Would you allow this paladin in your game? (new fiction added 11/11/08)

Great depth of character(well written as well) but not a paladin in my world. A fallen paladin or a want to be paladin maybe but nor a paladin. It takes more than fighting the good fight and being willing to sacrifice oneself to be a paladin, any fighter, rogue, ranger etc could be just as willing. The paladin should be the shining example of the greatness of his god and the powers of good and the potential of man. Cedric sounds as if he is losing his faith and is oozing with self pity. His actions are neither lawful or good, so in my campaign he would not be a paladin.

The Sigil said:

...snip... it requires someone else to tease the mind-stretching out.

Click to expand...

You had to go and respond to my post before I edited it, now didn't you...

Anyway... Yes. It requires other people created by the DM to act as foils... that's inherent in any RP-heavy character like Cedric. He can't exist in a vacuum (show me a good character that can...) and the DM has to be game.

If Cedric was exploring the conflict within himself, I might give him the benefit of the doubt and let him be cast as a paladin.

Click to expand...

I'm looking at Cedric as a character in a work of fiction (which is all he is, at this point). His presence inside the narrative is the vehicle through which these issues are explored. Hopefully by actions, scenes, etc. What's happening in his head isn't particularly relevant to me. A good fictional character doesn't need to be aware of the role their playing in the piece, even if they're RPG PC's...

Bullocks, followed by a straw man. What better way to explore the conflict over what it means to be a paladin than by having an "ex-paladin" - the one who has seen BOTH sides of the coin (being and not being a paladin)?

Click to expand...

A funny straw man... But seriously, look at what 'ex-paladin' means in actual play, a fighter who talks a lot about morality. Given the realities of medium, where you don't have free indirect discourse or interior monologue, how exactly do you dramatize Cedric's story? By making him a fallen paladin, you gut the conflict. You've answered the central question already (Cedric is wrong) and all that's left is pantomime... Its a fantastic way to deflate the dramatic tension that was inherent in the character. Its much more fun if that remains unresolved and Cedric keeps clashing with his superiors. And his inferiors. Or that fourway he's afraid of....

Or a devout atheist... who just happens to be a high priest receiving great blessings because of his faith in his deity. It simply doesn't work without causing headaches!

Click to expand...

Now who's building strawmen? Cedric's a holy warrior who faces personified eternal evils on a day-to-day basis and sometimes seeks the bottle and a uncoerced ho. What's so difficult about that? Plenty of basis in real-world history if you ask me...

You're using fiat to overrule common sense.

Click to expand...

Nope. I'm using common sense to overrule a rigid reading of the rules that perclude characters that are easy to conceptualize, summarize and are, according to some folks around here, facinating and thought provoking...

You can't just discard the code of conduct or the LG alignment because "it doesn't fit the character you want to create."

Click to expand...

Why does (again arguably) one excetion to the code == discard?

(Maybe I'm just a bit sensitive about this point because it seems like every single player I've ever gamed with who wants a "thought-provoking paladin" really wants "a paladin without the goofy alignment restriction whom I can play as CN/CE.")

Click to expand...

And maybe I'm a little insensitive, because its been an awfully long time since I gamed with folks like that...

I agree with you, The Sigil. This character, while very interesting, is incongruous with the PHB paladin and the literary archetype on which he is based. Of course, if someone chooses to call an apple an orange in his campaign, it ultimately don't make no nevermind to me.

I figured if might be time to start fleshing out Cedric's story a little bit, perhaps with little insights of how others see - or have seen - him. Here's a little titbit. I wonder if it makes him more of a paladin or simply muddies the waters further:

Through the eyes of others, Pt.1

Cedric wiped his mouth and smiled at the shocked expression on Magnus' face, before hooking his foot around a stool and pulling it in front of the younger man. "Sit down," he said, much less sternly than before. For a moment it looked like Magnus would refuse, but then he dropped into the seat, carefully avoiding the table with the spilled ale on it. Cedric smiled inwardly at the fastidiousness and leaned forward. "So Madam Catherine told you where you could find me?"

...

Catherine counted the coins for the second time to make sure, before placing them back in the bag. Then she opened a ledger, took a pen and settled down to her daily calculations. Just as she was finishing, there was a polite knock on the door.

"Come in," said Catherine, closing the ledger.

Alyssa entered."Excuse me, Catherine. Is Cedric still here?"

"No, he left awhile ago. Why?"

"Oh, Maya just came by to see him. She'll be disappointed."

Catherine laughed. "Why am I not surprised?"

Alyssa also grinned, before saying, "Well, you can't really blame the girl. She'd still be working the bars and rolling drunks if it wasn't for him - and you."

Catherine waved away the compliment. "I couldn't have done it without him." After a moment's pause, she smiled again and said, "And with Maya it isn't just gratitude. She's not the first one who owes him, and she won't be the last, but she's the only one who shows up to meet him whenever he's in town."

