nature. It was a precept of Chivalry often violated in history, but a Paladin will always honor women, and respect them. For those women who choose the path of an adventurer, a knight, a priest, a wizard; a Paladin will support their choice. To do otherwise would be disrepectful.

    16. to never to refuse a challenge from an equal. Honorable combat is part and parcel of being a Paladin. Although he might well try to avoid lethal combat or even try a Diplomatic means to resolve such a challenge, in the end if a matter can only be settled by the sword, he is a Holy Warrior.

    17. to never to turn the back upon a foe. Evil creatures are, by their very nature, the antithesis of a Paladin. Trusting one to act against his own nature, to providing him an opportunity to strike at you most vulnerable point, is not something a Paladin should engage in. He must respect his foes, and he must acknowledge that given the opportunity, many dishonest, untrustworthy, and evil opponents will take advantage of any opportunity he gives them. Accordingly, he is warned against allowing them that opportunity.

    This Code is merely what I use, for those wishing to play Paladin's in my game. Use what you will from this; borrow all that you want. Just remember this: no God or Goddess that has Paladin's as servants would go so far to strip their powers from a minor violation. They may well require an atonement and a confession of the action that was not worthy, but a Paladin's Fall should be based on more than telling a woman, "No, that dress doesn't make you look fat."

    Pathfinder is a game, and it is a game which we play to have fun and enjoy ourselves in the company of men and women whom we like. Arguments and debates over every last comma are something for lawyers, not gamers. Have fun. That is what we are here for.

    In closing, I hope that my words might make some sense and give you some idea of how I see the Paladin's Code of Conduct. Not as a straitjacket, but as a personification of what a character of Lawful Good alignment simply does.
    Last edited by Master Arminas; 2012-05-05 at 10:01 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Solaris's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Neither here nor there
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    I'm guessing the PF paladin is much, much stronger than the 3.5 paladin.

    I've found it most helpful to work out with the player the specifics of the Code, rather than just going with the deliberately ambiguous PHB Code. This particular Code is pretty much the default I suggest, but I've had players come up with other ones.
    My latest homebrew: Majokko base class and Spellcaster Dilettante feats for D&D 3.5 and Races as Classes for PTU.

    Currently Playing
    Raiatari Eikibe - Ghostfoot's RHOD Righteous Resistance

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Middle of Nowhere!

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Erm, Paladin's aren't and probably shouldn't be restricted to one alignment. His code is his own, all that extra lettering is what gives way to the lawful stupid paladins. Sure you say he can turn against it, but you also gave them something to follow during most if not all circumstances. Did you make one for a paladin who follows Tyranny, Slaughter, or Freedom too? Or how about different gods. What if I follow a nuetral good/evil goddess of nature? She could still give me powers sure, and I'm still aligned to smite my opposing alignment, but the code would be radically different right?
    Maybe I'm just crazy about bending and giving players options though.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    I'm guessing the PF paladin is much, much stronger than the 3.5 paladin.

    I've found it most helpful to work out with the player the specifics of the Code, rather than just going with the deliberately ambiguous PHB Code. This particular Code is pretty much the default I suggest, but I've had players come up with other ones.
    They're OGC: Decide for yourself how much stronger they are.
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV. Play as me!


    Spoiler
    Show

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    If the Paladin's Code was not a straightjacket, it would be optional.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Titan in the Playground
     
    nedz's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London, EU
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    If its about power, maybe Wizards should have a code of conduct ?
    If its about divine power, then certainly Clerics should have a code of conduct ?

    Actually its about role-play: which means that the player should have some say about their characters code and, by extension, whether they fall should they break it.

    OP: Do you see many Paladin characters in your games ?
    π = 4
    Consider a 5' radius blast: this affects 4 squares which have a circumference of 40' — Actually it's worse than that.


    Completely Dysfunctional Handbook
    Warped Druid Handbook

    Avatar by Caravaggio

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    I personally hate the idea of telling a player how to roleplay their character. I know you make good points about how paladins fit within a hierarchy and so forth, but I simply can't stomach being given roleplaying guides and being told I must adhere to them in order to play my character. That's the reason I chafe at alignment restrictions and codes of conduct.

