This suggestion is a pretty simple one: alter the Paladin Oaths to allow Paladins to quest with evil PCs so long as their goal is to redeem the evil PCs or perform an overtly "good" act. I think it would add a lot of RP opportunity to a class that is somewhat strangled by the setting without compromising what a Paladin should be. Obviously, there should be a lot of RP that occurs before this could happen, but that is kind of the value of doing something like this.
The intent is not to offer an "excuse" to allow Paladins to quest with evil PCs on a regular basis, but there are plenty of circumstances that would see a Paladin and evil PCs in the same party. Again, I think the two most obvious circumstances for this to occur are "redemption" and "performing an overtly good act."
You have to understand that paladins are meant to represent the very best, infallible devout of the good-aligned gods. Faerun is a setting that deals with great metaphysical powers, very often aligned as good versus evil. The decision to slip towards the latter is something that shouldn't be tolerated by the type of holy justicar that a paladin represents. You're also getting into pretty dubious territory when it comes to DM oversight. Questions like "Is this PC questing with evil-doers for a good reason?" and "Is s/he really trying to redeem them?' are probably a questions a DM shouldn't be contemplating when they see a paladin PC.
This is a pretty black and white issue. If you want, you can search for other threads that have brought up similar paladin-related questions in the past for more guidance.
Oh, yeah. Make no mistake- This is an attempt to allow for more RP opportunities for a pretty restricted class that is not an app-required class. I honestly feel it is more difficult to play a paladin than it is to play a number of the monster races. The two instances I highlighted strike me as still fulfilling the intent of a "holy justicar" without subscribing to an ends justifying a means mentality. To me, "don't quest with evil" is an OOC catch all that is a poor attempt to define IC oaths and, essentially, how a paladin should act.
I, personally, hate the awkward moments where a group of individuals are heading out to do something that is overtly good, but a paladin is forced to not take part because of that one evil aligned individual. The quest could literally be banishing a demon and saving 100 children from slaving duergar, and I would say that most paladin PCs would not take part if there was a single evil person also taking part. I think there is no IC justification for that, and the IC action is solely derived from the OOC rule of "don't quest with evil, ever."
Granted, if that same group is just going out to get rich, then there would be no reason for the paladin to go.
I do think the current rule is black and white. I'm not so much asking for clarification as I'm asking for an outright adjustment or amendment.
I think it's frustrating to play a paladin when you apply modern 21st century sensibilities to it. We all intuitively know that most people are complicated, with both good and bad, and that there is a very good reason not to be overly judgmental in life because you'll end up hating everyone for the tiniest of flaws. There's a cynical and realistic reason why most people don't think of others in black-and-white moral flavors.
Paladins don't work like that. A paladin is a closed-minded holy warrior who is 100% positive that he is right and those who disagree with his deity and his beliefs are wrong. They are worse than him. They are a danger to innocent people, and need to be stopped, but without compromising the paladin's sense of honor and morality to do so. If you want to see characters as complex, vibrant, and flawed beings with good and bad, you're probably not going to want to play a paladin!
Paladins should be really hard to play. They're stick-in-the-mud holy warriors with zero tolerance for wicked behavior. No one wants to have an opium party with a paladin, but when bandits are savaging your town, the paladin is the one hero who is guaranteed to lay down his life for you with no expectation of payment.
A paladin would not adventure with an evil soul, period.
"The open mind is like a fortress with its drawbridge down."
That paladin is a mental fortress, and no wickedness is getting inside.
Until they detect evil and it overwhelms them to the point that they pass out, of course.
Quote from: Big Orc Man;n652451I think it's frustrating to play a paladin when you apply modern 21st century sensibilities to it. We all intuitively know that most people are complicated, with both good and bad, and that there is a very good reason not to be overly judgmental in life because you'll end up hating everyone for the tiniest of flaws. There's a cynical and realistic reason why most people don't think of others in black-and-white moral flavors.
