Why aren't paladins liked?

[WizarDru]

So, with all the restrictions, why aren't paladins given a little extra power to make up for it?

If paladins essentially have to take the hard way (straight and up front), why don't they have some extra abilities to support this method of operation? Like a constant protection from evil (like in the older editions of the game)? Or a bonus to AC based on Charisma (like monks have with Wisdom)? Or bonus hit points based on Charisma?

As it is, it seems paladins are expected to take the harder road, but they have no support from their diety (or the universal powers of Law and Good) to aid them above what is balanced with other classes without the "harder road" code.

Well, some of the restrictions were play-tester recommended, because without them, they didn't 'feel' right. This is the most commonly cited source of the multi-classing restriction, for example.

Paladins get plenty of support from their deity, if they actually follow one (and they don't). Spellcasting, Detect evil, lay on hands and a variety of other powers that no fighter can possess without multiclassing, for example. A divine companion in the form of a powerful mount is another example. Divine Grace is a constant ability, as are Aura of Courage and Divine Health...both are tools that a paladin can use to go amidst danger and pass through unscathed. The paladin's spellcasting abilities directly support his mission, as well.

And this doesn't even consider the potential social aspects of the paladin. A mercenary, thief or hedge wizard may not be welcome at court as readily as a champion of the king's justice and servant of the peace. A paladin stands out, for the exact same code that sets him apart. A peasant knows that the paladin is trustworthy, that he will come to their aid when perhaps no one else will. He incites fear and jealousy in the wicked, trust in the righteous and nobility in the brave.

One need only look at some of the story hours to see some excellent paladins, played by folks who clearly see the value in them. Look to Sepulchrave's story hour (in my .sig) for what I consider to be the Iconic Paladin. Piratecat's story hour features two (count 'em) paladins of Aeos, both different and distinct. My story hour features an elven paladin rightfully called 'the Paragon' by his diety's followers. You could also look to Wulf's story hour (all in .sig below) for an example of a Paladin done horribly, horribly wrong).

Paladins allow for quite a good deal of variety within the archetype. I've never heard people complain about paladins so much as complain about specific players who couldn't do them very well. And that's a whole different problem.

In short, your answer is this: paladins are generally not a favorite of twinks. The very restrictions that make them appealing to most players tend to make them far less attractive to the average power-gamer, IME.

 

[Mr. Kaze]

A paladin is about doing the right thing (good) in the right way (lawful), and some people don't want that.

Darn skippy, that's the definition of Lawful Good. Not "Lawful until it becomes difficult to stay good," (that's Neutral Good) not "good until lawful behavior gives us an excuse to be otherwise," (that's Lawful Neutral) and certainly not "well at least more lawful good than that balor over there" (which is just plain Not An Archfiend). Read the Player's Handbook's alignment section -- it fairly explicitly states that if you're not going above-and-beyond to achieve your alignment, you're really just neutral.

People are saying that the Book of Exaulted Cheese says paladins can behave in all sorts of morally ambiguous ways. I don't buy it (and I didn't buy it, either). If the paladin's alignment requirement were "Any Good," like the Blackguard is "Any Evil," then we could have a lovely discussion about the paladin behaving any darn way the paladin wants to promote the cause of good and beat the stuffing out of all that's evil -- consider that Jesus Christ was not a Lawful sort of guy. (Frankly, I must admit that my favorite alignment is Chaotic Good -- it's just so much fun to role-play in a fundamentally corrupt power-grabbing setting when you've got a high charisma.) But "Any Good" is not the requirement on the base class, so that's not the requirement on the PCs using it.

I'm all in favor of a "Good Above All" charismatic magical fighting PrC to foil the Blackguard "Evil Below All" PrC. It's just that I really don't see the both Lawful And Good Paladin base class as printed in the SRD as being that class.

::Kaze

 

[Voadam]

So, with all this baggage for the paladin, what does he bring to the party as a benefit that the cleric or fighter don't do better? Heck, even with the drawback to multiclassing a spellcaster, a LG fighter/cleric would seem more beneficial to a party than a straight paladin.

What game aspects of the class should a twink/powergamer play up?

Quasqueton

Lay on hands from a high level high charisma paladin is a potent one shot undead blaster for BBE that are too powerful to turn. The one from our party has killed a couple of potent vampires and a levelled mummy this way.

High hit points, AC, and great saves with good healing means they are great trapspringers.

Fighter BAB and use divine spell devices such as a wand of cure light wounds.

With their new mount ability they can have a mount in a dungeon combat where a fighter knight could not bring his warhorse.

Fills both warrior (fighting) and cleric (healing) roles in one class so good for small parties.