    What I personally do in my games is to remove alignment restrictions and make everyone tell me if their characters have a code of conduct (regardless of class), and if so, to write it down. I get the exact same benefits a paladin's code of conduct does, but I put choice and freedom back into the player's hands (where it belongs). I also arrange whether the players want their characters to fall for violation of their code (some people, like me, find that flavourful and dramatic), otherwise I remove the Fall mechanic entirely (or, conversely, apply to classes that do not have it, like druid, cleric, bard, ranger, wizard, sorcerer, monk and so on).

    TL;DR: I hate not having control over how to roleplay my own character.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Purvis, MS
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by nedz View Post
    If its about power, maybe Wizards should have a code of conduct ?
    If its about divine power, then certainly Clerics should have a code of conduct ?

    Actually its about role-play: which means that the player should have some say about their characters code and, by extension, whether they fall should they break it.

    OP: Do you see many Paladin characters in your games ?
    Not many, but some. Paladins have always (since 1st edition AD&D) been a difficult class to play. And I get that people don't like the lawful good alignment restrictions and the additional restrictions on their behavior. That's fine. Play a cleric/fighter!

    But for me, Paladins always have been, and always will be, Lawful Good.

    Master Arminas

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    As written though, the paladin oath doesn't actually forbid some evil deeds- like torturing villains for info or as legal punishment- though "eschew meanness" and "protect the defenseless" may cover those.

    Most issues with the code come in situations where the paladin is outclassed enough that sneaking, or laying traps, or knockout poison- might be argued as preserving the greatest number of people.

    In the early Realms novel The Crystal Shard, when Wulgar confronts the apparently defenseless (trapped in ice) dragon Icingdeath, he wakes it up, and his words are:

    "I am a warrior of honor and will not kill you under these unfair circumstances"

    Though when he mentions taking the treasure, the dragon's rage is enough that it breaks the ice.

    The narration says "A more experienced fighter, even a knight of honor, would have looked beyond his chivalrous code, accepted his good fortune as a blessing, and slain the worm as it slept. Few adventurers, even whole parties of adventurers, have ever given an evil dragon of any color an even break and lived to boast of it"
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Roguenewb's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    The Paladin archetype is based on a certain fantasy/quasi-historical element, the knight sworn to God(s) and good above all. If you don't want to have to deal with being that kind of character....why do you want to be a paladin? If its so you can dip in and grab armor profs and divine grace, you're doing something wrong anyway. A knight sworn to freedom isn't a paladin, its a different thing, which is represented by different class features.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by Roguenewb View Post
    The Paladin archetype is based on a certain fantasy/quasi-historical element, the knight sworn to God(s) and good above all. If you don't want to have to deal with being that kind of character....why do you want to be a paladin? If its so you can dip in and grab armor profs and divine grace, you're doing something wrong anyway. A knight sworn to freedom isn't a paladin, its a different thing, which is represented by different class features.
    THIS.

    And...

    I get the whole "freedom of expression" aspect of the argument against alignment restrictions and/or code of conducts. But I agree with those who say that if you want the mechanics of the paladin (i.e. the class features) but not so much the fluff, then you aren't really wanting to be an archetypal paladin. Can a DM choose to homebrew a class that has the mechanics but different fluff? Absolutely! But again, it wouldn't be an archetypical paladin.

    Imagine if wizards were hardy and could use armor and weapons as well as magic with no penalties and what not. Would it be cool? Heck yeah! But would you consider that an archetypal wizard? Not likely.

    What about a cleric who has all the divine abilities that a cleric has, but doesn't believe in anything? I mean, no ideals or gods. Just...hey, I want to wield divine power because I'm just that cool. Would that be interesting to play? Yeah. Would it appeal to those who in RL struggle with belief in a god or even higher ideals? Sure. Would it be a cleric in the classic sense? Absolutely not.

    I think those of us who struggle against the idea that a Paladin can be whatever alignment they want aren't trying to suck the fun out of other players games. We're just saying, objectively, that's not what is usually understood by most people to be a classic paladin.

    Me personally? I LOVE playing pallys! To me, it is the fluff, the code of conduct and alignment restrictions, which make the class appealing to play. That it has cool mechanics is only a bonus, in my opinion.

    I agree that there are ways that you can play that type of character which abuse the lawful good alignment (hence lawful stupid.) Just like I agree that some folks who like to play Chaotic Neutral really only do so because they feel like it gives them license to do WHATEVER they want, without being evil.

