PDA

View Full Version : You can't do that in D&D



GoddessGood
05-06-2009, 10:36 AM
Far be it from me to say what can or can't be done in D&D, especially since I haven't played it in oh ... 10 years :). I'll be playing 4e soon and must confess I've been working on a character concept that's engaging for me and, since I'm almost completely unfamiliar with D&D anymore, I'm having a little trouble. The interesting part came when I tried to choose a deity for my half-finished paladin to follow. I don't have access to the books, so I was reading through the options on the official character generator and singled out Avandra (god of luck) as a potential candidate for my character's devotion. Describing my character to a neutral party, I was told, "I know you like to sort of break the molds with your characters and make them interesting, but there are conventions in D&D that are there for a reason. They make sense. It's hard to be a zealot for a wimpy god, and I can't see a paladin who worships a deity of luck."

Now, as official as the official character generator may (or may not) be, one would think that since I was offered Avandra as a deity for a paladin, that that should be a valid choice. Avandra is unaligned, sure, so she doesn't fit the Lawful Good mold that I am told paladins normally follow. Am I just making more trouble for myself here? How would you play such a character?

What other things have you wanted to do with your characters that just didn't "fit" in with D&D?

Oldgamer
05-06-2009, 01:02 PM
It's hodgepodge to say a paladin can't worship a god of luck, as long as the god is of Good alignment. The Lawful requirement for a Paladin would make him Lawful to the Paladin's god and the god's ways. To say a Paladin can't worship a wimpy god is absurd as well, to a religious zealot ... wimpy is relative. I've played with someone who played a Paladin of a love god once ... quite interesting.

But it's still staying within the rules of a Paladin to worship the god of luck as long as the god is not neutral or evil, this would be a change of class ... or at least in 3.5, not sure without looking it up in 4e PHB. In 3.5, being anything other than Lawful Good Paladin makes the Paladin more of a Blackguard or the Unearthed Arcana variant classes of Paladin's of Freedom, Slaughter, or Tyranny.

IMHO, the rules are made for a purpose, and some are broken and must be fixed ... making a LG Paladin of Luck doesn't break the rules as long as the god of luck fits the criteria. Although you say the god is unaligned ... so that may be troubling. You could play as the variant Paladin of Freedom which is a Chaotic Good paladin listed here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofFreedomClassF eatures), but that is 3.5e and I don't know how to impose it to 4e. But it could be a way to bring it up to your DM.

The Paladin could be played a happy-go-lucky person, preaching that "...law and order does not account for luck!" with a mischievous grin. Or she could be severe in her righteousness and say the same phrase with her hand on the hilt of her sword should the blasphemer she's speaking to think differently!

I come from the beginnings of D&D where Basic Ed stated basically, if you're not human ... your race is your class. And then AD&D came out and broke away from that mold, this I loved due to now an elf could be a pirate! You used the class rules more as guidelines, the elven pirate was basically a Fighter as a class, but you gave him the pirate attitude. Nowadays with all the "splatbooks" for 3.5, all of the Complete Warrior, Complete Scoundrel, Complete Mage, etc ... they give you those classes as new templates, much like the Paladin of Freedom.

I'd say speak to your DM about breaking the mold, it's been done since D&D first began ...

templeorder
05-06-2009, 01:09 PM
If the GM controls the world, they therefore have an idea of the faiths and what makes sense for their campaign. As a GM, i never say no, but i challenge the players to make it fit. Those parameters are highly dependent on the group.. but a Paladin of a god of luck does not seem to make much sense in the classic sense, if you think of the chivalric knight with a higher purpose (the last part being the piece that makes the paladin). What higher purpose will the god (or one of their aspects) of luck offer? Figure that out and it will all make sense....

yukonhorror
05-06-2009, 01:29 PM
We 'almost' had a paladin of avandra.

@oldgamer
in 4e, you can be a paladin of orcus if you so choose, but your alignment must match the deity's.

@goddess
I don't see how luck is "wimpy". You could take this in a very zealous fashion, in that you are very bold and take MANY chances, believing your god will favor you for doing so. Be impulsive, never plan ahead, etc... Of course, avandra is also about change and freedom, so those are other "pillars" to be zealot about.

