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

[Hussar]

See, now, let's look at the always be honest bit. People have given two separate examples of the paladin not being able to disguise himself to sneak into the Temple of Evil. There's two ways around that. One simple and the other more difficult.

The code says that a paladin doesn't lie. That doesn't mean that he has to volunteer the truth whenever possible. The short answer is for the paladin to promise to keep his mouth shut and not say anything. He's not lying. And, considering the greater good served, it probably wouldn't even register as a blip on his alignment.

The second option is for the paladin to seek out his superiours, explain the situation and get special dispensation. Van Helsing was mentioned earlier as a paladin archetype. And I agree. I also mentioned the Batman Begins Batman character, which is a similar character to Van Helsing. Van Helsing is given special dispensation from his superiors to battle a greater evil. End of problem.

One of the largest problems that occur with paladins in the party is an unwillingness to compromise. People think that because the character is a paladin, everything must be done only in one manner. That's not true. Paladins understand that there is a need for special circumstances once in a while. Sure, the paladin is not going to step out of the room while the party tortures a prisoner. But, by the same token, I see nothing wrong with the paladin scaring the crap out of a prisoner Batman style to get information. It's a fine line to walk, but, it's certainly possible.

When a paladin (and I still argue cleric or druid as well) is added to a party, there is a need to recognise that this character has obligations beyond the party itself. Because of these obligations, there is a need for understanding on both sides in order to satisfy both the party and the character. A bit of compromise and an ability to think laterally once in a while goes a very long way.

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>The code says that a paladin doesn't lie. That doesn't mean that he has to volunteer the truth whenever possible. The short answer is for the paladin to promise to keep his mouth shut and not say anything. He's not lying. And, considering the greater good served, it probably wouldn't even register as a blip on his alignment.
<SNIP>

Or to quote someone I've always considered a paladin archetype -
"So what I told you was the truth...from a certain point of view." - Obi Wan Kenobi.

 

[WizarDru]

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.

Indeed, sir. In point of fact, I think that sums up a good chunk of the issue of why Paladins are such a topic for debate - perspective.

In my current campaign, one of the party's enemies was a LG Gold Dragon. It was an intentional move on my part to show that being Good did not mean that someone couldn't be a protagonist...just as an evil character might be an ally (even if for greedy personal reasons). I think we could easily enjoy a long friendly argument over, in my case, a Black and Tan.

 

[genshou]

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).

Strangely enough, I love reading these paladin threads (they consume all my time, of course). But this is a thread I did not see. Might someone perhaps provide me with a link to it, as the search function can't find anything? This is an issue I've wanted to get some good ideas on for some time.

 

[DM_Matt]

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

Sounds like you are calling anyone who fights for religious reasons or is self-rightious a paladin. Remember, clerics fight for religion, too, and anyone can be self-rightious.

Oh, and since someone corrected another date, the Hasmonean Revolt (i.e. the revolt the Maccabees led against the Assyrian empire) started in 165BC, creating the Hasmonean Dynasty that lasted until 63BC.

And it's a PITA when done poorly. That's where the adversity comes from--people whose fun has been squashed by a badly-played paladin, a knee-jerk DM, or both.

It seems there is a cycle in play here. A DM that is very strict about a paladin and a jerk to players who want to play pallys causes players to play jerk pallys because they fear that a spiteful DM will take their powers away. In turn, the prevelance of jerk pallys means that more DMs are going to be super-strict to discourage players from playing jerk pallys

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

It seems there is a cycle in play here. A DM that is very strict about a paladin and a jerk to players who want to play pallys causes players to play jerk pallys because they fear that a spiteful DM will take their powers away. In turn, the prevelance of jerk pallys means that more DMs are going to be super-strict to discourage players from playing jerk pallys

I think that has more to do with it than anything else. Lack of communication is probably the bane of the class. Well put.

 

[Herobizkit]

I dislike the Alignments as set by the Core books but most of the players are used to it and I'm loathe to try and please them all by searching for a more universal behavioral code.

For people who still have a need for alignment but hate the D&D way of things, I always recommend turning an eye to the Palladium alignment system. IMO, the codes of behaviour are better fleshed out, leaving less questions about why who would do what.

 

[Herobizkit]

The second option is for the paladin to seek out his superiours, explain the situation and get special dispensation. Van Helsing was mentioned earlier as a paladin archetype. And I agree. I also mentioned the Batman Begins Batman character, which is a similar character to Van Helsing. Van Helsing is given special dispensation from his superiors to battle a greater evil. End of problem.

That's damn brilliant, Hussar. If, at any time, a Paladin is unsure of how to act in a situation, s/he need but consult with a senior member of his/her faith. In this way, DMs can have Paladins act in a fashion according to their their campaigns' visions, and players don't feel like they'll "fall from grace" at their first slip-up.

To add another archetype, Blade (after a fashion) could be considered your kick-down-the door-and-slay-evil-type Paladin. He doesn't kill humans unless they are "familiars" (ie. willing servants) of other Vampires. And, because Vampires have the [Evil] template (thanks to 3.x), there's never a question of killing an "innocent" vampire.

 

[swrushing]

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

Several thinsg add together to make pallys a frequent flashpoint issue.

1. they have a code and have specific penalties for violations.
2. The code is both vague and speciic.
3. At least one aspect of the code, evil act, is absolute and severe, first offense basically ends the character.
4. the code while being vague is one that is going to frequently run into conflict with many "standard adventure" -isms.

Add to this the notion that too few Gms plan adventures "for the characters" and thus the accidental clash between paladin code and script is more common than it needs to be... and that groups often don't start with a group mindset that suits a paladin... and you got a recipe for infinite internet thread generation.

 

[Falkus]

In my experience, problems with paladins are caused by other players being deliberately antagonistic. In my latest campaign, some of hte other PCs are going out of their way to irritate my Paladin PC through actions that could be considered downright criminal (despite the fact that we're supposodly a group of problem solvers working directly for the king). In a previous campaign, one guy who joined after it started knew I was playing a paladin, and choose to make a blackguard as his PC. That didn't end well.