Poll: Where all the (D&D) paladins at?
- Thread starter Poerts
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My very first attempt to play D&D was as a Tiefling Paladin. The problem however was that basically everyone else in my group wanted to be evil. So, that character didn't last very long, purely because if she continued to go with that group, she'd have been honour bound to smite them all.
The current character I'm playing is a Dragonborn Ardent. Playing him kind of like a Kamina from TTGL. A lot of bluster and confidence, with a few forays into genuine competence.
The current character I'm playing is a Dragonborn Ardent. Playing him kind of like a Kamina from TTGL. A lot of bluster and confidence, with a few forays into genuine competence.
Giant sacks full of healing potions, mostly. Someone does often step up to play Cleric, though they're usually quite lazy about it, opting to cast all their spells as healing. So more often than not, the sack o' potions is just as useful. I generally make it pretty easy to find or buy potions of cure light wounds though, so it's not too much of a problem.Bara_no_Hime said:
See, the thing is, this isn't just among one single group of regular players, this is something I've seen in DM'ing for... About 6 entirely different groups of people now? I've had a lot of different D&D groups over the years, and I frequently run two at once, if I happen to have a lot of free time (which is often). I only realized that no one had ever played a Paladin just this morning, actually.Candidus said:
I always played Paladin in my D&D games.
Then again the DM did allow us to play fast and loose with moralities.
Then again the DM did allow us to play fast and loose with moralities.
I think the issue is that people don't realize a basic premise:
Good is a lot more challenging to play.
Over the years I've played D&D...and admitting to how many is pretty embarrassing at this point...I've concluded that people don't play Paladins because it's too challenging to play well.
You have a strict moral code to follow, with real consequences for failing to do so. You are required to do things even when they're not convenient or 'tactically sound'.
Me, I generally play Rogues or Wizards, but I've definitely played Paladins- and had a lot of fun doing so. That very challenge can be a lot of fun if you're actually roleplaying instead of trying to justify murdering every breathing creature in sight so you can take their stuff.
It's also fun to challenge the stereotype- because it seems that 'everyone knows' what paladins are, even when they've never played one and only half-read the book entries. "Rar stick in their butts naive"...really?
One of a Paladin's main stats is Wisdom. Someone who is 'wise' isn't 'naive'. Every Paladin *I* ever played was an intelligent student of human nature. How, exactly, can you be an example to do Good if you don't understand what drives people?
Honestly, the problem with Paladins is the same problem with every D&D class, ever. The Stereotype is not the Class. And far too few people want to try to understand the Class and play it in a fun, challenging manner, and instead was some uber-twinked half-class half-dragon insert Prestige Class blender who doesn't have enough non-combat skills to feed themselves.
Good is a lot more challenging to play.
Over the years I've played D&D...and admitting to how many is pretty embarrassing at this point...I've concluded that people don't play Paladins because it's too challenging to play well.
You have a strict moral code to follow, with real consequences for failing to do so. You are required to do things even when they're not convenient or 'tactically sound'.
Me, I generally play Rogues or Wizards, but I've definitely played Paladins- and had a lot of fun doing so. That very challenge can be a lot of fun if you're actually roleplaying instead of trying to justify murdering every breathing creature in sight so you can take their stuff.
It's also fun to challenge the stereotype- because it seems that 'everyone knows' what paladins are, even when they've never played one and only half-read the book entries. "Rar stick in their butts naive"...really?
One of a Paladin's main stats is Wisdom. Someone who is 'wise' isn't 'naive'. Every Paladin *I* ever played was an intelligent student of human nature. How, exactly, can you be an example to do Good if you don't understand what drives people?
Honestly, the problem with Paladins is the same problem with every D&D class, ever. The Stereotype is not the Class. And far too few people want to try to understand the Class and play it in a fun, challenging manner, and instead was some uber-twinked half-class half-dragon insert Prestige Class blender who doesn't have enough non-combat skills to feed themselves.
I'm guessing you mean old 3.5 then.Poerts said:
In Pathfinder, Channel Positive Energy pretty much replaces spells as the Cleric's primary healing method. Combine with Selective Channel and Quick Channel and the cleric can heal the entire party as a move action - leaving her standard action for a buff spell, de-buff spell on enemies, or attack spell on specific enemies (undead or outsiders). Or a single melee or ranged attack if applicable.
Of course, after combat the cleric can spend spells on healing. But as you say, potions (or a Wand) is often a more resource-friendly alternative.
See, that... who does that?! People keep mentioning it, but really, WTF?! Do DMs actually pull shit like that? Loss of powers - really?Candidus said:
I could see a Paladin losing her powers if she went and, say, murdered a bunch of innocents. Fine. But I hear people talking like DMs do it for any old thing. That just isn't right.
