PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Paladins, Clerics and Other Divinely-Gifted: The Storytelling Art of Falling from Gra



MesiDoomstalker
2015-12-08, 11:56 PM
This is somethign I've been thinking about a lot lately. In many systems, when a character is granted power from some higher, divine-power, it is conditional that the character follow some kind of code of ethics as prescribed by the divine-power that grants it. The specifics vary depending on the system and the world and the divinity granting said power, but most allow for a fall from grace. When a divinely-gifted individual has angered, saddened or generally disappointed their divine-patron to such a degree that they revoke the powers they granted.

From a narrative perspective, this is an incredibly powerful tool for GMs. It gives them ways to motivate divinely-gifted PCs, to either avoid loss of favor or seek renlightenment and rekindling of faith and devotion in the eyes of their divine-patron and restoring favor. In my personal opinion, I'd say this can be one of the most interesting storylines a GM and player(s) can explore and produce compelling, interesting characters that are forced to adapt to game world, to evolve and be the better (or worse) for it.

However, I've found the general opinion of the gaming community is the concept of falling, especially in the form of mechanically revoking abilities, is majorly taboo and severly frowned upon. I can understand the reasoning. Suddenly losing all their powers because the GM said "You made your God angry!" can be a major buzzkill and makes for no-fun games. But at the same time, I feel like the general trend is putting all the blame on the GMs. GM's should coddle their PC's, don't trip them up with complex moral issues or force them to face consequences of their actions because that might make them not-fun.

I call this tom-foolery! When a GM (rightfully) rescends a Divinely-Gifted PC's gifts because they are no longer deserving of them, then the PC should be doing everything they can to regain favor! Or, to take the anti-hero route, delve deeper into their shortcomings and embracing them, finding a new patron on the opposite side of the spectrum. And the GM should be accomodating. He should provide an appropriate quest for redemption or for falling further (whichever the PC decides).

These games we play are the art of cooperative storytelling. When a character is thrown a curveball, they must overcome it (unless its one of those fuddy-duddy genre's you learn about in High School English). I suppose what I'm saying is the general trend is to shy away an excellet storytelling is silly and a trend I'd like to see changed. However, I know that all this grandstanding on my soap box is for naught, as it requires everyone involved to have a high level of trust, respect and confidence in one another to pull off such a tale.

What does the forum think? Am I a crazy coot who likes no-fun games? Probably. Maybe I'm just a hopeless, uh... I don't know what term to use here. Storyteller Aficionado?

Rhaegar14
2015-12-09, 12:35 AM
So this is actually something I'm thinking about a lot recently, because on Friday (four days ago, future readers) my Paladin seriously violated his Oath of Devotion and is now slowly losing his powers; how we are doing it is that none of his features are recharging, but he still has whatever uses remain until he uses them.


However, I've found the general opinion of the gaming community is the concept of falling, especially in the form of mechanically revoking abilities, is majorly taboo and severly frowned upon. I can understand the reasoning. Suddenly losing all their powers because the GM said "You made your God angry!" can be a major buzzkill and makes for no-fun games. But at the same time, I feel like the general trend is putting all the blame on the GMs. GM's should coddle their PC's, don't trip them up with complex moral issues or force them to face consequences of their actions because that might make them not-fun.

There are right ways to do it and wrong ways to do it. What you most often hear about are the horror stories of GMs who arbitrarily decide that a Paladin has fallen, or create catch-22s where the Paladin is FORCED to fall. Nowhere is this easier to do than in 3.5e's excessively strict code of conduct. Generally speaking, cooperative storytelling is good. Putting the Paladin in a situation where they are either going to violate their code of conduct or break character is good storytelling. BUT, the keyword there is cooperative. It's bad to do this to a player who does not want it.

The issue of lost class features is largely one of rule of fun. While consequences are good and the Paladin's fall should definitely be mechanically reinforced, it doesn't matter how good the storytelling aspect is if you have to spend multiple sessions being useless until you get your class features back. This is, again, worst in 3.5e, where a Paladin who has fallen is even worse than a Fighter. My DM and I are going to get around this if Roderick (my Paladin) stays powered down for too long by giving him some temporary replacement features so he's still fun to play in combat (we're leaning towards Rage).

