Poll: Where all the (D&D) paladins at?

[yaydod]

Unfortunately, it all comes down to Stereotypes.

Paladins have a stereotype, and too many people don't want to put any effort into seeing whether it's true or not, and talk about them without any real education on the subject...thus, perpetuating the cycle.

Me, I play Rogues most of the time. Do I want a Paladin in my party? You danged skippy I do! I absolutely want a relatively predictable, loyal party member who I *can count on*. What, I have to keep my less legal activities under the radar? Psh that goes without saying.

Advantages to having a Paladin in the party, from a Rogue's standpoint:

1. Loyal, dependable backup- who will risk their own life to save yours.
2. Backup healing, plus Paladins are all kinds of handy against Fear effects.
3. Outsiders give you tons of benefit of the doubt simply because you have a Paladin in your party. "Oh! They have a Paladin! Well, we know they can't have any evil people in their group, a Paladin wouldn't put up with that."

Mooohahahahaha.

What saddens me is, how so many people talk about their favorite PC's...and how often they are nothing more than 180-degree opposites of Paladins to begin with. How exactly can you complain about Paladins, and then make nothing but Anti-Paladins?

*Paladins* are party-wreckers? If half of the people who play 'evil' PC's played them by their alignments, they'd have party wipeouts in 2 game sessions when their basically douchebag PC's turn on each other.

Blackguards? Yeah, I want a guy in my party who not only is evil for the sake of being a scumbag but has an Evil God perched on his shoulder demanding he be even worse?

Evil clerics? Before they dropped a Cure Light Wounds on you, they'd demand services in kind. Hello, they're Evil, remember?

See, what gets me is how everyone talks about Paladins like they can't be played intelligently, with exceptions made for party members...but somehow all the 'evil' parties seem to only be 'evil' when it comes to random barmaids and NPC's. Why does 'good' always have to act against party members, but, 'evil' somehow doesn't?

I Love what you just wrote, here have a cookie.


And it is true taht if people played theire full fledge "Evil" PC, they would backstab the hell out of each other.
The worst part is that our DM encourages us to backstab every single persone we can (once my secret objective was to kill the whole party) and were dont even hace Evil alignements, just imagine the horrors.

An Evil cleric can be very fun to play, for example : you want me to heal you huumm? Well then just pleadge aleagence to my divinity of death, pain and deceit and i will heal so that you may do the initiation rituel. An it even better when you can heal your self with negative energy MUAHAHAHA

 

[WolfLord]

See, what gets me is how everyone talks about Paladins like they can't be played intelligently, with exceptions made for party members...but somehow all the 'evil' parties seem to only be 'evil' when it comes to random barmaids and NPC's. Why does 'good' always have to act against party members, but, 'evil' somehow doesn't?

People play evil like it simply means they are a genocidal douche, but evil characters wouldn't always kill off the party right away though. We have an evil fighter in the party right now, and he cares about the party and we're all buds. But anyone else? Their lives don't matter, but it's not reckless rampaging. Most people forget that Rolibar, one of the first d&d characters ever made, is lawful evil. He's a big hero and a lot of people like him (in universe), but he is still evil.

As for paladins, I've seen far too many people play them poorly, and I don't trust myself to do it well. Besides paladins don't have abilities to match the hoops they have to jump through in 3.5. When I play a holy warrior or religious zealot I find fighter, cleric, and crusader can do it all better.

 

[tobi the good boy]

If you're having issues with the whole buzz-kill to the party, just pull some crap like Samara did in me2 where she swore fealty to Shepard, You can still try and act as close to your limitations as possible (Heck you can hate your party if they go against them.) But your actions can mean only so much in the long run. Might make for a great tension builder too.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Once or twice, but never for the reason of wanting to play a paladin - by which I mean I've created paladins before but only with the intention of multiclassing into either Blackguards (for my evil chatacters) or Shadowbane Inquisitors (for my good characters). Whiter-than-white LG paladins just aren't for me. Shadowbane Inquisitors, on the other hand, were seemingly designed with me in mind.

 

[Pat8u]

No
If I do ever get the pleasure of playing dnd I am always a spellcaster.
I have a saying
"Mage,Always the mage"

And the reason no one makes a paladin is because you have to stick to being lawful good while chaotic good is the easiest to roleplay with
(Coming from a guy with no DND experience BTW, Im going to play it one day though)

 

[Scow2]

(warhammer references incoming)

Kharn the Betrayer is essentially a paladin of Khorne, so paladins can be cool if you pick the right god.

Just don't be like my friend and pick Pelor, the god of sunshine and happiness.

Bah... I hate the "Paladins are Warriors of their God" approach... I prefer the far superior "Paladins are the champions of Righteousness and Justice."

Then again, I'm a fan of "Always do the Right Thing, even if it makes it harder on yourself" in games.

Also, Pelor's the best god for Paladins to worship. He's not the god of "Sunshine and happiness." While he may be the God of Mercy, he's also the Mightiest Smiter of Smiting.

Do note that in D&D, a Paladin does NOT fall if he commits a Chaotic act - he only falls if he commits an evil act. Also, "failing to save" someone isn't an Evil act - in the case of someone saying "Save the bus full of nuns OR this school of Children", the Paladin is free to choose either of those OR "Strike The Bastard Down" as a third option, even if it costs the lives of both, children AND nuns. You can't save everyone.

The biggest disservice to Paladins is the lack of "Intimidate" as a class skill. Paladins aren't "Goody Two-Shoes" - They're "Divine Boots Kicking your shitty ass back in line." They make particularly excellent Heroes.

It's difficult to play a Paladin if you don't understand "Lawful".

 

[CrazyJew]

The girl who got me into D&D hates Paladins with a passion ever since one let her down. Seeing as I am interested in her I have to click the "No. Ew." option.

 

[Loki J]

I've never had a paladin as my primary character, though I've used them as NPCs regularly. Usually, they're not particularly nice, and occasionally 'bad' guys; there's absolutely no requirement for a paladin to be a nice person, particularly the ones that live past their first few battles. Jaded, disillusioned, and the only thing left that matters is the code...

Z

 

[Antitonic]

Bah... I hate the "Paladins are Warriors of their God" approach... I prefer the far superior "Paladins are the champions of Righteousness and Justice."

See, that says "Knight" to me, rather than "Paladin". But again, that's just my perspective on it...