Why aren't paladins liked?

[BullMarkOne]

They also don't their powers if they change their alignment.

Actually, see pg 33 of the D&D 3.5 players handbook, under the heading Ex-Clerics, left column, most of the way down the page.

 

[Darmanicus]

While a DM may require your character to take an oath as a cleric, it is not a class requirment, meaning it is not listed in the player handbook. They have an obligation to act in the dieties best interest and Dogma, but they are not bound by an oath that they must swear to a god and if they fail in that oath, they don't lose those powers granted by them. They also don't their powers if they change their alignment.

The DM can of course require an oath and can revoke the power of a cleric at will simply saying that your God is mad at you, but it is not a game mechanic like it is for a paladin.

A cleric is expected to adhere to a gods principals/beliefs/whatever. I would expect, even though it's not specifically stated in the PHB, that if a cleric of the god of healing refused to heal needy and good people, for his/her god to deny him access to his/her spells.......common sense.

Also if a good cleric turns evil you're telling me that the good god will still grant him/her spellcasting abilities? I don't think so therefore a cleric will lose their powers if their aligment shifts too radically, it's just much easier for a paladin to lose his.

 

[Darmanicus]

Actually, see pg 33 of the D&D 3.5 players handbook, under the heading Ex-Clerics, left column, most of the way down the page.

Ya beat me to it. I didn't think we needed it specifically printed in a book however as it just seemed like common sense.

 

[DM-Rocco]

A cleric is expected to adhere to a gods principals/beliefs/whatever. I would expect, even though it's not specifically stated in the PHB, that if a cleric of the god of healing refused to heal needy and good people, for his/her god to deny him access to his/her spells.......common sense.

Also if a good cleric turns evil you're telling me that the good god will still grant him/her spellcasting abilities? I don't think so therefore a cleric will lose their powers if their aligment shifts too radically, it's just much easier for a paladin to lose his.

Well, I'm at work, have to look at that when I get home, however, it is not the point. What is the point is that a Paladin has too take an oath, a cleric does not. Why is that a distiction in this debate, cause it automatically sets the paladin to a higher standard than the cleric or any other class. Not only do you have to adhere to your Dogma, but if you fail in the oath you lose a lot.

And it may be common sense that a healing cleric who doesn't heal get nipped in the bud from his God, but again, it is not directly stated in the PHB in the same way that the Paladin code is.

 

[Hussar]

I see far to few people ignore the alignment of their character when they play. Alignment is not proscriptive, nor does it tell you how to play your character. Even the PHB states as much.

Pardon? If alignment is not proscriptive, or, heck, even descriptive, then what's the point of having an alignment at all? I did say that it should not be a straight jacket, but, then again, it should accurately describe the moral outlook of your character. If your LG character goes around kicking puppies and setting fire to old women, then I would argue that the character is perhaps not LG. Does it mean that the character must act LG all the time? Nope. There are times when a LG character might act counter to his or her alignment (granted, not if he's a paladin), but, then again, a cleric runs some of the same problems as a paladin for stepping out of line.

It's interesting to note that the description for becoming an ex-cleric is almost identical to that of a paly's. Right down to the point of specifically stating the cleric has a code of conduct. Although, granted, a cleric can regain his status through an Atonement spell whereas the paly might not be able to.

 

[Darmanicus]

Well, I'm at work, have to look at that when I get home, however, it is not the point. What is the point is that a Paladin has too take an oath, a cleric does not. Why is that a distiction in this debate, cause it automatically sets the paladin to a higher standard than the cleric or any other class. Not only do you have to adhere to your Dogma, but if you fail in the oath you lose a lot.

And it may be common sense that a healing cleric who doesn't heal get nipped in the bud from his God, but again, it is not directly stated in the PHB in the same way that the Paladin code is.

I suggest you take another look at the books my friend......

From the SRD:

'Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).'

This would seem to suggest an 'oath' of sorts and is also a direct statement in the PHB.

So realistically the cleric and the paladin have nearly the same standards; it's only slightly easier for the paladin to fall.

 

[Darmanicus]

It's interesting to note that the description for becoming an ex-cleric is almost identical to that of a paly's. Right down to the point of specifically stating the cleric has a code of conduct. Although, granted, a cleric can regain his status through an Atonement spell whereas the paly might not be able to.

Exactly however a Paly can Atone just the same as a Cleric can.

