What *is* it about paladins that makes people nutty, anyway?

[kenobi65]

We keep getting threads about paladins, and "what to do" about them. On the first three pages of this board alone, we've got:

- Can a paladin kill an accomplice to murder?
- Inspired by the first thread, a thread on whether paladins should lose their abilities all at once, or piecemeal
- A DM who won't let the paladin use his Mount as written

And, lest we forget, the nearly-endless thread a few months ago about whether paladins need to be chaste and / or celibate (and whether those two were different, anyway).

In many of these cases, the threads become extensive, heated discussions about morals and interpretations of the "paladin code".

Why is it always paladins that we get these threads about? Why, out of all the classes, is it the paladin that seems to drive a significant percentage of the playing population nutty? I imagine it's because, unlike any of the other base classes, they've got the most explicit code of behavior presented in the PHB, but that's just my guess.

One would *think* that other classes with powers that are, in theory, based on their faith or behavior (e.g., clerics, druids, monks) should be equally scrutinized. Yet, one never sees threads on "my DM stripped my cleric of his powers, I think he was wrong!"

Why is this? What do people have against paladins, anyway?

 

[Crothian]

Because a Pladin has a code, and its pretty much undefined. So players and DMs never get on the same page iwth it or understand what the higher standards of the calss actually are. Of course that starts with the description of the class and Wizards could have prevented many problems with a better one.

 

[Kid Socrates]

What Crothian said -- plus, with having to be lawful good, Paladins have a restrictive alignment, whereas clerics can have one close to their god so any question about their code could vary wildly. I think it may also be because previously they had ludicrous requirements, at least according to Baldur's Gate -- obnoxious stats and only human and all that. I have no idea if those stat reqs were true or not for tabletop, I didn't play then.

 

[fiddlerjones]

It's deeper than that. Druids have a code too, which is largely undefined. For that matter, to a lesser extent so do bards and monks. The main thing about the paladin is its obvious analogues to Christianity and, on a broader scale, the nature of good and order.
In order to define a paladin's code, one must consider the meanings of the terms "good" and "lawful," since those are the only real guidelines given in the PHB. In the other thread, it became obvious who had a more relativistic view of goodness and law and who had a more absolutist view. I tend to lean toward absolutes, at least in terms of a paladin, because of its close resemblance to a real-world crusader or Templar. As for the chastity issue, it depends on the god. I had a paladin of the god of purity in my campaign as an NPC. He had chastity issues because the god of purity will certainly demand it.

But I digress.
The main reason the paladin is so hotly debated is because the class is centered on defending good, and no one is quite sure what that means, but it is a theme central to nearly every story ever told in western culture.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think it's all about alignment, differing expectations of the player and DM and the fact that they can go from a god-touched symbol of righteousness to basest warrior so quickly.

While other classes have alignment restrictions (bard, barbarian, monk,...) these are all on a single axis (law to chaos). The paladin has to squeeze into the tiniest alignment box (in terms of possible behaviours) in lawful good. Not only this, but as Sepulchrave's story hour points out (read it NOW if you have not already) law and good have their own conflicts. In the end, lawful good behaviour becomes quite the tightrope at times. Add on top of this a code that must be adhered to as well as a restriction of never ever willfully committing an evil act, and you have quite a precipice if you fall off (and what a long fall it can be).

However, I believe the root cause of most of these threads is due to differing expectations between player and DM. Some take the "smite evil" thing over the top at the expense of other class behaviour while others are almost paralyzed by all the tenets that "must" be followed. When expectations differ as to what is acceptable behaviour of a paladin, these should be sorted out before playing the character - in conjunction with the Paladin's code. However, for whatever reason, sometimes this simply does not happen effectively. In the end, with the player thinking one way and the DM thinking the other, a Paladin's powers quickly become an issue be it holding on to them or not.

I suppose another factor is how the class is generally viewed. Some just view them as a cleric with a higher bab but less spells. For them, the paladin is just another class option. Others however view them as a paragon of the game (perhaps harkening back to when you needed 17* charisma to play one as well as other attribute restrictions). They view the paladin as special and a pure symbol of their deity and their deity's values. Back then if you fell, you fell for good. No atonement. No nothing. Those powers were gone for good baby.

Anyway, Paladin threads are fun for some and frustrating for others. I think that is just the way of things.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

*I think it was 17 - do I remember wrong here?

 

[IcyCool]

In my opinion, it is because the Paladin class is, by it's very nature, not a team oriented class. And this is a team oriented game.

 

[sydbar]

A big part of it is that when paladins are around they tend to try to force their moral code on other party members, or they happen to do everything to get around the moral & alignment code. The first are uber annoying, and the second are bad roleplaying. At least thats my experiences with paladins.

 

[tonym]

In my opinion, it is because the Paladin class is, by it's very nature, not a team oriented class. And this is a team oriented game.

Quoted for truth.

Also, many DMs don't 'get' paladins. All the restrictions those DMs attach to the class are not in the PHB.

For example, a paladin does not have to accept the surrender of an evil foe. That is the player's call. Paladins enjoy a lot more freedom of action than many DMs are willing to permit.

Tony M

 

[Truth Seeker]

Hmmmmm, another of what the Paladin should be is, theme. I will leave this alone, there are some wise ones here already.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Paladins are in game exemplars of an extreme viewpoint- complete devotion to a religion/faith/cause to the point of self-effacement- and as written, strongly grounded in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition...which is not without internal conflict itself.

Playing a Paladin requires commitment to try to role-play zelotry- tough for anyone who is fundamentally a centrist or predisposed to compromise.

Playing a Paladin requires commitment to try to role-play religious belief- tough for anyone who is fundamentally agnostic.

Playing a Paladin requires commitment to try to role-play a mindset that can alternate between the poles of merciful and wrathful, sometimes within seconds- tough for anyone who is fundamentally interested in maintaining the status quo.

Playing a Paladin requires commitment to try to role-play a mindset that can alternate between the poles of maintaining or overturning the status quo, depending on region- tough for anyone who is fundamentally a cultural relativist.

And so forth.

Essentially, playing a Paladin requires difficult role-playing decisions for ANYONE who isn't the RW equivalent of one already.