Detect evil at will is great for being ready for many ambushes or evaluating how much threat is ahead.

Cure disease can kill green slime.

 

[ForceUser]

There's nothing wrong with the Paladin class, except maybe for the following:



Agreed. Following 3.5 rules, I'd give the Paladin a good Will save, and I'd throw in a free Mounted Combat feat when they gain their mount.

The Paladin prestige class variant from Unearthed Arcana solves this problem nicely. You're usually beefier, either because you have four levels of fighter and weapon specialization, or because you have four levels of cleric and greatly enhanced spellcasting (a fighter 1/cleric 4/paladin 15 casts spells as a 12th level cleric). Either way, the paladin is a bit tougher than the standard PHB class. Check it out.

 

[Voadam]

Paladins allow for quite a good deal of variety within the archetype. I've never heard people complain about paladins so much as complain about specific players who couldn't do them very well. And that's a whole different problem.

In short, your answer is this: paladins are generally not a favorite of twinks. The very restrictions that make them appealing to most players tend to make them far less attractive to the average power-gamer, IME.

OK here is a complaint about paladins as a class. They have a heavy mechanical consequence to roleplaying actions that can be interpreted very differently between PCs and DMs. Playing a paladin you risk losing your class powers if you take an action the DM decides is evil or grossly violates the code, if your DM is going by the book, or that violates how Paladins should be played if your DM is doing more than the book restrictions to uphold his vision of paladins and their divine relationship (I've read many many people saying they would penalize paladins for things that did not fall into the first two restrictions).

 

[Zaarastara]

Paladins are actually my favorite character class to play and DM. Although I am the primary DM among our gaming group, whenever I get a chance to play I always play a Paladin.

Now, paladins do not have to be holier than thou, obnoxious jerks. For example, when spreading the message of his deity, my paladin, Valentine von Castlegranite, uses Perform: Storytelling. I actually “wasted” a feat to get Perform as class skill and at level advancement I throw a skill point into Perform: Storytelling. My 8th level Paladin has Perform: Storytelling +16. People actually flock to hear him tell stories about his deity and the heroes of the church.

Also, my paladin realizes that not all people can live up to the ideals that Val professes. Therefore, he should not hold them to the same standard. When they want to go out “partying” and “wenching”, he accompanies them. He does not partake, but makes sure no ill befalls them. He is a designated driver and chaperone, if you will.

As a DM one rule I have instituted is if the players do not role play their respect for a paladin, they do not receive any of the Charisma based bonus that the paladin exudes. This alleviates some of the sneakiness of getting around the paladin’s virtues.

 

[hong]

And this doesn't even consider the potential social aspects of the paladin. A mercenary, thief or hedge wizard may not be welcome at court as readily as a champion of the king's justice and servant of the peace. A paladin stands out, for the exact same code that sets him apart. A peasant knows that the paladin is trustworthy, that he will come to their aid when perhaps no one else will. He incites fear and jealousy in the wicked, trust in the righteous and nobility in the brave.

A peasant sees a guy on a horse, wearing plate armour, riding towards him. The guy has the symbol of Generic Lawful Good Deity #1 on his shield.

Is this a paladin, a fighter, or a cleric? Who knows? At low levels, there is _nothing_ outward to distinguish between these three classes, except on close examination (two guys have holy symbols; of these, one has a martial weapon).

A peasant sees Sir Valinor the Brave, Slayer of Dragons, Defender of the Crown, High-Captain of the Falconguard, riding towards him on his celestial steed. In his hands the famed Lance of Light shines, glitters and sparkles like a thousand-faceted gem, a sign of its holy enchantments that strike fear into the wicked everywhere.

Is this a paladin, a fighter, or a cleric? Who cares? At high levels, a character's deeds speak for themselves. Any high-level PC worth his salt in D&D will probably have slain hundreds of icky monsters, most of which would likely have been evil. You can be an honourable and upstanding martial champion regardless of what class you are: fighter, paladin or even barbarian, at a pinch.

Of the six PCs I've played since 3E's release, four have been warrior types in the LN-LG-NG corner of the alignment map. In Robin Laws' terms, I'm a specialist, specialising in the knight-in-shining-armour schtick. The anti-hero, anti-establishment archetype has never held that much of an attraction for me.

And yet, I've never played a paladin. Why? Because I don't want to get into tedious alignment wars with people over what my character can and can't do. I don't want DMs arbitrarily putting restrictions on my actions based on what they thought LG meant when they got up that morning.