So, in short, it can be awesome, but it has to be done right. Frankly, that's kind of the problem of roleplaying a Paladin in general (they are really easy to screw up). I will happily post what brought Roderick to this point and what exactly he did, but that's some what tangential to the actual discussion.

EDIT: Also, in a perfect world, the DM and the player agree that the transgression violated the code of conduct. I absolutely knew what Roderick did was going to (temporarily) cost him his Paladinhood. If the DM just goes "welp you've lost your powers now" and the player doesn't agree it can feel really arbitrary.

Slipperychicken
2015-12-09, 05:29 AM
In order to make the idea fair and interesting, there needs to be a constructive dialogue between clergyman and deity. A deity shouldn't work like some faceless utility company, cutting off the flow of divine power suddenly and without explanation. A Cleric or Paladin should receive regular messages and warnings to indicate what his god thinks, both bad and good, and the process of falling (or rising) should be much longer and more nuanced than the binary fallen/not-fallen paradigm. Also, players should know what they're signing up for before they start playing.


Say, if a Cleric's player declares an action that isn't quite kosher, the GM might say "You know that this action would displease Pelor. Some repentance may be necessary". More severe infractions, or repeated minor ones might get a "You sense that Pelor is saddened and disappointed with you. He is beginning to doubt the sincerity of your prior repentance. Extreme penance will be needed to reaffirm your devotion, lest he begin to revoke some of your powers". Similarly, actions that strongly align with the god's will might get something like "You know that Pelor would smile on this action" or "You sense that Pelor is pleased with you. Truly you are doing His work". Even if a cleric or paladin is finally severed from their divine power, they might still be welcome to worship and serve, albeit as regular worshipers and not as representatives of the deity.

You can even make the warnings more in character, like having a message carried by a fellow clergyman, an omen, or some other emissary of the divine. Other messengers could include a pilgrim, a pretty-looking lady, a silent knight clad in symbols of the faith, an animal associated with the deity, or even an angel might come down to deliver the message. And the message doesn't always need to be a direct statement either; an omen might happen, whose significance is made clear by the PC's understanding (i.e. "You see [something weird]. You know this is an omen indicating that Pelor is worried about you").

Actana
2015-12-09, 06:29 AM
One of the biggest problems if Paladins "falling" is that it's strictly a punishment. There is absolutely no upside to falling in any sense, not mechanical or in a metagame sense. Rewarding the player with metagame points or something similar might be a thing in other games when the same thing happens, but in D&D 3.5 (the most common example of the falling paladin, which in itself is only really an actual rules thing in D&D to begin with) it happens and the paladin is screwed. A Paladin falling is a powerful tool for character development, but it's mostly just used as a punishment because the DM is unhappy about the character.

As mentioned, the strictness of the paladin's code alongside the arbitrary nature of the falling action by the DM also makes it a huge issue. What more, none of the players have undergone the same trials and tribulations as their Paladin characters have: we can't properly understand what it's like to be like that, so the code itself is a bit hard to understand to begin with. If someone has undergone twenty years of strict training to become a paladin, they'll probably understand what it entails, how it works and what they need to do better than we as players pretending to be a holy warrior can.

In the end, a Paladin falling should always be their own explicit choice. They should know the action leads to their fall, either on their own (doing something evil for a very specific reason, even if it was with good intentions) or through other people telling them not to continue down the path they're going on (divine messages are obviously a good choice here). But the action that triggers the fall should always come from the player's own choice, and should also happen only when there is a fairly obvious morally superior choice available. But a DM who arbitrarily decides that a paladin should fall because the DM feels like punishing the player? That's just sad for everyone. It's not fun, there's no real character development. Tragic punishments should come from tragic actions, and tragic actions come from characters making bad choices, not having a catch-22 situation placed in front of them that comes from nowhere for no reason or for doing something extremely inconsequential that technically violates the code.

