Why aren't paladins liked?

[DragonLancer]

DM's can take the whole Paladin walking the narrow path of LGness too far, but then I do think that during any campaign the DM should throw a moral quandry in there to test the paladin character.
I'm not saying that the DM should force the character into a situation where he will almost certainly lose his paladinhood, but something that tells a story and gives the paladin some spotlight.

This can backfire though. I'll give an example from my last campaign.

During an adventure to recover a healing artifact, the party were tricked into believing that it was inside a sealed tomb of a holy saint. Without a shadow of a doubt the paladin went to smash it open and reclaim it. I asked was he sure he wanted to do that, and he said yes. So, he lost his powers for desecrating the tomb (he didn't just try to open it, he smashed it open).

The next story he was offered a chance to atone for this act (I didn't see it as that big an issue). He refused, saying that what he did was for the betterment of others and that any deity who would condone his champion because of that was not worth his service, and so he semi-retired the character (Who would return later in the game as a blackguard villain).

 

[Voadam]

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.

Issue 4

disagreement between paladin PC and DM over what constitutes "evil acts or gross violations of the code" causing the PC to lose his paladin powers when he does not think it was justified or forcing him to restrict himself from actions he feels are actually justified.

Issue 5

Constant risk of losing class powers for single actions.

Other classes have to do much more to lose their class powers under the core rules.

 

[ARandomGod]

DM's can take the whole Paladin walking the narrow path of LGness too far, but then I do think that during any campaign the DM should throw a moral quandry in there to test the paladin character.
I'm not saying that the DM should force the character into a situation where he will almost certainly lose his paladinhood, but something that tells a story and gives the paladin some spotlight.

This can backfire though. I'll give an example from my last campaign.

During an adventure to recover a healing artifact, the party were tricked into believing that it was inside a sealed tomb of a holy saint. Without a shadow of a doubt the paladin went to smash it open and reclaim it. I asked was he sure he wanted to do that, and he said yes. So, he lost his powers for desecrating the tomb (he didn't just try to open it, he smashed it open).

The next story he was offered a chance to atone for this act (I didn't see it as that big an issue). He refused, saying that what he did was for the betterment of others and that any deity who would condone his champion because of that was not worth his service, and so he semi-retired the character (Who would return later in the game as a blackguard villain).

But I agree with him. He should have picked out a better God, or at least looked more closely at the god he was under.
I would never worship such a god, and in deed would scorn him. So would any paladin I'd play. On the other hand, there are campaigns wherein the DM doesn't have any LG gods that agree with me. And that's reason number 2 why I hate paladins. Reason number 1 is poor player playing. A well played paladin, with a GM who's doesn't lack the imagination to include a definition of LG that isn't the same stuck up pompus bastards that I wouldn't want a player to play -- that can be great fun, and not too restrictive.

"Descecrating" a tomb. And to help people. How is that not good?
I can see how it's perhaps less than lawful, but even there only in the rare (in my opinion) case that tombs are protected by law.

In fact, I could only interpret NOT doing so as evil. Sure, sure, maybe he should have tried something simpler than smash. But then, what should an atonement for smashing such a thing be other than to repair the site?
^_^
Well, perhaps a little more.

So, while I almost agree that there was a moral test there, I wouldn't say that there was enough to lose the paladin's paladonicness... Of course, I'm assuming he didn't try anything else, and the rules don't give guidelines for partial loss of powers.
I think I'd've given him guilty prophetic dreams, then thrown him into similiar situations, and see if he reacts differently.

 

[ph0rk]

But I agree with him. He should have picked out a better God, or at least looked more closely at the god he was under.

Paladins do not pick a specific god: they serve good.

However, unless they were under a severe time constraint (minutes, seconds) smashing the tomb rather than opening it was disrespectful, and chaotic. If the player can't see that, they should be playing a paladin anyway. LG doesn't mean LG when you feel like it.

I mean, it was a tomb of a holy saint; in dnd thats nearly like the tomb of a diety.

 

[Urbannen]

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities.

