Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Solitare 06-23-05, 06:24 PM	I am creating a human paladin that will eventually become a saint. His current traveling companions are a lawful good cleric and a chaotic good warlock. We start the campaign at around age 20 or so, having spent the majority of our lives training to serve in the King's army. I have not fully developed his background, and am trying to steer myself away from playing the 'average' paladin. A problem I face is accomplishing this while still RPing the goodness and altruistic nature of a saint. This is one of the first paladins I will have played (or even been in a campaign with), and i would appriciate some ideas, especially info about past paladin characters.
Hav0k 06-23-05, 06:42 PM	I must be honest with you - I've never played a Paladin. The lawful stuff just isn't my thing. However, I've always thought a few things that might make a Paladin more interesting (role-play wise) -He won't fight unless attacked first. He'll keep trying to talk his enemies out of evil even as they charge him. -You feel more comfortable in magical leather armor, and will not wear platemail. -Your outlook places even creatures of neutrality in the Evil Alignment. Essentially, your "Stupid Good". -Every member of your family is evil. You've become a Paladin simply as an act of rebellion. You love your family still, but cannot be around them in public. When in private, you are extremely uncomfortable with them. Family ties stop you from attacking them, however arguments constantly haunt the family house. ... I'm not sure about the Saint rules and all that, but make a good stage to become a martyr :)
Solitare 06-23-05, 07:18 PM	He won't fight unless attacked first. He'll keep trying to talk his enemies out of evil even as they charge him. -Your outlook places even creatures of neutrality in the Evil Alignment. Essentially, your "Stupid Good". -Every member of your family is evil. You've become a Paladin simply as an act of rebellion. You love your family still, but cannot be around them in public. When in private, you are extremely uncomfortable with them. Family ties stop you from attacking them, however arguments constantly haunt the family house. ... I'm not sure about the Saint rules and all that, but make a good stage to become a martyr :) Good ideas. My character will definatly not initiate combats. In fact, when dealing with non-evil humanoids he will probably try and deal subdual damage so as not to kill. Unlike many paladins, in most cases he is NOT judge jury and executioner (though were a situation to arise where it was necessary for him to take this role, he would. As he climbs in rank this will become more and more probable). This is a job best left to those above him, maybe even the clerics of the order. He believes that even the most evil can repent and redeem themselves and therefor will avoid lethal force at all costs. Were he to run into an extremely vile and evil necromancer, his goal would be to capture him so he could be be judged and properly punished by higher ranking members of his order. As the roads are quite dangerous in this kingdom, I imagine bandits will be a problem. My paladin will try and capture as many as possible, as opposed to killing them. The bandits will be given a choice. One choice (the one I expect most to take) will be to travel with us to the nearest city and register with an agency I set up. The agency will make them swear an oath (I dont remember the name of the spell, but there is a 4th level paladin spell that curses oathbreakers) to travel with a caravan for a variable amount of time, guarding them from other bandits. They will be paid a small stipend for food, etc. After they have served their sentence, they will be free to leave, or join the agency fulltime and revieve ample pay. The second option available is imprisonment for non-evils (bandits who are such because they are poor and can't find work), or the loss of a hand for evils (bandits who are such because they are lazy bastards). I have situational encounters like this fairly well planned out, but what i am looking for is the type of personality associated with a saint/paladin. I really dont see a saint as a a haughty, im-morally-superior-do-what-I-say kind of paladin (which seems to be the 'norm' for a paladin.).
Hav0k 06-23-05, 08:04 PM	I'm glad I could help. Your ideas and situational adventures sound completely awesome. Here are a few thoughts I had while reading your post... To capture bandits, your Paladin could dress up as a commoner without weapons (perhaps carry a sap and manacles in his pocket) , and make his caravan look weak (enticing to bandits.). When they attack, you disable them (unconsciousness , manacles , rope , etc.etc..) and then load them up and take them to jail / agency whatever. Also, if you were to use this plan, it would lend to the personality of being more down-to-earth than most paladins... really understanding the people he is protecting, because he is constantly among them. He could have many friends that weren't above peasant prestige, and actually rely on them for favors and what not (and give favors in return). I think this would do well since you want a Paladin that doesn't want to seem like his is morally superior. Even lawful good has it's flaws and indecencies.
