PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] This Paladin's alignment



Frosty
2010-08-27, 05:13 PM
I'd like input as to what alignment this character would be, and whether or not she should Fall from paladinhood.

Mirri is our paladin in this scenario. She's low level, and married to another paladin. They have a young child about a year old. Mirri either ate something bad and got egg salmonella or maybe she got a really debillitating disease. Whichever the case is not really important, just the fact that she was incapacitated.

While Mirri was resting at home, someone broke into her home and attacked her spouse and child. The attacker is an evildoer (actually pings evil on the radar. Mirri herself has personally paladin head-bobbed this person in the recent past) whose nefarious and evil plans were foiled by Mirri recently. Likely here for revenge, the attacker succeeds in killing Mirri's spouse and then even took a bit of time gloating and carving the child's body open, killing rhe child painfully.

It is at this time that other paladins from the order that Mirri is a part of burst in just in time to prevent the attacker from killing Mirri. Unfortunately, the attacker escaped. After the incident, Mirri is understandable distraught, angry, and emotional. After a few days (mostly spent crying or in denial or nursing her growing feelings of hate) Mirri recovers physically from the ailment. She tries to organize a task-force to go after the murderer, but her fellow paladins reply that the resources of the order are currently being sent against bigger and more dangerous threats (this is definitely true. The order is currently spread very thin for many different tasks), so the murderer will have to wait. They also counsel her against the notion of revenge and advise her to spend more time recuperating both mentally and physically.

Mirri would have none of that, unable to find forgiveness with the fresh image of her spouse and child murdered before her eyes. She sets out after the murderer by herself. After tracking the murderer down and cornering the murderer, she offers the murderer a perfuntory offer to stand down (long version short, it was basically a "surrender or DIE" offer made in an angry manner) and the murderer launches into an attack instead of answering her. They fight, and during this brutal and close fight, Mirri lands a lucky Power Attack critical with her lance, bringing the murderer from well-in-positive territory to -10 hp. The murderer is now dead.

At this point, Mirri has thoughts of leaving the paladin order herself, feeling that they didn't have her back (this feeling may or may not be justified) when she needed it, and also feeling that the order maybe has just a bit too much red tape and inefficiencies. She does remember how much good the order has done of course, but she just can't help but feel hurt at this perceived betrayal/refusal to help, and she's thinking about setting out on her own from now on to do good in her own way.

So, given all of this, what should Mirri's alignment be?

AtopTheMountain
2010-08-27, 05:17 PM
Does she still live an orderly life and follow her code? If so, I'd say she stays LG and doesn't fall.

One thing: Why was the murderer gloating while killing the child if Mirri was still asleep and her spouse was dead?

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 05:20 PM
She's understandably pissed off, but while she's not nessicarily on good terms with the Paladin Order, her values don't seem to have been compromised. I say she stays LG and doesn't fall. Freelance Paladin.

FirebirdFlying
2010-08-27, 05:22 PM
I agree; seems pretty LG to me. It was a chaotic act, but I wouldn't think it's enough to change alignment/fall. If she continues on this route, however, she might switch over to Paladin of Freedom/Sentinel.

Yukitsu
2010-08-27, 05:23 PM
Depends on what she does when she catches the guy. Ultimately, he's an individual whom the paladin order should deal with, no matter their resources, sooner or later.

Also, raise dead dude.

drengnikrafe
2010-08-27, 05:23 PM
Revenge is a very hard feeling to stay above. It is my impression that Mirri should retain her paladinhood, even if she leaves the order. If she lets bloodlust, revenge or anger continue to drive her, that will quickly lead down the wrong road (and possibly falling). However, so long as she maintains order in her heart, she should not fall.

I feel like this is similar to one of those situations in which a paladin must unseat a lawful evil ruler, or something like that, and wouldn't fall despite the fact he went outside of laws to deal with it.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 05:24 PM
Does she still live an orderly life and follow her code? If so, I'd say she stays LG and doesn't fall.

One thing: Why was the murderer gloating while killing the child if Mirri was still asleep and her spouse was dead?
She wasn't asleep. She was in bed resting, but unable to fight.