That's why I like the 4e paladin, because it has that flexibility. You don't have to be a goody-two shoes who lives off of rainbows and good cheer. In fact, I have been really wanting to try a hard-core Raven Queen paladin who is consumed by his hatred of undead.

Dimthar
05-06-2009, 04:35 PM
Well, Playing a Paladin has always been controversial to some people/groups. Everybody seems to have a different idea of what a Paladin is ...

Some would categorize a Paladin as a member of a Knightly Church Order (e.g. Knights of Solamnia - Dragonlance) and therefore his behavior is based on the Order's Code.
In this case it is the Church who set the Paladin goals and not directly from the deity, that is expected on very rigid or militaristic churches where rank is well maintained and respected.

This version allows for church politics and conflict of interest. An unaligned god may have a very High Level Evil Priest, while the typical LG Paladin of the same god will be in conflict with his superior orders.

Others would say a Paladin is a "Lone Ranger", a chosen from his god. A weapon of vengeance, sent to protect the weak and those abused by the system. A wandering "Judge Dredd" type.

In a Magical world, some like to rule that the Paladin bears an special mark from his God which allows him to call for the help of his deity's church. An example is be recognized as a Holy Man, same as the Prophets of the old testament, nobility may not love him (e.g. Herod and St. John Baptist) but will not attack him directly (fearing the God's wrath or a Mob).

It is always better to reach an agreement with the DM on what is expected OF the Paladin, from his God, from his Church and from others. Call it LG Alignment, Paladin's Code, etc.

Sascha
05-06-2009, 06:20 PM
Paladinhood didn't even have to be a religious thing, either, in the case of 3.5. I rather enjoy the idea of the oathbound paladin, who gets the Holy stuff from an unwritten agreement between themselves and the Cosmos, itself.


(And yeah, a 4E Raven Queen paladin would be a hoot; now ... Kuchiki Rukia or Soi-Fon for the inspiration ... ^_^)

Webhead
05-06-2009, 08:48 PM
I almost never play "bog-standard" or "conventional" characters, so I've dealt with these kinds of things a lot. My last 3 D&D characters were:

1) A Gnome Barbarian/Wizard who practiced a fighting style modeled after badgers.

2) A Gnoll Rogue with a "reverse-Mowgli" complex (a gnoll who was raised by humans).

3) A Human Warden who believes he is the mortal child of a god.

As most folks said, there is nothing "wrong", "unplayable" or even "undesirable" to playing a Paladin of a god of Luck. I actually see some pretty interesting role playing potential.

Ultimate though, it is a discussion to have with your DM. The DM is the only one who can tell you whether they think such a character will or will not fit into their game.

Let us know what happens.

Valdar
05-06-2009, 11:03 PM
Paladin is just a divine warrior. Class/Alignment restrictions have been removed from D&D as of the latest edition, so if your DM is enforcing 3.x rules, you should have a talk.

(You can't be a paladin of Orcus under core rules. Orcus didn't make the cut of the new gods- Tiamat and Asmodeus are viable tho.)

Paladins aren't necessarily religious zealots. For that role, see Avenger from PHB2.

If Avandra has holy warriors, they're Paladins. And they have to be Good, not LG.

Grimwell
05-07-2009, 02:17 AM
What others are all saying here is that "You can do that in D&D." but the folks in your group may have local rules that go beyond it.

I think a Paladin of Luck would fit, even in the prior editions where you did have to be a Lawful Good character, etc. How? Roleplay... the entire point of the game. :D

Due to their level of faith and trust in their gods, many a paladin over the years has taken on the odds in order to do the right thing by their faith. I'm sure we can all cough up different examples of where a paladin character did something that nobody else in the party would; because he's the paladin.

Seems to me that doing what's right, no matter the odds, is a lot like putting one's trust in Avandra and trusting her luck to shine down on you in this moment of glory... seem's to me that this is exactly what paladin's tend to do right before the bards start writing the songs about their deeds. They step up to do the right thing, no matter the odds, and trust their faith to pull them through.

Serving a luck god would be a great match considering that.

I'd welcome it in my games!

Dytrrnikl
05-07-2009, 06:53 AM
My advice, talk to the DM. Double check with him to see if your Paladin concept fits into the campaign setting and the game he intends to run.

yukonhorror
05-07-2009, 08:37 AM
Paladin is just a divine warrior. Class/Alignment restrictions have been removed from D&D as of the latest edition, so if your DM is enforcing 3.x rules, you should have a talk.