SwollenOstrich 06-25-05, 06:43 PM	Could someone please respond with info on past paladin characters they have played?
aleshandre 06-25-05, 08:56 PM	I have a current paladin character that I am playing. In the setting, firearms are available, so what I have done is gone the route of using pistols for primary combat and a katana for backup. He has an attitude that fighting is the last resort. He believes that violence is never the "right" answer, but is sometimes the only reasonable answer. With this in mind, he tries to talk to people who he considers to be falling/fallen from the true faith (there are only 2 religions in this world), unless they innitiate combat, or he is convinced that they are irretrievable. He wears no armor, preffering to use his dexterity to avoid injury, rather than relying on his ability to shrug off damage with armor. This also gives him an advantage when he fights with his pistols.
Alzaar the Agreeable 07-09-05, 04:54 PM	I once played a character in (2ndE) who took a vow of poverty and only fought with found weapons (club, staff, etc.). Or a saintly Paladin could be someone who is willing to become a martyr (doesn't mean he will, it just means he attacks recklessly, picks fights with evil, etc.)
obrysii 07-10-05, 11:32 AM	Well, it's maybe not Paladin, but lawful good: To use for an example of how to play one... Last session, our group was trying to get into a Ballroom, but we didn't have tickets. However, we had to get into the Ballroom, for a vampire was in there who was going to hurt innocents. Good overruled Lawfulness and we snuck into the party. Later, when the vampire began to attack people, my Lawful Good monk willingly began to try to draw the attacks away from the woman being attacked so as to allow her to escape. Protecting the innocent and upholding justice. That's what Lawful Good is about, in my opinion.
Need_A_Life 07-10-05, 01:45 PM	Take vow of nonviolence and redeem people, even if they don't want to. I'd try to trade off detect evil for atonement at will (who needs detection of evil when you can reach out to the people and let them embrace rightousness)
DBoot 07-10-05, 02:22 PM	In the BoED there is a feat that allows you to make subdual attacks without penalty. Good for what you're going for. Vow of Nonviolence sounds good too. If you don't want to blow the feat, get yourself a merciful weapon ASAP.
Jaisin 07-12-05, 03:29 PM	A note on past paladins - 1) A player in one of my games played a pacifist paladin who was proficient in net and mancatcher (2E). He always entered combat with a plea for peace (effectively ruining every surprise roll the parry ever had). He was very effective with his non-lethal weapons, and would often leave threats behind only unconscious. At times when leaving them like this was dangerous (i.e., in dungeons), he often insisted that the party escort the offending humanoids back to the entrance, or even their own camp for safety. When confronted with monsters, he would play the bait, and draw attacks away from the party while they eliminated the threat - everybody knows that monsters are unredeemable, after all. If humanoids were reduced to negative hp, he would first use his Healing Proficiency (Heal skill, now I guess it is), and Lay on Hands on THEM before his party and himself. 2) "Goodness" and "righteousness" can be construed as two different things. You could play the paladin as "stupid good" as I've seen described on this forum. That just means that his Ethos is considered Right, and in the case of paladin-tanks, that Ethos can be boiled down to Might-Makes-Right, and he kills the infidel, blah, blah, blah. My advice would be to develop an actual Ethos, a "Ten Commandments" that are the laws of his deity and paladin order. I once played a straight fighter who followed an Ethos that was spelled out, and infuriated the party Paladin who was blessed with "divine authority" as he saw it. The Fighter's Ethos was something like a contract with himself: -Anything bigger than myself, or cannot be slain with my sword is to be respected; -family and the bonds of love are things that are more powerful than my sword, and should be honored - I will not slay women whose husbands I have killed, nor their children, my intervention will make them strong; -Honor is above all else, and comes first - I will not attack any creature that cannot defend itself, there is no honor to be gained in useless offensives; -I will kill anyone who dares to raise a weapon against me since they obviously think they have the capability to enter into battle with me -Ranged weapons are for cowards -Anyone fleeing from a battle is a coward, and cowards must be dealt with harshly - I will kill them -etc., etc., etc. Needless to say, the party paladin who was playing "stupid good", was made to look a fool many times because his actions contradicted the populace's view of his deity; whereas the Evil Fighter who stuck to the LETTER of his Ethos was given much recognition for his tenacity. For a Good AND righteous paladin, write out your Ethos, and stick to the LETTER. For a world changing paladin (like the saint you are playing), establish the Ethos for the governing body, the religion, and for the general populace; have them follow the Letter of the Law - then mix it up and have your paladin follow the Spirit of the Law - he'll make enemies of his state, his religion, and probably his own brotherhood, but the people who are ruled by those governing bodies will flock to his words and speak of his great deeds. Then the martyr part comes in. . . Meanwhile, his deity is pleased by his divine insight, and continues to bless him with the abilities of a paladin - even in the face of his own clergy who decry is 'evil'. Just some thoughts. :) I've played many more paladins in my day, and I'd be glad to share if you still want to know.
