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

[wally]

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

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...

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.

As to charming drunken louts, it really depends. There are people out there who can drink a lot and be charming, but you were making it sound like he had these urges that he kept giving in to. That sounds to me like an internal conflict. Those that are out partying and having a good time getting drunk aren't the ones I am talking about, and it isn't the way you made this guy sound.

No, ability scores don't dictate player choices, but it is a numbers way to represent the issue. If the character is having urges that he doesn't want to give in to because he wants to follow the 'proper' way, then the player can easily say that he gives in, but that isn't playing the character. If the character has high will saves and a high wis/cha, then the character can easily resist the temptations. I was saying that if you apply the flaws to the numbers, then you have a reason for the characters actions. If the character has the ability to resist, but the player has the character give in to the urges, then it shows that the character isn't really losing the conflict within. He is just being a drunken lout because he wants to, not because he has inner desires that are overwhelming him. In that case, he is falling from grace through his own controlled choice, and I would see a god looking at him with less favor. If you know what I mean.

Also, if you think that the powers that a paladin gets are not that worthwhile, then why are you so adamant about keeping them?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Not exactly. I think its a enormous stretch to say the character I defined is the polar opposite of a Paladin.

Paladin's don't lie. Your guy is a professed liar. Paladins don't wench. Your guy is a regular. Paladin's don't cheat. Your guy does when it suits him.

What does that leave us with? Paladins don't lie...or maybe they do. Paladins don't wench except when they are wenching. Paladins don't cheat unless they feel the need to cheat. You lose all definition.

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 understand and applaud this, I just don't see why he needs to enter the paladin class before he answers his Calling.

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.

You are redefining the Paladin. You're including willing sinning as a part of acceptable paladin behavior. This completely changes the paladin class. At this point, there are going to be far more paladins than fallen paladins, because let's face it, the standards are pretty darned lax.

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?)

It's not accepted at all. It's the cause of most paladins' falls, along with rage. But yes, your guy will definitely serve as a trial for others.

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?

Because he's claiming to be one of them. The trial (for the arrogant paladins), lies in the fact that they can "reasonably" claim to be superior to him. They can "justify" their arrogance through the fact that he isn't, in fact, a paladin. It's easy to slip into Pride when you think you have a reason to feel superior. If your guy actually is a paladin, then he's got God's stamp of approval. It's harder to feel superior in that sense, even if you do feel disgusted.

I suppose a paladin might fall due to lack of Faith if your guy were a true paladin. He might start to question God's Will, which is another rarer way for a paladin to fall. But it'd be a lot less likely than the path of Pride.

On a side note, a Blackguard who fell due to your guy might make a compelling villain.

 

[Klaus]

First, let me quote a short vignette by Keith Baker that has the best paladin representation I've ever seen (from http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041115a) :

"Why do you hurt your fellow citizens?"

The innkeeper froze. "What?"

"I can see the greed swirling in your soul," Handor said. "Do you water down your ale? Charge three crowns when the price is two? Or worse?"

"I don't know what you're talking about," the man stammered. His eyes flickered down to Handor's blade.

"I am a paladin of the Silver Flame. I am sworn to fight evil in all its forms. My sword is for the fiends and monsters that deserve neither reason nor mercy. But you are no monster, and you can still find redemption." Handor put his hand on the hosteller's shoulder. "Consider your actions. Think about those you have harmed. Seek out a minister and cleanse your soul. The true darkness is rising, and if we are to survive we must all find a path to the light. If you cannot . . . then perhaps you are a monster, after all."



Now, Mallus, I understand you want to play out this Falstaffian guy's road towards redemption, towards grace, stumbling along the way and finally showing he deserves the status of a paladin.

Which is why I'd say: Play an aristocrat, and when he's finally able to surmount the fallings of his human condition, either multiclass him into paladin or give him full use of paladin abilities (converting aristocrat levels into paladin levels).