I once had a paladin in a bad situation - the evil Vampire had kidnapped her lover and was holding him hostage for a map that my paladin had to a powerful artifact. My paladin agreed to make the trade and arranged a time...
... and had the party rogue make a copy of the map, with one small change - instead of leading to the artifact, the map instead led to the lair of a powerful (and evil) dragon.
My paladin turned the "fake" map over, got her lover back, got the "sudden but inevitable betrayal" and fought her way clear of minions. And then she went merrily on her way, knowing that she'd either slain evil (both the vampire and the dragon were evil, so if either is slain, the world benefits) or at least annoyed/delayed it.
For lying, she had to make a Powers check (this was Ravenloft). However, the DM judged that since she lied for both the lesser and greater good (ie, she lied to protect an innocent AND to protect the world) that aside from the Powers check (which she passed) she had no other ill effects.
That is how a GOOD GM handles a paladin in a difficult situation. My paladin chose the path that put the fewest individuals at risk, and the DM did not penalize her for doing so.
However, I've heard people say she should have lost all her powers, forever, for that. WTF?! She saved lives - she risked her own well being to protect others. How is that not what a Paladin is supposed to do?
I first have to ask, do the evil Paladin classes count?
Because im a Paladin of Tyranny....
What? Its a legitimate class! D:<
You best respect me and my Rule over the party, lest your water be diseased, and your food go rot in your hands! And maybe if your obedient, i'll let you ride on my Black Bear with me instead of being mauled underneath his claws for breakfast. Its always good to keep a meat shield within arms reach if archers were to ambush our party.
Because im a Paladin of Tyranny....
What? Its a legitimate class! D:<
You best respect me and my Rule over the party, lest your water be diseased, and your food go rot in your hands! And maybe if your obedient, i'll let you ride on my Black Bear with me instead of being mauled underneath his claws for breakfast. Its always good to keep a meat shield within arms reach if archers were to ambush our party.
Paladins are laaaaaaaaaame. I mean, come on, who wants to be lawful good? Lamest alignment evah. Now warlocks, those are where it is at.
Pfft, angst is beneath my Paladin. The only thing hes ever swooned over was a position of power. Which he then took by causing Blinding Sickness on the military leader, and stabbing him in open battle after challenging his rule!Poerts said:
What? He had a good reason. A horde of goblins were going to attack the castle he was ordered to protect. How is a noble going to collect tax if hes dead?
Besides, he doesnt like the undead. To icky. Always festering and getting Gore on his really nice cloak.
I play Pathfinder almost exclusively and out of the core classes, Paladin is one of the strongest.
-Has a fighter Hit Die and Base Attack Bonus
-Can detect evil at will
-Can smite evil adding her charisma mod to AC and Attack and her Paladin level to damage. Can do this multiple times a day at higher levels. Damage is doubled against undead, outsiders and dragons
-Gains her Charisma modifier to saves
-Can heal self as a swift action
-IMMUNE to fear, grants rest of the party a bonus to resist fears
-IMMUNE to diseases
-Can remove status effects with Lay on Hands
-Can cast up to 4th level divine spells
-Can make her weapon up to +6 as a swift action
-IMMUNE to charm, grants a bonus vs. charm to the rest of the party
-Can give the entire party the ability to smite evil
-Makes all weapons within 10 feet good-aligned
-Gains DR 5/Evil and is IMMUNE to compulsion, grants party a +4 vs compulsion
-20th level power: DR 10/Evil, Smites Banish outsiders, Channels and Lay On Hands heal maximum.
That's some of the most powerful crap that exists in the core rules.
-Has a fighter Hit Die and Base Attack Bonus
-Can detect evil at will
-Can smite evil adding her charisma mod to AC and Attack and her Paladin level to damage. Can do this multiple times a day at higher levels. Damage is doubled against undead, outsiders and dragons
-Gains her Charisma modifier to saves
-Can heal self as a swift action
-IMMUNE to fear, grants rest of the party a bonus to resist fears
-IMMUNE to diseases
-Can remove status effects with Lay on Hands
-Can cast up to 4th level divine spells
-Can make her weapon up to +6 as a swift action
-IMMUNE to charm, grants a bonus vs. charm to the rest of the party
-Can give the entire party the ability to smite evil
-Makes all weapons within 10 feet good-aligned
-Gains DR 5/Evil and is IMMUNE to compulsion, grants party a +4 vs compulsion
-20th level power: DR 10/Evil, Smites Banish outsiders, Channels and Lay On Hands heal maximum.
That's some of the most powerful crap that exists in the core rules.