Paladins don't work like that. A paladin is a closed-minded holy warrior who is 100% positive that he is right and those who disagree with his deity and his beliefs are wrong. They are worse than him. They are a danger to innocent people, and need to be stopped, but without compromising the paladin's sense of honor and morality to do so. If you want to see characters as complex, vibrant, and flawed beings with good and bad, you're probably not going to want to play a paladin!
Paladins should be really hard to play. They're stick-in-the-mud holy warriors with zero tolerance for wicked behavior. No one wants to have an opium party with a paladin, but when bandits are savaging your town, the paladin is the one hero who is guaranteed to lay down his life for you with no expectation of payment.
A paladin would not adventure with an evil soul, period.
Exactly this also in addition...The main thing is paladins are not allowed to aid or help evil people! Questing with them gives a man with a dark heart helps them gain loot, gold, and spoils that they may use to commit evil acts. A paladin would be aiding evil and enabling it. Paladin's cannot and shouldn't quest with evil people at all, and it is a tough class to play. (Its why I don't do it.) A lot of people do and should think a paladin is a crazy person when they walk up and say someone is tainted.
Quote from: Big Orc Man;n652451I think it's frustrating to play a paladin when you apply modern 21st century sensibilities to it. We all intuitively know that most people are complicated, with both good and bad, and that there is a very good reason not to be overly judgmental in life because you'll end up hating everyone for the tiniest of flaws. There's a cynical and realistic reason why most people don't think of others in black-and-white moral flavors.
Paladins don't work like that. A paladin is a closed-minded holy warrior who is 100% positive that he is right and those who disagree with his deity and his beliefs are wrong. They are worse than him. They are a danger to innocent people, and need to be stopped, but without compromising the paladin's sense of honor and morality to do so. If you want to see characters as complex, vibrant, and flawed beings with good and bad, you're probably not going to want to play a paladin!
Paladins should be really hard to play. They're stick-in-the-mud holy warriors with zero tolerance for wicked behavior. No one wants to have an opium party with a paladin, but when bandits are savaging your town, the paladin is the one hero who is guaranteed to lay down his life for you with no expectation of payment.
A paladin would not adventure with an evil soul, period.
I would argue that there is a lot of 21st century morality in EFU. Most current IC plotlines are derived from 21st century moral dilemmas (which is a good thing, as it makes us as players care about what is happening.)
I think the standard of a Paladin having to be a crazy person to justify their IC actions is an unfortunate standard for a PW to adopt. Yes, it might be the intent of the creators of DnD, but I think in the context of EFU it doesn't make much sense. It's why I've suggested the above changes to the code for those very specific circumstances to actually make the class playable from an IC perspective.
Quote from: I love cats;n652517Exactly this also in addition...The main thing is paladins are not allowed to aid or help evil people! Questing with them gives a man with a dark heart helps them gain loot, gold, and spoils that they may use to commit evil acts. A paladin would be aiding evil and enabling it. Paladin's cannot and shouldn't quest with evil people at all, and it is a tough class to play. (Its why I don't do it.) A lot of people do and should think a paladin is a crazy person when they walk up and say someone is tainted.
By not immediately killing this hypothetical evil person, they are also aiding them. They are also aiding the evil person's evil enemy by killing them. I think that's the kind of a slippery slope argument that doesn't hold water.
If the reasoning for not allowing Paladins to quest with any evil PCs was solely to check the power of the class, then I would totally understand that. From an IC perspective, given the actual "morals" of EFU, it just doesn't make sense.
Paladins are black and white not grey. That's why they get detect evil.
D&D in general is for the most part black and white, that's why the alignment system is designed as it is.
That's why you can butcher goblins and not feel remorse about if that particular goblin just grew up with the wrong goblins and might have gone to goblin culinary school and opened a nice tavern on the Low Road instead eating babies if you had taken him from his goblin warren and taught him a way out of the goblin hood.
Paladins are uncompromising Lawful Good, if you want to compromise and strike deals and toe the line of grey you can play any other class.
