Martyr-Like Paladin/Saint

[Felithvian]

Be kind to thy neighbor, destroy all forms of evilness with strict moral choices, resist temptation, protect the innocent, the weak, the brother... And finally, consume yourself as a martyr.

 

Sincerely, I only felt like a true Paladin in Dragon Age. The dramatic ending reached such levels, that I had myself crying for a virtual avatar created by my thoughts (Christ-Like) and my choices. Dragon Age offered me the best combination to role play as a highly strict figure with sense of righteousness that no other game achieved before. I truly felt the emotion with the possessed child of Redcliffe. In order to carry my faith, I slew the child. The reaction of her Mother was truly touching, however I felt that betraying the Maker by using such arts as blood magic would doom myself. The Pray for the kid's soul to reach the Maker was saddening and beautiful at the same time. Or perhaps the thought of redemption for Loghain, who nearly killed us all in Ostagar (By the way, I gave him the leadership of my party at the final battle). Killing witches like Morrigan & her Mother was truly heroic and just.

 

At the end, I really felt like I was sitting at the Maker's Side along with Andraste.

 

In the Icewind Dale series, I nearly had the same enjoyment. IWD offers a background edit, full party customization and several other features which leave you to expand your imagination to fullfill your personal role. However, text choices for a Paladin class were merely present. For example, how would a Paladin-like figure speak with wild spirits, evil outter plane creatures and several other bizarre creations.

 

Things in Baldur's Gate I & II started pretty well for me. We are given a wide amount of choices, but the personal story of a Bhaal Spawn during the Bhaal Era truly eclipses any sense of righteousness. For example, I always started as a Paladin, however I always finished as a Fallen Paladin. The simplistic ways of good or evil in Dragon Age give you a better condition of being immersed in a role of a paladin, unlike Baldur's Gate, which always forces you through misery, pain & suffering. I highly doubt any Paladin would survive in the Bhaal Era, mainly due to all the deities of Forgotten Realms, almost every single religion feels like a cultish mess.

 

I understand that we're talking about the madness of a planescape multiverse based upon AD&D lore, this truly twists things in a bizarre manner.

 

We all know the Obsidian are specialists in terms of choices. If I mentioned previously, that I enjoyed Dragon Age, I could almost say the same from Knights of the Old Republic II. Unlike the first game, where you almost reveal your evilness at the very end of your adventure, KOTOR II offers you a more extent/complex way of choice, giving you a Sith experience at the very beginning of the game. The role of a Sith is nearly unmatched.

 

And the same could go with New Vegas & Alpha Protocol. We all know that NV is a whole lot better than Fallout 3, and Alpha Protocol surpasses Mass Effect & The Witcher in almost every single aspect.

 

What I really wanna know, is this:

 

Are you gonna offer me the possibility to be a highly strict religious figure (Call it Paladin or whatever the hell you wanna call it) ?

 

Or am I gonna feel like a crazy a baboon chasing **** around a dark tree where nothing seems what it seems ala "Paladin" of Helm. Is it gonna be a simple world, or are good and evil tainted by somekind of multiverse which darkens each others intentions?

 

[Farbautisonn]

As long as I can manipulate the Paladin into giving his life up for a foolhearted crusade or a vain cause, Im fine with the occasional paladin.

[Felithvian]

As long as I can manipulate the Paladin into giving his life up for a foolhearted crusade or a vain cause, Im fine with the occasional paladin.

 

You speak like Morrigan.

[Farbautisonn]

I was aiming for Szass Tam or Sememom. Morrigan is a bit too hamfisted and obvious. .

[jezz555]

I think that whole archetype is a little divorced from reality. I would rather paladin's in the game not be restrained by moral absolutism and instead by society, were they are expected to be good and chivalrous because of their knightly oath, but their is nothing actually forcing them to fit that stereotype. So you could be a corrupt paladin who secretly worships heretical gods, or takes under-the-table brides from the local riff-raff or a good guy if you wanted. I guess what I'm saying is I don't want being a paladin to limit your opportunity to roleplay as it so often does. Because you can have a billion different takes on fighter and monk, but a paladin is always going to be a paladin.

[Felithvian]

I think that whole archetype is a little divorced from reality. I would rather paladin's in the game not be restrained by moral absolutism and instead by society, were they are expected to be good and chivalrous because of their knightly oath, but their is nothing actually forcing them to fit that stereotype. So you could be a corrupt paladin who secretly worships heretical gods, or takes under-the-table brides from the local riff-raff or a good guy if you wanted. I guess what I'm saying is I don't want being a paladin to limit your opportunity to roleplay as it so often does. Because you can have a billion different takes on fighter and monk, but a paladin is always going to be a paladin.

