Paladins and Thieves

[thedungeondelver]

I don't think anyone here can deny the utility of the thief in AD&D. While the paladin is viewed with a little less enthusiasm by some (I myself despise the whole "lets corrupt the paladin!" mindset some groups have but that's another thread), I think the paladin is a great class to have around if you can roll one up.

When we look at the description of the paladin, it says the paladin may adventure with non-evil neutrals for one "expedition" only - what do you all consider an "expedition" to be? You could make the argument that a single trip to the dungeon and back to town is one expedition and therefore a paladin would have to depart the group with a neutral good thief; alternately, an entire campaign series of modules (the "G" series) might be considered and expedition.

Anyone's thoughts on this?

[John Stark]

I don't think anyone here can deny the utility of the thief in AD&D...[snip] I think the paladin is a great class to have around if you can roll one up.

Agreed. Although IMO the starting thief ability percentages are too low, but that's for another thread, heh.

When we look at the description of the paladin, it says the paladin may adventure with non-evil neutrals for one "expedition" only - what do you all consider an "expedition" to be? You could make the argument that a single trip to the dungeon and back to town is one expedition and therefore a paladin would have to depart the group with a neutral good thief; alternately, an entire campaign series of modules (the "G" series) might be considered and expedition.

Honestly, I've always hand waved this when it comes to paladins. If I were to enforce this PHB restriction on paladins, then a paladin character would basically never be able to go on adventures. For sessions that I DM, I simply require a paladin to adventure only with those of good or neutral alignment (they can never adventure with evil characters that are known to be evil) as long as those of alignments other than lawful good do not commit acts that are evil. Not really BtB, its simply the way I've chosen to handle it.

In terms of BtB, I'd go along with the idea that an expedition could include something as long as the G1-3/D1-3 series or the A series. Those to my mind could constistute a full "expedition" if that word is loosely interpreted. That being said, and given my already rather liberal allowances with the types of other characters a paladin could travel with, it may well be the case that an expedition means simply one adventure; thus, one dungeon or wilderness expedition.

Consider a megadungeon (aside: I'm really starting to not like that term; what makes any single dungeon mega?) like the orginal Castle Greyhawk. What would be considered as an "expedition" if the entire campaign centered around delving those dungeon levels? One foray (or maybe a few) to rescue a princess or the daughter of the local lord? One foray to slay an evil NPC that wrought havoc on the local town where the PCs are based? One single foray to grab a potent magical item to further the ends of his church? Or would multiple delves into CGH be considered as one expedition, since its all the same dungeon and thus could loosely be considered all one adventure?

/shrug

That's why I hand wave that bit in the paladin description...

[thedungeondelver]

I don't think anyone here can deny the utility of the thief in AD&D...[snip] I think the paladin is a great class to have around if you can roll one up.

Agreed. Although IMO the starting thief ability percentages are too low, but that's for another thread, heh.

When we look at the description of the paladin, it says the paladin may adventure with non-evil neutrals for one "expedition" only - what do you all consider an "expedition" to be? You could make the argument that a single trip to the dungeon and back to town is one expedition and therefore a paladin would have to depart the group with a neutral good thief; alternately, an entire campaign series of modules (the "G" series) might be considered and expedition.

Honestly, I've always hand waved this when it comes to paladins. If I were to enforce this PHB restriction on paladins, then a paladin character would basically never be able to go on adventures. For sessions that I DM, I simply require a paladin to adventure only with those of good or neutral alignment (they can never adventure with evil characters that are known to be evil) as long as those of alignments other than lawful good do not commit acts that are evil. Not really BtB, its simply the way I've chosen to handle it.

In terms of BtB, I'd go along with the idea that an expedition could include something as long as the G1-3/D1-3 series or the A series. Those to my mind could constistute a full "expedition" if that word is loosely interpreted. That being said, and given my already rather liberal allowances with the types of other characters a paladin could travel with, it may well be the case that an expedition means simply one adventure; thus, one dungeon or wilderness expedition.