I think there's a big difference between uncompromising Lawful Good and Paladin Oaths, but I don't disagree with your current assessment of how Paladins are. I'm saying that how Paladins currently are is dumb, and should be slightly changed to actually be playable beyond being a crazy person.
For example: I think it's very Lawful Good to focus on trying to redeem evil instead of killing them. Current Paladin Oaths suggest that they should kill every evil person they ever come across ever. In the context of a PW, that's dumb.
I don't understand why so many people support the class as it is. It really is unplayable for a PW like EFU. Why keep it that way? The only argument I've heard is, "Because that's how Paladins are." EFU has changed plenty of things regarding the lore, mechanics, etc. of DnD. Why not this?
This is not exactly a major shift in ideals. It is allowing a Paladin to attack evil through redemption as opposed to having to outright kill it. Maybe through RP the Paladin realizes that they can't redeem the evil, and therefore has to take more direct action. That sounds like a whole lot more fun, and a better RP experience for everyone, than how things currently are.
You don't need to quest with someone to try and redeem them.
I think performing good acts with evil people in an attempt to "show them the light" is a great way to redeem people. Most "good acts" in a PW like EFU are quests/DM events/combat related things. No, it doesn't need to be the only thing, but why wouldn't it be one of the things?
I guess I'm going to carelessly throw in my two cents. Paladins are the martial, physical manifestation of Lawful Good, and the last resort of the alignment. Big Orc Man put it best, in my opinion. Evil gets to go through all the other channels of Good, be it a Neutral character persuading them to ease up from Evil, a lay Good showing them that Good can be a good way to live, or a Good cleric more aggressively "converting" the Evil character. But the way Paladins resolve Evil is by smiting it. Smiting Evil. And in order to arm them for that task, to be powerful enough to do it, they are forced into very strict standards which also force them to be essentially intolerant of Evil.
Quote from: Big Orc Man;n652451I think it's frustrating to play a paladin when you apply modern 21st century sensibilities to it. We all intuitively know that most people are complicated, with both good and bad, and that there is a very good reason not to be overly judgmental in life because you'll end up hating everyone for the tiniest of flaws. There's a cynical and realistic reason why most people don't think of others in black-and-white moral flavors.
Paladins don't work like that. A paladin is a closed-minded holy warrior who is 100% positive that he is right and those who disagree with his deity and his beliefs are wrong. They are worse than him. They are a danger to innocent people, and need to be stopped, but without compromising the paladin's sense of honor and morality to do so. If you want to see characters as complex, vibrant, and flawed beings with good and bad, you're probably not going to want to play a paladin!
Paladins should be really hard to play. They're stick-in-the-mud holy warriors with zero tolerance for wicked behavior. No one wants to have an opium party with a paladin, but when bandits are savaging your town, the paladin is the one hero who is guaranteed to lay down his life for you with no expectation of payment.
A paladin would not adventure with an evil soul, period.
This sums it up perfectly. Also keep in mind that Paladins can and have had great success in these types of worlds / settings!
Quote from: Rookie;n652448I, personally, hate the awkward moments where a group of individuals are heading out to do something that is overtly good, but a paladin is forced to not take part because of that one evil aligned individual. The quest could literally be banishing a demon and saving 100 children from slaving duergar, and I would say that most paladin PCs would not take part if there was a single evil person also taking part. I think there is no IC justification for that, and the IC action is solely derived from the OOC rule of "don't quest with evil, ever."
Actually, this scenario is perfect roleplay impetus for the paladin (a class which has a natural tendency towards high charisma) to not merely warn the party but suggest the impurity of the individual with whom they take on the journey, to further contest and implore the party to reconsider their actions and to assume leadership of a task that is of such grave importance. Your character must build their reputation and win over the hearts of other good and even neutral aligned PCs to ensure their word and presence is greater than any evil. Failing the task is further stimulus whereupon the paladin must then question the choices of the party who took a tainted creature as their ally. Every action has a consequence!
Do not consider the OOC restriction as your enemy and use your creativity to deal with the OOC restrictions, and great possibilities and story outcomes shall open up for you.
