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

[Voadam]

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.


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

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

The flesh is weak...


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.

.

Well then no, I don't think he'd be a special case I'd want to see in a campaign I was in or ran. I'd prefer if either the restrictions were there or not across the board. Otherwise the other paladins who did the things he does would have their powers stripped away.

I can see having enough latitude to say that the stuff he does violates the code but not grossly. I can see saying the things he does are bad but not EVIL. I can see saying he does some bad things but at core he is overall LG (even if on the border of Neutral). Given this leeway he could still be a paladin on the edge.

Or I could see removing the paladin restrictions altogether as a rules issue and allowing different paladins to be powered which raises the possibility of ones whose fanaticism tips into evil or who use the paladin order as a cover for their evil, or who are sinners who have faith. In this scenario the paladin code and LG requirements are social and religious expectations, but don't trigger the ex paladin clause if violated.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

Ok...the Paladin archetype as written is the straight up LG fellow. Galahad was a Paladin. Lancelot was a Paladin until he fell. You can have flaws...but not as many as you describe.


However, I agree that alignment requirements have nothing to do with balancing his powers. Paladins are not somehow better than other characters. They lose fights to fighters and barbs, they are out-holied by the clerics, etc. They are a niche character who exists simply to fill an archetype. So saying that an non-LG paladin is unbalanced is ludicrous. It is, however only acceptable as a house rule or as a variant (non-LG) Paladin.

That said...interesting character. I think one of the problems we face is that the holy warrior archetype is *supposed* to be represented by the cleric, but we keep conflating them with normal priests. The Paladin, historically in D&D at least, is actually supposed to be the chivalric knight in shining armor. Making ones who aren't is cool...but it isn't D&D. Why not play GURPs? As I've said before...I play other systems for things that aren't black and white.

 

[Mallus]

Well then no, I don't think he'd be a special case I'd want to see in a campaign I was in or ran. I'd prefer if either the restrictions were there or not across the board. Otherwise the other paladins who did the things he does would have their powers stripped away.

I woudn't try to play Gaulstaff in a group w/other PC Paladins... unless they were cool with the idea. I might like playing a trad. Paladin, in the super-straightman role, with someone else playing Gaulstaff. Could be amusing.

But if we're talking about other, NPC Paladins, why would it matter? They're just fodder/foils for the PC Bad Paladin... ideally each "side" learning from the other.

 

[wally]

Would you be giving him the appropriate abilities? I can't imagine someone who seems so weak-willed and unpleasant as having any bonus from his Wisdom and Charisma. With someone who is willing to give in to his urges regardless of the consequences and who is a drunkard-whoremonger, you would probably see the numbers representing this as penalties in those scores.

You mention paladin abilites as not being that strong or powerful, but I have seen how they can be. I would wonder if you would take penalties elsewhere to represent this character since you don't want to lose the paladin class abilities.

-wally

 

[Mallus]

The Paladin, historically in D&D at least, is actually supposed to be the chivalric knight in shining armor. Making ones who aren't is cool...but it isn't D&D. Why not play GURPs? As I've said before...I play other systems for things that aren't black and white.

I could make the argument that my guy is more in keeping w/the idea of a Western European, chivalric, Knight of Pseudo-Christiandom... he's build around the idea of grace, Original Sin, and the act of being redeemed... Gaulstaff exists --well, in my head, anyway-- in an even more rigid moral universe than by-the-book D&D. In his world, men are incapable of being good on there own. They all Fell, and stay that way unless they accept grace...

And why isn't it D&D? If you agree that, in terms of mechanical balance, there's nothing wrong with the character, why couldn't it fit? Why change game systems if the mechanics work out?

Saying "if it ain't black and white, it ain't D&D" is, well, silly . Doesn't jive with my personal experience, at all. That may be the way most people choose to play it, and that's great. But the idea that the system can't accomodate other styles is refuted evey day on this board.

Also, I don't want to spend money on GURPS at this point. I have many years worth of D&D material scattered about my house...

