• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Would you allow this paladin character in your game?


Berandor

lunatic
I just wanted to thank all involved for a great and thoughtful discussion. Now that I read the whole thread, I must say it's been very enlightening. Even though I'm fairy sure which side I'm on (I don't really care whether the paladin lives in such a brothel and drinks alcohol, and I really think his fatalistic approach is exciting), there were points I had to agree even with those on the other side of the fence. And even when I disagreed, I couldn't say you were wrong, either.

Thank you for giving me something like that to read.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sir_Syco

First Post
I voted Yes but I would take some abilities away.. like immune to disease. Then I'd let him catch one or two. It might change his ways.

But in all seriousness I do think that if a player can keep up a LG image and Role play him properly I dont see why not. I have a barb who is actually a pal and the DM and I agreed to remove some abilities and to hell with the 17 cha. He is from a foreign land afterall and some of his customs and quirks are not welcome in this part of the land.

He is probably a highbred char

He cant cast spells, he cant cure disease but he is immune to disease. He can LOH at half strength. Instead on tithing the church it goes to the local community. He gets a faithful horse but not a war horse. He goes up levels as a pal. He is LG and I play him as that but it doesnt mean you have to be a goody-2-shoes. He obeys the law and hates evil with a passion.

He still can detect evil intend and has a protection aura and +2 to spell ST. He can turn UD like norm pal.

I think its all in the way you RP it. Your pal could be a highbred char. It doesnt even need to be a pal its just that that class is the closest that it resembles. Actually be reading through it he sounds more like a pal-swashbuckler. A Musketeer type.. They are LG and like the ladies..

Good luck
 

Ormiss

First Post
I would allow the character, but he would not be a paladin.

I don't have a problem with buying prostitutes, since it's his own prerogative to do so if it's lawful in his society. However, I would just like to mention, as an addendum to the debate on prostitution, that the arguments that support it (as a woman's conscious choice) are equally effective for child labor (in China, for example.) Just keep that in mind.

On the subject of drinking, do keep in mind that alcohol is an addictive drug that impairs judgment. Drinking in moderation is fine, but you should be held accountable for any actions taken while inebriated. (As an aside, modern day societies don't hold you accountable for purposefully impairing your judgment and committing crimes as a result, but let's not go down that road here...)

I have two problems with Sir Cedric, which make him a fallen paladin in my campaign.

1) He believes he's entitled to rewards for doing what he does. A person who does good deeds to get rewarded isn't good. He's neutral. In D&D (and I subscribe to this notion in real life as well) a good deed is one done with no thought for reward (other than the sense of satisfaction you feel when you do the "right thing." ;))

2) He is not an inspiration. In my opinion, the code of conduct in the PHB has nothing to do with the paladin himself. It's a tool that enables the paladin to inspire others to the cause of good. The fact of the matter is, as Cedric so bitterly exclaims, his cause is hollow because he is just one man. By inspiring others, Cedric "recruits" common folk to the cause of good, and paves the way for new paladins. This is the most important part of being a paladin--far more important than slaying succubi.

As an aside, I find it rather amusing that so many people in the "what does a 2nd level commoner give a 12th level paladin" thread are replying "herself", but when a paladin pays for it, it's bad...

Hm? If you truly feel that way, you've just equated prostitution with making love to your wife. The difference between getting paid to make love to a person and making love to a person because you want to is quite staggering in my eyes. Did I misunderstand your point?

In fact, on the subject of being atypical, I think a character like Cedric would work best in a setting where most paladins are the conventional type. The conventional paladin is great, but one of the dangers that it runs (both for the paladin and the people who interact with him) is to shift the focus from the work that he does to the trimmings that go along with it. The shiny armor and the special mount and the flowery speech - these are not what make a paladin. But they are often what people focus on.

