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

[Mallus]

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

Don't own that book, so I went with the classic.

 

[enrious]

Essentially a Favored Soul is to a cleric what a sorcerer is to a wizard.

Chosen by their diety, granted spells and so forth, without the (almost) required trappings of a cleric's church and organization.

To me a paladin is a very specific term. The character you've described sounds to me as much a paladin as a plate-mailed, greataxe-wielding character who enjoys burning down forests would be deemed a "druid".

Favoured Soul is good because it represents the aspect of being "touched" by their diety without the dogma that often comes along with it. It sounds like a much more apt description of your concept.

I have thus far played 4 seperate paladins since 3rd edition came out. None of whom where the stereotypical "knight in shining armor". Even so, in my opinion, to the degree of his actions you've described, I'd never refer to him as a paladin.

Interesting character concept, to be sure, though.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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

Everything. You're combining the paladin archtype with its polar opposite. What value does the term have at all once you've done this? 'Paladin' doesn't mean "any guy who has powers granted by a god." It's a very specific archtype. Making it all-inclusive destroys its meaning.

It occurs to me that your guy might find some interesting roleplaying opportunities when interacting with actual paladins. As others have noted, paladins aren't perfect. Aside from rage, one of the easiest flaws for them to exhibit is arrogance. And your guy, base as he is, but still touched by a god, will serve as a trial for those paladins who place too much stock in themselves and their favored status with their god. Of course, there will be those paladins, the best of the best, who can see the goodness beneath the base vices of your guy. But others will not.

 

[shilsen]

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.

Actually I don't think all paladins should be shining paragons of virtue, and am very comfortable with running a paladin with character flaws (I probably would get bored out of my skull if I ran one without any) or DMing one. Screwing up occasionally is fine, and would probably lead to interesting roleplaying. But screwing up consistently is another issue.

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).

Here I will disagree. A paladin, by virtue of the code, has to be a step above any other LG character. Where I'm concerned, lying sometimes and (as you say) within reason due to weakness is fine and will probably just lead to a few bad dreams for a paladin IMC. But lying consistently is another issue. Theft, on the other hand, however petty, falls into the category of evil for me. Theft involves harming someone else (however little it may be) for your own benefit, so it's a big no-no for me. Obviously these definitons differ for various DMs, so as long as you're clear about it and make sure your player knows about it, there should be no problems.

 

[Voadam]

A couple questions,

Is he Lawful good?

Does his lying and cheating and so forth grossly violate the code which prohibits lying, cheating, and so forth?

Does he associate with evil?

Does he commit any evil acts?

If the answers are yes, no, no, and no, then you are fine to be a paladin and keep your powers under RAW.

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.
Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

 

[Mallus]

Everything. You're combining the paladin archtype with its polar opposite. What value does the term have at all once you've done this? 'Paladin' doesn't mean "any guy who has powers granted by a god." It's a very specific archtype. Making it all-inclusive destroys its meaning.

Not exactly. I think its a enormous stretch to say the character I defined is the polar opposite of a Paladin. He's not an atheist, a heretic (he's not challenging his church's doctrines, he just can't livle up to them initially), or a devotee of an Adversarial, evil-type diety)

I want to play a man chosen by his God for Paladinhood before he's virtuous, while he's still just a weak man with true faith, and that I want to roleplay his becomimg the traditional sort of Paladin.

I'm not trying to redefine paladin. I want to play the making of one, while exploring the notion of grace, which, admittedly, has more to do with real-world theology than the PHB. Also, he'd be a blast to play whilst wrestling with his sassiness.

It occurs to me that your guy might find some interesting roleplaying opportunities when interacting with actual paladins. As others have noted, paladins aren't perfect. Aside from rage, one of the easiest flaws for them to exhibit is arrogance. And your guy, base as he is, but still touched by a god, will serve as a trial for those paladins who place too much stock in themselves and their favored status with their god. Of course, there will be those paladins, the best of the best, who can see the goodness beneath the base vices of your guy. But others will not.