Satinavian
2015-12-09, 08:07 AM
From a narrative perspective, this is an incredibly powerful tool for GMs. It gives them ways to motivate divinely-gifted PCs, to either avoid loss of favor or seek renlightenment and rekindling of faith and devotion in the eyes of their divine-patron and restoring favor. In my personal opinion, I'd say this can be one of the most interesting storylines a GM and player(s) can explore and produce compelling, interesting characters that are forced to adapt to game world, to evolve and be the better (or worse) for it.Yes, there are a lot of good stories about fall and repentence and character growth. But that won't work at the table if the player of the character does not want to life such a story. Som people want to play a beacon of hope and justice, not someone on a prolonged journey of self-discovery. That is why stories of falling from grace work best if initiated by the player, not by the DM.

The other issue resolves about morality and authority. It is one thing if a DM decides which rule interpretation to use because that is part of his job. But to morally judge behavior ? The DM is not a moral authority at the table. In a morality argument he is not in principal more correct than a given player. But falling rules force the DM to take his ideas of right and wrong into the game rules to judge and sanction PC behavior on moral grounds. And that produces a lot of arguments.

The third thing is that the divine connection is often a central piece of a the character concept. Take it away and the character might not work any more as a PC.

Balmas
2015-12-09, 11:43 AM
I will second what has been said in the thread; historically, Falling from grace has been used as a punishment by the DM for the divinely gifted violating what the DM thinks of as a moral code. Falling should not be binary; it should not be, "Kill the old man and enjoy being a fighter without bonus feats." Granted, that could be the tipping point, but there should be some lead-up to it, some hints, some clue that you are not right with your God.

I've also seen it used as a method of player control. "You can't do that, because Pelor wouldn't approve of it, and a Neutral Good cleric wouldn't do that anyway, so stop trying to do it."

We should probably note that different gods have different standards. Fharlangn, as the neutral deity of wanderers, probably doesn't get too fussed in how his clerics help out wanderers, whether that's conjuring undead to wipe out a bandit camp, reporting them to the local lords and leading the charge, or joining them and infiltrating them from within. Hell, if the bandits are organized and patrol the roads better than the lord's troops, he'd even support you joining them. Obad-hai, Boccob, Olidammara, they're all fine with pretty much whatever.

It's also interesting to note that you hardly ever hear of evil clerics falling; you'd think that some deity would object to an antipaladin supporting the local orphanage, but somehow it never happens.

Red Fel
2015-12-09, 02:52 PM
What does the forum think? Am I a crazy coot who likes no-fun games? Probably. Maybe I'm just a hopeless, uh... I don't know what term to use here. Storyteller Aficionado?

First off, let me echo what others have said. In a game where "falling" means losing all of your class features and gaining nothing in the exchange, it's pure punishment. Mechanically speaking, it's a way for the GM to penalize a player for character conduct.

I make no secret of the fact that I'm not a fan of alignment mechanics. Or indeed, most alignment systems.

On the other hand, the story of falling from grace is one of the most awesome, tragic, and beautiful things a character can do. Watching a character's idealism erode and be replaced with cynicism, or watching a character's hidden darker side emerge with worryingly greater frequency, or any number of fascinating character evolutions, can be one of the most compelling and powerful aspects of cooperative storytelling.

Characters are not and should not be static beings. They evolve with time and experience, and not just in terms of their abilities. As their knowledge and exposure to the world expands, so too should how they see it. Their faith and beliefs should be tested, their world views tried in fire. Even people who hold fast to their beliefs should come to see them in a new light. And those who ultimately abandon what they once held true should be visibly pained by the experience - it's like the emotional equivalent of leaving home. Maybe you ultimately feel better about yourself, maybe you don't, but it's change and it's painful.

I've written several characters designed to fall from grace. Yes, even some devoted to strongly-Good deities. It makes for incredible and impactful storytelling.

Should there be mechanical impact? Ideally, minimally, unless it takes more of the form of an exchange than a punishment. (Note that an exchange can happen over time; a character who loses powers can gradually be offered replacements by the opposing side.) But should it happen? Absolutely and unequivocally, yes.

... Not that I'm biased.

goto124
2015-12-09, 07:35 PM
Good are held to higher standards than Evil.