"True," said Alyssa. "Plus he was always especially fond of her. Heck, I almost expected them to get married."

"Not Cedric," said Catherine. "He always told me that he'd never make a woman a widow."

"Well," said Alyssa, "I might as well go tell her he's left. Will he be back?"

"Not till next month, I think," said Catherine, as the other woman began to open the door, and then stopped. Looking back at the madam, Alyssa asked, "Do you think Maya and he have...?"

Catherine smiled at her curiosity and said, "Not since she left. He won't touch a girl who has got out."

"Interesting," said Alyssa, and left.

As the door closed behind her, Catherine silently mouthed to herself, "Yes, he certainly is." The madam leaned back in her chair and mused for a moment, her expression turning distant and cold while she thought about what she had experienced years ago, when she had been a prostitute herself. She thought of the incredible luck that got her out of the profession, and her vow to enable as many as she could to do so. For a moment she considered the possibility of just dividing the money she had among all the girls and telling them to get out and on with their lives, but then dismissed it with a sigh. A month and they'd be penniless and back on the streets she'd plucked them off. One step at a time, she told herself, as she did daily, one step at a time.

With a sigh, she turned back to her ledger, before her eyes fell on the bag. A small smile quirked her lips. That would be more than enough to get at least one of them out immediately, as soon the arrangements could be made. "Bless you, Cedric," she said quietly, before opening the ledger again.

With the additional info, Cedric comes off like CG Holy Liberator (Complete Divine), not a LG Paladin. Holy Liberators work towards good, but their methods are far more unorthodox than those of a paladin. The brothel angle certainly plays into that. Also, their code of conduct is much more lax. And the tendency to indulge in such vices (drinking, hiring prostitututes, etc.) is definitely more associated with chaotic characters. Even if such things are technically legal, very few paladins would consider it proper behavior. But CG doesn't care what is "proper" so long as good is being served (helping the women to have a better life). And if he has a little fun in the process, it's all good.

So perhaps Cedric is slipping not toward blackguardism, but holy liberatorism. Such things are not uncommon. His relationship with his former order would be interesting. Both still serve the cause of good, but there would be undeniable tension.

You know, I think the key disconnect that many people are experiencing is that there is a lot of baggage associated with the term "paladin". At a mechanical level, levels in the Paladin class simply define the abilities of a character in the game. However, standing apart from the Paladin class is the paladin archetype. I think what this thread has demonstrated is that some DMs are quite willing to allow characters to take levels in the Paladin class even if they do not conform to the "standard" paladin archetype.

It does not help that different people have different ideas of what the paladin archetype is. Some have a view of the archetype which requires the character to be chosen by a deity, to refrain from vices, and be a shining example of clean living and proper behavior. Others feel that the willingness to fight against evil and to sacrifice one's life in doing so is enough.

Kudos to shilsen for creating a character that raises so many issues:
Cynicism - Does a paladin have to be optimistic?
Prostitution - Does a paladin have to be chaste? Celibate? Is prostitution Evil? Chaotic?
Vices - When is a vice a vice, and when it is merely recreation? Is indulging in a vice Evil? Chaotic?

I personally would have no problems with such a character in my game, but I do like characters that are played against type. Such as the honest, honorable Watch detective. Is he a rogue? No. Does he have levels in the Rogue class? Yes. Or the lazy son of the Baron who never applies himself to his studies. Is he a commoner? No. Does he have levels in the Commoner NPC class? Yes.

FireLance said:

You know, I think the key disconnect that many people are experiencing is that there is a lot of baggage associated with the term "paladin". At a mechanical level, levels in the Paladin class simply define the abilities of a character in the game. However, standing apart from the Paladin class is the paladin archetype. I think what this thread has demonstrated is that some DMs are quite willing to allow characters to take levels in the Paladin class even if they do not conform to the "standard" paladin archetype.

Click to expand...

I think that is a really key point in this whole discussion.

Personally speaking, I tend to ignore archetypes from literature/history/mythology (while having been a mythologist since I was 4) in my D&D games. The wizard in my game is based almost purely on the PHB, not on Merlin or Gandalf or any such example. The ranger in my game has nothing to do with Aragorn or Robin Hood or any such example. Or, to be more precise, PCs do not have to use the archetypes (that's up to the players creating the characters). The same goes for the paladin. If someone wants to create Galahad in my game using the paladin class, that's cool. And if someone wants to create a Cedric, that's cool with me too. Now if someone wanted to create Cedric and make him a thief to boot, I'd have problems with that PC being a paladin since it doesn't work with the RAW. But the archetype is never a factor in my decision. Would Cedric be a problem for someone playing D&D who had absolutely no historical/cultural knowledge of the pre-existing traditions outside the game? I think not.