Quote from: ShadowCharlatan;n652548Instead... Paladins are more likely to demonstrate behaviour (mercy, charity, standing up for people with neglected grievances, fighting an evil or tyrannical regime), lead causes, right wrongs... which would cause foundational myths of certain evil worldviews to crumble and maybe fall in line with a Paladin's worldview. By their actions, they shock people out of chaos and selfishness and cynicism, they work unrelentingly toward what they believe is right, they name and fight evils.
This is the correct path for Paladins trying to redeem evil. While later editions of D&D would trash the "don't party with evil" restriction and make "the Greater Good" something Paladins can actually utilize, the version EFU seems to be running off, stock 3.5, is very cut-and-dried about it: it is not to be done. That's not to say someone Evil can't be in the presence of a Paladin or the Paladin has to be unpleasant to them, but this usually takes the form of the baddie being a prisoner. The stereotype of a fiery-eyed stick-in-the-mud Paladin who is only barely restrained from killing an Evil PC in town because it would be unLawful is not the only way to be.
Clerics and especially Paladins are given very special knowledge about the nature of morality, the heavenly/hellish planes, and the cosmic interactions therein. A lot of people don't like to play this up because it seems very high fantasy, not gritty enough, too black and white when "shades of grey" is the new hotness, but 3.X D&D absolutely is a universe of moral absolutes and many characters can reasonably know these things IC. Someone with Evil on their character sheet isn't
just a shitty person, they either have a very long history of doing bad things or make wilful choices to that end. Their intentions, and even those of the Paladin or Good-aligned characters, do not matter; "the Greater Good" as most people imagine it does not exist in the D&D rule cosmology as written, and only present action means anything, regardless of consequences down the line. Serving the common "Greater Good" is often seen as the harder choice for a Paladin, but the
hardest one is
not doing that.
The scales of alignment are also heavily weighted. An Evil action by a Paladin is far more damaging to their personality goodliness and the balance of power in the planes than that same act being done by a Good Fighter, which is more grave than the same act done by a Neutral Fighter, which is more impactful than the same act done by a Blackguard. On the flip side, a Blackguard saving a politician's daughter from a burning housefire just so he can ingratiate himself with the upper class and exploit them towards twisted ends later is still a bigger kick in the devils' nuts than a Paladin saving 20 young ladies and a whole orphanage.
A Paladin getting tainted is a monumental deal, and while "travelling with an Evil person" is not an Evil act, it is still a breach of their oaths. That leads to them not being a Paladin anymore, which is essentially the death of a paragon of Goodness, which has some pretty big ramifications. That means the
true Greater Good involves
not teaming up with Captain Shitheel and the Murder Bunch to take down that balor; whatever that balor is going to get up to is peanuts on a metaphysical level, even though the peasant villages it's about to raze are unlikely to see it that way.
Quote from: RookieI, personally, hate the awkward moments where a group of individuals are heading out to do something that is overtly good, but a paladin is forced to not take part because of that one evil aligned individual. The quest could literally be banishing a demon and saving 100 children from slaving duergar, and I would say that most paladin PCs would not take part if there was a single evil person also taking part. I think there is no IC justification for that, and the IC action is solely derived from the OOC rule of "don't quest with evil, ever."
Here is the almost-never-considered flip side to the Paladin's inability to party with or do Evil:
most wilfully, hideously Evil PCs should generally not be doing Good, even if it is simply out of greed for a reward, to twist it to their own ends later, or to keep up appearances. A character who routinely deals with infernal powers, summons devils, or serves a really Evil God should not be rescuing orphans if they or their patrons value the current blackness of their soul. Everything works both ways; there are actions and quests that Evil PCs should not partake of just as there are ones that Good PCs cannot. Evil is Evil with a capital E, it's not "Selfish Power-Hungry Dick Most Of The Time". Now, if you're just a nutjob who likes stabbing people and really is a power-hungry dick, that's one thing, but people who know they're Evil, revel in it, and consort with the hells must hold themselves to a higher (lower?) standard just like the goodie-goodies. In the former case, they shouldn't have much reason to care about Duergar enslaving kids; in the latter, they should actively not want
untaint themselves by getting involved. Players of super evil PCs should probably ask themselves, more often than they do, "Is this consistent with my character and the moral absolutism of D&D, or do I want to go along just to be in an event and get some XP/loot?" Not only is this more in keeping with how all alignments work, but it also shifts a lot of weight off of the Paladin player's shoulders, and they almost always have the rougher time of things because we all tend to forget that
wilful Evil should not be doing Good.