The code says you gotta follow law and good and all that, and she's currently entertaining thoughts of acting a bit less lawful than the paladin order espouses. But, I don't think mere thoughts can turn your alignment right? Or is alignment really defined by your outlook, since your outlook determines how you will act?

Yukitsu
2010-08-27, 05:25 PM
Knightly orders aren't the law for a paladin in most instances. She doesn't have to follow their orders, so long as she thinks she is doing what is ultimately good (and in the grander scheme of things, it is within the law to hunt murderers.)

Sinfonian
2010-08-27, 05:26 PM
I don't think it's a fall, and that she should probably stay LG, but might be a decent backstory for a turn toward Grey Guard.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 05:27 PM
Depends on what she does when she catches the guy. Ultimately, he's an individual whom the paladin order should deal with, no matter their resources, sooner or later.Umm she already caught the murderer. Technically offered surrender, and then killed the murderer.

Knightly orders aren't the law for a paladin in most instances. She doesn't have to follow their orders, so long as she thinks she is doing what is ultimately good (and in the grander scheme of things, it is within the law to hunt murderers.)Well in theory since she's a part of the paladin order she should try to follow their rules right? And the order's rules are pretty standard in their expectations. Basically, follow the PHB code.

And a LOT of people think they're doing good but are actually doing evil.

Yukitsu
2010-08-27, 05:32 PM
Umm she already caught the murderer. Technically offered surrender, and then killed the murderer.

Weee for no coffee. No, that offer was a good one considering everything, he knew the consequinces and had made his choice under no compulsion. She had every right to kill him at that point.


Well in theory since she's a part of the paladin order she should try to follow their rules right? And the order's rules are pretty standard in their expectations. Basically, follow the PHB code.

And a LOT of people think they're doing good but are actually doing evil.

Only if the order has some archaic law that says you can't leave it, but ultimately a paladin answers to Celestia and their laws, not to a knight order's commands. A free roaming paladin is just as lawful as one stuck in an order, so long as he holds to Celestia's laws.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 05:33 PM
Well in theory since she's a part of the paladin order she should try to follow their rules right? And the order's rules are pretty standard in their expectations. Basically, follow the PHB code.

Yes, but you don't need to be a member of their super-secret boy band to have the same standards. From what your post said, the only thing she did was quit the Order ITSELF because she didn't think the other Paladins had her back anyway. She still has the same moral standards.


And a LOT of people think they're doing good but are actually doing evil

Well, if she does do evil while thinking she does good, she falls. But she isn't doing that, and is instead doing good while thinking she does good, she doesn't fall.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 05:36 PM
Weee for no coffee. No, that offer was a good one considering everything, he knew the consequinces and had made his choice under no compulsion. She had every right to kill him at that point.



Only if the order has some archaic law that says you can't leave it, but ultimately a paladin answers to Celestia and their laws, not to a knight order's commands. A free roaming paladin is just as lawful as one stuck in an order, so long as he holds to Celestia's laws.So basically it was Mirri remembering to give an offer of surrender that protected her then? If she had just walked in and attacked, then would it count as an Evil act or just an Unlawful act?

And you guys pretty much agree this is a "Anakin being angry, but not yet psychotic, so he's still a jedi" type of situation?

Yukitsu
2010-08-27, 05:42 PM
Anger channeled against that which is evil is generally considered righteous indignation. Jedi are a different case because they aren't supposed to be emotional, but paladins are. Evil should make a paladin angry, and sad and conflicted. Good should make them elated, proud, hopeful. I think a paladin doesn't always have to offer mercy, if someone is evil enough, and I don't think that taking another's life should be a cold and dispassionate action, so long as they realize what it is they are doing, and who they are doing it to at all times.

Quellian-dyrae
2010-08-27, 06:29 PM
So basically it was Mirri remembering to give an offer of surrender that protected her then? If she had just walked in and attacked, then would it count as an Evil act or just an Unlawful act?

And you guys pretty much agree this is a "Anakin being angry, but not yet psychotic, so he's still a jedi" type of situation?

