Why aren't paladins liked?

[JoeGKushner]

The paladin is game wise too torn between being a fighter and being a cleric with neither the combat ability of a fighter nor the healing ability of a cleric.

It requires either very good rolls or high point buy to have a very effective paladin.

Want to cast spells? Have a high wisdom.

Want to get some bonus to hit from Smite? Have a high charisma.

Want to actually be able to do some damage in combat? Need a high strength, and other combat related stats per normal fighters.

About the only thing that's a stat dump for them is intelligence and 3.5, that's a bad move.

Still, I enjoyed Brother Kane, High Shadowbane Inquisitor of Helm in the last campaign I played in.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I would think that a party of at least nominally heroic adventurers would like the idea of having a paladin in their group -- the epitomy of heroic classes. They are usually trustworthy and dedicated. They are literally fearless and devoted.

For many, many adventurers these qualities are a mixed blessing.

The thing is, "nominally heroic" covers a multitude of sins, and paladins stereotypically possess a few qualities that make the sort of actions which make that "nominally" necessary at best difficult and at worst impossible.

For instance, there's a difference between heroism and valour. Paladins stereotypically lean towards the valourous confrontation of evil, which can throw a wrench into the works for a group which has otherwise settled upon a more cautious/sneaky/deceitful/et cetera plan of action.

Even a paladin played intelligently (i.e. not a suicidal Lawful Stupid idiot whose response to a "ping" on detect evil is "Chaaaaarge!") can be a hindrance in this regard. Some people relish these interpersonal conflicts among their characters and enjoy playing out their resolution. Others abhor them.

So, does the paladin class actually bring anything to a group that is worthwhile? When organizing a new group of adventurers, someone always mentions the need for someone to play a cleric. But too often there are groans of annoyance when someone mentions wanting to play a paladin.

Paladins, to state the obvious, are useful emergency healers, reliable backup fighters, and so on. Like the bard, they're a jack of several trades, master of none, and sometimes bring with them useful roleplaying associations - a reputation for honesty and trustworthiness, connections to temples and churches, et cetera.

Why isn't the paladin at the top of the list of classes to consider with a group of adventurers?

The number one reason I can think of is simple:

Many people don't actually always play the kind of selfless, heroic, kindhearted Good adventurers with whom paladins best work. I would venture to suggest that many people don't ever produce a party where every member would be (ungrudgingly) acceptable to a paladin.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

You can't keep a good paladin thread down.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I would think that a party of at least nominally heroic adventurers would like the idea of having a paladin in their group -- the epitomy of heroic classes. They are usually trustworthy and dedicated. They are literally fearless and devoted.

But in all my years of playing and DMing D&D, and in reading various forums on D&D, I've never seen anyone actually happy to have a paladin in the group. Usually the big class that everyone wants in their group is a cleric.

The only thing that seems to be really useful to the group as a whole is the paladin's detect evil ability. But from what I've read on this board, many DMs hate this ability, and most Players don't really care or give it a second thought.

Using a computer game as an example, paladins in Diablo II have abilities that boost everyone's powers. A group of adventurers in that game gain a lot of tangible benefits from having a paladin in the group. Allies of a paladin in that game deal more damage, can regenerate, etc.

But in D&D, the closest thing to a party boost the paladin gives is the aura of courage that gives +4 against fear effects to those within 10' of the paladin. Not really a great boon.

So, does the paladin class actually bring anything to a group that is worthwhile? When organizing a new group of adventurers, someone always mentions the need for someone to play a cleric. But too often there are groans of annoyance when someone mentions wanting to play a paladin.

Why isn't the paladin at the top of the list of classes to consider with a group of adventurers?

Quasqueton

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread, I am at work and can't do that, but I do have an opinion.

DMs mostly have a hard time with the Paladin cause it is harder to have an evil character lie to the party. Sure, others in the party could sense motive, but if the character is determined to be evil, then most people will just assume that the character is lieing. The detect evil ability really just annouys the hell out of the DM. Sure you could give the evil people rings or magic items to hide their evil, but realisticly you can't do that all the time.

As for players, most people hate that paladin in the party for two reasons, one, they are the ultimate in morales and it prohibits players from certain actions, like sneaking around or pretending to be someone they are not.

Two, people look at the paladin as perfect, cause of their morales, so they are set to high standards and the DM usually makes them swear some oath, making them adhere to even higher standards. This gives them the perception of being perfect, even if they are not, and when you think about it, no one wants to play a perfect character or have a perfect character in the party.

Having flaws is part of life, everyone should have some.