    But that's just my two copper pieces.
    Last edited by joca4christ; 2012-05-06 at 04:21 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Middle of Nowhere!

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by Master Arminas View Post
    Not many, but some. Paladins have always (since 1st edition AD&D) been a difficult class to play. And I get that people don't like the lawful good alignment restrictions and the additional restrictions on their behavior. That's fine. Play a cleric/fighter!

    But for me, Paladins always have been, and always will be, Lawful Good.

    Master Arminas
    Well... A Cleric/Fighter isn't a paladin. In fact it might be a higher tier? and without being told what to do.
    Its hard to play becuase you don't get to do much other than smite and get told what to roleplay imo. How about it if I told you every barbarian or fighter had to be stupid or uncharismatic(especially them orcs)? Or every wizard was a nerd(especially them snooty elves)? that would be mean... But I mean, thats what they look like at a glance. Thats what people always think of them. Right? but oh thats a different case I suppose.

    Do you only do core games btw? There are a lot of paladin variants out there. UA varients on the SRD has one for the other 3 exetreme alignments, and I'm pretty sure the dragon magazines have one for every other alignment(if not twice), but I pointed that out in an earlier post that got no love. So... yeah.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    ...People on the Paizo boards seriously think the code is because paladins are overpowered?

    They really do hate optimization.

    But I don't think the paladin has any less right to not be straightjacketed than the cavalier, or even the fighter. So at the most restrictive, the alignment would be "any good" and there would be some guidelines and abilities based on a chosen order of paladins (including "loner" for those that don't have an order).
    Avatar of George the Dragon Slayer, from the upcoming Indivisible!
    My Steam profile
    Warriors and Wuxia, Callos_DeTerran's ToB setting

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    If someone wanted to play a Paladin without the Code (or with any code) I would be more than willing to let them.

    If someone from another class wanted to add a Code (either as a Flaw or just because) that had real penalties for failure to uphold it then I would be fine with that as well.

    That being said, IC as an adventurer I wouldn't join a party with anyone using the OP's code; I wouldn't even come within 10 feet of them. My character might respect the Paladin who obeys that code but he wouldn't trust them to do what is necessary.
    People who think Tippy equals win.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunken Valley View Post
    Tippy=Win
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx View Post
    Wow... Tippy, you equal win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Immabozo View Post
    Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf View Post
    Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone who shall remain anonymous
    This post contains 100% Tippy thought. May contain dangerous amounts of ludicrousness and/or awesomeness.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Crazy idea: new class.

    Name: Not-A-Paladin

    Class features, progression, saving throws, spells-per-day, etc.: Exactly like a Paladin except no code, and can be whatever alignment he darn well chooses with no penalties for alignment shifts or cross classing. Levels of Not-A-Paladin are treated as levels of Paladin for all effects, prerequisites, class features, whathaveyou.

    There. Now we have eliminated the whole need for this Paladin debate, because we have this Not-A-Paladin class, which is ready made to be dropped into any existing system that includes a Paladin. No one can complain that "Paladins should be this" when the Not-A-Paladin comes around, because the Not-A-Paladin is not a Paladin.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    ...I'd hate to be the high-level Evil Not-A-Paladin casting Holy Sword for the first time.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
     
    nedz's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London, EU
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    ...
    That being said, IC as an adventurer I wouldn't join a party with anyone using the OP's code; I wouldn't even come within 10 feet of them. My character might respect the Paladin who obeys that code but he wouldn't trust them to do what is necessary.
    Even if the meta-intent of the character was to fall after contracting some faustian deal ? Not my style of play but I have seen it, actually I can't remember a paladin being played otherwise - but then paladins are rare in the groups I play with.
    Last edited by nedz; 2012-05-06 at 08:25 PM.
    π = 4
    Consider a 5' radius blast: this affects 4 squares which have a circumference of 40' — Actually it's worse than that.


    Completely Dysfunctional Handbook
    Warped Druid Handbook

    Avatar by Caravaggio

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by nedz View Post
    Even if the meta-intent of the character was to fall after contracting some faustian deal ? Not my style of play but I have seen it, actually I can't remember a paladin being played otherwise - but then paladins are rare in the groups I play with.
    I have seen a player who wanted to play a Paladin because he was interested in the RP of the fall + redemption bit, but the DM allowed a Rage-analog for the time while the Paladin had "ex" prefixed to his Class in the interest of "not letting his RP choices drag the party down too far."
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV. Play as me!