 

Or perhaps role play as someone who's above the "moral absolutism", someone who goes one step further, someone who defies all forms of organized religious institutions. A more old-schoolish hardcore type of religion, ala "Christ-Like" vs "Catholics".

 

That's a great idea. I prefer this as well.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Felithvian

[Farbautisonn]

I think that whole archetype is a little divorced from reality. I would rather paladin's in the game not be restrained by moral absolutism and instead by society, were they are expected to be good and chivalrous because of their knightly oath, but their is nothing actually forcing them to fit that stereotype. So you could be a corrupt paladin who secretly worships heretical gods, or takes under-the-table brides from the local riff-raff or a good guy if you wanted. I guess what I'm saying is I don't want being a paladin to limit your opportunity to roleplay as it so often does. Because you can have a billion different takes on fighter and monk, but a paladin is always going to be a paladin.

A paladin who has moral/ethical/ethos freedom isnt a paladin. He is a warrior/cleric hybrid. So multiclass.

 

If we are to have paladins I prefer the holier than thou, morally and ethically narrowminded kind. At least I can see those comming a mile away.

[Felithvian]

A paladin who has moral/ethical/ethos freedom isnt a paladin. He is a warrior/cleric hybrid. So multiclass.

 

If we are to have paladins I prefer the holier than thou, morally and ethically narrowminded kind. At least I can see those comming a mile away.

 

I kinda agree with what you're saying as well Farbautisonn, but we gotta remember that games like Morrowind were highly praised for having a complex religious debate between cults and institutions that widely increased the campaign's story line. The ordinary "paladin" class has never existed in Baldur's Gate either. Anomen and Keldorn were never trully righteous at all.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Felithvian

[BBMorti]

Ah Paladin players, so we meet again. *shifty eyes*

[Cryticus]

I would love to see some goody good good palandin but presented in subtle way I never did find whats so appeling with corrupted , evil characters, that everybody so much like, it starded in rpgs with examples of good behavior than to make them more realistic they made them overly zealotic and hammy, and more intereseted in order, and then that was to unrealistic so Paladins changed to corrupted evil warlords,( granted not in any cRpg I know here i speak only about pen and paper rpgs) I kinda miss some more traditional character model .

[jezz555]

A paladin who has moral/ethical/ethos freedom isnt a paladin. He is a warrior/cleric hybrid. So multiclass.

 

If we are to have paladins I prefer the holier than thou, morally and ethically narrowminded kind. At least I can see those comming a mile away.

 

Not necessarily, a paladin to me is just a knight with a code (and maybe some divine magic) but not necessarily a good one. In Ad&d paladin's get all these abilities that center around them being incredibly good and morally just so it makes sense that they can only be CG but it still kind of sucks. The problem I have with that depiction is that it implies that morality is absolute which, in real life, it's really not. A paladin might be a religious zealot, they might be morally and ethically narrow minded, but does that make them good? We've seen examples in history of people fitting these characteristics slaughtering people by the thousands. The funny thing about narrow mindedness is that it can lead you to genocide. I would like to see for once paladin's that aren't just good for no reason, but instead are insincere in their oath's or religiously devout, but overly sadistic in their persecution of the unholy. Otherwise you just have the cardboard cutout goody-two-shoes paladins that have been done, time and again.

 

I would love to see some goody good good palandin but presented in subtle way I never did find whats so appeling with corrupted , evil characters, that everybody so much like, it starded in rpgs with examples of good behavior than to make them more realistic they made them overly zealotic and hammy, and more intereseted in order, and then that was to unrealistic so Paladins changed to corrupted evil warlords,( granted not in any cRpg I know here i speak only about pen and paper rpgs) I kinda miss some more traditional character model .

 

To be clear I fully support the possibility of a kind and moral paladin who protect's the weak like an old dc comics superhero. But I want the option to diverge from that path, a characters class shouldn't determine their personality. Why is it that a fighter can be Conan, or king arthur or a rogue can be Altair or robin hood but paladins are forced to all be carbon copies of one another?

Edited November 8, 2012 by jezz555

[rjshae]

It might be interesting to have a party member give his (or her) life for some just cause, but then have the soul become trapped in a reliquary as a result of special circumstances. The mission of the party then becomes to find a new vessel for the martyr. Perhaps from a choice of bodies that have lost their souls as a result of some diabolical experiments? Your Paladin could then get an entirely new set of stats and skills, as well as a whole new outlook on life and death.

