A Hero Emerges: Guide to Paladin RP

[Bunnysmack]

I'll start this off by giving the disclaimer that I am not saying this is the only valid set of guidelines for roleplaying a compelling paladin, just the guidelines that I follow. Since I have received a fair amount of positive feedback on them in the past, I figured I would toss them into the community of Arelith and see if they are useful to anyone. Also, this is kind of a clumsy way of conveying my thoughts on the subject, so I hope it doesn't come across as too confusing or messy.

Paladin is one of the most, if not the singular most, difficult class to roleplay properly. Playing a champion of truth and justice in a world that is not so clear cut in terms of moral clarity is not an easy task. Paladins both in character and out of character tend to get a rather bad rap much of the time, because a lot of the time...They fall into one of two problems. Often, a paladin PC will either 1. Be so lax and tolerant of convenient forms of evil in their midst, that they aren't really RPing anything that different from a standard fighter, or 2. They are so zealous, and so quick to smite anything that even slightly diverges from their moral outlook, that they trample the RP of others as they behave like an inquisitor with a divinely issued license to kill. My belief, is that a compelling paladin is someone that carefully walks the fine line between these two extremes (which is, in effect, why I think they are the most difficult class to roleplay).

In my view, the best way to do this is to create a character concept with some oaths already thought up. The oaths of a paladin are one of the most compelling aspects to their RP. They enhance the struggle of their life as sometimes they find their oaths constrain them from what they might wish to do. As an example: A paladin might desperately want to smite the necromancer in front of them, but the guy has surrendered and is showing no signs of deceit or hostility...and that paladin swore an oath to always accept sincere surrender. Make the oaths constraining but reasonable. All with a mind toward what sorts of values and actions further a world with more good and law in it, with emphasis toward the former of those two objectives.

One thing I love most about paladins, for all the bad reputation the class gets, and how often it tends to stumble, is that when done right...paladins can really enhance RP for the community they interact with. A paladin is not about glory unto themselves, but to the goal of creating a more just and noble world.

The true power of a paladin is not found in class abilities, but in the RP of being the living embodiment of light driving away darkness. Of inspiring others to do better, be better, and help their fellow people. Paladins don't need to act like chaste and shy altar boys/girls, they don't need to be entirely devoid of the more self indulgent sins, but the important aspect of a paladin is that when others give into wrath, fear, greed, or ambition, the Paladin holds true to their oaths and ideals. They stand up for what is right, no matter the personal cost. They try to help others toward redemption, even if doing so makes them vulnerable to betrayal. It is not an easy character to play, but the story that unfolds can be very rewarding, when done right.

[Draco]

This opening post pretty accurately sums up both the issues I've observed from some Paladin players and the challenges of accurately playing a good, oath-bound character. While not succumbing to evil yourself. Even when you're convinced you're in the right, murder is still murder, Paladins are lawful, not chaotic. You have to walk that fine line overly lax and overly zealous. For that reason, I'd say Paladins are the hardest class to RP properly.

The true power of a paladin is not found in class abilities, but in the RP of being the living embodiment of light driving away darkness. Of inspiring others to do better, be better, and help their fellow people.

+1

[NPC Logger Number 2]

One thing about playing a Paladin is that you are always fighting an uphill battle and it will always seem utterly futile on an OOC and sometimes even an IC level. Even if you stab Uglyface McEvilpants 100 times he'll keep coming back. Benwick is always going to be overrun by devils. Red Dragon Island is always going to be overrun by red dragons. Town guards don't care if that guy you just bashed is an Animator or Fiend summoner. Etc.

To really sell a character as a Paladin they have to have an unwavering dedication and conviction to fighting evil. It is easy for players to get discouraged and/or burnt out and say, "Hey, I've done killed Uglyface McEvilpants 100 times and nothing's changed, maybe I'll have a tea party with him and his undead buddies instead!" Once you do that though, once you stop fighting evil and start trying to appease it or accept it, your character isn't much of a Paladin anymore and others will notice.

