The purpose of this post is threefold. First, to discuss the difference between the in-game paladin and his literary counterpart. Second, to discuss the optimization of a gestalt cavalier|paladin with an old-school feel for a one-on-one game. Third, what to do if the player in a one-on-one game is a powergamer (that's me, and although I've tried to kick the habit, as the snake said to the otter "it's my nature") and the GM is a storyteller/world-builder.
Okay, in-game paladin vs. literary examples. A couple in particular come to mind.
Lancelot, the "perfect" knight: also a bloodthirsty adulterer who brought down a kingdom.
Roland, the grand-daddy of all pallies: also a spoiled rich kid with judgment issues and a heap of arrogance.
Without having a priest on hand to constantly atone to, you'd lose your status in a second if you played a paladin like this. Is it possible to play a paladin (not an ex-paladin or anti-paladin) with a tragic flaw? (Not to be hasty, but I don't want this to boil down to an argument about alignment and whether or not it's good for the game or is just a hang-up or whatever. Just some RP suggestions for paladins with flaws.)
Next, suggestions for optimization. Gestalt home-rolled 2nd or 3rd level cav|pal with an old-school feel. Planning on melee only (1st ed. style), and the acquisition of a stronghold at higher levels. Is there a way to make a melee-only hit-and-run DPR tank that will survive in a one-on-one game which could feature spellcasting enemies, undead, dragons and outsiders? We're using core, APG, and some 3PP stuff, but no 3.X material.
Finally, I'm a powergamer, for better or worse, and my GM is a storyteller/world-builder. We've gotten along great in the past, but one thing that always brings the games to a halt long before I get to any significant level (usually 6th to 9th) is that he doesn't match my munchkinism with the challenges he considers worthy of bardic legend. I like the setting, the background, the psychodrama, but I end up stomping all over his world, and he kind of lets me. Suggestions for a longer running campaign welcome.
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts. I hope the alignment comment doesn't anger anyone, for that is not a criticism of posters on these boards.
What, nobody wants to touch a post with 'powergamer' and paladin in the title?
|
Okay, I'll bite.
It seems to me you have an interest in literary tales and myth that is hopelessly drowned in your love of munchkinism. You would never play a literary paladin that would need to repent and atone his sins because that would involve playing a paladin that was effectively a warrior for a short period of time before he atoned. So you cancel that option altogether.
I don’t think you have a healthy relationship with your DM. He’s not meant to make all his enemies munchkinised for your challenge/benefit, because that disadvantages the rest of the players who might be slain for picking a feat for character flavour. If the DM played the same game you’re playing in your head, he could kill your character in one round.
As for building a character, why not just go straight cavalier if atoning is unacceptable to you? You’re not meant to be good at everything, it’s a teamwork based game.
Well, as I said, it's one-on-one, just me and him, so there are no "rest of the players". And it may be a teamwork based game where one character is not good at everything, but I have to be handy at a couple things, because...it's just one character. I suppose I could go cav|clr to have some healing and skip the whole atonement thing altogether, but I just love that 1E cavalier-paladin feel.
Just wondering about keeping a game going between two different kinds of gamers. Both of us have fun for a while, but we just can't keep a story going for more than a few levels of advancement.
I concede that I would play a flawed paladin who could be a warrior between atonement, but that could get in the way of me staying alive as a party of one. So, KG, flawed paladin...unplayable?
In Arthurian legends, Lancelot was not the perfect paladin. He was good enough to earn a glimpse of the holy grail, but it was left to his son Galahad to actually complete the quest. Percival and Bors were of high enough virtue to accompany Galahad.
Galahad was written into the Arthurian legends later than most of the other knights, and his story is much more influenced by Christianity than the earlier tales. He's so good and so pure that he almost comes across as inhuman. I think someone at the gaming table trying to pull off Galahad's outlook would require a very specific understanding between all the players and the GM before the game even started.
