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

[Voadam]

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.

Clerics don't lose powers for alignment violations.

If they follow a god who has a required code of conduct and they GROSSLY violate that then they lose their powers.

Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

Deity, Domains, and Domain Spells: A cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. A cleric chooses two domains from among those belonging to his deity. A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if his alignment matches that domain.
If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.

Druids have the following power loss restrictions:

A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.

Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).

Paladins have the following:

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

I think it is the evil act part that makes paladins different.

 

[Thunderfoot]

ITS ALL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS (sorry in advance for the length of this post)

I still don't understand the DIFFICULTY assigned to the playing of a paladin class - it really isn't that hard if you are WILLING to do the research to find a decent archetype and roll (or in this case role) with it.

Everyone points to Sir Galahad as the epitome of a knight in the service to both king and God, as well they should, but how about some other "Paladin" types throughout history?
How about...
o The Macabees of the Jewish revolution (approx. 60 A.D.)
o Julius Caesar first roman Emperor (abhorred the carnal lusts of his subjects and opposed the "morale ambiguousness" of his age - some historical scholars believe this may have led to his execution.
o The Ayatollah Khomeini- though his beliefs FAR distanced him from the Western world he held true to his fervent beliefs and toppled an illegal (from his POV) regime
o El Cid, Spanish knight (early middle-ages) - switched side during his life to both support AND oppose the king due to his unswerving attitude of his beliefs
o Charlemagne - French knight of the 1100s (??)- Conquered the world for the betterment of his fellow man

But the questions is to what code did they all follow? The answer is none, each was following a code that was very specific, but not the same code. This is why WotC didn't put it in the rules folks. There are no hard and fast rules, but those that fit in each circumstance - not meaning that each person can make their own code (those that have suggested this have missed the point) but following a preset, defined code of their chosing - meaning they chose which pre-determined code to follow and then did so to the utmost to hang on to it.

So the onus of creating a code is on the DM folks, but the onus of making sure that his character FOLLOWS the code is on the player. Does it work, yep! Currently I have two players playing Paladins and both are doing so beautifully, but here is the rub, there is a PC Cleric that is "in charge" of both of them. Do they always agree? NO! Do they have to? No! Zealotry doesn't proclude an opinion, unless that opinion is flaty against the base of your code. (Ie pushing baby carriages (with a pint sized occupant inside) over cliffs is probably a generally bad idea regardless of what code you follow) Being a zealot means adhering as close to the letter of the law as allowable while maintaining the spirit of the law as well, your standing as a paladin depends upon your CORRECT interpretation of the code set forth. Should you blow the interpretation, you blow the whole shooting match.

I have never liked the idea of "engineering" an inescapable situation. Only a sadistic human trying to prove the fallability of a divine being would do so. Sure there should be situation where the faith is tested, some where the decision is hard to decern, but never a "no win" situation. If you are a DM who poses these, shame on you. However, if you area player that takes liberties with a stated "doctrine" inside your characters faith, don't cry when the hammer comes down.

The "true" problem with paladins is two-fold. A lack of understanding between the relationship of a paladin and his deity and the mirrored relationship between a DM and his player. 1) A paladin loves his deity in such a manner that he would give his life before he would besmirch that honor. The deity in question gives the paladin "special favors" to shine as beacon to the rest of the world - kind of like a walking advertisement or recruiting poster.
2) The DM should not try to "trick" a paladin into making a stupid decision (playing the part of the deity - why would you throw away your best recruitment tool?) and the player should try to walk to the walk as well as talk the talk (why give up the bennies?).

I think it's this lack of the relationship that causes the biggest problem in game. If a DM has the 'me against them mentality', these "career ending" opportunites seem to pop-up more often than not, as the DM matures, hopefully *crosses fingers* these attitudes fade. If a player has a 'hack/slash/maim/kill attiitude' it becomes very hard to toe the line so to speak. Again, maturity hopefully takes care of that. All of the discussion has been about the rules are wrong or unclear. The rules are right, I think the problems is all about realtionships...

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

You might have missed my point. I'll try being more clear, but that means I'm going to be talking in absolutes.

People who play a paladin don't want to play all aspects of what makes a paladin a paladin.

Okay, that's not true, but bear with me a bit. The paladin is a very strict class. You can't design a character then pick the paladin afterward. You decide to play a paladin, then you decide on the paladin's personality, based on the tenets of the paladin code. There will be aspects of the code that make you compromise on what your character's personality are from what you would like to be able to envision. In essence, you are compromising with the rules in order to play a paladin in the first place.