    Spoiler
    Show

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by nedz View Post
    Even if the meta-intent of the character was to fall after contracting some faustian deal ? Not my style of play but I have seen it, actually I can't remember a paladin being played otherwise - but then paladins are rare in the groups I play with.
    If they honestly do hold to a code like that as a part of their basic nature then a Paladin falling without magical influence is something like a once in a generation rarity, it will simply very rarely be worth the effort required to make them fall.
    People who think Tippy equals win.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunken Valley View Post
    Tippy=Win
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx View Post
    Wow... Tippy, you equal win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Immabozo View Post
    Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf View Post
    Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone who shall remain anonymous
    This post contains 100% Tippy thought. May contain dangerous amounts of ludicrousness and/or awesomeness.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by joca4christ View Post
    THIS.

    And...

    I get the whole "freedom of expression" aspect of the argument against alignment restrictions and/or code of conducts. But I agree with those who say that if you want the mechanics of the paladin (i.e. the class features) but not so much the fluff, then you aren't really wanting to be an archetypal paladin. Can a DM choose to homebrew a class that has the mechanics but different fluff? Absolutely! But again, it wouldn't be an archetypical paladin.

    Imagine if wizards were hardy and could use armor and weapons as well as magic with no penalties and what not. Would it be cool? Heck yeah! But would you consider that an archetypal wizard? Not likely.

    What about a cleric who has all the divine abilities that a cleric has, but doesn't believe in anything? I mean, no ideals or gods. Just...hey, I want to wield divine power because I'm just that cool. Would that be interesting to play? Yeah. Would it appeal to those who in RL struggle with belief in a god or even higher ideals? Sure. Would it be a cleric in the classic sense? Absolutely not.

    I think those of us who struggle against the idea that a Paladin can be whatever alignment they want aren't trying to suck the fun out of other players games. We're just saying, objectively, that's not what is usually understood by most people to be a classic paladin.
    I think that's exactly the issue behind a lot of bad blood in the hobby. Not just the paladin's code, I think that's one of the main divides between 3e and 4e, why some people hate being told "play a swordsage" when they want to play a monk, the whole DMPC debacle, and so many other endless debates.

    I think a vast, vast majority of people have some highly specific ideas about what certain things are. A lot of people didn't like 4e because "it didn't feel like D&D." They had a highly specific idea of what D&D was. And as you say, a lot of people have a highly specific idea of what paladins are. Likewise for monks and DMPCs. Combine that with the natural resistance to change the human mind possesses and you get why so many debates can be boiled down to people having mutually incompatible (or just different enough) ideas, both highly specific, and both of them getting defensive over the feeling of being pressured to change (regardless of whether it's true).

    I personally cannot comprehend such a thought process. To me, having a specific ideal for anything (like, as you say, having an 'archetypal paladin') is both limiting and boring. What happens when you've played the archetypal paladin once? Where do you go from there? Do you play them again? And again and again and again? I mean, I get that there might be minute changes made (like gender, personality quirks and race), but is that enough to warrant basically playing the same character over and over?

    I know that we all have different tastes and that's fine, but to me, the best way to handle such variety of tastes is by removing restrictions and letting everyone play what they want, not adding them, in the hopes that the rest of the world will adhere to my personal perspective. So what if Bob is not playing something I'd never remotely even call a paladin? Is he having fun? Is everyone else having fun? Is the story interesting? Am I having fun? If all the answers are yes, then what's the problem with a wizard in heavy armour or a cynical, jaded, godless cleric?
    Last edited by Shadowknight12; 2012-05-06 at 08:36 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Orc in the Playground
     
    moritheil's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by Roguenewb View Post
    The Paladin archetype is based on a certain fantasy/quasi-historical element, the knight sworn to God(s) and good above all. If you don't want to have to deal with being that kind of character....why do you want to be a paladin? If its so you can dip in and grab armor profs and divine grace, you're doing something wrong anyway. A knight sworn to freedom isn't a paladin, its a different thing, which is represented by different class features.
    Being sworn to a deity - even a good aligned deity - does not necessarily imply being sworn to mercy. Paladins are avengers and soldiers first and foremost. Yes, they are required by the code to defend the innocent, but they are not required to give the enemy a fair chance by not attacking when they are not prepared (that would be KNIGHTS, in PHBII) nor are they required to always accept surrender, or any of a number of other things which we tend to conflate with real-world ideas of holy knights.

