Why aren't paladins liked?

[Cannibal_Kender]

Nobody in my group can play a paladin correctly. They use come off as arrogant jerks who solve their problems with the flat of their blade.

 

[FireLance]

Nobody in my group can play a paladin correctly. They use come off as arrogant jerks who solve their problems with the flat of their blade.

Just wondering: do they act the same when they play the other classes? If not, the problem is they don't know how to play paladins in a non-jerk way, and the solution is to educate them. There are plenty of suggestions in this thread.

If they generally act like jerks regardless of class, it's a player problem and I feel very sorry that you have to put up with them.

 

[Endur]

I think Paladins are great, from both a player and GM perspective. From a GM perspective, it gives the GM a lot more background info on the character than the GM might normally have (a "hero"). From a player perspective, it makes the character easier to play in some ways.

A couple of things to put into perspective. First, I don't think the Paladin's code is stricter than Lawful Good ... I think the Paladin's code is the definition of Lawful Good.

Second, I agree with those that say a Paladin is Lawful in order to maximize Good. i.e. The Paladin is both Lawful and Good because he recognizes one is not possible without the other.

Third, I think the Paladin class could just as easily have been called the "hero" class.

There are also several ways to munchkinize Paladins, but you'll forgive me if I don't delve into those methods. But basically they revolve around Smite Evil and Mounted Combat (and heaven forbid epic smite evil).

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

Why aren't paladins liked?

Because they're fascists. [/ideologue]

 

[Endur]

No, no, no. Paladins are Lawful Good. Fascists are Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral.

Because they're fascists. [/ideologue]

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

Nobody in my group can play a paladin correctly. They use come off as arrogant jerks who solve their problems with the flat of their blade.

There's a player in the party (a former Marine, which might explain things) automatically assumes my halfling rogue is a despicable creature and threatened to lop off a hand. Sheesh. He's taken the lawful to Judge Dredd extremes without much of the mercy (good) part. Unfortunately I didn't try to catch him in one of those morality questions like 'would you kill everyone in an orc village? even the innocent babies?'

Now in a Scarred Lands campaign, I play a NG priest of Corean. Apparently his behavior actually had at least one other player think he was more paladinic, even tho he occasionally utters an expletive (Farscape's frell). *shrug* He may be a priest but no one said he had to be a saint. IMO the same applies to a paladin (within reason). Paladins (and priests) aren't infallible. They're only human (or elf or dwarf or whatever race you're playing).

I am highly tempted to play a paladin (preferably a small one mounted on a dog ) but as there's a morally ambigous necromancer (NE) and an ethically challenged Forsaken elf rogue in the party, I'd give up on it out of frustration.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

Why would a druid care about a unique ecosystem? A sacred grove, yes, that is to be protected. But druids aren't necessarily tree-huggers. Some invoke the power of nature spirits to protect their tribe from enemies, some simply seek the power for its own sake, and some seek to appease the dark and ancient spirits of the woodlands with periodic animal sacrifices, lest they grow hungry and send out the Wild Hunt to bring back some prey. Druids can be good or evil, lawful or chaotic. And there are a number of potential relationships between the druid and the wild.

I'm an environmentalist IRL and playing a druid in game - so obviously I want to make a distinction. The character is not me and does not remotely have the same mindset or priorities. I realize this is a bit off-topic, but I think it's similar how some DMs will see a very narrow set of allowed actions for either class.

 

[Selvarin]

The Paladin prestige class variant from Unearthed Arcana solves this problem nicely. You're usually beefier, either because you have four levels of fighter and weapon specialization, or because you have four levels of cleric and greatly enhanced spellcasting (a fighter 1/cleric 4/paladin 15 casts spells as a 12th level cleric). Either way, the paladin is a bit tougher than the standard PHB class. Check it out.

Or a Clr 2/Ftr 3. In any case I prefer the prestige paladin and wouldn't mind seeing the blackguard as a 15-level Prc.

 

[Selvarin]

A peasant sees a guy on a horse, wearing plate armour, riding towards him. The guy has the symbol of Generic Lawful Good Deity #1 on his shield.

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).

Which is why it's a good idea to tie paladins to various L/G orders within a campaign setting. Heraldic (sp?) devices linked to such orders go a long way towards eliminating confusion.

 

[DragonLancer]

I may be getting the chance in a few weeks to start play with a new gaming group, and if so I really want to play a Paladin. As his code, I plan on using a mix of the Knightly Code from S&S's Excalibur with some ideas taken from the Jedi code.

Brother McLaren, I heary agree with you about the different types of druids. They arn't all the same thing, and the same is true of Paladins. Each one is unique with his own foibles and personality.