Edited November 8, 2012 by rjshae

[Farbautisonn]

A paladin who has moral/ethical/ethos freedom isnt a paladin. He is a warrior/cleric hybrid. So multiclass.

 

If we are to have paladins I prefer the holier than thou, morally and ethically narrowminded kind. At least I can see those comming a mile away.

 

Not necessarily, a paladin to me is just a knight with a code (and maybe some divine magic) but not necessarily a good one. In Ad&d paladin's get all these abilities that center around them being incredibly good and morally just so it makes sense that they can only be CG but it still kind of sucks.

Problems with codes is that they arent really interesting unless they are challenged. And if they are challenged and there is no consequence to faltering, then the code means nothing... Then you might as well just be a LG Warrior.

 

The problem I have with that depiction is that it implies that morality is absolute which, in real life, it's really not. A paladin might be a religious zealot, they might be morally and ethically narrow minded, but does that make them good?

I undestand completely here, and I even agree to a great extent. Morality and ethics isnt a constant or an absolute. Agree absolutely. And no, religious zealots or people who adher to any code that condones a warrior priest class philosophy havent usually been "good". Bushido for instance, was "perverted"/"Overdone" during ww2... and I suppose that historical paladins have more in common with the Japanese bushido than a typical "warrior/soldier" class. Hell, Waffen SS, Hezbollah, and other units have almost exclusively been morally lacking in the current western sense.

 

We've seen examples in history of people fitting these characteristics slaughtering people by the thousands. The funny thing about narrow mindedness is that it can lead you to genocide. I would like to see for once paladin's that aren't just good for no reason, but instead are insincere in their oath's or religiously devout, but overly sadistic in their persecution of the unholy. Otherwise you just have the cardboard cutout goody-two-shoes paladins that have been done, time and again

.

This would indeed be an interesting concept and I would concur that it would be a valuable addition to a game to have a more historically apt interpretation of the name "paladin".

 

However in the traditional RPG sense a Paladin is a religious zealot in the service of a given faith, good or bad. And they are punished for lacking in an inescapeable sense. By their gods. IF we have to take that aspect away then making the paladin accountable and testable to his faith or credo in some other way. An interesting way could be the way de Bois Guilbert (Sam Neill) is tested in "Ivanhoe". Wouldnt mind seeing that. But if their faith and credo isnt tested, and if there is no really special benefit to the term "paladin". Then you are just another warrior.

[Calmar]

I would like paladins to be paragons of chivalry - brave, loyal, strong, humble and gentle knights - not religious fanatics...

[Farbautisonn]

I actually think what you are looking for is more of a "Varangian" class rather than a "paladin" class.

[PsychoBlonde]

I think that whole archetype is a little divorced from reality. I would rather paladin's in the game not be restrained by moral absolutism and instead by society, were they are expected to be good and chivalrous because of their knightly oath, but their is nothing actually forcing them to fit that stereotype. So you could be a corrupt paladin who secretly worships heretical gods, or takes under-the-table brides from the local riff-raff or a good guy if you wanted. I guess what I'm saying is I don't want being a paladin to limit your opportunity to roleplay as it so often does. Because you can have a billion different takes on fighter and monk, but a paladin is always going to be a paladin.

 

There is this. Then there is also one of my favorite quotes from Heinlein (paraphrased): It may be better to be a dead lion than a live jackal, but it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier.

 

Heck, there's a great line in Dragon Age 2 about this. "Andraste did not go willingly to the flame." A martyr does not choose to be a martyr--if martyrdom is your goal, then you are not a self-righteous, pure knight. You are a suicidal, death-worshipping crazyman.

 

That doesn't mean I'm opposed to having a suicidal, death-worshipping crazyman in the game--or even that the game should necessarily restrict you from dying valiantly. Just that "let me martyr my PC!!!!! PLEASE PLEASE ZOMG PLEASE" without having ANY context on the story or themes of the game is pure silliness, equivalent to threads asking for things like "let me have a foursome!" and "I want to be able to customize my makeup!"

[jezz555]

 

However in the traditional RPG sense a Paladin is a religious zealot in the service of a given faith, good or bad. And they are punished for lacking in an inescapeable sense. By their gods. IF we have to take that aspect away then making the paladin accountable and testable to his faith or credo in some other way. An interesting way could be the way de Bois Guilbert (Sam Neill) is tested in "Ivanhoe". Wouldnt mind seeing that. But if their faith and credo isnt tested, and if there is no really special benefit to the term "paladin". Then you are just another warrior.