aleshandre 07-12-05, 04:01 PM	In my oppinion, playing a "pacifist" paladin is just as much a distortion as the "stupid good" paladin. Paladins are holy warriors. If you are unwilling to kill creatures or people who are truely irretrievably evil, you have no right to claim the title Paladin. Cleric would be more along the lines for you. Paladins should have a definite code that defines the way that they act. But personal judgement should also come into play in a large part. On the other hand, if you are determined to kill anything or anyone that does not have the same alignment as you or shows up on your "evilradar", you have no right to claim the title Paladin either. Fighter would be more your style. Ultimately, it is actions, not a couple of words on a piece of paper that defines someone as Good or Evil. A true paladin would recognize that although they perpetrate great evil on thier people, simply killing an evil ruler would only yield greater evil, since it would leave only lawlessness. Instead, when killing an evil ruler, the paladin would seek to place a good ruler to fill the void. If one cannot be found, he/she should spare the life of the evil ruler until a suitable leader can be found.
Solitare 07-13-05, 05:54 PM	In my oppinion, playing a "pacifist" paladin is just as much a distortion as the "stupid good" paladin. Paladins are holy warriors. If you are unwilling to kill creatures or people who are truely irretrievably evil, you have no right to claim the title Paladin. Cleric would be more along the lines for you. Paladins should have a definite code that defines the way that they act. But personal judgement should also come into play in a large part. On the other hand, if you are determined to kill anything or anyone that does not have the same alignment as you or shows up on your "evilradar", you have no right to claim the title Paladin either. Fighter would be more your style. Ultimately, it is actions, not a couple of words on a piece of paper that defines someone as Good or Evil. A true paladin would recognize that although they perpetrate great evil on thier people, simply killing an evil ruler would only yield greater evil, since it would leave only lawlessness. Instead, when killing an evil ruler, the paladin would seek to place a good ruler to fill the void. If one cannot be found, he/she should spare the life of the evil ruler until a suitable leader can be found. I dont know if you are refering to my post, but let me address a few things. First, I wonder at what point do you become irretrievably evil (literaly the definition is cut and dry, but in practice this can be quite a grey area)? Certainly a balor or some such fiend qualifies, but how do you determine this when the subject is a human? Given the choice, my paladin will try and capture the subject so that he can be brought to justice by the proper authorities. Killing the subject would seem to be taking the easy way out, as he would no longer have to guard and care for the prisoners on the return journey. I did not mean to make the impression that my paladin will not engage in combat; in fact he has been in numerous fights over the last 2 adventures. However, when presented the possibility of completing his mission without using lethal force, he will choose that route. (The DM has unfortunatly ruled that ANY magical healing will restore ALL subdual damage. That means a 0th level cantrip from a cleric can immediatly restore an unconscious enemy to full power. This is a monkey wrench in my non-lethal force plan, as it has greatly nerfed the mechanics of subdual damage)
Dippiey 07-13-05, 06:10 PM	In my oppinion, playing a "pacifist" paladin is just as much a distortion as the "stupid good" paladin. Paladins are holy warriors. If you are unwilling to kill creatures or people who are truely irretrievably evil, you have no right to claim the title Paladin. Cleric would be more along the lines for you. Paladins should have a definite code that defines the way that they act. But personal judgement should also come into play in a large part. On the other hand, if you are determined to kill anything or anyone that does not have the same alignment as you or shows up on your "evilradar", you have no right to claim the title Paladin either. Fighter would be more your style. Ultimately, it is actions, not a couple of words on a piece of paper that defines someone as Good or Evil. A true paladin would recognize that although they perpetrate great evil on thier people, simply killing an evil ruler would only yield greater evil, since it would leave only lawlessness. Instead, when killing an evil ruler, the paladin would seek to place a good ruler to fill the void. If one cannot be found, he/she should spare the life of the evil ruler until a suitable leader can be found. Ok, but what would be my course of action if I were a Fighter/Cleric? :P