    "That which the law does not forbid, justice always allows."

    Since DnD is supposed to take place in a fantasy world separate from reality, I would say the baseline of conduct is the Paladin code of conduct, no more and no less, and you should be very clear with every new player you come across about what you expect from paladins in your games.

    Quote Originally Posted by joca4christ
    Would it appeal to those who in RL struggle with belief in a god or even higher ideals? Sure. Would it be a cleric in the classic sense? Absolutely not.
    So what's more important in a game? Your sense that the archetypes are being respected, or the cleric's player being able to play something that appeals to him or her?
    The Refounding OOC IC
    Here be Dragons

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    "Cold is better for cooking food than heat!"=wrong. As simple as that.
    Quote Originally Posted by moritheil View Post
    But we even have real world examples of cold cooking, so is it so unreasonable to say that in a fantasy world that could be the norm and that cold COULD be better than heat for cooking?

    You can produce several million pounds of Tarrasque steak every day! (Better hope he's edible.)

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by Sutremaine View Post
    ...I'd hate to be the high-level Evil Not-A-Paladin casting Holy Sword for the first time.
    Cast the wrong spell and your sword wigs out and kills you? That's a fall mechanic I can get behind :)

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Titan in the Playground
     
    nedz's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London, EU
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    If they honestly do hold to a code like that as a part of their basic nature then a Paladin falling without magical influence is something like a once in a generation rarity, it will simply very rarely be worth the effort required to make them fall.
    I think the player's intention was to highlight the hypocrasy and then fall to greed. The effort on the DM's part was minimal, simply facilitatory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    I think that's exactly the issue behind a lot of bad blood in the hobby. Not just the paladin's code, I think that's one of the main divides between 3e and 4e, why some people hate being told "play a swordsage" when they want to play a monk, the whole DMPC debacle, and so many other endless debates.

    I think a vast, vast majority of people have some highly specific ideas about what certain things are. A lot of people didn't like 4e because "it didn't feel like D&D." They had a highly specific idea of what D&D was. And as you say, a lot of people have a highly specific idea of what paladins are. Likewise for monks and DMPCs. Combine that with the natural resistance to change the human mind possesses and you get why so many debates can be boiled down to people having mutually incompatible (or just different enough) ideas, both highly specific, and both of them getting defensive over the feeling of being pressured to change (regardless of whether it's true).

    I personally cannot comprehend such a thought process. To me, having a specific ideal for anything (like, as you say, having an 'archetypal paladin') is both limiting and boring. What happens when you've played the archetypal paladin once? Where do you go from there? Do you play them again? And again and again and again? I mean, I get that there might be minute changes made (like gender, personality quirks and race), but is that enough to warrant basically playing the same character over and over?

    I know that we all have different tastes and that's fine, but to me, the best way to handle such variety of tastes is by removing restrictions and letting everyone play what they want, not adding them, in the hopes that the rest of the world will adhere to my personal perspective. So what if Bob is not playing something I'd never remotely even call a paladin? Is he having fun? Is everyone else having fun? Is the story interesting? Am I having fun? If all the answers are yes, then what's the problem with a wizard in heavy armour or a cynical, jaded, godless cleric?
    I agree almost entirely but verisimilitude to the setting is important, you just need to make the setting open enough - which the OP's suggestion isn't. You also have to consider if Bobs fun is someone else's grief, etc.

    Some people do like their trainsets though, which is the root of the problem I think ?
    π = 4
    Consider a 5' radius blast: this affects 4 squares which have a circumference of 40' — Actually it's worse than that.


    Completely Dysfunctional Handbook
    Warped Druid Handbook

    Avatar by Caravaggio

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by nedz View Post
    I agree almost entirely but verisimilitude to the setting is important, you just need to make the setting open enough - which the OP's suggestion isn't. You also have to consider if Bobs fun is someone else's grief, etc.
    Is it really? I am of the "everything's allowed" mentality, and I've never had problems with versimilitude. Even if something seems out of place, I can always fix it by fabricating a proper explanation. Someone's playing a psion in a setting with no "canon" psionics to speak of? That's fine, they're the heralds of a new magic, the product of a freak accident, blessed by the gods, etc. Someone's playing a CE paladin of no god, with no code of conduct to speak of? That's also fine, he comes from another nation with a different expectation regarding paladins (or he has been turned evil by their backstory, etc).

