Why aren't paladins liked?

[Darmanicus]

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

If you think you have problems check out Sepulchrave's 'Tales of the Wyre'.......there's a freaked out paladin if ever I saw one.

I'll try and post a link if someone doesn't beat me to it.

 

[LordBOB]

i would indeed like a link if at all possible cause i dont have many of the older books

 

[DM-Rocco]

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.

Okay, here is the short of it, now that I am home.

All pages 3.5 PHK

Page 30, under alignment, he can be one away from his Gods alignment and says nothing about swearing a code of conduct.

Page 33, under ex-clerics, only talks about grossly violating code of conduct required by his god.

page 42, under alignment, must be lawful good (none of this up to one step away crap) and they must swear to an oath, either to a God, a king or whatever.

Page 44 ex-paladins the main point here that is different from a cleric is that , he has higher standards, if he ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commit an evil act or grossly violates the code of conduct.

The big difference here is of course the commit evil act. A lawful good cleric could commit an evil act if it was a one time thing or he thought it was really the only way to handle the situation and not lose his powers, not so with a paladin. There is no bargining room for a paladin.

page 103, under alignment, last paragraph:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straight jacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not a lawful or good behavior.

page 104, under lawful good, a lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps, those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

To get back on track with our debate, a lawful good cleric has the liberty to act differently than a lawful good paladin. While neither should lie and neither should do evil acts and neither should be greedy, the cleric has the luxury of being able to do that on occasion while the paladin doesn't.

page 44 again, under code of conduct, a paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities is she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help of evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

So again, there is a difference between the two, the paladin and any other character who happens to be lawful good. Again, they are the highest in morals and the ultimate symbol of the Lawful good alignment. In addition to the alignment, they can not cheat from it like other classes can because they have a code the forbids it. If your paladin lied, then he should have lost his powers. Like it or not, they are never supposed to.

I would say that 75% of all paladin are miss played, either because the player doesn't understand the way a lawful good character (times 10)should act or because the DM doesn't monitor the paladin and doesn't keep him in check.

Also, I don't mind having a nice civil debate, but please don't compare me to a borg and let's try to keep this to PHK. I know that there are other paladins of other alignments, but the main question on this thread was about the basic paladin from the PHK, let's keep the focus there, otherwise, this will get out of hand.

 

[Darmanicus]

I'll reply to this tomorrow my friend, too many beers does not a good arguement make, (and please don't tell me I'm gonna lose me powers coz I'm drunk ).

 

[Darmanicus]

i would indeed like a link if at all possible cause i dont have many of the older books

It's somewhere in the story hour forums my friend, not in any books however I sure would like to read a book on his story hour coz it's brilliant. In fact just check the story hour forum out full stop, I've read several of them and have not been dissappointed in the slightest: ENWorld fortunately hosts some excellent writers who should have published works and be recognized for the sheer joy they give to us mere mortals.

God bless you all.......

And with that, I'm going to bed!

 

[Darmanicus]

But before I do.......here ya go Bob.....

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=58227

 

[DM-Rocco]

I'll reply to this tomorrow my friend, too many beers does not a good arguement make, (and please don't tell me I'm gonna lose me powers coz I'm drunk ).

No, but you might lose your powers to do, what you woo, to women

 

[NeoDarke]

well in that case, if your a paladin, then don't lie. It did not however say anything about telling the whole truth. just tell them as much truth as you think they need to know, and leave it at that.

 

[Hussar]

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.
*snip*
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.

Well put. Yes, a cleric does not need to be LG. However, that's never been the point. The point was a LG cleric is under just as many restrictions as a paladin. The fact that a LG cleric HAS a code of conduct handed down to him from on high means pretty much the same as the paly's code. In both cases, if the character grossly violates that code, they lose their powers. If the LG cleric commits an evil act, that would generally constitute a gross violation of his code and thus would strip him of his abilities. Pretty much in an identical way to a paladin.

I do agree with Rocco that a number of paly's get very loosely played. That's true. And I also agree that paly players tend to get steamrolled by DM's who have the Arthurian Knight stamped across their forehead when it comes to paladins. ((On a side note, I've gotten slapped with that one. Despite spending much time creating a code for a paladin for a DM, we still constantly argued over things and I eventually retired the character as unplayable with that DM))

However, the idea that only Paladins have to adhere to a code is ludicrous. The fact that the divine casters need to Atone to get their abilities back (Druids too need to atone - gotta revere nature, can't lose the neutral aspect of their alignment) means that their code is handed to them from somewhere - either some sort of philosophy or a diety, take your pick. Yes, the code for a CE cleric of Spam would be different than a LG cleric's code, but it would still exist. IMVHO, there are far more healing battery clerics wandering around who have never once questioned any of the party's actions than poorly played paladins.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Well put. Yes, a cleric does not need to be LG. However, that's never been the point. The point was a LG cleric is under just as many restrictions as a paladin. The fact that a LG cleric HAS a code of conduct handed down to him from on high means pretty much the same as the paly's code. In both cases, if the character grossly violates that code, they lose their powers. If the LG cleric commits an evil act, that would generally constitute a gross violation of his code and thus would strip him of his abilities. Pretty much in an identical way to a paladin.

I do agree with Rocco that a number of paly's get very loosely played. That's true. And I also agree that paly players tend to get steamrolled by DM's who have the Arthurian Knight stamped across their forehead when it comes to paladins. ((On a side note, I've gotten slapped with that one. Despite spending much time creating a code for a paladin for a DM, we still constantly argued over things and I eventually retired the character as unplayable with that DM))

However, the idea that only Paladins have to adhere to a code is ludicrous. The fact that the divine casters need to Atone to get their abilities back (Druids too need to atone - gotta revere nature, can't lose the neutral aspect of their alignment) means that their code is handed to them from somewhere - either some sort of philosophy or a diety, take your pick. Yes, the code for a CE cleric of Spam would be different than a LG cleric's code, but it would still exist. IMVHO, there are far more healing battery clerics wandering around who have never once questioned any of the party's actions than poorly played paladins.

Nice to have people agree with me every once and a while

Concerning your second paragraph though, if you look two of my posts back you find references to page numbers and code/alignment/etc. The big difference is that a cleric doesn't have the stipulation of committing an evil act. Now a LG cleric should have something about that in her code, but it doesn't have to be there, so I LG cleric may get a one time shot at killing an innocent while A paladin would never be allowed this.