Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can anybody recommend some decent D&D forums? I find myself embroiled in an argument regarding 3.5E paladin morality with a newcomer to the group I started playing with, and as I and the rest of the sane folk are newbies to tabletop roleplaying still, whereas he has apparently been throwing D20s since he was 8, I need to call in the big guns.

What, we not good enough for you?

I used to frequent Paizo's forum for pathfinder. It was a pretty good mix. Not 3.5, but paladin morality arguments transcend editions.

If it's an argument about alignments, here are a couple useful links:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
If it's an argument about alignments, here are a couple useful links:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html

Is there any D&D question that can’t be answered with an Order of the Stick reference?

What was the argument? I've played DnD, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, Neverwinter NIghts 1&2, DnD 4, and several DnD spinoffs...

Yeah ask it here Seaward, there are plenty of us here who can probably settle the argument. Or make it worse.

Alright, I'll give it a shot here.

Unfortunately, it's not really any one particular argument. My girlfriend's been involved with a D&D group for about two years now, and when they started up with a new campaign she convinced me to finally give tabletop roleplaying a try. I've never actually done it, despite being a closet fantasy/RPG nerd all my life. Played all the Infinity Engine computer games and so forth, but never sat around a table and rolled dice. It's a good group, mostly professionals in their 30s, a fair few couples. The DM's a chill guy, and I talked with him before rolling up my paladin about the character; I didn't want to do the standard knight-in-shining armor thing. Lawful Good, absolutely, but pretty cold and focused, often cynical or sarcastic, etc. Basically a guy who thinks he's fighting a losing battle in a crapsack world that's only going to get worse, but fights it anyway.

The DM was on board with this, and everybody else was fine with it as well. Two of our regular players had to drop out when they went and had a kid, and the replacement couple that was brought in mid-campaign seemed pretty cool...except for the fact that the dude, who's apparently been playing D&D a long-ass time, has some serious problems with the way my paladin's being played. I'll admit I made a bit of a mistake in picking Torm as his deity, because I knew next to nothing about FR gods when I rolled him up and just said, "God of paladins? Cool, he works." This dude jumped on that fact right away, and made an issue of me not playing him as the flower of chivalry the way a Tormite paladin ought to act. The DM stepped in and solved that pretty easily by just going, "Okay, retcon the Torm thing, you're working for Helm, who's a lot more brutal and non-compassionate."

The only real argument occurred at the end of a little mini-arc we wrapped up a couple months ago. Without boring you with all the details, our party managed to get itself split in pursuit of the arc's Big Bad, with most of it holding off the Big Bad's guards while my paladin and the halfling rogue who's unofficially declared herself the paladin's official squire chased down the Big Bad in his lair. A fight ensued, we won, and the Big Bad surrendered. My paladin put his sword through his throat. The new guy with the issues immediately went all, "Whoa, fallen paladin time," but the DM said nah, due to the Big Bad unquestionably being evil, that wasn't fall-worthy, especially for a Helmite. It wasn't even an argument so much as a discussion, but the player made it clear he didn't agree.

Nothing major's happened since then, but this dude's made a couple comments that make it clear he thinks I'm getting away with something rather than sticking true to the universal rules on how to play a paladin, or whatever. I don't know D&D or Forgotten Realms nearly as well as him, so I'm basically just looking for resources to justify the notion that not every paladin is a Lawful Stupid high-chivalry stereotype, that codes of conduct vary between gods and orders, etc. I've seen references to there being something in published canon about Helmite paladins being involved in "atrocities" in whatever the FR's South America stand-in is, but I frustratingly can't find any details on it. I'd like to get some official support for what I'm doing in order to get him to lay off a little. It's never gotten heated, and I don't think anyone aside from myself and the DM even notice his disapproval, but it's still starting to stick in my craw a little.

If your Deity is fine with it(aka your DM), there's not really an argument to be made. He's cool with it, you didn't fall. Done.

