Why aren't paladins liked?
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Buzzardo
First Post
From a purely munchkin point of view...
1st & 2nd Edition Paladins RAWKED!
3rd Edition Paladins..... well. They don't.
A guy who has played in my group for years could always dependably take a paladin. One look at the 3rd Edition PHB and he instantly converted to the new whoop ass can opener... the Glaive weilding fighter.
Buzzardo
1st & 2nd Edition Paladins RAWKED!
3rd Edition Paladins..... well. They don't.
A guy who has played in my group for years could always dependably take a paladin. One look at the 3rd Edition PHB and he instantly converted to the new whoop ass can opener... the Glaive weilding fighter.
Buzzardo
Chupacabra
First Post
Main problem with Paladin: you can't spell Lawful Good without AWFUL.
Folks get so wrapped up with being SO DARN Lawful and SO DARN Good that they play their character like they want to be the most gee-wizz Lawfullest Goodest most Lawfully Lawful person who ever was Good at being Lawfully Lawful Good, in a Lawful manner, mind you. They end up inventing all sorts of "restrictions" upon their PC's behavior that inevitably gets applied to the whole darn party. It ends up throwing a wet blanket on the fun of the group.
An example: in the group I primarily game with we play two alternating campaigns.
Campaign One is Paladin, Bard, Cleric (me) and Wizard.
Campaign Two is Sorc/Cleric, Ftr/Wiz, Fighter and Rogue (me).
Let me just say I have WAY more fun with the second campaign. The Paladin in the first group basically dictates what we as a party will and won't do. If a PC proposes to do anything the least bit dodgy, the idea gets vetoed b/c the Pally "will not abide by any dishonesty or evil". And by dodgy I'm not talking about poisioning a town so we can loot the shops, or even roasting a cave full of baby kobolds alive. Instead, I'm talking about passing little white lies on to neutral or bad-guy NPCs or even using magic items looted off the BBEG's corpse (such items are frequently destroyed by the Paladin for being "evil"). The player really puts the AWFUL in Lawful Good.
I'm just gaming to have fun. And if you were looking to have fun, would you rather invite Conan the Barbarian to your party, or Ned Flanders? Therein lies the problem with the Paladin.
Folks get so wrapped up with being SO DARN Lawful and SO DARN Good that they play their character like they want to be the most gee-wizz Lawfullest Goodest most Lawfully Lawful person who ever was Good at being Lawfully Lawful Good, in a Lawful manner, mind you. They end up inventing all sorts of "restrictions" upon their PC's behavior that inevitably gets applied to the whole darn party. It ends up throwing a wet blanket on the fun of the group.
An example: in the group I primarily game with we play two alternating campaigns.
Campaign One is Paladin, Bard, Cleric (me) and Wizard.
Campaign Two is Sorc/Cleric, Ftr/Wiz, Fighter and Rogue (me).
Let me just say I have WAY more fun with the second campaign. The Paladin in the first group basically dictates what we as a party will and won't do. If a PC proposes to do anything the least bit dodgy, the idea gets vetoed b/c the Pally "will not abide by any dishonesty or evil". And by dodgy I'm not talking about poisioning a town so we can loot the shops, or even roasting a cave full of baby kobolds alive. Instead, I'm talking about passing little white lies on to neutral or bad-guy NPCs or even using magic items looted off the BBEG's corpse (such items are frequently destroyed by the Paladin for being "evil"). The player really puts the AWFUL in Lawful Good.
I'm just gaming to have fun. And if you were looking to have fun, would you rather invite Conan the Barbarian to your party, or Ned Flanders? Therein lies the problem with the Paladin.
Last edited:
arscott
First Post
From the Musical Camelot:
C'est Moi
Sung by Lancelot
A knight of the Table Round should be invincible,
Suceed where a less fantastic man would fail.
Climb a wall no one else can climb,
Cleave a dragon in record time,
Swim a moat in a coat of heavy iron mail.
No matter the pain, he ought to be unwinceable,
Impossible deeds should be his daily fare.
But where in the world
Is there in the world
A man so *extraordinaire*?
C'est moi! C'est moi, I'm forced to admit.
'Tis I, I humbly reply.
That mortal who
These marvels can do,
C'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis I.
I've never lost
In battle or game;
I'm simply the best by far.
When swords are crossed
'Tis always the same:
One blow and au revoir!
C'est moi! C'est moi! So adm'rably fit!
A French Prometheus unbound.
