Paladins: What's the Appeal?

[Bicorn]

I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.

It's hard to roleplay with so many limitations and without acting as a Knight Templar or lawful stupid.

I have no problem with this, but I've personally never saw what was so fun about it. I always play as a fun character, who has belivable goals.

Are paladins even a real Archetype? I mean even the templars were selfish jerks most of the time.

So what makes playing as paladins so fun for you guys?

[Sariel Vailo]

I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.

It's hard to roleplay with so many limitations and without acting as a Knight Templar or lawful stupid.

I have no problem with this, but I've personally never saw what was so fun about it. I always play as a fun character, who has belivable goals.

Are paladins even a real Archetype? I mean even the templars were selfish jerks most of the time.

So what makes playing as paladins so fun for you guys?

well for 5e it depends on your oath if your a hollier than thou jag off. i usually use paladin of vengence, or oath of the ancients an elven live life to the fullest bring light laughter and love to the world.and always kindle the light of hope within ones self. im usually cg i always have medicine and i care deeply about those i heal be it by spell or my hands. but i do harm to those who atk me they pay with their lives.
in both i dont act holier than thou. in vengence i brood and protect i try to smile a good friend can help.with oath of the ancients i know perfprmance as a skill as well i was a performer and i sing while i heal and kindle hope.without caring aout gods only about life,light and love.

[Ratguard]

You don't NEED to be a holier than thou jerk, or even especially uptight, you can be merciful, but slightly pragmatic when necessary, you just need to work with your DM.

Now one of the things I have heard thrown around for why, is something I have heard called aspiration roleplay. Simply put some people play Paladins because it allows them access to a character that is a moral exemplar, maybe the player values honesty, and good morals. And as an extension decides he wants to play a paladin because it allows him to live up to those ideals he values so much.

Other people just think paladins are cool!

[SethoMarkus]

I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.

Sure, one way to play a Paladin is as a "holier than thou jerk", but that is a fairly cliched and boring, one-dimensional character. If that is how you see them, I can understand your disdain.

And while "warrior + cleric" is fairly accurte, I find the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts.

It's hard to roleplay with so many limitations and without acting as a Knight Templar or lawful stupid.

The noble warrior who strives to better the world, fighting evil wherever it may be? The devout warrior priest who represents his deity's will? The shining beacon of Good, who leads by example? The commoner called to a higher purpose who must come to understand her inner strength in the fight to protect all from some great Evil?

I see Lawful Good, nor Paladin, as any more of a straight jacket than any other alignment or class. Must Bards always be anti-establishment anarchists? Do all Barbarians speak in a broken language and have no understanding of civilized culture? Do all warlocks have to be edge-lords?

This doesn't even get into how Paladin doesn't require a Lawful Good alignment.

I have no problem with this, but I've personally never saw what was so fun about it. I always play as a fun character, who has belivable goals.

It's completely fine if this isn't a character type that fits your tastes. Everyone has fun in different ways. However, I don't like your assumption that a LG Paladin cannot be fun.

The most obnoxious and fun-loving character in one campaign I ran was a Lawful Good paladin. She drank heavily, always caused collateral damage, swore like a sailor, and was a bit cracked. She also had a strict code of honor and sense of duty, always repaid any debts or damages, strove to see the good in people, and could always be relied on.

Are paladins even a real Archetype? I eman even the templars were selfish jerks mos tof the time.

The archetype is real, but it is based on a romanticized version of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne's court, the Knights Templar, King Arthur's Knights of the Round, and characters from other tales of valour and chivalry. No, it is not a realistic representation of history most of the time. However, it is meant to be a representation of those romanticized stories.

So what makes playing as paladins so fun for you guys?

For me, it is simply one of many character archetypes I enjoy. The unwavering devotion to a cause is what draws me to it most of the time. Other times, I like the idea of the everyman pulled into something bigger than himself. I can't really explain exactly what makes it fun for me, it just is. But I also enjoy playing the Evil schemer, the apathetic wanderer, and the curious adventurer.

[Sariel Vailo]

You don't NEED to be a holier than thou jerk, or even especially uptight, you can be merciful, but slightly pragmatic when necessary, you just need to work with your DM.

Now one of the things I have heard thrown around for why, is something I have heard called aspiration roleplay. Simply put some people play Paladins because it allows them access to a character that is a moral exemplar, maybe the player values honesty, and good morals. And as an extension decides he wants to play a paladin because it allows him to live up to those ideals he values so much.

