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

[The Sigil]

What perks are you talking about? You don't mean the paladin power set, do you?

That is precisely what I mean. The "perk" of being immune to disease, the "perk" of being able to heal, you know all the "class abilities" that make the paladin a "paladin" and not a "fighter/cleric."

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?

Because this character is not a paladin (IMO). I think you're starting backwards... you're starting by deciding, "I will take a paladin" and asking, "what is his motivation and role-playing potential?" What you should be doing is deciding, "I will take a character with this motivation and role-playing potential" and then asking, "is he a paladin?"

Simply put, certain things will disqualify a character from certain career paths. The character with a 4 Intelligence and 17 Strength is, in effect, barred from pursuing the wizard's path because he simply cannot figure out how to cast spells. Similarly, a lawful alignment might preclude one from being a barbarian. A player whose "background and motivation" causes him to eschew the wilderness is not cut out to be a druid.

What I'm doing is looking at an interesting, thought-provoking character, and asking myself, "is he a paladin?" No... in the very same way someone who is scared of the arcane and refuses to have anything to do with it is simply not a sorcerer. He may be a fascinating character to role-play, but he's no sorcerer. He's just not cut out for sorcery, because he would flat-out reject the tenets of the sorcerer class.

I'm not sure yet how to directly address your point about "holding 'paladin' as more important than 'smart, fascinating, thought-provoking character'" - all I can do is point to the paragraphs above and say, "it's not that I think you have to do X and Y to somehow 'qualify' for a class; rather, I think that your choice of X and Y in character concept 'disqualifies you' from certain classes." In other words, it's not that "paladin" is more important than "smart, thought-provoking, fascinating character," but rather that the personality chosen for Sir Cedric removes "paladin" from the list of choices that can further define/round out his character. I will probably figure out exactly what I want to say at 2 am this morning, but hopefully my point comes across - it's not that "paladin" is some excruciating standard that "character concept" must be sacrificed to; rather, "character concept" is an excruciating standard to which the option to have the class of "paladin" must sometimes be sacrificed.

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??

The character is full of dramatic potential, and I love the character. I just don't see him as a paladin because of who he is. You can't make a character however you want and then haphazardly slap the "paladin" or "wizard" or "fighter" or "bard" or "whatever" class on him... because the combination is completely intellectually dissonant. If you're going to base a character on a concept, you need to make the character and THEN look at him and ask, "what class describes him best?"

--The Sigil

 

[shilsen]

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.

Sorry you think this is/was a troll. The reason I posted and made it a poll was because I was curious to see people's opinions/responses and because I thought it would make for an interesting discussion (which, on the whole, I think we've been having - except when a few people take exception to others' opinions). And I'm really not concerned about persuading anybody that my opinion about the character is "right". As for the context, part was left out to create more ambiguity and basis for discussion/analysis and partly because it would have been really, really long if I added more.

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..

Fair enough.

If we analyze per the PHB description of a paladin.... with selected excerpts.

"Few have the purity and devotion..."

Cedric is lacking in both... A rough edged paladin still needs a purity of purpose, and some sort of devotion.

I figure this is subjective. I don't see anything about him lacking either. His purpose is still to do what all other paladins do. He just also happens to some things they don't. And he's devoted to his deity.

"Even a mundane mission ...is an opportunity..to demonstrate bravery"

Brave and consigned are not the same thing. He is consigned, but not very brave.

I'm not sure what you mean by consigned (which generally means to be handed over into someone else's hands/control/care). Do you mean he's consigned to his deity's care or the paladin's path? I don't see where he's not brave. He's not stupid, yes, since he realises there are things out there which he cannot defeat, but he will fight them nevertheless. Seems brave to me.

"Becoming a paladin is answering a call..."

Some have ventured that Cedric is forced to act, that is not the same as answering a call. As a cleric/fighter he can still answer the compulsion to act, and perform all the tasks listed in the character description.

I'd see him as choosing to answer the call, while being fully cognizant of what it entails.

"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

The issue of prostitution has to be handled per the class description, because we are asked in general if the character is acceptable. Rule zero always applies, but as a general look at paladins indulging in prostitutes without any guilt about doing so is not quite right. Considering the manners and temperament of most who would, the number of conflicts caused by him protecting the girls would almost outway the benefit of having him. Especially if it affected overall business. The average madame cares about the health of her girls, but the profits more so. Turnover is a given in that industry.

That being said, I think his endorsing the business contributes to the delinquency and harm of the staff, and his failure to act in any circumstance where someone is threatened/harmed would be grounds for losing his powers.

Legalized prostitution can be lawful, but is rarely good. A high class establishment would have temple priests of some pro-sex deity to care for the girls, they would not cater long to a surly paladin... Therefore he has to be acting from the lower class establishments..bringing in all the above conflicts.