Agree on all points. If we look at Holger the Dane from Three Hearts and Three Lions (the prototype for the (A)D&D paladin), he's basically a good fellow and he slips from time to time, but I daresay he's not perfect through the book and while there were occasional temporary disadvantages he wasn't struck down or anything.

Consider a megadungeon (aside: I'm really starting to not like that term; what makes any single dungeon mega?) like the orginal Castle Greyhawk. What would be considered as an "expedition" if the entire campaign centered around delving those dungeon levels? One foray (or maybe a few) to rescue a princess or the daughter of the local lord? One foray to slay an evil NPC that wrought havoc on the local town where the PCs are based? One single foray to grab a potent magical item to further the ends of his church? Or would multiple delves into CGH be considered as one expedition, since its all the same dungeon and thus could loosely be considered all one adventure?

/shrug

That's why I hand wave that bit in the paladin description...

Agree, again. And what's funny is, going by Gary's own character sheets written up in various places he never played a LG character himself...! So I say calling out the paladin because they happen to be hanging out with an expert treasure-hunter is a bit extreme.

[John Stark]

One other thing to consider, from an "in milieu" perspective (for lack of better term), is the fact that the paladin represents his church much as a cleric does, and one of the main missions of the church is to seek new converts. Now of course, I want (A)D&D to remain about gaming and not religious debates or attempts to convert other players through the use of the campaign, so that isn't my point at all. The point is that the game has deep, quasi-medieval roots, and the "church" in the game milieu is certainly going to have as one of its primary functions the expansion of that faith. Consider for example the church of Cuthbert in Homlett; the local religion is essentially druidic, but the church sought to establish itself there with the building of a place of worship and succeeded. Thus, its clear that members of the church must spend time with those of other faiths and alignments in order to grow the faith.

Further (and not to drag religion into this for the sake of starting a religious debate but merely to further discuss the topic at hand), I've always viewed (rightly IMO) the cleric and the paladin to be drawn heavily from medieval Christian & crusading orders. IIRC, clerics in OD&D used crosses to turn undead. Thus, if we were consider the New Testament, or at least the church of the medieval period, as a model for the lawful good faith of clerics Cuthbert or paladins, then milling around with sinners would make sense. It states in the NT that Jesus spent a lot of time with prostitutes and sinners. Medieval missionaries were about the work of converting pagans to the true faith, and this was often accomplished by living among them. And so on.

Now, as I stated, the point here is not to drag religion into gaming, but to merely illustrate what I see as the historical roots of the archetypes. Certainly different versions of the game moved further and further away from those roots (even AD&D does not mention crosses for the turning of undead, but merely holy symbols), but I'd say it is a fact that the paladin and cleric were drawn from medieval Christian orderss, and thus history can be a guide to the intent of those archetypes.

Thus, to my mind, hobnobbing with the unconverted makes sense for the paladin as long as he doesn't violate his alignment, is serving his church and furthering its cause(s), and his companions are not overtly evil.

Food for thought anyways.

[winemaker81]

Thus, to my mind, hobnobbing with the unconverted makes sense for the paladin as long as he doesn't violate his alignment, is serving his church and furthering its cause(s), and his companions are not overtly evil.

I must agree that your entire thread of reasoning makes perfect sense in terms of modeling, and how to handle the Paladin's behavior. Another point to consider is playability and game balance. Take the cleric for instance -- few good offensive spells (except at high levels), limited choice of weapons, excellent choice of armor and essential support spell ability.

If the cleric had the first two items, e.g., offensive spells and better weapons, it makes for a super Fighter/MU. This over balances the game so the limitations were placed.

I can see the same applied to the Paladin. Excellent fighting ability, good support spell ability, some nifty extra powers ... doesn't leave much room to limit the character and preserve game balance.

So instead of using abilities for balance, EGG chose to use behavior as the limiting factor. Thirty years of hindsight indicate (well, to some of us) that this decision may not have been the best, but that's with hindsight. Given all that EGG and crew invented during a few short years it's honestly surprising that the rules have stood the test of time as well as they have.