Other people just think paladins are cool!

i think theyre cool

[Kelb_Panthera]

The very things you dislike appeal to some paladin players (hopefully, minus the self-righteous jerk bit).

Pretending to be an utter zealot for a cause can be great fun. It's equal parts certainty of action and absurdity.

Finding a way to accomplish your goals without breaking the code poses an intellectual challenge and that has a certain appeal.

The necessity of balancing the two previous points creates interesting nuances.

Then there's the classicly romantacized knight in shining armor atop a white steed imagery.



Alternately, there's playing against type;

Playing a good humored wanderer with little drive who, nevertheless, sticks firmly to the code and smites evil wherever he finds it.

Perhaps a grizzled, old veteran who's seen enough to know that while the code must be held, that it pays to interpret it creatively sometimes and that, on rare occasion, it's okay to break it as long as it's truly necessary and you don't commit evil.



Then, of course, there are a variety of cultures to take inspiration from in what the character is beyond his paladin's calling and what the idea of honor actually entails; a chivalric knight paladin and a bushido samurai paladin are very different things beyond the core LG and CoC details.

Finally, there're the gods themselves. While a paladin need not serve a god (in some versions of D&D) choosing to do so anyway can generate some interesting characters. Take a paladin dedicated to Sune Fire-hair and compare it to one dedicated to Wee Jas, for example.





The trick to having fun with a paladin is to embrace what it is instead of railing against what it isn't and not to get stuck in the idea it can only be played one way.

[JoshuaZ]

The archetype is the honorable warrior who fights so others don't have to. Variants of that idea as a general notion are pretty old (even if it isn't historically always justified). Playing the knight in shining armor who always tries to do good even when the world isn't supporting it can be fun. Relevant quotes: Big Ears from Goblinscomic:

"I want the power to stop innocents from dying. To protect others instead of just standing around helplessly."

Captain America:

"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree besides the river of truth, and tell the whole world - 'No, you move.'"

(Cap isn't literally a paladin but he has a lot of the ethos.)

[oudeis]

I like being the good guy.

[Bicorn]

You don't NEED to be a holier than thou jerk, or even especially uptight, you can be merciful, but slightly pragmatic when necessary, you just need to work with your DM.

I know they don't NEED to but I have never seen a player roleplay in another way.

Maybe the players I hang out with just don't get how to play paladins(The class not the Hi-Rez game)

The archetype is real, but it is based on a romanticized version of the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne's court, the Knights Templar, King Arthur's Knights of the Round, and characters from other tales of valour and chivalry. No, it is not a realistic representation of history most of the time. However, it is meant to be a representation of those romanticized stories.

But they don't have holy powers or an association with religion. They are just ordinary people who are beacons of hope despite being just humans, THAT is what made them special.

[JoshuaZ]

But they don't have holy powers or an association with religion. They are just ordinary people who are beacons of hope despite being just humans, THAT is what made them special.

That's a variant you can play also. But in a world with sufficient magic, a beacon of hope becomes more than special and might have magic from the sheer audacity and stubbornness of their hope. This works particularly well in settings where one doesn't need a deity to grant divine magic.

[Worgwood]

I mean they are nothing but a bunch a holier than thou jerks, a mix of cleric and warrior.

It's hard to roleplay with so many limitations and without acting as a Knight Templar or lawful stupid.

They're only holier-than-thou if you choose to play them that way. Honestly, the core of their code really comes down to 'strive at all times to be morally good, and encourage others to be morally good.' Is it much harder to roleplay a samurai who would never under any circumstances break the code of bushido? Or a gentleman thief who strictly adheres to a code of ethics when it comes to his stealing?

I have no problem with this, but I've personally never saw what was so fun about it. I always play as a fun character, who has belivable goals.

The appeal of the paladin is fantasy. It's the same thing which drives people to play wizards who are striving to achieve Ultimate Cosmic Power and ascend to godhood, or warlocks who want to decipher the mad secrets of the Old Ones. Besides which, a character's motivation is really up to the player. You could roleplay a paladin who wants nothing more than to live out the rest of his days in peace, but his own personal sense of justice constantly drives him to get involved.

Are paladins even a real Archetype? I mean even the templars were selfish jerks most of the time.