Percival is usually depicted as the embodiment of simple goodness-- having no real schooling or training as a knight, but existing in a state of almost childlike innocence. Hmmm... Lawful Stupid? Not really, but there are elements.
Bors is involved in a fair amount of more typical battles and such (helping win back his father's lands, etc.). One temptation he goes through involves having to choose between rescuing a maiden and saving his brother from being tortured. He chooses the maiden, so his brother later tries to kill him, but he refuses to fight back against his brother. Then god smites his brother. That'd be a fun campaign to be a part of (especially for the person playing the brother).
I love the Arthurian legends, and have even played one really fun campaign based on them, but like I said, it was a setting where everyone agreed to some rules ahead of time. You just can't really have these kinds of characters in a party with a chaotic neutral barbarian. We had a good time because all the PCs were knights of some sort.
I'll go back to the issue of your relationship with this GM, first. My own experience teaches me that people who remain selfish about their playing styles, no matter how open-minded they think they are in admitting their flaws, are going to eventually butt heads. You admit your style is counter to this GM's, but you seem unwilling to adapt. You seem resigned to the fact that this is how it is, how it is going to be, and that everytime you do this with him, the result is a premature end.
I just shine a flashlight on this elephant in the room mainly for Einstein's sake (the whole repeating the same thing over and over thing), and also to point out that your comment that this GM "lets you" "stomp all over" his world, sounds a bit to me like somebody is being taken advantage of so that somebody else can get a cheapish thrill. Just sayin'.
As to flawed paladins, don't know how much this will help, but I once played a paladin with a growing drinking problem. He was a replacement character introduced midway through a campaign, so I had room to create a backstory where he was far from home and had lost his comrades in a battle where he was the sole survivor. Depressed, he had begun to have a little too much wine with dinner, and we went from there.
It introduced an interesting element in that not everybody could agree as to what degree his drinking represented chaotic or evil inclinations, but it also created situations where he risked behavior that skirted those gray areas. The more he realized he had a problem, but could or would not do anything about it, the more dangerous the whole situation became for him. It's also a classic setup for atonement, followed by eventual relapse.
As to atonement, I would assume the GM will insert NPC clerics that will be happy to instruct the paladin, so to me that does not seem like such a big issue. A story-driven GM is likely to be more accommodating insofar as your paladin surviving situations where he might suddenly lose his powers. And if not, well, a munchkin ought to be prepared for the worst.
As for the knights of the table round, I'd build them as fighters.
The medieval paladin was just a word for a trustworthy and loyal servant which evolved to trustworthy knights, then trustworthy lords - faith was not directly involved - "crusader" would be far more fitting for the class (if you ignore that many of the crusaders were greedy murderers)
In my opinion, examples of something like a PF paladin are very hard to find in literature. Galahad is a good one tough.
As a DM of a single player campaign, let me say this: the problem is your DM. You are absolutely correct: the action economy dictates a single PC be as powerful as possible to compensate. All of those DMs who learned that single Boss Monsters don't work well in DnD? That's every battle for the solo gamer.
Frankly, it sounds like your GM doesn't know how to design encounters. That's understandable, as it's really hard to do that for single PC campaigns. Challenging becomes game-ending in a heart beat. I've found subtracting 3 from the expected encounter level works well, and subtracting 4 when an encounter targets a weak point for the PC, works well. Also, he should not be afraid to use many low level encounters. Let me put it this way: I ran a 10th level bard with some 2nd level helpers through Crown of the Kobold King. And it almost ended the campaign, it was so tough for the character to go through 2 dozen very low-CR encounters.
In addition, I've found that having monsters use reinforcements means that you can manage the battle a lot better as a DM with one player.
If he's shown consistent trouble with encounter design, may I recommend that he saddle you with 2 companions? It gives a bit of a cushion by providing alternates to attack and NPCs to pull you out when you're unconscious. Because some monsters, like a gibbering mouther, are not going to capture you instead of kill you. So, ask to take the leadership feat and ask if it's okay if you take it with two cohorts that trail you by 3-4 levels. Besides, it gives someone for you to have pyschodrama with... and what's the fun of melodrama if you don't discuss it with your friends and have a good, manly, cry?