(You can't be a paladin of Orcus under core rules. Orcus didn't make the cut of the new gods- Tiamat and Asmodeus are viable tho.)

Paladins aren't necessarily religious zealots. For that role, see Avenger from PHB2.

If Avandra has holy warriors, they're Paladins. And they have to be Good, not LG.

I know, but Goddess made it seem her DM would only accept religious zealots.

GoddessGood
05-07-2009, 08:57 AM
Guh, I've tried replying twice to this thread only to have it eaten :(

The person I was talking to isn't the DM, but I'm checking with her on the idea. Something tells me she'll be willing to bend the rules (if it's necessary) to see a cool character idea. At any rate, I see her as more of the wandering, do-good, knight type rather than a zealot. As I will soon have some time to read the DMG, I'm hoping to find more hints and tips there.

So does anyone else have a story about something they tried to do that was labeled not appropriate for D&D?

yukonhorror
05-07-2009, 09:14 AM
wandering do-good knight would fit REALLY well with avandra.

Lucian-Sunaka
05-07-2009, 11:42 AM
Guess I kind of have to chime in on this thread, just because it's interesting. I for one am a huge fan of separating flavor from mechanics. As long as you have an interesting story and character concept, you can identify your abilities as whatever the heck you want.

A 'monk class character' who's martial prowess and acrobatics comes from a life as a street tumbler defending themselves and who's found a special inner strength in the focus it takes to execute their art.

A 'wizard class character' who is a meditive chi-master style monk, who uses spells as martial techniques of vast power (think Avatar the last Airbender, etc)

A 'paladin class character' who's a powerful samurai devoted to his lord's cause, and who is able to draw on the soul of his ancestors to aid him in battle.


the list goes on and on.

But, my most 'unconventional' character ever, had to be Shayla. A twelve year old human girl, size small and treated by the GM statistically just as having been affected by reduce person in terms of stat effects, raised in a monestary, broke out during a town festival at the age of 10 and was soon after taken in by a pirate and set out on her first adventure two years later.

GoddessGood
05-07-2009, 02:45 PM
Guess I kind of have to chime in on this thread, just because it's interesting. I for one am a huge fan of separating flavor from mechanics. As long as you have an interesting story and character concept, you can identify your abilities as whatever the heck you want.

A 'monk class character' who's martial prowess and acrobatics comes from a life as a street tumbler defending themselves and who's found a special inner strength in the focus it takes to execute their art.

A 'wizard class character' who is a meditive chi-master style monk, who uses spells as martial techniques of vast power (think Avatar the last Airbender, etc)

A 'paladin class character' who's a powerful samurai devoted to his lord's cause, and who is able to draw on the soul of his ancestors to aid him in battle.


the list goes on and on.

But, my most 'unconventional' character ever, had to be Shayla. A twelve year old human girl, size small and treated by the GM statistically just as having been affected by reduce person in terms of stat effects, raised in a monestary, broke out during a town festival at the age of 10 and was soon after taken in by a pirate and set out on her first adventure two years later.
These sound like the kind of characters I like to play :). Not exactly wrong, just unconventional. I know more than one DM that would just hand the sheet back and say, "Roll another one."

Baron_Samedi
05-07-2009, 05:51 PM
You are also going under the assumption that a paladin means someone in plate armour or chain mail, riding a steed with a towering sheild and broadsword. A patron of the God of Luck, could be of a rogue-ish appearance, maybe a traveller on the road, or could even be a compulsive gambler. I've always seen that a paladin lives as an example of the patron deity, I've had someone pitch the idea in my group that a paladin of Ioun, is someone who wears robes, and finds more value serving their God by research and study, only venturing into martial actions to seek a long lost tome. Part of the problem that i've seen with Dungeons and Dragons, especially the older versions, is that there is a stereotype for appearances...but what do i know?

Webhead
05-07-2009, 08:40 PM
...So does anyone else have a story about something they tried to do that was labeled not appropriate for D&D?