Of course they're a real archetype. The fantasy of the chivalrous holy knight who embodies virtue and goodness has existed for probably hundreds of years. You see them in Arthurian tales, or in fictionalized accounts of Charlemagne's court, even if they don't necessarily always have holy powers associated with them. Also, the idea that Templars were all selfish jerks seems kind of conjectural, but I'm not really a historian.

So what makes playing as paladins so fun for you guys?

Probably the fact that people see them this way. It's fun and challenging to roleplay a character who's so heavily stigmatized before the group even meets him. The thing about the paladin, though, is you really have to work with your GM to achieve what you want. I came to an agreement with my GM where my paladin is Neutral Good and follows a custom code, which he's allowed to bend or even outright break without falling if it's for a truly good cause, and he seeks forgiveness from his god afterwards. It's made it much less stressful to play.

[BWR]

Gonna have to throw my lot in with the "you don't know what you're talking about" crowd, which is the blunter way of saying "if you play an ******** obviously it will be an ********".

Go read some literature with proper paladiny characters in them to see what they should be like. Elizabeth Moon's "The Deed of Paksenarrion", The Dragonlance books "Vinas Solamnus" and "The Legend of Huma", the original template for the D&D paladin is Poul Anderseon's "Three hearts and three lions".

[SethoMarkus]

But they don't have holy powers or an association with religion. They are just ordinary people who are beacons of hope despite being just humans, THAT is what made them special.

But in those romanticized stories they are often depicted as "being on the side of God" or somesuch.

The Paladin archetype didn't transform from a retainer knight into a divine magic fueled warrior overnight, it happened gradually over time. But, they were always a "holy warrior". Why they have magic at all? Probably because they are, as you put, a combination of Cleric and Fighter.

Again, it is a romanticized and exaggerated trope on the Holy Knight idea.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But they don't have holy powers or an association with religion. They are just ordinary people who are beacons of hope despite being just humans, THAT is what made them special.

Not directly, but medieval europe had religion spread through it so ubiquitously that basically everything good was associated with God and everything else was the work of the devil.

That the knights of the round table and other such romantacized figures acted for the good of the realm "in the name of God" would've been such a given that it would barely need mentioning. Secularism is a relatively modern thing.

[Rhaegar14]

You may be assigning a little bit too much of what was required by 3.5e's Code of Conduct to the Paladin archetype as a whole. In 3.5, Paladins literally HAD to be holier-than-thou jerks because if they weren't being the designated party stick in the mud they lost all of their class features.

That's since changed in 4e and 5e. Paladins don't have alignment requirements anymore, and for good reason.

Sariel Vailo's already covered that there are different Paladin Oaths now, but your post seems to specifically refer to the Devotion Paladin, the stereotypical white knight. That's fine, because Devotion is still my favorite flavor of Paladin.

For a little context, ever since my first Everquest character when I was nine, my avatar in any given game has been a Paladin. While I am certainly capable of playing and enjoying other characters, if my character is really just that setting's incarnation of myself, rather than someone I think of as very different from me in personality, that character is almost always a Paladin. For fifteen years, the Paladin has been my favorite archetype. I like to think after that long I know a couple things about how to do it poorly and how to do it well. I'm going to use my current character in my group's home campaign, Roderick of Southglade, a Tiefling Devotion Paladin, to show examples of the things I'm talking about.

A well-played Paladin, for one, does not police the rest of the party unless they're doing something truly vile, something any good-aligned character would speak out about. Roderick's best friend is the only non-good member of our party, Gideon. Gideon is chaotic neutral, a selfish coward. When Gideon expresses hesitation to do what is right because of the danger it puts him in, Roderick (usually) does not chastise him. Roderick does not call him out any time he runs away or does something cowardly. But Roderick believes that Gideon has it in him to be heroic, moreso than Gideon himself. Roderick offers Gideon encouragement in fearful times and tries to convince him that he can be more than he is, that honor has value, and that people are worth saving even if it does not directly benefit our party. That doesn't mean he's giving Gideon a lecture every time he makes a Deception check, even though Roderick himself is sworn not to tell lies.

