Would you allow this paladin in your game? (new fiction added 11/11/08)

[shilsen]

Somehow, I'm not allowed to vote in this poll. I wonder if it's a problem with my browser or that community supporters get to disqualify annoying people's responses to their polls.

Ah, fusangite - of all the threads in all the forums on ENWorld, you had to stroll into mine Yes, I'm kidding. And no, I didn't disqualify you (or anyone else) from the poll in any way.

Anyway, of course I wouldn't allow this paladin in my campaign; my campaigns tend to be medieval rather than early modern in character so I go for a kind of intolerant violent prudishness when it comes to behavioural codes. That stated, most of the arguments against having this sort of paladin are absolutely ridiculous.

I was pretty sure this wouldn't fly in your campaign, from what you've mentioned in other threads.

To me, people who do good things despite fully comprehending their futility, who fight the good fight as skeptics rather than zealots are the most heroic characters. Think of the Norse gods who know how it's all going to end. Think of Aragorn leading that army to what he thought to be certain defeat. That's what heroism is all about for me.

Story of my life

Also, the idea that being virtuous entails adopting the morality of a 19th century American Protestant is just hogwash. There is nothing inherently unlawful or ungood about patronizing prostitutes and drinking alcohol; goodness and evilness only attach to those actions from social context. For goodness sake, God commands Christians to drink alcohol -- in remembrance of Him!

I agree (well, obviously, since I started the thread). I've always found the argument that having a drink or visiting a prostitute is chaotic or wrong in some way - especially in D&D terms - quite inane.

Finally, the idea that one's internal thoughts can violate a paladin's code presupposes the kind of intention-based morality that Christ introduced in the Sermon on the Mount. Most codes are not about one's internal state; they are about one's actions. I would never write a paladin's code that tried to regulate the character's internal thoughts anyway because character thoughts fall in an uncomfortable liminal region between player and character.

Yup. In-game, that's why the code isn't about what the paladin believes, but what he does.

The real problem with the paladin depicted here is that he doesn't fit with the cultural archetype upon which the class is based. shilsen, while you have convinced me that one can have a non-celibate paladin, the one you have depicted here is still beyond the pale. He does not resonate with chivalric characters, even those in the Faerie Queen.

No argument there. Obviously I'm not shooting for the cultural archetype here. And Spenser would probably revolve in his grave if this guy walked into the Faerie Queene

Finally, can I just say "ick"? Why this lavish description of a sexually charged situation in a D&D game?

Aw, come on - that's a lavish description? You're too easy As for having the situation in a D&D game, let me just quote:

Several persons have posted something along this line (i.e.: okay but not if kids are there). Hey, no offense intended, but I always find a little dubious when people say "Oh! no sex described in our DnD game" (which is perfectly normal and understandable but) while our descriptions of gaming murder, slaying, maiming, burning people (firebals), etc. doesn't need to be called into question. Just my two cents remark of course.

To take it a step further - [Gets on soapbox]The day somebody can explain to me rationally what's "icky" or "wrong" or "inappropriate" about anything sexual, I'll be really interested. It's a completely natural and normal activity, and nobody would be posting on these boards if it wasn't for the fact that his/her parents decided to get jiggy with it at some point in the past. And if people were a little more open about the subject around their kids, they'd grow up with a whole lot less psychological hangups than the average human being does.[/Gets off soapbox]

 

[shilsen]

No. He has succumed to despair.

I didn't see any part of the paladin code which said that you have to be optimistic about your chances. Though admittedly the Cha bonus to saves could predispose one that way

He has lost the fire that inspires hope in others and the interest in following a moral life, however a "moral life" is defined in this campaign.

I did think about adding a bit with Sir Cedric on the battlefield making a brilliant speech to rally the troops against overwhelming odds, but figured that would make the choice a little too easy (or easier).

His bedraggled appearance implies a loss of self-respect as well.

How come? Maybe it just shows that he only has respect for the self, and understands that your character is what makes you a human being, not whether you look pretty or wear shiny armor.

 

[Orius]

Not yes, but HELL YES. Wenching, hard-drinking, foul-mouthed Cedric's got more flavor than the typical, boring, stick-up-the-ass do gooder paladin (like that dufus Bodel).

I admit though I have my doubts as to whether frequently consorting with prosititutes would allow him to keep his status as a paladin. If prosititution is illegal, he's breaking the law, which a paladin is sworn to uphold, and curing them of VD and beating off the pimps might not be enough to enable him to keep his status as a paladin. But like I said, it depends on what the law says.

 

[Doctor Shaft]

I'm still going to beg this one question.

Everyone has their different opinions on the attitude of Cedric and whether that qualifies as qualities of virtuous warrior or paladin.

But absolutely no one has commented once on the idea of whether a deity would ever support someone like Cedric. Or if said deity did, whether that made sense. Imagine if you were a deity. And you wanted to choose a champion for your cause. All your subjects are flawed. But as you're looking down from the sky or whatever, you come across Cedric. He's brave, he's touch, he fights to his death for the good cause. But... he also frequents the brothel on a whim and he likes to rough people up a bit sometimes when he's angry. And he shows no signs of changing his ways. Would you keep giving this guy your powers?

 

[maddman75]

Not only would I allow him, I'd make him a centerpiece of the campaign.

IMC, there are many types of paladins - those obsessed with Courtly Love, glory at tournament, valor at arms, care for the helpless, and so on. Though they all worship the same god, the different factions often disagree strongly with each other over what the most important 'good' is. So among those that feel that Valor on the Battlefield and Smiting Evil is the most important good, Cedric would be fine.