Paladin is something you were born to be. Some recognize this calling. Some don't. You could play a character that had everything in him to become a paladin. But he didn't.

 

[Mallus]

I was saying that if you apply the flaws to the numbers, then you have a reason for the characters actions.

But I don't need a reason other than 'this is who he is and what he does'. Any way you look at it you're implying that a player need justify their scores...

Also, if you think that the powers that a paladin gets are not that worthwhile, then why are you so adamant about keeping them?

Because that's the character I envision and want to play?

 

[Mallus]

Your guy does when it suits him.

Yes, at first. But he feels guilt, he knows it wrong...

You are redefining the Paladin. You're including willing sinning as a part of acceptable paladin behavior. This completely changes the paladin class. At this point, there are going to be far more paladins than fallen paladins, because let's face it, the standards are pretty darned lax.

No, I'm not. I'm describing a special case for a specific campaign (which doesn't at this point, exist). There's only one Sir Jack Gaulstaff, chosen by his God for a particular role... They're aren't going to be a gaggle of whoring, gambling, cheating Paladins, because he's one PC, one alteration of the standard Paladin archetype (and even then only temporarily).

I'm talking about one instance of an class variant, not re-writing the base class.

I might want to play a fighter with bat wings one day. I wouldn't expect every fighter in the game setting to suddenly sprout bat wings if I were allowed to play that.

On a side note, a Blackguard who fell due to your guy might make a compelling villain.

Now that's a great idea...

 

[Imret]

Well. I've read...most of this thread. Sort of skimmed page 3 because, as is fairly typical of a relative discussion in General RPG, it's bogged down in minutiae. Man I hope I spelled that right. Anyway, allow me to add a couple coppers to the mix.

I like it. It's a concept that just bleeds RP potential. With a cleric of his church in the group, someone who can (attempt to) counsel and guide him, a confessor and a vessel of atonement - and preferably a friend as well - you would have an exceptional opportunity to invest some fascinating detail and drama to a campaign. Once again, I like it.

On the other hand, does it mesh with core D&D? No. Does it match up perfectly with the paladin as written? No. Should that stop you from playing this if you can get a DM to agree? HELL NO!

As is often missed, skimmed, or ignored in these discussions, D&D (even 3.x) is a game, not a math equation that must have all factors balanced with each other. I think the fact there's a 'House Rules' forum here suggests that maybe, just maybe, D&D can be modified to play 'your way'. If your gaming group likes in-depth roleplaying, loves a good scene taking place whether monsters are getting slain or not, and is inclined to watch this transformation take place, run with it.

(NOTE: The following paragraph is just my perception and experience. YMMV)
Of course, part of my reasoning behind this is, quite simply, paladin abilities are not that good as a set of class abilities, let alone worth the razor-edged bridge they're forced to walk in regards to conduct. One often hears "You cannot balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying disadvantages", and nothing makes this truer than the paladin - though the sentence is more accurately "We have tried and failed to balance poor mechanical advantages with heavy roleplaying disadvantages, and it didn't work, but sacred cows are sacred cows, so here's a shoddy class".

Or, in conclusion, I'd allow it on the roleplaying basis alone, ignoring that you're not really getting much.

 

[Mallus]

First, let me quote a short vignette by Keith Baker that has the best paladin representation I've ever seen (from http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041115a) :

I want to play a different sort of Paladin. In world very different from Greyhawk, the Realms, or Eberron...

Which is why I'd say: Play an aristocrat, and when he's finally able to surmount the fallings of his human condition, either multiclass him into paladin or give him full use of paladin abilities (converting aristocrat levels into paladin levels).

Which is good advice, except that it invalidates the core of the character concept. He doesn't earn Paladinhood, because in his moral universe, you can't. No-one deserves grace, they're giving it freely (and in his case, a mighty big dollop of it...), and it the recognition of how completely undeserving he is that prompts his slow road to redemption. And that's why his God chooses him; as a shining (and often slimy) example of the working nature of grace...