When the requirements of Roderick's oath come in conflict with the rest of the party, Roderick does not threaten them, because they are his friends and allies. When we came upon a farmer bleeding out next to his ruined cart, Roderick immediately dismounted and healed the man's wounds. When he explained that bandits had taken his wife and daughter, Roderick did not say "we have to go save them." Roderick said "I'm going to go save them, and the rest of you can come with me if you want to." When Roderick's oath requires him to show mercy to a hated enemy, he asks NICELY if the others can please not make him choose between them and his oath. He doesn't draw his sword and demand that the others stand down like a holier-than-thou jerk.

Roderick leads by example. He is utterly fearless (and next level will finally be getting straight-up immunity to fear mechanically to back that element of his roleplaying up). He doesn't need any reason to do something except that it is the right thing to do; our DM has commented on how much he enjoys that because it's very easy to exploit in designing adventure hooks (see above story about the farmer). He will stand between the innocent, or any of his allies, and their enemies until he is completely unable to do so. Roderick is willing to sacrifice his life in the cause of righteousness without a second thought.

But despite all this, he's still FLAWED. Roderick could stand to be less reckless; his first instinct when he sees evil being done is to charge in and rescue the innocents, even though that has literally gotten him killed (and in our setting, resurrection magic is not really a thing; Roderick is only still alive because of his god's direct intervention). As a 9th-level character in a fairly typical D&D setting, as the chosen of his god in a war against the servants of an archfiend, he struggles to accept the fact that his life is actually worth a good deal more than a common footsoldier's. He struggles with the idea that, during a large scale battle, he needs to save his spells and Lay On Hands points because he and his party will need them to do what they must to win the day, when he could use that magic to save the lives of so many dying soldiers. He struggles to accept that sometimes he needs to let others fight their own battles when they could quite possibly lose those battles and die. Roderick also has a temper, and struggles upholding some parts of his oath when angry. He at one point temporarily lost his powers because he maimed a Justiciar (the big bad's enforcers in our campaign; a Justiciar killed Roderick's family in front of him and burned down his village, for a little necessary context) after giving his word that he would let the Justiciar go in exchange for information.

So, I guess what I would boil it down to is that well-played Paladins lead by example, not by dictating, and that Paladins are still human. They're still flawed, and upholding their oaths is not always easy for them. A Paladin is not perfectly divine and does not exist to ruin the rest of the party's fun.

[oudeis]

Now that's a Paladin. My hat is off to you.

[SethoMarkus]

Now that's a Paladin. My hat is off to you.

Agreed. Bravo, Rhaegar14!

Though, I disagree with your point about 3.5. Sure, it was a more strict code a Lawful Good Paladin had to follow, but your own story of a Paladin would still fit into that tighter code.

[Cluedrew]

As I see it, a paladin is supposed to be the king of heroes, a hero not through accident, but one who reaches that point by determination and their own goodness. If you have trouble seeing that in a paladin, they aren't there yet.

Everything else I could say has been said. Good story Rhaegar14. I might see if I can scrounge up some other good paladin stories.

[Rhaegar14]

Thanks guys, I try. Though when I started typing that post there was literally one other reply in the thread hahaha. My points were already mostly made, though examples/stories are always good.

[CharonsHelper]

+1 to Rhaegar14 playing an awesome paladin.

As to my favorite character in fiction who I would consider to be a paladin in D&D terms - take a look at Michael Carpenter from The Dresden Files.

[Kajorma]

I like characters that come with a sense of purpose.
The paladin generally has an absolute certainty about right and wrong, and will choose right even if it is the hard thing to do.
For one thing, this drives the story (because it's hard to actually get something like the Suicide Squad focused on completing *any* mission)
But the big part is seeing a situation and knowing without thinking what your character would want to do. I've gotten there with other characters, but it's a lot easier on the religious types.

[Rhaegar14]

But the big part is seeing a situation and knowing without thinking what your character would want to do. I've gotten there with other characters, but it's a lot easier on the religious types.

I want to piggyback off this a little bit. The best moments in roleplaying, for me, are when the character "reaches out," metaphorically speaking, and tells YOU what they're going to do, rather than you deciding what they're going to do. That happens a bit more easily with zealots.

[tensai_oni]

Characters bound by strict codes of honor are great, especially when the character is flawed and tries hard but fails to always live up to the code. Or when adherence to the code put the character in a real dilemma - I am not talking about crappy "make the paladin fall" traps, but real dilemmas between pragmatic expediency and "doing the right thing". It's a great opportunity for some quality roleplaying.