Be a Blackguard today!

Mando Knight
2015-12-09, 10:34 PM
I think a pure-punishment fall from grace can be a good mechanic for the story, but it's extremely dissatisfying for a divinely-empowered character to go from on-par with the rest of the group (maybe) to being much worse than the rest. A character with a risk of falling and losing a lot of power should have the reward of having a lot of power. Unfortunately, that has the inherent risk of making that character too centralizing to the campaign. And then there's the issue of the DM and the player needing to see eye to eye on what the character's code of conduct implies.

veti
2015-12-10, 02:08 AM
Character development is its own reward. If you're interested in roleplaying the character, then you shouldn't need mechanical "compensation" for your lost powers - the powers were always incidental anyway. Your compensation is that you're freed from the strictures of your 'code', able to be true to the core concept of your character - that's why you Fell, isn't it?

I agree that "falling" shouldn't be allowed to take a player by surprise, i.e. shouldn't happen without fair warning. However, there absolutely may be times when the player sees "falling" as the right thing to do. The fanatical, unquestioning obedience of the brash young paladin runs into the harsh realities of keeping the Code in the face of tough decisions, and s/he suddenly realises that there are more important things than Duty. A paladin should fall not only knowingly, but willingly.

It's a silly book, but as a child I enjoyed Beau Sabreur (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0601261h.html), which tells the story of one such paladin. "I shall need tools that will not turn in my hand", his patron tells him, "Tools on which I can rely absolutely". That's what a paladin is. But the thing about Duty is that it's harsh, difficult, involves painful sacrifices and generally inadequate compensation. A paladin's powers are a sort of compensation for embracing that path. Abandon the path, and you no longer need the powers.

goto124
2015-12-10, 03:21 AM
Character development is its own reward. If you're interested in roleplaying the character, then you shouldn't need mechanical "compensation" for your lost powers - the powers were always incidental anyway.

What? (https://media.giphy.com/media/6mnp45e41uzZe/giphy.gif)

RPGs have two components - the mechanics, and the roleplay. Both are important. Someone playing a paladin can easily like both the "I fight for Good" roleplay aspect, as well as the Smiting, the mix of melee and spellcasting, etc mechanical aspects of the paladin. Having a paladin who falls and becomes even worse than a fighter is - other posters have already argued this part. Being extra harsh may make sense in-universe, but doesn't create a good game.

Even DnD 5e has the Oaths, which clearly describe not only what it takes for the paladin to fall, but also what exactly happens when the paladin does fall. In this case, the paladin doesn't lose all class features to becomes worse than a fighter, but simply loses a set of skills associated with the Oath. It still hurts enough that a paladin would try to stick to the Oath, but gets rid of all the problems associated with 3.5e paladin.

... what non-DnD systems have the "if you don't act in a certain way you lose a huge chunk of your abilities" thing?

Rhaegar14
2015-12-10, 03:58 AM
Even DnD 5e has the Oaths, which clearly describe not only what it takes for the paladin to fall, but also what exactly happens when the paladin does fall. In this case, the paladin doesn't lose all class features to becomes worse than a fighter, but simply loses a set of skills associated with the Oath. It still hurts enough that a paladin would try to stick to the Oath, but gets rid of all the problems associated with 3.5e paladin.

I think this is giving 5e a little too much credit for being specific (room for interpretation is actually one of the things I like about the system). 5e mentions what a Paladin who has violated their oath does to REPENT, but doesn't really state what the consequences of a relatively minor violation are. It says "If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious" then goes on to say an impenitent paladin may be required to take a new class or go full Oathbreaker (5e's version of Blackguard/Antipaladin, for those not familiar). It doesn't say what happens between a violation and repentance, though. My group's interpretation is that the Oath powers all of the class features, it's just that the ones listed under each Oath are associated with that Oath specifically, rather than being a paladin in general.

Still, 5e does say "an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another." This is a step in the right direction. If your paladin falls from grace, you don't lose all of your class features forever, even if you don't become an Oathbreaker. You get a new class.

