Too true- I've taken too much statistics to disagree.
But it IS all I have to go on. Perhaps a poll is in order...
But it IS all I have to go on. Perhaps a poll is in order...
What *is* it about paladins that makes people nutty, anyway?
- Thread starter kenobi65
- Start date
- Status
Hussar
Legend
It was kind of interesting recently when talking to my players about their back up characters. I'm running the World's Largest Dungeon and my mortality rate is pretty high (new PC every 3-5 sessions so far) so all the players have a backup character that can be inserted on short notice. Looking over the discussion, I brought up the fact that not one of the six even considered taking a paladin despite the fact that the party is good aligned. All of them recoiled in horror at the thought. Despite the fact that paladin is pretty much tailor made for the WLD, none of them wanted to touch the class with a ten foot pole. This prompted a fairly lengthy discussion on alignment considering we have two priests in the party.
One thing that always surprises me is that people talk about how restrictive paladins are, but never stop to consider clerics. Clerics are 100% as restricted as paladins, within their own alignments. A LG priest of Cuthbert would be only cosmetically different than a paladin for example. In actual play, both would be almost identical in expectations. Yet, no one had a problem with taking a priest. Priests of other alignments are no less restricted. A CG priest of Kord who follows another without question constantly is grossly violating his alignment. He just lost his spell casting abilities. A NG priest of healing that saves a spell for later and lets another suffer wounds is also stepping out of alignment.
The problem is, DM's never bother to enforce these things on clerics, but have a built in knee jerk reaction to take any paladin player down a peg or two. DnD wouldn't need paladins if people played clerics the way they should be played.
One thing that always surprises me is that people talk about how restrictive paladins are, but never stop to consider clerics. Clerics are 100% as restricted as paladins, within their own alignments. A LG priest of Cuthbert would be only cosmetically different than a paladin for example. In actual play, both would be almost identical in expectations. Yet, no one had a problem with taking a priest. Priests of other alignments are no less restricted. A CG priest of Kord who follows another without question constantly is grossly violating his alignment. He just lost his spell casting abilities. A NG priest of healing that saves a spell for later and lets another suffer wounds is also stepping out of alignment.
The problem is, DM's never bother to enforce these things on clerics, but have a built in knee jerk reaction to take any paladin player down a peg or two. DnD wouldn't need paladins if people played clerics the way they should be played.
ThirdWizard
First Post
DMs not enforcing clerics as rigorously as paladins is part of the problem, but not the whole thing.
Saying "cleric" doesn't have near the same connotation as paladin. Clerics can be any alignment with a huge amount of variety within those alignments. You want to play a merciless greedy guy? You want to play a barbaric roughian? You want to play a freedom fighter? A hunter of secrets who cares only about himself and his research? A craftsman who cares most about gold? A thief who steals from the rich and gives to the poor? There's a god somewhere for you! Or, forgo the god and choose an alignment. I'll worship Chaotic Good, thank you. Or, how about just Neutrality itself? Clerics can be all those things.
Not so with the Paladin. A Paladin is the code. A Paladin is Lawful. A Paladin is Good. The choice is gone.
Saying "cleric" doesn't have near the same connotation as paladin. Clerics can be any alignment with a huge amount of variety within those alignments. You want to play a merciless greedy guy? You want to play a barbaric roughian? You want to play a freedom fighter? A hunter of secrets who cares only about himself and his research? A craftsman who cares most about gold? A thief who steals from the rich and gives to the poor? There's a god somewhere for you! Or, forgo the god and choose an alignment. I'll worship Chaotic Good, thank you. Or, how about just Neutrality itself? Clerics can be all those things.
Not so with the Paladin. A Paladin is the code. A Paladin is Lawful. A Paladin is Good. The choice is gone.
Aikuchi
Transient
I love variant paladin rules, as do my players.
Dragon magazine had offered differring alignments for them before and most of them were happy to take them over the one in the PHB. Choices give that illusions of freedom
Did i say illusions? I meant variety.
What was it again? Crusader or something with a Chaotic Good (paladin) instead.
Dragon magazine had offered differring alignments for them before and most of them were happy to take them over the one in the PHB. Choices give that illusions of freedom
Did i say illusions? I meant variety.
What was it again? Crusader or something with a Chaotic Good (paladin) instead.
The best set of variant holy warrior rules I've found is Green Ronin's Book of the Righteous. It contains not only specific gods and their clergy & holy warriors, it also has a set of rules for generating your own holy warriors of various alignments.
Its still just a 3Ed book, but I understand that they're revising it for 3.5Ed.
Without a doubt, its my favorite D20 product from a 3rd party publisher, despite nice attempts from Nyambe and Northern Crown...
And discounting Mutants & Masterminds, which is only D20 in the broadest sense.
Its still just a 3Ed book, but I understand that they're revising it for 3.5Ed.
