Bad Paladin... or My First Paladin thread...

[John Morrow]

By the book Paladins look dull to me, because you can't engage in any kind of moral struggle with them... they exist in a binary state, on or fallen, and that seems like a huge missed oppourtunity [if I wanted to play a bit, I'd pick up Tron:d20].

Ah, there I think you are wrong. There is still plenty of room for moral struggles within the traditional role. There is plenty of struggle in picking priorities.

But what I think maybe you really should do is imply soften the requirements of atonement. Let you paladin fall when he sins. Let him find a cleric and atone when he wants his powers back. If you've got plenty of high-level clerics around, require the atonement spell but waive the XP cost. If you don't, you can handwave away the spell, too. This forces him to deal with his faith and his clergy to keep his powers while letting him do a lot of slipping and falling along the way.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Yup, that's exactly what he's supposed to be, the unwitting Peer of Charlemange... But as to gaining his abilities slowly, as a 'reward'... 1) Paladin abilites just aren't that good... its like a double-penalty, and 2) the whole underpinning for this is a 'grace paradigm' not a 'reward paradigm'... he never deserves the power (and love) his god gives him. He can never be worthy. He changes his ways over time as he comes to realize that, to feel the enormity of the gift freely giving to him. Not because he gets kewl powerz out of the deal.

Again, this goes against how I interpret a paladin. I do like the character concept. But I am rather specific on the types of characters I believe the paladin is appropriate for. Sir Galahad. St. George. etc. Born examples of what other men should aspire to become. Parents should want their children to grow up to be like them. etc.

If I were your DM, I'd probably try to work with you to give you what you want, while also preserving my vision of what the word Paladin means. Perhaps I'd grant your PC a bonus feat at first level.

Grace of God [Special]

There are those who are born to be loved by God, and there are those who aspire to that love. And then there are those who are neither, yet by the grace of God are loved all the same.

Benefit: You have been touched by the grace of God. You gain a +1 sacred bonus to all saving throws. This bonus does not stack with a paladin's Divine Grace ability. The paladin class does not count toward xp penalties for multiclassing.

So you could be a fighter touched by God. You'd have a bit of a mechanical advantage to represent your divine gift, and should your PC reform himself fully at a later point, he can become a paladin without any mechanical drawbacks.

 

[shilsen]

I don't see any problems with playing such a paladin, but only because you're house-ruling what a paladin is. The description you give of him doesn't work with the PHB paladin. You describe him as "a venal knight, petty thief, liar, schemer, occasional whoremonger, and drunk". Personally, I think the PHB paladin can be venal, an occasional whoremonger and a drunk without really disrupting his code. But being a thief and a liar are explicitly problematical with the paladin's code. But, to go back to my original point, since you are house-ruling the rigidity and nature of the code, it's not a problem.

More importantly, I hope he has a squire called Bardolph and an, ahem ... beloved called Mistress Quickly

 

[Mallus]

A paladin, as a class, is designed to be an exemplar or role model. As we both agree, this character isn't.

Actually, we don't agree. I see this character as a fine role-model for the ideals I'm talking about: ie, that the sinner is no more deserving than the righteous man of god's grace, and that all no-one will be turned away when the time comes to fight for the cause of righteousness...

I'm simply saying that a paladin does not seem to be the right vehicle for it. I understand your point but it just doesn't feel right.

But I started out by musing 'What if Shakespeare's Falstaff was a Paladin...'

What I'm not seeing here is the the dedication to righteousness and I think that's because you are talking about active and willful sins rather than passive sins of weakness.

His inherent righteousness will have to come out in play... right now you've only got my word for it. As for 'active' vs. 'passive' sinning... eh, weakness is weakness, everything else is just sophistry.

I don't think that the idea of an active sinner is compatible with either a personality that would lay down their life for righteousness or a deity's grace.

I believe there's an enormous parade of historical personages that proves you wrong.

Yeah, I've heard that argument before.

I'm unclear what you mean here.

