Roleplaying and Mechanics for a Fallen Paladin

[Sir_Chivalry]

The Fallen Paladin.

<snip flavour>

Mechanically this character is a fighter, probably a Cavalier or warlord-style Battle Master. But in theory he began as a paladin, who lost his divine powers when he lost his faith. Now he’s just trying to find his way on the mean streets. He’s got a good heart; it’s just been shaken by failure and betrayal. Think Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly. Can he regain his faith in himself and humanity over the course of the campaign? If so, might return to a divine path? For a background, I’m probably do Criminal or Mercenary Veteran with the idea that he’s been doing grunt work in the underworld… but there’s many backgrounds that could work here.

I read this segment of a post on Keith Baker's website and fell in love with the idea of playing a Fallen Paladin in 5e

Now as it stands I'm thinking of a Human, Half-Elf or Fallen Aasimar (because why not?) Fighter with the Mercenary Veteran background (because a mechanic that lets me maintain a minimum lifestyle between adventures sounds fun)

Is it better to go with Cavalier or Battle Master? My leaning initially was to Battle Master as I've played it before but I've heard good things about the Cavalier archetype regarding defense and protecting my allies. If I do go Cavalier, would it be best to go with a polearm, and grab the feats Polearm Mastery and Sentinel?

On a more fluff perspective what is a good way to flavour the character's fall from paladinhood in their backstory? Should it be something egregious or a loss of faith or is something that intense more likely to make the character seem melodramatic? I know the code of conduct is less strict in 5e but should I look to those codes to determine what my character might have done to be stripped of their powers?

[Man_Over_Game]

Battle Master is probably best as a versatile melee/ranged combatant, to fluidly fill any needed role in a well-balanced party. They make especially good archers/dual wielders.

Cavalier is, as you guessed, a perfect tank. Keep in mind that in order to "tank" with the Cavalier's Mark ability, the target must remain within 5 feet of you. So that means less use of Polearm Master, more use of Sentinel.

As for the Paladin Oath, since it's tough to gauge how "strict" the Oath is, I'd just go with an event where your Paladin actively decided to ignore his Oath. In my own games, the Paladin Oath gives you strength so long as you willingly obey it. Willingly disobeying it will make you lose your powers, and doing so for evil reasons will make you an Oathbreaker (in the DMG).

Why would a Paladin willingly disobey his Oath?

Maybe a Redemption Paladin killed someone who was surrendering. Someone who murdered many people but wanted to abuse the Paladin's Oaths to survive and plotted his escape, even while being arrested. Perhaps the Paladin felt that his Oath wasn't the right choice at this moment, and chose to sacrifice his promise for the greater good, despite the fact that his Oath would have him act otherwise.

Maybe a Devotion Paladin's sect was destroyed by evildoers, and only by being rescued by thieves and cutthroats was he able to survive. He actively believes that living in the light is what got his compatriots killed, and actively shuns his Oath.

A Conquest Paladin's reign is struck down. Then he's shown mercy and restraint by his betters. He now serves as a vassal to those he once fought against, finding strength in unity rather than strength in obedience.

[Millstone85]

Fallen Aasimar (because why not?)I think it wouldn't match well with your concept.

Since you are playing a fighter who used to be a paladin, it means that you lost your holy powers but couldn't, or wouldn't, replace them with unholy powers. You are a fallen paladin, but not an antipaladin.

This subtlety isn't present in the falling mechanics of the aasimar. The character has turned to evil and twisted their celestial light into darkness.

[Sir_Chivalry]

I think it wouldn't match well with your concept.

Since you are playing a fighter who used to be a paladin, it means that you lost your holy powers but couldn't, or wouldn't, replace them with unholy powers. You are a fallen paladin, but not an antipaladin.

This subtlety isn't present in the falling mechanics of the aasimar. The character has turned to evil and twisted their celestial light into darkness.

You make a good argument, probably would muddy the water a touch.

Thanks that helps narrow it down although now I'm considering dwarf or half-orc but the race doesn't REALLY matter, whatever I pick I'll make it work.

But again, good catch on the aasimar


Battle Master is probably best as a versatile melee/ranged combatant, to fluidly fill any needed role in a well-balanced party. They make especially good archers/dual wielders.

Cavalier is, as you guessed, a perfect tank. Keep in mind that in order to "tank" with the Cavalier's Mark ability, the target must remain within 5 feet of you. So that means less use of Polearm Master, more use of Sentinel.

Oh, yes you're right. So it wouldn't really matter what weapon I use in that case so long as I keep the enemy trapped.