At the same time I can't think of anything better, so I better not criticize *too* much. <G>

To make the Paladin work I relax the rule about companions a bit. I allow Paladins to adventure with Neutrals, although CN makes it difficult for the Paladin to handle. Evils? Only if he doesn't know they're evil, or if a greater good requires it for a limited time.

One of my favorite jokes from years ago -- a Paladin's mentor was a king's adviser, a famous adventurer of years past. Paladin really looked up to this guy, took assignments from him, etc. During our last session when that campaign disbanded I clued the players into a little known fact ... the mentor was the Assassin's Guildmaster!

My parents' table still has the dent where the Paladin's player's jaw hit it! ROFL!

And before anyone asks, I don't run it that the Paladin has auto-Detect Evil running all the time. It takes concentration, and it would be bad manners to Detect Evil on a friend, mentor, etc.

Bryan

[greygriffin20]

ill say that useing behavior to balance a character is a totally insane concept, i personally think the paladin is balanced fine when you look at the other sub classes, you have rangers, bards, assasins, and monks (im ingnoreing illusionist as i cant comprehend why anyone would be one) all of these classes have oddball additives that make them unique and in general a pain to play. the pladin has his restriction reguarding magic items and money as far as im concerned that alone is enough to balance the character. if the reasoning was lets make the paladin have an outragous personality quirk where he cant stand chaos in any way (and for some reason i cant personally believe that when they were makeing the rules for a paladin that they were thinking its too stong lets make him only able to be played in a party with no chaotics)id house rule it out...but thats just me

[thedungeondelver]

ill say that useing behavior to balance a character is a totally insane concept, i personally think the paladin is balanced fine when you look at the other sub classes, you have rangers, bards, assasins, and monks (im ingnoreing illusionist as i cant comprehend why anyone would be one) all of these classes have oddball additives that make them unique and in general a pain to play. the pladin has his restriction reguarding magic items and money as far as im concerned that alone is enough to balance the character. if the reasoning was lets make the paladin have an outragous personality quirk where he cant stand chaos in any way (and for some reason i cant personally believe that when they were makeing the rules for a paladin that they were thinking its too stong lets make him only able to be played in a party with no chaotics)id house rule it out...but thats just me

I respectfully disagree; the Paladin is the original RPG knight errant, out doing good deeds, righting wrongs and doing so in the name of justice (law) and a good deity (good). It isn't just someone who has a high CHA, resistance to disease and a need to give away 10% of his treasure and all but a few magic items.

Of course, there's "chaotic" and then there's "chaotic". I think a Paladin would enjoy the company of chaotic good or neutral good characters with like goals (offing giants, destroying an evil temple, etc.); I just think that he'd probably, in quiet times, try to "convert" them, etc., and never, ever go along with their plans vis-a-vis anything that affects issues of ethics or morality - but we're straying towards a hated alignment thread so I'll leave it at that.

[John Stark]

I have to concur with the Delver. Restricting the class by behavior (paladins are lawful good after all) is fine, as the class is intended to embody medieval ideals of chivalry, goodness, and justice. Its simply the restriction on adventuring with those of non-lawful good alignment that is a bit of a straight jacket for long term campaign play.

I actually love the notion of restricting a class by behavoir/alignment, and I think there's a lot of room for some new classes along these lines. Other classes are restricted by alignment (i.e., behavior); druids, rangers, and so on, and even clerics deal with problems should they ever choose or be forced to switch deities (there's a whole section on this in the DMG).

In my own house rules, I've made it so that the assassin must always remain evil, and any alignment change means he becomes a mere thief with abilities 2 levels lower than his actual level.

Thus, this thread IMO isn't really about dumping on 1e for restricting a class by behavior, but rather seeing where it was done well and where it may not work in game play in terms of the paladin and his interactions with other characters of different alignments.

[winemaker81]

I actually love the notion of restricting a class by behavoir/alignment, and I think there's a lot of room for some new classes along these lines. Other classes are restricted by alignment (i.e., behavior); druids, rangers, and so on, and even clerics deal with problems should they ever choose or be forced to switch deities (there's a whole section on this in the DMG).