Exactly! A Pal of Tyr is the real kind of Paladin. Fighting for his superiors without question! Striking down those who would try and overthrow you king! Causing plagues to villages that refuse to pay their taxes!loc978 said:
Oh, and riding Black Bears named Malik. Thats the most historically accurate part. Everyone knows the crusades happened because knights got their hands on bears.
Paladins just aren't good against variety. They're only good against evil, and imo smite evil isn't very good anyway. At 10th level, you get to do ten more damage for three hits per day. And if you miss it still counts as using it once. Also, they stop getting features after level 6.Bara_no_Hime said:... then your group isn't playing Paladins right. And weak? In a game where most of the monsters are evil (and some games are more chaos vs law, so sometimes that doesn't happen) then Paladin is THE best damage dealing class.dyre said:Paladins are a shitty, weak class, and they're jerks (who insist that you follow their alignment)!
Your players are doing everyone a favor by not playing a paladin
... assuming that you're playing Pathfinder. If you're playing 4E, I have no idea, I've only ever played an arcane caster in 4E.
Anyway, power levels aside, it sounds like your group doesn't play paladins well - or like you play in a group where people tend to play neutral-evil characters. If your group does a lot of enemy torture to extract info, then sure, a Paladin is a bad idea. If your group kills enemies that have surrendered and are begging for mercy, then again, the Paladin will not fit in.
However, if your group likes stealth to set up ambushes, then the Paladin should be no problem - and if your paladin IS a problem, then that has more to do with the player being a jerk than the character class.
Paladins have to be lawful - they don't have to avoid standard combat tactics. Flanking is a standard combat tactic - it is entirely honorable. So is stealth. If the party can sneak past the encounter, then no lives are lost - that is a good act! The only paladin who protests to tactics and stealth are stupid paladins.
...assuming you're playing 3.5e. If you're playing Pathfinder, I have no clue if paladins are good
And paladins get whiny if you loot bodies or execute prisoners (if there aren't any nearby authorities to send them to), which are both completely neutral things to do in medieval times!
I like the concept of paladins, and would play one if I had the chance. Holy warriors combating evil while keeping up a moral code is nice. Succeeding while still retaining your code is the stuff of legends.
Never really understood the mindset that they're all sticks-in-the-mud; that really seems the realm of incompetent players. They're supposed to be somewhat underpowered in 3.5ed, due to generally unhelpful powers (barring the mount) and MAD, but that didn't stop me from playing monks, and I'd love to try them in another game.
Never really understood the mindset that they're all sticks-in-the-mud; that really seems the realm of incompetent players. They're supposed to be somewhat underpowered in 3.5ed, due to generally unhelpful powers (barring the mount) and MAD, but that didn't stop me from playing monks, and I'd love to try them in another game.
As an off-topic note: that sounds awesome.Weresquirrel said:
And again...why are they 'lame'? Because you have to follow a moral code- even though at this point in D&D (for example, Pathfinder) you can custom-create a moral code to follow?
Other than 'act like a murdering psychopath' what, exactly, can't a Paladin do that a normal, 'good' person can? I know a lot of decent, law-abiding people in real life who more or less live up to the 'code' who manage to live quite well.
Of course, I can certainly bring up some examples- but at the same time, to me that's the challenge. However, something that doesn't get brought up often enough is this: having a Paladin makes for good PR.
See, my DM's (and myself, when I'm a DM) do something that *all* DM's should do- we actually let the party's reputation have consequences.
Party A is full of PC's who feel Paladins are 'lame' and feel Lawful Good is equally 'lame'.
Party B is a good and neutral mixed party with a Paladin- who isn't necessarily the leader.
Which Party do you think gets the benefit of the doubt from city authorities? Which Party gets approached by *other* Lawful Good agencies with offers of aid and benefits?
Heck, one particular game I remember, we had just gotten back from a dungeon and we were pretty mangled- some stat losses from Undead, needed some Regeneration for missing limbs, etc. Our Paladin goes to his local church, turns over his share of the treasure, reports in. When he comes back he's fully healed and hands every member of the party a little token...*for free healing at his church for everyone*.
Suddenly, putting up with a little moral lecturing isn't so bad, is it?
The problem is that very few DM's A) subject Players to the true consequences of their own actions in a game and B) don't take the effort to ensure each PC has a niche and benefits of their own.
People talk trash about Paladins- but a well-run Paladin can show up with a small army to help out in an invasion scenario, because his Church will help him out for a good cause.
Catch is...the DM has to actually put this in his games, instead of blowing it off. Of all the classes, a Paladin is not in a vacuum. He (usually) has an entire Church he reports to and tithes to, which should be a large resource he- and by extension, the Party- can access if they're smart and aren't acting like morons.
Same thing with Clerics, to a degree- indeed, any class has some kind of group they can access for resources, at least in most game worlds- but the thing is: Paladins are, more than any other class, based on this. And if DM's actually incorporate this into their games, Paladins have a lot more use to the Party.
