In NWN, at least, that's not remotely true. Divine Favor alone is huge (+5 AB/damage) and can be layered on top of Prayer/Aid/Bless/Greater Magic Weapon. Plus things like Freedom, Death Ward, and sky high saves.

The metagames (for lack of a better term) of NWN and PnP are very different despite their common rules foundations. It would be a mistake to try and apply the conventional wisdom of one to the other, tempting as it may be.

There are a lot of reasons why this doesn't really hold true in pen and paper, but the biggest one is that you're talking about 15 levels of Paladin. In PnP that's a massive investment in levels, and a handful of spell slots is highly underwhelming compensation for such a huge commitment. That's not to say that the spells you mentioned aren't good (even if some of them, such as Divine Favor, are weaker) but on their own they aren't going to carry a class.

I'm applying the conventional wisdom of the of whose forum we're in right now :P

It's also worth noting that it differs even between different computer games, even those that are based on the same edition of the game.

For example, for the Infinity Engine games, you have Baldur's Gate (where ranged attackers dominate), Icewind Dale (where clerics dominate because of the large amount of undead and scarcity of scrolls (which clerics don't need)), and Baldur's Gate 2 (where arcane casters dominate due to the game's inclusion of a large variety of powerful spells, including some (like Chain Contingency) that you don't usuallly see in CRPGs). Dungeon Hack, which uses the same system, favors Clerics, but for entirely different reasons; while scroll scarcity applies, there's also the fact that many of the problems that can befall your character can be blocked or cured by cleric spells, and the hunger mechanic is pointless when you can just cast Create Food.

I'm not as familiar with the differences between 3e, but your choices here are Icewind Dale 2 (incomplete and inaccurate implementation of the 3e rules), Neverwinter Nights, NWN2, Temple of Elemental Evil (differs by being turn based, being capped at level 10, having item creation right away (and with favorable mechanics), and being more accurate than the other listed games), and Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor (which doesn't even let you choose your feats).

Hmm, I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I go out of my way to "smite first" or that detect evil is infallible when playing a Paladin. However, it's ridiculously easy to get away with killing an Evil aligned leader of state as a Paladin since the code of conduct requires that you punish those that harm or threaten innocents. This can be both a perspective and rules issue, because Evil is often viewed as harmful or threatening simply because it is Evil, and most anyone described as evil is probably doing things that anyone with well defined morals would be offended at, like running a sweatshop full of children to make explosives or something. The rules as worded about alignment state that: "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. For that matter, if the evil noble is planning a war, then that also can be viewed as "harming or threatening innocents" since no war is without innocent casualties.

While the code of conduct also requires that you respect legitimate authority, it can be argued that for a paladin there is no higher authority than the god that called them. So, at that point, their deity's views must also be taken into account, and they may act upon them as "legitimate authority." If you are a paladin of Corellon Larethian then you probably don't care if that evil orc is the legitimate ruler of anything! This only gets more extreme in Forgotten Realms, since there are so many deities and nations with deep backstories.

As to the whole misdirection issue, a Paladin isn't at fault for the action of someone else, only their own. If a Paladin kills someone he genuinely believes is evil because some mastermind has ensured that the person is believed to be evil based upon rational examination of evidence, then the Paladin hasn't actually done anything wrong. That's hardly going to cause a Paladin to fall or even need atonement. At the very worst the Paladin might be expected to pay for a "Raise Dead" and an apology. The Book of Vile Darkness expands upon the concept of Evil acts and intent in stating that woeful negligence resulting in someone's death can cause a Paladin to lose their abilities until atonement, but accidentally killing someone would not. Likewise, then, killing someone evil because you were misled would not be an evil act since the intent was not to kill someone innocent.

Yes, I've killed an evil noble in charge of a city because the Paladin detected them as Evil. One thing to note, is that my Pally did remand herself into custody of the church when this occurred, and allowed those with more knowledge of whether she was in the right to decide her fate. It just peeved off the DM that my Paladin managed to kill the Big Bad before he finished the ritual to be a Big Bad.

What about a paladin who goes around hurting, oppressing, and killing evil entities? Wouldn't that make her evil (and hence ineligible to be a paladin)?

Yes, the alignment system does have its flaws.

Here's the issue. Suppose that one of the deities in the campaign setting is evil, but that fact is not common knowledge, and there are paladins that worship said deity. Suppose now that the deity is telling the paladin to do things that are actually evil, but the paladin, of course, doesn't realize it. What happens now?

Edit: There's also another notion that, in particular, comes up in Baldur's Gate 2. In that game, there are many characters who are supposedly of good alignment, one of whom is a paladin (albeit with a kit that causes him to not get the abilities that differentiate the class from a fighter), but who are clearly racist (just look at their reaction to that dark elf cleric, who is supposedly evil, but (as far as I can tell) does not act evil).

In other words, it looks like evil might be relative, yet the rules treat it as absolute.

Sure, but we're doing a compare and contrast here. They really are totally different beasts.

Very much so. As someone who has at least dabbled in most of 3E family of games (both PnP and CRPG) I have to be careful to keep the differences straight. A large portion of my screwups on rules are due to forgetting differences from one implementation to another.

Paladins are responsible for their actions, and you absolutely can fall due to a mistake. Acting in good faith is a mitigating circumstance; you aren't going to fall for arresting someone by mistake and roughed them up in the process, but an extreme transgression like murdering an innocent person isn't going to be covered by a good faith excuse. I'm given to understand that there are quite a few Paladins who fell under such circumstances described in official source material. Bottom line: if you don't personally feel the need to seek atonement after accidentally committing an evil act, then you don't have the ethical disposition of a paladin in the first place.