Well, it wasn't D&D but I did play an infernal *duck* in a Victorian-era World of Darkness campaign of politics and intrigue. It was a crossover game and the GM said that we could play any type of character we wanted from the different WoD lines. We had a Werewolf, a Vampire, a Mage, and another Changing Breed. I think he probably assumed that I was going to choose a Mage or a Hunter perhaps. Somehow, I don't think he ever imagined me handing him a character concept that read: "foul-tempered water fowl".

Okay, so he wasn't *actually* a duck...just a deep umbral vengeance spirit that took the form of a duck in the material world...

Yeah...that explaination didn't do much to wipe the stupefied look off the GM's face. But...somehow...he let me play it. If the game had lasted longer, I'm sure he would have turned my character into stew.

I still get crap for that to this day. I'm sorry, Mike! I'll never play a duck again... :Cry:


...A 'wizard class character' who is a meditive chi-master style monk, who uses spells as martial techniques of vast power (think Avatar the last Airbender, etc)...

Everytime I hear that it makes me want to go watch them again. Fantastic series!

Dimthar
05-07-2009, 09:12 PM
, I've had someone pitch the idea in my group that a paladin of Ioun, is someone who wears robes, and finds more value serving their God by research and study, only venturing into martial actions to seek a long lost tome. Part of the problem that i've seen with Dungeons and Dragons, especially the older versions, is that there is a stereotype for appearances...but what do i know?

IMHO using the term "Stereotype" is inappropriate, in the light of Game Mechanics, Classes and Races are Templates, which are used to represent what is believed a standard fantasy setting.

I believe the DnD Game Engine (Game Rules) is designed to work around those templates. Things like Armor, Weapon Proficiency, god's Powers are part of the "Engine" and therefore is not suggested to mess with.

We are under the assumption that GG wants to play a character who has most of the Abilities, Powers, Proficiencies and Skills of Paladin Class "Template". And part of the Game Rules in the case of 4E is "Plate Armor" which is not standard for any other class. Ergo, a strong candidate for a Knight in Shiny Armor.

Now the Paladin Class Character can always be played wearing robes, but when dealing with Game Mechanics (Mostly Combat), the Character gave something away that the rules expect him to have and therefore now it may find himself in a position of disadvantage.

I happened to play in a group with too much healing power (4E Leader Role) and very few damage power (Defender and Striker roles), we did not die, but gosh it took forever to defeat the encounter. This is because the encounter was played by the book by the DM and not adjusted to the special condition of the party (I am not blaming the DM), what I want to illustrate is that when you deviate, the Game Engine does not work as well.

I believe you can pimp your character enough in any DnD Edition to satisfy your role-playing needs without messing too much with the "Rules", if this is not the case, the DnD system is not what you are looking for.

Webhead
05-07-2009, 09:37 PM
To sorta, kinda summarize the crux of what I think Dimthar is saying is that D&D is a game of rather specific and "niche" sensibilities and tends to (mechanically) reward players who play those niches to their best effect.

Ultimately though (for me at least), the mechanical aspects of the game are really only half (or preferably a bit less than half) of the experience of the game.

Thus, you can (as I often do) bend, warp, distort and bastardize to your heart's content and still end up having a good time even if you're not playing your character type in the direction that the D&D rules tend to assume that you will.

But all that is ultimately based upon the fancies of the DM and the type of campaign that is being run.

GoddessGood
05-08-2009, 07:56 AM
I still get crap for that to this day. I'm sorry, Mike! I'll never play a duck again... :Cry:
Well, that's because you did it to Mike. Silly human :lol: you deserve what you get ;).

I guess I'm making a (poor) effort to try to play D&D, as D&D. If an interesting character concept can work, then it'll be easier for me to enjoy playing it. Perhaps it's my years of White Wolf games, but I'm stuck in the mode where character development and roleplay is first and mechanics and strategy is second. I don't generally build a character until I've got a concept I like. I had fully intended the Paladin to be the knight in shining armor type, but what Baron Samedi said made me go, "OOOOH!"

Haha, I'm hopeless.

Dimthar
05-08-2009, 10:39 AM
If an interesting character concept can work, then it'll be easier for me to enjoy playing it. Perhaps it's my years of White Wolf games, but I'm stuck in the mode where character development and roleplay is first and mechanics and strategy is second.