Finally, the other problem is that there are too many books in play here. You're a power gamer and you've tried to rein in those instincts. The best way to do it is to avoid temptation. Ask your DM to do a core only Pathfinder game. Core games are always the most balanced. Cut the 3PP stuff out. The DM should feel free to use anything. You should stick to core.
And if you're using gestalt rules... don't that's not necessary and it's only going to bring out the worst in you. Commit to doing a paladin and doing it right.
A couple people have mentioned Galahad. Trainwreck, you say Galahad seemed almost inhuman. It's kind of off-topic, but maybe a good concept for an Aasimar paladin?
Bruunwald, some good points about me taking advantage of my GM. When combined with Roguerouge's suggestion to cut out gestalt and 3PP stuff on my end, it seems quite easy for me to stop being such a twink. Ardenup, samurai? I'll check it out. Just downloaded the UC playtest .pdf, maybe that will help.
OTOH, challenge + smite + mount + weapon bond + order + paladin survivability = awesome!
Ugh. I know I'm going to here it for that one. There's your relapse, Bruun.
As for Leadership, I guess I just have the lone questing knight in mind, and flying solo seems appropriate for a 'stranger in a strange land' feeling.
If you want win, gestalt paladin with inquisitor.
The combat options will be staggering.
The spells are equally amazing for roleplay or combat.
Your knowledge of monsters will be better than average.
You can play a holy warrior with an axe to grind.
win/win.
As for Leadership, I guess I just have the lone questing knight in mind, and flying solo seems appropriate for a 'stranger in a strange land' feeling.
Thanks!
As for the lone questing knight, you can always use a Sancho Panza and a Dulcinea.
Wolfsnap, I would love to get a couple of other gamers involved, but it's kind of a weird timing thing. My buddy and I play from different cities via googletalk. He's in Boise ID, I'm in Salem OR, and I work long hours. Though, if anyone else does play-by-IM, I'm all ears.
I think the most important thing I've gotten from this thread is a little self-awareness. It's entirely possible for me to optimize a character and not destroy story arcs like a magnifying glass over an ant hill, and the key there will be communicating with my GM.
I don't have to worry about stumbling blocks and atonement if I stay the course, and if I do stray, there may be opportunities for redemption. If not, there may be different avenues of adventure which are more befitting a black knight. It doesn't have to end like the Round Table.
Thanks all, for your contributions thus far. And now, some thematic Rush (Canadian Rock Trio, not Limbaugh):
"When dragons grow too mighty
to slay with pen or sword,
I grow weary of the battle
and the storm I walk toward.
In vain to search for honor,
and in vain to search for truth.
But these things can still be given
your love has shown me proof."
lancelot-- knight/cavalier
Galahad-paladin
|
If it were me, I'd simply run regular CR encounters, hold you (PowerPaladin) to Core + APG, and allow you free reign as far as character design.
20 pt buy Gestalt Paladin / Inquisitor would be my choice, but a Vital Strike Powerful Charge Ride-by-Attack with Smite + Challenge = dead enemy. Barring the occasional Nat 1 miss, of course.
Have GM design (better yet, acquire some PFS modules) adventures without regard for solo play, and Mr. Powergamer has to be on his A game just to survive.
Psihamster, thanks for the pointers, that's certainly a good bit of advice for both of us.
And roguerouge, I think Sancho could be a hireling NPC, not a cohort, as such, but I see your point. Things could get awful moody with a Cav/Pal struggling to maintain an air of righteousness in the face of hideous danger, plus, it's hard to sneak around doing recon on an armored horse. A roguish (though still basically good-hearted) sidekick could sure fill out the party nicely, even if he didn't do any combat alongside the gendarme. I'll bring that up to my GM too.