There's a middle ground here. On the one hand, you have the paladin who wears shining armor and speaks with "thee" and "thou" on a regular basis. On the other hand you have Sir Cedric who, without switching "sides" manages to directly oppose that concept. In the middle, you have a paladin who doesn't wear polished silver armor and doesn't speak like a noble, but still treats people with fairness and respect and doesn't get drunk and cuss out people because they annoy him. Patience and perseverence are important virtues for a holy champion. If Sir Cedric can be a paladin, paladins will be numerous in your world.

Here's an example of a paladin concept that differs from the PHB that I would allow:

Riemal is the son of a blacksmith, born and raised in Harrathos; a truly unremarkable village in the hinterlands of the Queendom of Kereloc. As a child, he read stories of great paladins (who spoke with flowery speech and wore shining plate mail) but never did he imagine that he would even see the lands outside of his home. To cut a potentially long story short, Riemal's story changed one day when an adventuring party's gambit led a band of devils straight through Harrathos. Sure, the adventurers slew the erinyes that had hunted them for the past few months, but the village was destroyed in the process, and the minor devils made off with numerous survivors. Riemal survived through sheer luck, partially trapped underneath a bunch of debris.

Narrowly evading madness in his grief, Riemal found that the only way he could cope with his loss was to focus on something. He began to search for the lost villagers, determined to prevent their further suffering at the hands of the devils. The problem is just that everywhere Riemal goes, there are other people who have lost loved ones, and he just can't seem to make himself insensitive to their suffering. He just has to help them, too. Sure, he rescued the last missing villager from Harrathos several years ago, but there's plenty of other people who need saving, so he can't rest yet. There's always more people who need help.

At some point, a god took notice of Riemal, and surreptitiously imbued him with the powers of a paladin. Riemal began to notice that he could do things he couldn't do before, but wasn't sure what to think. He's never communed with his god, and he has no idea that he's a paladin. In fact, Riemal is shy, filled with the humility of a small towner, and would never say something as preposterous as "I have been chosen by the gods." Why, even the thought makes him blush with shame. He's just a common man, doing what needs to be done. Sure, he's seen a lot of bad things and there doesn't seem to be an end to the madness outside of the village, but someone's got to help people, right?

Riemal is, above all, humble. He has learned that patience and understanding are the only ways to combat hatred. Within, Riemal is constantly struggling. He fights to keep believing that people are good at heart, but some days--like that day when the queen sentenced the Knights of Everue to death, or the time the fiend Halthyon orchestrated the pogrom of Lion's Marsh--it's a losing battle. So far, he's holding his ground, and he does not let anyone know of this struggle.

Outwardly, no one would guess Riemal is a paladin, but his actions and optimism make him an inspiration to others: He's an attainable ideal, a common man who just happened to land on the road of a hero. Oh, don't tell him he's a hero unless you want a good laugh, though. He's been known to blush and stutter if you do that.

Ouch, that was long. Sorry! It was just so fun to write when I got started. :)
Note that I didn't say much about the lawful aspect in my example. To tell the truth, I'm not a big fan of lawful good, since lawful is a limitation that embraces a particular society's (or god's) law, which may or may not be "objectively" good. If I were to play Riemal, I would play him as a Holy Liberator from Complete Divine.

Still, the reasons I don't approve of Sir Cedric have nothing to do with the lawful aspect.
 

fusangite

First Post
Ormiss said:
However, I would just like to mention, as an addendum to the debate on prostitution, that the arguments that support it (as a woman's conscious choice) are equally effective for child labor (in China, for example.) Just keep that in mind.
Medieval-style agrarian economies often used both child labour and quasi-slave labour. While I agree that modern people in modern cultures in medieval drag is a way of playing D&D, it is not the only way of playing D&D. It seems to me that you are making the argument that paladins could not really comfortably exist in the high medieval society.