I'd go even further than saying it "protected" her. This guy was a villain and murderer. Maybe in an ideal world he would have been brought to justice by the proper authorities, but in a D&D world where paladins are expected to go out and slay those who would harm others, Mirri was doing just what a paladin is expected to do. That she had a deep personal motivation for doing so doesn't change that.

The fact that she did offer surrender only means that she is so dedicated to the ideals of the LG alignment, that even against someone who had hurt her so grievously, she still upheld her code of honor. I'm sure there are plenty of LG heroes out there who couldn't necessarily say the same.

Now, a tragedy of this scale could very well be a motivation to change alignment in the future, but at this stage Mirri did exactly what a paladin should be expected to do: got justice for the slain and vanquished a villain, and she did so while upholding the paladin code even under great emotional duress.

Zaydos
2010-08-27, 06:36 PM
Unless there is some rule of the order against ever leaving it, then she's done nothing evil or even really chaotic.

Even if she hadn't offered surrender, assuming he'd just attack, she still probably wouldn't fall although she'd be treading the line pretty thinly. The fact that she offered surrender even in this case is a really strongly Lawful Good action.

Considering to leave the order because it is too concerned with the rules to do as much good as possible is, while not a lawful act, not a chaotic act. It is simply being Good before being Lawful. Paladins fall if they perform an Evil act, not if they perform a Chaotic one (although some specific Chaotic ones are against their code). She still respects legitimate authority, she's still LG, she's still a paladin.

Marnath
2010-08-27, 07:29 PM
I will jump on the bandwagon and say she did nothing wrong. He deserved to die after pulling a stunt like that, and the fact that she offered him surrender after all of that is a good thing in her favor. Also, note her order only turned her down because they were busy. Sounds to me like they'd have come along for the ride if they could, which gives it a lot higher chance of being right. After all, you wouldn't go along for someone else's mission if you knew they'd fall for it.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-27, 07:42 PM
Well, the big thing to look at is how her outlook is after all that. Is she some sort of apathetic wanderer without a goal? That time of hopelessness might drop her from it (overwhelming situations she'd normally participate on with apathy), but I see no indication of an alignment change.

She feels betrayed because the order didn't back her down...but that's hardly an issue. Did the Order forbid her from chasing the guy? If so, then she falls for not following an authority that was not evil and she was sworn to. If not, her leaving the order has little bearing on her paladinhood.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 07:51 PM
Well, her fellow paladins strongly advised against her taking any sort of rash actions because they didn't want her actions to be fueled at hatred. After the events, she's less optimistic and less trusting, and isn't exalted by any means, but basically will still try to do good on her own...or at least what she sees is good.

I just wanted to make sure that she's still solidly in LG at this point.

Marnath
2010-08-27, 07:53 PM
Well, her fellow paladins strongly advised against her taking any sort of rash actions because they didn't want her actions to be fueled at hatred. After the events, she's less optimistic and less trusting, and isn't exalted by any means, but basically will still try to do good on her own...or at least what she sees is good.

I just wanted to make sure that she's still solidly in LG at this point.

I'd say yeah, she is. If she was motivated by hatred she would hardly have given him a chance to stand down, eh? Just my two coppers.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 08:17 PM
I'd say yeah, she is. If she was motivated by hatred she would hardly have given him a chance to stand down, eh? Just my two coppers.
Well, she really, REALLY hoped that the murderer would resist arrest, but in the end she did give an offer of surrender. Boy was she tempted just to sneak in and kill.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 08:23 PM
Well, she really, REALLY hoped that the murderer would resist arrest, but in the end she did give an offer of surrender. Boy was she tempted just to sneak in and kill.

But she didn't, because her code of ethics required he be given the chance to surrender.

You seem to be trying REALLY hard to justify this causing her to fall. Personally, I just don't see that happening here. Paladin are not Jedi. Rage is entirely allowed, as long as it's used for good. Which it was, even if she enjoyed it a bit more than was entirely healthy.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 08:28 PM
But she didn't, because her code of ethics required he be given the chance to surrender.

You seem to be trying REALLY hard to justify this causing her to fall. Personally, I just don't see that happening here. Paladin are not Jedi. Rage is entirely allowed, as long as it's used for good. Which it was, even if she enjoyed it a bit more than was entirely healthy.
I'm not the DM. I'm trying to get a sense of the character for rp purposes. Might need to change the story a bit to make her a bit more morally ambivalent. Character is supposed be Good, but almost straddling into neutrality.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-27, 08:32 PM
Well, she'll definitely be embittered. A few things can happen:

She can grow overzealous over punishing baddies
She can grow apathetic against her Order, believing in a more vigilante way of doing things
She can become distant to any that come emotionally close.

Take the first two to varying degrees and find your fun spot.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 08:39 PM
I'm not the DM. I'm trying to get a sense of the character for rp purposes. Might need to change the story a bit to make her a bit more morally ambivalent. Character is supposed be Good, but almost straddling into neutrality.

You probably should have made that point clear earlier. Instead of simply asking "does this making my character morally ambivalent" and then coming up with progressively weaker justifications for her being such when we say off the bat "no, not at all," you should have asked "how can I make this character morally ambivalent," at which point we would've happily handed out suggestions.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 08:45 PM
You probably should have made that point clear earlier. Instead of simply asking "does this making my character morally ambivalent" and then coming up with progressively weaker justifications for her being such when we say off the bat "no, not at all," you should have asked "how can I make this character morally ambivalent," at which point we would've happily handed out suggestions.
I would've, if I had a clear understanding from the get-go that she wasn't ambivalent. Only long after posting and reading your answers have I come to understand that.

So, any suggestions?

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 08:50 PM
I would've, if I had a clear understanding from the get-go that she wasn't ambivalent. Only long after posting and reading your answers have I come to understand that.

So, any suggestions?

Roaring Rampage of Revenge (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RoaringRampageOfRevenge) is always fun. Make it so the murderer was a member of a large criminal organization, and instead of just going after him, she decided that to cut her way through every single piece of filth associated with him. Doing so is technically a Good act (taking down a criminal organization), but there's also the fact that she just killed dozens of people, most of whom weren't even nessicarily currently commiting crimes. (Even mobsters take the day off from time to time.)

Kylarra
2010-08-27, 08:52 PM
Unless you're going to clear your atonement with your DM ahead of time, might I strongly suggest actually being a Crusader or a warrior Cleric of some sort so your moral ambiguity doesn't lead to piddling around as a slightly better Warrior?

Frosty
2010-08-27, 08:57 PM
Unless you're going to clear your atonement with your DM ahead of time, might I strongly suggest actually being a Crusader or a warrior Cleric of some sort so your moral ambiguity doesn't lead to piddling around as a slightly better Warrior?
Unfortunately, Crusaders and Clerics are not allowed in this game. Heavily considering re-training out of all paladin levels anyways.

Roaring Rampage of Revenge seems intriguing. Will look into it.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-27, 09:32 PM
It should be noted that offering surrender is in no way required for a paladin. Now, if someone attempts to surrender by throwing down their weapon and offering to surrender, I would say that they are required to accept (with reasonable precautions for it being a trick) but there's no requirement that they actually offer a chance to surrender, especially if that offer might ruin their ability to take a potentially dangerous opponent by surprise.

I also think that a lot of people think paladins have to be like Jedi or something, always offering a second chance, avoiding killing whenever possible, and so on. But the idea of a paladin really isn't like that, at least not in all cases. They can be righteous divine vengeance going out and smiting the evil with holy wrath, as long as they don't allow that to endanger innocents.

Now if you're wanting to change character class or something that's another issue, but basically speaking, there's nothing about being a paladin that is incompatible with going out and taking down everyone who was involved in a crime like this, unless it gets into 'ends justify the means' territory.

WarKitty
2010-08-27, 10:17 PM
What's your current level anyway? It sounds like you'd make a great grey guard, possibly with some refluffing away of the "entrusted by the order" bit into "not part of the order but still sanctioned by her god."

Frosty
2010-08-27, 10:56 PM
Level 4. Not high enough to take Gray Guard yet.

Marnath
2010-08-27, 11:33 PM
*snip*


I agree, paladins aren't necessarily required to offer surrender to people like that. Which just makes it even more a mark in her favor, by my reasoning. Not only did she not give in to hate, she went above and beyond the call of duty to give him a chance.
As to making her more ambiguous? Easy. When she cornered him she wasn't content to just kill him. She made him suffer a bit first. Not too much, or she'd pitch straight into LN or LE, but enough to bring her to the edge between LG and LN.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 11:49 PM
I agree, paladins aren't necessarily required to offer surrender to people like that. Which just makes it even more a mark in her favor, by my reasoning. Not only did she not give in to hate, she went above and beyond the call of duty to give him a chance.
As to making her more ambiguous? Easy. When she cornered him she wasn't content to just kill him. She made him suffer a bit first. Not too much, or she'd pitch straight into LN or LE, but enough to bring her to the edge between LG and LN.
Cool. If she had done something like went after the murderer's family as well then that would've been alignment-switch worthy?

Lhurgyof
2010-08-27, 11:57 PM
Depends if this was an "evil act". No matter what, a paladin committing an "evil act" falls. No matter her intent, even if it was for the greater good.

I feel this is more a chaotic act, and less of an evil act. But if she continues, she should fall. (and likely begin level in blackguard, even though she's still a virtuous paladin in her own eyes).

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-28, 12:12 AM
Cool. If she had done something like went after the murderer's family as well then that would've been alignment-switch worthy?
If they're good, or even just innocent and uninvolved, then yeah. Perhaps not alignment switch worthy in every instance (such as being done in fury and regretting it later), since completely changing alignment is usually about more than a single action, but always fall-worthy.

Lhurgyof
2010-08-28, 12:18 AM
If they're good, or even just innocent and uninvolved, then yeah. Perhaps not alignment switch worthy in every instance (such as being done in fury and regretting it later), since completely changing alignment is usually about more than a single action, but always fall-worthy.

You fall if you commit an evil act, so even if she regrets it after, she will have fallen, unless that's what you're saying... In which case, I agree. xD

erikun
2010-08-28, 12:30 AM
Well, I see nothing that would conflict with a LG personality or with the Paladin's Code. She was not ordered to leave the murderer along, just consoled to avoid it, and she didn't exactly pretend like she was letting the matter drop. At no point did she sneak out of the order to fulfill her vengence - it sounds more like she just walked right out the front door in full view of everyone. Having the disapproval of your superiors is not an unlawful act, after all.

As for leaving the order, it sounds like she is leaning towards a NG mindset - that having laws and rules is a bad thing when it gets in the way of protecting people. It would probably matter how she conducts herself from this point out to tell if she is a freelance LG or just NG.

If you are looking for a "way out" to allow a NG paladin, why not just allow her to enter the class early? Or a similar prestige class, or swapping her paladin levels with something similar? Holy Liberator is effectively a CG paladin from Complete Divine, while Crusader or even Cleric would be roughly similar to the Paladin class.

Roderick_BR
2010-08-28, 01:22 AM
There's no question here. She's still LG. Heck, she DID gave the assassin a chance to surrender, and had to defend herself from his attacks? Really, no question.
She may leave her order and continue being a paladin, unless that specific scenario demands her to be part of a order, but that's unlikely.
She may leave the order and join a group of adventurers that share her view of actively hunting down evil, since she has nothing more left of her old life. Maybe even find another order, more active on evil-hunting, or just go solo around.

0mar
2010-08-28, 02:02 AM
LG, she did nothing out of the ordinary that goes against the Paladin code. This guy was bad enough to ping evil on the radar and she had a righteous reason to stop the murderer.

To put her towards LN/NG territory, you'd have to RP the character as an "ends justify the means" kind of character, IMO.

Bogardan_Mage
2010-08-28, 02:28 AM
I feel this is more a chaotic act, and less of an evil act. But if she continues, she should fall. (and likely begin level in blackguard, even though she's still a virtuous paladin in her own eyes).
Why? I see nothing evil at all in this, just chaotic. If she continues on this path she'll move towards chaos, but I see no reason why she should move towards evil (and therefore become a blackguard). It's only if her chaotic actions led to evil that becoming a Blackguard would make sense, and I just don't see that as a logical extention of her actions so far.

WinWin
2010-08-28, 02:58 AM
I would not worry too much about it. The line between justice and revenge can be pretty thin at times.

Should she continue to circumvent the Law of the realm by punishing evildoers Vigilante style, maybe a shift to NG. At the very least it would be a Chaotic Act that may require atonement.

Calmar
2010-08-28, 07:13 AM
The paladin should not fall.

Imagine King Artus, or one of his knights of the Round Table got their family butchered - do you believe they wouldn't track the scum down and put him to the sword (if unable to bring him to trial)? After all, these guys are the original and real paladins. :smallwink:

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 09:50 AM
If the offer of surrender had been accepted, then the Paladin would not be allowed to kill---unless her foe broke it by attacking her.

In this case, it wasn't accepted, and she was fully within her code. There's no argument.

Mnemnosyne
2010-08-28, 10:31 AM
You fall if you commit an evil act, so even if she regrets it after, she will have fallen, unless that's what you're saying... In which case, I agree. xD
What I was saying is that she'd fall, but it might not actually cause her alignment to change. LG people can occasionally do evil things and still be LG in general, as long as it's just a one-off thing and not something they wind up doing often.

Frosty
2010-08-28, 11:40 AM
I would not worry too much about it. The line between justice and revenge can be pretty thin at times.

Should she continue to circumvent the Law of the realm by punishing evildoers Vigilante style, maybe a shift to NG. At the very least it would be a Chaotic Act that may require atonement.
Chaotic acts don' require atonement I thought? Only acts of Evil are significant enough to require atonement?

The Glyphstone
2010-08-28, 11:43 AM
The paladin should not fall.

Imagine King Artus, or one of his knights of the Round Table got their family butchered - do you believe they wouldn't track the scum down and put him to the sword (if unable to bring him to trial)? After all, these guys are the original and real paladins. :smallwink:

On the other hand, by the myths, they were very bad paladins. I think..Gawain? was the only one who actually met D&D Paladin standards.

Zaydos
2010-08-28, 11:49 AM
Even Gawain slept with his host's wife. Galahad, Percival and Bors were the ones deemed holy enough to find the Holy Grail. And technically they weren't the original paladins, those would be Charlemagne's paladins (earlier French stories) chief of which was Roland... who by D&D standards was not a very good paladin.

Frosty
2010-08-28, 12:17 PM
Even Gawain slept with his host's wife. Galahad, Percival and Bors were the ones deemed holy enough to find the Holy Grail. And technically they weren't the original paladins, those would be Charlemagne's paladins (earlier French stories) chief of which was Roland... who by D&D standards was not a very good paladin.Squeaky McGood Paladin appears to not be a popular subject to write good epics around :smallamused:

Zaydos
2010-08-28, 12:26 PM
Squeaky McGood Paladin appears to not be a popular subject to write good epics around :smallamused:

No he doesn't. Although now I'd like to play a character based on Roland. Or Gawain (except for that 1 indiscretion Gawain did live up to paladin standards and I've seen versions that took it out).

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 12:32 PM
I dunno. Unwavering courage, determination to do good, inability to be tempted? I think that'd be a pretty good star for an epic!


Add something about fighting the unbeatable foe and dreaming the impossible dream!

Frosty
2010-08-28, 12:48 PM
inability to be tempted?
There's where you go wrong. Bravery and morality isn't about not being tempted. It's about doing what's right *despite* being tempted. There's no challenge when things are easy. It's easy to do the right thing when it costs you little.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 01:02 PM
Actually, you're post is what I meant. Inability to fall into temptation. The dark lord offers him the world*, but he does not accept. I meant the end action, not the process.


*or, if he's smart all the wine in it. Thank you Black Whirlwind

Marnath
2010-08-28, 01:13 PM
No he doesn't. Although now I'd like to play a character based on Roland. Or Gawain (except for that 1 indiscretion Gawain did live up to paladin standards and I've seen versions that took it out).

I don't know that it's necessarily a violation of the code, either. Sleeping with someone else's wife is bad in our culture, but thats not universal. Other places have different ideas of what's exceptable in personal relations. And I don't see anything prohibiting any relations except with evil folk.

Zaydos
2010-08-28, 01:17 PM
I don't know that it's necessarily a violation of the code, either. Sleeping with someone else's wife is bad in our culture, but thats not universal. Other places have different ideas of what's exceptable in personal relations. And I don't see anything prohibiting any relations except with evil folk.

Context is Medieval Britain where it wasn't really acceptable (read La Morte de Arthur, I only got through the first chapter but even then Arthur was cursed for sleeping with another man's wife; although that was partially because it was his half-sister and he didn't know it) and it was his host which makes the sin a double whammy. Although there are versions without that indiscretion (I prefer these versions) in which Gawain does maintain complete paladin conduct.

Calmar
2010-08-29, 05:51 AM
On the other hand, by the myths, they were very bad paladins. I think..Gawain? was the only one who actually met D&D Paladin standards.

Well, there's no need to be more royalist than the king. Obviously the D&D paladin standards fail to stay true to their roots. The best source of inspiration how a paladin would act should be the original sources that depict true and good paladins.

I think those modern-day concepts of "good" simply don't work in a middle-ages-inspired world, just as it wouldn't work vice-versa.

WinWin
2010-08-29, 06:28 AM
Chaotic acts don' require atonement I thought? Only acts of Evil are significant enough to require atonement?

Evil acts and gross violations of the Paladins code of conduct require atonement. Becoming a vigilante means that you are not respecting legitimate authority, one of the requirements of the Paladins code.

Whether this is a gross violation or not is up to the DM. Paladins are supposed to seek justice after all.

Most chaotic acts would not require atonement thought, you are correct in that. Only when they violate the aformentioned code will a Paladin need to atone.

Peregrine
2010-08-30, 05:32 AM
I concur with the general consensus. Her alignment is unchanged and she does not fall.

Was it Evil? Heck no.
Was it Chaotic enough to shift her alignment? No.
Was it otherwise against her paladin's code? Unlikely.
What about her paladin peers' lack of support? I'm sure they saw how the act was good and just; they just had more pressing concerns. It was a choice between pursuing two Lawful aims.
Wait, was killing him really Lawful? Maybe not. At absolute worst, it was Chaotic Neutral. But fundamentally, she killed a murderer in a stand-up fight and avenged his victims.
What if she hadn't offered surrender? Still fine. I maintain that a paladin is not honour-bound to offer a fair fight to all and sundry; a paladin need only follow appropriate rules of engagement for the situation. And in a fight against a criminal, the rules are less "duel with their choice of weapon" and more like "read them their rights". Ensure your target knows why they're your target, then apprehend or neutralise with all necessary force.
How might Mirri proceed now in a more morally ambiguous way? Assuming you want to remain Lawful Good, and even remain a paladin, then just act Neutral on the Good/Evil axis. Focus more on bringing evildoers to justice than on compassion and kindness. Uphold Good as a standard, something you fight for, rather than something you yourself live by. But have a gentle turn every now and then to reflect your turmoil. Go after the dead murderer's associates and family; spare the innocent, but put those caught in evil to the sword (or kneecap them and haul them off to prison if their crimes are clearly not worth a death sentence).

If you don't want to remain good and want to retrain your paladin levels away, I'm the wrong person to be offering advice. :smalltongue:

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 06:42 AM
Excellent post, Peregrine, I very much agree about Paladins and the rules of engagement.

(Hee, that last one about kneecaps reminds me of Shepherd Book, from Firefly.)

Tharck
2010-08-30, 09:02 AM
I'd make her Chaotic Evil. It's so obvious.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-30, 09:27 AM
Well, she really, REALLY hoped that the murderer would resist arrest, but in the end she did give an offer of surrender. Boy was she tempted just to sneak in and kill.

What could be more lawful good than quelching your own desire for revenge in order to do what you know is right? That's EXACTLY what a paladin is supposed to do.

Now sure, if the guy had tossed up his hands and surrendered, and she then gutted him, you'd have a case. But a known evil serial killer attacking her after being given a chance to surrender? Completely justified in taking him down.

Note that the order did not forbid pursuing the murderer on grounds of morality, but on practicality. In breaking that rule, she only disagrees with them on strategy and such, not on the nature of good and evil. Still definitely lawful good.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 09:31 AM
What could be more lawful good than quelching your own desire for revenge in order to do what you know is right? That's EXACTLY what a paladin is supposed to do. Not what you know is right, but what is actually right. The state of such deeds is above the characters (in fact, it is above the gods). In this case it coincides so it's all fine and dandy.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-30, 09:49 AM
No need to argue semantics.
She deliberately wrote 'know', not 'think', as 'know' is the more objective term.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 10:15 AM
I believe it's pretty necessary, given people keep trying to rationalize alignments. A character's rationalization of his deeds is irrelevant to the alignment of his deeds.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-30, 10:46 AM
You see, she wasn't trying to rationalize anything. She didn't even speak from the point of view of that character, she spoke of her objectively.

Compare her statement to "You know grass is green".

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 10:49 AM
Who said this specific character was trying to rationalize? I was making a correction to Tyndmyr's post that otherwise causes a common issue regard alignments.
Oh, and "knowing grass is green" falls under the same problem :p A delusional or magically tampered (or daltonic!) character "knows" the grass is green and doesn't see the same green everyone else actually does. I'm just pointing out that discussing whether or not a deed is evil should happen at the setting level, not character level, because alignments are defined as absolute concepts and thus not subject to in-game interpretation.

aberratio ictus
2010-08-30, 11:52 AM
Personally, I'd say that in this case the delusional or magically tampered character 'thinks' the grass is a specific green when it is, in fact, another green.

When discussing fictional characters, saying somebody 'knows' something implicitly states it is true. If it isn't true, or debatable at best, you say the character 'thinks' something is true. I don't see how this causes your 'common issue'

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 11:58 AM
Personally, I'd say that in this case the delusional or magically tampered character 'thinks' the grass is a specific green when it is, in fact, another green.

When discussing fictional characters, saying somebody 'knows' something implicitly states it is true. If it isn't true, or debatable at best, you say the character 'thinks' something is true. I don't see how this causes your 'common issue'
See just about any other alignment thread, especially paladins'. People keep rationalizing the characters' motives into the deeds, which does not align the deed itself.

Also, pathological delusions are marked by the conviction and certainty in the diseased person's mind of something being what it is. Whenever you talk about what someone knows, you have to admit such knowledge is fallible.

Frosty
2010-08-30, 01:00 PM
For now, I am talking with the DM and attempting to change the story as thus: She didn't offer surrender, and just went in and murdered the ones she found in their sleep. She never came back to the paladin order (since she broke the law and the paladin order is probably duty-bound to bring her in for breaking the law). She's off to look for the remaining ones (to kill them too) even though and the legal laws require bringing back the suspects for trial if at all feasible (and the paladin order agrees with such laws).

Probably still LG, and while murdering murderers is breaking the law, she probably won't fall for a few Chaotic acts (acts are not evil). But, letting hate drive her motivations can't be good for her in the long run.

hamishspence
2010-08-30, 04:02 PM
Probably still LG, and while murdering murderers is breaking the law, she probably won't fall for a few Chaotic acts (acts are not evil). But, letting hate drive her motivations can't be good for her in the long run.

Doesn't really fit with non-fallen paladins- depending on the definition of murder being used. Since by BoVD "murder is one of the most horrible acts a being can commit" and by FC2 "murder is a 5+ point Corrupt act".

If you want the paladin, for the moment, to stay non-fallen, the backstory should be fine as-is. Unless the definition of murder is to be stretched considerably for this campaign.

Yukitsu
2010-08-30, 05:33 PM
At this point, it's splitting hairs, as the order would have to execute him if he was brought back anyway. When it's a formality over what is it's law chaos, not good evil.

hamishspence
2010-08-31, 02:44 AM
Luke seems to think that killing a helpless Darth Vader, out of anger, would push him to evil in RoTJ- even if Vader's crimes would warrant him being executed by the Rebellion. Paladins aren't Jedi- but the two have a few similarities- they have a great deal of law-enforcement power, but that doesn't entitle them to be judge, jury and executioner.

"killing for revenge" is much trickier, alignment-wise, than "killing for justice".