That suggests that you wanted to play a paladin (as a class) first, but didn't like the catches involved with playing the traditional sort. So you decided to imagine a character concept that would gives you the ability to play a paladin without being an exemplar. It may not be playing the rules in a traditional min-max sense but it still seems to be wanting to play a character class without the negatives.

Its not mix-maxing in any sense... unless you're trying to balance out how much fun a player has in creating a role to play.

What do you think would make it so interesting?

I don't rightly know... I suppose because I can work through my understanding of the concept of grace at the same time I smite an evil Frost Giant for 60 pts. of damage.

Of course if you really want a challenge, I'd suggest going back to the drawing board and figure out how to play a traditional paladin by the book that you'd have fun playing.

But thats not the challenge I want. Let me ask you this: what's the inherent value in playing the class exactly as written?

I thought the idea of a Paladin that essnetially starts out fallen, who still wields God's blessing full-force, and gradually comes to true, active righteousness because of it was intriguing. That's all.

Thanks for a (much) different perspective...

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Why can't he serve as a shining beacon of his gods' ideals? I see him as being easier to identify with, because of his flaws. He's as low and petty as the worst man, he's the guy who tried to seduce your wife and cheap you at cards, the yet when the time comes he'll lay down his life in service of righteousness.

<snip>

What I want is an interesting character to play. Doesn't this guy sound like a challenge?

He sounds like a challenge in more ways than one. Which to me is part of the problem. In a heavy RP game, he could be pretty interesting and it would be fun to explore that guy's mind. In a light RP game it's really just window dressing anyway and then it's just kind of fun. As a DM anywhere between would give me problems. You've essentially set up a situation where I will have to watch what you do and act as the 'guiding hand of god' in a lot of situations regarding this character. I'm going to have to watch him, because by his construction and description, you're challenging me to keep you in place. That takes time and energy away from doing other, more fun things, than babysitting your RP expierence. It makes DMing less fun for me, except in the cases noted above, and anything that makes DMing less fun for me is typically going to meet with a harsh response.

My typical rule with paladins is 'Don't make me question your paladinhood and we'll get along fine'. Unfortunately, by nature, this character breaks that rule.

It somewhat reminds me of a situation that I had in a game I ran. Everyone was part of a military unit. One player (a bit of a problem player) wanted to play a character who was opposed to the war. My response was to dictate some pretty heavy rules about what was unacceptable for his character to do in the game. I didn't like doing it, but I felt that it was necessarry to keep further conflict out of the game. I'd feel the need to remind you that as the DM I was the ultimate arbiter of events in the game. And I really dislike having to do that.

Anyway, to get off of the former kick: Is he a recovering lying/cheating/stealing/wenching sort of guy, or is he still that sort of guy? Also, I'd reccomend talking with whoever's going to be running the game he's in to find out what are acceptable deviations from paladinish behavior. I wouldn't have a big problem with John spending his time gambling, swinging by the whorehouse, and drinking a whole lot. Cheating at cards, attacking random passerby while drunk, seducing people's wives, and stealing from churches are all problems with me, unless they're evil churches.

Also, I'd reccomend a lot of exterior monologs. Why? Because, with regards to this character, it's vitally important for your DM to know what's going on in his head. If you keep things secret, or expect your DM to read you, it may not work so well.

Anyway, best of luck, and my your DM be the sort of guy who'll deal kindly with your concept.

Though I still think he sounds chaotic.

 

[Mallus]

More importantly, I hope he has a squire called Bardolph and an, ahem ... beloved called Mistress Quickly

He kinda has to, don't he?

 

[Mallus]

Parents should want their children to grow up to be like them. etc.

But wouldn't parents like their children to know that no-one is beyond redemption? Or service to the faith?

 

[Mallus]

In a light RP game it's really just window dressing anyway and then it's just kind of fun.

This guy has no business in a light RP game... I wouldn't even try. It'd be rude.