So as long as the girls are not being harmed or enslaved, and he makes sure to protect the staff while present, that would be fine, right?

In this case moral code is not adequately defined. Without a specific deity or pantheon brought into play we can not tell if he SHOULD be morally outraged by the conduct. Given the controlling nature of the sex industry/slavery implications, associating with a house of ill repute does not examplify purity or devotion. Its been mentioned that his bleak outlook shows little faith...

All in all, considering his response to and interaction(however limited) with the girls and madam, evidently they do not offend his moral code.

All in all I can not see anything that justifies him being a paladin.

As I said before, fair enough. I'm just mentioning my take on it for the purposes of discussion.

The character concept is acceptable, but hopefully has room for growth. Perhaps over time he can redeem his lack of faith. "No one, no matter how diligent can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not". You are effectively creating a fallen paladin out the gate. Questing for/finding a cause for redemption would be a pretty epic goal for this character. A sharp player can tease his adventuring group with glimmers of who Cedric could be.

Actually I was shooting for a paladin who's achieved the perfect (or, according to some, perfectly imperfect ) balance. He has a completely open-eyed understanding of what he does. He knows he is just one good man in an inimical universe. He knows his actions are quite likely to be futile in the long run. And he still chooses to act as he should, simply because it is what he should. How much more moral can you get?

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

I'd allow him as a paladin, so long as he was played well, and his clued-in burnout schtick wasn't used to justify an anything goes play style.

Heck, I kinda like the guy. He's a good hearted curmudgeon.

 

[The Sigil]

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.

I had some inkling that this is where you were headed - the "experienced" religionist who knows precisely which are the "core" values of the faith and which are optional "traditions" added on to that core being amused by a fresh-faced zealot who hasn't had the experience yet to tell the difference. However, I'm genuinely curious... if frequenting brothels, swearing, and drinking is not seen as dishonorable, what IS seen as dishonorable? The list in the PHB was, I think, to be an exemplary list, not an exhaustive one... is the entirety of his code only those things specifically called out in the PHB? (i.e., "respect legitimate authority, don't lie, don't cheat, don't use poison, help those in need, punish those who harm or threaten innocents").

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?

I can see the argument that swearing and drinking do not harm or threaten innocents, but I'll be honest - I have a very hard time stomaching the idea that the madame of every brothel in your world does not fall under the "harming or threatening innocents" umbrella (yes, I can imagine a very promiscuous society where it's a prestigious profession and every single prostitute grew up dreaming of becoming a prostitute and the damsels are treated to as many cure disease spells as they wish, but I really doubt that's even the exception to the rule, let alone the norm).

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.

I would be very curious to see that diatribe, provided it pointed out was was "inimical to the code." Truly. I want to try to wrap my head around it.

--The Sigil

 

[Romnipotent]

People keep jumping to a lack of faith, not maintaining a code, and many other things. I would love this level of character description and flavour in my games. Not many deities have abstinence, celebacy, and such as domains and most expect their Paladin to die in a cause or have kids. The main arguement people have with Cedric is, as stated, a subjective standpoint on the actions and limited knowledge we have of him and his surroundings. WE have a glimpse of his downtime, just like Magnus does, and we throw a spanner into the idea that he isn't honourable, faithful, brave, et cetera ad nauseum.
If a paladin went to church and prayed for the 5 weeks of downtime it would be a simple passover, nothing exactly exciting there. A Fighter may very well act without restraint and be able to go to a brothel, but in an objective aspect so can the Paladin.
Strip away the ideas that drikning is bad, swearing if soul, and prositution is wrong; and you end up with someone supporting the local community who has more respect for the girls than many other clients.

I can't think of anything better for a Paladin to do in his downtime but to spread some legs and the word. The ladies of Catherines establishment respect or at least know Cedric, hes a kind person all up. They know who he serves and that means the girls see signs that they can trust a man of Torm, St Cuthbert or whoever. In fact Cedric probably has more effect spiritually on the girls than a ranting new age ideals evangelist with some bent on a probably time old and essential service.

Just a little bit of information, many societies we base our games off had houses of burlesque, no matter how monogomous the society, there would be a farm house or abandoned keep/cathedral somewhere locals and officials would go to enjoy an orgy, of cheese fondue and grapes. More often than not the ideals many western modern societies hold for sexual trades were not and not expected to be imposed on older societies. I cant drag realworld religion into this but thats what it is, realworld religions are the main progenitors against prostitution. It is, and often has been, the cleanest way to get casual relations, something only a few species do.