I'm would say that I'm surprised the Paly gets all the schtick for a holier than thou attitude when a cleric would seem to be played the same by all accounts. You have to factor in then that the cleric is the party's mobile hospital and all of a sudden that gets overlooked.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Exactly however a Paly can Atone just the same as a Cleric can.

I'm would say that I'm surprised the Paly gets all the schtick for a holier than thou attitude when a cleric would seem to be played the same by all accounts. You have to factor in then that the cleric is the party's mobile hospital and all of a sudden that gets overlooked.

Well, that's not entirely true. The paladins have a code of conduct that is seperate from their god (the default paladin doesn't even need a god, and it's sort of implied that they stand for an IDEAL rather than a god).

So, a God of Justice and Evil Destruction might say "all my followers must destroy evil wherever they find it and combat tyranny". All clerics have to follow that. However, Paladins are ALSO restricted to the Paladin Oath, thus preventing them from lying, associating with evil, etc.

Clerics who are LG MAY be able to make small lies without losing their alignment, not a big enough infraction. However, Paladins are breaking their oath and may lose their powers.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I suggest you take another look at the books my friend......

From the SRD:

'Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).'

This would seem to suggest an 'oath' of sorts and is also a direct statement in the PHB.

So realistically the cleric and the paladin have nearly the same standards; it's only slightly easier for the paladin to fall.

Well, I am sure that you are correctly quoting the PHB, I will take your word for it, however, two things come to mind.

One, clerics don't all have to be Lawful good, Paladins do. This allows different standards because they don't have an as strict alignment. Even assuming that you are lawful good cleric worshiping a lawful good god, you are not under the same standards of a lawful good paladin. Because you don't have a direct oath (unless your DM makes you take one) you can cheat a little in your role as a cleric. A lawful good cleric could lie to protect the innocent (or even the evil) and still retain spells but if a Paladin were to lie about anything (assuming lying is covered in their code, and it should be), he would be cast from the order and have to atone. If I recall, the original post was 'why do paladins get a bad rap,' or something like that, not how is a cleric comparable to a paladin.

Two, I think the main reason paladins get the bad rap as a Goode two-shoes is cause of first edition AD&D. If I recall correctly, (and again, I would have to wait until I get home to look it up, I should just keep books at work ), Gary Gygax actually had a code of conduct for a paladin in the PHK and I don't think he had one for a cleric. Why does this matter? Because, many people started out playing AD&D and they remember the code and they remember the paladin had to act a certain way and that way was to not lie, to not cheat, to not be underhanded, to not kill for no reason, to be courteous to the ladies, ETC. Back then, as now, it was extremely hard to have a paladin in the party because everyone had to consider thier actions if the paladin was around. This gets to the main point of the thread, because it has been ingrained into our minds that that is the way a paladin acts, and therefore the way lawful good should act.

Many people mistake Lawful Good for paladinhood. They are not the same, they are exclusive of each other. A lawful good character of any other class is completely different in scope than a paladin and that is the main point. In the end it is only secondary that a cleric has to be on thier best behavior, the point is that we hold a paladin to a higher standard of lawful good than any other class. Whether it is because of the knights of the rounds table, because of the knights of dragonlance or because of the way the original paladin in AD&D was constructed, we put them on a pillar and expect them to not fall of.

 

[Darmanicus]

Well, that's not entirely true. The paladins have a code of conduct that is seperate from their god (the default paladin doesn't even need a god, and it's sort of implied that they stand for an IDEAL rather than a god).

So, a God of Justice and Evil Destruction might say "all my followers must destroy evil wherever they find it and combat tyranny". All clerics have to follow that. However, Paladins are ALSO restricted to the Paladin Oath, thus preventing them from lying, associating with evil, etc.

Clerics who are LG MAY be able to make small lies without losing their alignment, not a big enough infraction. However, Paladins are breaking their oath and may lose their powers.

A Cleric doesn't need a god either but that's neither here nor there.

The description of the Paladin and his code etc. can be looked at from a lot of angles. Whilst it states that you should act honourably and not lie you only lose your abilities if you become anything other than LG, willingly commit an evil act or GROSSLY violate the code of conduct. Now I would take this to mean that lying to some BBEG is not grossly violating your code if it is for a very good reason. If you're just lying to anybody that's a different matter.

The code set out in the PHB is IMO a guideline that needs tailoring dependent on what campaign you are playing in.