A paladin is annoying only if roleplayed poorly, which also includes policing the party and forcing it to act in a particular way.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You may be assigning a little bit too much of what was required by 3.5e's Code of Conduct to the Paladin archetype as a whole. In 3.5, Paladins literally HAD to be holier-than-thou jerks because if they weren't being the designated party stick in the mud they lost all of their class features.

Ugh, I get sick of this. My entire response was made with that version of the paladin in mind and the 2e version of the code was more strict, FFS.

The quoted statement is simply not true.

[Arkhios]

Paladins are not just a fantasy archetype. In France, I can't remember the time period, there used to be this regent who had nine elite warriors who were called paladins at the time, Roland or something being their leader and/or most famous. They were known for their chivalry, and basically served (probably) as the foundation for the common depiction of knights in shiny armor.

To me Paladins represent the chivalrous ideal, and that somewhere there are people who care about good deeds, honorable combat, and devout faith.

I absolutely hate selfish (or rather, evil-selfish) people who are only in it for themselves (like most of the humanity, to be honest). This might be why Paladins appeal to me the most: they put the benefit of others ahead of their own. Altruist, if you know the meaning, describes a paladin really well.

[tomandtish]

Gonna have to throw my lot in with the "you don't know what you're talking about" crowd, which is the blunter way of saying "if you play an ******** obviously it will be an ********".

Go read some literature with proper paladiny characters in them to see what they should be like. Elizabeth Moon's "The Deed of Paksenarrion", The Dragonlance books "Vinas Solamnus" and "The Legend of Huma", the original template for the D&D paladin is Poul Anderseon's "Three hearts and three lions".

You can add Michael Carpenter from Jim Butcher's "The Dresden Files", Malowen from Ru Emerson's novelization of "Against the Giants" and Alhandra from the D&D novel "City of Fire", just to throw a few more out there.

There are plenty of non-jerk paladins. The problem isn't one with the class. It's almost invariably a communication problem between the player and other players and/or the GM.

[8BitNinja]

Well hello everyone, I'm pretty sure anyone who knows me here know that I love paladins. I can explain.

Paladins are not supposed to be selfish or jerks. A good example of a paladin would be Captain America. I know this is going to sound very No True Scotsman, but I'm just getting that out of the way. Paladins are supposed to be holy knights who help rid the world of evil and help others. Also, comparing paladins to the Knights Templar is going to open a can of worms and close this thread at the same time. Maybe another place is good for discussing that.

Now that's out of the way.

For me, the paladin is what I have always wanted to be, and with RPGs I am able to express that. The paladin is a fearless knight who protects the weak and helps the helpless, while fighting his own inward corruption by adhering to a strict code of faith (which I'm not going into due to forum rules). Sure, paladins are still human (or humanoid, not discriminating against elves, dwarves, and other races) and are going to have flaws, but he not only works to combat evil outside, but also inside.

Also, paladins are not simply fighter/cleric. They have lots of things that both of them do not have. Such as
Lay on Hands
Holy Mount
Aura of Courage
Aura of Good
Divine Grace
Divine Health

[Koo Rehtorb]

The appeal of paladins is in seeing tiny pinpricks of good struggling against the vast overwhelming evil smothering everything until they're inevitably either corrupted or killed. It's very true to life.

[Cluedrew]

Says the one who will avoid their responsibility, and certainly never go past it.

And even if it is true, and considering that the world is complex and varied it can be, a paladin will continue anyways. Because even a momentary glimmer is better than complete darkness.

[Tiktakkat]

Are paladins even a real Archetype?

Yes, they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin
They are essentially the "French" version of the Knights of the Round Table, serving Charlemagne rather than Arthur.
(Which means they are technically the "Frankish" version, which means they are the "continental West Germanic" rather than the "insular West Germanic" of the Arthurian Anglo-Saxon-Britons.)

The most famous of the Paladins was Roland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland
Who as it happens, died in pretty much the trope namer for "Lawful Stupid paladin".

Now as it goes, the Archetype is based on the paladins as developed via the chanson de geste ("song of heroic deeds"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanson_de_geste
And so any similarity to historical figures is pretty near purely coincidental.

As for the rest of your questions, they come down to:
"Why does anyone want to play Lancelot or Roland?"
The answer to that is:
"Read the source material."
Or just watch a decent Arthurian movie.