According to the SRD, the paladin would not have lost his abilities for smashing open the tomb of the holy saint. Smashing a holy tomb:
-Does not make the paladin cease to be Lawful Good.
-Is not a willful Evil act. It's certainly not Good and is possibly Chaotic, but I can't see how it's willfully Evil.
-Does not grossly violate the paladin code of conduct as the code of conduct does not include honoring holy relics.

DragonLancer, I have to disagree with how you handled that situation, unless the code of the god expressly included the honoring of holy relics. Your example illustrates to me how DMs can hamstring and punish players that play paladins without even realizing they're doing it.

 

[Professor Phobos]

I don't get it.

A guy with a very different moral code than some of the other characters? That's what we call conflict, folks.

Likewise, a guy who has to reconcile the practicalities of the world with the dictates of his ethical code and divine obligations? That is what we call conflict and it is rather important to telling stories.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Smashing a holy tomb:
[..]
-Is not a willful Evil act. It's certainly not Good and is possibly Chaotic, but I can't see how it's willfully Evil.
-Does not grossly violate the paladin code of conduct as the code of conduct does not include honoring holy relics.

Fish, barrel, *blam!*

An excellent point. The "Good" part of Lawful Good is the kicker where paladin abilities are concerned. They should lose their paladin status if they do evil, and should be encouraged to do good instead. If they're doing something that is neither evil nor good, it simply doesn't matter as far as paladinhood goes (until they've done so many ethically neutral things and so few good things that their actual alignment has shifted, anyway).

All too often it seems like people get hung up on the "Lawful" part first, like it's more important for a paladin to have an extensive checklist of regulations which must always be obeyed, and if one of them is bent or forgotten their god will shun them immediately.

And that's wrong, I think. It's more important that the paladin perform good acts and never participate (willingly or otherwise) in evil acts. The Lawful part's there to tell you how the paladin seeks to accomplish that goal. He doesn't consider "good" to be a relative term, or something which is subject to conditions or mitigating circumstances. Good is an absolute as far as a paladin is concerned: you don't debate whether or not something is good, something IS or IS NOT good, and your job is to recognize it for what it is. And the same goes for evil. And since good is an absolute, it is actually possible to have a personal code which reinforces that, a code which you can follow that will actually prevent you from doing evil without getting caught up in angsty "but is what I'm doing truly a good thing?" digressions.

Breaking that code in and of itself means nothing, unless they broke it by doing something evil or unless they break it so consistently that their alignment shifts to Neutral or Chaotic.

In a very detailed campaign setting where paladins get affiliated with specific gods, it makes more sense to layer in paladinhood-endangering regulations like "you must always treat tombs with the utmost respect," so long as that particular proscription is something that makes sense with the paladin's god. For example, a god whose portfolio includes shuttling souls peacefully to the afterlife and opposing the undead might very well require his paladins to protect the sanctity of burial sites, because popping open a tomb leads to restless and unhappy spirits and that in turn can create the undead. Or whatever, you get the point. But those are minor rules and traditions at best; sure, you could get zapped by your god if you break them constantly, willfully, and/or flagrantly, but not nearly as quickly as you'd be zapped if you went out and did something evil.

In other words, my take on paladins is that there can be extenuating circumstances which will excuse their violation of a code...but there is never, ever a valid excuse for doing evil. Doing evil immediately buys you a one-way ticket to Ordinary-Fighterland, no refunds or exchanges, hope you know someone who can help you with an Atonement, don't let the cathedral door hit you in the ass on your way out.


...and honestly, what bothers me the most about DragonLancer's story is the part where he asks the paladin's player "Are you sure you want to do that?"

That's always been a very bad way for GMs to reality-check a PC's behavior, particularly when a hidden/nonstandard house rule is involved. If this is a setting where paladins can lose their special powers just for cracking open a tomb and no mitigating circumstances can be argued for it, the player should really be told this explicitly. Yeah, we all know that "Are you sure?" is GM-speak for "Here's your last chance to do something else and not be an idiot, because I will screw you mercilessly if you follow through on your first idea," but occasionally players get confused about that. Providing them with some handy, helpful, in-character facts instead of a veiled threat seems to work a lot better. (And for god's sake, you'd think that if a paladin's code demanded that corpses never be exhumed for any reason or that a particular ritual must be followed when doing so, the paladin would be the first person to know about it!)