    With enough effort, you can smooth the wrinkles in anything.

    As for "Bob's fun being someone else's grief", that's a perfectly valid point, which is why one of my questions was "is everyone else having fun?". Now, I try to be fair. I really do. I try to sit down and work out a compromise with everyone so that we can all have fun. But if push comes to a shove and such compromise cannot be brokered, I will most likely side with the person who is not clinging irrationally to their own ideals and forcing everyone else to accept them (that is, I'll probably side with Bob). Of course, situations vary, so it could well be that Bob is trying to force his vision of paladins on another player's, which means I'll have to side with the other player if no compromise can be brokered, and so on.

    Bottom line, I try to make sure everyone has fun far away from everyone else's and nobody infringes on anyone else's boundaries. And if I can do it, why can't everyone else?

    Some people do like their trainsets though, which is the root of the problem I think ?
    I think that's quite true.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    I personally cannot comprehend such a thought process. To me, having a specific ideal for anything (like, as you say, having an 'archetypal paladin') is both limiting and boring. What happens when you've played the archetypal paladin once? Where do you go from there? Do you play them again? And again and again and again? I mean, I get that there might be minute changes made (like gender, personality quirks and race), but is that enough to warrant basically playing the same character over and over?
    Again, my argument isn't that a guy shouldn't be able to play a variant paladin if he/she desires and the GM allows it. If that floats the boat, then okay.
    What I am saying is that these restrictions are what makes a paladin the classic paladin. If it is played otherwise, then it isn't a classic paladin.

    Personally, I feel like it's the fluff that makes the class appealing. If I played it once or twice and got bored, I'd try a different class. I mean, I could run a variant for the class abilities, but usually if I'm bored with the class, changing the fluff won't make a difference, because it's the mechanics that I'd get bored with.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by joca4christ View Post
    Again, my argument isn't that a guy shouldn't be able to play a variant paladin if he/she desires and the GM allows it. If that floats the boat, then okay.
    What I am saying is that these restrictions are what makes a paladin the classic paladin. If it is played otherwise, then it isn't a classic paladin.
    See, that's also something I don't get. To the people who say "X is not a classic Y", what makes them say that? Do they feel like their vision of what a classic Y is is actually widely shared? Or are they aware that there isn't a single person out there that shares the same idea of what a classic Y is?

    Human psychology puzzles me so.

    Personally, I feel like it's the fluff that makes the class appealing. If I played it once or twice and got bored, I'd try a different class. I mean, I could run a variant for the class abilities, but usually if I'm bored with the class, changing the fluff won't make a difference, because it's the mechanics that I'd get bored with.
    I think the exact opposite. To me, what makes the class appealing is the mechanics, because there are only so many classes, which means that you will eventually have to play with the same mechanics more than once. Fluff, on the other hand, is infinitely mutable, which means that you can play the same class over and over again but rendered completely different because each time, the fluff is completely unique.
    Last edited by Shadowknight12; 2012-05-06 at 09:49 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Middle of Nowhere!

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by joca4christ View Post
    Again, my argument isn't that a guy shouldn't be able to play a variant paladin if he/she desires and the GM allows it. If that floats the boat, then okay.
    What I am saying is that these restrictions are what makes a paladin the classic paladin. If it is played otherwise, then it isn't a classic paladin.

    Personally, I feel like it's the fluff that makes the class appealing. If I played it once or twice and got bored, I'd try a different class. I mean, I could run a variant for the class abilities, but usually if I'm bored with the class, changing the fluff won't make a difference, because it's the mechanics that I'd get bored with.
    You create the fluff though, within the ideas of the class you create the personality of the character. A class isn't named "george" and has set feats and skills nor attributes. You have your own idea of what a paladin is, and you fabricated a character based on it. Should I make my paladin, I will base it upon my ideas of what I want my character to be. And there is a very good change, Carrotcake the Paladin will be very different from yours or George.
    Just throwing that out there.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    For those who feel like it is the mechanics that appeal most to you...great. I agree that the fluff is mutable. It can be whatever the player wants and the DM allows. Not arguing this point at all. Whatever enables you to have the most fun. It's the mechanics of a class that don't change all that much, by and large (again, if a DM allows, and a player is creative, a class's base mechanics can be somewhat alterable I'm sure...but by and large...they are the same.) That's why I'd be more likely to get bored of the mechanics of a class before I'd get bored of the fluff. You can RP to your hearts desire, make whatever quirks or whatever to make the CHARACTER more interesting to you. Does this change the BASE mechanics of the class? I don't think so. I think it only changes how you use said mechanics to establish the character you have designed.