This has triggered what I think is an interesting line of thought, which I'm moving to a separate thread.

In my own house rules, I've made it so that the assassin must always remain evil, and any alignment change means he becomes a mere thief with abilities 2 levels lower than his actual level.

Lot of DMs do something like that. I allow Neutral assassins, enabling various scenarios of interest. [This is not criticism, just noting a difference.]

I find the assassin less useful in a typical dungeon scenario and apparently so have my players, so I haven't have to deal with it. But if I was running primarily urban adventurers? Neutral assassins could be made the focus for an AD&D version of Top Secret.

Thus, this thread IMO isn't really about dumping on 1e for restricting a class by behavior, but rather seeing where it was done well and where it may not work in game play in terms of the paladin and his interactions with other characters of different alignments.

Agreed.

It's honestly amazing that 1E (as well as OD&D & BD&D) have lasted as long with such strong followings. At the same time, some rules have worked out better than others, and that's often campaign related. In some the paladin works exactly as written ... and in others some changes have to be made to keep the class viable.

OSRIC has impressed me -- keeping 1E alive and out of corporate hands (well, so far). For the future I'd like to see UA rolled into it ... but only parts. I keep the paladin as a subclass of fighter, allow weapon specialization, disallow the cavalier & barbarian ... and I'd guess if 1,000 other DMs read this they'll have 1,000 different lists of what they allow and disallow .... <G>

Bryan

[mektonzero]

Ahh, rehashing old material, nothing like it.

The whole problem with behavior based restrictions is that an act, in and of itself, is never good or evil. The intent behind the act is the determining factor.

Take for example robbing a tax collector. Is that a good or evil act? That all depends on why he did it. Is he keeping the money for himself? Is he giving the money back to the starving peasants it was exhorted from?

Even then things aren't always so clear cut. Supposed a character donates a large sum of money to found an orphanage? Is that a good or evil act? Maybe the character is looking for a handy source of human sacrifices for his dark rituals? Maybe he is just looking to improve his reputation to cover up other questionable acts. Maybe he wants to convert them all to his religion.

All a behavior based restriction can do is define limits to how far you will go to accomplish your goals no matter what the stakes. Would you associate with an evil person to accomplish a greater good? Would you kill one innocent person to save the entire world, how about to save two others?

The real problem is that you can't hope to draw the lines fine enough to cover all situations unless you make them absolutes and that would make no sense at all. "Sorry, you know that everything you hold dear is going to be brought to death, ruin and decay unless you let that evil thief come along to get you past the traps and steal some of the loot. It's a shame that your class won't let you do it."

[RingoShort]

My second character ever (and my fvorite class ever) was a Pally, and the way my DM worked it- and the way I ultimately worked it with my players- was to ignore the "one expidition" rule. Although they were supposedly the very model of goodness and humility, Paladins (the way I played them) was that "the group would never be able to conquor and survive the evil in the world without me." With that in mind, (and bringing in the "intent, not actions" discussion, how could a paladin, in good conscience, leave his compatriots to face the perils without doing whatever he could to protect them... especially if one of them had saved the do-gooder's life in some manner?
As one of the llimitations of the class, I NEVER allowed Adrian (my character) or any of my players to associate with any evil character for any adventure for any reason... even if it was a requirement for successful completion of a mission. They do, after all, have their standards, and pride.

[Algolei]

My concern isn't with the concept of the "expedition," but with the concept and definition of the "non-evil neutrals."

When we look at the description of the paladin, it says the paladin may adventure with non-evil neutrals for one "expedition" only. . . . You could make the argument that a single trip to the dungeon and back to town is one expedition and therefore a paladin would have to depart the group with a neutral good thief. . . .

I suppose I've always misread that. I took it to mean that the paladin could never adventure with an evil character, and that "non-evil neutrals" meant "neutrals aren't evil, but you can only stand them so long." I didn't think it meant you couldn't adventure with a neutral good character! But in hindsight, I suppose your more exact reading must have been the original intent because it implies you can have evil neutrals and non-evil neutrals -- although it's odd that no mention of chaotic is made, which seems then to imply that a chaotic good thief is perfectly fine as an adventuring companion.