That takes time and energy away from doing other, more fun things, than babysitting your RP expierence.

Wow, that's totally different from my take on DM'ing... for me, its all about 'babysitting players RP experience'. Unless that doesn't mean what I think it means. A DM provides a series of (hopefully) interesting challenges to each individual player, and the group. How's this guy different? Do you mean he'd be a DM time-hog?

Also, I'd reccomend a lot of exterior monologs.

Oh yeah, lots of monolouges in as booming a bad British accent as I can manage...

 

[ThoughtBubble]

This guy has no business in a light RP game... I wouldn't even try. It'd be rude.

Excellent. Now that I get a little more of the baseline it's less worrysome.

Wow, that's totally different from my take on DM'ing... for me, its all about 'babysitting players RP experience'. Unless that doesn't mean what I think it means. A DM provides a series of (hopefully) interesting challenges to each individual player, and the group. How's this guy different? Do you mean he'd be a DM time-hog?

Maybe the kids you babysit are different from the ones I do then. There tends to be a lot of "Don't climb on that, it'll break. Here, play with this. Don't touch that, it's hot." And, of course, the ever fun holding on to a screaming child that tried to run heedlessly into the winter shopping crowd. When I use the term in a gaming context, it tends to be similar. For example: when I need to watch for appropriate behavior, make sure I offer enough fun to entice the players into something, pull people off of the TV, make sure everyone knows that we're playing at 6:30 on friday, and make sure that the cleric doesn't make everything into a mess by declaring the evils of what the party's doing till everyone is too frusterated to do anything.

With regards to your character, my worry comes from the fact that he's trying to push the boundries. Now hopefully my worries are unfounded because you're better at it than my players and I. However, in every instance that I've seen someone try to 'push the boundry' it ends up bringing the game down if left to its own devices. Ultimately the characters lead to discord, don't make effort to fit in, and drag the other players at the table down. I prefer situations where I don't feel the need to check my players' behavior.

My specific worries with this chracter involve the potential for doing rotten things, and using "but I was just too weak to resist!" as an excuse. There's a thick line between that and being one of the guys who plays an evil character but says he's good, but it's a line you're toeing nonetheless. If you combo that with the fact that you're playing a paladin and paladins do have the whole "You transgressed? *BAM* No more powers for you!" attribute, there's a horrendously huge potential for conflict.

How possible do you see this situation:
"John, that's it. You're taking jewelry from the mayor's wife who you just slept with. You're a fallen paladin now."
"What? That's not fair!"
"Yes it is. You're being evil."
"No I'm not. I'm just being weak. It was so shiny!"
"No. That was an evil act."
"Man, you're such a jerk."

It's exaggerated, of course, but I can see that sort of thing happening with this character in the wrong situation. Hence, the need to handle it with extra attention and care, or repeated sledgehammerings.

Of course, if the answer to the question "Do I trust you to play a reasonable chracter and contribute to the fun of the game?" is "Absolutely." Then the whole issue is null and void. Why? Because we go back to my main paladin rule (and typical game rule in general) "don't make me question you, and I'll assume you're correct."

Oh yeah, lots of monolouges in as booming a bad British accent as I can manage...

Heheheheh. Excellent. Sounds fun.

Anyway, hope that clarified what I meant.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But wouldn't parents like their children to know that no-one is beyond redemption? Or service to the faith?

Yes, but that's not the lesson a paladin embodies. That's where our core difference of opinion lies, I think. You seem to believe that a paladin need only exemplify a virtue, any virtue, to remain true to its class archtype. I disagree. Not just any virtue will do. Paladins are exemplars. They are the shining example of what men should be.

The example of what men are, and the proof that God loves even the basest of men, is not what a paladin embodies. These roles belong to others. Mary Magdalane, (as portrayed until recently,) is a holy figure, and an example that nobody is below redemption or God's love. That doesn't make her a paladin.

Again, let me say that I like your character concept. I'm tempted to play something similar down the road. But it's not a paladin.