Why aren't paladins liked?

[kigmatzomat]

I love Paladins and some of my players agree. We have some basic "gentleman's agreements" where paladins are concerned that may violate the letter of the rules but not the spirit.

1) Campaign start: Paladins won't knowingly consort with evil but if they agree to do something good and it requires working with evil they will but they watch evil like a hawk. If after a time they realize that the evil is selfish but with the potential for good (or at least neutrality) they might stay around them to convert them. If they're really dangerous but haven't done anything justifying a good smiting they'll stay around to make sure they *don't* do anything to justify a smiting.

2) Superman/Batman teamup: Paladins won't break their code and they won't let someone do something evil. They will, if need be, allow people to be neutral (I.e. threats, deception, intimidation, using painful force where incapacitation was otherwise possible, etc).

3) Paladins are people too. Depending on the setting and paladin, they may frequent prostitutes, drink, and even enjoy a good brawl. But they're always courteous, tip well, never force someone to do something they don't want, and avoid causing harm. (A paladin and a barbarian can get into a brawl and be laughing at the end of it, hence no harm done.)

4) Paladins fight the Good fight which also means they fight good. They use tactics, ambushes, stealth, guile, explosives, and other combat-effective tactics. They don't use women for body shields or children to find traps. A paladin with rogue levels can, and does, sneak attack. Combined with Smite and Divine sacrifice it can really lay a demon out. Assassination is a darkly gray area but, IMO, as long as the opponent is blatantly & irredeemably evil it's a-ok. A 6th level paladin who has one arrow of dragon slaying is perfectly justified in assassinating the red dragon.

I've plaid lots of paladins, mostly as NPCs both in my game and in others that I'd kibbitz. Some were the epitomy of the bad stereotype paladin (called the thief "trap springer", was haughty, etc) but at the same time he grappled Lord Soth while blinded to protect the rest of the party because it was the right thing to do. (I'll note that that paladin was an NPC in another person's game and I was just following instructions)

Others, like my current paladin H'orst, are well liked by good and not-so-good characters alike. H'orst drinks like a fish, socializes well, enjoys combat, is charitable to those in need, has no problem using his social status for a good reason but is otherwise "plain folks" and generally, IMO, the epitomy of a good paladin. But I'm sure he'd have already fallen in other games despite being an almost golden example of a pure & good soul in mine.

 

[WizarDru]

Is this a paladin, a fighter, or a cleric? Who knows? At low levels, there is _nothing_ outward to distinguish between these three classes, except on close examination (two guys have holy symbols; of these, one has a martial weapon).

d00d, the fighter is the guy with the tower shield. duh.

Is this a paladin, a fighter, or a cleric? Who cares? At high levels, a character's deeds speak for themselves. Any high-level PC worth his salt in D&D will probably have slain hundreds of icky monsters, most of which would likely have been evil. You can be an honourable and upstanding martial champion regardless of what class you are: fighter, paladin or even barbarian, at a pinch.

I agree. I wasn't trying to say otherwise...just pointing out to Quasqueton that some people like the restrictions that the paladin operates under. Mechanically, if you remove the code and multiclass restrictions, the game somehow manages not to collapse (despite some folks ideas to the contrary).

For whatever reason, paladins tend to bring out extremist interpretations of ethics and morality in a lot of people (as has been demonstrated by certain other persons in this thread). I don't need that sort of humbug when I play D&D. While it's certainly much nicer if there's a specific class to handle the knight-in-shining-armour schtick, I can still make do without.

I dig. You and Voadam both raise a legitimate point. Personally, I've never had a problem with it...but then I've never played with people I don't like and/or generally don't trust. Except that one time at a con...but I swear I didn't inhale.

 

[Ranger5]

Well I thought I would chime in with my .02.

I have played only 2 paladins in my gaming years. One was in 3rd edition and one is now, in 3.5. I never wanted to play one in 1st or 2nd edition because I was too hung up on half-elven fighters (thank you Tanis Half-elven).

My first paladin lasted only one session because the rest of the party died and the DM gave up. Basically we were sent in to a dungeon to route some orcs and rescue some villagers. Well we came across the villagers just a little way into the dungeon being help captive in cages. After dispatching the orc guards I suggested we free the captives, lead them back to the village (1 day away) and then come back. The rest of the party disagreed saying the orcs would notice and fortify their positions. I countered that the villagers could be killed while we are going the the rest of the dungeon and they were much to weak to make it back on their own. We finally agreed that I would lead the villagers back while the rest of the party would hold position. But once I was gone, they decided to continue on without me. They got killed when they met up with heavy resistance and did not have any healing, as I was the only one with healing. I got out though, with the villagers safely.

