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

[shilsen]

I have one very simple "acid test" for whether or not a given character concept can be a paladin that has saved me much grief...

"Do you (the player) feel the need to justify the character's actions?"

Everything about this character - from the write-up to the fact that it was submitted for a vote to the fact that you're challenging the paladin class by saying "there's nothing in the PHB that says I can't do it this way (a classic rules-lawyer technique to follow the letter but not the spirit of the rules) - says, "yes, I need to justify the character's actions."

And of course the answer to the acid test is: "if you feel the need to justify the way the character is acting, he is absolutely not paladin material."

Actually I'm primarily a DM, so I've mainly been thinking about the character from a DM perspective, and a player wouldn't have to justify it any more than any other paladin concept in my game. And I don't think the actions need justification. But I know many DMs/players have assumptions about the paladin which runs far beyond the PHB paladin as written, so I thought it would be an interesting experiment to see how the ENWorld community views it. And how they justify not allowing it

However, it should also be noted that I find Sir Cedric "morally wanting" as a paladin on more fronts than just the "acid test." Does a paladin IMC have to be a perfect paragon of holiness? No. Drinking and swearing as Sir Cedric does could probably get by - provided the paladin recognizes and acknowledges these as weaknesses/faults in his character.

...

(I know, I know, "prostitution, etc. is/isn't evil because of moral absolutism/relativism" but the original piece had the tone that prostitution was not seen as "good" and while Cedric acknowledges this, he doesn't care... that's another rant entirely - my point is, in the fiction piece, Cedric seems to acknowledge he has moral flaws from his own point of view but embraces them instead of rejecting them, and that doesn't "jive" with my thoughts on paladinhood.)

...

I know, "in his campaign brothels MIGHT be..." - but re-read the fiction piece. It's implied that brothels are not an honorable place and Cedric knows it. It's implied that swearing and drinking are not honorable pastimes and Cedric knows it. If he's not acting honorably, ESPECIALLY if he knows it and tacitly acknowledges, and even MORE ESPECIALLY if he embraces the practices and shows no desire to change, then by definition he's not living up to one of the points of the paladin code!

This is another of the places where I intentionally left out a little clarification. I visualized Cedric as aware that there is nothing intrinsically dishonorable about frequenting brothels, swearing or drinking, and being more than a little amused at Magnus' unthinking acceptance of the conventional attitudes. The last part of the diatribe would have involved a paragraph or so showing what Cedric was thinking, which would have involved amusement at Magnus' probable response as well as at the fact that his actions might be seen as inimical to the code even though he knows with complete certainty that they are not.

Perhaps I should write a version with all the 'answers' in there, sometime.

Slightly OT - The thread title is misleading... it suggests the character IS a paladin without room for debate - when it should be asking "is the character a paladin." You've "led" your audience to the conclusion you obviously want - to vote that he is a paladin - by your framing of the question, so the Yes/No data is flawed.

Hey, I'm the DM - I already decided he works as a paladin

 

[Mallus]

A fascinating character? Yes.

It certainly is...

A beautiful example of smart role-playing? Absolutely.

Indeed...

A great thought-provoking look at the life of a paladin? Darn straight.

Here, here!

A fallen paladin, disillusioned with his lot? Sure.

Wait a minute, I thought this was a thought-provoking look at the life of a paladin?

A faithful paladin with all the perks that accompany that? As Sir Cedric would say, "**** no."

What perks are you talking about? You don't mean the paladin power set, do you? The sole 'perk' I can see for this character is the RPiing situations that shilsen described on page 1.

Why is the abstract notion of 'paladin' somehow more important than actually having a 'facinating, smart, and thought-provoking' one in play?

I just don't get that... Its like you're standing on principle, but for the life of me, I can't identify what that principle is... what are you supposed to do with the game, if not create fascinating characters full of dramatic potential??

 

[shilsen]

And shilsen, any chance you know of a game in Philly that could accomodate both Sir Cedric and my own Sir Gaulstaff? That could be amusing.

Alas, I wouldn't count on it. I'm just joining a group in Philly city, where I won't be DMing, and I can't see Cedric working there. And my other group plays across the border in NJ, and though that could accomodate Cedric and Gaulstaff, that's because I'm DMing.

