Why is the concept of a Paladin falling so sought after on /tg/? I find it more interesting for a normal or even a morally dubious person trying to better themselves and do what's right than for a knight with god magic to run around "smiting evil".
>>43782088
It's a vocal minority who have strange ideas about morality and never really grew up. It's not "sought after" or even particularly common if you play with adults.
Also, conflicted paladins with dark pasts are more interesting than the ones who grew up perfect.
Edgelords hate fun, basically
>>43782088
Honestly, if I GMed for someone who wanted to be a righteous hero of justice, I would put them in scenarios where they would be likely to fall (or die for their morals), since it wouldn't really feel like it meant anything if it was easy.
I'd leave a way out though since GM killing someone just for playing their character without any appropriate buildup is dumb. If the other PC's put them in that position because the evil artifact seemed like some great loot though, anything goes, that's not so much on me.
>>43782088
If your morality is never challenged, how can you prove yourself to be truly righteous? A true hero is not coddled or lead by his hand through his problems. He has to make tough decisions and always stay true.
I don't really think it's sought after all. The idea of making a paladin fall is considered pretty flatly to be "that GM" territory (and rightly so, as you're basically robbing the character of its class features) and /tg/ on the whole is very fond of paladins.
Personally, I think the archetype is obnoxious, but that may be because a large portion of the very worst players I've ever seen have been diehards for the class.
I prefer the idea that doing the right thing is more difficult at least. Why even have the potential to "fall" otherwise?
To play the devil's advocate isn't playing a paladin sort of asking for that sort of thing? I feel like wanting to be a paladin without at least a little bit of testing your character's morals is like wanting to play a rogue without sneaking. So long as there's actually a good answer that doesn't fuck you completely over I don't see a problem with having to risk a fall
>>43785698
>>43785650
>>43785626
Some people like playing as a righteous knight of the round without having to worry about the code of chivalry's philosophical premises being questioned.
The paladin is the only class whose core philosophy is routinely whacked by GMs.
>>43785734
If you play an entire class setup around being a morally pure divine warrior with a strict moral code, you should expect that code to be challenged and tested. It's part of your character. Did you not read any knightly literature yourself? the knights of the round were always being tested for virtue. Why would your character based on that be exempt?
Beyond that, you can always play a mounted fighter, cavalier, or any other class that allows you to don heavy armor and ride a horse, and be a chivalric knight without the divine obligation if you want.
>>43785734
Yes, but none the less it isn't sought after on /tg/.
As for why it tends to happen outside of /tg/, that's probably simply because the moralistic philosophy is literally the only defining feature of the class. There is only one thing of note to them: they're really good guys who do really good things. So much like how a fighter will have their defining feature tested, and a druid will likely find themselves involved in a nature themed adventure, so too do many DMs feel compelled to put the paladin in an adventure that tests their morality. Don't like it? Either get a better DM or don't play a class for which the only defining feature is being a servant of objective morality.
>>43785777
>>43785774
I just play 5e. Solves all my problems. Also the knights of the round were tested in that they were given the choice of following chivalry or not, they weren't made to philosophically justify chivalry.
>>43785803
I'm operating under the premise of your morality being tested and you given the potential to fall. I'm making no assumptions after the particulars, only telling you that it's thematically appropriate.
>>43782088
I'm honestly not into a Paladin falling. That shit is for bitter rejects and edgelords. What appeals to me is that in the face of adversity, against everything they hold dear, the Paladin will /refuse/ to sacrifice their moral code because the other way is easier or has a better payoff.
Then again, I guess that's why I like classic Superman when most people find him boring or even unlikeable.
>>43785870
If you're not superman or basically invincible at least that's supposed to be difficult though
I mean I don't think paladin's should fall any more than I think PC's should die, but it should at least come up once in a paladin's career if they're around long enough where there was an actual moment where they were in danger of it. Also "falling" doesn't need to be some permanent thing either. Redemption or just making a new fucking oath are still options
>>43782088
Because most player character paladin's are evil serial murderers who justify their actions with "Nuh uh, my character sheet says I am a paladin so murdering that guy for jaywalking allegedly is totally a good deed."
>>43785948
I agree with your stated paragraph, but your introductory line needs a little cleaning up unless I'm failing my reading comprehension.
>>43785870
>I guess that's why I like classic Superman when most people find him boring or even unlikeable.
I just find him too OP.
>>43782088
It's not necessarily something unique to /tg/. It's more of a case of DMs seeing Paladins falling and being tested morally in fiction, and wanting to do something similar.
The problems occur when they force the Paladin to fall as part of an 'arc' so they can have them redeem themselves later, but its usually really hamfisted. Either that, or they miss the point of the moral code entirely and just give no-win situations to show off how 'clever' they are.
>>43785989
>most
I don't believe you.
>>43786002
That's not what reading Superman is about. Villains keep finding new and creative ways to kill him, firstly. He doesn't think ahead like Batman does, which /can/ leave him vulnerable to a carefully constructed plan. However, what reading Superman revolves around is how villains constantly try to find ways to push him over the edge, and how close he comes to unleashing all the frustration and fury that he's capable of. Batman could never shoulder that kind of self-restraint were he to be given all that power. That (to me) is what makes Superman compelling.