That's just my opinion though. Take it with a grain of salt, I'm sure others might disagree.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

A few thoughts,

1. The life-and-death abnormalities of Arelith should be recognized. Smiting a Banite today, and then seeing the same Banite tomorrow, should clue in to paladins. A paladin proverb, "One converted Banite is worth two smote ones."

2. Paladins are in a constant cycle of action-atonement-renewal. Paladins are people, after all, and its only when they have such hubris that they are, indeed, infallible guardians of light in the tide of darkness that they can succumb to even a more drastic Fall.

Paladins "fall" all the time.

3. The pursuit of vanquishing evil is perhaps more virtuous than the absolute vanquishing of evil. Fighting devils in Benwick, day in, day out, is just what has to be done. A paladin has chosen, in many ways, a lonely road of constant work.

They should seek out friends and allies, find humour, and entertain more dubious individuals, to rekindle their humanity from time to time.

4. Knowledge is a lot of things on Arelith. Knowing Stuff is often much more important than Smiting Stuff.

5. Paladins are often viewed as reliable sources of conflict for villains. When a villain has no paladin to torment, it can often get boring. If you're recognized and appreciated for being a compelling paladin, antagonists will love conflict'ing with you.

6. Engage in good-vs-good conflict. It's often the best roleplay a paladin gets to partake in, and their oaths and dogmatism can challenge other would-be heroes in interesting ways.

[Ferret Roll]

I think the most important thing to remember about playing paladins is that you're a divine warrior made to kill evil. If you rest with any uses left of smite evil for the day, you have failed.

Crusade on, brothers!

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice

[strong yeet]

Even when you're convinced you're in the right, murder is still murder,

Actually killing something that is evil-aligned for no personal gain is in fact a good-aligned action

1. The life-and-death abnormalities of Arelith should be recognized. Smiting a Banite today, and then seeing the same Banite tomorrow, should clue in to paladins. A paladin proverb, "One converted Banite is worth two smote ones."

Aversion to mechanical conflict is not uncommon and not very good, but of all reasons to do so steeping it in the mechanics of the respawn system is probably the worst.


This thread leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like every other nose-high and bite-sized pseudodissertation of its kind.

[Bunnysmack]

This thread leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like every other nose-high and bite-sized pseudodissertation of its kind.

Wow, um, okay. I said that this was my view on it with a disclaimer that other views are also valid. If you don't like what I have to say, you are free to not read it, but I'm not attacking whatever your own opinion is for the subject matter o.O

[Maladus]

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice

That's a great story.

[Draco]

Actually killing something that is evil-aligned for no personal gain is in fact a good-aligned action

"To kill an infidel is not murder, it is a path to heaven."

See but that's where things get dicey, all because you can "Detect-Evil" that doesn't give you license to kill. You may not agree with someone's ideals but having chosen a class doesn't give you the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. The thing people forget most of all when playing Paladins is evil is EVERYWHERE. Everywhere, it's not just the few people that selected that alignment on creation. Even the crusaders of justice have evil in them. Paladins can fall, they can take their oaths too far and commit unlawful actions, even if they think they're in the right. It's not JUST about being "Good", it's about being "Lawful Good."

[Xerah]

I’m kind of shocked that someone thinks that just because someone is evil means you can kill them.

[The GrumpyCat]

I encourage this thread to continue it's merry debate, and hope that it continues in a polite and civil manner. Already some interesting and inciteful things have been said (by the initial poster especialy) but I ask everyone to remember this.

Whilst there of course extremes of wrongness to play a Paladin (walking arm in arm with your necromancer boyfriend, demons in toe, giggling about burning down an orphanage ect) it's also best not to be too critical of other paladins rp.

Paladins arn't perfect, they fail. Paladins outlooks will vary dependent on whom their a Paladin of. There's room for furious avenging paladins, for pro-active soldier paladins, for defensive shield paladins, for gentle redemption paladins and more.

[The Rambling Midget]

Actually killing something that is evil-aligned for no personal gain is in fact a good-aligned action

I'd argue that that's a neutral action, leaning toward evil, not a good one. It ignores the value of the victim and only views it in the light of its potential to do harm.