A cleric is different. You can create your character then decide on a god to back up the personality that you want to play. In essence, you dictate your Code based on what you want it to be. You arn't compromising with yourself, or if you are you are doing it very little. If you choose Kord, it is because you want to play a priest of Kord. If you choose St. Cuthbert, it is because you want to play a priest of St. Cuthbert.

People playing clerics don't want to break their code. They chose their god and their beliefs based on what they wanted their cleric's personality to be. He also picked a god and belief system because he understood it. You don't choose a god who you don't understand. You don't say "I want to worship Odin" and not know who Odin is. And, you can find out fairly easily. Lastly, the code of conduct for clerics is often a co-effort between the DM and the Player. The Player helps hash out his place in the church, what the church itself is like, and what he's looking for with the character.

By contrast, a paladin player wants to break his code, or at the very least often feels constrained by it. They do not choose their beliefs and code, their beliefs and code choose them. Lastly, because the code is already spelled out in the PHB (no matter how vague) the Player and DM are less likely to talk about its implications.

So, the cleric is a different beast altogether. While you should hold a cleric to his tennets probably more harshly than a paladin, the cleric is less likely to break his code. He chose it because that is the character he wanted to play. He likes his code. Even if it was to be as harsh as the paladin's code, it is that way because the Player wanted it to be, not because he had to have it that way to play the character. That is the big difference between the two classes.

 

[WizarDru]

o The Macabees of the Jewish revolution (approx. 60 A.D.)

As a teacher once told me about William Tell, "One man's hero is another man's political assasin"...or in this case guerilla fighter. Still, they don't really fit the paladin mold, per se. LG fighter, perhaps.

o Julius Caesar first roman Emperor (abhorred the carnal lusts of his subjects and opposed the "morale ambiguousness" of his age - some historical scholars believe this may have led to his execution.

Ceasar? The same one who declared himself Dictator for life? The same one who crucified pirates, but slit their throats first as a kindness? The ceasar who fathered a son on his puppet Cleopatra while still married? Ceasar who crossed the rubicon, plunging the republic into civil war? That's no paladin in my book.

o The Ayatollah Khomeini- though his beliefs FAR distanced him from the Western world he held true to his fervent beliefs and toppled an illegal (from his POV) regime

Another stretch, IMHO. While he was a religious crusader, kidnapping civilians and holding them hostage? Not paladin-like behavior no matter what the motiviation, IMHO. The very definition of LE, Kohmeini replaced one oppresive regime with another...just one that was oppresive to different people.

o El Cid, Spanish knight (early middle-ages) - switched side during his life to both support AND oppose the king due to his unswerving attitude of his beliefs

Well, the Cid was certainly a knight...but he also became a mercenary and defied his king (which under the divine right of kings would have been pretty unpaladinlike, by some measurements). However, I'd say he was a good candidate.

o Charlemagne - French knight of the 1100s (??)- Conquered the world for the betterment of his fellow man

Considering we get the word Paladin from the legend of Charlemagne's knights, I think that you've got a winner, here.


The trick is that most of the classic 'paladins' of history don't actually match the paladin concept of D&D per se. The Arthurian knights probably are the fictional representation of them along with Charlemagne's knights. Following the chivalric code was standard doctrine for them, and cannot be discounted in many players and DM's images of what a paladin is. This can be the source of some conflict; Sir Percival lays in a bed with a man's wife for several knights but is not tempted because he is virtuous (oh, that wicked woman!)...but would the same be important to a Paladin of Mystara or Yondalla? Probably not. The same applies with many such comparisons; most of the chivalric knights of legend faced tests of honor, chastity and courage. Not all of these are appropriate to a D&D paladin.

 

[Voadam]

ITS But the questions is to what code did they all follow? The answer is none, each was following a code that was very specific, but not the same code. This is why WotC didn't put it in the rules folks. There are no hard and fast rules, but those that fit in each circumstance - not meaning that each person can make their own code (those that have suggested this have missed the point) but following a preset, defined code of their chosing - meaning they chose which pre-determined code to follow and then did so to the utmost to hang on to it.

So the onus of creating a code is on the DM folks, but the onus of making sure that his character FOLLOWS the code is on the player. Does it work, yep! Currently I have two players playing Paladins and both are doing so beautifully, but here is the rub, there is a PC Cleric that is "in charge" of both of them. Do they always agree? NO! Do they have to? No! Zealotry doesn't proclude an opinion, unless that opinion is flaty against the base of your code. (Ie pushing baby carriages (with a pint sized occupant inside) over cliffs is probably a generally bad idea regardless of what code you follow) Being a zealot means adhering as close to the letter of the law as allowable while maintaining the spirit of the law as well, your standing as a paladin depends upon your CORRECT interpretation of the code set forth. Should you blow the interpretation, you blow the whole shooting match.

