Why is it that historically...

Why is it that historically, bad DMs have such a reputation for trying to make the Paladin class in particular fall from grace and lose their powers when the Cleric class can similarly lose their powers if they act against the tenants of their god?

Furthermore, the Druid has always been capable of losing their powers if they cease to revere nature or change to a nondruidic alignment; why do you never hear stories of bad GMs declaring that the Druid has failed to live up to their pact with nature and lost their druid levels? What makes the Paladin such a specific target of this treatment?

Because Paladins have a specific moral standing, and Bad DM's also tend to be edgy and immature, who view the morally upright as threats to their weak minded and deviant life style.

The bad DM is frightened by the crusader for good, who makes their pathetic life look all the more hollow.

True talk though, because it makes for easy canned drama

Even though Clerics and Druids should be just as, if not more, precarious, paladins often have extensive rules about what happens when they fall while the other two might only mention it offhand (Depending on game and edition) once or twice.

Typically it's because the GM is more likely to get frustrated personally at a paladin player than a cleric or a druid.

/thread

Because paladins commit atrocities no that in any just universe would damn them to Hell. Unlike fighters, who do the same things, they do it in the name of 'good' and their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Show us on the doll where the DEUS VULT touched you.

Because having the cleric or druid fall would require the DM to actually THINK UP some tenets; even the "fall" mechanics druids have already are temporary punishments. The paladin's are all set out for you.

Fuck am I ever glad they got rid of this falling shit in D&D 5e. Now when a paladin breaks their oath, they get a different set of cool powers instead of becoming useless.

ditto

basically a mix of these two

The aladin has been worked up as both a warrior of a god and a chivalrous knight of the old school, at least to some degree. They're bound by multiple codes and restrictions, and there has been a lot of dramatic tension around the idea of a paladin falling, since it usually has to be something that they're forced into or specifically chose to do, just because their rules are so strict and the consequences so dire.

But quite frankly, I don't feel that most DMs care too much about what druids or clerics do. The ideas of what they can and can't do haven't been as fleshed out, and there's a lot more room for leniency and argument when a monk acts a little Chaotic compared to when a paladin is definitively not being Lawful Good, because then it's as much an objective issue of morality as how they conduct themselves.

Paladins are usually played by control freaks who want to dictate how other people play their characters, so it's satisfying to see them become useless.

A Cleric can just switch to an evil god, so falling isn't as big a deal for them.

This

a druid that loses touch with nature in a significant way would have to a pretty shitty player
youd have to actually go out of your way to destroy forests and wildlife for no reason

thats an interesting question though, how would you tempt a druid player into "falling" as a DM?

if it's as easy as Veeky Forums pretends it is to make a paladin fall, just trick the druid into putting on a piece of metal armor. boom, fallen druid

>historically

That's bullshit. No one GMs like that IRL, so relax. It's just a played-out Veeky Forums meme that "historically" used to spur some pretty good jokes, but never seems to be played for laughs anymore.

You don't fall, your stuff just doesn't work when you wear it, like taking away the holy symbol of a cleric.

Show us where on the doll the mean paladin touched you, user.

Seems like many bad dms have a pvp mentality againdt the players, and paladins more or less have a loss condition spelled out in the rules

>members of the church touching kids
How predictable

A priest falling into corruption is not a sympathetic figure, but there's a ton of historical precedent for a knight in shining armor fucking up on a grand scale but still somehow remaining likable. Just about every knight of the Round Table did something beastly, ranging from Lancelot's famous adultery to Bedivere straight-up murdering his wife.

What you mean is bad storyteller which doesn't have to be a bad DM and vice versa.

A Paladin falling sounds like easy drama and so they go for it.

Because it's like the only D&D class that comes with built in moral powers.

If someone makes a character that's good at fighting, I expect it's because they want the campaign to enjoy challenging fights. If someone makes a character that's good at magic or diplomacy, I assume they want to explore that side of things.

And if someone makes a holy warrior who has to stay pure or they might lose their powers, I fucking assume they want to have their morals questioned and challenged.

It's just that the paladin is the only class that comes with a challenge on the role-playing level, rather than just the dicerolling level. Fighting threats you fight, but ethical dilemmas have to be acted out.

And nothing triggers D&D players as much as role-playing (what are we, fags?) which is why we have the orc babby meme and all that nonsense.

>canned drama
Not all Paladins wear full plate though!

...

Okay, first off, you guys know that bad things happening in role-playing doesn't mean the GM hates you and does it out of spite, right?

Second, why would you play a paladin if you never want to touch on the topic of your character's convictions? It's like the only interesting thing about the class.

This isn't a videogame, your character class is about more than just what spells you get or if you can be the "tank" or not.

There's a difference between "testing the Paladin's convictions" and "The Dungeon Master creates a no-win scenario to force the player to lose their powers because he thought unarguably gimping one of the players unavoidably would make for good storytelling"

How often does this happen outside of the Veeky Forums circlejerks about "that dm" though? I've never experienced it. I've been in campaigns where paladins have fallen, but usually because they ended up disillusioned with their god or something else won out over faith.

The potential for falling in a game is sort of like the potential for death. If you have players who bitch too much about it you have to wonder why they bother playing.

>It's like the only interesting thing about the class.

there can be plenty of interesting things about my warrior philosopher besides his code of ethics.

You could just find DnD players who actually like role playing

I ran into it once unfortunately. GM seemed obsessed with getting my character to fall first time out, so while he didn't create a no win scenario, he'd keep setting up situations where I would be at a major disadvantage for not falling, while the Rogue, Fighter etc would end up with better moolah as a result.

It wouldn't have been so bad if the few times a Paladin would have an advantage he kept bending over backwards to worm around it.