>>43786002
I guess part of his concept is that he's so powerful that he *could* take over the world if he so desired without breaking a sweat, but he instead sticks to his morals at all costs. If you were invincible and could kill anyone with the snap of a finger, it'd take a strong sense of principle not to abuse that.
>>43786046
In my experience.
>>43785734
I agree. If a wizard can go through a game without having to justify how they continue to use magic, a Paladin should be able to do the same with their ability set.
>>43786193
>If a wizard can go through a game without having to justify how they continue to use magic,
But they shouldn't.
>>43786140
This. There's no valor or moral value in bravely deciding not to murder someone that you couldn't murder anyway.
>>43785734
>The paladin is the only class whose core philosophy is routinely whacked by GMs.
Thief, warlock and evil aligned cleric say hi.
>>43786193
Wizards don't have an in-build moral system.
>>43786222
It's generally easier to be evil, though.
>>43786244
Because run ins with the law or a dark power coming at too great of a cost, are never used by GMs.
>>43786210
Absolutely right, they shouldn't, but how many times do you hear GMs tell the wizards to explain their magic versus how many times they put paladins in auto falling scenarios?
>>43786222
Monks sometimes do as well. Druids too, but their rules are really easy to follow
Not sure how the hell thieves have that problem though
People wrestling with cartoon ideals of what a pure hero is, where everything turns out perfectly good for all involved, versus realistic scenarios, and coming to bizarre conclusions.
Random example that I've seen here: the idea that if a paladin does anything which will incidentally harm someone at any point in the future, they immediately fall, because they've increased the amount of evil in the world. (I think the exact example at the time was giving a child to an orphanage where they are mistreated some months or years afterward). Which is silly of course. No human could ever live up to such standards where they have to account for every possible result for every action.
The best way I can explain the reality of the paladin code, where paladins can operate without risk of falling on a daily basis, is that paladins attempt to live up to an ideal. They will sometimes fail, they will sometimes have to pick between equally bad choices, and they will sometimes come to poor results despite good intentions. But they keep trying in the spirit of doing good and in doing so remain paladins. It's when the intent of the paladin darkens to carelessness or maliciousness that they truly deserve to fall.
>>43786267
I've never seen a paladin autofall but I frequently see wizards/sorcerers explain their magic.
>>43786267
>>43786274
This for all the classes mentioned in both posts.
>>43786210
>>43786238
Let me try again. I don't think it's fair to treat the moral imperative of a Paladin any different than spell preparation on wizards. It's something they do to keep doing what they do. Sure you can tell a story about conflicts of morality but I like to be a paladin because it's a cool class. (granted my dm has never done a "you fall" on me)
>>43786267
I assume any time a wizard looses their spellbook
>>43785774
The issue is when you have a jackass GM who comes up with conundrums where you don't pick between the best choices, but the least worse.
>>43786359
The bomb is already lit. Clear solution.
>>43786359
That's life though, there is rarely going to be a scenario pop up where you get to choose between perfect outcome and worst outcome, bad shit is gonna happen when you're an adventurer and it's gonna happen a lot. You're going to see your friends die, people you were sworn to protect die on a near monthly basis and it's going to haunt your dreams for as long as you live, the "what ifs" are going to dance in your mind hourly and in every future situation. You may not make the perfect choice or even have the option of making the perfect choice but if your intent was just and righteous and the outcome tipped the scales towards good then you've done a good deed.
>>43785590
the point is you shouldn't be able to fall from a dilemma the important thing is that you do your best and don't do anything evil.
>>43786534
>bad shit is gonna happen when you're an adventurer and it's gonna happen a lot. You're going to see your friends die, people you were sworn to protect die on a near monthly basis and it's going to haunt your dreams for as long as you live
Or until you get them rezzed. It's hard to feel bad about it after you've actually had them brought back from the dead.
>>43786534
>but if your intent was just and righteous and the outcome tipped the scales towards good then you've done a good deed.
So this was an actual paladin falls situation I actually saw.
The cult has poisoned two people, we have enough antidote to save one. The party paladin decides to do some "I believe in hope" speech (which gives him 3 out of 5 votes) and splits it between them.
They both die as neither got enough antidote. GM says the paladin needs to save one (since the paladin's actions only led to one death) life to get his smitty power backs.
The GM said he was expecting us to give one or the other and wouldn't have faulted anyone for the one death.
Did the GM do the right thing?
>>43787575
Tough call. Depends on how harshly you judge paladins. Personally though, I wouldn't have had the paladin fall unless he didn't feel any guilt about having rolled the dice and lost.
>>43787575
>Did the GM do the right thing?
No. He should go fuck himself.
>>43787623
>having rolled the dice and lost.
We knew that we only had enough for one.
>>43787641
Well yeah, but I'm sure he thought there was a reasonable chance of it working. Otherwise he was a dick that purposely let those people die just cause. In which case, fuck you pal, no smitey powers for you ever.