Fourth edition's fluff was more-or-less that once divine power has been granted, it can't be taken away. That doesn't quite feel right to me thematically, but again, you don't lose all of your mechanical power for falling from grace.

Regardless, I agree with your main point. That gif made me laugh.

Actana
2015-12-10, 04:11 AM
The fall from grace is a well used literary device, as well as the redemption arc that often (but not always) follows up. However, I don't think D&D has given anyone much guidance in how to use it effectively, only stating how it works mechanically. That I feel might contribute a lot to how it's used. How to make falling interesting is an entirely different question than how to make a paladin fall.

veti
2015-12-10, 04:11 PM
What? (https://media.giphy.com/media/6mnp45e41uzZe/giphy.gif)

RPGs have two components - the mechanics, and the roleplay. Both are important. Someone playing a paladin can easily like both the "I fight for Good" roleplay aspect, as well as the Smiting, the mix of melee and spellcasting, etc mechanical aspects of the paladin. Having a paladin who falls and becomes even worse than a fighter is - other posters have already argued this part. Being extra harsh may make sense in-universe, but doesn't create a good game.

... what non-DnD systems have the "if you don't act in a certain way you lose a huge chunk of your abilities" thing?

First, I don't like D&D 3.x and have no interest in defending its mechanics. But I also don't want to turn this thread into another Edition Wars, so let's move on to:

The answer is, "any system that has the concept of powers being granted by a patron, who is a separate being with, presumably, their own agenda and priorities". Paladins "falling" is just a special case of a much wider concept. As well as D&D, I've seen it done in Fantasy Hero, GURPS, and even Rolemaster, despite there being no actual rules for it (as far as I know) in any of those systems.

Same thing happens in video games. E.g. KOTOR, where Force powers work differently depending on your light/dark meter, or Jade Empire, where some combat styles are more or less effective depending on your Open Palm/Closed Fist meter. Or - oh, plenty of other games have a mechanic that punishes you for bad behaviour by depriving you of powers. If you've invested a lot of points in alignment-specific styles or powers, then change alignment - well, sucks to be you.

Or to put it another way, they reward you for good behaviour by granting extra powers. Change your behaviour, lose the reward. Frankly, I don't see how it's even possible to argue with that.

Actana
2015-12-10, 04:19 PM
Same thing happens in video games. E.g. KOTOR, where Force powers work differently depending on your light/dark meter, or Jade Empire, where some combat styles are more or less effective depending on your Open Palm/Closed Fist meter. Or - oh, plenty of other games have a mechanic that punishes you for bad behaviour by depriving you of powers. If you've invested a lot of points in alignment-specific styles or powers, then change alignment - well, sucks to be you.

Or to put it another way, they reward you for good behaviour by granting extra powers. Change your behaviour, lose the reward. Frankly, I don't see how it's even possible to argue with that.

I think a key difference here is that a videogame is predictable: you can expect the same outcomes for the actions you take, and at least the games you mentioned by name don't ever put you in a position where you are forced to fall and lose those points you've been trying to invest in some alignment based ability. Every quest has a solution for both good and evil.

In tabletop games, however, you can't always predict what the GM wants or how they'll react to your actions, let alone be certain that you won't ever be put into a situation where it's bound to happen.

As for games that lack the rules for falling, they're far more lenient in terms of what it means. DMs for D&D can be quite vindictive in their interpretations for falling because they feel justified "because it's what the rules say". Without hard rules on the matter, a GM is much more likely to provide an outcome that's better for everyone.

Slipperychicken
2015-12-10, 06:21 PM
In tabletop games, however, you can't always predict what the GM wants or how they'll react to your actions, let alone be certain that you won't ever be put into a situation where it's bound to happen.

With regards to deities' reactions, you don't need to. You can just ask him.

Out of Character: "Hey DM, what does Pelor think about XYZ?"
In Character: "My Cleric recalls Pelor's teachings and policy regarding XYZ"

If your character has time, he can seek a second opinion if he doesn't recall his god saying anything about it. At that point, your character's bases should be sufficiently covered. It's pretty dickish for a god to fault his follower over something he never mentioned.