 

[Torm]

It occurs to me that, aside from the reactions of one rather young, and possibly naive, member of his order, we have no idea what the rest of the order looks like - possibly the ranking officials of the order are incredibly corrupt, and maybe our pal Cedric is aware of that fact. "He's a drunken pervert - and he's the good guy!" Perhaps he hasn't lost his Paladin abilities, not because he doesn't deserve to under normal circumstances, but instead because his deity sees him as the good heart in a bad time that will ultimately repair the order?

 

[Mallus]

But for all the people clamoring about how a devout paladin is boring because its so stereotypical... can't we say the same for all the chaotic neutral badass attitudes today?

We could, we'd be right, but we'd also be missing the point. We're talking about one character whose outlook and motivation were clearly laid out on page 1. Do you find Cedric to be a poorly conceived character?

Sorry, I am in the game to have a good time, not get away with things I know better than to do in real life.

You mean like using lethal violence to solve most of your problems? You don't do that when you game? Sounds a little dull...

 

[enrious]

Ok, I'm convinced. Let's redefine "paladin" to mean "any drunken lech with an overdeveloped libido, with any alignment, who happens to serve as an example to everyone what happens when you mix venereal disease and hangovers with cure disease and lay on hands. Said paladin also serves as an example of his faith, whenever he's sober enough to remember to do so."

Since we now have paladins acting as the "blessed" of their dieties/forces of belief, we can dispense with the cleric class.

I'm not making the mistake I did with 3.0, I'm getting into the 4.0 class changes from the ground floor.

 

[Sylevus]

To Mallus...

I posted a very long post addressing Cedric.. You counter with two paragraphs at the bottom addressing other comments that have appeared in the thread. Read more IMHO.


For the OP...

You have already rule zero'd, then you post a character without the given context, then you want generic opinions on the appropriateness. That takes it from a what if to a troll post. You have a preordained "right" conclusion already in mind without providing everyone else the same info. If you look up I admit that Rule Zero is always a possibility and more power to you.

On the other hand you act as if the objections to the character are based on more than the PHB definition. Please see above where I put in objections that are based 100% around the PHB definition.... for the sake of debate shall we say..

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Honestly, the only thing that is really borderline non-Paladin by the RAW is how defeatist he is. This character could work just fine if he was a bit more confident in what he was fighting for, it'd be no problem.

The only other thing that could possibly disqualify him from being a Paladin is that by some people's definitions, he isn't acting honorably. But this is subjective, in the end. Not only to the DM and players in the game, but to the order the Paladin belongs to, whether it be a church or another group of knights.

 

[nopantsyet]

Yes.

And it's about the only kind of Paladin I'll allow. Not that every one has to be that particular brand, but I will not have another would-be Lancelot playing up the Victorian notion of honor. Please! Any Paladin that doesn't experience any conflict from the extreme dichotomy of his nature is not a Paladin--he is an extremist.

The rules only say the Paladin has to uphold a code of conduct. Nowhere does it say which one, or what types of restrictions it entails. Moreover, nowhere does it say that the code of honor of the order is the same as that expected by the god. Plenty of religious groups take on stricter interpretations that are expressly doctrinal. That does not make the stricter interpretation the correct one. It simply makes it the conventions of the order, which the Paladin is not required to follow.

So the order on a whole very well could follow those strict tenets. Sir Cedric is the incomprehensible mystery. He flouts those conventions, but still is empowered by the god. Maybe he even has greater gifts than other members of the order. Maybe there are some tasks at which only he of the whole order can succeed. And neither he nor they understand why.

The most important thing that is missing is a solid backstory explaining how he came into his Paladinhood. Did he run from his calling in the pattern of Jonah, only to finally yield after being tormented by his god, then finally accede defiantly, "I'll do your work and follow your word, but you will have no hold over that part that is not yours!" Some would say that's not a true Paladin. I say read a book about the called of god that dates back before the 19th century. The further the better.

 

[Torm]

You mean like using lethal violence to solve most of your problems? You don't do that when you game? Sounds a little dull...

No, no, no - you've got it exactly backwards. He's saying that he does use lethal violence to solve most of his problems in real life! I'd tread lightly in arguing with him, if I were you!

(j/k, obviously - I hope .)