Now I should probably ask about Samurai as well, looks of extra hit points there. But I'd guess the two standouts are probably Battle Master and Cavalier . . .


As for the Paladin Oath, since it's tough to gauge how "strict" the Oath is, I'd just go with an event where your Paladin actively decided to ignore his Oath. In my own games, the Paladin Oath gives you strength so long as you willingly obey it. Willingly disobeying it will make you lose your powers, and doing so for evil reasons will make you an Oathbreaker (in the DMG).

Why would a Paladin willingly disobey his Oath?

Maybe a Redemption Paladin killed someone who was surrendering. Someone who murdered many people but wanted to abuse the Paladin's Oaths to survive and plotted his escape, even while being arrested. Perhaps the Paladin felt that his Oath wasn't the right choice at this moment, and chose to sacrifice his promise for the greater good, despite the fact that his Oath would have him act otherwise.

Maybe a Devotion Paladin's sect was destroyed by evildoers, and only by being rescued by thieves and cutthroats was he able to survive. He actively believes that living in the light is what got his compatriots killed, and actively shuns his Oath.

A Conquest Paladin's reign is struck down. Then he's shown mercy and restraint by his betters. He now serves as a vassal to those he once fought against, finding strength in unity rather than strength in obedience.

I like all these ideas for how to break an oath without being necessarily an immediately evil character. The moral complexity is a key point of the character in this case I'd guess

I'd say Redemption, Devotion or perhaps Ancient Paladin (if I can come up with a way to break that oath) might be a good one to build on, while Vengeance or Conquest seem more like "learning a life lesson" rather than "losing my entire worldview and becoming a sellsword"

Edit: maybe Oath of the Ancients or Redemption would be good if the character ever returns to Paladinhood, regardless of what the prior Oath was. Ancients' simple tenets especially seem to favour recovery from a crisis of faith.

[Vogie]

If you're going to be a fighter-only, who used to be a paladin, I think the best concept is actually Samurai. Bonus proficiencies nod towards the focused approach that they used to have.

Your fighting spirit is a combination of your channel divinity and Lay on hands, giving you advantage (a la Vow of Enmity) and THP (healing), while not being as good as either. Elegant Courtier is a wisdom to charisma converter, indicating you don't have the social gumption that is connected by the oath, having certain amount of world-weariness instead.

[Sir_Chivalry]

If you're going to be a fighter-only, who used to be a paladin, I think the best concept is actually Samurai. Bonus proficiencies nod towards the focused approach that they used to have.

Your fighting spirit is a combination of your channel divinity and Lay on hands, giving you advantage (a la Vow of Enmity) and THP (healing), while not being as good as either. Elegant Courtier is a wisdom to charisma converter, indicating you don't have the social gumption that is connected by the oath, having certain amount of world-weariness instead.

I do see what you're saying there, with sort of a remnant powers of the paladin left over

It's a shame multiple archetypes can't be multi-classed! A little bit from Cavalier and a little bit from Samurai would be perfect . . .

As it stands though it seems I'm leaning towards Cavalier because of the tank defense and ally protection side of things, sort of contrasting the character's fall from paragonhood with a still existing good heart within.

[djreynolds]

So are planning to multiclass to paladin at some point?

What's the end concept?

Are beginning as a paladin?

The beginning stats of fighter could be almost identical. A fighter could have a higher charisma then say wisdom (usual choice)

I would think it important to have a really high charisma, at least 14 or even 16.

But I need something more, what has this loss done to you? Anger, rage?

When you call on your faith, and it does not answer you... what happens?

I think a frenzied berserker could be an awesome choice, perhaps you only carry a breastplate and sword.

Perhaps you are shamed and want to fake it

And for fighter archetype, though totally un-optimized, PDK with inspiring leader and magic initiate cleric (cure wounds) might let you "fake" it.

Valor bard, could seriously, be very paladin like. Take 1 level of paladin and then begin as a valor bard

[Blood of Gaea]

Potentially you could flavor Barbarian rage as calling on the few dregs that remain of your divine abilities. It has the interesting flavor of not be more skilled in combat than a Paladin (i.e. you're not getting 3-4 attacks a round and action surge), and it specifically doesn't let you cast spells.

[Sir_Chivalry]

So are planning to multiclass to paladin at some point?

What's the end concept?

Are beginning as a paladin?

The beginning stats of fighter could be almost identical. A fighter could have a higher charisma then say wisdom (usual choice)

I would think it important to have a really high charisma, at least 14 or even 16.