For it to be arguably good, there would need to be justification, such as imminent danger.

Otherwise, the good thing to do would be to attempt to change the evil thing, if possible. From there, you do what you have to.

[DM Avalon Soul]

I’m kind of shocked that someone thinks that just because someone is evil means you can kill them.

Same. SImply being evil is not sufficient cause to up and strike someone down.

[Nekonecro]

I find that a strange stance to have in a fantasy setting where the whole point is good and evil fighting eachother.
That is your bread and butter.
The nuances, reasonings, influences and so on are the filling for the story sandwich.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

Actually killing something that is evil-aligned for no personal gain is in fact a good-aligned action

"To kill an infidel is not murder, it is a path to heaven."

See but that's where things get dicey, all because you can "Detect-Evil" that doesn't give you license to kill. You may not agree with someone's ideals but having chosen a class doesn't give you the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. The thing people forget most of all when playing Paladins is evil is EVERYWHERE. Everywhere, it's not just the few people that selected that alignment on creation. Even the crusaders of justice have evil in them. Paladins can fall, they can take their oaths too far and commit unlawful actions, even if they think they're in the right. It's not JUST about being "Good", it's about being "Lawful Good."

As grumpy pointed out, there is room for nuances, but for argument sake, I would argue that classical DnD makes low level evil never pop up as evil and the more powerful, the viggee the aura. Kind of the opposite of our alignment situation, we need to add spells of non-detection though if we ever go that route, but im skeptic of the "evil being everwhere" on the detection front, but you are definitely hitting home on a ceetain nuance of paladins.

Personally i prefer the nuance of lawfully good (not lawful and then good), like they by oath/rules need to be good. They don't become instantly not paladin from breaking a local law, but they do from a single act of evil, hence the lawfully good (extremely strict around the good part) that's why I'm ok with oaths of they are written in a way that breaking them is more directly breaking the good part of the paladin than the lawful part, the lawful part compliments/enhances or even flows into/out of the good versus restricting it. IMO the average Paladin should almost never succumb to "ends justifies the means" but also be pushed by said "restriction" to do more good than what would be previously considered possible by forging a new path that doesnt trample upon a few innocents to defeat a greater evil, but still defeat it never the less. That is hope in the darkness and not easy/possible for every single paladin to always properly pull off so we should respect "less ideal" nuances and enjoy the flavours.

[Imperatrix]

Literally the foundation of D&D is "adventurers killing evil things." It's the entire point of the game.

Obviously you don't treat other players like NPC goblins in a cave but if other characters are committing evil acts the paladin should do everything in their power to stop them or they are objectively not playing paladin correctly. That doesn't mean "talk it out over a nice hot cup of tea." They are holy warriors.

Addendum: I am not saying evil cannot be given a chance for redemption, but if they don't take said chance and make immediate changes they should get the sword.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

Literally the foundation of D&D is "adventurers killing evil things." It's the entire point of the game.

Obviously you don't treat other players like NPC goblins in a cave but if other characters are committing evil acts the paladin should do everything in their power to stop them or they are objectively not playing paladin correctly. That doesn't mean "talk it out over a nice hot cup of tea." They are holy warriors.

I feel like DnD ethics has shifted a bit as the scope of "adventures killing evil" things has shifted a bit. Traditionally speaking you are absolutely right though.

[Naiinara]

Even when you're convinced you're in the right, murder is still murder,

Actually killing something that is evil-aligned for no personal gain is in fact a good-aligned action

Except Paladins are both Lawful and Good. That is, while killing something evil could be construed as good there are times when it is not in fact lawful. We punish people for crimes they commit not ones we fear they might. For lawful and good the ends do not justify the means. How you defeat evil is just as important as defeating evil.

