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

[D+1]

"What defines a Paladin?". The simple answer in games terms are a set of ablities (of course) and a rigid code of conduct. But what if it was faith that truly made a Paladin, not just adherence to a set rules. What if the code of conduct was much looser, or at least there was much greater leeway for a Paladin to give in to his or her fallen instincts, before they actually Fell.

Well if you have a DM who has a reasonable grasp of alignment and the paladin code then paladins already have leeway to stumble occasionally rather than whack them with becoming fallen paladins at the slightest misstep.

So I'm working on Sir John Gaulstaff (I couldn't resist...); a venal knight, petty thief, liar, schemer, occasional whoremonger, and drunk, who happens to have unshakable faith and was, in fact, chosen by God to be a champion. He's constantly battling against/giving in to his base nature. He's weak-willed, but he believes, and his whole story arc is one redemption, a moving away from a faith-in-his-heart towards a fatih-in-action.

And that is such a FANTASTIC take on a traditional paladin. I see nothing wrong with it at all. He'll be doing a fair amount of atonement I think, but assuming he has an understanding priest to turn to for them the spells won't require constant questing, etc.

I don't see him as a fighter who eventually becomes a Paladin (the way to do this in the RAW). I envision him as someone who can do miracles with his own hands, and still struggles with the weakness of the flesh. The whole point is that he feels unworthy, not to mentioned frightened by, this blessing. But it doesn't go away; because the blessing isn't deserved its given freely by the grace of God (or Goddess).

So this is the Paladin I want to play... opinions?

Paladins don't have to be perfect - they mostly just have to try. His weaknesses (not too excessive hopefully - a little can go a long way) are good roleplaying hooks to focus on - just as they would be for ANY character. They simply carry more roleplaying weight for a struggling Paladin than other characters. I really do see the need for him to have a fellow PC whom he can turn to for Atonements, or else a prominent, understanding NPC who finds it a bit of a personal curse to help keep him in line for the sake of not wanting to lose an otherwise stalwart religious fighting paragon.

 

[D+1]

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].

If anything, because too many DM's absolutely LIVE to whack paladins with the alignment stick at the earliest possible turn they are too often in a CONSTANT moral struggle. It's as if constantly being in danger of falling at a minor misstep is thought to be inherent to the class. Playing a paladin? Surprise! The DM is obligated to try to trip you up for any excuse he can drum up because playing a paladin PC is only ever about that PC falling from grace just as soon as the DM can blow something out of proportion.

Paladins are not SUPPOSED to live in a binary state of shining, flawless goody-two-shoes-ness vs. Darth-Vader-was-a-bleeding-heart-weenie extremes. They have ideals to live up to but that doesn't mean that it's not a STRUGGLE for many paladins. In many ways it's the willingness to continue to struggle rather than accepting a lesser destiny that defines a paladin. The PH says paladins consider themselves to have been called to the life they lead but doesn't say they all MUST be happy and cheerful about it, as well as unerringly good at it.

See, on the one hand we have people who think that players choose paladins because they want the DM to try and knock them off their pedestal and call that roleplaying. On the other hand we have those who think that all paladins are pure, never make mistakes, never doubt themselves, never fail to be all they can be and call that roleplaying. The REAL roleplaying is everywhere in between. While those are not UNviable views neither leaves a lot of room for a paladin to be an INTERESTING, individual character with FLAWS and that's silly IMO. Paladins, like any other character, are allowed to be at least a little flexible in their alignment-related behavior. They don't need to FALL every time they go whoring, nor Atone for every lie, but because their alignment is a requirement of the class they do need to be watched more closely and don't have a "Get back to LG Free!" card like any other class would. They can stray out of their alignment and code - but may need to Atone in order to go back if they've gone too far.

 

[D+1]

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.

But that's rather the point isn't it? Are all paladins by definition such shining paragons of virtue that they can't actually have character flaws? How can anyone ever play a paladin with an individual personality without those flaws? How can ANY paladin possibly even fall if he can't screw up occasionally because he's "human" and makes mistakes. Mistakes of the degree that would cause a paladin to lose his powers or actually fall can't actually be made if a paladin by definition is a shining paragon of virtue who DOESN'T make such mistakes.

It should be possible for a paladin, despite repeated errors in his ways and frequent Atonements, to never be considered as less a paladin than any other. It should be possible for a paladin to go through an entire campaign without once having the DM set an alignment trap for him. It should be possible for a paladin to have any character flaw that any other LG character can have - and that includes lying (within reason) and petty theft (which is what we're talking about, not grand larceny).

 

[D+1]

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.

Indeed the entire Christian tradition is based on the notion of man being indelibly stained with sin and who cannot be perfect without the grace of God, and yet history being replete with countless of said active sinners sacrificing even their lives for others, as well as even the worst, most unrepentant sinners still being capable of finding and receiving Gods grace.

 

[D+1]

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.