But even in White Wolf WoD for example there are "Role-playing" guidelines on how to play a specific Clan, Tribe, Tradition, etc (Which automatically will lead to specific skills and attributes). And is not that the Game is stereotyping or limiting the player. Story wise, it assumes that a certain vampire will be embraced by someone who shares his background, or in a Werewolf tribe, you are actually indoctrinated and some of your behavior will be a product of your cultural heritage.

Is True that in WoD your powers are not as "FIXED" or "PRE-SET" as in DnD by your choice of Clan, but even WoD Game Engine will favor certain combination of Skills and Attributes based on a typical template. As Webhead pointed out, in games where there is a strong use of the GAME Engine, those who follow the "niche" will be rewarded (by beating a high difficulty) while a player who chooses an awkward combination may end frustrated for his inability to succeed in the challenges (That is without adding poor rolling).

Perhaps what I mean in summary is that you don't need to be the Dwarf Slender Wizard, shame of his clan and family by not following the militaristic tradition to have an interesting role-playing background, I believe the Human Slender Wizard shame of his warlord father will be as rewarding as the first one.

So in DnD for you (GG) I would simply suggest have a character concept and then choose a class, one good thing is that classes such as Rogue and Fighter are pretty flexible. You can be a Knight in Shiny Armor, a Zealot Warrior or a ruthless uneducated savage tribesman (Just try High Dex Spear specialization) and still be a Fighter. Human is also one very flexible choice as a race.
But it is always a matter of personal choices, whatever makes you happy.

Lucian-Sunaka
05-08-2009, 01:34 PM
My position on it, have fun playing the mechanics you want, and the story you want. Take whatever mechanics you desire, and bend them to your story, throw the fluff out the window.

If your ever having a hard time coming up with a character that can 'keep up' with the party to suit your concept, feel free to PM me GoddessGood, I'd be happy to help you build it, but you'll have to paint (flavor/story) it yourself lol.

templeorder
05-08-2009, 03:37 PM
I've commented on the roleplaying aspects of paladins and faith and a higher prupose... but i would also like to say that the mechanics of a system also take game balance into account. Setting aside everything and doing whatever you want is a good approach in principle, but it can also lead to serious abuse. There was a reason why the original paladin was so bad azz. You had to sacrifice so many other aspects of roleplaying - character direction, development, alignment, voice, and outlook in order to get all those advantages. Paladins did not usually have great strength - their CHA was the big requirement, and then they had more stat requirements and XP progress was slower. But they got soooooo many powers beyond what others got it was incredible. Of course, the only way to really stop abuse was to enforce those roleplaying aspects... often overlooked, especially in less experienced and more combat oriented groups. Paladin powers, without any game balance, can lead to other players asking to play paladins of the trees, the lakes, the sky and the steetcorner. As envisioned, the original paladin was the knight in shinning armor... and was balanced to specifically reflect that. Just something to think about.

Lucian-Sunaka
05-08-2009, 11:45 PM
Pardon, I'm accustomed to 3rd edition, and the 4th edition players have chimed much the same. In these later editions, Paladins aren't anything extra special mechanically. They have a few nice toys yes, and when built and played right tend to do better than a Fighter, and about on par with a Ranger or Barbarian in terms of combat effect. (And if the GM feels that there is special warrant for said roleplay restrictions, there is nothing wrong with crafting unique versions of them for independent stories. In the Samurai example I gave above the rp code would likely be very similar to that of the Kensai prestige class from complete warrior, though perhaps a little more focused on maintaining personal honor than fealty to a lord)

It's come to the point that 'Game Balance' is somewhat of a joke really, the only balance in most rpg's is that created by the GM. Really all that comes down to is making sure there isn't a huge gap in effectiveness among the party so nobody feels useless and all get to shine.

Webhead
05-09-2009, 11:31 AM
...Perhaps it's my years of White Wolf games, but I'm stuck in the mode where character development and roleplay is first and mechanics and strategy is second. I don't generally build a character until I've got a concept I like...

I agree and this is how I generally approach it as well. Even when I play WoD games, I don't tend to play "normal" characters. That's because I develop and interesting (and sometimes convention-shattering) concept first and then figure out how I can work it into the game system.

