Why aren't paladins liked?

[William Ronald]

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.

I agree that the PHB code is one of many possible paladin codes. For example, two paladins following different philosphies or faiths may have very different codes.

For example, some people believe that one must always tell the truth -- even if someone gets hurt because of this. An extreme example of this is someone who believes that all lying is wrong -- and will tell the BBEG that the innocent refugees are hidden in the ship's cargo hold. (Okay, I am losely paraphrasing Immanuel Kant.) Others will argue that it is permissible to lie for a greater good, such as preserving life. So, you can have many different kinds of paladins -- who can be at odds with each other. Similarly, some paladins may frown on stealth or the use of missile weapons for religious or cultural reasons. Others may tolerate or favor these tactics based on their beliefs.

I have seen DMs who have railroaded paladins, as well as the occassional player who thinks his character is a Lawful Stupid paladim. Perhaps DMs need to have their players who sish to play paladins work on a specific code based on the character's beliefs.

In another matter, any character -- and not just paladins -- can have conflicting agendas with other characters. I think a good question to ask is how well a character fits into a group.

 

[LordBOB]

yes Paladins do have to follow a STRICT code of conduct and yes if they mess up Badly they loose their powers.

Playing a Paladin is indeed rough but I manage ok. I am currently being trained by another Paladin as a Sword Dancer and at times ive had to attone for my actions ( or my groups ).

One time My group Broke a promise not to harm the people we were talking with and for no reason they started attacking. I said I wouldnt harm them unless they harmed me and I Was true to my word. I literally walked out from a fight and stood in the back watching. One party member was down and the otheres were wonded, so I decided to go and heal them, my enemies attacked me so I announced that they broke their promise and I Was now free to attack them. I went in and cleaned up what was left.

I was rewarded by my DM for keeping true to my word and the other players were deeply punished ( 2 of them lost their most powerul weapon). My Paladin Teacher saw my actions as wrong b/c of the way I went about the whole thing. I had to do a little attonement but nothing serious.

So trying to keep in the whole code of conduct thing is indeed a hard thing to do. You might get praised by 1 person and yet punished by another.

 

[Darmanicus]

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.

Ok so we're arguing over paladin/cleric but hey, we've had an arguement over paly losing powers over breaking a tomb. My point still stands that no one complains about the cleric because he's the healer.

Unearthed Arcana has CG paladins and evil paladins which I think is fair enough. What god wouldn't want paladin enforcers of their own? So the LG arguement is somewhat moot if you're happy using those rules and therefore a 'paladins code' is going to vary.

Read my previous point with regards to lying, if you stripped my character of it's status for lying for the greater good then I'd up and leave. Saying that you cannot do something ever for whatever reason is absolutely bl00dy ludicrous. There WILL be that one time when it's absolutely unavoidable and to penalize someone for that is ridiculous. I think the only exception to that rule is willingly commit the evil act and even that, I'm sure, a few people could possibly challenge.

I'm sorry if something is so ingrained in your head just because of someones say so but as the Borg do, you should adapt. In all my years playing D&D I've never had a problem with paladins nor has any of my companions had a problem with me playing one. Sure I've peed some of them off because playing a good character regardless of the other axis means responsibilities but, hey, they've peed me off and they play good characters as well who should know better sometimes.

You say any other LG character is COMPLETELY different to a paladin and I think that's maybe where it all starts to fall down. If any other LG character is sooo different to a paladin then they wouldn't be LG. A good character of any description is good because they do good deeds and therefore whilst not restricted say to the paladins code would more or less follow a fair bit of it just because they were good. It seems to me that people who object to paladins and play good characters shouldn't really have that alignment. Either that or too many people are playing characters that are evil/chaotic neutral/neutral etc. and therefore at the start should say to the character who wants to play the paladin to not do so and stop whinging about it when they let them.

 

[Darmanicus]

yes Paladins do have to follow a STRICT code of conduct and yes if they mess up Badly they loose their powers.

Playing a Paladin is indeed rough but I manage ok. I am currently being trained by another Paladin as a Sword Dancer and at times ive had to attone for my actions ( or my groups ).

One time My group Broke a promise not to harm the people we were talking with and for no reason they started attacking. I said I wouldnt harm them unless they harmed me and I Was true to my word. I literally walked out from a fight and stood in the back watching. One party member was down and the otheres were wonded, so I decided to go and heal them, my enemies attacked me so I announced that they broke their promise and I Was now free to attack them. I went in and cleaned up what was left.

I was rewarded by my DM for keeping true to my word and the other players were deeply punished ( 2 of them lost their most powerul weapon). My Paladin Teacher saw my actions as wrong b/c of the way I went about the whole thing. I had to do a little attonement but nothing serious.

So trying to keep in the whole code of conduct thing is indeed a hard thing to do. You might get praised by 1 person and yet punished by another.

I'm not surprised you had to attone, you should have at least tried to disarm the others/your colleagues and use your diplomacy to diffuse the situation. By simply walking away from it all I would suggest that you had grossly violated your code and should have lost your powers.

Paladins like you give the rest of us a bad name.

 

[Darmanicus]

I agree that the PHB code is one of many possible paladin codes. For example, two paladins following different philosphies or faiths may have very different codes.