--
nothing against mr. dragonlancer, it's just not the call i would've made

 

[ph0rk]

Fish, barrel, *blam!*

An excellent point. The "Good" part of Lawful Good is the kicker where paladin abilities are concerned. They should lose their paladin status if they do evil, and should be encouraged to do good instead. If they're doing something that is neither evil nor good, it simply doesn't matter as far as paladinhood goes (until they've done so many ethically neutral things and so few good things that their actual alignment has shifted, anyway).

A good point, (no pun); paladins are supposed to be more good than lawful.

I don't think (and I wasn't there so I'll never know) that it was necessary to 'smash' the tomb vs opening it in a more respectful manner. If I were running a campaign and a paladin showed a -constant- flagrant disregard for the dead, etc, I think that would call their alignment into question.


Unless they needed the item that instant it was a bit on the chaotic side, and that crap adds up. (enough chaos and they're NG, not LG, and bye-bye paladin abilities). Fine by me; but then I like chaos

 

[DragonLancer]

The situation was that the party was in no real rush. The paladin and his party could have spent at least a day or two looking into other means, or even investigating whether the item was in the tomb or not.

Instead of doing that the Paladin decided to just smash open the tomb of a revered and holy saint. That is neither lawful nor good, regardless of the reason. He showed no respect for the deceased nor his faith (which although good, was not the same as the Paladin's). If he had attempted to open the tomb in a more "reasonable" fashion, then I think things would have gone better.

As a DM I feel that the path of the Paladin should be strict. Its a case of walking a very thin line, and few Paladin's have the force of conviction nor the wisdom to avoid stepping from that path. Which is what this character did. As I said in my prior post, I didn't consider it that big an issue as it was done for a good cause, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he acted without thinking. He was offered a chance at redemption and refused because he felt that his deity should have understood his reasoning. Pride goeth before a fall, as they say.

...and honestly, what bothers me the most about DragonLancer's story is the part where he asks the paladin's player "Are you sure you want to do that?"

That's always been a very bad way for GMs to reality-check a PC's behavior, particularly when a hidden/nonstandard house rule is involved. If this is a setting where paladins can lose their special powers just for cracking open a tomb and no mitigating circumstances can be argued for it, the player should really be told this explicitly. Yeah, we all know that "Are you sure?" is GM-speak for "Here's your last chance to do something else and not be an idiot, because I will screw you mercilessly if you follow through on your first idea," but occasionally players get confused about that.

--
nothing against mr. dragonlancer, it's just not the call i would've made

Well, it may not be the best way to do it, but I like to use this method as it allows the character (and player) to rethink the situation. I only use it in the case of characters who would suffer from their proposed action, in this case a Paladin. I could have just let him make that choice, or I could give him a chance to reconsider and perhaps make a better choice.

 

[Bauglir]

On the subject of violating tombs, I played through some of Rappan Athuk some time ago and I quite thoroughly dislike that module.

**Spoiler Alert**

Spoiler

We encountered a tomb that lacked the palpable sense of evil which pervaded the rest of the dungeon complex, apparently the tomb of an elven warrior who had wielded a powerful magical longsword. The discussion inevitably turned to whether we should take the sword and use it. The paladin said he was having nothing to do with raiding the tomb and went outside to wait. Eventually, another member of the party (CG) decided that it was much more sensible to take the sword than to follow some 'pointless ceremonial tradition' and cracked open the tomb. The result was (apparently specifically spelt out in the module) that the paladin lost his paladinhood for not stopping the other party member from desecrating the tomb.

As if this wasn't bad enough, two levels down was a similar situation, except in this case, choosing not to open the tomb would mean lacking the item required to survive the encounter with some kind of gargantuan undead creature in the next room.

Feh!

**End Spoiler Alert**