Why aren't paladins liked?

[Torm]

Would not a LOT of this depend on whom they are a paladin OF? To use FR deities as an example - A Paladin of Lathander or Kelemvor might find the destruction of a tomb in a way that does not interfere with the inhabitants progression in the afterlife to be an improper act, but for a Paladin of Mystra, it might not be improper at all. After all, Necromancy is a school of magic like any other. A Paladin of Mystra, in turn, might find it improper to destroy a magic artifact (other than at the command of the church), where a Paladin of Me would have no such problems.

The player needs to know not just what their DM's view of Paladins in general is, but the guidelines for his deity as the DM sees them....

 

[DragonLancer]

Short Said, The Player was right, and The Paladin was Right!

He didn`t desecrate the Tomb, he openden the Tomb to take an item from the Saints resting place, to help people.
Usually Saints are persons woh helped good people, and if the saint was a healer, to use something from his grave would have not only his acceptance, but definetly his approval.

Sorry, but he was not right. He didn't open the tomb, he smashed it to get in. If he had opened it I wouldn't have done what I did, but he took a weapon to it.

 

[pawsplay]

However, I think that any player would be aware that the desecration of a tomb (especially one of a revered holy saint) is grounds for revokation of a Paladin's abilities.

I think that is an unsupportable position for a D&D game.

 

[ph0rk]

Non-Lawful act = irrelevant for losing paladin powers.

Unless they make a habit of them; which this player seemed to do.

 

[Haradim]

I think that is an unsupportable position for a D&D game.

Unless tomb invasion/robbery (assuming no permission is gained to enter said burial grounds) is the primary means of adventure and loot distribution in a given campaign, it would not be difficult to add such a stipulation.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I am usually loathe to use real world examples but where I live, if you desecrate a grave, you get the bash.

Q.) Why would a stereotypical paladin think that smashing up a saints tomb is aok?
A.) Because it has a magic item that he could put to good use.

Given a desperate enough need I can see that argument as holding firm but there are two things I would consider: motive and method.

If I suspected that the player was actually motivated by greed or his method was disrespectful I would warn the player that his character is about to commit a sin. I would tell the player, face to face the why because they need to know and their character would know.

What would be an acceptable action (assuming the motive was pure) would be for the paladin to oversea the opening of a holy sarcophagus, carefully remove the sword, close the tomb and name the sword "the sword of St bla". Or something like that so long as it was respectful.

I would point out that players that pull this "I can put it to better use for the cause of good" can be operating under a double standard. I say that because they usually won't relinquish a treasure to a better owner. In this case the owner was dead so fair enough, but what if they try to pull this stunt on a living person? Again you have to question the motive.

All of this aside, if there is a paladin or any other highly codified character in the campaign, the dm should not be punishing them unduly for having a bit of grit to their character. Sure the odd sacred tomb gives a bit of campaign world perspective but those situations should not be the primary means of aquiring treasure.

The dm should tailor the campaign to the characters: fighters need fights; wizards need magic and paladins need chivalry.

Paladins are not liked by some because they don't want to see chivalry in the adventure.

 

[jgbrowning]

This is why I don't like paladins. Like I said, the class's abilities are dependent upon a mutual interpretation of what the player and GM believe in real life. I think everyone agrees that everyone has rather different ideas on how to handle the matter. That's what's wrong with the paladin.

To those who want to play a paladin I say, "Just play a lawful good fighter and you can pick the paladin abilites in place of your bonus feats. That way we don't have to argue if you do an ocassional chaotic or evil act."

The architype (holy warrior/pious fighter) doesn't have to have all the extraneous RL baggage tied into it's mechanics.

joe b.

 

[milotha]

This is why I don't like paladins. Like I said, the class's abilities are dependent upon a mutual interpretation of what the player and GM believe in real life. I think everyone agrees that everyone has rather different ideas on how to handle the matter. That's what's wrong with the paladin.

To those who want to play a paladin I say, "Just play a lawful good fighter and you can pick the paladin abilites in place of your bonus feats. That way we don't have to argue if you do an ocassional chaotic or evil act."

The architype (holy warrior/pious fighter) doesn't have to have all the extraneous RL baggage tied into it's mechanics.

joe b.

I'm in total agreement with you on this issue. See my previous posts.

And if you want the spell abilities take some levels of cleric of a lawful good diety.

This whole revoking of paladinhood status is for the dogs. It's just an excuse for the GM to run your character instead of you. I've always avoided playing paladins because their code limits/restricts your options so much that you are no longer role-playing you are playing a cliche'.

 

[Voadam]

Unless they make a habit of them; which this player seemed to do.

Dragonlancer did not say he thought this was the tipping point that pushed this character from lawful good to neutral good and therefore no longer eligible to be a paladin. He said this action was non-lawful, a desecration of a tomb and therefore on some level a violation of the code. He never said he changed the PC's alignment, therefore the paladin was still LG. Dragonlancer's position is that this action, bashing his way into a saint's tomb is sufficient to be considered a breach of the code.

Whether it is a GROSS violation of the code seems more than arguable to me.

 

[Voadam]

Would not a LOT of this depend on whom they are a paladin OF? To use FR deities as an example - A Paladin of Lathander or Kelemvor might find the destruction of a tomb in a way that does not interfere with the inhabitants progression in the afterlife to be an improper act, but for a Paladin of Mystra, it might not be improper at all. After all, Necromancy is a school of magic like any other. A Paladin of Mystra, in turn, might find it improper to destroy a magic artifact (other than at the command of the church), where a Paladin of Me would have no such problems.

The player needs to know not just what their DM's view of Paladins in general is, but the guidelines for his deity as the DM sees them....

No, unless the specific campaign/DM says otherwise (I believe FR is one such where paladins must worship a god and get their powers from that god) the conditions for paladin status revocation are the same for every paladin. A DM is within his rights to change this and alter the restrictions to fit various specific religions/deities/orders/cultures but that is a variation from the norm in the PH that should be explained up front so there is no misunderstanding about rules consequences to actions.