It's not really an issue unless you're all laser-focused on alignment, and constantly stick to it. Your example of the cynical paladin killin the Big Bad could be handwaved away as you said, "He's too evil to live." If it doesn't break your, or your deity's moral codes nothing should cause your paladin to fall.

Also in 3.5 you have access to Grey Guard(From Complete Scoundrel), which seem exactly how you describe your paladin. They're basically lawful neutral paladins in simplist terms.
http://dndtools.eu/classes/gray-guard/

A lot depends on the gods involved. You have a code, but they are going to be different for every world, every god, and every DM. For the most part, going with the King Arthur, Knights of the Round Table idea is a safe bet.

Some also depends on how “realistic” the world is. A lot of our modern ideas bleed over into our fantasy realms. Ideas like a fair trial, evidence, legal representations, etc. Trial by combat, or divine right, might seem wrong today, but are the law in many fantasy worlds.

I’m not that familiar with the FR gods, or your table/DM. In some worlds/faiths, a paladin might be judge, jury, and executer. Ordained by their gods to cleanse evil from the world. You saw evil, judged it, and carried out the sentence. You don’t need to bring him to some secular court for evaluation, you have the authority vested in you by your god, and executed it. If you did wrong, you would have been stripped of your powers.

Remember, Good and Evil are not fuzzy philosophical things. They are the underling forces of the universe, and are palpable, detectable, measurable things. If you found a source of Evil, and he was trying to use your honor as a knight to escape justice, should you let him? Or was his surrender just another of his twisted lies to escape justice? You only need to accept surrender from honorable foes, not every goblin in the sewer, or even the better dressed filth.

One problem with paladins is that they are both very vague and very restricted. What is your code? How much leniency is there in it? Does your faith have hard laws, that must be obeyed/enforced? Most DMs will give you a vauge overview, and you can read the paragraph or three about you god and try to infer more details. But everyone at the table is going to have a different idea of how it should be played. And a lot of conflict can come from that.

Plus there are a lot of people who dislike paladins on principle, and will go out of the way to screw with them, but that’s another issue.

The other player sounds like a bit of a twerp. He's negating your character concept, which is the big number 1 no-no in roleplaying.

Basically, I'd shrug off his comments, because as long as your DM is cool with it, you're in the right for your DM's version of Realms. I've run lots of established settings, and I always alter things to suit my tastes. If my players don't like it, they are welcome to find another DM to run the game they want for them.

Sounds like you have run into "that guy" in your group. There is no singular right way to play any class, including Paladin. Lawful Good doesn't mean real life Medieval Chivalrous, and it certainly doesn't mean Lawful Nice.

I wouldn't just shrug it off, I'd eliminate him.

Da Boss wrote:The other player sounds like a bit of a twerp. He's negating your character concept, which is the big number 1 no-no in roleplaying.

Basically, I'd shrug off his comments, because as long as your DM is cool with it, you're in the right for your DM's version of Realms. I've run lots of established settings, and I always alter things to suit my tastes. If my players don't like it, they are welcome to find another DM to run the game they want for them.

Ahtman wrote:Sounds like you have run into "that guy" in your group. There is no singular right way to play any class, including Paladin. Lawful Good doesn't mean real life Medieval Chivalrous, and it certainly doesn't mean Lawful Nice.

Yeah. I think it's actually bothering the DM more than it's bothering me. Dude's got some strong opinions on the One True Way and is, to coin a phrase, trying to DM from the bottom.

It is rather frustrating, though, that TSR/WotC have been ridiculously vague about paladin codes and all that gak. You'd think with something that's obviously caused angst throughout the game's life up until they just got rid of it in 4th Edition, they would've said, "Hey, here's some sample codes of conduct for various gods."

Dude does indeed sound like a twerp, I'd probably just go, "Dude I may be newer than you, but I'm actually trying to create a character with conflict, flaws, etc... I don't want a knight in shining armor, I want a person."

Or like Kronk's image says... declare him a heretic and smite him. Most people (NPCs) would never think to go against the Paladin and his "I can detect evil" powers.

