Why aren't paladins liked?

[Count Arioch the 28t]

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.

No, death to the entire plan when the doorman uses sense motive on the fighter and finds out that he's lying, he doesn't know said contact.

The people at the door will be MORE likely to have sense motive, not LESS.

Plus, who says the paladin is famous? Who says the paladin doesn't have an obscure childhood nickname or something that no one's used for years?

"Hey, I'm Pip. I'm with them" is not a lie, and allows them to get into the thieves guild, and is also immune to sense motive, because he's not lying.

Again, my logic is perfect, it is yours that is flawed.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

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.

Precisely.

That's what I've been saying. If the only way to get intot the thieves guild is because the DM removed any and all alternatives to lying atrificially, then the DM is the problem, not the paladin class.

Railraoding is bad DMing, whether or not you're trying to prove some sort of nietsche-esque point on the pointlessness of morality. Adding philosophy doesn't make it any less lame.

 

[The_Gneech]

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

So in other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't? Sounds like the adventure designer was in the "DMs who hate paladins" camp!

The paladin, like the ranger, suffers somewhat from previous-version baggage ... in older versions of the game, paladins could stomp on the rest of the group. The high stat requirements (which were supposed to limit the availability of paladins, but c'mon, how often did that happen?) meant, in effect, that paladins started out more powerful than normal to begin with, then their out-of-whack class abilities just piled on. Thus, the paladins overwhelmed the rest of the party, causing resentment and general lameness. The previous-edition paladin was the ultimate solo adventure character, but rather problematic in a group. So DMs sometimes got in the habit of stickin' it to the paladin just to bring things back into something like balance.

The 3.x paladin, on the other hand, is pretty well an par with the rest of the group. With stat generation being what it is these days, a paladin starts with the same 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 (average) that everybody else does, and in terms of in-game ability is not that different from a specialized fighter. Thus, people who take paladin characters these days probably aren't doing it for powergame reasons, they're doing it because they want to play that particular archetype.

I suspect that in time, the paladin will be less of a problem child character class for just this reason, but people still need time to get over their leftover hangups. The game I play in, the paladin's player started with 3.0 and didn't come to the game with baggage, and he's never had a problem. It helps that the DM is not trying to stick it to him, either. The group rogue has done some commando-style coup de grace-the-verbeeg-in-their-sleep missions; a stick-it-to-the-paladin DM would have blasted the paladin for allowing that, I imagine. But these verbeeg were invaders who enslaved or slaughtered the villagers and took over, and we've been tasked by the rightful ruler of the area to take care of the problem. Thus, it's lawful (defend the realm) and good (free the enslaved villagers), even if it's not as "chivalrous" as slapping the verbeeg awake, saying, "Die, foul creature!" and then smiting it.

-The Gneech

 

[Voadam]

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.

So did you consider smashing the tomb an evil act, a gross violation of the paladin's code of conduct, or a violation of a more strict restriction?

 

[FireLance]

Well, after reading through a few paladin related threads lately, and noting especially the complaints about the lack of options for the paladin and the danger of the paladin losing all his abilities with a single mistake, I came up with the idea of the Oathsworn Paladin. Basically, it works like those Vow of X feats in the Book of Exalted Deeds - the paladin swears to abide by certain virtues and gains some related benefits. If he acts contrary to a particular virtue, he loses the associated benefits of that virtue, but not the others.

In this way, adding more virtues gives paladins more options, and losing paladinhood is a more gradual process unless you really are intent on going through the seven deadly sins before breakfast.

I've built a paladin exactly the same as the PH paladin built around the virtues of Righteousness, Mercy, Service and Faith and posted it in the House Rules forum. You can discuss it here if you like.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

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.

I get where you're coming from, I just disagree with the method.

I'm all for giving a warning when a character is about to do something they will suffer for, and giving them a chance to reconsider. I just don't see the point in being vague about it. I mean, I want to warn them and give them a chance to reconsider their action, or I wouldn't say anything at all. I'd like to think that if the gameworld is consistent, their character will already understand the potential consequences of what they're about to do; so why should I, as the GM, go out of my way to hide those consequences from the player, when we're not talking about a puzzle or some deeply hidden plot?

If it had been me and I was dead set on revoking paladinhood for opening a tomb that way, I would've nudged the paladin's player with something like "It might seem very disrespectful to smash open this saint's final resting place like that, particularly if there are other methods which look less like desecrating a grave. I won't tell you that you can't just whack it open with a crowbar, I just wanted to make sure you understood that you had other options which might better fit the tenets of your faith."

It's the same this-is-your-last-chance message that "Are you sure?" conveys, only it actually tells the player why they should re-evaluate their decision, and puts it all firmly in the context of the game setting instead of making it a "devious GM versus stupid player" thing. Instead of the player thinking "Okay, how is the GM going to screw me if I do this?" he gets to think "Okay, how would a paladin go about opening this tomb?", and that seems better to me.

Just a thought.

--
as a player, i never much liked playing guessing games with the gm about his setting

 

[milotha]

This is the classic example as to why I don't like to play a paladin. Every single person seems to have a different idea as to what consitutes "lawful" and "good" behavior. It's almost impossible to grok what your GMs view on these issues is unless you know them well as a person. I would never play a paladin under a GM that I was unfamilair with or who was a newbie GM. Evenif you sit down and write out your code, you can't possibly consider every single circumstance. It's also especially annoying when the GM has a different view of your code, and does stuff like revoking your paladinhood when you the player didn't realize that you were breaking your ethic.