I say go with what your instincts tell you would be most fun. This is still a role playing game after all and no matter how carefully crafted and well balanced your character choices are, if you don't enjoy playing the character, why bother playing it at all?

fmitchell
05-09-2009, 01:31 PM
I also think that a Paladin of the Luck God(dess?) is an interesting idea. (Then again, I've also played a female Tiefling warlord and a elf-halfling quasi-monk.) Along with many others, I'd say take the idea to your GM, argue your case, and see what he says.

BTW, every time I read the title of this thread, I hear Tom Hanks complaining "There's no crying in baseball!"

Sascha
05-09-2009, 05:39 PM
BTW, every time I read the title of this thread, I hear Tom Hanks complaining "There's no crying in baseball!"
Hehe, I keep waiting for the green slime or water to drop on the folks posting certain phrases. (Way off-topic: still can't believe I grew up watching Alanis Morissette :P)

Webhead
05-10-2009, 12:31 AM
Hehe, I keep waiting for the green slime or water to drop on the folks posting certain phrases...

That's what I was going to say. I keep having flashbacks of Nickelodeon in the late 80's/early 90's.

GoddessGood
05-11-2009, 09:22 AM
Heh, score. That's exactly what I was trying to evoke (the slime, not Tom Hanks in a baseball cap).

I will finish generating the Paladin soon. Going to check half-price books to see if there's a PHB. Hopefully it'll work out, as I really enjoy the character concept.

Baron_Samedi
05-11-2009, 08:40 PM
Once upon a blue moon, and many campaigns ago, we toyed with the concept of using many of the initial starting classes as prestige classes. We were going under the idea that each of the characters would start off as late-aged teenagers (15-18) and that the class that they started with were only the beginning of an adventurous career. Therefore, paladins were considered to be a prestige class; as a teenager would be very unlikely to just jump up and say, 'hey, i'll be a holy soldier for (insert god or goddess name here.)!' Goddess might want to consider starting off as a rogue or fighter commited to a patron deity, and switch to paladin after fifth or sixth level. (Seeing as she's playing 4e, she's got 30 levels to play with.) Plus there may be a few feats and daily abilities that might come in handy; it would also help round out the character's personality and background as mentioned in a thread about generating character's history...just a thought.

nijineko
05-13-2009, 05:28 PM
Okay, so he wasn't *actually* a duck...just a deep umbral vengeance spirit that took the form of a duck in the material world...

Yeah...that explaination didn't do much to wipe the stupefied look off the GM's face. But...somehow...he let me play it. If the game had lasted longer, I'm sure he would have turned my character into stew.

I still get crap for that to this day. I'm sorry, Mike! I'll never play a duck again... :Cry:

"you should know better than to pick up a duck in a dungeon..."
-curse card from the Munchkin ccg.



there is no particular reason why you should not be allowed to play a paladin of luck. i could see your character weilding a "doubling" sword that does its damage based on a backgamon doubling die. (from palladium) or i could see your paladin being a proponent of how luck is simply rules that you can't see. and then you could start babbling about quantum theory with suitable replacement terminology for a fantasy setting. after all, the aspects of quantum physics that have been identified are pretty clear that they operate on the other side of the tracks from common sense.

the fatespinner prestige from 3e might give you and the dm some ideas, as well as the luck feats from the complete scoundrel. also 3e, but interesting ideas.

since the roll of a die is 'luck' to most people, because we can't see and calculate how the die rolling out of a palm and across fingers sets up the spin and tumble a particular way, which then ricochets off the rolling surface depending on the interactive factors of the materials of the die and rolling surface, combined with air resistance, gravity, with the final result of the roll taking into account inertia and friction... you could take advantage of that to explain what luck really is. (whatever you decide that to be.) thus giving you something to sermonize and proselyte about, and a goal, all in one.

your role in life could be to document the rare and elusive actual event of chance. that would be fun and interesting. maybe luck could be something beneficial that happens purely by accident, without any intent being exercised at all. or something else entirely.

Chrisg
07-09-2009, 02:33 AM
I have to say I read through this entire thread and I love the idea. I too love playing unconventional characters that have interesting quirks about them that are fun to rp.

jigelfrap
07-09-2009, 08:53 AM
And they have to be Good, not LG.
thats suprizing but in 3.5 it spicificly says EX-PALADINS: when a paladin cecses to be lawful good who willfuly comits an act of evil or who grossly violates the code of conduct but i dont know about 4.0:(

Oldgamer
07-09-2009, 11:41 AM
thats suprizing but in 3.5 it spicificly says EX-PALADINS: when a paladin cecses to be lawful good who willfuly comits an act of evil or who grossly violates the code of conduct but i dont know about 4.0:(


Except for Unearthed Arcana, which has the Paladins of Tyranny, Freedom, and Slaughter as Variant Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny)

Tyranny is LE, Slaughter CE, and Freedom CG.