aleshandre 07-13-05, 11:03 PM	I dont know if you are refering to my post, but let me address a few things. First, I wonder at what point do you become irretrievably evil (literaly the definition is cut and dry, but in practice this can be quite a grey area)? Certainly a balor or some such fiend qualifies, but how do you determine this when the subject is a human? Given the choice, my paladin will try and capture the subject so that he can be brought to justice by the proper authorities. Killing the subject would seem to be taking the easy way out, as he would no longer have to guard and care for the prisoners on the return journey. The paladin is not (in most situations) a law enforcement official. It is not his/her place to arrest prisoners. That was traditionally the Ranger's job, but that has since been changed. The paladin is usually on a quest for his/her deity and judgement of good or evil, redeemable or not is left to the discretion of the Paladin. When the enemy is attacking, with obvious intent to kill, there is no reason that the paladin should try to capture them. Taking prisoners is wonderful when there is a surrender, but in the heat of a battle, there is no time to try to subdue prisoners, just so they can stand trial. That kind of act is for law enforcement officials, not paladins. I did not mean to make the impression that my paladin will not engage in combat; in fact he has been in numerous fights over the last 2 adventures. However, when presented the possibility of completing his mission without using lethal force, he will choose that route. (The DM has unfortunatly ruled that ANY magical healing will restore ALL subdual damage. That means a 0th level cantrip from a cleric can immediatly restore an unconscious enemy to full power. This is a monkey wrench in my non-lethal force plan, as it has greatly nerfed the mechanics of subdual damage) I don't question the courage of your character. I am not acting under the assumption that unless a person is willing to kill, they are not courageous. I am simply stating that the purpose of a paladin is to destroy evil. If that means that he can talk to a person/creature in an attempt to help them change their views that's what he/she should do, but there is a time to talk and a time to act. A person or creature that is in the midst of committing an evil act for especially if that act is particularly heinous, that person/creature should be stopped as fast as possible and in the case of violently evil acts, that means immediate death.
Sharn Penndroen 07-14-05, 12:33 PM	I agree with Aleshandre. You especially have to take into consideration that the Players handbook does not layout a code of conduct for the Paladin. The reason being that it can very by order or even individual. What if I'm playing a Paladin of a god of justice? Such a Paladin may believe himself to be the Hand of Justice and in a more real way than any law enforcement organization he is. Who is he to judge if someone has commited a crime worthy of death? He's the freakin' Hand of Justice, that's who. What if I'm playing a character that is a Paladin of a god of Guardians? What if some folks try to get the person that I am guarding? Well, anyone that comes between me and my ward will meet with their death. That is my Code of Conduct. How do I know if they are irredeemable, well sometimes you have to make a judgement, but Paladins have the ability to detect evil and how intense it is. They know if it is just a good or neutral person that has done one thing wrong, or if it is someone that has worked themselves deep into the depths of evil. It is my personal belief that Pacifistic Paladins would be the exception rather than the rule. An interesting character to play, no doubt, but not every Paladin is going to be like that. Paladin's are warrior classes, if they were meant to talk people down always and fight very little, I would have to say that it would make more since to give them a lower BAB and give them more skill points to put into Cha based skills. In fact, a rogue/cleric would do a better job at this character type. Cleric spells to heal. Use a sap and sneak attack to do subdual damage and knock a fool out and the mad skill points to max out Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, Sense Motive, and all that jazz.
Solitare 07-14-05, 06:05 PM	The paladin is not (in most situations) a law enforcement official. It is not his/her place to arrest prisoners. That was traditionally the Ranger's job, but that has since been changed. The paladin is usually on a quest for his/her deity and judgement of good or evil, redeemable or not is left to the discretion of the Paladin. When the enemy is attacking, with obvious intent to kill, there is no reason that the paladin should try to capture them. Taking prisoners is wonderful when there is a surrender, but in the heat of a battle, there is no time to try to subdue prisoners, just so they can stand trial. That kind of act is for law enforcement officials, not paladins. I don't question the courage of your character. I am not acting under the assumption that unless a person is willing to kill, they are not courageous. I am simply stating that the purpose of a paladin is to destroy evil. If that means that he can talk to a person/creature in an attempt to help them change their views that's what he/she should do, but there is a time to talk and a time to act. A person or creature that is in the midst of committing an evil act for especially if that act is particularly heinous, that person/creature should be stopped as fast as possible and in the case of violently evil acts, that means immediate death. You bring up many good points that I agree with. By trying to deal with most combat in a non-lethal manner, I am trying to follow the exhaulted ideology that most everyone may be redeemed and need not be killed. I agree this is a job better suited to a cleric. How then, do you suggest an exhaulted paladin show himself to be a cut above the rest of his non-exhaulted brethren?