While it IS possible to take this character concept too far (quite easily in fact) it is precisely the kind of character that disproves the OP's own initial concerns about paladins. This concept is about as rough-around-the-edges as you can be and still BE a paladin. But what's wrong with choosing that as a starting point and working steadily toward that shining-beacon-of-virtue whereas most people seem to want to start with EVERY paladin as s.b.o.v.'s and then look for opportunities to go all Anakin/Vader on us?

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.

There's one in every crowd isn't there? :\ That is strictly a player problem. It's the kind of player who chooses a completely antithetical character concept for what we can only assume to be a play for attention-by-disruption. If you have a LG party nobody has the right to screw up the game by choosing to play a CE Assassin and claiming it's a "roleplaying choice".

This is a character designed to improve with time, not degrade with time. You have FAR less to fear from the character than the character does from YOU looking for reasons to drag him down or keep him down. Given the players perspective on the concept I'd think it would take LESS monitoring than the usual paladin because as a paladin he nowhere to go but up and it's in the players own interests to see to it he moves that direction.

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.

Put it this way:

"Have you ever killed anyone?"
"Yes. But they were all bad."

 

[Silveras]

I think the issue is a matter of scale. Paladins are often, as D+1 notes, bipolar characters. There is nothing wrong with giving the character flaws. The Advanced Dungeons & Dragons comic, for example, had an alcoholic Paladin character; some of the more interesting stories were about his loss of faith after adversity. Also, as noted, Holger Carlson had a few all-too-flawed moments.

These are excellent examples of imperfect Paladins.

The key is that the flaws are not the definition of the character, either. A Paladin can drink wine, beer, etc., as is normal for his/her society. S/he can even get drunk on occasion, although getting drunk enough to be impaired would be a Chaotic action, and would require an Atonement (IMHO). A character who is "roaring" drunk more often than not is not a Paladin for very long.

Likewise, having a constant partner in a committed relationship, ideally with the blessing of the clergy (but not at all required, depending on culture), is very much in keeping with a Paladin. Occasionally visiting a bordello is like occasionally being drunk; an interesting character flaw when played *in moderation*, but a fast-track no ex-Paladin if it is more than an infrequent failing.

A small number of vices coupled with a greater set of virtues makes for an interesting Paladin... a Paladin who has a hard time forgiving, for example, or one who struggles with the idea of showing mercy, but who otherwise gives freely to charity, would lay down his/her life for a stranger, and who obeys the strictures of his/her faith to the letter, opens up avenues of great roleplaying.

 

[Old Fart]

I think it's an interesting and valid character concept, in the right context. I agree with the several posters on this topic that a Paladin should embody the ideals of his diety. However, suppose this paladin's diety is of a hedonistic nature, like Bacchus or Dionysus for example. For that kind of diety, Falstaff would be the iconic ideal.

As to violations of the "rules" of Paladinhood, well the SRD defines these rules as:
"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"

Whether drinking, whoring, gambling is evil depends on who one asks - and is better not debated on this board. However, it's not the classic D&D sack-a-town, sacrifce-the-maiden, heroic-fantasy evil.

Based on the Shakespearean character, only the lying and petty theft would qualify. And I'd argue that in the milieu of a game where so many adventures equate to "orc home invasions" that the "evil" of theft depends on the victims and the use to which the gains are put. As for the lying, I would question the intent - vicious slander or merely boasting when even you don't expect your audience to believe you, which makes it more a jest.
Also, as I remember the character from the Henriad, he respected legitimate authority (Hal, who was as legitimate as anyone could claim to be after the War of the Roses).

So, if the difference between the fictional character and the theoretical Paladin was that the latter actually stood up and fought against evil when it was called for, I'd be inclined to let the rest pass, dependent on the diety.

Speaking of which - you might want to consider one of the more hedonistic faiths for this character, to spin the dramtic conflict to "I could be a better Paladin if not for my weaknesses of the flesh, but doggone it, I'm supposed to have these weaknesses to emulate the one I serve!"

Just my 2 coppers,

 

[Mallus]

Indeed the entire Christian tradition is based on the notion of man being indelibly stained with sin and who cannot be perfect without the grace of God, and yet history being replete with countless of said active sinners sacrificing even their lives for others, as well as even the worst, most unrepentant sinners still being capable of finding and receiving Gods grace.

That's it in a nutshell. My baseline assumption for the character is cribbed from Protestantism; that human virtue don't amount to a hill of beans in this crzay world (hmmm, that's cribbed from Casablanca). No man is worthy by their own virtue, they are only made worthy by God's grace.

The main difference I seem to be having here is positing that the paladin's religion is based on grace, not on individual virtue...

 

[Mallus]

The example of what men are, and the proof that God loves even the basest of men, is not what a paladin embodies.

Why couldn't a Paladin embody that? What would you lose?

Let me ask this: would a religion based around the sole, salvific power of God's grace (and that's my assumption) only want Paladins who exemplified a personal virtue that, while nice, has no power to redeem? My Sir John Gaulstaff embodies the virtue that virtue alone doesn't mean squat. It is by grace alone one is made right with God. It's not like I made this up myself...

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.

And thank you.

 

[enrious]

Sorry, but this concept strikes me completely as being a Favoured Soul, not a paladin.