Why aren't paladins liked?

[Hussar]

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

But that's my point. Why should paladins be MORE holy than the priest that commands him? In a LG church, paladins are going to be lower down on the heirarchy than the priesthood. So, shouldn't a Gawd who has paladins set the bar for the paladin's boss at least as high?

No, I don't mean that paly's have to be the "Arthurian Knight" stereotype. That's absurd. A Paladin from a North American Indian setting would certainly not be the same as one from a quasi Euro setting. That's not my point at all. My point is, that paly's are not restricting if the other players who play divine types ACTUALLY play their alignment and don't just write it down on the paper.

 

[DM-Rocco]

But that's my point. Why should paladins be MORE holy than the priest that commands him? In a LG church, paladins are going to be lower down on the heirarchy than the priesthood. So, shouldn't a Gawd who has paladins set the bar for the paladin's boss at least as high?

No, I don't mean that paly's have to be the "Arthurian Knight" stereotype. That's absurd. A Paladin from a North American Indian setting would certainly not be the same as one from a quasi Euro setting. That's not my point at all. My point is, that paly's are not restricting if the other players who play divine types ACTUALLY play their alignment and don't just write it down on the paper.

It sounds like you are not trying to figure out why Paladins are hated as much as you are trying to figure out why others play Lawful Good differently or not to your expectations. It is not just the general masses that assume that a Paladin is held to a higher standard, ENWorld is chalked full of threads that start out, "My paladin killed a child molester, why did my alignment change?"

These threads are very long because people have many opinions on the morales of a Paladin. It is just a fact, more so than the cleric, they are the arm of the church. They are the fibers of the Dogma. Sure, a cleric may lead the masses in daily life, but a paladin has, more often than not, and more so in AD&D than D&D 3.0, sworn an oath to thier God to up hold thier Dogma, so they must be the morale pillar that other look too, a cleric is bound by no such oath, even if they are of the same alignment.

 

[Aus_Snow]

But that's my point. Why should paladins be MORE holy than the priest that commands him? In a LG church, paladins are going to be lower down on the heirarchy than the priesthood. So, shouldn't a Gawd who has paladins set the bar for the paladin's boss at least as high?

No, I don't mean that paly's have to be the "Arthurian Knight" stereotype. That's absurd. A Paladin from a North American Indian setting would certainly not be the same as one from a quasi Euro setting. That's not my point at all. My point is, that paly's are not restricting if the other players who play divine types ACTUALLY play their alignment and don't just write it down on the paper.

Paladins have to be the most righteous examples of holiness (by Class) that exist. It's their raison d'etre, schtick, whatever. I also seem to recall that there is some historical precedent for Paladin-types to be considered (or at least to consider themselves) a 'law unto themselves'. If so, their place within a heirarchy could be er, kind of outside of it perhaps.

Hm, and I don't think Paladins per se should exist in a Native American setting, except as aliens. The weaponry, the armour, the abilities, the inbuilt cultural assumptions: all wrong.

But I am in complete agreement regarding your actual point.

 

[Storm Raven]

I think a major reason is that the paladin class doesn't really fit many settings. The default D&D setting is polytheistic, with a variety of competing, sometimes hotsile, but mostly neutral (to one another) or friencly religions.

On to this framework, the original D&D class system layered on elements drawn almost directly from the Catholic church circa 1400. Clerics who can turn undead throwing holy water at demons from Hell, and paladins with their divinely granted prowess and knightly code. Since its inception, D&D has made strides in diversifying clerics somewhat, but paladins remain evil detecting smiters of evil riding holy warhorses. And, in a polytheistic setting, crusading paladins (or really, crusades of any sort) don't fit.

Try making a monotheistic setting. They might fit better.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But that's my point. Why should paladins be MORE holy than the priest that commands him? In a LG church, paladins are going to be lower down on the heirarchy than the priesthood. So, shouldn't a Gawd who has paladins set the bar for the paladin's boss at least as high?

I don't really see clerics as "the bosses" of paladins. In fact, I normally see that most clerics are the type who sit around in churches telling people, "Do not be tempted by evil. Always make the right choice." then taking the tithe money to the orphanage and healing the sick there and sleeping soundly. The clerics are almost never faced with the temptation of evil.

The paladins are the enforcers, the ones that go out into the field and face evil down every day. They have to be absolute in their beliefs and morals because a single lapse could make them fall to evil. They've seen people turned, they've seen True Evil first hand. They know how easy, how tempting it would be to give in, so they have to guard themselves.

Of course, most PC clerics should develop a similar attitude. However, the difference should always be that clerics should be more about promoting the ideals of their god and the worship of their god while paladins are more about destroying evil and promoting good.

 

[Ultrazen]

the thing i never understood was what was meant if they recoil, i think it means the Feetle position. I thought of it as falling to the floor like a baby and curling up. We have done it where this happens, the demon is knocked prone and we stab it in the head instantly killing it.

If i was wrong about the rules with protection from Evil I dont want to be Right. My DM hasnt caught it so i wont tell them. Lucky we dont encounter many evil things yet so it isnt a problem ( yet )

um....

no, no, never mind.
just have fun and hope no one ever gets tripped.

 

[Darmanicus]

where a Paladin of Me would have no such problems.

There is no Torm......just Raziel.

 

[Darmanicus]

... oh, it's a paladin thread. That explains it.

Folks, remember - keep the discussion civil. Let's not get into any bickering or name-calling, okay?

Thanks.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

Sod off Smurf!!!

 

[MoonZar]

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

Hello,

I think that's because people play paladin to much radicaly with no flexibility, all is white or black but never grey.

 

[Particle_Man]

Well monk powers come from their lawfulness. Traditionally, there have been such things as corrupt priests (the idea that they get powerful in the church hierarchy, but are still nasty). But in a game world that makes less sense, since presumably the clerics get their powers from their gods, and so should tow the line or their will lose their powers. So in that sense, it seems that the gods, etc., hold paladins to a higher standard than they hold their priests. Or maybe paladins get their power partly from gods, and partly from something else that holds them to such high standards. So I can see the point. But I would argue that this means, not that paladins should be held to lower standards, but that LG clerics should be held to higher standards.