~Black Knight~ 07-14-05, 09:40 PM	My current paladin is a 40-year old retired general named after Keldorn, my favourite character from BG II. He swore his alliegance to Heironeous and vowed that he would never fight again after all the horrors he had seen. Despite this, he finds himself on the battlefield time and time again, because he doesn't trust the lives of his soldiers' in anyone else's hands. Personality-wise, he's a firm believer in chivalry, and he would never strike down a woman or an unarmed soldier. He is merciful, and would always allow an evil foe to redeem himself (with the exception of demons, devils and yugoloths, who cannot change their alignment).
aleshandre 07-14-05, 10:34 PM	You bring up many good points that I agree with. By trying to deal with most combat in a non-lethal manner, I am trying to follow the exhaulted ideology that most everyone may be redeemed and need not be killed. I agree this is a job better suited to a cleric. How then, do you suggest an exhaulted paladin show himself to be a cut above the rest of his non-exhaulted brethren? That brings up an interesting conundrum. I can give an example that should help: The story goes that a general who was favored of his god was leading his army against a vicious foe. In a brilliant tactical maneuver, he surrounded the enemy completely. When he saw that their enemy was in their hands, he ordered his men to stand back and cease fighting. He then made a demand of the enemy. The demand was that they lay down their weapons and make an oath not to come to battle with them again, in which case their lives would be spared. The leader refused, threatening to destroy them to the man. He (the enemy's leader) charged forward to attack the general, but was struck down by another soldier, taking the scalp with the blow. Raising the scalp on his sword-tip, the soldier announced that all who make the oath and leave their weapons on the ground would be spared and may leave to return home, but all who refused and retained their weapons would be killed to the man. All of the surviving enemy made the oath and were permitted to leave.
heinzk23111 07-14-05, 11:39 PM	I don't know about the pacifist Paladin as mentioned as this seems almost as "plain jane" and common as the Templar type of Paladin. How about a Swashbuckling paladin? He is a little arrogant in that he believes his fighting abilities are god given talent. Will torment his foe by disarming them and not allowing them to hit him by using parries and the such. Has a code and will allow his opponent if found unarmed to arm himself and defend against him. He thinks he is always right Will not wear Armor as he is "above" that. Very chivalrous with the women. Courteous but not a womaniser Deflecting arrows, Disarming opponents, two weapon style (rapier, main gauche). I think that is something to chew on! Maybe I should try this!!!!!
Leewei 07-15-05, 07:11 PM	One character I was pretty fond of was a dwarven paladin I rolled up. His order were the holy smiths of Clangadin and forged their own armor and holy axes. He had oaths to slay any goblins or ogres he came across, but had some flexibility about when this was done. Allowing any harm to fall upon an honorable dwarf was the worst act he could commit. He had no warhorse, and never even developed Ride skill. Despite their generally serious demeanor, the order also considered it part of their duty to booze up and riot during the holy feasts. "The all-father didn't give us ale to let it rot in the casks," after all.
DNA 07-17-05, 02:21 AM	You say you want your character to be "saintly," so here's my take. He spends a lot of time praying, studying, and meditating. He's cryptic at times. He considers it part of his duty to "convert" others to his way of thinking, but he realizes that winning over others will require a gentle touch. Lots of parables, friendly advice, that sort of thing. But when he's dealing with someone who's stubbornly or pridefully sinful, he tends to lose his patience. He sees the true path so clearly that sometimes he just gets frustrated at the idiocy of others. Of course, he never does anything really bad when he's ******, but he may scream, kick things, etc. He makes absolutely no allowance for mortal ranks and laws. He's Lawful, of course, but it's divine law he's obeying, not mortal laws. He'll lecture a king or a slave with exactly the same tone. This tendency to humble the proud gets him in trouble at times. There may be some "rendering unto Caesar" as well, but that's up to you to hammer out. Perhaps he seems a bit loopy to others. He may have "visions" or "encounters" with gods, saints, or angels that no others can see. Think Joan of Arc. He's unerringly idealistic. He refuses to ever compromise his morals, no matter what the cost. For example, he may refuse to murder, even if doing so would save the lives of innocents. (Bear in mind that not all killing is "murder," and it's murder that most religions forbid.)