That's not to say there isn't heated debate on the subject of paladins, the code of conduct, falling, and alignment in general. Those debates can go for hundreds of pages with no resolution, although they can often be interesting reads. I have no interest in going down that rabbit hole here, but from my perspective if the Paladin wants to be the champion of good he claims to be then he must hold himself to a higher standard.

Sounds like the DM just needed to be more adaptable. For instance, your actions could have thrown the city into chaos, loyalists of the old leader would put up wanted posters and seek to try the party for murder, and another villain could step in during the commotion to take the previous one's place.

Another option is just to include occasional NPC's who just plain run-of-the-mill evil every so often. They have no villainous plot and aren't guilty of any particularly heinous crime, and if the Paladin goes after them he's going to make a lot of enemies while chasing red herrings.

This is one of the angles that has received stronger attention in recent years.

I once saw an interesting discussion of the literary origins of the Paladin and the Orc. Apparently the "savage orc" trope began to appear in literature at about the same time as the "savage brown man" trope was disappearing. The Paladin is the reintroduction of the heroic white man who is morally justified in putting down the savages by violent means. In this sense, the literary forebears that inform the Paladin are completely incompatible with our modern ethical sensibilities, and the more we analyze him the less justified he seems to be. He is dressed in the veneer of heroism and moral superiority, but this facade can crack easily because it's no longer compatible with its own foundation in the eyes of a modern audience.

This isn't to say everyone agrees; we've seen all too well recently that there are far too many people who don't have a problem with open displays of racism (or at very least are willing to turn a blind eye and vote for it). However, a very large portion of the modern audience now finds the classic Paladin deeply unsettling and morally questionable. Some have adapted the Paladin by embracing his lofty ideals; the Paladin really must try to be better than his enemies, stay his hand, and act with compassion. The other approach is to embrace his darker side; the Paladin is the racist self-righteous evil of our own past, so certain in his own justification that he is oblivious to his own evil. Both are interesting approaches to resolving this fundamental contradiction.

No, because it is the desire of the good aligned gods to punish agents of evil which is why they empower paladins to do stuff like Smite Evil.

In D&D, evil is an absolute. Evil is a literal force. Creatures are incarnations of evil. A holy longsword will do extra damage to someone who is evil...and the universe itself defines that person as evil (a different person in a different country following a different god could still stab the evil person and get the same bonus damage). Protection from Evil will give bonuses against evil creatures. Etc.

What the **** happened to my discussion???

It started out as "Are clerics overpowered", and a dozen people piled in to turn it into a morality/social justice war over paladins. Never mind the fact that paladins aren't even part of the discussion to begin with.

Getting back on topic, some food for though. Consider the "iconic" 4-player co-op D&D party: fighter, rogue, mage, cleric.

Now consider a new spin on that: a team of 4 clerics

Fighter cleric: pick race with favored class fighter, cleric, or any. Take enough levels of fighter for combat feats, than cleric on every remaining level. You get a decent fighter with hefty divine casting. If you're going up to epic levels, optionally throw in Weapon Master levels for additional pain. Importantly, forget about taunting or tanking as the rest of your party has heavy armor. Memorize buffs as your fighter levels will draw away from nuking potential.

Rogue cleric: Trickery domain with favored class rogue, cleric, or any. Take a few levels of rogue so you can open locks and disarm traps. Other domain should be air or magic for nukes.

Nuker cleric: Specialize in evocation and empower/maximize spell, stack spell penetration. Take Air/Magic domains. Load up memorized book with Call Lightning, Ice Storm, Hammer, Implosion, and Storm of Vengeance.

Healer cleric: Could build similarly to the nuker cleric, perhaps switch a domain out for Healing domain. Stack memorized book with heal, group heal, raise dead/resurrect, greater restoration, and a few nukes.

Can anyone see how this quickly gets ridiculous in PvE?

a cleric does not have spell mantle or dispels... good mage will kill cleric.

clerics are very powerful, but typically a good mage will kill them.

It drifted somewhat after a month and a half, because someone expanded slightly to include divine casting in general. It ended entirely like 4 months ago. Not sure what the problem is. :P

You add Fighter and Rogue levels to your clerics in order to fill those roles, which seems rather cheaty to me. "Clerics can fill the Rogue role by taking some rogue levels!"

Clerics get some nukes and they are focused around buffs/healing. Nothing really unusual in the Nuker or Healer builds.

I agree that a cleric can stand in for a fighter (with some buffs to round him out), I was simply noting how the guy was throwing in Fighter and Rogue levels when talking about a cleric replacing those classes. If you need some of those levels to replace that class, then you aren't really replacing that class.

As for healing: I didn't convey my thought well. Clerics have a pretty firm lock on the role of healing (and the class comes pre-packaged with a focus on buffing). Druids and Bards can do it, but Clerics easily do it best. Most other classes don't even begin to cover that party need.

The conventional wisdom I've gathered from lurking on pen and paper boards is that a dedicated healer is a luxury and not a necessity, and consumables are more than sufficient for healing purposes in the vast majority of situations. Players have run the actuarial math on this, using the loot tables to figure out expected rate of return based on damage taken, and the math indicates it's actually a relatively minor surcharge over the course of your career. It turns out healing is one of the least costly roles in the party to replace outright with magical items. The "guy who has the craft magical arms and armor feat" actually ends up saving the party more money than a healer in the long run.

Huh. That's pretty rather interesting.

On a side note: that comic you linked is bloody hilarious.