Now don't get me wrong here. I don't think this paladin belongs in medieval society either. But the idea that paladins would be incompatible with societies practicing child labour seems to force D&D into being less representative of medieval culture than a badly run chapter of the SCA.
On the subject of drinking, do keep in mind that alcohol is an addictive drug that impairs judgment.
Again, this kind of reasoning works fine if this game is just a 21st century drag act but come on -- the idea that a Christian sacrament might be incompatible with paladinhood is, again, really dubious here.
Drinking in moderation is fine, but you should be held accountable for any actions taken while inebriated.
Agreed. But this is just how a pre-modern person would think. The idea of intoxication as a defense comes from our modern pathologization of the human will (and I think we agree here).
1) He believes he's entitled to rewards for doing what he does. A person who does good deeds to get rewarded isn't good. He's neutral. In D&D (and I subscribe to this notion in real life as well) a good deed is one done with no thought for reward (other than the sense of satisfaction you feel when you do the "right thing." ;))
Where in the Cedric text do you get the sense that his good deeds are contingent upon reward. Recognizing that there will be reward for your good deeds is different, ethically, than making your deeds contingent upon reward. People can be genuinely good and live Christian lives and expect that they will go to heaven because they are living in a godly way. But this doesn't cheapen their good deeds unless they are deeds they would not otherwise perform.
2) He is not an inspiration. In my opinion, the code of conduct in the PHB has nothing to do with the paladin himself. It's a tool that enables the paladin to inspire others to the cause of good. The fact of the matter is, as Cedric so bitterly exclaims, his cause is hollow because he is just one man. By inspiring others, Cedric "recruits" common folk to the cause of good, and paves the way for new paladins. This is the most important part of being a paladin--far more important than slaying succubi.
I think you may have a point here. While I think a fatalistic paladin could be an inspiration, this one is not.
 

Torm

Explorer
Ormiss said:
However, I would just like to mention, as an addendum to the debate on prostitution, that the arguments that support it (as a woman's conscious choice) are equally effective for child labor (in China, for example.) Just keep that in mind.
Um, no. First, a person has to be old enough to be competent to make their own decisions - a child laborer probably is not, a grown woman prostitute is usually. Then, there's the matter of coercive circumstances - if a family is being intentionally KEPT in a situation where they will have no choice but to send the kids to work, then the conscious choice still isn't a FREE one. Sometimes that can be said of prostitutes and their pimps, families, and/or drug habits, but not always - and therein lies the point. (Of course, one could argue that having to live in this world at all is a coercive circumstance - but that doesn't get us anywhere. ;))

Ormiss said:
Drinking in moderation is fine, but you should be held accountable for any actions taken while inebriated. (As an aside, modern day societies don't hold you accountable for purposefully impairing your judgment and committing crimes as a result, but let's not go down that road here...).
I happen to agree with your aside and related sentiment, but no one is talking about that in this case - Shilsen went out of his way in his story segments to show that Sir Cedric is not allowing himself to become influenced to the extent of being unable to properly perform his Duties. (any of them, IYKWIMAITYD ;))
 

Ormiss

First Post
Gack, I didn't want to get involved in a discussion about prostitution and child labor. :p In response, let me just explain what I meant. In general, the defense of prostitution that has been brought up in this thread states that women often turned to prostitution because it was the best choice out there. In China and other countries, children work because they don't care to starve to death along with their families. It's a choice, but it's still not a good one from our point of view. I just meant that people should keep this in mind, but I don't want to get into an expansive discussion because both prostitution and child labor are tricky subjects. Generally speaking, I'm against both, though, but that's not the point of this thread. Feel free to send me an e-mail if you want to discuss it further without hijacking the thread.

As for the comments on paladins and child labor, I would say that firstly, obviously the idea that children shouldn't work is largely a concoction of our modern society. It's a noble idea, but it doesn't work that well in a society that doesn't have a well-developed foundation of health care and social security. That said, I feel that a paladin should strive to ensure that no woman needs to prostitute herself and that no child or other being should work under inhuman conditions. Obviously there's a big difference between someone offering a child work and a person who takes advantage of impoverished children for labor.