 

[John Morrow]

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 think he could actually be an awful role-model, unless he changes fairly quickly and noticably. Why? Because the message he could send is that you can be saved and keep on sinning with reckless abandon. Part of what makes saved sinners a role model is that grace transforms their life. And to be perfectly honest with you, if you look at an array of bad cult leaders and fallen televangelists, you'll see what happens when Grace becomes an excuse to keep sinning rather than an incentive to stop sinning. And that's exactly what can happen when you get all of the benefits up front.

Of course that suggests another interesting path for the character--he's given all of the benefits of a paladin and squanders the opportunity to change, ultimately losing his abilities. It might make more sense to me if he's given his paladin abilities on loan, with the expectation to live up to them. If he does, it will change his life and transform him. If it doesn't, he'll ultimately lose his abilities and become just another fighter.

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

What if Shirley Temple were a serial killer?

To resolve "What if?" scenarios like that, you either need to change the person or change what they are to resolve the inherent contradiction. In this case, you are changing what it means to be a paladin a lot and Fallstaff a little.

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 disagree. In fact, the law disagrees, too, in criminal matters. It's one thing to kill a person in a fit of rage and another thing to get angry at them and spend weeks planning their murder. In general, the idea of acting out of passion (or weakness) is incompatable with the idea of long-term planning if you believe in any sort of free will.

I should also point out that the relationship between Grace, free will, and Salvation are hardly settled within Christianity. You might find these articles from the Catholic perspective, for example, interesting:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm

By the way, I'm not personally Catholic nor do I wholly agree with the views expressed in those articles but they do help illustrate many of the areas of disagreement in their discussion of various heresies, even if they are biased toward one perspective. We probably shouldn't debate any of this because I can't see it ending well if more people get involved.

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

Examples?

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.

It's eliminating a restriction without replacing it with something else. Benefit without cost.

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.

Like I said earlier in this reply, if his faith transforms him from sinner to saint (or much closer to that idea), I can see that working. But that should at least eliminate the casual and wanton sinning pretty much from the start.

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

What's the inherent value of doing anything in the game as written? Why not just let your imagination run wild?

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.

It could be. The question is whether the paladin class from the beginning is the best way to achieve that objective. And, ultimately, bear in mind that you are treading on ground that still divides Christianity.

 

[Mallus]

Would you be giving him the appropriate abilities? I can't imagine someone who seems so weak-willed and unpleasant as having any bonus from his Wisdom and Charisma. With someone who is willing to give in to his urges regardless of the consequences and who is a drunkard-whoremonger, you would probably see the numbers representing this as penalties in those scores.

Good point. He probably doesn't have a high wisdom... but charisma?? It would be his highest stat --otherwise, how could he sway young Prince Hal?. As to him being unpleasant, he's not. They are plenty of examples of charismatic bad folk out there. Start with rock and roll, then move on to any era of history...

Then again, having a high wisdom doesn't mean acting on it. As DM, would you prevent high WIS characters from doing foolish things if they so choose?

You mention paladin abilites as not being that strong or powerful, but I have seen how they can be.

I haven't. Its sure nice to smite something in a cavalry charge... but that's about it. A raging barbarian can, among others, can pump out the equivalent damage, more frequently, a monk should have better saves, the paladin spellcasting is weak, etc.

 

[Mallus]

Because the message he could send is that you can be saved and keep on sinning with reckless abandon.

That sticky wicket is a problem with the whole grace paradigm... I don't intend to solve that one here...

Part of what makes saved sinners a role model is that grace transforms their life.

And I want to play out that transformation. Why is that bad?

And that's exactly what can happen when you get all of the benefits up front.

But isn't that how grace works?? Its not a mutually beneficial exchange...

It might make more sense to me if he's given his paladin abilities on loan, with the expectation to live up to them. If he does, it will change his life and transform him. If it doesn't, he'll ultimately lose his abilities and become just another fighter.

