Paladins, How to fix/are fixes needed

[obryn]

Why did you smile at that... That's it.
I've had enough.

I'm not angry. I'm just numb.

I think your posts may, unintentionally, be illustrative of the 'paladin problem' the OP was referring to. You've put a lot of words towards insisting that your viewpoint on paladins is the only valid one and working to redirect discussion.

In this case, we're talking specifically about the character class in D&D which goes back to the OD&D Greyhawk Supplement and has regularly been at the center of Bad DM stories and Intraparty Strife stories.

[Red Fel]

I think your posts may, unintentionally, be illustrative of the 'paladin problem' the OP was referring to. You've put a lot of words towards insisting that your viewpoint on paladins is the only valid one and working to redirect discussion.

In this case, we're talking specifically about the character class in D&D which goes back to the OD&D Greyhawk Supplement and has regularly been at the center of Bad DM stories and Intraparty Strife stories.

Don't worry. I've lit the Paladin Signal.

LP should be here shortly to save the day. We'll soon have this sorted out.

[Flickerdart]

The problem isn't paladins. The problem is a character forcing the player to say "we must."

• The party's paladin will lose his powers if we kill the BBEG? We must avoid lethal attacks.
• The party's rogue will get steamrolled in a straight-up fight? We must avoid straight-up fights.
• The party's wizard ran out of spells? We must rest.

In all of these cases, an issue with one class limits what the party as a whole is capable of.

Why is the paladin worse than the wizard and the rogue? Because when the others close a door, they open a window. The rogue is garbage at combat, but he's really freakin' good at sneaking. So the party has a new, alternative way to solve problems. The wizard needs rest, but he can take everyone to his extradimensional pleasure palace to do that, where unicorns heal their wounds and feed them seedless grapes.

The party has a reason to want to sneak, and a reason to want to rest.

The party has no carrot to avoid unpaladinly things, just a stick. The things the paladin wants to do put the party at a disadvantage for no reason.

To fix that, we have to do two things, which can be mechanical.

Incentive to Do Good
When the paladin wants everyone to spare the prisoner, or avoid an ambush, or whatever, the "because" is "because it would make me sad otherwise." A paladin with mechanical incentive to do Good would have the party nodding along. If we willingly give up an ambush because the paladin blows his trumpet to announce us, we get a +2 inspire courage effect! If we tell the truth, the paladin gains a diplomacy bonus to convince the king not to murder us all! If we avoid this evil action, the paladin gets a bunch of heal spells he can cast on us!

Opportunity to Compromise
+2 inspire courage and diplomacy bonuses and heal spells are all good, but the rogue sometimes needs to enter combat, the wizard sometimes needs to make do with empty spell slots. Similarly, the paladin needs an out, the ability to say "yeah, doing it my way sabotages the situation, let's try something else." A character insisting that his way is the only way things can proceed isn't being a good roleplayer, he's suffering from My Guy syndrome.

[Cluedrew]

On Compromise: "Just that perfection is impossible is no excuse not to strive for it." -The Paladin

On the surface this quote seems to say that one should never compromise, but read a different way it is actually saying that a paladin must compromise. As perfection is impossible we must except good enough some times. Well that is not quite right, we should still try as hard as we can but we should still accept that less than perfect solutions will come up.

I bring this because to me this is the most paladin-y quote... ever... there are some other very good ones but this one is a step beyond all others I have seen.

[oxybe]

Honestly the problem with the paladin, IMO, is that the class mechanically fits a niche somewhere between cleric and fighter (divine martial weapon user, mix of innate skill + divine buffs) but requires a specific playstyle (the code/forced lawful good), something that no other class is particularly held to and to no real additional benefit for doing so.

The fact of the matter is, every character can technically hold themselves to the paladin's code and would receive no more benefit for doing so then what the paladin does, with the exception that that non-paladins don't lose their class features for failing to do so.

So I say divorce the forced fluff, the code/lawful goodness/etc..., and leave it as character background akin to "wandering swordsman" or "hermit" or "man in a funny hat who yells LIGHTNINGBOLT while hurling projectiles at people" that any character can aspire to.

[kyoryu]

Yeah, I don't really think the paladin is the problem.

The problem is playstyle, and the fact is that playing a paladin implies a certain type of heroic playstyle. And there are playstyles that are simply incompatible with each other.

I mean, I've run into the "paladin problem" playing a character who was definitely morally grey, but did have certain lines he wouldn't cross (like murdering innocent women to get a neat shiny power). Because there are some people who want to play to be able to do whatever they want, and *any* line is unacceptable.

And there's nothing wrong with that playstyle, either. But the two ain't compatible. It's not the fault of the "paladin" any more than it's the fault of the other people. What it does is serve to highlight the importance of making sure you understand what the game is, and is not, before you start.

[LoyalPaladin]

Don't worry. I've lit the Paladin Signal.

Never fear.

Paladin's here.

So a common problem in gaming is that of the paladin.

I'd roll up my sleeves, but I'm wearing full-plate. Let's toss the whole "paladin's a problem" right out the window, shall we? If your paladin is a constant problem for you, than I'd venture to say they aren't being very paladin-like.

In theory, a paladin is supposed to be a stalwart defender of law and good, and has some degree of responsibility to keep the party's less morally reputable members in check (lest by associating with an evil party the paladin fall and lose all their powers).

Ah! A perfect example. A paladin's job is not only to be the moral compass of your party, it is to be the guiding light to those in the dark. For your light to shine brightest, you must take it into dark places.

In practice, paladins are often the annoying goody two shoes character, and have a tendency towards forcing the rest of the party into very narrow plots and limiting a lot of freedoms for the other players.

If you're playing the paladin correctly, the good members of the party should be happy, the neutral members should be mildly inconvenienced, and the evil members should be feeling convicted (see definition 3 for clarity).

How can this be fixed? Are there alterations that could be made to the class to better encourage players to act like Ochul (who is an example that I'm reasonably certain, for some reason, everyone on this forum is familiar with, and is what I believe a paladin should be.) and discourage the much less fun for everybody Miko-esque (a similarly familiar bad example) behavior?

Now, let's be fair. There are good and bad examples of every class. Miko is a great example of how not to play a paladin. She was, at best, lawful neutral. Her adherence to the code was that of an A+ student. But anyone in showbiz will tell you that performing something to letter doesn't get you very far if you don't "do it with feeling". This is where paladins can fall short. You are not just an exemplar among mortals, as a paladin you are also a warrior of passion. You have to genuinely believe in the cause, not just the rules.

Scrap the code of conduct. Most codes are poor fits for any particular paladin character and several(3rd D&D for example) dictate the disruptive behavior you want to avoid via fear of falling.

The code of conduct is not well written. But! The code of conduct is not horribly written. It is the primary instigator of the age old habit where players create a character and then promptly stick a pole up their you-know-where. But it could definitely be worse. It is cleaned up a little bit under the "Ex-Paladins" section.

"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 (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies)."

Notably, a paladin falls for committing and evil act, not a chaotic one. You also don't fall for associating with evil creatures, as that is listed under the "associates" section.

You do, however, fall for ceasing to be Lawful Good. How is this different from falling for a chaotic act? Shifting into Neutral or Chaotic from Lawful would require either a lot of unlawful acts or a very serious one.

Now rebuild the code. Have the player work with you to describe the ideals that their character is going to be striving to personally be a moral exemplar of.

Personally, I prefer to use a paladin's deity's dogma. It usually directs the paladin's efforts in a more constructive fashion.

Essentially their power source is being corrupted, I would adjust the class benefits to match the kind of corruption (focus on the part they are taking to a fault / change to include the shift in focus).*

I am not opposed to this... but I'm also not opposed to falling. After all, some of the greatest tales a paladin can be involved in, are the tales of redemption.

Just talk to people.

Right again, friend. Just talking to your group can solve 99% of all problems at the table.

Well, isn't this a surprise to see.
And now I have quite a few words to say, and it's hard to say them.
Quite a few of these posts give me hope,
and more than a few are giving me a coronary.
I'm here to say what a Paladin isn't. What i'm not.

Spoiler: The list. apologize for making it, But I just can't take the flak anymore.

Show

I'm not here to tell you what to do,
I'm not here to let you do horrible things,

I'm not here to make you not do them,
i'm not here to bend you to my will,
i'm not here to succumb to yours,

I'm not here to tell you what to do,
nor am I here to be told what to do.

I'm not here to sacrifice myself,
nor am I here to just let others die if I can save them.

I am me, not you.
I'm not what you want, when you want it,
be it avenger or be it human shield with medicine.
I am me,
and that comes with all the little complications of being a human being.

Good doesn't work with evil.
Evil doesn't work with good. No in-between,
and no grey. (Just white that's gotten grubby.)

Look, I won't say what a paladin is. But I will state my namesake's story on here.
I'm tired of the conflict, differences of opinion, and even those just who think this is about game mechanics!
Let me tell you the story of Jev the paladin,
and you can choose for yourselves.

Chipper up there, pala-friend. Otherwise you'll start to sound like the Knight in Sour Armor! The paladin's life isn't meant to be easy and full of acceptance, otherwise we'd have full spell casting and be called a cleric! Courageous in the face of danger, stalwart when such a trait is needed, and friendly when someone needs help getting back up. That's a paladin. You lead by example, not with words.[/QUOTE]

I'm just numb.

Come back! Don't be numb! A paladin's greatest tool is feeling! How can you make someone feel as though they've done wrong if you yourself cannot feel either!

[Morty]

I have no idea what those examples are, but that's okay. Yes, in short, there are alterations that can be made. (1) You can open up Paladins to all alignments/deities so that a player has some choice if they want the mechanical benefits. D&D 4e and 5e do this, and 3e flirted with it in at least one dragon article. (2) You can make it so that a 'falling' arc isn't hard-coded into the rules, and make sure it's a collaborative venture with a player who wants to tell an interesting story. (3) You can swap around the 'stick' of falling and instead add in a 'carrot' for fulfilling your code.

The best solution, I think, is to take a little from the column A and a little from the column B. Let there be a class (or combination of classes, whatever) that represents a generic "divinely-empowered warrior". And a paladin is a specific subtype of that, with much more stringent requirements in terms of behaviour. That, or make the paladin code a template that can be applied to any character. After all, who said smiting evil can't be accomplished by a duellist, archer or sorcerer?

Both would be better than building a class around a narrow, elite concept and expecting it to work, really.

[oxybe]

So a 4th-style theme / 5th-style background that can be applied across the board to any character?

[kyoryu]

The best solution, I think, is to take a little from the column A and a little from the column B. Let there be a class (or combination of classes, whatever) that represents a generic "divinely-empowered warrior". And a paladin is a specific subtype of that, with much more stringent requirements in terms of behaviour. That, or make the paladin code a template that can be applied to any character. After all, who said smiting evil can't be accomplished by a duellist, archer or sorcerer?

Both would be better than building a class around a narrow, elite concept and expecting it to work, really.

The best solution is don't play in a game where you have very differing opinions on what behavior is acceptable.

[OldTrees1]

The code of conduct is not well written. But! The code of conduct is not horribly written. It is the primary instigator of the age old habit where players create a character and then promptly stick a pole up their you-know-where. But it could definitely be worse. It is cleaned up a little bit under the "Ex-Paladins" section.

I have studied the Philosophy field of Ethics, I do consider the Paladin code to be horribly written from the higher standard I apply towards the writing. This is one of the primary reason I support the greater coherence and consistency of player made codes (just look at what you yourself would write as a code).

I am not opposed to this... but I'm also not opposed to falling. After all, some of the greatest tales a paladin can be involved in, are the tales of redemption.

I agree! Tales of fall & redemption fall into 2 categories, those with depowerment and those with the power turned to different ends. Both are great stories.

[kyoryu]

I have studied the Philosophy field of Ethics, I do consider the Paladin code to be horribly written

I'm guessing you lean Utilitarian?

[OldTrees1]

I'm guessing you lean Utilitarian?

Deontological actually, but I could critique the PHB code from Virtue Ethics or Utilitarianism too. (Decreased coherence and consistency is a common problem with multiple authors contributing to the same code)

[kyoryu]

Deontological actually, but I could critique the PHB code from Virtue Ethics or Utilitarianism too. (Decreased coherence and consistency is a common problem with multiple authors contributing to the same code)

Ah, okay. I find D&D alignments make more sense from a generally Deontological viewpoint, so I find most alignment critiques (and bad dilemnas) to be Utilitarian-based.

[obryn]

The best solution is don't play in a game where you have very differing opinions on what behavior is acceptable.

Yes, but might as well have rules discourage jackassery, too.

[8BitNinja]

I actually reconstructed the paladin code on an older thread, if I find it, I will post it here

[digiman619]

Also worth remembering; class =/= concept. I can have my faithful, religious. virtuous paladin character built on a ranger chassis.

[Satinavian]

Have we forgotten the value of morality?
of ethics, and just how far they can take you?
I mean, look at the stories on google images, for pity's sake.

Morality andd ethics are important thing that can make really good stories.

But... you don't need to be a paladin to have a moral code or a view on ethics. You can do all of the same stories, the same moral choices the same themes without paladins. The only exception is the paladin-falls-story. Which is often not a particularly interesting one.

With a paladin you don't get more morals into the game. And a really poorly written code of conduct linked to class abilities doesn't help either. If that code would require the paladin to be just a really good and just person it would be no more of a problem than the clerics "only one step from the diety"-rule is. But unfortunately the code is not really about trying to be good and just. It's about avoiding every single evil act (so far so good) and about who the paladin can work with (pretty bad). Oh, and about an exremely vague honor system.

What exactly is a RAW-paladin supposed to do, if a party member is evil/slides into evil or if the party itself is ok with using methods that don't make them evil but also don't conform with the honoer code ? What is the paladin supposed to do, if his lawful and legitimate superior is evil or gives greyish orders ?
The "can't associate clause" forces him to walk away - leaving party and campaign behind. Which is not really an option in an RPG.



That said, i don't agree with the prestige class thing. That wouldn't change anything because prestige classes have to be built for early on and it is still a "magical knight".

Ah! A perfect example. A paladin's job is not only to be the moral compass of your party, it is to be the guiding light to those in the dark. For your light to shine brightest, you must take it into dark places.

"moral compass" is not a job you can get with taking a certain class. The moral compass of the group is the character which has a morality which aligns with most of the group, has enough common sense, intelligence and foresight to make good decisions based upon those moral principles, is per experience recognized as being able to do so and has the personality and arguments to persuade the other PCs.

Nothing of that comes to a PC by the way of his player writing "LG" on the character sheet or taking a level in paladin. Which is the reason, why most moral compasses over all the groups are not the paladin, even if there is one present.

I have even seen evil PCs being a moral compass of a good group doing majorly good things and it worked. That is how incomplete and overly simplified the alignment system is and how bad it is at describing more complex morality ans motivations and predicting character interactions.


But way to many players make paladins and think, they have to be the moral compass of the group. Even if the player is not particularly good with guessing likely consequences of their actions. Even when their plans prove to be bad ones again and again and nobody is willing to follow them. Even if the party doesn't share the paladins moral outset and is more interested in following other moral guidelines and goals. Even if the player is not very good at moral philosophy and can't even give guidance r advice without being contradicting and unhelpful.

Many paladin players have some near perfect idea what a paladin is but don't actually have the player skills to make their character a wise leader. Which leads (naturally) to a paladin-PC who is far from the ideal.
But now we have a problem with the code of conduct. Can the paladin follow someone else with differing moral opinions ? Can he compromise for a common goal ? If the player fears to loose class abilities, he often won't compromise.

[digiman619]

"moral compass" is not a job you can get with taking a certain class. The moral compass of the group is the character which has a morality which aligns with most of the group, has enough common sense, intelligence and foresight to make good decisions based upon those moral principles, is per experience recognized as being able to do so and has the personality and arguments to persuade the other PCs. Nothing of that comes to a PC by the way of his player writing "LG" on the character sheet or taking a level in paladin. Which is the reason, why most moral compasses over all the groups are not the paladin, even if there is one present.

Bravo. This is what I mean when paladins come up; a single class choice does not a character make.

[goto124]

Why is the paladin worse than the wizard and the rogue? Because when the others close a door, they open a window. The rogue is garbage at combat, but he's really freakin' good at sneaking. So the party has a new, alternative way to solve problems.

Does the paladin not have class abilities that make "honorable fight" a viable tactic, or maybe even more viable than sneaking up first?

[kyoryu]

Yes, but might as well have rules discourage jackassery, too.

What jackassery?

Saying "no, we will not murder innocents" is only jackassery if the group insists that murdering innocents is hunky dorey. Again, the real problem is that player A wants to play a game where murdering innocents is totally cool, and player B doesn't. Rules don't solve that.

[IntelectPaladin]

Come back! Don't be numb! A paladin's greatest tool is feeling! How can you make someone feel as though they've done wrong if you yourself cannot feel either!

Thank you for picking me back up, Loyal. I appreciate it.

I again apologize for all miscellaneous, non-thread-topic posts.
(I had been up for nearly 24 hours at the time).

So,
in the interests of making a positive contribution,
I'd like to ask a single question:
What would you like to do, As a paladin,
To take on industrialist-levels of cruelty and evil done by
groups like the Necroranchers?

How would you take them on,
And what needs to be fixed to let a take-on be possible?

Thank you for reading this,
And I hope you have a better day!
If it isn't, Headlock it into a better one!

[The Fury]

• The party's paladin will lose his powers if we kill the BBEG? We must avoid lethal attacks.

I know you probably didn't intend for me to pick out a single example from your list, though if I were the Paladin in this scenario I'd break it down like this:

Pros-- Campaign villain is permanently defeated and can no longer threaten anyone ever again. Depending on the kind of threat the campaign villain poses, I might very well have saved countless lives.

Cons-- I lose my powers.

...I'm actually OK with this. Sure, I'd fall and I'll have no more fancy Paladin abilities but if that's what I need to do to save the day, then so what? My character can learn to live with what she did later on.

As for my own opinion on whether Paladins need fixes-- No, I don't think they do. Within the rules, you can be the stereotypical, self-righteous, humorless twit if you wanted. If Paladins do have an actual problem, it's that they have that stereotype for some reason.

[kyoryu]

I know you probably didn't intend for me to pick out a single example from your list, though if I were the Paladin in this scenario I'd break it down like this:

Pros-- Campaign villain is permanently defeated and can no longer threaten anyone ever again. Depending on the kind of threat the campaign villain poses, I might very well have saved countless lives.

Cons-- I lose my powers.

I'm still not clear why killing the BBEG would result in falling, anyway.

It's like people simultaneously complain that paladins go around murdering people for petty crimes, but are somehow prohibited from stopping huge schemes of mass death and murder.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think that the paladin needs to be adjusted for the group, and for the setting. I personally think that the paladin code is badly worded and thought out (Poisons are now evil? Really?), but why not adjust the code to make it appropriate to the setting? I don't want a cookie cutter paladin, I want a paladin for the game I am currently playing! I don't care what someone thought would be a good idea for Greyhawk, we're in Not-China!

Also, if someone likes the mechanics and not the flavor, consider paladins of other alignments. If paladins are at all effective, why not add in paladins of different alignments? Stealing is the best part of being Chaotic!

[The Fury]

I'm still not clear why killing the BBEG would result in falling, anyway.

It's like people simultaneously complain that paladins go around murdering people for petty crimes, but are somehow prohibited from stopping huge schemes of mass death and murder.

Yeah, I don't know either. I'm just going with it because that's the scenario presented.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm still not clear why killing the BBEG would result in falling, anyway.

It's like people simultaneously complain that paladins go around murdering people for petty crimes, but are somehow prohibited from stopping huge schemes of mass death and murder.

Do you know how many times I've heard DMs tell me that they just love to throw paladins into unwinnable scenarios where they lose their powers no matter what? And I don't even play paladins! So honestly if someone actually did this it would surprise me about as much to find out that rain is wet.

I do wonder what people believe is honorable combat. Personally, I could see saying sneak attacks are valid against combatants because if they didn't want to be sneak attacked, they wouldn't enter into a war and that is just basic tactics.

[Alberic Strein]

Weirdly enough in my entire (admittedly not that impressive) experience with good and bad games, among which some truly headdesking experiences, it was never the paladin's fault. There was tension between the paladin and the necromancer once, but after some roleplaying it died down rather easily.

Now admittedly whenever versions give the paladin order a code, and if you somewhat break it just once you're mechanically screwed for at least some time, those versions are just asking for troubles and encourage bad behaviour around the table. Always trying to save innocents is cool, telling your rogue pal that he can't do jack sh*t ever -depending on the versions and the reading thereof- is bad. It also enforces one single personality on paladins and lock out roleplaying opportunites. Bad.

The rest of the issues mostly come from Lawful Good. As someone summarized, we're all showered in tales of "proper" heroes, LG characters all around, so when we discover that we can play and enjoy playing neutral/evil people, many have the tendency to deride LG as the no-fun-allowed alignment. On top of that, not so many classes can lose class abilities, and paladins are the one class in most versions that not only can, but through one single act. It's part of the class and it's clear bait for GMs to try and make the paladin fall, sometime through dubious means.

While in effect, when some editions' paladin's code is not enforced, all the paladin has to do is be good, behaving like a knight or another heroic figure. Bandits attacking a carriage? Kill bandits. If some surrender, let them, if not, then kill them. You technically have to follow the law, but if you come to the conclusion that the law is evil (as in, having working in the mine mandatory for children, and being separated from their families) then everything goes. As long as you can, in a sentence reasonably justify your actions as being for Good, you're golden.

And honestly, most parties I've seen are usually pretty sold on the whole "defend the widow and the orphan, then ask for a reward, and if they can't spare anything, it's okay." bit. Being refused the right to smoke their pipe, drink their alcohol, or spend some quality time with their girlfriend is what usually causes issues. And "don't be a jerk" should be the basis of many, many paladins.

Hell, Robin Hood, which is often cited as an example of Chaotic Good could actually be an archer paladin, at least in the stories where he immediately bends the knee to the rightful king and returns to his law abiding life.

So yeah, if you really had to fix paladins and their rules, scrap the paladin's code, make the "falling" bit a way smaller part of the class, and you're pretty much done.

Outside the rules, make sure the DM has no bone to pick with lawful good or paladins, and make sure the paladin player is not preparing a power trip and knows that his way is not the "right" way outside of his mind.

[Satinavian]

What jackassery?

Saying "no, we will not murder innocents" is only jackassery if the group insists that murdering innocents is hunky dorey. Again, the real problem is that player A wants to play a game where murdering innocents is totally cool, and player B doesn't. Rules don't solve that.

It's not necessarily about slauthering inncocents. (Which would be a problem with far more characters than only paladins)

I have seen the "don't associate with evil"-clause get in the way of diplomatic solutions. When a live-and-let-live option can't be pursued because one party member insists on bloodshed because he fears to loose class abilities otherwise, even a predominantly good group can get pretty annoyed.

Do you know how many times I've heard DMs tell me that they just love to throw paladins into unwinnable scenarios where they lose their powers no matter what? And I don't even play paladins! So honestly if someone actually did this it would surprise me about as much to find out that rain is wet.

I have never actually seen this and don't know any DM who would try to make a paladin fall (except for cases where the player wants a redemption arc).

[kyoryu]

Do you know how many times I've heard DMs tell me that they just love to throw paladins into unwinnable scenarios where they lose their powers no matter what? And I don't even play paladins! So honestly if someone actually did this it would surprise me about as much to find out that rain is wet.

A GM who does that is A ****, and will likely try to screw you in other ways, as well. Solution: Don't play with **** GMs.

And "don't be a jerk" should be the basis of many, many paladins.

It really should be the basis of just about any character with 'good' in their alignment.

So yeah, if you really had to fix paladins and their rules, scrap the paladin's code, make the "falling" bit a way smaller part of the class, and you're pretty much done.

Yeah, I really have to go back with the fact that I've never encountered these "screw the paladin with forcing them to do evil" folks. If I saw a GM pull that crap, I completely would not play with them. But, again, the problem is that the GM's A ****, not necessarily a paladin problem.

Outside the rules, make sure the DM has no bone to pick with lawful good or paladins, and make sure the paladin player is not preparing a power trip and knows that his way is not the "right" way outside of his mind.

Right. In other words, make sure that neither the GM nor the paladin player is A ****. (I'd add in, make sure the rest of the party is down with being a generally good party).

It's not necessarily about slauthering inncocents. (Which would be a problem with far more characters than only paladins)

You'd be surprised with how many people/characters it's *not* an issue with.

I have seen the "don't associate with evil"-clause get in the way of diplomatic solutions. When a live-and-let-live option can't be pursued because one party member insists on bloodshed because he fears to loose class abilities otherwise, even a predominantly good group can get pretty annoyed.

Again, I have to find it pretty funny that the complaints i've heard have ranged from "The paladin won't let us kill the BBEG!" to "The paladin won't let us NOT kill the BBEG!" Kinda weird.

I've never really seen the association rules as being about casual contact or even negotiations, but rather continued association, like, ya know, in an adventuring party. I *suspect* this was to stop the kind of misaligned expectation problems that will tend to happen if you've got a paladin in a party with an assassin. I mean, if you look at the rules, the only times that 'falling' is mentioned is if you either willfully commit an evil act, or if your alignment shifts away from LG. Negotiating with an evil person does not meet either of those standards.

Also, it seems fair that a paladin would know what would be 'good' or 'evil' and should be able to query the GM if the expectations are not clear up front. Being super paranoid because you're afraid the GM will take away your powers seems like, again, dealing with A **** GM.

I have never actually seen this and don't know any DM who would try to make a paladin fall (except for cases where the player wants a redemption arc).

Yeah, me neither. I mean, I don't doubt they exist, because I've seen some pretty Dickish behavior, and that's a clear handle for people to be ***** about.