Wait. That's bizarre.

In fact, I just changed my mind back to my original opinion. Since evil is clearly defined as a no-no while chaotic isn't mentioned at all, the statement referring to neutral must have been solely along the good-evil axis and not the lawful-chaotic axis. Therefore, the Paladin should be allowed to adventure with anyone of lawful good, neutral good, or chaotic good alignments, absolutely no one of lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil alignments, and be restricted to single "expeditions" with those of lawful neutral, true neutral, or chaotic neutral alignments.

. . . and that's exactly how I've always ruled it. Plus in other DMs' campaigns, I've played paladins who had neutral good thieves for squires (once played by a PC, once an NPC). It worked exceedingly well. The squire, as an underling, could not be expected to live up to the high ideals of the knightly paladin; instead, it was the paladin's intent to guide the squire's actions toward more noble causes.

But clearly my renewed opinion is false:

From the PH:

4. Paladins will have henchmen of lawful good alignment and none other; they will associate only with characters and creatures of good alignment; paladins can join a company of adventurers which contains non-evil neutrals only on a single expedition basis, and only if some end which will further the cause of lawful good is purposed.

They will associate only with characters and creatures of good alignment. Going on an "expedition" must surely fall under the definiton of "associating with," mustn't it?

But then why say "non-evil neutrals" if that only applies to neutral good?

No no no, on fourth thought, "associate" must mean "be in a continuing relationship," not "go on a single expedition with." ("Associate" can have such wide-ranging depth of meaning, from "membership in a company" to "buying a loaf of bread from.") In that case, my original reading would still be correct: Paladins can "associate . . . with" (ie. "be an on-going member of a party containing") only "characters and creatures of good alignment," but can join a company of adventurers which contains some members of neutral alignment(s), unless one of more of those neutral-aligned individuals is/are also evil. And that must be why the phrase "non-evil neutrals" is used instead of the simpler term "neutrals" -- because neutral evil also falls into the category of "neutrals," and adventuring with evil characters is strictly forbidden.

*pant, pant, pant*

Too much thinking. Brain hurts now.

[The Red Priest]

In true cafeteria-style gaming, I ignore the non-evil neutrals rule. As long as every character in the adventuring group behaves within appropriate moral boundaries (for the paladin), then the paladin gets to stick around. Anyway, it's been a looong time since I've DM'd a paladin character anyway.

How does a paladin know if another character is neutral or good?

[mektonzero]

In true cafeteria-style gaming, I ignore the non-evil neutrals rule. As long as every character in the adventuring group behaves within appropriate moral boundaries (for the paladin), then the paladin gets to stick around. Anyway, it's been a looong time since I've DM'd a paladin character anyway.

As a DM, not only would a Paladin be allowed to adventure with other alignments, he'd be encouraged to do so. There isn't much to be gained by demonstrating the virtues of Lawful and Good behavior to other Lawful Good characters.

How does a paladin know if another character is neutral or good?

A neutral quickly becomes apparent, if not they maybe they aren't really neutral.

One easy way to peg the good/neutral/evil spectrum is to see where the character places themselves in their list of loyalties.

Good characters are self-sacrificing. Paladins are pretty much the poster child for good, they are supported by the vows of fealty they make and they don't make vows they don't intend to die before breaking. God, King, Country, Race, Comrades, Family, Self. Mostly in that order, no matter what Self is going to be ranked absolute bottom for a good character. Other good characters will have different priorities but at a minimum there will be 3-4 things (from the list above or other similarly broad categories) that they value above their own self interest, with Neutral Good and Lawful Good having more and more factors in their value system.

Evils are also easy to spot, they have one and only one loyalty; Self. Everything else is irrelevant to self-interest. Under no circumstances would they sacrifice themselves for no gain. Sure, they can go on a quest to save the world just as quickly as a Paladin, but it's because they expect to better their position in some way instead of a sense of duty or loyalty. Evil characters constantly ask "What's in this for me?" Keep in mind that it doesn't have to be money or even power, Chaotic Evil characters might decide to do something just because it's entertaining. Of course if it stops being fun they won't have any qualms about simply walking away and finding something else to keep them occupied; even if disaster strikes the world when they do it.