There's still various different rules for redeeming Evil PCs that even Paladins can take advantage of, it's just kind of a hassle to coordinate on EFU because they tend to involve lengthy imprisonments. If you can convince the DMs, the Watchers, and another player to let you jail some PC for IRL weeks on end, more power to you. Getting the cooperation of a level 9 Cleric or Druid and a DM to cast
Atonement (//%22http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm%22) is probably an easier sell.
For what it's worth, I'd love to see more players open to redemption and more PCs seeking that (either for themselves or for others), because at least from my perspective in my short time here, I've seen way more Falling than Lifting.
I don't disagree with the current explanations of how Paladins are, or what they should be doing in accordance with 3.5 rules. I disagree with the current assumption that how paladins currently are is feasible for a PW like EFU.
To me, Paladins have no more place in any player hub than a Druid does in Dunwarren. The difference between the Paladin and the Druid is that the Druid has an entire faction to support it's RP restrictions, while the Paladin has... nothing. I see the solution to this as allowing Paladins to attempt to redeem evil.
For a Paladin to be in Upper Sanctuary, he has to at least be a little tolerant of evil. At least a little. Same thing for Lower Sanctuary. Same thing for the Stewards. Same thing for pretty much anywhere. I see that little bit of tolerance as "hope for redemption." That little alteration gives Paladins a place in the server. No, that is not how a Paladin should act according to 3.5 rules. Yes, that is traditionally a Cleric's role. I'm suggesting the change to allow Paladins to be able to do it too, to, again, give them a place in the server.
All past Paladins (that I've seen) have operated within Sanctuary's laws to some extent. By not outright killing an evil person on the streets, you are being tolerant of evil.. to some extent. By all the posts I've just read, a Paladin is supposed to be utterly intolerant of any evil. This is, again, why I feel this 3.5 adaption of Paladins isn't feasible for a PW, and why I think the small change of allowing a Paladin to "hold out for redemption" is a good one.
I think I would feel differently if a Paladin was an app-only class, or significantly more powerful, or had a feasible player hub akin to the Stewards.
I'm content to lay the issue to rest, though. It's very clearly a personal pet peeve as opposed to a concern any significant portion of the server shares.
Just keep in mind that paladins aren't idiot berserkers, either. A paladin isn't going to see an evil adventurer and attack him on sight for having some evil in his heart.
He isn't going to help that adventurer either, however.
Since we're now getting into the question of, "How shouldst one play a Paladin, then?" here is a post that has really informed the way I play Paladins, and the way one can conceive of Lawful Good:
http://i.imgur.com/fQWag.png
I think we all have different views on what paladins are, and DE or "questing with evil" are just the tip of the iceberg. As it stands, most I see are played like LN zealots, seldom "good", and that doesn't suit me, for example, although I'm quite aware others don't think this way and in a multiplayer world, one has to compromise. Imo they should be app only a class and followed by a specific DM. It's the kind of class that should be extremely rare, the eye of the god upon you a real thing, not just spell casting abilities. In most stories we know, there's just "one" pally, the others are "just" knights. LG figthers, clerics, ftr-cleric fullfill most of the needs we usually have.
It's a good thing that paladins have been revamped in 4th and now 5th edition, because none of you seems to have the same idea about what paladins are and how they should be portrayed.
I mean, lol, I think the only threads as common as those are the random HP ones.