On a game mechanics side there are many classes in the BoEF from Valar press that are sexual based prestige classes, some even heal. If you haven't read it because its "smut" or the like then I can understand why you dont like Cedric. (not having a go at anyone, just saying there could be a corellation)

 

[Mallus]

The "perk" of being immune to disease, the "perk" of being able to heal, you know all the "class abilities" that make the paladin a "paladin" and not a "fighter/cleric"

What I was getting at is paladins are supposed to be balanced without regard to their code of conduct. The don't get 'perks' for following behavioral restrcitions any more than a fighter does.

I think you're starting backwards... you're starting by deciding, "I will take a paladin" and asking, "what is his motivation and role-playing potential?" What you should be doing is deciding, "I will take a character with this motivation and role-playing potential" and then asking, "is he a paladin?"

There really isn't any should here... any process that gets you to an interesting character is the right one.
IMHO, he has to be a paladin, in the same way a "bad cop" PC for modern game would have to be a police officer.

If you decide Cedric is an interesting character, then you have to allow his central conceit; the fact he's a fully-charged, non-fallen paladin. If not its a totally different character.

The character is full of dramatic potential, and I love the character. I just don't see him as a paladin because of who he is.

You can't explore a conflict over what it means to be a paladin (Cedric core story) without making him a paladin. In same way you can't explore being a crippled Vietnam vet if your protagonist is one of the Teletubbies. OK, maybe you could, but it would be inane...

You can't make a character however you want and then haphazardly slap the "paladin" or "wizard" or "fighter" or "bard" or "whatever" class on him... because the combination is completely intellectually dissonant.

Cedric isn't the equivalent of a mage who's too thick to learn a spell. Implying that what shilsen outlined is somehow haphazard is a bit intellectually dishonest (and I wish I knew what "intellectually dissonant", I must involve sound ...). Cedric (arguably) deviates from baseline paladin in one area; and shilsen provided a damn good rationale for it from the characters point of view. If you can explain a character in a way that makes good (dramatic) sense to me, then the rules, whatever they say, are at best a secondary concern.

 

[The Sigil]

Cedric is designed around the conflict between his carnality and the more commonly orthodox doctrine of his religion (with the tension coming from "who's right?). IMHO, he has to be a paladin, in the same way someone making a "bad cop" PC for modern game would have to be a police officer.

*shrugs* Perhaps I think that Cedric is NOT designed around the conflict between his carnality and the more commonly orthodox doctrine of his religion because there is no question in his own mind. Cedric is not an example of conflict in and of himself; rather, he only creates tension when he has to deal with another member of his religion. Big difference. This is no different then creating an "elf who likes dwarves and hates elves - except himself" because the character's personality does nothing mind-stretching by itself - it requires someone else to tease the mind-stretching out.

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. But as I have mentioned before, in the snippet we were given, his habits are described as vices and his reaction really didn't show that he didn't think they weren't vices, but rather he has no problems succumbing to the appetites of the flesh ("if I want the comfort of a drink or of legs wrapped around me, I deserve it" or whatever the exact phrase was).

In my mind, now that Cedric has not only surrendered to his carnal desires, but embraces them, makes him a fallen paladin - not because he's slipped and fallen (as all in the human condition do) but because he has no desire to "get back up and try again." There's simply no two ways about that. So here we have someone who has not even the desire to control his appetites (not a particularly lawful trait) and who engages in behavior most would consider dishonorable (probably neither a good nor a lawful one)... everything about this character screams "neutral" - cares for others (good), but also makes sure he gets what he wants (evil). Does whatever he wants in his private life (chaotic) while doing what duty requires (lawful). That balance suggests "neutral."

Now you're telling me that paladins are LG and only LG... but this character, who seems to be Neutral, is a paladin. That creates "intellectual dissonance" (by which I mean sending mixed signals that pain the mind when you try to comprehend both at once - or that which happens when you try to engage in "doublethink" for you Orwell fans).

You can't explore a conflict over what it means to be a paladin (Cedric core story) without making him a paladin. In same way you can't explore being a crippled Vietnam vet if your protagonist is one of the Teletubbies. OK, maybe you could, but it would be inane...

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)? Someone who has only seen one side (a paladin) cannot truly know what it means to be a paladin because he hasn't experienced life without it, right (we do not know what we have until it is lost and all that)? Casting Sir Cedric as a fighter/cleric, a pure cleric, a pure fighter, or even an ex-paladin still allows you to explore what is a paladin... by exploring the character who is "not quite a paladin" and seeing where he falls short! You can come at the limits of paladinhood from the other side, you know!

Cedric is hardly the equivalent of a mage who's too thick to learn a spell. Implying that what shilsen outlined is somehow haphazard is intellectually dishonest (and I wish I knew what "intellectually dissonant meant"...). It (arguably) deviated from paladin in one area; and he provided a damn good rationale for it from the characters point of view.