But I need something more, what has this loss done to you? Anger, rage?

When you call on your faith, and it does not answer you... what happens?

I think a frenzied berserker could be an awesome choice, perhaps you only carry a breastplate and sword.

Perhaps you are shamed and want to fake it

And for fighter archetype, though totally un-optimized, PDK with inspiring leader and magic initiate cleric (cure wounds) might let you "fake" it.

Valor bard, could seriously, be very paladin like. Take 1 level of paladin and then begin as a valor bard

I'm thinking the character is fallen but passes themselves off as a normal mercenary doing mercenary things, not a faux-paladin. I do think the magic initiate or bard idea is a fun one though, just not for this character

Is there a frenzied berserker path for barbarian currently?

[djreynolds]

I'm thinking the character is fallen but passes themselves off as a normal mercenary doing mercenary things, not a faux-paladin. I do think the magic initiate or bard idea is a fun one though, just not for this character

Is there a frenzied berserker path for barbarian currently?

Yes there the berserker barbarian. Some player do not like it because when you frenzy you incur a penalty, 1 level of exhaustion.

But the 6th level ability is spot on, basically immunity to fear and charm.

The 14th level ability is sweet

And 10th level keys of charisma, so if you have a high charisma it could be useful.


You have a really cool concept, from what I have gathered, you don't want players to know you were once a paladin... but the hero is still there, there's a good guy under the muck and blood.

I like cavalier it is strong.

IMO samurai is all right, it really depends on short rests, and timing action surge and fighting spirit

Eldritch knight is awesome, and you can play a low intelligence version that only focuses defensive spells and buffs

Battle master though is still the best, IMO.

I would like to see where this build goes, samurai, since they get resilient wisdom basically at 7th, could mean you could bump up charisma.

Do you need to begin as a paladin though?

[Millstone85]

So are planning to multiclass to paladin at some point?
Do you need to begin as a paladin though?There is an interesting question. When the PHB says that "At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another", is it talking about multiclassing? My opinion is that you are supposed to lose all paladin levels.

[Sir_Chivalry]

Yes there the berserker barbarian. Some player do not like it because when you frenzy you incur a penalty, 1 level of exhaustion.

But the 6th level ability is spot on, basically immunity to fear and charm.

The 14th level ability is sweet

And 10th level keys of charisma, so if you have a high charisma it could be useful.

Sorry I know about berserker I thought you were talking about something else as Frenzied Berserker is a prestige class in 3.5.


You have a really cool concept, from what I have gathered, you don't want players to know you were once a paladin... but the hero is still there, there's a good guy under the muck and blood.

I like cavalier it is strong.

IMO samurai is all right, it really depends on short rests, and timing action surge and fighting spirit

Eldritch knight is awesome, and you can play a low intelligence version that only focuses defensive spells and buffs

Battle master though is still the best, IMO.

I would like to see where this build goes, samurai, since they get resilient wisdom basically at 7th, could mean you could bump up charisma.

Do you need to begin as a paladin though?

Well the character concept/idea assumes that the paladin stuff happened before start of play, and that the character is either entirely a fighter or mainly a fighter.


There is an interesting question. When the PHB says that "At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another", is it talking about multiclassing? My opinion is that you are supposed to lose all paladin levels.

I'd imagine that's a DM decision, but if you're not becoming an Oathbreaker you're likely rebuilding the character.

[Vogie]

Another, non-fighter option could be a Monster Hunter Ranger - part of the fall in your backstory is you were hunting monsters, and got too caught up with the hunt, abandoning your oath and companions to better remove the scourge of the ___________ from the world (Whatever the thing you were cleansing the world from). You could mix in some killer cop or vigilante tropes, like Dirty Harry, Death Wish, The Equalizer, et cetera.

You could even mix some fighter levels in there if the concept is locked into heavy armor, or you like the Fighting Spirit or Unwavering Mark abilities (or both)

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd imagine that's a DM decision, but if you're not becoming an Oathbreaker you're likely rebuilding the character.

That's the way I'd interpret it. "Adopt another class" seems to imply that you're changing into the new class. Narratively, a level 20 paladin losing his powers being as inexperienced as a squire just doesn't sit right.

I'd probably just have it set so that you lose as much experience as it took to level up, changing into a new class that fits. The experience you were at is saved for a special calculation:

Gained Experience is the real Experience you earn from adventuring. Earned Experience is what you get at your new (lower) level of experience, which is doubled until your Current Experience = Paladin Experience + Gained Experience.