The second one is my current PC. He is great. I am having a blast playing him. The other 2 party members are a LN elven monk a N human cleric. And as for those who don't think the paladin can dish out a lot of damage, last session (I am 6th level) I smited a monster with a critical hit for 76 points of damage. And I rolled like crap.

Anyway, role-playing a paladin is a lot of fun too. Because of my high Cha and maxed out diplomacy I usually end op speaking for the party as well. And no one seems to mind either. Also for those you think the paladin should be more good than lawful, I fully agree. If the paladin was supposed to be a stuck-up, holier-than-thou, can-never-do-anything-sneaky-to-achieve-the-greater-good kind of character, then tell me why they have Undetectable Alignment as a 2nd level spell?

Just a thought.

 

[eris404]

And yet, I've never played a paladin. Why? Because I don't want to get into tedious alignment wars with people over what my character can and can't do. I don't want DMs arbitrarily putting restrictions on my actions based on what they thought LG meant when they got up that morning.

For whatever reason, paladins tend to bring out extremist interpretations of ethics and morality in a lot of people (as has been demonstrated by certain other persons in this thread). I don't need that sort of humbug when I play D&D. While it's certainly much nicer if there's a specific class to handle the knight-in-shining-armour schtick, I can still make do without.

AMEN! Very, very well said.

 

[diaglo]

in the last 4 years i've only seen one played and refereed correctly.

my hat is off to Mike Brock (the player) and Glenn Dean (the DM)

 

[Mort]

in the last 4 years i've only seen one played and refereed correctly.

my hat is off to Mike Brock (the player) and Glenn Dean (the DM)

The paladin class is the only one where both the player and the DM have to agree what "played correctly" means if there is any hope of things going smoothly.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

Wow, heck of a good post!

Because they personify heroic fantas, I really like playing paladins, but only when the DM sees them as you describe above. If they want me to play lawful stupid, or are only going to try to prove how stupid the paladins code is according to "post-post-modern philosophy" or whatever, I d rather play something else.

Do you mind if I use this post to screen future DMs?

Of course, if I post things in public, you can use it however you want.

 

[pawsplay]

They have a heavy mechanical consequence to roleplaying actions that can be interpreted very differently between PCs and DMs.

That is also true of Barbarians, who lose their ability to Rage if they turn Lawful. It's true of Monks, who risk more than Paladins if they lose alignment; atoning is not enough, if they cannot correct their alignment problem before the next time they level. It's definitely true of Clerics. Clerics don't have an "easy out" just because they're not Paladins. Clerics of Heironeous face essentially the same restrictions as Paladins, and they don't have a good BAB to fall back on if they violate their alignment behavior.

Druids? If you find a vein of mithril, and it is flooded under a lake with a unique ecosystem, you can't mine it. Not to make a million gp's, not to arm thirty Rangers and fight off the Evil Overlord, not to fund a wildlife preserve.

A Chaotic Good Fighter sees an innocent woman heading to the gallows... he can't not do something, and expect to keep his alignment.

 

[Sir Elton]

DMing Paladins

I'm DMing a paladin right now, and we are having a blast. We roleplayed through some tests of his abilities, plus his initiation as a Paladin. He is now a Squire of the Lord Earl. However, I made it so that he is a Squire Errant.

I got the player to spell out the Virtues that his Paladin believes in so that he could have a clear idea on how to play his paladin. His character is a Paladin of Torm. Eventually, because I'm allowing it, he plans to become an Asha'man from the Wheel of Time RPG.

The Player liked the Initiate and the Asha'man in the Wheel of Time RPG. He told me how he liked the Composure skill. I still get to test his PC's faith (the whole campaign is a Test of Faith for this paladin since he is my only player in the campaign). And I get to introduce interesting NPCs for him to interact with. One of them is going to be a Psychic Warrior who might become his Squire in action if not in name. We are going through Three Days to Kill at the moment. After that, the real campaign begins, since it will start with his Knighting Ceremony.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've had enormous fun playing a paladin (worked out quite a lot like "carrot" from Guards Guards! by Terry Pratchett). He was an escaped slave, and used his old chains as his weapon for freedom (exotic weapon spiked chain, expertise, improved trip). He was a great negotiator and he always looked for the good in his companions and highlighted it. They really missed him when he settled down.

In the game I DM there is a paladin who has been around for ages and is probably the central character. He has a huge charisma and NPCs naturally gravitate towards him. His fearlessness is one of his defining characteristics.

Then again, look at Piratecats storyhour. Mara and Malachite are both paladins, both different, both work wonderfully well.

Also look at Sepulchraves storyhour - Eadric is another model for a paladin.

If a DM chooses, paladins can provide brilliant role playing hooks that work for the whole campaign (see the ghouleax episodes in Piratecats or pretty much any of Sep's storyhour).