If I was my character, I would have spent all 24x7 of my life as this person, thus my character would know my code and ethics better than I the player would. I find it really annoying when the GM doesn't directly inform the player of the potential consequences of their actions especially when the GM views that the player should know better. I agree that "Are you sure." isn't a specific enough statement. It's a rather vague warning. It could have simply implied there is a nasty monster that will be unleashed as a consequence of this action, instead of your paladinhood will be revoked.

As a GM, it is your duty to directly inform the player when they are violating their code of ethics, and not just dance around the issue.

 

[DragonLancer]

So did you consider smashing the tomb an evil act, a gross violation of the paladin's code of conduct, or a violation of a more strict restriction?

I consider smashing the tomb to be a non-lawful act. I never said it was an evil act, more a chaotic one. He didn’t consider his actions or consequences, and just went straight to it hammer & tongs. Plus, I do consider it a breach of the paladin’s code. It wasn’t tomb robbing but it was a form of desecration.

I get where you're coming from, I just disagree with the method.

I'm all for giving a warning when a character is about to do something they will suffer for, and giving them a chance to reconsider. I just don't see the point in being vague about it. I mean, I want to warn them and give them a chance to reconsider their action, or I wouldn't say anything at all. I'd like to think that if the gameworld is consistent, their character will already understand the potential consequences of what they're about to do; so why should I, as the GM, go out of my way to hide those consequences from the player, when we're not talking about a puzzle or some deeply hidden plot?

If it had been me and I was dead set on revoking paladinhood for opening a tomb that way, I would've nudged the paladin's player with something like "It might seem very disrespectful to smash open this saint's final resting place like that, particularly if there are other methods which look less like desecrating a grave. I won't tell you that you can't just whack it open with a crowbar, I just wanted to make sure you understood that you had other options which might better fit the tenets of your faith."

It's the same this-is-your-last-chance message that "Are you sure?" conveys, only it actually tells the player why they should re-evaluate their decision, and puts it all firmly in the context of the game setting instead of making it a "devious GM versus stupid player" thing. Instead of the player thinking "Okay, how is the GM going to screw me if I do this?" he gets to think "Okay, how would a paladin go about opening this tomb?", and that seems better to me.

Just a thought.

Likewise, I understand where you are coming from. However, that method smacks (to be at least) too much of telling the character to change his mind, rather than letting the character decide whether this is the right coarse of action. As a DM I am not one for giving that level of advice on anything, whether it be moral quandaries, puzzles or traps. By saying “are you sure?” rather than giving the player advice along the lines of what you said, I am bringing their attention to the situation at hand without telling them what to do.

Admittedly if this action had been done another party member, say a wizard or bard, I wouldn’t have said anything. Its because the Paladin comes with that “baggage” that I offer him the “are you sure?”
The Paladin class comes with this baggage because of its in-game position in the game world. I don’t like trying to screw the characters, after all I want them to succeed and play through the story and campaign. I do want, however, repercussions from actions and for the players to realise that this is a "real" world they play in with real consequences for their characters, for kingdoms and a whole world full of NPC’s and monsters.

 

[Torm]

As the god of Paladins, I felt maybe I should chime in, here.

As a class, Paladins are foremost about DUTY. They should know the tenets of the god, or government, or organization, or whatever they are pledged as a Paladin to - inside and out. Out of character, this means that the player should have an extended conversation with the DM about how the DM views those tenets before they take the class. The DM has the final word on what those tenets are, regardless of whatever third-party sources the player may have read. So if they are going to pledge as a Paladin of Tyr, for example, they better make sure they understand who Tyr is in their DM's campaign.

Which is not to say that the player should have no input - there are probably plenty of aspects of being a Paladin of the chosen type that the DM hasn't thought about - he is, after all, managing many other characters and NPCs. Within reason, and especially if it helps build story rather than being used as a munchkining tool, the player should be able to expand on his role.

The reason "Paladins" become disliked is frequently because the player has his view of his role backwards - he wants to stick with the party, but since he has this duty, he tries to make it a priority for all, even though they aren't similarly bound. To keep the group together and fulfill his duty he becomes pushy and bossy and tries to make them subservient to his needs.

Paladin players need to realize that their DUTY to their party - their pledge to be a loyal member of the group - is only slightly less important that their primary duty. Most of the time Paladins serve their primary duty passively (go forth and fight for good in general and talk up your cause while you're out there) as opposed to actively (Castle Suchnsuch is a direct threat to your cause. Destroy it.) and when this is true they should allow their duty to the party to take dominance. When they ARE actively pursuing their higher calling, they can ask the party to help but understand if they won't, and separate from the party for the time if necessary.

Now, as a player, is where being a Paladin becomes funny and the line between fantasy and reality blurs just slightly. IF, a player playing a Paladin finds himself separated from his duty to his group by his higher calling often enough to be a problem for his gaming group and/or his DM, he should let the Paladin go NPC to deal with his duty and take up a new character to join the party, even if he has to sacrafice character levels or even start over at 1st, to do so. Its what a Paladin would do!

So speaks Torm the True.

 

[pawsplay]

The important thing is that the DM shouldn't be out to yoink the paladin's status. The Paladin shouldn't lose his powers unless he makes the DM take them away. This requires some level of agreement between the DM and players as to what paladinhood is, but not a lot. The books already spell out Lawful and Good. Paladins shouldn't lose their powers over fine technicalities, they should lose them for setting aside their holy purpose and code.

There may come situations where the DM and player do not see eye to eye... in that case, I believe the player should accept that in choosing the path of the Paladin, he is submitting himself to powers of Good. Submission, even, to the possibility he does not fully understand the expectations placed on him.