Lawful upholds a justice system, and favors the truth, and civility (as determined by culture), and mercy. Lawful good where applicable (some faiths make stipulations for not being beholden to laws they find immoral) upholds both the spirit and the letter of the law. For instance, consider a situation where Emily taunts Stan into a fight. Emily then injures Stan and claims self defense. If Stan was a Banite on top chances are everyone will just turn a blind eye. Emily has indeed upheld the letter of the law, but not the spirit. The spirit was meant to offer a means for an honest citizen to protect herself from an aggressor, not to protect an instigator from an aggressor. Emily has committed a lawful neutral action.

I think it is a hard alignment to play. We want to think of it as easy: good versus evil. But, it is more than that. It is complex. Would a paladin protect an alleged murderer from a mob lynching or stand aside, or join with the mob? And if you did choose to protect a right to a trial would you use a threat of violence to obtain it? I'll let you all find your own answer. I do know it is not simply good versus evil though.

[three wolf moon]

These threads never go well. People have already started insinuating that "Lawful" anything has anything to do with the law of any given place and not the character itself. Soon, a Batman alignment meme will be posted, people will be called bad paladins indirectly, and so on. There have been many threads like this, probably none of them have been productive; and it's been that way since the inception of the server.

There are lots of different and valid ways to play paladins (there are lots of different paladin-compatible gods, after all), and really it's best if everyone finds out their style rather than being fed a peanut gallery's worth of opinions, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

[The Rambling Midget]

I find that a strange stance to have in a fantasy setting where the whole point is good and evil fighting eachother.
That is your bread and butter.
The nuances, reasonings, influences and so on are the filling for the story sandwich.

That's a valid point, but shouldn't good and evil have different ways of "fighting" each other? If it's just each killing the other back and forth, because of what they are, what's the difference between the two?

If a good character ceases to question the necessity of killing, and chooses it because it's the most expedient course, I'd call that a step toward neutrality and the slippery slope leading to evil.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, of course. It all makes a great story. Evil killing evil is perfectly fine. Good falling into evil is fun. But there has to be a difference between the two, or there's, uh... no difference. I don't know how to say that any better.

[NPC Logger Number 2]

What the paladin must do in their life, however, is adhere to the tenants of their code, and do good. You must, and may not ever willingly commit an evil act for the sake of a sin. There are some murky waters surrounding this general statement, but it remains by and large inviolable. If the shopkeep is refusing to tell you where the evil ritual to bring ruin to the world is taking place out of fear of reprisal, you have permission to break his nose to get the information out of him. You're holy warriors, darn it. Not holy wusses.

Source: http://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Paladin

Paladins slaying evil comes above all else. Just because some secretly evil politician passes some law saying animating the dead is fine and dandy does not mean a paladin should start tolerating necromancers. In fact he should probably give that politician a beating in the town square in front of everyone even if it means he'll be exiled from that settlement. The lawful part of their alignment has nothing to do with local settlement laws and everything to do with their deity and their oath to that deity.

[Nekonecro]

That's a valid point, but shouldn't good and evil have different ways of "fighting" each other? If it's just each killing the other back and forth, because of what they are, what's the difference between the two?

If a good character ceases to question the necessity of killing, and chooses it because it's the most expedient course, I'd call that a step toward neutrality and the slippery slope leading to evil.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, of course. It all makes a great story. Evil killing evil is perfectly fine. Good falling into evil is fun. But there has to be a difference between the two, or there's, uh... no difference. I don't know how to say that any better.

Personally I think the RP quality goes up when there is a chance of PVP in the mix.
There's stakes, tension and it makes for good dramatics.
Granted there's a balance to maintain to keep it decent.

However I personally came to Arelith after experiencing MMO RP where any real fighting was done on a consent basis.
To save all a long story, it was dull and the quality was gods awful.

Either way it's all personal opinion what makes a "Good Paladin" and the values the players hold.
That's why we keep getting threads like this based on how a person thinks a paladin should be like, people who think paladins are bad because of so and so.

[magistrasa]

Personally I think the RP quality goes up when there is a chance of PVP in the mix.

[NPC Logger Number 2]

Please keep your RP out of my PVP, thx. (this is a joke plz no ban)