Paladin is something you were born to be. Some recognize this calling. Some don't. You could play a character that had everything in him to become a paladin. But he didn't.

Apparently Paladin is also completely antithetical to some core Christian concepts, which is a little ironic given its source.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Yo, I'm back!

Anyway, to answer the question of "Would I bend the RAW to let you play this character?" I can have to ask "Do I trust you as a player? Would it hurt the group?"

I wouldn't mind you playing this concept. However, as a player, you'd have to make sure to listen when I told you I was having problems with his behavior. Because, inevitably, some problems would crop up. I still have that same worry that the concept has potential for the "I want to play an evil character and get away with it" mindset. I don't think you're going to do it (not after the conversation on this thread), but it's still a danger that I'd have to keep my eye on. And yes, a lot of the people I play with have their jerk hats on while RPing.

On a less serious note, I'm reminded of the people who want to play chaotic good assassins (the PRC) or good drow rangers. Done well, both can be pretty cool.

On a mechanical side-note. How does the concept of gaining more powes by level fit in with the grace concept? Also, would/could said diety's grace extend to other people? The social implications on a stereotypical D&D world are actually a bit boggling.

Best of luck to you, don't take the negative comments too hard, but watch for those repeated points.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Yes, at first. But he feels guilt, he knows it wrong...

Guilt is neither excuse nor justification.

No, I'm not. I'm describing a special case for a specific campaign (which doesn't at this point, exist). There's only one Sir Jack Gaulstaff, chosen by his God for a particular role... They're aren't going to be a gaggle of whoring, gambling, cheating Paladins, because he's one PC, one alteration of the standard Paladin archetype (and even then only temporarily).

Then I've been misunderstanding your position in this debate. From the very beginning, your argument has seemed to be "why can't my character concept be a part of the core paladin? Why doesn't my character concept fit into the archtypical paladin, as defined in the PH?" To which I've tried to respond as best I could.

Now, this most recent statement seems instead to indicate that you wanted to ask, "could my character concept work as a unique instance of an individual who gains a paladin's abilities but, for the sake of God's desire to teach his flock a lesson in Grace, gains those abilities while he is yet unworthy of them?"

I'm talking about one instance of an class variant, not re-writing the base class.

In this case, as a DM I'd be inclined to allow it. It allows paladins to remain the Sir Galahads and St. George's of the world, while still allowing for an interesting character concept. Perhaps God has decided that his paladins are becoming a bit too arrogant. Not arrogant enough to fall, perhaps, but more arrogant than he'd like. So your guy shows up, living reminder that a paladin is no better than the basest of men. Only through God's Grace is he made stronger, not through any superiority of his own.

I like the concept. I like the idea of God sending an object lesson to his Chosen. But you'll note that my shift in position is entirely dependent on the re-definition of your concept, not as a paladin, but as a paladin-variant.

Apparently Paladin is also completely antithetical to some core Christian concepts, which is a little ironic given its source.

Not quite. A paladin doesn't have to embody every virtuous principle. Redemption, Grace, and Mercy play a far lesser role in the paladin archtype, than do Retribution, Justice, and Virtue. A paladin does not embody every good trait, nor is every person with a good trait a paladin.

 

[Squire James]

In my opinion, your Sir Gaulstaff is a rogue. Perhaps you can convince your DM to substitute in some paladin-like abilities in place of Sneak Attack dice to represent your "divine calling" (I suggest getting the Smite Evil and Lay on Hands abilities as a paladin of the same level). When he shapes up a bit, enough that he's actually a paladin in deed as well as thought, he can pick up true Paladin levels (and stack them for Smite Evil and Lay on Hands purposes). He gets his Divine Grace when he gains divine grace, and not a moment before that!

I accept your desire for playing the character that you mention. It sounds fun. It just doesn't sound like a Paladin. He's a rogue who calls himself a paladin. There is, as far I know, no God of Free Lunches, not even Lawful Good ones! Even Saints want some return on their investment.