Sweet baby jesus.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Or like Kronk's image says... declare him a heretic and smite him. Most people (NPCs) would never think to go against the Paladin and his "I can detect evil" powers.

Especially if there's someone else in the party who is more "good" aligned, and has some form of "detect creature" because then they can collaborate the story, and "detect" a demon, chestburster, etc. in that character, and properly smite him

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Or like Kronk's image says... declare him a heretic and smite him. Most people (NPCs) would never think to go against the Paladin and his "I can detect evil" powers.

Especially if there's someone else in the party who is more "good" aligned, and has some form of "detect creature" because then they can collaborate the story, and "detect" a demon, chestburster, etc. in that character, and properly smite him

Or wait until you fight something that casts confusion, or charm/dominate and then wail on the part members that irritate you. Not that I’ve ever done that... But that sort of behavior is actually against anything resembling a generic paladin’s code, so while fun to contemplate, probably best saved for some other time.

A solution has been found.

I discovered the Book of anime fan Fightan Magic, so rerolling Crusader in the next campaign if we go with E6. If we go to 5th, dunno.

And this is why I don't play Paladins and I don't play Lawful Good. Also, any campaign I've been in where a Paladin was involved and there may be a question in his/her decision making process, we always sent someone with him/her who was willing to make the appropriate decision regardless of how moral the Paladin thinks it is.

Paladin + 1 fights with Bad until Bad gives up.
Paladin accepts Bad's surrender
Player 1 offs the Bad and takes tongue lashing from Paladin
Paladin doesn't have alignment issues
Player 1 doesn't care about alignment issues

Ultimately, it's between the Paladin and his/her diety (DM).

The new edition has what your looking for in the vow vengeance or the batman/punisher paladin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elenium#The_Diamond_Throne

It follows the story of Sparhawk, a Pandion Knight who has a knack of upsetting people in high places. He has been around a long time, and is quite cynical in his outlook.

When I read these books, I saw Sparhawk as a paladin.

Your paladin's character can often rub up against their precepts and codes, but that doesn't stop them being paladins.
If they break those codes, then yes, there would be repercussions.
But a personality and outlook can conflict without too much problem.

I have always seen Paladins as a very fine line. On one hand you are expected to defend those weaker then yourself and give your life in their service and the service of your god but at the same time stay completely sane. It is unrealistic that a paladin can stay squeaky clean!

This guys sounds tad idiotic if he thinks that one deed leads to a fallen Paladin. It is a slow decent that should be noted by the DM and when he believes you have committed enough to see your paladin fall from grace then so be it. But that would be the beauty with your character. A Character like you described that is just going through the motions essentially welcoming death in what he deems a useless fight would benefit from falling. Just because you fall doesn't make you evil, it just means that your character would realize that his god exists and give him purpose in the form of striving to achieve hist status again.


I have used this to varying degree's with my players including a new player who was playing a LG cleric and thought it acceptable to steal from the dead...the next time he tried to channel it didn't work until he had returned what he stole and blessed the dead to make Amen's.

Gonna jump on the wagon here and say that the other player is being "that guy".

I don't see any reason why a Paladin wouldn't kill a big bad that they thought was too dangerous to accept a surrender from. Paladin's already have the power to judge someone's actions worthy of punishment without trial, in some cases ending with execution. After they've done what they thought they should do it's up to them and their god.

Also, was the complaining guy playing the halfling rogue? Because if not then his characters knowledge of what happened to the big bad should only be based on what your paladin and the rogue told him, as it seemed that you two were the only ones present at the final execution, what with the others being preoccupied with fighting the big bads minions. If he's using metagame knowledge in character then that's a much bigger no-no in terms of playing his character than you've done with your paladin's actions.

Then again, none of my characters in RPGs have ever been the most, well, sane to begin with. The closest I've come to playing a holy warrior is a drunk ex-IRA member who in the first story arc of a Dresden Files campaign blew up two humans with home made plastic explosives and then a vampire with a priest-blessed, home made claymore hidden under a sofa.

So my point of view may be a bit warped