WhiskeyFur
07-09-2009, 02:26 PM
my feelings about DnD and rules are based on that one line in an old version of the DMG, right there in the introduction. "THESE RULES ARE ONLY GUIDELINES".

Ultimately, it is between you and the DM that decides what fly. If he feels you can have a 200 ft tall monster lizard called godzilla as a PC, then you can have a 200 ft tall monster lizard, end of story.

I get the impression from DM's that try to stick to the rules no matter what, as being as bad as rules lawyers for some reason.

Half the fun in role playing is doing things that no rules cover. And it's a hoot when that crazy stunt your trying actually works! Just don't expect it to work a second time...

Valdar
07-10-2009, 01:18 PM
thats suprizing but in 3.5 it spicificly says EX-PALADINS: when a paladin cecses to be lawful good who willfuly comits an act of evil or who grossly violates the code of conduct but i dont know about 4.0:(

Yep, in 4e, your alignment has to match your god, which could easily mean not having an alignment at all. My current game has had two paladins, of Bahamut and Raven Queen- they had to be LG and unaligned, respectively.

4e has also gotten rid of "ex-" anything. Paladins no longer become gimp fighters when they disagree with the DM about what "Lawful Good" means. The only time you ever lose your class features in 4e is when you pick up or put on an inappropriate piece of gear (like a Rogue trying to sneak attack with a greatsword- which was legal in 3.5...)

Grandore The Giant Killer
07-10-2009, 03:32 PM
And yet this bring up the stink of my paladin helping a Rogue steal a dragon egg from the mage's guild. Technically I was playing in character because Paladins don't like Mages at all due to the fact that the magic they use is considered impure.

Oldgamer
07-11-2009, 11:00 AM
And yet this bring up the stink of my paladin helping a Rogue steal a dragon egg from the mage's guild. Technically I was playing in character because Paladins don't like Mages at all due to the fact that the magic they use is considered impure.


Paladin's are notoriously difficult to play in D&D since a lot of adventures have some form of stealing or another and often have to travel knowingly with rogues ... with whom they have a severe need to arrest :) Even for a good purpose, a paladin is not likely to willingly help steal anything ... they usually need to be coerced or lied to :) At least the LG ones, the other alignments are different. LE may even have a little trouble as they tend to still be honor-bound, unless the purpose overrides honor.

WhiskeyFur
07-13-2009, 11:45 AM
Paladin's are notoriously difficult to play in D&D...

They're notoriously had because quite often LG = DM's definition, not the players. That, the reputation that the name 'paladin' has, and their requirements... quite often the only safe way to play them is to go to the extreme LG and just wait for the axe to fall on the character's neck.

Now, if the DM is willing to accept that LG does not mean Lawful STUPID, then yea! they can be alot of fun.


LE may even have a little trouble as they tend to still be honor-bound, unless the purpose overrides honor.

I always understood LE to mean they'll stick to their word (in the literal sense) and use the laws to their advantage, but name a law and they'll likely know a hundred loopholes around it.

Oldgamer
07-13-2009, 12:41 PM
They're notoriously had because quite often LG = DM's definition, not the players. That, the reputation that the name 'paladin' has, and their requirements... quite often the only safe way to play them is to go to the extreme LG and just wait for the axe to fall on the character's neck.

Now, if the DM is willing to accept that LG does not mean Lawful STUPID, then yea! they can be alot of fun.

Definitely. But it's hard to find a DM that doesn't expect LS :)




I always understood LE to mean they'll stick to their word (in the literal sense) and use the laws to their advantage, but name a law and they'll likely know a hundred loopholes around it.Eggsmactly :biggrin:

Valdar
07-13-2009, 02:46 PM
Meh- I say LG means what the player thinks it means. I have too much else to do to police someone's adherence to a vague code of behavior in order to keep their not-all-that-impressive abilities.