No, Cedric is the equivalent of a character who thinks magic is evil, spooky, and doesn't like the fact that things can just appear out of thin air, and refuses to have anything to do with the supernatural... and oh, by the way, is a sorcerer. Simply put, a character like that, even if he had latent sorcerer powers, would refuse to use them and take another career path! 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!

You're using fiat to overrule common sense. In some ways, the paladin class (along with every other class), is not a buffet where you can pick and choose what you want; it is an ensemble meal, all parts of which you must accept. With a sorcerer, you must accept that at some level, the character accepts magic and is willing to use it. With a bard, you accept that the character not only has some musical talent, but uses it. With a paladin, you accept that the character must be lawful good and adhere to a code of conduct and everything that goes with it. You can't just discard the code of conduct or the LG alignment because "it doesn't fit the character you want to create."

(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.")

Similarly, Cedric's attitudes suggest that he could not have stayed on the path of paladinhood for long, if at all, since not only did he succumb to the appetites of the flesh (a chaotic trait), he doesn't really see any point of fighting off those appetites. He simply doesn't believe in some of the principles I see as being core to a paladin (for instance, the lawful good alignment, to me, implies some measure of self-discipline, which he obviously does not want to practice... well, if you don't want to practice that, you're not LG, and therefore not a paladin).

All of this is IMO, YMMV, etc.

--The Sigil

 

[Desdichado]

Why is the paladin class here being used instead of one of the numerous other holy warrior classes available in D20 material that might be a better fit for this particular lifestyle?

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.

 

[dzeeman]

Judeo-Christian Paladins vs. Pagan Paladins?

I would definitely allow such a Paladin in my campaign, as it would make him (or her!) more three-dimensional. As long as their deity doesn't have any issues with it, why should the Paladin? Who says they have to be celibate, anyhow? Who says he (or she!) isn't in love with one prostitute in particular, and sees only her?

Interestingly enough, by condemning the Paladin, we're also condemning the prostitute. Who's to say she isn't good and kind and decent, just fallen on hard times, with no recourse.

David

 

[shilsen]

I had some inkling that this is where you were headed - the "experienced" religionist who knows precisely which are the "core" values of the faith and which are optional "traditions" added on to that core being amused by a fresh-faced zealot who hasn't had the experience yet to tell the difference.

That pretty much hits the nail on the head.

However, I'm genuinely curious... if frequenting brothels, swearing, and drinking is not seen as dishonorable, what IS seen as dishonorable? The list in the PHB was, I think, to be an exemplary list, not an exhaustive one... is the entirety of his code only those things specifically called out in the PHB? (i.e., "respect legitimate authority, don't lie, don't cheat, don't use poison, help those in need, punish those who harm or threaten innocents").

I think this is one of the core areas where we disagree. I do see the list in the PHB as an exhaustive one, rather than an exemplary one. As soon as one goes beyond the PHB list is that it then becomes a question of personal interpretation of what is "honorable", and raises all sorts of questions, e.g. can a paladin sneak attack someone or use a bow against someone with a sword? One of the reasons I've been mentioning the RAW often is because I am specifically trying not to work beyond it here. Obviously, many other people do so with the paladin as a class.

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?

No arguments there, though I wouldn't apply it as a blanket category as much as you are. As long as it is not a case of someone being forced into the the profession, there is some degree of choice. The degree to which it is coercion gets into issues of economics, social class, society, religion, etc. which I think are too expansive for this discussion.

I can see the argument that swearing and drinking do not harm or threaten innocents, but I'll be honest - I have a very hard time stomaching the idea that the madame of every brothel in your world does not fall under the "harming or threatening innocents" umbrella (yes, I can imagine a very promiscuous society where it's a prestigious profession and every single prostitute grew up dreaming of becoming a prostitute and the damsels are treated to as many cure disease spells as they wish, but I really doubt that's even the exception to the rule, let alone the norm).

Obviously, if Cedric was associating with and benefiting from a madam who was harming innocents, he'd be fallen before you could say "watch the paladin go poof!" I'm visualizing the madam in this case as not one who is harming innocents, and yes, they do exist. My grandmother is a social worker and she's met more than a few madams who would fall outside that category.

I would be very curious to see that diatribe, provided it pointed out was was "inimical to the code." Truly. I want to try to wrap my head around it.

--The Sigil

Actually, the diatribe was the speech to Magnus. And by inimical to the code, I meant that drinking, swearing and living at a brothel (I actually saw it as a semi-permanent home for him, rather than one he visited when in the mood), which someone like Magnus would see as inimical to the code, whereas Cedric knows they are irrelevant to it.