For whatever reason, paladins tend to bring out extremist interpretations of ethics and morality in a lot of people (as has been demonstrated by certain other persons in this thread). I don't need that sort of humbug when I play D&D. While it's certainly much nicer if there's a specific class to handle the knight-in-shining-armour schtick, I can still make do without.

 

[Green Knight]

People are saying that the Book of Exaulted Cheese says paladins can behave in all sorts of morally ambiguous ways. I don't buy it (and I didn't buy it, either).

You didn't buy it yet you feel qualified to comment on what it says?

Here, let me lay out what it actually DOES say in regards to Paladins (Or rather, Good characters in general, all of which a Paladin must abide by).

First of all, it DOES say that the utter avoidance of doing any evil does not make you good. It makes you neutral. Being good MEANS doing good deeds.

Then it lists good deeds. Helping others, for one. Like in the example cited, when a villager comes running up to you and asks for you to save his village from some danger, you don't say, "What can you pay?". You help the villagers, even if they don't have a single copper to give you.

Charity is another. Providing food, money, and other aid to the downtrodden when you can.

Healing, which while not intrinsically good (You can use healing to heal the Evil Devourer of Souls before he heads into his next conflict, after all) does invoke Good energies.

Personal Sacrifice. A good character helps others, even when it's inconvenient or costly for him to do so. Sacrificing anything from wealth all the way up to his own life.

Worshipping Good deities and casting Good spells.

And the most important items on the list, Mercy, Forgiveness, Bringing Hope, and Redeeming Evil. First with Mercy, whenever a bad guy surrenders, you MUST give them quarter. It doesn't matter HOW many times this villain has surrendered in the past, or what unspeakable crimes he's committed after surrendering and escaping captivity. If he asks for mercy, then you give it. In which case you bind him, take him prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible.

Then there's Forgiveness. It starts at not taking revenge on someone. It ends with forgiving someone who's done grievous harm, but is attempting to make amends for what they've done. Say King Obould Many-Arrows from the Forgotten Realms swept through the village in which your family lives on a raid, raping all the women, including your wife and daughters, and then murdered your entire family. If you face him in combat, and he surrenders, then you must grant him mercy. If he later attempts to make a change for the better, became a good person, then you must forgive him, no matter how grievous the harm he inflicted upon you.

And lastly, there's Bringing Hope and Redeeming Evil. The former involves doing all the above things, which also lead to hope being rekindled in the hearts and minds of people. When you heal a leper of his disease, you're not just curing the disease, you're instilling a new sense of hope in the man.

As for the latter, it discusses how one can redeem a villain by talking to him. Talking to him about the evils he's committed, telling him the rewards to a good life, the benevolence of the deities of good, etc. If you succeed, you can successfully turn an Evil creature into a good one.

Then the book goes on to a section entitled "The Straight and Narrow". The first part being Ends and Means, in which the Ends NEVER justify the Means. Doesn't matter if poisoning the viceroy will save the kingdom. That's an evil act, and the good outcome does NOT justify the evil act.

Then there's a section called "Violence", in which violence can only be employed in a just cause. Attacking an orc village because they've been raiding the local countryside is okay. Attacking an orc village because they're there and they're Chaotic Evil is NOT okay. You can't take part in a war against a Good nation. Revenge is not an acceptable reason for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping any further acts of evil. The violence should also have good intentions. You should be attacking the orc village because they've been raiding the countryside, NOT because their camp is located on a gold mine and you want to get at that gold mine. Violence also isn't good when it doesn't discriminate from the evil targets and women and children.

And the book goes on and on. Point is, what it says is the EXACT opposite of what you say it says. And if you'd actually read it, then you'd know that.

 

[Green Knight]

And if your issue is with a Paladin NPC in the book being able to use Sneak Attack, and a Lawful Good Prestige Class having Sneak Attack, well, if you think Sneak Attacks are "morally ambiguous", then you may also want to exclude Paladins in your game from being able to use Feats like Improved Critical and Improved Initiative. While you're at it, you may also want to bar them from making Critical attacks entirely, make them Delay their actions until their enemy acts, and not allow them to Flank opponents, so they don't catch them Flat-Footed or otherwise unable to defend themselves effectively from the Paladins attacks.

critical hit (crit): A hit that strikes a vital area and therefore deals double damage or more.

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

 

[diaglo]

For whatever reason, paladins tend to bring out extremist interpretations of ethics and morality in a lot of people (as has been demonstrated by certain other persons in this thread). I don't need that sort of humbug when I play D&D. While it's certainly much nicer if there's a specific class to handle the knight-in-shining-armour schtick, I can still make do without.

they always have. and always will.

the high CHA requirement in OD&D notwithstanding.