Oldgamer
07-14-2009, 11:12 AM
Meh- I say LG means what the player thinks it means. I have too much else to do to police someone's adherence to a vague code of behavior in order to keep their not-all-that-impressive abilities.


So you don't care if your characters stick to their class or alignment? That you have more to do than any other DM that has played the game? I haven't had a hard time making sure LG characters stick to their alignment, and I put a lot of work into the game, a lot of time. I spend weeks on a world map, days sketching things for visual enjoyment, weeks working on story ... I still find time in that busy schedule to make sure a LG character doesn't commit an act of evil or unlawfulness. It's actually not so vague, unless your player is trying to trick you ... and that kind of player is not the one you tend to want to play with anyway.

emblasochist
07-14-2009, 11:40 AM
Back to the discussion about what one can in D&D in general, I found out that a 4th edition Ranger/Rogue cannot use their Sneak Attack with their Hunter's Quarry... This means that you can't make a half-orc ranger/rogue with a greatbow and expect to do 1d12+3d6 damage on a hit at level 1. I guess the idea was to be sure that players are balanced with the rest of their team. I might be seeking my DM's approval to make a houserule where the bonus damage isn't limited to class-specific powers. My reason for trying this is my party has a rogue that acts like a huge metagaming jackass stealing from everybody and is generally too concerned with the gold he's lining his pockets with to fight, and the other is an avenger that doesn't really enjoy the combat encounters we face and doesn't really pay attention when in combat. I also noticed that the rogue cannot use sneak attack damage on a regular bow attack...Interesting.

Valdar
07-14-2009, 01:48 PM
So you don't care if your characters stick to their class or alignment?

If they get to define what Paladin or Lawful Good means, then they will be sticking to it by default. As there's no real reward for staying LG, why police it? I'd rather be spending my time coming up with plots and villains than punishments for someone whose views of LG differ from mine.

Paladins have had very steep requirements throughout the history of D&D- for some editions, experience riders, Human-only, steeper XP charts, ridiculous charisma requirement, etc- and what they got in return wasn't all that impressive.

Anyway, alignment has gotten such a stigma of DM micromanagement these days that I don't have a single player at the table who has one anymore. I think having some system of morality would be great to have in the game, but upon being given the opportunity to opt-out, everyone did, so alignment doesn't work for my group.

Anyway, pretty much the only policing I do for alignment is to make sure I don't have evil players. Most of the time, evil players equals problem players, so alignment is more for player behavior than character behavior for me.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Back to the discussion about what one can in D&D in general, I found out that a 4th edition Ranger/Rogue cannot use their Sneak Attack with their Hunter's Quarry...

Yeah- they're continuing to try to limit pile-it-on play without getting rid of it entirely. Note that sneak attack damage DOES maximize on a crit, and adds to the crit dice on the weapon, so critical sneak attacks get really devastating later on in the game.

emblasochist
07-14-2009, 03:43 PM
Yeah- they're continuing to try to limit pile-it-on play without getting rid of it entirely. Note that sneak attack damage DOES maximize on a crit, and adds to the crit dice on the weapon, so critical sneak attacks get really devastating later on in the game.
Especially since you get 5 d6s in epic tier for sneak attack damage on top of the regular power damage...

Valdar
07-14-2009, 04:44 PM
Especially since you get 5 d6s in epic tier for sneak attack damage on top of the regular power damage...

And by then you've got a weapon that does five or six extra dice on a crit. Splat!

cigamnogard
07-14-2009, 05:16 PM
And by then you've got a weapon that does five or six extra dice on a crit. Splat!

Only played Epic once for about ten minutes then TPK :(

rmckee78
07-15-2009, 01:05 AM
I think a luck paladin could work very well. Western culture treats luck as a kind of whimsical thing. This is not true everywhere. My father in law takes luck very seriously. There are very strict rules to follow to ensure that you and your family are as luck as possible. The front room in his house always has a fish tank, certain rooms need to be painted certain types of colors. My wife and I had to get married on a certain day and we need to choose the year we have children based on the years we were born. In short for my in-laws there are very strict, very serious laws regarding luck. They are treated with the same sense of respect as any other religion's laws.

There is no reason that a paladin could not be made that was very serious about enforcing the laws about how luck worked. He could easily fit a very traditional LG model