PDA

View Full Version : Paladins



Korivan
2009-07-17, 07:59 PM
Can paladins loot, shoot people in the back? what can they do? what cant they do?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-17, 08:01 PM
You need to come up with a code of conduct to define these things with your DM. That's the best way to handle it.

Generally, though, you are supposed to do Good, and if practical, be Lawful while doing so.

You also exist to exemplify the ideals of your god, so what your god would think of such actions is very important, hence the need for defining a code of conduct.

We can't just say if it's ok or not, because this falls under subjective DM intepretation.

Kylarra
2009-07-17, 08:03 PM
Technically yes to the first two under slaughter and tyranny variants, possibly freedom depending on interpretation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantcharacterclasses.htm).


Anyway, talk to your DM as falling or not is usually subject to their discretion on borderline cases.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-07-17, 08:05 PM
Paladins can do whatever the hell they want.

Now, to stay a Paladin, they have to believe in and practice certain moral and ethical restrictions. I like to think of the Paladin's Code given in the Player's Handbook as a guideline (NOT a hard and fast checklist) for the GM to judge whether an act is appropriate to a Paladin. And leaving off the "associate with evil creatures" clause, because "associate" is far too vague a word, and there are perfectly valid reasons to interact with evil creatures in a manner that doesn't involve instant death.

My thought is "Be compassionate, be honorable, be just". Apply that to specific situations on a case by case basis.


Unless you're talking about 4e, when Paladins can be any alignment and do whatever, as long as they also do what their God tells them to do.

Tengu_temp
2009-07-17, 08:08 PM
Ah, now I remember the rules on the official Polish NWN server I was playing at, where the DMs thought that looting items from defeated enemies is against a paladin's code and penalized paladins for that. Yes, that was a very stupid server.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-07-17, 08:09 PM
How else are you supposed to get anything in NWN? Buy it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AslanCross
2009-07-17, 08:10 PM
Because of the vague yet specific (read: highly confusing) paladin code in 3.5, it's best for the DM and paladin players to draw up a contract for this so that the DM doesn't run the game specifically to make the paladin fall, and the player doesn't abuse the code with ridiculous relative interpretations.

How I'd run it:
-Looting: If he picks up loot from creatures that attacked him, I'd say he should. He needs new weaponry and tools to advance the cause of his god, so it would be kind of stupid if he didn't unless he took a vow of poverty.
Now if he deliberately burglarizes a store/house owned by people who aren't explicitly evil, then he's going to take a hit for that. I wouldn't make it an instant-fall, though.

-Stabbing people in the back: Flanking is a common tactic. As long as he's not getting sneak attack dice out of it (though his rogue friend might), I wouldn't say he's fighting dishonorably. Stabbing someone in his sleep is another matter. I wouldn't think a paladin would attack someone helpless. It's dishonorable, but not evil (he might kill the evil cultist before the cultist does anything) so I wouldn't make it an instant-fall either.


Fax Celestis came up with a homebrew version of the paladin that takes specific vows to gain specific bonuses. There are also specific atonement methods for broken vows, but the paladin doesn't lose ALL his class features for violating just one of his tenets. I'd suggest you take a look at it since it might be very helpful in clearing things up.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-17, 08:11 PM
Ah, now I remember the rules on the official Polish NWN server I was playing at, where the DMs thought that looting items from defeated enemies is against a paladin's code and penalized paladins for that. Yes, that was a very stupid server.

At risk of offending people with a Polish joke, I shall instead say nothing.

Except this.

Tengu_temp
2009-07-17, 08:17 PM
How else are you supposed to get anything in NWN? Buy it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Item crafting. Yes, it means that a lot of those paladins, instead of fighting evil, had to earn money by forging swords and other crap. Don't look at me like that, I wasn't running that server.

Alternatively, they traveled in groups with other people who looted for them. Or looted anyway when no DMs were watching.


At risk of offending people with a Polish joke, I shall instead say nothing.

Except this.

I don't mind offensive jokes, as long as they're funny.

T.G. Oskar
2009-07-17, 08:31 PM
Can paladins loot, shoot people in the back? what can they do? what cant they do?

Yes, they can loot. If the loot is basically the spoils after combat. It's mechanically viable to loot the corpses of fallen opponents. Just not your allies (it's dishonorable) or when they are still alive (because that would be stealing), or when they are on a store (stealing). But, well...perhaps the other guy had a better sword than yours, and you're sharing with your companions.

Oh, and also treasure. Since treasure exists mostly to be sold and to give money to the players.

As for shooting people in the back, well...would you consider flanking to be bad? I recall somewhere where they said that Paladins were honorable warriors, but they knew of tactical combat and weren't bound to ignore them for purposes of a fair fight. Or something along those lines. Striking against the back (which is mostly what you get through flanking or when you somehow gain sneak attack) isn't forbidden by code, and certainly an advantage. The only underhanded tactic that the Code explicitly forbids is use of poison.

But, the aforementioned suggestions are well advised. A Paladin works better when the player and the DM (and at times, the gaming group as well) aids in delimiting the code. The code a Paladin follows should be very personal, not a copy-pasta code (the sample code in the PHB is quite open to interpretations, both good and bad, but it's meant to be general ideas when making a code); it's much better when you're relatively happy with the tenets of your own, self-made Code.

Kris Strife
2009-07-17, 08:36 PM
Also, Complete Adventurer has a PrC combining paladins and rogues and a feat that lets rogue and paladin levels stack for Sneak Attack and I think Smiting and Lay on Hands.

Also, Grey Guard.

Mando Knight
2009-07-17, 08:38 PM
Also, Complete Adventurer has a PrC combining paladins and rouges and a feat that lets rouge and paladin levels stack for Sneak Attack and I think Smiting and Lay on Hands.

That would be useful if having levels in makeup gave you Sneak Attack. :smalltongue:

Mr.Moron
2009-07-17, 08:39 PM
Can paladins loot


Define "Loot". Certainly it's fine for a paladin to take the weapons off a defeated foe. If they'd kept them, they'd only keep using them for no-good. The paladin takes them, the paladin can put them to good use one way or another.

Breaking into a shop during a riot and stealing whatever the D&D equivalent of a bigscreen TV is, isn't OK.



shoot people in the back?

This depends. If a surprise attack means you could resolve a conflict with less bloodshed than a frontal attack, then by all means yes. This doesn't mean they go around funding assignations and slitting people's throats in their sleep or gaining people's trust do double-cross them. It does mean that if sneaking in and knocking the guards out from behind, is better than forcing said guards into a lethal fight.




what can they do? what cant they do?

Well without creating a huge long list, it's hard to say without more specific questions.

Detect-and-Smite is certainly out, off the top of my head.

Generally speaking if something makes you think "Wow, that person is a huge ****", a paladin probably shouldn't be doing it.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-17, 08:40 PM
Generally speaking if something makes you think "Wow, that person is a huge ****", a paladin probably shouldn't be doing it.
But... but... Superman did it!

Kris Strife
2009-07-17, 08:43 PM
That would be useful if having levels in makeup gave you Sneak Attack. :smalltongue:

They do if you look in the right suppliments. :smalltongue:

Quick Paladin Code:
Do good, stop evil, don't be a bigger **** than Superman.

Guancyto
2009-07-17, 08:44 PM
As for shooting people in the back, well...would you consider flanking to be bad? I recall somewhere where they said that Paladins were honorable warriors, but they knew of tactical combat and weren't bound to ignore them for purposes of a fair fight. Or something along those lines. Striking against the back (which is mostly what you get through flanking or when you somehow gain sneak attack) isn't forbidden by code, and certainly an advantage. The only underhanded tactic that the Code explicitly forbids is use of poison.

This. A Paladin is an honorable warrior, but he is still a warrior. Unless there are rules of engagement agreed upon beforehand, this includes traps, ambushes, feints, flanks, skirmishing, artillery, terrain, psychological warfare and more.

Just because you aren't poisoning the enemy's water supply, coup-de-gracing their fallen, executing their prisoners and sowing salt into their fields? That doesn't mean you have to fight fair against an enemy who's trying to kill you and yours.

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-17, 08:46 PM
I tend to say:

Varies greatly by DM; campaign setting; and campaign tone.

In a very idealistic campaign, falling is easy if you stray outside the lines; but the lines are very clear.

In a very cynical campaign, the lines are muddy. You can still fall; but what causes that will vary.

And of course the DM's view of the subject is going to vary a lot. I had one DM pretty much force Vow of Poverty (Minus Benefits and with a couple small concessions) on my character or he would fall.

I've had other DMs allow a pretty broad range of behavior so long as the ultimate goal is good, and innocents are not harmed in it's execution.

The code is a good guideline - but it's hard to use it as a definitive source because a given DM's interpretation of a few clauses can make or break things.

An example would be "A paladin must behave honorably, not lying, cheating, using poison, etc..." -

Some DMs will interpret this as "Must always declare their intentions before battle, must not retreat or surrender willingly, may never in any way mislead an opponent..." - And from one point of view, that definitely makes some sense; but because the code doesn't spell those things out, and the word "honorable" itself can mean a variety of things depending on culture, time period and general predicament. (Honor in other words; is a concept that has a varied definition, and since it's not spelled out which definition we're using beyond a few basic tenets, we're left with a question that the DM has to answer)

Other DMs will allow a Paladin to deceive a foe on a military level; but not lie on a personal level. For example: You could mount an ambush or create dummies and mount them on a wall to feign greater numbers than you actually have. However the same paladin would not be able to lie in a personal context - like a friendship or romantic relationship; nor in the pursuit of official duties.

And again - this isn't a wrong interpretation either. Military strategy after all pretty much relies on deception as one of it's key points (That's why we have the saying "The first casualty in war is truth" (well there are more factors there too; but this is one of them)) - and whether deception in a military context is "lying" or "honorable" or not varies greatly by culture and time period.

---

So this relatively long post is essentially saying:

I can't really tell you because your DM is the one who's really going to determine the rules. Asking them is your best bet; though the safe guidelines are: Follow the law, don't be an ass, protect the innocent.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-17, 08:47 PM
An example would be "A paladin must behave honorably, not lying, cheating, using poison, etc..." -

Some DMs will interpret this as "Must always declare their intentions before battle, must not retreat or surrender willingly, may never in any way mislead an opponent..."


There is no honor to be had in suicide.

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-17, 08:51 PM
Like I said - some DMs interpret it that way.

I personally go with the second definition I posted above; but since I'm not his DM I'm not going to opine on what will be acceptable because DMs in my experience can get *really* weird ideas on what a Paladin can do.

And it also depends on a campaign's tone. An idealistic campaign will probably not penalize you for not using 'cowardly' tactics like ambush. A cynical campaign will leave you dead and gutted for the crows if you don't know how to hide.

Thus my post being kind of a non-answer.

Sanguine
2009-07-17, 08:51 PM
There is no honor to be had in suicide.

Tell that to Samurai:smalltongue:

lsfreak
2009-07-17, 08:52 PM
This. A Paladin is an honorable warrior, but he is still a warrior. Unless there are rules of engagement agreed upon beforehand, this includes traps, ambushes, feints, flanks, skirmishing, artillery, terrain, psychological warfare and more.

Just because you aren't poisoning the enemy's water supply, coup-de-gracing their fallen, executing their prisoners and sowing salt into their fields? That doesn't mean you have to fight fair against an enemy who's trying to kill you and yours.

The problem is that the paladin's code as-written isn't just Good and Lawful, but also "honorable." A paladin falls if he uses poison, even though it's a neutral act and even preferable to killing in many situations. Which provides more good to the world, killing a guy, or slipping something in his drink or on your blade that paralyzes him (Dex damage), imprison him but tend his wounds and treat him well, and trying to show him the error of his ways? Obviously the latter, but he loses all paladin abilities by doing it more than a few times by RAW.

Assassin89
2009-07-17, 08:54 PM
There is no honor to be had in suicide.

Unless it is done by samurai, but that is a different class altogether.

Often the suicidal tactics are a result of Lawful Stupid interpretations of the paladin code.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-17, 08:55 PM
Tell that to Samurai:smalltongue:

Attention Samurai: Suicide is dumb.

Guancyto
2009-07-17, 08:55 PM
The problem is that the paladin's code as-written isn't just Good and Lawful, but also "honorable." A paladin falls if he uses poison, even though it's a neutral act and even preferable to killing in many situations. Which provides more good to the world, killing a guy, or slipping something in his drink or on your blade that paralyzes him (Dex damage), imprison him but tend his wounds and treat him well, and trying to show him the error of his ways? Obviously the latter, but he loses all paladin abilities by doing it more than a few times by RAW.

It's true. And it doesn't make a lot of sense, but most other tactics are in.

Am I crazy, or was there some sort of exception to one of those rules for Drow Sleep Poison? Maybe it was for an Exalted character, or a Vow of Peace user...

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-17, 08:55 PM
@lsfreak - Actually according to D&D (for some bizarro reason) poison is in and of itself an "evil act".

The "why" is pretty murky. Supposedly its because it cause is undue suffering... but then BoED adds Ravages and the like... which cause? Suffering! (But only if you're evil!)

And you can always splash a guy with a consecrated acid spell if you like. (How do you like that Good Aligned acid bath?)

---

Obviously not saying I *agree* with that; but Poison has been declared "evil". (Disease too if I recall right). I believe BoED in particular spells it out, but other sources may mention it as well.

Fostire
2009-07-17, 08:58 PM
But... but... Superman did it!

Well, superman is a ****:
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q224/LordRod/216_4_261.jpg

Mando Knight
2009-07-17, 09:01 PM
Thus the reason why Batman now always carries Kryptonite .45 Colt cartridges in his utility belt. He never knows when he's got to shoot Superman with a Single Action Army.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-17, 09:04 PM
Thus the reason why Batman now always carries Kryptonite .45 Colt cartridges in his utility belt. He never knows when he's got to shoot Superman with a Single Action Army.

Ah yes, the greatest handgun ever made. The Colt Single Action Army. Six bullets... more than enough to kill anything that moves.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-17, 09:52 PM
Actually according to D&D (for some bizarro reason) poison is in and of itself an "evil act".

It's actually quite easy to understand.

Old school: Poison gives the PCs too much of an edge even though half the world is out to get the PCs. So instead of making it costly, it gets balanced by making it evil. Unless you're an evil PC, then it's balanced by making all the world out to get you.

New school: Poison causes the target to "take ongoing X poison damage" or to "take ongoing X poison damage and is <condition> (save ends both)" which is of course balanced by the other non-poison based powers that make the target "take ongoing X <source> damage" or "take ongoing X <source> damage and is condition (save ends both)".

Mr.Moron
2009-07-17, 09:57 PM
Old school: Poison gives the PCs too much of an edge even though half the world is out to get the PCs. So instead of making it costly, it gets balanced by making it evil. Unless you're an evil PC, then it's balanced by making all the world out to get you.


In 3.5 at least. Poison is terribly unreliable and costly for the most part. It's hardly a powerhouse tactic.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-17, 10:00 PM
In 3.5 at least. Poison is terribly unreliable and costly for the most part. It's hardly a powerhouse tactic.

Yeah, 3.5 is often like that, halfway between old-school and new-school...which is not surprising.

chiasaur11
2009-07-17, 10:05 PM
Thus the reason why Batman now always carries Kryptonite .45 Colt cartridges in his utility belt. He never knows when he's got to shoot Superman with a Single Action Army.

That's silly. Batman doesn't like handguns. Handguns killed his parents.

He has a Kryptonite rocket launcher. With Kryptonite explosions.

Mando Knight
2009-07-17, 10:07 PM
He's also got a Super Soaker with a Kryptonite solution in the Batmobile. He cribbed the idea off of a bunch of thugs he had to save Superman from. :smalltongue:

Worira
2009-07-17, 11:14 PM
That's silly. Batman doesn't like handguns. Handguns killed his parents.

Oh, wow. That's a fantastic second layer of ****ery I never even noticed before.

T.G. Oskar
2009-07-17, 11:14 PM
Well, superman is a ****

A **** with powers to rearrange the face of the Universe, but that has a silly allergic reaction to a mineral that is almost entirely harmless.

Now, thinking about it: does that mean the Green Star Adept is meant to kill Superman? Because that starmetal is awfully similar to the kind of mineral that usually kills Superman.

And don't tell me that Kryptonite is a crystal. I know of it. So does most metals, on an atomic scale :P


The problem is that the paladin's code as-written isn't just Good and Lawful, but also honorable." A paladin falls if he uses poison, even though it's a neutral act and even preferable to killing in many situations. Which provides more good to the world, killing a guy, or slipping something in his drink or on your blade that paralyzes him (Dex damage), imprison him but tend his wounds and treat him well, and trying to show him the error of his ways? Obviously the latter, but he loses all paladin abilities by doing it more than a few times by RAW.

The few dishonorable acts clearly mentioned by RAW on the Code are lying, cheating, and using poison (not stealing, which would have definitely disqualified a legendary warrior of becoming one). The rest is left to interpretation. Lying is pretty easy to understand: don't use the Bluff skill to hide the truth (silence, though, is fine, unless a DM considers it a lie by omission). Using poison is clearly defined: don't use poison (except the exception given by one of the books about Drow Sleep Poison, regardless of the irony and the hilarity of it, as well as the good poisons ravages). The one that's not so clear is cheating, which is best interpreted out of combat rather than in-combat.

However, there isn't a clear and RAW guideline to honorable actions that aren't covered by Lawful behavior. The Knight, however, has a much more solid code which forbids most advantages in combat to which the Knight solemnly swears not to use. A Paladin, as explained on Complete Scoundrel (of all books!), doesn't have to forego tactical advantages for honorable combat (let the Samurai and Knight actually think about that) If you wish to add it as part of the code, then so be it. There's not a RAW reason why not to use those tactical advantages in combat (aside from using poison, which is clearly defined as forbidden and no sane Paladin would use it as a tactical advantage if allies are nearby), why not to flank if even Lawful and Honorable armies know the advantages of flanking squadrons and legions. Perhaps you could argue feinting, but then again, you don't gain anything with feinting unless you're going the path of sneak-attacking. And there are certainly more ways to deny an opponent's Dex bonus to damage to use a sneak attack right at the side of the opponent.

Also...if we are to follow the concept of the honor-bound Paladin, the Paladin player would be forced to be a kill-stealer. After all, "honor demands the final blow be mine!!" :P

So yeah, it's not exactly a honorable combatant, but a honorable person. You know, the dependable guy/gal who you know that can kick your buttocks and use all the brunt of military strategy on you but whom you'll know that will stand for his/her word, won't fight you with a poisoned weapon and whom will probably be there before you are for the duel.

That doesn't mean he or she will be a complete moron, tho.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-17, 11:17 PM
not stealing, which would have definitely disqualified a legendary warrior of becoming one
O-chul?

He stole a bar from his captors when attacking them, which I think is a chaotic and possibly evil act.

Breaking the cage to do it was definitely chaotic and evil, because vandalism is bad.

T.G. Oskar
2009-07-17, 11:21 PM
O-chul?

No...

I mean, O-Chul is never wrong! Why would taking a bar with his own strength be considered a chaotic and evil act, if he was on his skivvies, scarred physically and on the very lair of the enemy?

That wasn't stealing, of course not. O-Chul was going to kill Xykon, destroy the phylactery, kill Redcloak after showing a bit of his great mercy, then wait on the cell and actually repair it until Azure City was freed.

Or...you know, he was incarcerated unfairly, and thus he doesn't recognize the legitimate authority of Redcloak. So, he was going to do exactly the same except returning to the cell.

I was talking about another legendary warrior, who loved to lie, to cheat, to steal!

Kris Strife
2009-07-17, 11:30 PM
A **** with powers to rearrange the face of the Universe, but that has a silly allergic reaction to a mineral that is almost entirely harmless.

Except that it gives you cancer.

I think Kryptonite just gives him SuperCancer that goes away once he's away from the Kryptonite.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-17, 11:30 PM
I was talking about another legendary warrior, who loved to lie, to cheat, to steal!

Captain Kirk?

T.G. Oskar
2009-07-17, 11:36 PM
Except that it gives you cancer.

And if you believe in some writers and Smallville, also superpowers.

Some better than others.


Captain Kirk?

Well, no. Actually, did Kirk was a dishonorable guy? I thought he wasn't a warrior. Then again, I'm more of a Star Wars guy...

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-17, 11:37 PM
Rigging the Kobyashi Maru definately counts as cheating... and he stole the hearts of many sexy green skinned alien space babes.

Callista
2009-07-17, 11:47 PM
Yup. Kirk is CG all the way. I'd stat him as a rogue, heavy on CHA and DEX. Incidentally, the Kobayashi Maru thing wasn't really about cheating; it was more about taking a third option when faced with a moral dilemma. Kirk's solution: Cheat the dilemma. Cheat the whole world, if you have to, so you can do the right thing.

Yeah, he's definitely not a paladin--though he could probably work with one rather easily, seeing as how he's been working with Spock all those years. (Spock's "solution" is typically LG: Sacrifice yourself to solve the dilemma.)

T.G. Oskar
2009-07-17, 11:49 PM
So wait...lemme get this clear:

Trying to be(at) the Kobayashi Maru and triggering a third option is cheating, which means Paladins are destined to lose their powers anyway if they think out of the box and Take a Third Option?

Is that what you are suggesting?

Because I wholeheartedly believe that, when you have no choice, and you Take a Third Option, that's not cheating, that's actually doing the right thing.

Kirk just cheats because it's a simulation. He still got awarded by "original thinking", though. Still, beating a test which is literally meant to be a no-win situation hardly counts as cheating; cheating to win on an unwinnable situation is actually fair. That must be the kind of thinking Kirk believes in.

Also, stealing the hearts of women is hardly a dishonorable act. The paragons of chivalry do it ALL THE TIME. And when I mean ALL THE TIME, I mean it! The dishonorable thing would be, of course, to cheat the chosen dame.

Which begs the question...is Kirk married and still stealing hearts? Well...as far as canon fiction goes...

Last minute update:

Yup. Kirk is CG all the way. I'd stat him as a rogue, heavy on CHA and DEX. Incidentally, the Kobayashi Maru thing wasn't really about cheating; it was more about taking a third option when faced with a moral dilemma. Kirk's solution: Cheat the dilemma. Cheat the whole world, if you have to, so you can do the right thing.

Yeah, he's definitely not a paladin--though he could probably work with one rather easily, seeing as how he's been working with Spock all those years. (Spock's "solution" is typically LG: Sacrifice yourself to solve the dilemma.)

Spock actually reads as Lawful Neutral. He's above feelings and such, and thought through careful and cold logic that "sacrificing" himself would solve the problem. Had it been a different take in action, he would have followed it. And no, taking a choice that betrayed his friends was hardly a choice, since he's Neutral and not Evil (as far as I can recall). However, if it was the logical choice to double-cross, then he'd do it magnificently.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-17, 11:53 PM
Detect Sarcasm fail.

T.G. Oskar
2009-07-17, 11:58 PM
Detect Sarcasm fail.

Of course. It was a direct question, after all...

Callista
2009-07-18, 12:01 AM
No... Paladins are definitely allowed to cheat in extreme situations like that; but if they don't have to cheat, they won't.

Besides, there are other Kobayashi Maru solutions that win without cheating; I can't remember which character it was, but they basically challenged the other captain to a duel to force everyone to stand down, beamed over to the enemy ship for the duel, and left instructions to beam the survivors out and warp the heck out of there. Net loss, one captain. Acceptable.

The point isn't to say what a paladin can and can't do; it's to ask yourself what the kind of person who becomes a paladin would do.

Unless you're going for a fall or fall/redemption arc, you're better off making your character in such a way that he naturally follows a LG way of solving problems. If not, you've created a NG/CG/whatever character and shoehorned him into a class he's not meant to have. I guess a lot of people get problems when their own philosophy differs from their character's.


Spock actually reads as Lawful Neutral. He's above feelings and such, and thought through careful and cold logic that "sacrificing" himself would solve the problem. Had it been a different take in action, he would have followed it. And no, taking a choice that betrayed his friends was hardly a choice, since he's Neutral and not Evil (as far as I can recall). However, if it was the logical choice to double-cross, then he'd do it magnificently.Oh, he's strong Law, I'll give you that. And in that situation, a LN would have done the same thing. It's just that in every situation he gets himself into, he's always quite selfless--including when it's only one other person in danger, or when somebody else could logically take the risk. If he were pure Law, he'd be dedicated to science or to following some set of rules or to personal discipline; but it's obvious by his actions that none of those are his first priority. It's always the good of other people that he's working for; cold logic is a tool, and a powerful one. I don't think there's a single non-Good main character in the entire original series, actually.

Worira
2009-07-18, 12:24 AM
In my games, Paladins fall unless they act exactly like Roland.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-18, 12:27 AM
So unless they kill as many Musslemans as possible...

chiasaur11
2009-07-18, 12:29 AM
In my games, Paladins fall unless they act exactly like Roland.

The mod, the knight, the gunslinger, or the embodiment of destiny?

Worira
2009-07-18, 12:32 AM
The first two.

Zen Master
2009-07-18, 06:32 AM
Generally, though, you are supposed to do Good, and if practical, be Lawful while doing so.

Alternatively, you are supposed to do Law, and if practical, be Good while doing so.

I never understood the implied logic of Good <-> Evil being more important than Law <-> Chaos.

However, on topic I usually play paladins as slightly fanatic. They conform to a higher standard than other characters, however they are also tasked with finding and destroying evil and/or chaos where ever it rears it's ugly head.

And if anyone askes 'Hey, you're a lawful good paladin - are you supposed to loot the dead?'

I answer 'Almighty *GOD* laid these enemies in my path, to supply me with gold and weapons. Are you questioning the edicts of God?'

I've yet to fall - but I don't know if my DM is lenient or agrees with my view.

bosssmiley
2009-07-18, 07:37 AM
There is no honour to be had in suicide.

Tell that to the Japanese. :smallwink:

I've always looked at the paladin's Code of Conduct the way that judge looked at obscenity: he might not be able to define it, but he knew it when he saw it. Joking aside, we all have a pretty good idea in our heads of what the White Knight archetype should do in a given situation. Good don't mean dumb, but it does mean sticking to your principles. If the holy warrior falls short, well, that's where things get...interesting.

Morty
2009-07-18, 08:23 AM
Ah, now I remember the rules on the official Polish NWN server I was playing at, where the DMs thought that looting items from defeated enemies is against a paladin's code and penalized paladins for that. Yes, that was a very stupid server.

Polish D&D gamers are very prone to the "Paladins are ascetic, suicidal robots" school of thinking. I really have no idea why.
Anyway, I see nothing that'd forbid a paladin from looting. I mean, they won't need it anymore, but he might need it. Of course, if loot is the paladin's motivation, he falls. It might get more complicated if the loot in question had been stolen from someone else by the people the paladin killed. As for shooting in the back - it's not something a paladin would do, but I wouldn't make him fall because of it.

AstralFire
2009-07-18, 08:30 AM
Attention Samurai: Suicide is dumb.

Goddamnit you made me laugh so hard I coughed up phlegm everywhere. Then I had to clean stuff. Stupid fever.

I don't know why. Just... good timing.


I never understood the implied logic of Good <-> Evil being more important than Law <-> Chaos.

There are several classically celebrated folk heroes who are commonly thought of as NG or CG. I will not discuss them for fear of this becoming a fictional character alignment thread.

There are like none who are thought of as LN or LE. Just modern characters, there. The concept of good is inherently more attractive in a heroic type.

Player_Zero
2009-07-18, 08:47 AM
It's not what a paladin is able to do. It's what a paladin would do.

A lawful good paladin of a faith who values truth and benevolence will embody those traits, as such he wouldn't consider doing something which would betray his principles.

The rules for paladins not lying, et cetera, are there to encourage roleplay.

Lord_Gareth
2009-07-18, 09:27 AM
I'd like to point out that Sneak Attack is neither a chaotic nor evil action; indeed, the Devoted Inquisitor feat (Complete Adventurer) and the Shadowbane Inquisitor prestige class (Complete Adventurer) are both designed for those paladins who Sneak Attack all the time.

Paladins are expected to be Lawful and Good, but both of these are different from honorable. Absolutely nothing stops a paladin from kicking you in the 'nads, throwing dirt in your face, giving you a noogie, performing the dreaded Purple Nurple, or even insulting your entire family tree.

Furthermore, paladins do not need gods to gain power; power flows directly from their code of conduct as exemplars of both law and good. On certain campaign worlds (such as the Forgotten Realms), this is not true, and paladins DO need gods, but the PHB default paladin is perfectly fine with being an atheist.

Tengu_temp
2009-07-18, 10:51 AM
Polish D&D gamers are very prone to the "Paladins are ascetic, suicidal robots" school of thinking. I really have no idea why.


I think that's because one of the biggest trends among Polish fantasy fans is that Good Is Dumb, Idealism Is For Kids and that the most awesome alignment is Neutral A**hole. Note that most of out fantasy literature is set in cynical settings, mostly written by mediocre writers trying to copy Sapkowski's style but without his wit.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-18, 11:34 AM
Alternatively, you are supposed to do Law, and if practical, be Good while doing so.

I never understood the implied logic of Good <-> Evil being more important than Law <-> Chaos.
Miko had an emphasis on Law. Hinjo had an emphasis on Good. One of them got torn in half after falling, the other is doing fairly well for himself. Let us reflect upon this.

AstralFire
2009-07-18, 11:45 AM
I think that's because one of the biggest trends among Polish fantasy fans is that Good Is Dumb, Idealism Is For Kids and that the most awesome alignment is Neutral A**hole. Note that most of out fantasy literature is set in cynical settings, mostly written by mediocre writers trying to copy Sapkowski's style but without his wit.

Ugh. Just thinking about that hurts. I never understand the appeal.


Miko had an emphasis on Law. Hinjo had an emphasis on Good. One of them got torn in half after falling, the other is doing fairly well for himself. Let us reflect upon this.

To be fair, Rich runs OotS with a cosmology and social situation that in many ways more reflects how I think a D&D campaign -should- be run than how it is necessarily written to run. :smalltongue: But I certainly do agree here, especially when you consider that Paladins as Lawful Good showed up originally when that was -synonymous- with Good with no other options (I must confess I do not understand why he felt the need to throw on descriptors for each moral position with only three of them), and then later with Chaotic Good as its only other option - Chaotic definitely not adhering to the idea of a Code of Conduct back then.

Morty
2009-07-18, 11:53 AM
I think that's because one of the biggest trends among Polish fantasy fans is that Good Is Dumb, Idealism Is For Kids and that the most awesome alignment is Neutral A**hole. Note that most of out fantasy literature is set in cynical settings, mostly written by mediocre writers trying to copy Sapkowski's style but without his wit.

Probably, yeah. But regardless of the reason, I'll always remember the people who, after being asked a question "Should a paladin give his sword and armor to a beggar who asks him for it?" said "Yes, he should."

Tengu_temp
2009-07-18, 12:08 PM
Probably, yeah. But regardless of the reason, I'll always remember the people who, after being asked a question "Should a paladin give his sword and armor to a beggar who asks him for it?" said "Yes, he should."

I, on the other hand, almost succeeded in forgetting them. Almost. Remind me, was that on this forum?

Morty
2009-07-18, 12:10 PM
I, on the other hand, almost succeeded in forgetting them. Almost. Remind me, was that on this forum?

No, it was on Polter.pl, in a long thread filled with this kind of reasoning. Unsurprisingly, I rarely read it anymore.

deuxhero
2009-07-18, 12:16 PM
It really depends on the Paladin's code. The PHB code is no more required than playing playing an iconic character's build.


Let's say that Wilson of Many Planes (not to be confused with Wilson of Many Plains, conquer of the grasslands, the tactican Wilson Many Planes, or Richard the Plain, the monotone knight.) has a code that defines evil as

*1.An action by a sapient being that intentionally deprives another sapient being of hir health, freedom or property via force or deception, unless in retaliation for a prior act fitting this definition.
*2.A sapient being who commits acts defined as evil by 1.
and requires him to eliminate/punish evil whenever safely possible.

Under Wilson's code poison is not evil, as it is not an 1.an act or 2.Sapient.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-18, 01:20 PM
The best way to deal with Paladins in cynical settings, from my thought (since I've never actually had one in a serious campaign) is to have them live and work outside the system. If you like having corrupt aristocrats, and clerics and prelates who stray into Knight Templar territory, then just cut the Paladin out altogether. Make Paladins a rare sight, and make it so the Call comes seemingly at random, to Aristocrats, Burghers or Peasants alike, but to receive the training they need to seek an older Paladin out, which involves leaving the shelter of society. IMC, Paladins would never form huge fighting orders, or lead armies let alone rule a kingdom; no army will ever campaign without excesses breaking out among the rank-and-file, and no kingdom will ever exist that can always avoid betraying its principles. Paladins should live around the edge of society, always moving from place to place, righting wrongs and slaying monsters. Meanwhile, Kings and Bishops generally prefer to have Paladins out of their hair, because you can never trust anyone less than an Idealist; when you're the head of a kingdom or Church, you want loyalty, not people who think they know the Law or the Divine Edicts better than you do.

If you want to take this even further (I've never tried this in a game but I'd like to), you could have even common folk be uneasy around a Paladin. Sure, they're great to have around when a Wyvern is menacing your village, but a Paladin's not a regular guy you can have a pint with. Commoners know that Paladins can magically sense wickedness, but they wouldn't know any details or whether or not a Paladin is doing so; so if a Paladin spends a week in some hamlet, you can imagine a bunch of nervous farmers' sons thinking "did he sense me cursing just then? Did he sense me taking Pelor's name in vain? Did he notice my eyes wandering over Goodie Pfinister's rump? Does he know I had an argument with my mother an hour ago?" which leads to people being always thankful for a Paladin's service but also eager to avoid the guy. Paladins might have to work hard to convince people they won't use their powers to judge everyone, even if they can.

Callista
2009-07-18, 01:51 PM
I suppose that last paragraph might be true before the paladin had been in the town any length of time; but the emphasis on charisma-based stuff, especially diplomacy, should cause the town to warm up to him sooner or later. Good guys aren't generally the sort to smite for minor things, anyway, and once they find out he IS the kind of guy you can have a pint with, then he'd probably start making friends. Neutral tends to make friends with Good, because Good will step up to protect Neutral I'd see the result as more of a sort of folk hero than anything else--yeah, there'd be fear; but there'd be a lot more hero-worship and such, which could add an interesting dimension if your character flaw happened to be pride...

BTW, the paladin class's emphasis is always on Good; it only takes one evil act, even if it doesn't change his alignment; but chaotic acts that don't actually change the alignment are fine. So that makes Good the priority. The ones who place the emphasis on Law are walking a fine line--interesting to play, interesting characters, but you'd better plan for what happens when you have to choose between Chaos and Evil, because when that happens, your Law-focused pally is going to turn beige.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-18, 02:35 PM
And your second paragraph is exactly why, in a world more like our own, a Paladin doesn't work as an authority figure at all. A Paladin won't let criminals go free on technicalities, a Paladin won't make a truce with an evil power because there was a bad harvest that year, a Paladin won't manipulate feuding factions or put people in debt slavery because they lost their farm to a freak hurricane. A kingdom run by a Paladin would collapse in a fortnight, frankly, without a metric ton of Magic Handwavium or a ridiculously sugary view of human nature.

Similarly they don't work as soldiers. A Paladin won't hold back and let the enemy burn a defenseless village because it would be better to ambush them once they're deeper in enemy territory. A Paladin won't seal enemies up during a siege and let them die horribly of starvation and disease. A Paladin will not participate in salted earth tactics, execute or flog soldiers for cowardice or incompetence, extort or intimidate the locals of any region in order to feed their troops, allow looting and pillaging by soldiers looking for pay, and a bunch of other things that were necessary to keep a Pre-Industrial army running.

Depending on how closely religions in your setting match a historical Medieval one, a Paladin can't be part of the secular or religious (i.e cloistered) Church hierarchy either. Most prelates will also be noblemen, and therefore have a vested interest in the politics of the kingdom, hereditary lands as well as Church lands which they have to protect as sovereign from the King's taxes and jurisprudence, and also to keep up tithes to the Holy See back home, and guarding against Herecy. A Paladin shouldn't care if people practice his religion in the "right" way or if they have his religion at all, whereas a Church can't survive without enforcing its own dogma, or it becomes a ghost with no authority.

Paladins really don't work except as outsiders to society, if you want them to really uphold Good for its own sake as the highest ideal. And I'm not talking about making them 21st Century people in the Middle Ages; obviously Edward III knew it was wrong to let his mercenaries burn French villages and rape and pillage their hearts out, Innocent III knew that calling a Crusade in France would mean some innocent Catholics would be mistaken for heretics and killed. These are the kinds of sacrifices for the greater good real leaders make constantly, which no Paladin should even consider making. But you don't have to get rid of one to have the other; you can have White Knights out of Walter Scott and Mallory's brutal Knights of the Round Table in the same setting and even uncomfortably coexisting, I think. I'd like to try it in a game sometime.

EleventhHour
2009-07-18, 02:41 PM
I'd like to try it in a game sometime.

I'd like to volunteer to be one of the Paladins in your game!

GoatToucher
2009-07-18, 03:04 PM
And your second paragraph is exactly why, in a world more like our own, a Paladin doesn't work as an authority figure at all. A Paladin won't let criminals go free on technicalities,

For this, the corrupt middle class and nobility would hate him, but the common folk would love him.


a Paladin won't make a truce with an evil power because there was a bad harvest that year,

Yes he would. Paladins are not Lawful stupid. They will not throw their forces away on a war they cannot win in a mad dash to lay evil to waste.

Sometimes a Paladin is called to give his life in the fight against evil, but he doesn't have to treat every threat that way. So long as his intent to fight evil is true, a little discretion won't make him fall.


a Paladin won't manipulate feuding factions

No, but he will find other ways to make them stop feuding. If the factions aren't maddened berserks who simply WILL FIGHT (bad writing), it will be possible to divert them somehow, be it by hook or crook.


or put people in debt slavery because they lost their farm to a freak hurricane.

And, again, the people will love him for it.


A kingdom run by a Paladin would collapse in a fortnight, frankly, without a metric ton of Magic Handwavium or a ridiculously sugary view of human nature.

The long and the short of what you seem to be saying is that somebody who will not tolerate or commit evil acts cannot rule. I find this to be as ridiculous a view as one that assumes that the people will toss flowers at their Paladin ruler's feet and praise him in song as he walks past.

A Paladin can rule intelligently and well while still being dedicated to good and honor. Bear in mind also that his hefty Charisma score will help to facilitate people going along with the paladin's plans.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-18, 03:36 PM
His hefty Charisma score will make people like him, but conclude he's an idealistic idiot and generally go behind his back on things (see: Tsar Alexander I, King Edward IV, King Louis IX, etc.) Leaders who stand unwaveringly on their principals tend to fail spectacularly (Charles I and James II refused to back down on their religious principals to a hysterically anti-Catholic population, and one got beheaded and the other was taken aside and told he couldn't be king anymore).

A King with absolute power doesn't exist in a realistically Medieval World. He has to appease his Barons, or he has virtually no army. Manumitting all his Barons' serfs isn't going to do that; he'll be lucky if they don't rebel, let alone help him if he needs to go invade the Lich Kingdom. Genuinely good and selfless people are rare (I'm aware that's a more controversial statement), and a King has to work with a huge amount of people. Some of whom will be greedy berks, some of whom will have their own pet causes, some of whom will have longstanding grudges with the family of a different territory. It's more than a single man can deal with, unless he doesn't care about ripping his country apart.

It's great if the Peasants love the King (most will simply because they won't make any connection between His Remote Majesty and their jerk landlord), but it doesn't actually help that much. Peasants aren't the one with the power. That's the Barons, the Plutocrats, the High Clergy, and if the King doesn't have them on his side, he's sunk. You can't tell every skilled, wealthy individual in your nation to go piss off and then try to build a new society out of the dirt farmers. Most of them won't even know the shape of their country, let alone have the skills to manage one. And in a world where Agriculture is a matter of life and death, it's a really bad idea to take those guys off the farm anyway.

GoatToucher
2009-07-18, 04:05 PM
In the game world, we have tangible evils that seek to prey on good people in their societies, be they monsters, humanoids, or actual beasts from hell. A lord that can defend them from such things will not only be popular, but practical.

Further, you have religion as a demonstratively existent thing. Many of the people will be faithful, and having a ruler who is one of the elite chosen of their god is going to garner a great deal of popular support and excuse any perceived wrongdoing. Remember, this is not a real world king with the mandate of holy mother church. This is a man who the people will have personally seen healing the sick by magic, and riding off on his celestial flying horse to do battle with demons.

In short, you cannot measure these men with the same yardstick by which you measure earthly rulers. Not out of some cop out "Its FANTASY!, so get over it!" or any such, but because the realities of everyday existence in a D&D world are sufficiently different from ours (or those of our medieval past) that you cannot make reasonable comparisons for political structures and the vagaries of leadership.

Additionally, Charisma does not just make you likable: it can make people believe in you. The paladin might inspire those around him to see him, not as another naive idealist, but as a true believer who might actually have the wit and wherewithal to see his ideas through. It is the strength of your personality, not just looks and charm. For a Paladin, and especially for one in a leadership role, it is not a dump stat.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-18, 04:33 PM
The thing is, you're conjoining "practical problem-solving," with "practical politics," when in fact those two are often at odds. A Paladin cannot even associate with Evil-Aligned creatures (I actually waive this in my games, but if you want to argue from the book...). What does he do if one of his Barons is LE? Fire him? What if the guy's only crime is being way too nasty to his (legal) enemies, beating his wife, etc.... can the Paladin just say "I don't want you in my government, get lost" without all his other Barons getting very nervous? No he can't. A court where you can't expect to keep your job unless the King personally approves of your ethics isn't going to last. Lords will just go swear themselves to some more flexible Monarch, or strike out for themselves and start exacting "tolls" from travelers to make their ends meet.

Now Paladins and Clerics really do have gods backing them up in straightforward D&D. Which is great, but not a unique advantage. There are tons of gods in D&D settings, and not all of them care about a leader's morality; not all of them even support civilized society.

For example, if you have a Heironeus or Pelor-worshipping Paladin running a kingdom, and the Temple of Hextor moves in and starts proselytizing, can he just throw them out? Does flatly curtailing peoples' freedom of religion infringe on the "respect" part of "respect for life?" If he tells them to get lost, he may have just gotten his kingdom into a Holy War, without his Barons' consultation or permission, which means they won't exactly be rushing out with their knights to his banner. Yes, he has magic, and promises of a sweet afterlife, but so do the Hextor guys, and neither they nor their evil god are above lying like rugs. The Paladin can't just be like "guys, look, I've got Knowledge [Religion] as a class-skill and I can make my sword glow, trust me when I say these guys are NO GOOD."

Basically the problem with a Paladin-King is, you're asking Batman to become the Mayor of Gotham City. What he's actually good at (tracking down and beating up criminals) becomes useless, and he has to adapt to a whole bunch of demands he never had (city council meetings where he has to hear dozens of useless and petty complaints.... what does Batman know about environmentalists vs local business concerns? How long can he tolerate giving due process of law to guys like The Joker?) Even in a high-fantasy setting, although that's not what I was originally talking about, I think a Paladin King or Governor just doesn't work when you look at it realistically.

And if the Paladin is always out of the kingdom fighting Dragons or Liches, then you don't really have a Paladin King, do you? You have Richard I without the war-crimes. He would "rule" his kingdom the same way Superman rules Metropolis.

Amiria
2009-07-18, 05:33 PM
In the Forgotten Realms Setting, Piergeiron the Paladinson (a Paladin of Tyr) was Open Lord of Waterdeep and leader of the Lord's Alliance for a long time. He had to cope with the views and actions of his co-lords and other important people of power and apparently didn't fall.

It might not be realistical, but hey, it is high fantasy. My opinion was always to be rather lenient about the Paladin's Code and luckily my main GM thought the same. My first Pen and Paper (and AD&D) character was a Paladin and he never fell, although he did come close through some chaotic acts (peer pressure from his chaotic good/neutral adventuring associates :smallsmile:).

GoatToucher
2009-07-18, 05:38 PM
The Paladin Lord instructs his LE Baron to mend his ways or get out. Whether or not the Baron will rally his peers and vassals against the Paladin, or if the Paladin rallys his subordinates to him is the stuff from which roleplay springs.

[edit: Ideally the paladin finds out the Baron is shady via ill deeds the baron has done, not some lordly line up and detect evil hootenany.]

The people (commonrs, middle class, and nobles) will likely share a religion. Ideally, this would be lawful good, what with the benevolent rule of law being a not bad system to live under, but lets assume that it is at least a partially good culture (a paladin trying to rule and convert a neutral or evil culture will be a little doomed). In sharing this culture, they would be positively disposed toward the paladin, as he worships their god or one of his allies.

Ruling those of neutral or evil religions? Again, here comes the roleplay. Agents of evil gods seeking to undermine his rule? Roleplay. -Not- sure fire reasons why the paladin cannot succeed. Challenges for him to meet or fail.

As for the Batman reference 1) Green Arrow was mayor of Star City. 2) Batman would handle the intricacies of civic politics in much the way a career politician would: he would hire experts and delegate authority. He would garner and use influence to reward those friendly to him and apply negative pressure to those that don't toe the line.

Would his hired experts and subordinate officials be effective? Might they be corrupt? Guess what? Roleplay.

None of this, by the way, works contrary to either the lawful good ethos or the Paladin's code.

In short, a paladin's success, or failure, is by no means a foregone conclusion.

Yora
2009-07-18, 05:48 PM
Can paladins loot, shoot people in the back? what can they do? what cant they do?

Paladins can do a lot of rally nasty things, depending of their orders codex and what the paladin in question makes of it. The lawful good part is the least of a problem.
For a long time, I really hated paladins. I never had anyone in any of my groups play a paladin, but those I've been familiar with were Ajantis, Keldorn and Anomen from Baldur's Gate. And I'm really missing anything good in any of them, some of them even bordering to evil in my eyes. Then I played Neverwinter Nights, where you have Aribeth, who became a blackguard for a reason. But was completely whiny about that. And then, you had lots of stories of paladins played by jerks.
The first time I ever saw a really cool paladin portrayed was Cassavir from NWN2. He was kicked out of the guard for disobeying orders he didn't like and joined a group of rangers who faught an orc army by ambushing and sniping them from a safe distance. And he isn't even portrayed as someone who is stuggling with the restrictions of his calling or about to fall from his status. He just does things because it's the right thing to do, and doesn't support people who don't want to see that. I think he was the best thing in the otherwise horrible game. :smallbiggrin:

If a paladin stays true to his heart and does not let his emotions overcome his good judgement, I think he's on the safe side with almost everyrhing he does.

Zen Master
2009-07-18, 07:02 PM
Miko had an emphasis on Law. Hinjo had an emphasis on Good. One of them got torn in half after falling, the other is doing fairly well for himself. Let us reflect upon this.

Well that proves exactly nothing. There is no reason except opinion to consider the good/evil axis as dominant and the order/chaos to be a secondary guideline. It could just as well be the other way around.

This applies to not only paladins, of course.

chiasaur11
2009-07-18, 07:13 PM
Well that proves exactly nothing. There is no reason except opinion to consider the good/evil axis as dominant and the order/chaos to be a secondary guideline. It could just as well be the other way around.

This applies to not only paladins, of course.

Of course.

Because Felix vs. Oscar is the crucial issue of the age.

Callista
2009-07-18, 07:15 PM
L/C is equal to G/E in overall impact, mechanically and in-world; but for the most part, it's G/E that leads to the most conflict. G/E axis is the axis that focuses on other people, either to dominate/destroy, aid, or just live peacefully alongside. Good can't sit quiet with Evil around because they're at complete cross-purposes; whereas, with a bit of diplomacy and a common purpose, L and C can work fine together.

GoatToucher
2009-07-18, 07:30 PM
Well that proves exactly nothing. There is no reason except opinion to consider the good/evil axis as dominant and the order/chaos to be a secondary guideline. It could just as well be the other way around.

This applies to not only paladins, of course.

Paladins are not allowed to associate with evil people. The same is not true of chaotic people.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-18, 07:32 PM
~~~

The problem with that view is that Good people are not always powerful enough to stop Evil, or smart enough to know how to properly stop it or what to do even if you could purge all the wicked people from society. We in the real world know that there are criminals, and people in authority who are morally or legally corrupt, and I don't think we're automatically Neutral just because we're not out hunting for them.

Even if you're a high-level character, what do you do with the slick Lawful Evil lawyer who knowingly defends the guilty, and doesn't care as long as he gets his paycheck? He's not breaking the law, he's not directly harming anyone, but he does what he does knowingly, even smugly. You can't just drag him out of his house and beat him up, or intimidate him, whether you're a Paladin or not. You can try and beat him in the courtroom, but if you're not a lawyer yourself you're kind of out of luck.

Moreover, if you're a high-level character, you're kind of a doofus for spending that much time on the evil lawyer, because there's Lich Kings and roaming Dragons that demand your attention presumably.

One person, or a small adventuring party, can't rid society of evil. It's a doomed (if noble) venture if they try, and at worst it would be like Superman taking a year out to patiently explain the dangers of drug use to teens while Aliens conquer the globe.

EDIT: On second thought, I'm probably not saying anything that isn't obvious. But I took your post to mean Good characters should never tolerate any Evil-Aligned persons in any capacity whatever. If you didn't mean so, then nevermind. >>

Kris Strife
2009-07-18, 07:43 PM
He would "rule" his kingdom the same way Superman rules Metropolis.

By disguising his true identity by removing his glasses and being a total **** to everyone?

chiasaur11
2009-07-18, 07:46 PM
By disguising his true identity by removing his glasses and being a total **** to everyone?

Okay. That's it.

If I ever play a Paladin, he will have a set of glasses, and frequently say "This looks like a job for...(dramatic pause!) Bicycle REPAIRMAN! "

Ravens_cry
2009-07-18, 07:50 PM
Okay. That's it.

If I ever play a Paladin, he will have a set of glasses, and frequently say "This looks like a job for...(dramatic pause!) Bicycle REPAIRMAN! "
BICYCLE REPAIRMAN! But. . . HOW?!

Kris Strife
2009-07-18, 07:56 PM
We need to have a party made entirely of off beat paladin character concepts...

EleventhHour
2009-07-18, 08:30 PM
^- Yes, yes, yes!


Of course.

Because Felix vs. Oscar and Gotrek is the crucial issue of the age.

Sorry. Saw the name Felix, and recently finished reading 5 out of the... 10 books? Plus, Felix Jaeger is a Paladin's nightmare, wrecking the place, doing minor evils and causing general chaos, all to save the day. (Just so his angry short buddy can destroy another daemon, dragon and giant. Or twelve.)

(CG Felix + LN Gotrek = Mass Havok)

Callista
2009-07-18, 09:27 PM
The problem with that view is that Good people are not always powerful enough to stop Evil, or smart enough to know how to properly stop it or what to do even if you could purge all the wicked people from society. We in the real world know that there are criminals, and people in authority who are morally or legally corrupt, and I don't think we're automatically Neutral just because we're not out hunting for them. ...

EDIT: On second thought, I'm probably not saying anything that isn't obvious. But I took your post to mean Good characters should never tolerate any Evil-Aligned persons in any capacity whatever. If you didn't mean so, then nevermind. >>I didn't. Actually, most Good would prefer to reform most Evil. What would you prefer, after all--reforming the criminal and having him contribute to society, or eventually having him commit such an awful crime that you have to execute him?

For the most part, Good is in it for protecting the innocent. If the evil drow are content to stay in their underground cities and kill each other off, most Good won't stick anything into that hornet's nest. But once they start attacking villages on the surface, or if it gets out they're planning to start, then watch out, because every paladin in a hundred miles is going to come running.

Unintelligent and unwise people exist. Some of them are Good aligned. There are unintelligent and unwise people on the evil side too. Sometimes a good character won't be wise enough to stop from doing something evil; but if he's firmly good he'll probably hate the fact he did it and try to atone (otherwise, you can do a corruption-to-evil storyline, which is interesting enough in its own right).

Lots of Evil people don't deserve death (in my games, anyways; Evil aligned people may simply be the sort who will take advantage of someone who doesn't deserve it... that comes in all flavors, and not all of those deserving of death; ex., your average slave-owner, your average wife-beating drunk, etc.).

Really, in the D&D world as in ours, there's really more of a balance and a constant fight between G/E... each side fights because if they stop fighting, the other side wins; and because both sides keep fighting, nobody can ever win. The strategy of Good is just to do enough so most decent people can get on with living their lives; for the most part, it's successful... sometimes, not.

T.G. Oskar
2009-07-18, 09:41 PM
Thank goodness for the derailment steam valve. This was getting hot.

I find something strange in playing a Paladin in a cynical setting as an outsider. What would be his reactions if his or her deity, or if a force of Good (or even a force of Law) told him to re-enter that setting? To do something in that cynical world from which he or she was pryed from?

An ascetic from the modern world would go and say "screw that, I'm happy here without having to face any demons". Which seems a bit off for roleplaying, since the whole idea of the game is to play a hero (not to play a commoner, unless you wanna be a heroic commoner)

As mentioned earlier, a Paladin can be a lowly baron, or even a King of his own land (and was quite well expected to do so in earlier editions, mind you) Perhaps, the point is to see how a Lawful Good senator or diplomat or judge would work (however oxymoronic that may sound)

A Lawful Good senator will seek any possible way within the system to change or alter the laws to the good of the people (not to his own good, that's what a Lawful Evil guy would do) A LG legislator would believe in the system, and how it works. And, even then, a Lawful Evil judge would misinterpret the law proposed by the LG legislator and the LN senate and use it for his or her own means.

But, republics aren't something you're dealing with. D&D deals with feudalism, and that is an entirely different set of rules. Which means, it's an entirely different way to perceive the law. An LG king full of LE vassals would be odd (unless they actually began as LN, or they are effective in hiding their alignment), but still workable. If it's a Paladin, then it would be a bit different, but it would still be full of reprimands, and the Paladin would be forced to gauge the support of his vassals. If only one of the barons is LE, then he can even strip him of his title and take his land (after a few reprimands), but a Paladin-Lord that doesn't have the support of his own vassals is asking to be beheaded. Which is why it's foolish to think that a Paladin-Lord would be foolish enough to reach upon said predicament.

If it were close to our medieval world, you'd (a general you, just in case, not a particular you) realize that most of the time, the Church (however corrupt it may be) had great power. At the time D&D is roughly meant to happen, a word from the Holy See of the most important Church is almost law to the kings, since they feared to be excommunicated and thus prey for the other lords to conquer. However, the real-world Church was quite corrupt, and there were chances that a less than good Pope held power.

Now, adapted to D&D conceptions, and considering that the Good churches are the most important ones usually, that means that the word of the almost always Good High Priest is law to most of the lords, which have to be quiet or else they face themselves out of support and probably prey of the other lords, who may want the excommunicated lord's lands and titles. Barring the intervention of outsiders, extraplanar beings and a cabal of wizards, a lord wouldn't be willing to openly act with cruelty so as to be quite singled out.

Also, I'd advise care with preconceptions. It is wise to assume that there will be someone more guileful and wary than oneself, but to assume everyone will be the same is kinda ridiculous. What's to assume that the Lawful Evil lawyer who always uses his or her wits and guile to win cases for the corrupt won't face someone with the unlikely ability of Harvey Birdman or Nick "Phoenix" Wright? Or that the LE defendant lawyer won't face someone with the brutally focused yet at times misguided ability of Miles Edgeworth? So to speak, that the LE lawyer won't ever find a LN or LG person with equal capabilities, or even capabilities that exactly counter their own? There's a big chance that the Paladin would not be exactly a lawyer, but he would have his own ways to determine the truth. I mean...for all I know, Paladins have Zone of Truth and Detect Lies as spells on their list, they have Sense Motive as a class skill, they depend on Wisdom so the SM skill can have a high modifier, and probably be one of the few to catch a lie on the air, barring Glibness. Nor does it mean the Paladin can be also guileful and wary.

And, there may be Evil Dragons and Lich-Kings and whatnot. The Paladin was there at the moment it found the evil lawyer, and it's probably stuck there for a while (perhaps the Wizard was found guilty?) Who knows, maybe that little bit of good may help to find the Evil Dragon to slay, or the Lich King to beat. Perhaps the lawyer IS an Evil Dragon or a Lich King in disguise, because someone so well trained to beat a high-level Paladin in trivial things such as Sense Motive and limited forms of magic must be of a pretty high level as well. A Paladin who underestimates the low-life mooks because they aren't of his level is underestimating him or herself. And that doesn't mean that whatever the Pally did to help will not be useful in case he has to leave to defeat the evil forces of higher level around.

But then again, I might just be speaking too much. It's not easy to try and see at a glance, and then understand quite well, big blocks of text.


Of course.

Because Felix vs. Oscar is the crucial issue of the age.

Wait, since when two boxers are a crucial issue? Two retired boxers, that is. Their "century battle" ended some time ago...

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-18, 10:10 PM
Thank goodness for the derailment steam valve. This was getting hot.

I find something strange in playing a Paladin in a cynical setting as an outsider. What would be his reactions if his or her deity, or if a force of Good (or even a force of Law) told him to re-enter that setting? To do something in that cynical world from which he or she was pryed from?

An ascetic from the modern world would go and say "screw that, I'm happy here without having to face any demons". Which seems a bit off for roleplaying, since the whole idea of the game is to play a hero (not to play a commoner, unless you wanna be a heroic commoner)

But the Paladin would, because it's the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if the Paladin is outright despised (and I wasn't being that extreme) by society; by dint of what he is a Paladin will think it's worth saving and defending.


As mentioned earlier, a Paladin can be a lowly baron, or even a King of his own land (and was quite well expected to do so in earlier editions, mind you) Perhaps, the point is to see how a Lawful Good senator or diplomat or judge would work (however oxymoronic that may sound).

Well, yeah, it's not wrong to have a Paladin Senator/Baron/King if that's what you want in your game. I'm aware that in older editions PCs were pretty much expected to build strongholds and such. I don't think it's very realistic, though.


A Lawful Good senator will seek any possible way within the system to change or alter the laws to the good of the people (not to his own good, that's what a Lawful Evil guy would do) A LG legislator would believe in the system, and how it works. And, even then, a Lawful Evil judge would misinterpret the law proposed by the LG legislator and the LN senate and use it for his or her own means.

And if the Legislator is a Paladin, by dint of what he is, he has to somehow stop that Judge, or any Judge who abuses the law.


But, republics aren't something you're dealing with. D&D deals with feudalism, and that is an entirely different set of rules. Which means, it's an entirely different way to perceive the law. An LG king full of LE vassals would be odd (unless they actually began as LN, or they are effective in hiding their alignment), but still workable. If it's a Paladin, then it would be a bit different, but it would still be full of reprimands, and the Paladin would be forced to gauge the support of his vassals. If only one of the barons is LE, then he can even strip him of his title and take his land (after a few reprimands), but a Paladin-Lord that doesn't have the support of his own vassals is asking to be beheaded. Which is why it's foolish to think that a Paladin-Lord would be foolish enough to reach upon said predicament.

But if that Paladin has to concede that, in his office as King, he can't stop the petty tyranny of his barons, then why is he even on the throne? In that case, couldn't he do more good by breaking the law? Because there's no question to me that if a Paladin can't stop a major villain legally, he'll do it illegally, even if it's not to his liking.

That's why I see Paladins as lone individuals, not lording over courts and handling high politics. They're not designed to do good in that way, and trying it is wasting their talents (which largely consist of riding a horse and smiting stuff).


If it were close to our medieval world, you'd (a general you, just in case, not a particular you) realize that most of the time, the Church (however corrupt it may be) had great power. At the time D&D is roughly meant to happen, a word from the Holy See of the most important Church is almost law to the kings, since they feared to be excommunicated and thus prey for the other lords to conquer. However, the real-world Church was quite corrupt, and there were chances that a less than good Pope held power.

Now, adapted to D&D conceptions, and considering that the Good churches are the most important ones usually, that means that the word of the almost always Good High Priest is law to most of the lords, which have to be quiet or else they face themselves out of support and probably prey of the other lords, who may want the excommunicated lord's lands and titles. Barring the intervention of outsiders, extraplanar beings and a cabal of wizards, a lord wouldn't be willing to openly act with cruelty so as to be quite singled out.