See, that's exactly the kind of thing I want to play through. In some ways, he's a lesson to others about the sin of Pride (ain't it odd that a little larceny and adultery disqualify one for Paladinhood, but Pride, which either cometh or goeth (I forget which) before the Fall is tacitly accepted, almost expected?)

From a dramatic standpoint, the character works best if he starts off with precisely the same blessings/powers/divine stature as the by-the-book Paladins. How's he supposed to jar the 12 Peers unless he is, de facto, one of them?

 

[Mallus]

A couple questions,

Is he Lawful good?

Yes. Sort of. Well... this character can only exist in a moral framework where absolute goodness cannot be acheived without a god's help. So he's as good as any man alone, which to say he isn't, but he strives to accept grace.

Does his lying and cheating and so forth grossly violate the code which prohibits lying, cheating, and so forth?

Certainly. At first. His story is one of redemption, so he'll become more virtuous over time.

Does he associate with evil?

Yes. He's got Evil in him, as do all men. He strives against it. Badly.

Does he commit any evil acts?

The flesh is weak...

If the answers are yes, no, no, and no, then you are fine to be a paladin and keep your powers under RAW.

I'm not arguing that this guy fits the description of a Paladin under the RAW. I'm asking if people think he's an interesting special case.

Under the RAW he'd be a fighter gradually becoming worthy of Paladinhood. But that's not the role I wanted, that isn't someone struggling to accept the fact he's already been bathed in a god's grace. That certainly isn't a character who could play out showing humility to a group of established Paladins...

From a balance standpoint, I can't see how keeping the Paladin abilites throughout his code violating period amounts to any kind of advantage: 'cause the abilities are not that good. In purely mechanical temrs, he's better off being a some type of fighter blend... This is a heavy RP character through and through.

 

[Voadam]

Not exactly. I think its a enormous stretch to say the character I defined is the polar opposite of a Paladin. He's not an atheist, a heretic (he's not challenging his church's doctrines, he just can't livle up to them initially), or a devotee of an Adversarial, evil-type diety)

In 3e paladin and cleric powers do not necessarily come from a god. There can be godless paladins. It is goodness, not godliness that powers them. Goodness, not faith.

In D&D under RAW a good god can't power an evil, neutral, or chaotic character as a paladin. So Gaulstaff can be a sinner but he still must be LG to qualify. For your grace model, if the sinner is not LG the god's grace must change him to lawful good before he can be a paladin.

 

[Mallus]

I just wanted to say thanks for all the replies... its been a help making me think about this character, and what I might want to do with him, if someone will work with me and let me run him (I'm currently DM for 1 group, and the groups I play in are M&M and Dragonstar)

But I am determined to play Sir John Gaulstaff, aka Sassy Jack, Quick-Feel Jack, and Jack o'Wives... (I think I might be married, at least, he had a wife who left him because of his ways, who he calls "Mistress Quitly", and can't seek a divorce. And he probably "married" a few times since, in a drunken stupor).

And he'll have a bad French accent...

 

[Mallus]

In 3e paladin and cleric powers do not necessarily come from a god. There can be godless paladins. It is goodness, not godliness that powers them. Goodness, not faith.

Right. This character would have to exist in a millieu that operated under a set different assumptions, ones closer to Medieval European Christianity...

In D&D under RAW a good god can't power an evil, neutral, or chaotic character as a paladin. So Gaulstaff can be a sinner but he still must be LG to qualify. For your grace model, if the sinner is not LG the god's grace must change him to lawful good before he can be a paladin.

I may well tone done the level of his trangressions, primarily he'll be a drunken braggart, so he'll probably end up less evil than I've been describing him.

Grace will tranform him, over time. I want to play out the transformation.

My question to you: would you find value in bending the RAW to allow this kind of character/story arc? If no, why not?