Why aren't paladins liked?

[Kahuna Burger]

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).

I think it was just a movie thing. specificly the first movie. I was never a DC head, so I don't know how bad it screwed with continuity. It was very clunky in terms of longterm plot and they obviously dropped it even in later movies. But it come to mind when people used him for paladin comparisons. Are paladins like the movie superman who blurts out the color of lois lane's panties because she asked him a minute before, and has to do what he promised the villain's girlfriend, or a more reasonable superman who is honorable but can and will lie to protect people? (or the dark knight returns superman who is just a tool? )

kahuna burger

 

[Grizpapa]

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

The way I see it is that your problem isn't with "paladins" it's with people who play them like fools.

I've seen many good pro-Paladin posts on this thread. I've also seen some very misguided/misinformed anti-Paladin posts in this thread. So let's talk about that.

Problems with Paladins I've seen here:

1) People play them like idiots, Lawful Stupid, Arrogant, Holier-than-thou, etc.

2)DMs pigeon-hole the Paladin and because of whatever reason end up railroading them into losing their Palainhood.

3) The Paladin player gets in the way of my PC looting, and stealing for everything insight, live, dead or inanimate.


None of these are problems with the Paladin as a class. These are all social/people issues. Don't you understand that?

Issue 1 above: Paladin's Player is the problem. This type of player really doesn't understand what paladins are all about and they should not be allowed to play one. Any paladin that acts like that wouldn't be a paladin for long.

Issue 2 above: The DM is the problem. This is a definate DM issue, any DM that railroads a Paladin into a no win situation just to cause them to lose their powers should be shot.

Issue 3 above: This is also a Player problem. If you want to play that kind of character you should make sure you're in a neutral or evil game. Unless your group is the kind that fuels itself with character friction and sees it as a valuable addition to the gaming experience.

So there you have, none of those is a problem with the class itself it's a problem with the people involved.


Of course these are all generalizations, issues differ between different types of Paladins.

I'll post more later.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

None of these are problems with the Paladin as a class. These are all social/people issues. Don't you understand that?

actually, no, its that I don't AGREE with that, or your poor attempt to summarize the arguments, or with the assertion that the problems some people have with paladins are based on being misguided/misinformed. And with that classic bit of arrogence and presumption, you have saved me the bother of reading the rest of your Kind Explaination.

You choose a bad part to respond to, btw. My comments there actually had nothing to do with paladins per se, but more people who build metagaming into their game worlds...

Kahuna Burger

 

[jgbrowning]

I think the fact that paladins generate such rancor within gaming circles is enough to have a problem with them. No other class does this because no other class challanges what players think is morally right or wrong with case by case examples. Other classes spur heated debate, but that debate is usually more casual and less rancorous because people are talking about the game as opposed to what they believe is right and wrong in real life.

Too many DMs and too many players with personal axes to grind about what is "good" and what isn't, about what is "allowed" and what "isn't," about what is "good roleplaying a paladin" and "poor roleplaying a paladin."

I say we take off and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Get rid of them and lets play the game as opposed to some weird quasi-morality play that happens as each GM and Player comes up with their own idea about what a paladin really is and what a paladin can and can't do.

joe b.

 

[ForceUser]

I think the fact that paladins generate such rancor within gaming circles is enough to have a problem with them. No other class does this because no other class challanges what players think is morally right or wrong with case by case examples. Other classes spur heated debate, but that debate is usually more casual and less rancorous because people are talking about the game as opposed to what they believe is right and wrong in real life.

Too many DMs and too many players with personal axes to grind about what is "good" and what isn't, about what is "allowed" and what "isn't," about what is "good roleplaying a paladin" and "poor roleplaying a paladin."

I say we take off and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Get rid of them and lets play the game as opposed to some weird quasi-morality play that happens as each GM and Player comes up with their own idea about what a paladin really is and what a paladin can and can't do.

joe b.