It's a bit of a weird rollercoaster, but basically you lose a lot of power by being downgraded a level, to represent your actual loss. To make this temporary, you earn double experience until you have the same amount of experience as your teammates.

This way, losing your Oath is a narrative choice rather than mechanical suicide, without it being a "free" rebuild of your character. You lose power to change into something else, but you quickly learn to get back on your feet.

[Ganymede]

I know the code of conduct is less strict in 5e but should I look to those codes to determine what my character might have done to be stripped of their powers?

This is a good approach for formulating the background you want, but fallen paladins aren't really "stripped" of their powers, per se. Their power comes from their convictions, and that power wanes as their convictions wane.

With that in mind, a paladin doesn't always fall because he or she starts doing the opposite of the tenets of his or her oath. A paladin might simply grow weary and give up enforcing the tenets; maybe your paladin became emotionally exhausted with the demands of his oath and settled for the simpler life of a mercenary.

[Sir_Chivalry]

This is a good approach for formulating the background you want, but fallen paladins aren't really "stripped" of their powers, per se. Their power comes from their convictions, and that power wanes as their convictions wane.

With that in mind, a paladin doesn't always fall because he or she starts doing the opposite of the tenets of his or her oath. A paladin might simply grow weary and give up enforcing the tenets; maybe your paladin became emotionally exhausted with the demands of his oath and settled for the simpler life of a mercenary.

Alright so I'm playing the character now, for some reason that just clicked I ended up going centaur

Formerly a paladin of ancient oath she failed in defending a village and, as suggested above, lost her convictions. A few years later, boom, mercenary fighter

Now on the subject of fighting style I went into this assuming I'd be doing Great Weapon but have heard some people say Protection is best on cavalier and others say Defense is best to shore up the AC that will be tested by enemies attacking you over other people. My DM is willing to use a variant of Protection where the reaction is made after the initial attack result (apparently a popular power up for the style)

Which of the three styles is best, playground?

[Blood of Gaea]

Alright so I'm playing the character now, for some reason that just clicked I ended up going centaur

Formerly a paladin of ancient oath she failed in defending a village and, as suggested above, lost her convictions. A few years later, boom, mercenary fighter

Now on the subject of fighting style I went into this assuming I'd be doing Great Weapon but have heard some people say Protection is best on cavalier and others say Defense is best to shore up the AC that will be tested by enemies attacking you over other people. My DM is willing to use a variant of Protection where the reaction is made after the initial attack result (apparently a popular power up for the style)

Which of the three styles is best, playground?
Do you ever plan on getting the sentinel feat? If so, I would definitely not take protection. The big thing Protection adds to the table is defending a squishy ally from ranged attacks. But it's worth considering you can already stand in front of them to provide cover, and it doesn't scale well once enemies start multi-attacking, or you're fighting decent sized groups of attackers. In melee, it won't bring much to the table, as you can already hand out disadvantage to creatures easily.

Normally defense is a hard pick for a tank, who has to try not making themselves too tough to hit, or they just might be ignored. This is absolutely not true for a Cavalier, who strongly incentives enemies to attack them, and punishes them pretty hard if they don't.

Great Weapon Fighting is simply just a very small increase in damage, so it's generally not a great choice. It only gives you about ~1.33 more average damage over your 7+Mod average damage. This can be worth it if you're trying to squeeze in every bit of offense you can.

Personally, I would go for Defense. If you don't plan on getting sentinel, and won't be playing to high levels, protection is also worth considering.

[Sir_Chivalry]

Would Tunnel Fighting be worth considering?

So far I'm leaning towards Defense as your argument makes sense. Still worth going sword and board I'd assume with Defense?

[PhantomSoul]

Another classic could be the Oath of the Crown, for which you get a story of a corrupt monarch/ruler for free:


Law: The law is paramount. It is the mortar that holds the stones of civilization together, and it must be respected.
Loyalty: Your word is your bond. Without loyalty, oaths and laws are meaningless.
Courage: You must be willing to do what needs to be done for the sake of order, even in the face of overwhelming odds. If you don't act, then who will?
Responsibility: You must deal with the consequences of your actions, and you are responsible for fulfilling your duties and obligations.

How did your Paladin respond when uncovering that the one in charge of law was corrupt or outright evil? When you've made your bond -- your oath -- to a cruel or horrible king? What happens when the current order is not good; should you act to bring about temporary chaos to fix an unjust order? And as a former agent of an unjust or cruel law, what consequences are you dealing with? (The combination seems perfect for you to stop being a Paladin and no longer believing in your Oath, which later being able to return to seeing what good there was in it.)