Example: DM knows he has a Paladin in his party. He's made sure the player isn't going to be a complete party-wrecker, and sets out the campaign.
About halfway through the trek through the wilderness, the party is low on hitpoints and supplies...and the DM points out to the Paladin that there's a small outpost of his Order nearby. After all, his Order runs around in the wilderness slaying monsters and saving people, logically they would have outposts and supply caches out there for the use of traveling Paladins and their people.
If more DM's did this...I think more people would realize that every class is a fully-featured Person with a lot more than a cardboard cutout backstory and personality.
Other than 'act like a murdering psychopath' what, exactly, can't a Paladin do that a normal, 'good' person can? I know a lot of decent, law-abiding people in real life who more or less live up to the 'code' who manage to live quite well.
Of course, I can certainly bring up some examples- but at the same time, to me that's the challenge. However, something that doesn't get brought up often enough is this: having a Paladin makes for good PR.
See, my DM's (and myself, when I'm a DM) do something that *all* DM's should do- we actually let the party's reputation have consequences.
Party A is full of PC's who feel Paladins are 'lame' and feel Lawful Good is equally 'lame'.
Party B is a good and neutral mixed party with a Paladin- who isn't necessarily the leader.
Which Party do you think gets the benefit of the doubt from city authorities? Which Party gets approached by *other* Lawful Good agencies with offers of aid and benefits?
Heck, one particular game I remember, we had just gotten back from a dungeon and we were pretty mangled- some stat losses from Undead, needed some Regeneration for missing limbs, etc. Our Paladin goes to his local church, turns over his share of the treasure, reports in. When he comes back he's fully healed and hands every member of the party a little token...*for free healing at his church for everyone*.
Suddenly, putting up with a little moral lecturing isn't so bad, is it?
The problem is that very few DM's A) subject Players to the true consequences of their own actions in a game and B) don't take the effort to ensure each PC has a niche and benefits of their own.
People talk trash about Paladins- but a well-run Paladin can show up with a small army to help out in an invasion scenario, because his Church will help him out for a good cause.
Catch is...the DM has to actually put this in his games, instead of blowing it off. Of all the classes, a Paladin is not in a vacuum. He (usually) has an entire Church he reports to and tithes to, which should be a large resource he- and by extension, the Party- can access if they're smart and aren't acting like morons.
Same thing with Clerics, to a degree- indeed, any class has some kind of group they can access for resources, at least in most game worlds- but the thing is: Paladins are, more than any other class, based on this. And if DM's actually incorporate this into their games, Paladins have a lot more use to the Party.
Example: DM knows he has a Paladin in his party. He's made sure the player isn't going to be a complete party-wrecker, and sets out the campaign.
About halfway through the trek through the wilderness, the party is low on hitpoints and supplies...and the DM points out to the Paladin that there's a small outpost of his Order nearby. After all, his Order runs around in the wilderness slaying monsters and saving people, logically they would have outposts and supply caches out there for the use of traveling Paladins and their people.
If more DM's did this...I think more people would realize that every class is a fully-featured Person with a lot more than a cardboard cutout backstory and personality.
Pathfinder gave paladins a nice boost in the ass-kicking capability department by improving their smite evil ability and placing a little less emphasis on rigid rules and restrictions. I'm currently a Warforged paladin/archaeologist (a bard variant) and play him as a boisterous loudmouth who likes strawberry pastries and kitties.
They most certainly do. Most D&D DMs I know (apart from myself) have done so at least once.Bara_no_Hime said:
Granted, most of those DMs did so in 2nd Edition, where class and role were conjoined at the waist along with stats. Paladins were *potentially* powerful at all stages of the game, but they paid dearly for their art which is why they had all those restrictions.
Moreso than most Clerics, ironically. You'd think they would have been even more strict than Paladins.
For 3.5, most players I knew played Paladins to eventually "fall" into a Blackguard...which is functionally the same damn thing as a Paladin, only they get Grimdark powers and a weak Sneak Attack.
The most interesting "religious" character I can remember playing was a Sorcerer+Cleric of Boccob (god of magic and arcane study). I was actually casting healing spells as a Vanilla Sorcerer (before being ordained) due to a way I found to cheat the system through Metamagic Feats. Yes, Arcane-power Heal Wounds without using the Bard spell list. In 3.5e.
I eventually found a way to write it into his development.
In any case, Pathfinder does Paladins much better methinks. It's literally 3.5e with a LOT of the useless bloat trimmed off and the rules clarified/unified. A lot of the problematic classes from the Core and Complete books were cleaned up and unbroken or buffed.
It's a much better product than 3.5e.