Neutrals pretty much walk the line, they will have a few things from the list that they value roughly equal to Self and a few that they don't care about at all. How they evaluate a situation can change from day to day even from moment to moment. Neutrals will occasionally sacrifice for the greater good, unlike Evils; but unlike Good they can't be counted upon to do so every time. Nor do they have a rigid hierarchy of loyalty like a Good character will.

[Irda Ranger]

You could make the argument that a single trip to the dungeon and back to town is one expedition and therefore a paladin would have to depart the group with a neutral good thief; alternately, an entire campaign series of modules (the "G" series) might be considered and expedition.

Anyone's thoughts on this?

I would say it's "one mission." The Paladin likely has a cause or goal in mind (such as rescuing a Princess or driving off some marauding beast) and knows that the non-evil neutral is somehow very important to achieving that goal. The Paladin can then adventure with the non-evil neutral as long as necessary to achieve the goal.

To reference John Stark's very good arguments about "converting the pagans", I would say that a Paladin can spend as much time as he chooses among prostitutes and sinners as long as his purpose there is to uplift and convert. The difference is when there's no intent to convert. Perhaps the non-evil neutral has made his opposition to LG-ness plain. At that point the Paladin should say "Well, my time and work would be better spent elsewhere then, as this man is not open to my help." The exception to this rule is the "one expedition" rule.

[The Red Priest]

Premise: Assume that an expedition could entail an ongoing adventure, a la Giants, Drow or Slave Lords.

Let's say a party, which includes a paladin, cleans out the Caves of Chaos. There's a neutral good thief, so the paladin bids the party goodbye without animosity.

The party goes on w/o the paladin, and they checkout Quasqueton, and then maybe ransack the Silver Princess' palace.

Now they're going to go investigate the nonsense going on in Highport.

If invited, would you allow the paladin to re-join the group for A1-4? Meanwhile, maybe he's had an adventure or two of his own and gained a couple of levels, and that makes it worth inviting him.

Strictly, it violates the one expedition rule, but as long as the party "behaved" I'd allow it. We play so little D&D compared to what we did 20 years ago, I'd hate to see a terrific character sit idle.

[thedungeondelver]

Premise: Assume that an expedition could entail an ongoing adventure, a la Giants, Drow or Slave Lords.

Let's say a party, which includes a paladin, cleans out the Caves of Chaos. There's a neutral good thief, so the paladin bids the party goodbye without animosity.

The party goes on w/o the paladin, and they checkout Quasqueton, and then maybe ransack the Silver Princess' palace.

Now they're going to go investigate the nonsense going on in Highport.

If invited, would you allow the paladin to re-join the group for A1-4? Meanwhile, maybe he's had an adventure or two of his own and gained a couple of levels, and that makes it worth inviting him.

Strictly, it violates the one expedition rule, but as long as the party "behaved" I'd allow it. We play so little D&D compared to what we did 20 years ago, I'd hate to see a terrific character sit idle.

I'd probably allow it under those circumstances, really.

To be honest a "thief" who was more "sapper/scout" in their mannerisms and how they execute their theifly roles would probably be OK to most paladins. I've thought about this in the time since I posted the thread and I think Gary's admonishment about Paladins adventuring with thieves probably stemmed from original D&D and playtest AD&D thieves as being all basically borderline kleptomaniacs, rather than the resourceful trap-finders and lock-pickers that they have evolved in to.

I might bend the admonishment to say that single adventure = module (i.e., the defenestration of evil in the Temple of Elemental Evil), or that the aforementioned neutral good thief who was, again, more sapper/reconnaissance man and less pickpocket would allow further adventures.

With that said, if our hypothetical "good" thief suddenly decided to start pocketing things in the market square, etc., I would firmly expect the Paladin (assuming they're aware of the activity) to turn the rogue in to the gendarme, posthaste!