For example, some people believe that one must always tell the truth -- even if someone gets hurt because of this. An extreme example of this is someone who believes that all lying is wrong -- and will tell the BBEG that the innocent refugees are hidden in the ship's cargo hold. (Okay, I am losely paraphrasing Immanuel Kant.) Others will argue that it is permissible to lie for a greater good, such as preserving life. So, you can have many different kinds of paladins -- who can be at odds with each other. Similarly, some paladins may frown on stealth or the use of missile weapons for religious or cultural reasons. Others may tolerate or favor these tactics based on their beliefs.

I have seen DMs who have railroaded paladins, as well as the occassional player who thinks his character is a Lawful Stupid paladim. Perhaps DMs need to have their players who sish to play paladins work on a specific code based on the character's beliefs.

In another matter, any character -- and not just paladins -- can have conflicting agendas with other characters. I think a good question to ask is how well a character fits into a group.

Hear hear.

 

[LordBOB]

well ive should of pointed out that i tried most of the battle to stop my friends from attacking. I indeed didnt try and disarm them b/c they would of stabbed my in the back or something.

Unfortunantly you judge me without knowing me. Maybe you should have asked what else happend before you passed judgement. I didnt feel like telling the ENTIRE battle. If I had than I would still be typing the battle.

I dont know why i would give paladins a bad name, but im sure your going to tell me why so there is no point in trying to argue with you since you already have a view about me.

you play Paladins they way you want and ill play the way I want. I know it was wrong but if I had broken my promise than I WOUDLNT BE A PALADIN.

Which one would you choose:

1. Keeping your promise no matter how difficult the situation was and keep your powers.
2. Break the promise, kill innocent people, and loose your powers

sounds pretty simple to me

 

[Darmanicus]

well ive should of pointed out that i tried most of the battle to stop my friends from attacking. I indeed didnt try and disarm them b/c they would of stabbed my in the back or something. Yes you should have pointed that little fact out, would have saved me a post! So you didn't try and disarm them because you feared retaliation? 1. Paladins are immune to fear! 2. Your party made a promise which included you therefore you were obliged to try and uphold that promise: the others were trying to defend themselves from your companions and then yourself. You were the bad guys in this situation, not them!

Unfortunantly you judge me without knowing me. Maybe you should have asked what else happend before you passed judgement. I didnt feel like telling the ENTIRE battle. If I had than I would still be typing the battle. Please refer to my other comment. I judged you on what you said which was 'my party made a promise not to attack, then did so and I just walked away'. Maybe you could have just explained that and i then would not have judged you and, as you have probably just noticed, it didn't need the recounting of the entire battle and thua an evenings worth of typing!

I dont know why i would give paladins a bad name, but im sure your going to tell me why so there is no point in trying to argue with you since you already have a view about me. Again, please refer to my previous comments and please do not try to get out of harms way by using that bull just because I have a valid point.....defend yerself man, yer a frickin' paladin.......allegedley!

you play Paladins they way you want and ill play the way I want. I know it was wrong but if I had broken my promise than I WOUDLNT BE A PALADIN. You made a promise to not attack those people for no reason and you broke that promise. Whether or not your party made that promise and not you is irrelevant, you were privvy to it and therefore part of it because you were happy for them to make that promise.

Which one would you choose:

1. Keeping your promise no matter how difficult the situation was and keep your powers. You didn't keep the promise.
2. Break the promise, kill innocent people, and loose your powers
sounds pretty simple to me. You did break your/the party's promise, kill INNOCENT people and therefore should have lost your powers........by your own words.

Please don't take my comments personally, it's just some constructive criticism and you could have explained your role without having to detail the entire encounter. However, as I've stated, you did NOT act as a paladin should AND you've stated that those you attacked were INNOCENT!!! That would suggest you willingly commited an evil act.

Didn't you even try to use Detect Evil?

Why on earth did your party attack tose INNOCENT people?

Are you starting to maybe get the idea why your actions are so NOT like those of a paladin?

By the way Bob........welcome to ENWorld!!!

 

[LordBOB]

ok stop


they were innocdnt b/c they werent doing anything to us. They were evil but not like a demon evil.

I promised to not attack them as long as i wasnt harmed. When i went to help my comrads I was shot and therefore harmed. I said that they broke thier promise and this allowed me to attack without fear of breaking the promise.

I didnt kill innocent people anymore b/c they were endangering my life making them guilty. I simply defended myself.

I did not fear retalation, I KNEW they would and if I did anything than I would have my team mates attacking my and the other dudes attacking me and I didnt want that. Im simply used reason not to try and disarm my friends.

I am indeed sorry that I thought you were passing judgement on me. I should of thought my story out a little more before posting it. In the future I hope to advoid these mistakes.
Im sorry

 

[Darmanicus]

ok stop


they were innocdnt b/c they werent doing anything to use. They were evil but not like a demon evil.

I promised to not attack them as long as i wasnt harmed. When i went to help my comrads I was shot and therefore harmed. I said that they broke thier promise and this allowed me to attack without fear of breaking the promise.

I didnt kill innocent people anymore b/c they were indangering my life making them not innocent. Im simply defended myself

The plot thickens!!!

I still stand by my original arguement as your 'teacher' can, and has, verified.

 

[LordBOB]

and you are right. I have attoned for my actions and I plan on doing my best to stay away fromt hese situations