And here I stand, with valour untold,
Exeption'ly brave, amazingly bold,
To serve at the Table Round!
The soul of a knight should be a thing remarkable,
His heart and his mind as pure as morning dew.
With a will and a self-restraint
That's the envy of ev'ry saint
He could easily work a miracle or two.
To love and desire he ought to be unsparkable,
The ways of the flesh should offer no allure.
But where in the world
Is there in the world
A man so untouched and pure?
(C'est moi!)
C'est moi! C'est moi, I blush to disclose.
I'm far too noble to lie.
That man in whom
These qualities bloom,
C'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis I.
I've never strayed
From all I believe;
I'm blessed with an iron will.
Had I been made
The partner of Eve,
We'd be in Eden still.
C'est moi! C'est moi! The angels have chose
To fight their battles below,
And here I stand, as pure as a pray'r,
Incredibly clean, with virtue to spare,
The godliest man I know!
C'est moi!
C'est Moi
Sung by Lancelot
A knight of the Table Round should be invincible,
Suceed where a less fantastic man would fail.
Climb a wall no one else can climb,
Cleave a dragon in record time,
Swim a moat in a coat of heavy iron mail.
No matter the pain, he ought to be unwinceable,
Impossible deeds should be his daily fare.
But where in the world
Is there in the world
A man so *extraordinaire*?
C'est moi! C'est moi, I'm forced to admit.
'Tis I, I humbly reply.
That mortal who
These marvels can do,
C'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis I.
I've never lost
In battle or game;
I'm simply the best by far.
When swords are crossed
'Tis always the same:
One blow and au revoir!
C'est moi! C'est moi! So adm'rably fit!
A French Prometheus unbound.
And here I stand, with valour untold,
Exeption'ly brave, amazingly bold,
To serve at the Table Round!
The soul of a knight should be a thing remarkable,
His heart and his mind as pure as morning dew.
With a will and a self-restraint
That's the envy of ev'ry saint
He could easily work a miracle or two.
To love and desire he ought to be unsparkable,
The ways of the flesh should offer no allure.
But where in the world
Is there in the world
A man so untouched and pure?
(C'est moi!)
C'est moi! C'est moi, I blush to disclose.
I'm far too noble to lie.
That man in whom
These qualities bloom,
C'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis I.
I've never strayed
From all I believe;
I'm blessed with an iron will.
Had I been made
The partner of Eve,
We'd be in Eden still.
C'est moi! C'est moi! The angels have chose
To fight their battles below,
And here I stand, as pure as a pray'r,
Incredibly clean, with virtue to spare,
The godliest man I know!
C'est moi!
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Clerics get a lot more power from their deity than paladins, yet a lawful good cleric is under a lot less restrictions than the paladin. Huh?
Furthermore, you can't lie. I can't stress this enough. It's the only clear thing in the paladin code.
IMC I say paladins are "discouraged" from lying (LG characters probably don't lie all the time), and certainly can't tell "big" lies to allies (but you can still tell a plain girl she's pretty).
I can play a lawful good character, and I can play one who isn't a lawful stupid paladinbot, but only if they remove the restriction on lying. Being unable to lie either means you're trying to play a Minbari ("a half-truth is the worst kind of lie") and trying to metagame your way past that part of the code, or your character is lawful stupid, or he loses his powers within two weeks.
And then the paladin can't associate with most parties...
Furthermore, you can't lie. I can't stress this enough. It's the only clear thing in the paladin code.
IMC I say paladins are "discouraged" from lying (LG characters probably don't lie all the time), and certainly can't tell "big" lies to allies (but you can still tell a plain girl she's pretty).
I can play a lawful good character, and I can play one who isn't a lawful stupid paladinbot, but only if they remove the restriction on lying. Being unable to lie either means you're trying to play a Minbari ("a half-truth is the worst kind of lie") and trying to metagame your way past that part of the code, or your character is lawful stupid, or he loses his powers within two weeks.
And then the paladin can't associate with most parties...
FireLance
Legend
I like paladins, but I will freely admit they are not for everyone. It's really a matter of taste. A paladin is about doing the right thing (good) in the right way (lawful), and some people don't want that. As Ranger REG said, there is a significant culture of anti-hero worship, or at least anti-establishment hero worship (the guy who succeeds because he *doesn't* follow the rules or social norms). If the other players want to run such characters, or the DM sets up a situation in which the PCs can only succed if they don't follow the rules, a paladin PC creates tension which may be good, but is more often than not bad.
