Ah, the Paladin. It's everyone's favorite class; favorite to hate, favorite to bag on and, on occasion, favorite to lay the smackdown on evil. But, why all the negative press. Why does that class tend to create the following dialogue:

GM: So, what's everyone going to play?
Player1: Elf Sorceress
Player2: Half-Orc Barbarian
Player3: Halfling Rogue
Player4: Human Paladin
All: Oh come on! Why do you always have to destroy the game!?

Is it because Paladins can't use poison, lie, steal, cheat, keep their mouth shut, or play along with the dirty tricks? After all, Paladins have to be heroic and honorable, not non-deviating, stick-in-the-mud fun-killers. So why do so many feel that that is exactly what they are?

The Why

I propose that there are two things that hold Paladins back from being more interesting characters: excessive adherence to the rules and cultural expectations. Let's take a look at both of those and see where it leads us, shall we?

The Rules Part 1: Honor and Honorable Actions

While the text under the Paladin class (3.x) does include examples of honorable actions (no lying, cheating, or using poison) there is no reason why the Paladins of your world have to act in that way. Why can't the GM define honorable behavior however she likes, despite the large contingent out there who feels that the way Paladins have always been played is the way that they must be played?

Well, this may come as a shock to some but you don't have to explicitly follow the rules. (Shocking, I know.) The Paladin from 3.x is supposed to act honorably and that is all fine and well but what does honorable mean? Each culture and religion (and intersection of the two) could provide you an answer. Many would even be overlapping; however, that does not constitute a complete answer to the question of honor. The player and GM need to hash out what this means. If the default answer (the example in the book) works for you, then, by all means, play on. If not, decide what the answer should look like. Perhaps the use of poison is fine. If lying allows for the greater good to be achieved, then what is the problem?

At its core, honor is integrity in one's beliefs and actions. Integrity comes from the same root as integral. Integral denotes the sense of something that is whole or complete. Thus being honorable means to act according to your beliefs. If the paladin can do that, then he is being honorable. If the Paladin follows a faith that frowns on the use of poison then they can't use poison. If they have taken a vow to be honest, then they must be honest. However, if their vows don't include a prohibition against cheating and their faith is silent on this issue, then they are not being dishonorable when they cheat.

The Rules Part 2: Lawful Good

This is a point of contention everywhere I look that the 3x3 alignment grid is used. Paladins end up being jerks because, "He's got to be Good AND Lawful." As if those who are Lawful Good can't be social or joke around with others. Some of the problem is tied up in the various perceptions of what exactly is meant by either Good OR Lawful. Do we mean Good in the sense that Saturday morning cartoon characters were Good or do we mean Good in the sense of angels? Also, I've never seen a coherent definition of Lawful. Either it is used as a synonym of Good — which is pointless — or it's used as a substitute for sanity and/or organization — which does not bode well for Chaotic characters. (Did you know that Robin Hood was insane and that his band of merry men was constantly arguing due to a lack of discipline/organization?)*

After all, if the Good must be angelic, then most Paladins are probably doomed - given that they are mortal and have free will. If they must be Law abiding, which laws do they follow? If you say, the law of the land, what happens if the law of the land supports and encourages slavery? If you say, Planar Law, then you are back to having a discussion with the GM. If you say, Divine Law, then why are we arguing about it? Go with what the Paladin's deity says is important and call it a day. This has the benefit of being honorable as well. (The whole integrity thing again.)

Societal Expectations

The more or less shared cultural expectations of Western Society play a part in our belief that Paladins must act a certain way. This concern is somewhat related to the alignment requirements; however, it has as its basis, the collective expectation of what a hyper-religious person is suppose to act like. Because the Paladin is required to be the epitome of Lawful Good, there are many (in the US at least) who play the Paladin as a stuffy Puritan with a large stick inserted through his large intestine. Kyle W. — a good friend of mine — put it this way:

"Most paladins are Nazi zealots. It's hard to play a non stereotypical bible thumper / skull crusher. Like in real life most religious people you meet are overly pushy or overbearing."

Thus, if you yourself are either not religious or religious but not overbearing, there appears to be some need to play the Paladin that way ... just because that's what people expect from the devout. To that I say, "Hogwash." Where do the rules call for a Paladin to be religious? It's not there. Yes, it could be argued that it is encouraged; however, it is not generally required. Still, that seemingly ingrained Western perspective of the religious zealot is prevalent. We would all be better served to rethink that element of our play expectations. Think Buddhist monk or Jedi Knight rather than Knight Templar.

Removing the Stick OR Suggestions for Playing a Paladin

One of the simplest things you can do is to remove the LG qualifier for Paladin-hood. If you're not comfortable with removing it entirely, then just loosen it up. A Paladin that strays into LN territory once or twice might doesn't need atonement but the one that remains on the ragged edge does. Same could be said for those that feel the need to bend the rules just a bit toward NG.

With a bit more effort you can sit down and think through the implications of various situations that your group has come upon before. Then have the players and the GM work out a Code of Conduct and/or Honor System for any Paladins that enter the game. While this can seem a little "pie-in-the-sky," it helps immensely. Granted you may loose some of the surprise when the seemingly peaceful paladin rips the orc slaver open from head to toe and then desecrates the body. However, just knowing that the Paladin over there can enter a truly righteous rage and bring down the wrath of the god's is fairly terrifying when you think about it.

Perhaps the most difficult for some to accept but my preferred method (*tips hat to the Crafty Games folks*) is to treat the Paladin as the living embodiment of a particular faith. She isn't LG so much as she is cut from the same cloth as St. Cuthbert Himself. If the village smith hears the Call from Pelor and models his life after his god, why would he be bared from taking up arms?

Finding an example may be even better. Look to paladins in literature or fiction. My favorite paladin happens to be Michael Carpenter from The Dresden Files. He lives his faith quietly but insistently. He doesn't bend his principles but doesn't drag down Harry either. An excellent example of how the class should be played.

Conclusion

The best advice I can give again comes from Kyle. His paraphrased words of advice:

"I want to play a Paladin who is a person who has chosen to follow his principals rather than feeling that his faith has to control every aspect of his life. I want to play a Paladin that lives his religion as a personal code and has a personal relationship with his god instead acting like his faith is a set of laws to force on everyone else."

To that I say, "Indeed!"

Now, who wants to play a Paladin?

---

* I drew some inspiration from the opening section of Frank Trollman's "Tome of Fiends" over on tgdmb.com. The opening of the "Tome" contains something of a discussion/rant on the topic of alignment and its various meanings.