Archetypes are funny to break. I had an angry sorcerer who was turned into a monkey, and chose to live with the shame ofloosing a spell duel. while it raises less issues than Cedric he never got played (well 1 session I dont count cause the group cant roleplay, its a smashies group). The archetype here? theres probably one out there but he certainly didn't fit it.

The Sigil said:

As an aside, I might note that brothels by their nature might be construed to harm or threaten innocents - most who worked in brothels did not start in brothels as their first choice of careers; most (not all) started out as innocents being exploited and potentially diseased (harmed) by their work, which ill fortune or ill friends often forced them into. If you're desperate to pay the rent, even if you "say" you're willing, is not some coersion and harm therefore involved?

Click to expand...

While I'm on your side Sigil, I have real difficulty with the idea that brothels are such exemplary cases of terrible oppression. In a previous post, I suggested that women working in brothels in many pre-modern societies were more likely to be a self-selecting group than women working in many other fields.

In the pre-modern world, a lot of women were having sex they did not want to have. Many were in arranged marriages that entailed them having carnal relations with a man they did not choose. Many also chose to escape virtual slavery as serfs or peasants on rural estates by becoming prostitutes in towns. Now, I agree that the majority of women who lived in unhappy arranged marriages or were virtually owned as low-grade farm machinery felt that these lives of suffering and drudgery were better than those of prostitutes but a minority felt that prostitution was the lesser evil and selected that profession.

Even in the modern world, while we would like to believe that all people who trade sex for money are doing it to support their crack habit or whatever, many modern sex trade workers also state that this is a job they are choosing to escape far less bleak forms of drudgery and oppression than prostitutes were escaping in the past. While these individuals are perhaps a minority of the prostitutes working today, they are a sizeable one.

If this paladin is living in the quasi-medieval fantasy world one expects, perhaps he should consider abstaining from grains given the oppressive yoke under which so many serfs toil. Perhaps he shouldn't associate with aristocrats whose wives find them repugnant. Perhaps he shouldn't fight alongside men who have been awarded war captive brides. I just don't see the special case for boycotting prostitutes compared to other activities that involve some kind of systemic power imbalance.

While I generally agree with your arguments, I think you are making a mistake in arguing that prostitution is something lawful good characters shouldn't engage in. I agree that prostitution does not fit with paladinhood but that incompatibility does not stem from the alignment requirement.

Joshua Dyal said:

And why is it that you think the paladin class is a lesser fit for this particular archetype? Nothing in the core rules describing the paladin class precludes it.

Click to expand...

We're not being asked to judge this question simply on the basis of the letter of the rules. As GMs I thought it was pretty clear that the question was whether we invoke rule zero over it. Just as I would not allow someone to be a monk under any conditions in my European-style campaign, I would not allow a carnal paladin because, in my view, the paladin class is designed to represent the ideal of the grail knight. For the same reason, if I were running an Asian-flavoured campaign, I wouldn't allow paladins at all. I know that for some people, classes are simply mechanics that exist outside for any cultural context but that doesn't work for me and the games I run.

The Sigil said:

So here we have someone who has not even the desire to control his appetites (not a particularly lawful trait)

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on what you mean by 'control his appetites'. Sure, he drinks (so does everyone in a medievalesque society - the water's not safe). Does he drink to excess? To the point where it interferes with the performance of his duty? It doesn't seem like it. He's remarkably lucid when he speaks to Magnus, probably thanks to the Divine Grace bonus to his Fortitude saves.

Does he wench to excess, to the point where it interferes with the performance of his duty? Again, not that we've seen.

So, it seems to me that he does have control of his appetites, and they do not control him - he does not shirk his duty to indulge them that we have seen.

and who engages in behavior most would consider dishonorable (probably neither a good nor a lawful one)...

Click to expand...

...but not necessarily a neutral or evil one either. Honor does not necessarily equate to 'good'. If someone insults you, honor might demand satisfaction, but that does not mean that slaughtering him in a duel is good (even if it upholds your honor).

everything about this character screams "neutral" - cares for others (good), but also makes sure he gets what he wants (evil).

Click to expand...

Whoah, hold on there, slim! Since when is 'getting what you want' evil? Are good people required to never get anything they want? Am I evil because I wanted to eat lunch and got what I wanted?

Evil is making sure you get what you want even if it is at the expense of other people. And we don't see Cedric doing that at all. In fact, he seems to go out of his way to avoid taking advantage of people.

Does whatever he wants in his private life (chaotic) while doing what duty requires (lawful). That balance suggests "neutral."

Click to expand...

And yet, is anything he does in his private life incompatible with his duty? Is he ever putting himself above his duty or other people? If he's not, then it's not really chaotic, is it? It's at worst neutral.

Now, if Cedric ever succumbed to that cynicism - if he ever stayed in bed with the whores when a peasant came to ask for help and he said "go away, I'm getting busy", if he ever said "Why go out and fight? It's not going to change anything, so I'll just stay here and drink" - then he'd have lost his paladinhood.

J