Why would it be so? If I want a cynical, "gritty," "GRIMDARK," whatever-you-want-to-call-it setting, and also active gods, there's actually nothing impossible about this: Hextor, for example, promotes a well-ordered society, selflessness (as in devotion to the state), industriousness and other virtues, even though they're tainted by the belief in tyranny and subjection. Why would a God like that be less popular than Pelor, who makes much more stringent moral demands? (Because Pelor's servants get rewarded with an eternity in the Elysian Fields, and Hextor leaves his followers to suffer in the Nine Hells, you'd say, but how would people in the material world know that if both gods have active servants, capable of wielding magic and summoning outsiders, and each are calling the other a liar?)


Also, I'd advise care with preconceptions. It is wise to assume that there will be someone more guileful and wary than oneself, but to assume everyone will be the same is kinda ridiculous. What's to assume that the Lawful Evil lawyer who always uses his or her wits and guile to win cases for the corrupt won't face someone with the unlikely ability of Harvey Birdman or Nick "Phoenix" Wright? Or that the LE defendant lawyer won't face someone with the brutally focused yet at times misguided ability of Miles Edgeworth? So to speak, that the LE lawyer won't ever find a LN or LG person with equal capabilities, or even capabilities that exactly counter their own? There's a big chance that the Paladin would not be exactly a lawyer, but he would have his own ways to determine the truth. I mean...for all I know, Paladins have Zone of Truth and Detect Lies as spells on their list, they have Sense Motive as a class skill, they depend on Wisdom so the SM skill can have a high modifier, and probably be one of the few to catch a lie on the air, barring Glibness. Nor does it mean the Paladin can be also guileful and wary.

That's a good point. Ultimately society wouldn't exist if there weren't cops clever enough to catch criminals, good politicians able to out-argue bad ones, good soldiers willing to report on abusive ones, etc. The thing is, these aren't very exciting stories (with the cop example as an exception, maybe). The kind of routine, everyday evil I'm talking about is generally not defeated in a flashy or entertaining way, in the milieu of a D&D game at least. You could try running Law & Order: Medieval Victims Unit as a campaign, I guess, but it'd be a stretch from the kind of stories D&D is designed to tell (which usually involve fantastic villains like Dragons, evil Wizards, Demon Warlords, etc.)


And, there may be Evil Dragons and Lich-Kings and whatnot. The Paladin was there at the moment it found the evil lawyer, and it's probably stuck there for a while (perhaps the Wizard was found guilty?) Who knows, maybe that little bit of good may help to find the Evil Dragon to slay, or the Lich King to beat. Perhaps the lawyer IS an Evil Dragon or a Lich King in disguise, because someone so well trained to beat a high-level Paladin in trivial things such as Sense Motive and limited forms of magic must be of a pretty high level as well. A Paladin who underestimates the low-life mooks because they aren't of his level is underestimating him or herself. And that doesn't mean that whatever the Pally did to help will not be useful in case he has to leave to defeat the evil forces of higher level around.

I'm not totally sure I got your meaning. As an aside, in my games NPC classes like Expert and Aristocrat can advance in level without advancing in HD, BaB, Fort or Ref saves. So that Lawyer could be a 10th level Expert with a steel-trap mind and the tongue of Daniel Webster, and still never have drawn a sword in his life. But anyway, if the DM is doing his job then the Paladin should have his hands full with monsters and wizards anyway, in which case he's Richard I without the war-crimes and not actually running his kingdom (and that kind of arrangement never ends well when the King dies, anyway).

Zen Master
2009-07-19, 03:23 AM
L/C is equal to G/E in overall impact, mechanically and in-world; but for the most part, it's G/E that leads to the most conflict. G/E axis is the axis that focuses on other people, either to dominate/destroy, aid, or just live peacefully alongside. Good can't sit quiet with Evil around because they're at complete cross-purposes; whereas, with a bit of diplomacy and a common purpose, L and C can work fine together.

Is that so? Because everything in me tells me a LE and a LG nation can live side by side in perfect harmony for decades on end - simply because they have the facility to write up a framework of treaties and stick to them.

Where as chaotic nations will sign the papers (with a large X), then go right back to plundering, borderraids and overall plotting for world conquest.

And that goes even for CG nations. When the chips are down and there is no food on the table, you eventually have to consider the option of taking the food of someone else who has plenty to spare but isn't sharing.

Also, I really don't see good and evil as cross-purposes. Both are trying to build the best possible society for themselves - just with a different baseline definition of good.

Of course that's an entirely different discussion: What does evil want? Then we're moving into evil=stupid or not. But I think I've already done enough to derail this thread :)

hamishspence
2009-07-19, 03:40 AM
If you go by Fiendish Codex 2, LE nations have a strong focus on conquest.

CE ones, such as orcs, also have a strong focus on conquest

Good ones are much less likely to feel the "need to conquer others"

While BoVD says "probably not" to the question "Is it evil to invade when not doing so will lead to the destruction of your population",

it does say that, even if a good nation can sometimes choose to declare war on another good nation, fighting in that war is not a good act.

As well as "any child can tell you that stealing is wrong".

On cosmic "Law vs Chaos" being more important than "Good vs Evil" problem with that, in D&D, is there is little evidence. There is strong evidence that Good, at least, is willing to team up (all the Celestial planes are on fairly good terms, despite some being Lawful and some Chaotic).

There is, for all 3 (Good, Evil, Neutrality) a Book, a Talisman, and Regalia. (DMG, Underdark, Arms and Equipment Guide) There is nothing for Law and Chaos in the same way.

Yora
2009-07-19, 03:42 AM
Well Lawful Good and Chaotic Good nations should also be able to respect the other sides quirks.
It's alignment, it doesn't say anything at all, regarding how anyone will act.

hamishspence
2009-07-19, 03:45 AM
Going by Champions of Valor, they do. One of the virtues of CG is tolerance. And while LG groups can sometimes be less tolerant, this rarely reaches the level of outright enmity.

Yora
2009-07-19, 03:57 AM
Often and more likely. But you can't say anyone would or would not do something because of alignment. A lawful good nation could very well make war on a lawful evil one. Or a chaotic good one. There could be countless reasons why they would do and still be perfectly good examples of the archetypes of their alignment.

hamishspence
2009-07-19, 04:09 AM
True up to a point. But a war against people who are definitely "not deserving" of being warred upon, can start shifting the alignment of some of the people involved.

Yora
2009-07-19, 04:12 AM
Also true.
And another thing that makes alignment a system that can actually be used for very exiting plots. :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2009-07-19, 04:21 AM
If you go by the DMG, alignment follows on from actions. Sure, a LG guy can do anything they want. But, if their actions are sufficiently evil, their alignment will start to change.

There is some evidence that "the greatest good of the greatest number" is a factor in Good aligned behaviour, (PHB2 Paladin, Moral Philosopher) but it has the caveat "apart from moral absolutes" in its comment about an ethical code being based on greatest good of greatest number.

woodenbandman
2009-07-19, 12:35 PM
I have to ask: What is this idea of honor in fighting all about? I just thought about it, and it sounds incredibly daft to me that you would expect a guy who you have agreed (implicitly) to fight to the death to not, you know... kill you. If a guy with a sword charges you, and you shoot him with your bow from 100 feet away, is that dishonorable? If you surround the enemy army, cutting off their escape, and attack them from all sides, is that dishonorable? If you're sneaking into the enemy camp, and you gank the guard to avoid having a huge drawn-out firefight, is that dishonorable?

I don't think that anything about fighting can really be considered "honorable." If anything, the "honor" that the paladin brings with him comes from his steadfast opposition to (most) killing, and he fights only when he fails to appeal to the other person that they shouldn't be fighting.

Lord_Gareth
2009-07-19, 01:41 PM
I have to ask: What is this idea of honor in fighting all about? I just thought about it, and it sounds incredibly daft to me that you would expect a guy who you have agreed (implicitly) to fight to the death to not, you know... kill you. If a guy with a sword charges you, and you shoot him with your bow from 100 feet away, is that dishonorable? If you surround the enemy army, cutting off their escape, and attack them from all sides, is that dishonorable? If you're sneaking into the enemy camp, and you gank the guard to avoid having a huge drawn-out firefight, is that dishonorable?

I don't think that anything about fighting can really be considered "honorable." If anything, the "honor" that the paladin brings with him comes from his steadfast opposition to (most) killing, and he fights only when he fails to appeal to the other person that they shouldn't be fighting.

This. Nowhere in the paladin's code does it say that they must fight "honorably". That's the Knight, folks - you'll find him in the PHB II. Personally, once my paladins have exhausted all non-violent options available to them, they kill as swiftly and efficiently as they possibly can, up to and including using "dirty" fighting tricks, poisoned weapons (most of my DMs don't hold with the BoED stance that poison is evil, and I agree), and trickery.

Zen Master
2009-07-19, 01:44 PM
By the logic of 'good nations are unlikely to invade for the purpose of conquest' all nations on earth were evil 100 years ago.

Also, in the real world there has never been a conflict between good and evil. Not even WW2. True, the nazis were rather more wicked than the average european regime - but it was politics that united the world against them, not the fight against evil.

Of course fantasy worlds have the option of real, classical conflict between the good and the evil. But to me, that's just dumbing down the real reasons people fight. We are way more complex than that.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-19, 01:52 PM
By the logic of 'good nations are unlikely to invade for the purpose of conquest' all nations on earth were evil 100 years ago.
You speak as if that is incorrect.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-07-19, 03:50 PM
What exactly is the debate discussing at the moment?

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-19, 05:07 PM
You speak as if that is incorrect.

Pretty much every IRL society is self-serving at best, downright dangerous to its neighbors at worst. I don't think having deities running around the place and quantifiable evil would change that---if anything it would just get even more muddled once you throw magic into the mix.


I have to ask: What is this idea of honor in fighting all about?

Making war less horrible, lethal and shorter in duration is usually the aim.


I just thought about it, and it sounds incredibly daft to me that you would expect a guy who you have agreed (implicitly) to fight to the death to not, you know... kill you.

In the "age of chivalry," and on ancient battlefields too, there were tangible benefits towards taking a prominent enemy alive. Ransoming was as normal a part of warfare in the Middle Ages as the act of fighting itself. Now admittedly, if you are some Welsh conscript with a yew bow mucking around in France you're irrelevant and not worth keeping alive.

Among the knights (and the occasional warrior-bishop), however, it was standard practice to spare an opponent of equal social standing if he asked for quarter and honorably submitted to your custody. You could get some shiny lucre out of his family, but moreover you were maintaining a code that could benefit you if you ever wound up on the losing end of a skirmish.

Moreover, nationalism as we think of it didn't exist, or was still in an embryonic stage, during the middle ages. Knights in England had more in common, lingually and culturally, with their peers in France than they did with English commoners. The European Aristocracy was kind of a nation apart, just like the institution of the Church existing within and without every realm. In that sense, they were kind of looking out for each other. Moreover, the loyalty and alliances of feudal lords would shift constantly. Today's enemy might very well be tomorrow's ally, especially in the chaotic Late Middle Ages. Thus it was generally a very good idea to uphold courtesy towards one's enemies, although not all knights did.


If a guy with a sword charges you, and you shoot him with your bow from 100 feet away, is that dishonorable?

Under the rules of chivalry, yeah. But that was more of a status thing. Wielding a bow would mean you were either hunting or a dirty commoner. Plus you can't collect fat ransoms on people if you shoot them.


If you surround the enemy army, cutting off their escape, and attack them from all sides, is that dishonorable? If you're sneaking into the enemy camp, and you gank the guard to avoid having a huge drawn-out firefight, is that dishonorable?

Actually, no. The chivalrous thing to do would be to surround your opponent, and then offer them terms of surrender. It's a system designed to spare life, so if you can put your enemy in a hopeless position and induce them to surrender, great. (Also, more ransoms).


I don't think that anything about fighting can really be considered "honorable." If anything, the "honor" that the paladin brings with him comes from his steadfast opposition to (most) killing, and he fights only when he fails to appeal to the other person that they shouldn't be fighting.

There was never a hard and fast definition of chivalry, AFAIK, although many Medieval writers tried to draw one up. Still, what you seem to be considering chivalry sounds more like Homeric Machismo to me. A good example of a Chivalrous knight is Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince (okay, I'm not saying he was a good person, but he played by the rules of war generally.) When once confronted by a garrisoned French tower, he had sappers dig their way directly beneath the tower, and hollow out a cave supported by one mere beam. The Prince then directed the Captain of the garrison to follow him underground, and showed him that his defenses had been literally undermined. The garrison surrendered. It was the act of offering mercy once he had them beaten that made this action chivalrous, not pounding his chest and demanding they come out and fight him one on one.