 

Well in PE people use "soul" power or whatever, as opposed to divine power(I think) and supposedly the gods are more humanized and less elemental/omnipotent. So you could maybe get around the whole, your god is going to destroy you if you don't follow him, thing. But I grant you that is the biggest obstacle to this idea, and imo one of the biggest problems with the paladin class. Another possibility could be, like you said, a paladin who is tested instead of just out and out evil, like maybe his fickle and petty god forces him into actions that conflict with his personal morality and he's forced to choose between blind belief, and doing what he thinks is right. Interesting stuff.

 

 

I would like paladins to be paragons of chivalry - brave, loyal, strong, humble and gentle knights - not religious fanatics...

 

So you are suggesting a paladin who is motivations are more personal, and altruistic as opposed to divine? Fine, but then were is he getting his powers from?

[SophosTheWise]

Why not make a Paladin like the Paladin in

?

[Jorian Drake]

I actually like to play now and then a paladin in RPG-s to be something like a Jousting Tournament master, or the char may be like King Arthur.

 

Honestly though, I would prefer to throw out the concept of "classes" alltogether, and get the ability to handpick the skills and strengths of the char on my own (EXAMPLE: you want to have a sneaky noble thief who is also looking great in full plate and has the muscles to wear one properly? sure! but then you won't have enough points to spend on making him also a spellcaster or shapeshifter)

Edited November 9, 2012 by Jorian Drake

[Rostere]

There should always be an option for the PC to be very strict about who you associate with in the game. I hate it when games force you to cooperate with lawless/lawful organizations (depending on my character). BG2 is in my opinion a huge mess in that department, considering for example a certain choice between Bodhi and the Shadow Thieves (what is a lawful character supposed to do?). I think Arcanum managed that one pretty well though - main storyline characters such as Bates are possible to ignore altogether

in this case, either by siding with Appleby or sneaking into his manor and stealing his journal

.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Rostere

[Felithvian]

There should always be an option for the PC to be very strict about who you associate with in the game. I hate it when games force you to cooperate with lawless/lawful organizations (depending on my character). BG2 is in my opinion a huge mess in that department, considering for example a certain choice between Bodhi and the Shadow Thieves (what is a lawful character supposed to do?). I think Arcanum managed that one pretty well though - main storyline characters such as Bates are possible to ignore altogether.

 

Wouldn't it be awesome to slay them both and deliver their heads to the dogs?

 

I still think that Dragon Age was better in this aspect. Do you remember the Witch from Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter? Yea, the old woman with vast mystic force, the Seer...

 

Well my Paladin slew her right after her speech. Know what happened later? "Your party's reputation has decreased to 4" WTF?!

[.Leif.]

I would really like the paladin to be morally ambiguous. Let's allow the player to decide what causes to take up and what to oppose. What if I want my Paladin to be a Paladin of Freedom and Cooperation rather than Law and Piety? Let's not forget the ever-loveable Blackguards. There is more to crusade in the name than simply Good or Evil. Let me be a Paladin of Nature Magic.

[Monte Carlo]

[Farbautisonn]

True. My first experiences with paladins and the people who played them arent really positive. I ended up getting him killed. Twice. The alignment shift from LN to LE was worth it.

[Calmar]

I would like paladins to be paragons of chivalry - brave, loyal, strong, humble and gentle knights - not religious fanatics...

 

So you are suggesting a paladin who is motivations are more personal, and altruistic as opposed to divine? Fine, but then were is he getting his powers from?

 

I think one need not be too concerned about the underlying game mechanics, because a system with character classes never can and shouldn't attempt to be 100% realistic. The fact that, for instance, only a thief can backstab someone is just a game mechanic we chose to accept.

 

In real world, a knight who honours chivalric virtues thus pleases his deity (that is, commonly, 'God') by protecting the divine order of the world. Of course, fantasy settings such as PE may have a different outlook on the order of the world, but fighting the wicked and repelling dragons and demons are just facettes of chivalrous duty (in the latter case mostly done in legends). Notable knights such as Charlemagne's Paladins, King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, or Sultan Saladin (in regards of their ideal legendary incarnations) were not priests or monks (let alone inquisitors) who merely happened to wear battle gear; they were warriors who followed ideals. A paladin should thus be a person who is not merely a fighting man or woman (such as a mercenary, highway robber, or thug), but one who strives to help establish or defend an ideal of order and justice beyond their personal gain.

 

To me, a paladin shouldn't be a nice-guy and everybody's buddy, nor a raging fanatic who tries to torment and burn to death everyone who doesn't slavishly submit to his world views, but a chivalrous warrior (who gains her divine powers through the accordance of her deeds with the will of the divine).