About drinking: I might've given the wrong impression here. I did not mean that a paladin--or anyone else--should be disallowed to have a glass of wine or ale during a ceremony or even dinner, only that they should not submit to drug abuse of any form. Anything that is addictive (such as chocolate) could be said to be a drug, but unless it impairs your judgment, it's fairly harmless. From the flavor, I did not feel that Sir Cedric drank with moderation, however.

Where in the Cedric text do you get the sense that his good deeds are contingent upon reward. Recognizing that there will be reward for your good deeds is different, ethically, than making your deeds contingent upon reward. People can be genuinely good and live Christian lives and expect that they will go to heaven because they are living in a godly way. But this doesn't cheapen their good deeds unless they are deeds they would not otherwise perform.

I agree about the difference, though that's a matter for a universe more gray than D&D. :) Mainly, Sir Cedric's comment about being entitled to drink and carouse with women because he fights the good fight was what made me feel he was being mercenary. It's extrapolation, certainly, but that's the impression I got from the flavor.

In general, I just think the meeting between the squire Magnus and Sir Cedric made the latter seem depressingly uninspiring. Everything else aside, this paladin is spurious in my eyes based on the fact that his code of conduct does not make him an example to others.
 

Mallus

Legend
Ormiss said:
Everything else aside, this paladin is spurious in my eyes based on the fact that his code of conduct does not make him an example to others.
How does he work for you as a character, in the literary-type sense?
 

Ormiss

First Post
How does he work for you as a character, in the literary-type sense?

Interesting that you should ask; I just finished having a discussion about this post with my best friend, who took a somewhat opposing view. I think Sir Cedric is a good character, in the literary sense, because (to steal my friend's main argument) he teaches us not to judge a book by the cover. Being rude and crude doesn't mean you're a bad person at heart. My first reaction of Sir Cedric was that I thought he was a good guy, but I didn't like him as a person. I still stand by what I said in my posts, but I should add that if you were to rename the class "Holy Champion" I'm fine with Sir Cedric being one. ;)

I have a hard time liking characters that are rude and unpleasant, even though they are entitled to be (as with Magnus' rude and prejudiced behavior toward Sir Cedric). I'm not sure I'd enjoy a book written about Sir Cedric as a protagonist, but as one of several main characters or as a side character, it could be interesting. I definitely agree that giving characters flaws, foibles and quirks are important for characteriziation, but that clashes with the way I view the iconic D&D paladin. That said, I don't like paladins who are happy and live pleasant lives fighting evil. Being a paladin is to suffer, plain and simple. You're supposed to live each day struggling against your inner demons and resist the urge to curse and scream at your god.
 

Endur

First Post
I voted no. However, I think he would be fine as a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good version of a Paladin (i.e. Holy Liberator, etc.).

The character described is definitely good. He just doesn't meet the requirements for Lawful. Especially to the degree in which a Paladin must meet the lawful requirements.

For example, lets take Westerns. Our two most famous Western Actors are John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. They both play good-alingment characters. John Wayne typically plays a Paladin character. Clint Eastwood normally does not play a Paladin character.
 

Mallus

Legend
Ormiss said:
I'm not sure I'd enjoy a book written about Sir Cedric as a protagonist...
See now I would... shilsen, are you still reading this? Have some free time? How hard can it be, its only fantasy for God's sake :)

I definitely agree that giving characters flaws, foibles and quirks are important for characteriziation, but that clashes with the way I view the iconic D&D paladin.
It's not just a question of little personality ticks that help decorate his character. Its the central conflict that drives his story.
Being a paladin is to suffer, plain and simple. You're supposed to live each day struggling against your inner demons and resist the urge to curse and scream at your god.
If that's my only option, I'd rather play a nice game of chess.
 

Remove ads

Top