Even among them, he would be a black sheep, constantly getting grief from his peers and superiors. But so long his nihilism didn't consume him into giving up the fight, and his debauchery didn't get anyone hurt, he wouldn't have a problem from his debauchery.

And IIRC, prostitution wasn't illegal *anywhere* in Europe until the Industrial age. Brothels were seen as a required evil, to give men an outlet for their passions.

Hell, next time I play I may try to run something like Cedric for my own character. Dang, but he sounds like fun.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

A lot of recent posts on the subject seem to be of the opinion that all that is required to be a paladin is what side he fights for. Is that really what you think? As long as he is smiting the right people and doing a good job of it, he's a paladin? If so, what, other than that he has kewl powerz instead of kewl feats, differentiates him from an equally (questionably) lawful good fighter?

Even more have indicated, more or less, that people who care about virtue are boring. Is that really your experience: that eveyrone who cares about virtue and strives to do the right thing is a boring clone of each other? I have to say that that has not been my experience. The cynical, jaded, abusive, alcoholic, "flawed hero" is everywhere these days and they can get pretty hard to tell apart. (The rap sheets of various thugs look pretty similar too). On the other hand, Galahad, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Aslan, Maia (from George Donaldson's Lilith), Paksenarrion, Peter Parker/Spiderman, etc. don't seem to blend together.

 

[Jdvn1]

Wouldn't allow this because it seems contrary to the D&D image of a paladin. Depending on the story, though, I might allow it. Also, if my player really really wanted to play it, I'd allow it as maybe the CG or NG paladin variation.

In D&D, law-chaos is supposed to be black and white. They're energies, even. This description wanders too far into the grey area of law-chaos.

 

[ivocaliban]

A lot of recent posts on the subject seem to be of the opinion that all that is required to be a paladin is what side he fights for. Is that really what you think? As long as he is smiting the right people and doing a good job of it, he's a paladin? If so, what, other than that he has kewl powerz instead of kewl feats, differentiates him from an equally (questionably) lawful good fighter?

Even more have indicated, more or less, that people who care about virtue are boring. Is that really your experience: that eveyrone who cares about virtue and strives to do the right thing is a boring clone of each other? I have to say that that has not been my experience. The cynical, jaded, abusive, alcoholic, "flawed hero" is everywhere these days and they can get pretty hard to tell apart. (The rap sheets of various thugs look pretty similar too). On the other hand, Galahad, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Aslan, Maia (from George Donaldson's Lilith), Paksenarrion, Peter Parker/Spiderman, etc. don't seem to blend together.

I think there would be far fewer paladins if DMs went strictly by the book, so I have to agree with you there. Following a paladins code to the letter is a difficult thing. Just as bushido is difficult to live up to without surrendering a great deal of yourself in the process. That, however, is the essence of servitude, and that's essentially what paladins are...servants. Servants to Lawful Good deities with fairly strict ideas about how a paladin should behave...otherwise there would be no code.

I think the big problem here is how people view paladins. Some DMs can interpret the essence of a paladin so strictly that they would be nearly unplayable...while others see them as little more than honest cops fighting the good fight. I just consider myself lucky none of my players ever choose paladin PCs.

 

[LostSoul]

I would welcome him home.

 

[Sir Elton]

This will depend on his religious code, personality traits, and passions. OF a D&D Paladin, they are the only class of characters I demand on a higher standard and enforce a bit of cross pollination.

I do this because I make my Paladins the same way. I take out my copy of Pendragon 4th Edition, open to Traits and Passions, and define my paladin according to that system. Then, I decide what sort of role he'd play in the party. If the party needs a Christian Knight type, then that is what I'll play. A romantic knight, a Chivalrous Knight, or even a paladin on Knight Errantry is something I would explore.

Fortunately, not many people want to go that way. They either simply do not understand the paladin, or they are disconnected with the mythos that surrounds the paladin. OF all the classes in D&D, the paladin is the one that is perhaps . . . "outdated."

Edit: About the sex, isn't it really strange that our culture worships sex yet is totally embarrassed to talk about it? I have recently found the truth about this little activity, and it's a glorious truth. It's too bad that no body deals with it.

"Cover the body because it's flawed." "Cover the body because it's evil." "Cover the body because it's sacred." Sex is thought of as evil in our culture. And while burning people, killing, maiming, and hurting is evil too, we accept it in roleplaying because that is part of the territory. We don't accept in gaming because sex has no place in our own little territory. However, what is so unusual is that this is a reflection of our culture.

If you do a game about the Greek Myths, then you have to talk about sex in your games because they were a feature of the Greek Myths. Hercules bedded many women in his time, yeah he spread his seed around. Yet he is the greco-Roman hero we all identify with.

When you venture in the Medieval Romance, sex also plays a part. Playing the part of the Romantic Knight allows you to be romantic with the ladies and to woo them. Even then, sex is treated as noble; as it was the goal of the Romantic Knight to bed his love and to experience physical conjugation as a comsummation of the highest virtue.

However, our culture had pushed sex off of it's pedestal and turned it into a dirty thing. People in our culture flirt with sex, worship sex, and serve themselves to sex but are embarrassed to talk about sex. The truth is, sex was made possible to serve us. Sex's purpose is to allow us to not only propagate, but to serve as the glue that cements two lovers together and to enoble us and make us better men and women. But alas, this is not to be.