As long as there is a relationship of trust between a paladin's player and the other players, even a tense relationship between the paladin and the rest of the party can serve the story instead of detract from it. The real issue is maturity (or lack thereof), not a paladin's code of conduct. A mature group simply doesn't have a rancorous relationship with any character class.

 

[jgbrowning]

As long as there is a relationship of trust between a paladin's player and the other players, even a tense relationship between the paladin and the rest of the party can serve the story instead of detract from it. The real issue is maturity (or lack thereof), not a paladin's code of conduct. A mature group simply doesn't have a rancorous relationship with any character class.

Does a group need the same amount of maturity to deal with a typical fighter? IMHO, no.

The problem isn't simply maturity, although maturity is obviously a factor in every issue of contention. It's the fact that paladin's "code of conduct" is a rancorous issue that requires additional maturity (beyond all other classes) because players have to deal with what everyone thinks is right or wrong in real life. Which isn't something that is required by other classes to "play right."

Paladin's have caused so many more arguements, negative feelings, bad-mouthing, condesention, anger, than any other single class in the the history of the game because the core of the issue is what is good and lawful in the real world as opposed to an actual game issue.

I think paladins rile people up, cause arguements based upon personal/cultural issues of "good," and in general, force conflict upon many different gamers. For this reason, and this reason alone, I don't like them.

They are more detrimental to gameplay than any other class, and have a history of being such. This isn't to say that paladins can't be fun, exciting and great for a group as you wrote. This is just to say that they are a "problem" class. They cause more arguements and contention than any other class while adding little in exchange that a simple Lawful Good fighter/cleric cannot achieve; without the contentious issue of abilities dependent upon mutualistic interpretation of real-life morality.

joe b.

 

[ph0rk]

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.

I'd have to agree; many of the people I've gamed with (thankfully not recently) have thought or felt this way. (Well, they acted that way )

Until you actually go do something useful, who is to say you aren't just a sneaky rogue or bard? (or trickery-cleric). In other words: a con man. A fraud. It ain't like there is a paladin badge or something.

 

[Haradim]

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.

I agree. I never hear of Clerics that are actually required to be...you know, priests/bearers of the gods wills, save in a very general sense (along the lines of 'stay NG and you can continue to get spells from God X'). I've found it odd in the past; Paladins are expected to be highly rigid in their ethics, and very faithful to the word and will of a god, even to the point of trying to convert people around them, despite being far more Fighter than Cleric. Clerics seem to be expected to recover their spells once a day, and never bring up 'other responsibilities'.

I suspect the uproar would be too furious to modify the Cleric, though. People often have problems with Paladins, a class that is very easy to simply not use, without really affecting the party. But Clerics are much harder to ignore, and I suspect the booing would overwhelm the cheering over such a change (no matter how appropriate and true to the 'Cleric' concept the change would be :/ )

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

The nukem solution doesn't deal with paladin players and would be undone immediately by 3rd party publications. Who would probably use the excuse for a 1st ed., UA style, cavalier power-up.

Ime the problems regarding paladins have been:

1) P*n*s envy by the player running the fighter.
2) A personal hostility from the rogue player who couldn't stand alignments, the paladin player and D&D's absolute morality basis.

The envy was overcome by a wyvern ambush that killed both offenders (who kissed and made up) and the personal antagonism was overcome by the rogue player's exclusion.

So I am another person that believes that the problem is not with the paladin class but between the people at the game table.

 

[FireLance]

You know, after reading through this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that a DM or player's attitude towards paladins is going to significantly affect whether I enjoy playing with him.

You see, I enjoy running characters that are heroic, self-sacrificing and law-abiding, whether it's an elven fighter/mage/thief (2e) that ventures alone into a necromancer's lair to retrieve an evil artifact because the rest of the party is too busy infighting, or a human cleric that faces down a bodak alone because the party's main fighter failed his save against its death gaze.

If the DM sets it up so that the party can only succeed through illegal or morally dubious means, or a player feels "constrained" by my character's actions and beliefs, I don't think I'm going to like the game, whether I play a paladin or not.