A paladin works best in games where the most favourable outcome happens when the PCs act morally, even though it seems inconvenient, dangerous or illogical. However, I guess many players would not like such games because they feel "preachy".
A paladin works best in games where the most favourable outcome happens when the PCs act morally, even though it seems inconvenient, dangerous or illogical. However, I guess many players would not like such games because they feel "preachy".
Mouseferatu
Hero
Somebody raised this point already, but I want to point it out in case it's been overlooked.
"I don't want someone playing a paladin in my group, because it's going to prevent me from playing a morally-ambiguous rogue the way I want to."
Couldn't that just as easily be reversed, though? "I don't want someone playing a morally ambiguous rogue in my group, because it's going to prevent me from playing the paladin I want to."
True, the paladin's the one with the code, but I still think it a bit unfair that it's always assumed the player who wants to portray a paladin is always the one expected to sacrifice his desired character for the good of the group. Sometimes, the compromise should go the other way.
That said, I believe it's entirely possible to play a paladin in a group that's not all goody-goodies, as long as nobody's actually evil. So long as the paladin focuses on good over law, doesn't expect others to live up his standards, and leads by example rather than lecture, there shouldn't be a problem with it at all.
(Look back a few pages and reread the Batman/Superman comparison. It's spot-on, IMO.)
"I don't want someone playing a paladin in my group, because it's going to prevent me from playing a morally-ambiguous rogue the way I want to."
Couldn't that just as easily be reversed, though? "I don't want someone playing a morally ambiguous rogue in my group, because it's going to prevent me from playing the paladin I want to."
True, the paladin's the one with the code, but I still think it a bit unfair that it's always assumed the player who wants to portray a paladin is always the one expected to sacrifice his desired character for the good of the group. Sometimes, the compromise should go the other way.
That said, I believe it's entirely possible to play a paladin in a group that's not all goody-goodies, as long as nobody's actually evil. So long as the paladin focuses on good over law, doesn't expect others to live up his standards, and leads by example rather than lecture, there shouldn't be a problem with it at all.
(Look back a few pages and reread the Batman/Superman comparison. It's spot-on, IMO.)
pawsplay
Hero
Why is that true? Lancelot's squire was a forest bandit. In a game I played, the party leader was a Fighter/Paladin, an old war veteran who had been called by his faith. My character was a NG bard who served as his squire. One of m jobs was to outmaneuver the Paladin's code... by making constructive suggestions to resolve moral conflicts, by forcing his hand through my own actions, and from time to time, lying to him.
The only characters Paladins can't work with are evil ones. A Paladin is expected to uphold a code, but they should know better than to expect the same of others. There is no more inherent conflict between a Rogue and a Paladin and, say, a Dwarven fighter and an elven Druid, or a Barbarian and a LG Cleric.
The key to playing a lying crook in the same party as a Paladin is to make sure you lie to the Paladin thoroughly.
nimisgod
LEW Judge
Ah the Paladin! The class that provokes the most arguments and discussions anywhere!
Personally, I like playing paladins. But I know that playing one can cramp everyone else's style. So, I think it's imperative that a player ask his group before he plays something as stringent as a paladin.
I find it strange though that that people claim that an LG cleric of righteousness isn't as strict as a paladin. It certainly shouldn't always be the case since clerics have codes of their own.
Personally, I like playing paladins. But I know that playing one can cramp everyone else's style. So, I think it's imperative that a player ask his group before he plays something as stringent as a paladin.
I find it strange though that that people claim that an LG cleric of righteousness isn't as strict as a paladin. It certainly shouldn't always be the case since clerics have codes of their own.
ThoughtBubble
First Post
As a player? I dislike paladins since they're the only class that has such highly built in DM Fiat for "You lose all your abilities." It's hard dealing with 2 skill points a level, especially when I want 5 skills off of a skill list. Stat distribution is a pain; Str, Con, Cha and Wis are all important, and I like having Int and Dex. The one smite per day (3.0) also rubbed me the wrong way, as does having mount powers in a dungeon (mostly useless).
As a DM? There's a strong possiblity, that in a moral situationally heavy game, the paladin will cause group strife and difficulties. There's also the player who picks one, then proceeds to burn children alive for money. Aside from those two, I love Paladins as players.
As a DM? There's a strong possiblity, that in a moral situationally heavy game, the paladin will cause group strife and difficulties. There's also the player who picks one, then proceeds to burn children alive for money. Aside from those two, I love Paladins as players.
Similar Threads