 

[NeoDarke]

I don't think being Lawful Good really means anything. true i've never played D&D. but the Paladin characters i've played in NWN, and on the RPG Forum of one of the site i'm a member of, my Paladin wasn't all in the head. but he was smart enough to make use of everyones skills.

and for that matter he didn't really have a problem with his team lying. if lying means they can get out of a fight, then so be it. nobody said playing a Paladin meant you had to be "holyer then thou" and all way follow the rules. you could always follow your own laws on how the world should be. and if they don't always mesh with the laws of where ever your at then "oh well". so I say the next time you play, just for the fun of it roll up a Paladin who does his best to fit in with the team. i'm talking drinking games with the Barbarain and Fighter, Trying his/her best to out "Woo" the Bard, and Rogue.

have fun with it. Paladin's on't have to be RPG heavy, they can be just as crazy and silly as anyother classes.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

As for players, most people hate that paladin in the party for two reasons, one, they are the ultimate in morales and it prohibits players from certain actions, like sneaking around or pretending to be someone they are not.

*snip*

See, right there. That's what I'm talking about. Paladins are the ultimates in morals? Can someone please explain to me why a paladin would be more moral than a LG cleric or monk? Or any other LG character for that matter? The problem isn't that paladins are being played improperly, the problem is, no one plays LG properly. The cleric is just the healing battery and cares nothing for the souls of the party or people they meet. The monk sits in the corner and mast... I mean meditates and has nothing to say when the party does sneaky underhanded things. It's ridiculous.

Again, I say, the only reason that paladins exist in the game is because so few people actually play their clerics the way a priest should be. The primary focus of all priests (and druids, rangers and monks) should be spiritual. That means, if the character is good, then morality should be a major issue for these characters. Lawful good even more so. No, chaotic good is not a license to ignore the laws of the land. It simply reflects a more individualist streak in the character. Lying, stealing etc, are EVIL according to DnD morality. Characters with divine ties that start ignoring that should be getting slapped with the flaming booger of god once in a while. They KNOW there's an afterlife. They've bloody well seen it some of them. They KNOW there's a god. They've had tea if the character is high enough level. Paladins should not be stepping on the toes of any of the good characters. Any group that is primarily non-good shouldn't include a paladin anyway. I'm so tired of hearing that whinge that if someone plays a paly, it cramps everyone's style. Play yer alignment and there's no problems.

 

[jasper]

their pearly white smile is too prefect.
their holy than thou glow keeps others up at night. I am an adult I don't need a night light.
They don't fart or have gas.
Perfect hair never seen one who had helmet hair.

 

[DM-Rocco]

See, right there. That's what I'm talking about. Paladins are the ultimates in morals? Can someone please explain to me why a paladin would be more moral than a LG cleric or monk? Or any other LG character for that matter? The problem isn't that paladins are being played improperly, the problem is, no one plays LG properly. The cleric is just the healing battery and cares nothing for the souls of the party or people they meet. The monk sits in the corner and mast... I mean meditates and has nothing to say when the party does sneaky underhanded things. It's ridiculous.

Again, I say, the only reason that paladins exist in the game is because so few people actually play their clerics the way a priest should be. The primary focus of all priests (and druids, rangers and monks) should be spiritual. That means, if the character is good, then morality should be a major issue for these characters. Lawful good even more so. No, chaotic good is not a license to ignore the laws of the land. It simply reflects a more individualist streak in the character. Lying, stealing etc, are EVIL according to DnD morality. Characters with divine ties that start ignoring that should be getting slapped with the flaming booger of god once in a while. They KNOW there's an afterlife. They've bloody well seen it some of them. They KNOW there's a god. They've had tea if the character is high enough level. Paladins should not be stepping on the toes of any of the good characters. Any group that is primarily non-good shouldn't include a paladin anyway. I'm so tired of hearing that whinge that if someone plays a paly, it cramps everyone's style. Play yer alignment and there's no problems.

Think back to King Arthur and his knights of the round table. There can be no denying that they set themselves to a high morale standard. In 1st edition AD&D, they were all Paladins, this set the stage for morales associated with Paladins and thus Lawful Good characters.

That is not to say that the Lawful good character could not be a bit sneaky at times, or even kill without cause, no one is perfect, even Lawful Good characters, even says so in the alignment description, but Paladins have always been held to a higher standard, thus they are hated for limiting that parties actions and giving the DM nightmares.

You can play a paladin many different ways, but most would agree, if you stray from the ideal of the King Arthur knight, you are playing him wrong.

 

[Darmanicus]

I love Paladins, except for the fact that they're pretty weak except for a one level dip.

They're not weak at all. Healing, smiting, BAB as fighter, enhanced saves, HP's as fighter, mount, immunity to fear and diesease. My paladin is FAR from weak, especially when it comes to evil opponents.

 

[Particle_Man]

See, right there. That's what I'm talking about. Paladins are the ultimates in morals? Can someone please explain to me why a paladin would be more moral than a LG cleric or monk? Or any other LG character for that matter?

Actually, according to the Book of Exalted Deeds, paladins are not "merely" LG, they are de facto Exalted.