Without a doubt, its my favorite D20 product from a 3rd party publisher, despite nice attempts from Nyambe and Northern Crown...
And discounting Mutants & Masterminds, which is only D20 in the broadest sense.
Hussar
Legend
ThirdWizard said:
But that's the point Thirdwizard. Even if you forego actually having a diety, your character is still entirely bound by his alignment if he's a cleric. A CG priest of no specific god is not a license to heal! Actually, I would think that not having a god or church to fall back on for guidance, and a lack of dogma for a particular faith would make playing a priest without a god even more difficult. You are entirely at the whim of the DM who might decide that you haven't been following the tenets of your alignment closely enough. The trick is, very, very few DM's actually do this.
Most DM's I've found are perfectly content to allow cleric players more than enough latitude when it comes to toeing the line on alignment yet are absolute fascists when it comes to paladins. There should be absolutely no difference. If you are a priest of ______ then every action you take should be scrutinized through the lens of ______'s dogma, whether those teachings are spelled out in the PHB or through the player and the DM hammering them out. A Cleric of Olidamarra better be nicking the silverware once in a while and playing jokes fairly often.
I'm bloody sick of clerical healing batteries that are just fighters with some extra bonuses. You're playing a mortal representative of a divine being!! You know for an absolute fact that that being exists. You know because you've probably bloody well seen him! Even if you haven't, the fact that your belief allows you to perform miracles should be pretty much enough to convince people. Add to that the fact that at higher levels you can actually directly converse with your diety through Contact other Planes and the like, every cleric should be pretty much entirely convinced in the truth of the existence of his or her gawd.
I'm very tired of the double standard that gets applied between Clerics, Druids and Paladins. All three classes should be very difficult to play. Very rewarding but difficult nonetheless.
FireLance
Legend
What about paladins makes people nutty? Quite simply, paladin exemplifies a certain style of play which imposes constraints on the DM and the other players. Not everyone likes that style of play or those constraints.
The essence of a paladin is this: the best course of action is to do the right thing. Some players don't want to succeed by doing the right thing. They want to break rules, be selfish, hurt others, lie, cheat and steal with impunity. It is difficult to act in this way with a paladin around. Some DMs like to set up situations where the party cannot succeed by doing the right thing. A paladin in the party turns these into frustrating no-win scenarios.
It doesn't help that different people have different ideas about what is "the right thing". Those who have faith in the most exalted ideals of good can come into conflict with those who adopt a more pragmatic approach. Those who offer mercy and those who call for justice may not understand each other.
Sometimes, I think the paladin class ought to come with a warning label. Because of the potential for conflict, it really works best when the player, the DM and the other players have reached a certain level of maturity.
The essence of a paladin is this: the best course of action is to do the right thing. Some players don't want to succeed by doing the right thing. They want to break rules, be selfish, hurt others, lie, cheat and steal with impunity. It is difficult to act in this way with a paladin around. Some DMs like to set up situations where the party cannot succeed by doing the right thing. A paladin in the party turns these into frustrating no-win scenarios.
It doesn't help that different people have different ideas about what is "the right thing". Those who have faith in the most exalted ideals of good can come into conflict with those who adopt a more pragmatic approach. Those who offer mercy and those who call for justice may not understand each other.
Sometimes, I think the paladin class ought to come with a warning label. Because of the potential for conflict, it really works best when the player, the DM and the other players have reached a certain level of maturity.
Come to this thread late and just to chime in...my soapbox... 
DM need to define evil and good in their games, this creates the campaign/world myth. This is the view held by the majority as the DM see it. Players need to know this because they apply real world/current morals to a game that is set in a fantasy world and/or time. Paladin players and DM need to work together on the code, this is not done, player just play paladins because they are cool and DMs let them, without thought. DMs need to have a idea/house rules set up for the breaking of the code, 50 hell Maryes/50 lashes/50 hours served in the healing house, to absolve the breaking of the code/act of evil and when the character becomes evil, must be done before the next holy day...
Planning and thought.
DM need to define evil and good in their games, this creates the campaign/world myth. This is the view held by the majority as the DM see it. Players need to know this because they apply real world/current morals to a game that is set in a fantasy world and/or time. Paladin players and DM need to work together on the code, this is not done, player just play paladins because they are cool and DMs let them, without thought. DMs need to have a idea/house rules set up for the breaking of the code, 50 hell Maryes/50 lashes/50 hours served in the healing house, to absolve the breaking of the code/act of evil and when the character becomes evil, must be done before the next holy day...
Planning and thought.
Aus_Snow
First Post
I imagine you're right.kenobi65 said:
For the majority, that is most likely it.On the other hand, I think Clerics should be similarly or even more tightly code-bound. And Druids. Maybe Rangers too. Just to bring it all into line, have the divine power thing make some sense.
It all comes down to what you want to emphasise, I suppose. But that's what house ruling is for, right? *shrug* C'est la vie.
- Status
Similar Threads