Yes, exactly. So maybe we don't disagree. If it works better for you to say his paladin abilites are "on loan", that's fine, it might even be a better way of stating it...

What if Shirley Temple were a serial killer?

Fantastic character concept for D20 Modern. Consider it stolen. Bravo!

To resolve "What if?" scenarios like that, you either need to change the person or change what they are to resolve the inherent contradiction. In this case, you are changing what it means to be a paladin a lot and Fallstaff a little.

I'm not sure anything needs 'resolving', as there's no correct "solution". I was talking about what drives my creative (such as it is) process.

I disagree. In fact, the law disagrees, too, in criminal matters.

I wasn't talking about the law. I was trying to cop a pseudo-Medieval Christian stance. And thanks for the link. Obviously I find this kind of thing interesting.

Examples?

Martin Luther King, Jr.

It's eliminating a restriction without replacing it with something else. Benefit without cost.

Except the benefit is solely an RP one, and really, really, hard to quantify as such.

But that should at least eliminate the casual and wanton sinning pretty much from the start.

Define 'the start'? How many levels? It defeats the whole purpose of this character to immediately resolve his issues, and/or handle the bulk of his transformation offstage.

What's the inherent value of doing anything in the game as written? Why not just let your imagination run wild?

That's another thread. To reduce the scope, how does this character do grievous harm
to the common (and malleable) framework the rules provide? He's got the Paladin's gifts, and they are causing him to re-evaluate his life and change... that's not quite the same a playing a rules-free game of "let's pretend". Its not even as disruptive as 3.5 Power Attack...

And, ultimately, bear in mind that you are treading on ground that still
divides Christianity.

I know. That's why its interesting.

 

[wally]

Good point. He probably doesn't have a high wisdom... but charisma?? It would be his highest stat --otherwise, how could he sway young Prince Hal?. As to him being unpleasant, he's not. They are plenty of examples of charismatic bad folk out there. Start with rock and roll, then move on to any era of history...

Then again, having a high wisdom doesn't mean acting on it. As DM, would you prevent high WIS characters from doing foolish things if they so choose?

I haven't. Its sure nice to smite something in a cavalry charge... but that's about it. A raging barbarian can, among others, can pump out the equivalent damage, more frequently, a monk should have better saves, the paladin spellcasting is weak, etc.

I just can't picture a person who has conflict within over his urges, being a regular drunk and a whoremonger, as a charismatic person who eveyone listens to and wants to follow. He could be attractive, but his demeanor will easily keep it low.

The wisdom is viewed in my example as a sense of his will power. If he has a high wisdom, then he could easily refrain from following his urges as he has the will to resist. If he has a low wisdom, he is more inclined to give in to his urges.

With a high charisma, he gets a better bonus to his saving throws, which also represents a resistance to things.

I am just wondering if you see where I am going with this. I am much more lenient than some, and I would be willing to work with a character like this, and in fact I do like the idea. I would want you as a player to show me though how he isn't just a power character if you don't want him to lose any class abilities and yet have all of these flaws.

 

[Mallus]

I just can't picture a person who has conflict within over his urges, being a regular drunk and a whoremonger, as a charismatic person who eveyone listens to and wants to follow. He could be attractive, but his demeanor will easily keep it low.

The world is full of charming drunken louts (and dead cold sober evil folk simply brimming w/charisma)... just trust me on this one.

The wisdom is viewed in my example as a sense of his will power. If he has a high wisdom, then he could easily refrain from following his urges as he has the will to resist. If he has a low wisdom, he is more inclined to give in to his urges.

But ability scores don't dictate player choices. A character can have a +4 bonus to a his WILL save and a gambling problem. The score on the sheet never overrides player's choice of action, it merely affects the chance of success...

I would want you as a player to show me though how he isn't just a power character if you don't want him to lose any class abilities and yet have all of these flaws.

Its all a matter of trust between player, DM, and group... There's no material advantage to this character concept (he's defined as a wastrel drunk, remember?), its all about getting into interesting RP situations with him.