. . .

All of the discussion has been about the rules are wrong or unclear. The rules are right, I think the problems is all about realtionships...

The paladin code is in the rules

From the srd:

"a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

 

[Warrior Poet]

I have nothing salient to add because I can't deal with paladins so I don't play 'em and don't want 'em in my game.

However, I had to jump in on:

o Charlemagne - French knight of the 1100s (??)

Frankish knight of the late 8th/early 9th century, ruled the Franks as king from 771 to 814 a.d.

Carry on.

Warrior Poet

 

[Thunderfoot]

The paladin code is in the rules

From the srd:

"a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

Those are guidelines not a true code. These are points of the rules which ALL Paladins MUST adhere to, however, what is legitimate authority? Is a Lawful Evil Knight who is opprosseing his people, but was the heir by law? Or take for example Hitler - who was elected by the people and then declared himself fhuer? These are both legitimate authority figures, but who have strayed from the path of goodness (or circumvented it in the later case) so would you conform or confront?

The problem most players and DMs run into is that a code is not a list of absolute rules, it is a pattern of behavior shaped by the environment at large. To prove my point (only) I will borrow from the Judeo/Christian bible, there are several commands to not get drunk or to not imibe too much wine. So if I drink am I breaking that rule? No, but some would say that all drink is wrong, taking a statute farther than the original - the point being that a misunderestood command can have serious reprocussions. I think that many (and it is my opinion) have misunderstood the spirit of the words in the SRD and tried to be legalistic and obey only the letter of the law as it were. So be VERY careful saying that the rules are listed in the SRD, you are not wrong, but neither are you absolutely right.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I have nothing salient to add because I can't deal with paladins so I don't play 'em and don't want 'em in my game.

However, I had to jump in on:

Frankish knight of the late 8th/early 9th century, ruled the Franks as king from 771 to 814 a.d.

Carry on.

Warrior Poet

Thanks - I didn't have my references handy, and I was going from memory. So - What he said.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If we're talking quintessential paladins, my list STARTS with Jean D'Arc/Joan of Arc- a french farmgirl who heard the commands of the Lord to take up arms and throw the British out of France...

Some might also consider Charles "The Hammer" Martel/Karl Martell as another (as I recall, he's Charlegmangne's grandfather)- mainly for his almost uncanny ability to lead men that turned back the Muslim invasion of France.

Hmmm...Jean D'arc, Karl Martell, Charlemagne, and Lancelot du Lac.

Maybe its something in the wine or the frog-legs.

 

[Thunderfoot]

As a teacher once told me about William Tell, "One man's hero is another man's political assasin"...or in this case guerilla fighter. Still, they don't really fit the paladin mold, per se. LG fighter, perhaps.


Ceasar? The same one who declared himself Dictator for life? The same one who crucified pirates, but slit their throats first as a kindness? The ceasar who fathered a son on his puppet Cleopatra while still married? Ceasar who crossed the rubicon, plunging the republic into civil war? That's no paladin in my book.


Another stretch, IMHO. While he was a religious crusader, kidnapping civilians and holding them hostage? Not paladin-like behavior no matter what the motiviation, IMHO. The very definition of LE, Kohmeini replaced one oppresive regime with another...just one that was oppresive to different people.

Well, the Cid was certainly a knight...but he also became a mercenary and defied his king (which under the divine right of kings would have been pretty unpaladinlike, by some measurements). However, I'd say he was a good candidate.


Considering we get the word Paladin from the legend of Charlemagne's knights, I think that you've got a winner, here.


The trick is that most of the classic 'paladins' of history don't actually match the paladin concept of D&D per se. The Arthurian knights probably are the fictional representation of them along with Charlemagne's knights. Following the chivalric code was standard doctrine for them, and cannot be discounted in many players and DM's images of what a paladin is. This can be the source of some conflict; Sir Percival lays in a bed with a man's wife for several knights but is not tempted because he is virtuous (oh, that wicked woman!)...but would the same be important to a Paladin of Mystara or Yondalla? Probably not. The same applies with many such comparisons; most of the chivalric knights of legend faced tests of honor, chastity and courage. Not all of these are appropriate to a D&D paladin.

All salient points - and I answer only as a point of acknowledgement, Well said! I would argue each one though over a beverage of your choice. But as you have proven beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I could argue the "virtues" of each of my candidates and could probably sway a great many readers, but this isn't the point of the post. As you so eloquently state at the end of your rebuttal not all would make an appropriate D&D paladin. But the point was that in each case they would have been looked upon BY THEIR RESPECTIVE FAITHS AND TENENTS. I feel that we could probably have a very fun campaign based on paladins should the events ever give rise.