    We seem to be at an impasse regarding archetypes. I guess I should expand my line of thought to make it seem more objective. It just seems to me awfully complicated to say, "The sky is the color commonly referred to in the English language as blue" when I could just say, "The sky is blue" and intend the same.

    Thus, "the paladin's fluff as written in the core rulebooks of both 3.x DnD and Pathfinder is typical of what is generally assumed to be the archetypal paladin by people some what familiar with the mythys/legends/stories about said type of individuals." Can another individual have in mind a different idea of what a Paladin should be? Yes! Are they entitled to that perspective? Yes! Does it change the objective validity of my above statement? No, no it doesn't.

    If I were saying all paladins SHOULD follow the fluff as written, that there was no room for creativity or players' perspective, then I would be trying to force my point of view on others. But by saying that the paladin's fluff is what is commonly considered "the classic" paladin, and to veer from this makes the paladin in question less like the "classic perception" of what a paladin should be, I'm merely stating fact, from objective point of view.

    Not saying that to do differently is fun or more entertaining. Not saying that it shouldn't be allowed. I am saying that, from a personal perspective, I not only like the fluff associated with the core rulebook paladin, but I prefer that to the variant roles out there. That's my opinion. It's factual only in so far as it is truly how I feel about it.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    A perfectly valid point, but what concerns me is the strangeness of assuming that one's views are shared by others. I don't want to get too philosophical about it, but nobody's going to share your views to the last detail, there will always be (minor) differences, so it sounds strange to attempt to codify the (sometimes radically) different views of a majority into something inflexible, rather than creating rules that allow and encourage different interpretations of the same archetype.

    Why do we have to point fingers and say "that's not a classic paladin", when we can simply let everyone play whatever they want without unnecessary judgement? Because that's what confuses, the way the judgement ("This is not what I identify as a paladin") adds absolutely nothing to the table. It only serves to reduce the player's fun, as they have to choose between conforming to some ideal they do not share or getting labelled/slightly discriminated for wanting to play something they enjoy.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My Perspective on the Paladin's Code of Conduct

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    A perfectly valid point, but what concerns me is the strangeness of assuming that one's views are shared by others. I don't want to get too philosophical about it, but nobody's going to share your views to the last detail, there will always be (minor) differences, so it sounds strange to attempt to codify the (sometimes radically) different views of a majority into something inflexible, rather than creating rules that allow and encourage different interpretations of the same archetype.

    Why do we have to point fingers and say "that's not a classic paladin", when we can simply let everyone play whatever they want without unnecessary judgement? Because that's what confuses, the way the judgement ("This is not what I identify as a paladin") adds absolutely nothing to the table. It only serves to reduce the player's fun, as they have to choose between conforming to some ideal they do not share or getting labelled/slightly discriminated for wanting to play something they enjoy.
    I agree that it would be strange to assume that everyone shares my views. I don't expect everyone to think that a paladin beholden to the code is the most fun way to play that class. I also don't think it's pointing fingers or being judgemental to say, "Hey Bob, your champion of freedom paladin is cool. He isn't your typical paladin." It's no more judgemental to say, "Hey Bob, your brown hair is nice, but it isn't blonde like Jerry's." If I were to infer that Bob was somehow less of a person for having brown hair and not blonde, then I'd be being judgemental.

    Now, let's throw this in here. If I were running a game, and one of my players wanted to be a "paladin" but not follow the code as written, I would ask the player why he/she wanted to be a paladin. Was it the mechanics? I'd be good with allowing a variant role, assuming there was some type of "code" this champion of a cause had to follow. Why? Because I like the story element of a possible fall from grace and possible redemption. I think that having a rule written to that effect for paladins is no different from a wizard having to have his spellbook for his spells. If the wizard loses his spellbook, it causes conflict. I think it's no different from a rogue not being able to wear full plate and still do some of the classic rogue activities (tumbling, being sneaky) without penalty. It adds flavor, it adds zest, it adds adventure. IMO, that is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •