@Elfenlied

I would be very interested in that. The point beeing is, that with playing a paladin I normally do not mean playing a paladin from a totally different plane or something like that.
And I do not only mean it in the DnD context of paladin.
Paladin is a Warrior, who is an acknowledged fighter for the true good in the region you are playing in.
Normally, it is quite hard to have somebody in the group to top that in the matter of rank. (Historically paladins were one step under the emperor/King)
Of course their social power goes byebye, moving to another plane, country or whatsoever.
Still, everybody coming from the region his rank is to consider should show appropriat behavior.

So the question is: Are you talking about groups with totally different cultural background and moral values (which played out correctly leads to PvP quite soon, if the differences are big enough). Thats a fact with or without paladin.
I mean going around that way, you can have grey on grey violance equally fast.

Or are you speaking about integrating a character not fitting into the group?

Both points have actually nothing to do with the paladin itself.
I mean you do not a generic "paladin" in Shadowrun to be a problem in a group involved in "slave trade".
To use TJ definition a "paladin" with their "social values" on the other hand would not pose a problem at all.

Most of the time, people who play paladins do so because they want a character with strong moral fiber who holds to those values. Unfortunately, the idea in the quoted post seems to be pervasive. A paladin does not force his views on others (as that is just as evil as those they fight), rather they simply remove themselves from the company of those whose values are anathema to their own. Granted, a well-played paladin probably would take the rogue to the local constabulary if he catches the individual stealing in town, but any Lawful character should, IMO.

It pisses me off more than a little to see paladins being claimed to "have sticks shoved up their butt" just because they have morals and are willing to defend those morals. Not saying the quoted post was saying that, but that tends to end up as a follow up to that sort of attitude from my experience.

This is equally annoying in the real world also.

Yeah, that too.

Well, they get in the way of all the looting and pillaging that you have to do to save the world, obviously.

@Dakka Fiend
In most storys I know, it is not so much about that. It is mostly about players who want to (ab)use some "demonic" powers and ferociously claiming there is nothing wrong with that. Like demons and devils will grant you something without a catch....
And if a paladin steps in, he is the problem.

In 90% of those cases you just got a weak GM who is letting players get away with everything and who does not care about the world they are playing in (or even worse brings his own real life morality into the game). Having a fanatic atheist (who can't seperate) running a game with existing gods makes you believe in hell.
(Oh, in that regard I have to say I loved the NWN2 games, espacially the mask of the betrayer. Only drawback was, that you could not "save" the dove from a bad ending... Kind of sad...)

Warning this post uses the D&D definition of paladin for the sake of the argument, which is fair considering how often OotS used the paladin with a stick up his ass

The thing is that more often then not, a paladins code of conduct presents an unnegotiable approach to morality that doesn't just hinder the group. It can actively be detrimental to the paladins underlying agenda!

While Im very well aware that there's additional material available to help you work around the code of conduct, even it recognises that its written really poorely.

For example.
The standard code of conduct prohibits a paladin from lying.
It doesn't say that you shouldn't lie, it explicitly states that you cannot lie, doing so would breach your code and make you unable to use any and all of your paladin powers until you atone for your sins.
Faced with a situation where telling the truth would lead to the loss of innocent life the paladin have the following choices:

• Tell the truth and let the innocent die.

• Tell a lie to save the innocent person, but breach your code.

• Stay silent, this wouldn't breach your code but would endanger the innocent.

• Present the truth in an incomplete or willfully deceitful manner, this would save the innocent but also possibly qualify as lying depending on the GMs whim.

Now, a lot of players won't consider the option of willfully breaching their code of conduct. Either because they don't realise that they're able to or they don't want to be inconvenienced by losing their powers. So they will go for the first option, upholding their "moral high ground" but furthering the agenda of evil in the process.
This leads to an attitude of paladins being hypocritical assholes that pats themselves for their moral purity...
Now this isnt a generalisation of how people act but rather an explanation where the attitude stems from.

PS.
Please don't get me into an argument on real world morality.

Edit: Either way the example shows how idiotic of a moral code it is when you must actively breach it to do the right thing. A cleric with similar values wouldn't have that issue at all!

@Irion
Well, the horror stories I've heard are more of the GM checks actions of all other characters against paladin's code of conduct and punishes him (guilt by association) with loss of powers. So paladin player wants to force his restrictions on everybody. Usually in conjunction with the untenable code interpretation Lionhearted mentions.

Personally I've never seen paladins played in DnD games; all the players I know think the class is made of fail. When playing Savage Worlds in fantasy settings, though, there very often is a paladin-like character - good fighter, uses divine magic, do-good-morals. Sometimes that is problematic, but not more so than any other character-driven PC-vs-PC conflicts.

Where the hell did you get that a paladin can't lie to save an innocent? Sure, 'not lie' is an example given next to the Act with Honor tenet of the code, but telling a small lie to save an innocent falls under acting with honor. It's all in the reason for it. If you're lying to save your own arse or advance some agenda other than your deity's (assuming you have one, except in a few settings it isn't required) then yeah, you're breaking the Code.

That would be a logical way to interpret it. However a lot of tables treat every written syllable in the code as absolute truth. Most often because the GM enjoys to punish paladins for whatever reason.
The question was why paladins got that rep and being really anal about the code of conduct is one of the main reasons.

Sorry, but I get a little heated when that stuff comes up. I had an Eberron game die (and almost had someone turned off from the setting entirely) because of someone pulling the "anything lawful has a stick in the butt", and it straight up pissed me off.

Or:

• Offer to take punishment in the place of the innocent.
• Offer to prove the innocence of the innocent, or take punishment with the innocent if you fail.

A paladin is played by an idiot if he simply tells the truth and lets the innocent die. The options you gave are limited at best, and very much not optimal.

In a game that I was a paladin, we went to a city that legally allowed slavery. I was out walking through town and saw someone beating his slave. I walked up to the owner, asked how much the slave was worth, and offered to pay 150% of that value, payed some up-front, told him when I'd have the rest, then told the owner that he'd better not beat the slave anymore as I would not take him in any less then fine health, and I'd take it up with the city judges about a breach of contract if he did.

The game ended before I could become an active member of the city and work from within to change the laws. Remember, paladins are LAWFUL Good, not Idiot Good.

It also does not say that you cannot tell the truths that the questioner does not want to hear or even understand. The paladin cannot lie, therefore he does not lie. The Code does not say that he cannot evade the question or cause the listeners to be deceived, as long as he does not lie.

Again, "Act with Honor" is the actual portion of the Code that that is a part of. Sometimes acting with honor requires the telling of a small falsehood.

@All4BigGuns
As a matter of fact (if you go down the road how it is traditionally seen) acting with honor is only required if going against "honorful" opponents.
For example the catholic church banned crossbow because they were dishonorful. That meant a christian knight could not use them against an other christian knight. This did in no way protect non-believers.

So what I dislike most about the code of conduct presented in DnD is that it is secular.
For example: Mercy has to be given.
As a matter of fact in some cases and worlds that could mean burning the perpetrator alive. (And I am not making that that up, such argumentations were used in real world)
How does this work? If death is an atonment for your sins and after death you are judged for your sins, it is easy to argue that beeing sentenced to death is mercyful because it prevents you from beeing tossed in the ethernal fire, hell or whatever.
So depending on how the believe system works, the paladin might simply slay an opponent, who demanded mercy and take all his valuables for the church. Thus following PERFECTLY his code of conduct.

This is why jedi don't really fit the paladin description. They do not have a god and there is probably not an afterlife for everybody.


Telling the truth is also not that easy. The guy asking you needs the authority to ask for the information.
That begs the question if you can lie to somebody at all, who does not deserve the "truth"... If there is no truth for him, so every information is equally true...
Again, very much depending on the believe system of the paladin.

This would overall be a poor choice, not only would a champion of good be removed from the playing field, but also you have no way to insure the bad guy uphold his end of the bargain.

The innocence of the victim was irrelevant for the scenario.
Imagine a bad guy with a knife against the throat that will kill his prisoner unless you lead him to blah!
He knows very well that the prisoner got nothing to do with the situation he's just using her as bargaining chips. It's an example don't try and argue out of it, it's merely there to illustrate a situation where the victims innocence does not matter.


Working on the assumption that every word in the code is law and breaking any of it will breach the code is limiting. Its not a very uncommon outlook and its not made better by people developing a predisposition against paladins.

It's generally much easier to be lawful stupid, the stereotype is created by those players. Not the ones that put in an exceeding amount of effort into overcoming the inherently limiting nature of the class.

Im very much playing devil's advocate here

@Lionhearted

Kill the guy who is holding the innocent.

Paladins are not hippies.

Topic: needing some help with a pointless derail about rules in a different game system.

I am confused by the story.

If he likes the street, why would be be upset by the assignments? Unless the assignments were talking to corp mid level management or something.
You could approach it as the character got burned for office politics or corp politics. This way you could build in an enemy. You also could be on leave instead of criminal SIN and trying to survive without pay and prove your innocence.