>>43787661
>I'm sure he thought there was a reasonable chance of it working
He was going for the whole "believe in a miracle" thing. He realistically knew how the antidote worked.It's was basically a total body flush, that basically forced everything that could be the toxin out, mostly via vomiting and sweating. People who used it would need medical attention, food, water and rest, but it was essentially a cure all, and we didn't have access to a specific antidote. When the paladin split the does, the people only spat out out about have of the toxin and the other half killed them.
>>43786282
>UN's blue helmets are Paladins
At last I truly see
>>43782088
Well, in D&D, where paladins typically start from first level, there's often a sense of a paladin being chosen by the forces of goodness, or just so pure of heart that they get magical powers from it, or so on. There can be a sense that the paladin hasn't really earned what they have, compounded by some players using their status as paladin to try be the leader or to be a big shining hero to NPCs in a way that puts the other players in the background. Like, acting as if the paladin is the class for "the real hero", the main character.
Obviously that depends on the player, but the way the class works mechanically (you get your powers for free, and keep them so long as you just DON'T do certain things) allows it to happen. Paladins who are portrayed as having had to work to earn their powers in some way, like Cecil, generally do better.
In one setting I used for a game, I actually used a prestige class version of the paladin, which was only open to people who had done evil things but who genuinely wanted atonement and redemption, and I called it the Whiteguard. So the idea was, the reason they were held to such strict code was because they were like recovering alcoholics, and just one evil act would be one too many. They were supposed to be having a hard time, not be able to use easier or more direct methods to fight evil, because it was part of their atonement.
>>43782088
Of all the paladins to post you have Cecil? This man stated off as a Dark Knight & became a pally. He'd be the opposite of falling.
Why aren't more Paladins female?
>>43789926
It's not as fun to play.
>>43789926
Things like honor and justice are male concepts, female players can't convincingly pull it off and aren't even interested to begin with, so that just leave the guys that play girls.
>>43786039
>Either that, or they miss the point of the moral code entirely and just give no-win situations to show off how 'clever' they are.
In my experience, DMs obsessed with making a paladin fall are in this camp where they like to show off a no-win scenario. I'd be okay with a DM making my character fall if I genuinely abandoned my oath for no good reason, like killing for spite or casually accepting civilian casualties as collateral damage.
>>43790554
I thought I was on /tg/ not r/MRA
>>43782088
It's not really actively sought after.
The idea of a good person falling from grace and turning their back on their ideals can be an extremely dramatic and evocative scenario. Equally, a horrible person grasping that tiny spark of goodness inside of themselves when the chips are down can be very gripping.
It's all in the execution. Narratively, both are good if you can do them well.
Most groups don't do it well.
>>43785870
Superman is boring specifically BECAUSE he invalidates that sense of adversity by being too powerful for it to get in his way or inconvenience him in any way.
>>43782088
I think a paladÃn who begins questioning the very god and morals he abides by due to certain circumstances are interesting, with "smiting le big baddy" being something that he does at that point to pay tribute to that god, as opposed to killing evil SOLELY FOR that god....does that make sense?
>>43790864
Yeah, because heroes like Batman lose so often by comparison, amirite?
>>43786256
Can't tell if sarcasm, but assuming serious and I agree. When I DM I make sure my players know that both of these things are real consequences if they murderhobo it up
>>43782088
Because not of edginess but a desire to see how things change. It is similar to how /tg/ like to see succubi be redeemed.
>>43790864
Actually, Superman gets his ass kicked a few times. Darkseid, Doomsday, etc. Most versions of Superman are far from too powerful.
>>43792631
>a desire to see things change
>change
Ah crap.
>>43787826
Yeah. Okay. The fall was appropriate then.
>>43782088
People hate anyone that makes them look bad, even if immaginarily.
Why else militant atheists like Dawkins would pass their time insulting Jesus?
Because even if they don't believe in Him, He makes them plainly look like the little shits they are.
The same thing in a smaller scale happens with the Idea of Paladins in rpgs. People want to see them fall so they don't have to feel like they should improve anything in their life.
>>43792631
This on the other hand is because even moral relativists like redemption stories, for "some reason" (that is, because they know their position is untenable and arte Just defending it so they don't have to feel guilty about this or that, and to entertain the tought that even they, then, can change for the better if even a succubus managed it).
Change by its own sake makes no sense, anon. We want to see some things to get worse and some other things to get better.
And it's very clear wich specific things and Why.
>>43789902
>I find it more interesting for a normal or even a morally dubious person trying to better themselves
>>43793094
Pretty much this.
Some /tg/ GMs seem to enjoy fucking with player agency just because they can. They act like slacktivists who lazily contrive gotcha situations specifically intended to pull the rug from beneath earnestly Lawful players. Whether these wannabe edgelords on /tg/ actually GM, they're all quantum faggots.
>>43782088
The main reason I have paladins falling is due toBrotherhood of Steel SOP for assaults from the Prydwen. Saint Ford won't help anyone they land on.
