Why aren't paladins liked?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Actually, all druids are alike... oh wait, that was in 2e.

If the DM is handing out mithral veins, he's not paying attention to how much gp he's giving to the players. Sounds like a DM problem to me.

 

[Psiblade]

I like other people have stated have had just awful experiences with core rule paladins. They have tended to be the Lawful Good fascists type in both home games and LG. The whole holier than thou approach also tends to be problematic. I have been using a modified paladin (holy warrior) from the book of the righteous that has worked out well. Tying the holy warriors' attitude to their deities' attitudes works so much better from my experience.

-Psiblade

 

[Geoff Watson]

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.

Yes, but it only takes one Evil act to permanently stuff up a Paladin, while it takes consistent actions to change alignment.

Geoff.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

My biggest problem wasn't with Paladins, but with clerics, oddly enough.

I was a paladin, the party cleric was a lawful good cleric of Heironeous.

You'd think we'd get along just fine. You'd be wrong.

He was constantly being rude to common people, was always insulting people for not giving him stuff for free, and when it was found that we were actually breaking the law at one point. (DM railroading, I didn't appreciate it that much, but that's another post), the character actually told the mayor "I don't care for your laws. I only care for war." (This was after the mayor said that he would forgiv eus for our minor crime if we took care of the bandits harassing travelers to the capitol of the province.)

However, he didn't want to be a cleric. He wanted to be a longsword weilding healer. He was pretty good at it, he was just crappy at being a priest of a god of chivalry.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I love playing Paladins. It is funny that you bring up the Cleric though. I've found players don't like Paladins because in most cases they equate "Lawful" with Law-Abiding. They don't believe the Paladin will allow their characters the freedom to "be all that they can be". As a DM I run Paladins differently, Paladins in my campaign are the hand picked champions of a god. It could be some boy from out in the sticks who never lifted a sword in his life. In my campaign Lawful simply means that the character has an orderly approach to life. He never rushes in but always has a plan. He prefers a rank structure so he knows his role in life and society. Paladins only follow a knightly code if the player wants them to... a knightly Lawful Good Fighter could follow a much more strict code than a Paladin who was raised in the sticks. Paladins have become a bit more popular in my game since I've made this distinction in the alignment and class.
Personally I think Clerics should be held accountable for their actions just as much if not more than Paladins. A cleric who worships a god of law should be the one telling the rogue to give back pickpocketed gains. Failure to do so (in my campaign at least) would result in forfeiture of spell casting abilities (and Turn Undead abilities) until attonement was made.

 

[FireLance]

I've found players don't like Paladins because in most cases they equate "Lawful" with Law-Abiding. They don't believe the Paladin will allow their characters the freedom to "be all that they can be".

Again, this is only a problem if you have PCs that want to walk on the shadier side of the law. PCs in my games are encouraged to be law-abiding because running afoul of the law is usually more trouble than it's worth.

 

[The_Gneech]

I've heard all kinds of horror stories about paladins, but never actually encountered any problems with them in actual games. In the game I play in, one of the other players has a paladin and we get along like gangbusters. (My character is NG with some chaotic tendencies ... he obeys the law, but grumbles about it.) I actually wanted to play a paladin myself, but he'd already scooped me on it.

My favorite memory associated with paladins is a semi-recent Phil & Dixie cartoon in the back of Dragon magazine; the cartoon was about how much fun it was to humiliate goody-goodies, and some evil character whomped a paladin in the face with a pie.

The paladin, instead of getting angry or outraged, got a big, good-natured grin on his face and said, "Mmm, pie! Thanks!" ... much to the annoyance of the would-be tormentor.

A great moment, and a good model for paladins everywhere.

-The Gneech

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

The paladin will say "I've got another solution, not quite as good, but it means I don't have to lie" and then wonder why the rest of the party is giving him hateful glares...

That's faulty reasoning.

Any character without full ranks in bluff as a class skill who tries to lie their way into a thieves guild is dog food. Period.

Yes, the paladin can't lie his way into the theive's guild. Neither can the Fighter, Barbarian, Druid, Non trickery domain cleric, Wizard, Sorceror, Ranger, Wu-jen, Shugenja, Samurai, Sohei, Psion, Psychic warrior, Wilder, Soulknife, or the hexblade.

In short, if the party is not 100% rogues, clerics with the trickery domain, and bards, lying into the thieves guild won't work for the party. The fact that the paladin can't lie has nothing to do with it, not very many people can lie well enough to get away with that. The fighter is just as much as a liability, he CAN lie, but there's no way that he could do so very well.

And you can be damn sure that guild thieves would have at least full ranks in sense motive, if not magical means of truth discernment for people nosing their way into the guild that they don't trust, thieves trust other thieves least of all, they're not fools.

Sorry for the lateness of the reply. I was going to let this slide, but it kept bothering me that no one contested this fact.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

That's faulty reasoning.

Any character without full ranks in bluff as a class skill who tries to lie their way into a thieves guild is dog food. Period.

now you are the one using faulty reasoning. The point as I read it was that there are plenty of plans (or situations) where even an untrained lie (and paladins do at least usualy have the base cha to give it a shot) is neccassary. Claiming you can always "refuse to say" or be silent or whatever was silly, and if the example overstepped in mechanics the base point is still there. Bluffing into the inner circle? Sure, probably dog food. Using the names of the agents you intercepted just to get in the front door? No big. Saying "I choose not to give my name, but I'm with them" because there's no reason you'd ever need to lie? death to the entire plan.

There are plenty of gaming situations where the good and even largely lawful heroes are nonetheless undercover. Claiming that only those with "dodgy" motives find it hard to work with a (hard core, by the book, inflexible) paladin, or that its all about wanting to be morally amibiguous antiheroes is missing the point. Sometimes you want to do something a little different from riding your warhorse into the throngs of evil, smiting them head on then going back to the inn for a round of ale and the free dessert from your "kiss me, I'm a paladin" tee shirt.... its the difference between a character class that might not be suited to one of many adventure ideas, and one which is really only suited to one adventure idea.

(On a side note to various superman comparisions, I never understood how superman's supposed inability to lie could work with his secret identity. How many times could he give an evasive answer or ignore the question when someone asked "what did you do at lunch" or "I didn't see you when the building was attacked. Where were you" or whatever? The office physical: "Mr Kent, do you have any allergies?" "Er, kryptonite.")

oh and as much as it pains me to agree with hong, I hate campaigns where everyone with the paladin class has the kiss me I'm a paladin tee shirt and no fighters, or fighter clerics, or rangers with favored enemy undead hold the same place in society. I don't think paladin orders are the answer, I think the answer is accepting that the paladin is just another guy with a sword and has to work for a good rep like everyone else.

Kahuna Burger

 

[WizarDru]

(On a side note to various superman comparisions, I never understood how superman's supposed inability to lie could work with his secret identity. How many times could he give an evasive answer or ignore the question when someone asked "what did you do at lunch" or "I didn't see you when the building was attacked. Where were you" or whatever? The office physical: "Mr Kent, do you have any allergies?" "Er, kryptonite.")

Superman can't lie? Why not? Is that a holdover from his 'can toss planets out of their orbit and then only fight Mohammed Ali to a standstill days'?

Seriously, as I understood it, Supes really doesn't like to lie, but is capable when he truly perceives the need. (even if he regrets doing it, each time).