PDA

View Full Version : Musings: on paladins and Alignment



Storm Bringer
2010-10-03, 02:36 PM
my train of thought ran somthing like this:

A paladin is in sworn service of a kingdom, whoose ruler is good and just. The king dies of old age, and his choosen heir takes the Thone. However, this Heir beleves strongly in the rule of law and right and proper procedeure, but is selfish and power hungry (i.e. Lawful Evil).

Now, most of us would agree that a paladin could no longer serve this kingdom and its king, for it would contravene his Code. More improtantly, most would aggree that he would not be in the wrong, or acting agianst the code by doing this.

However, this means he is going agianst his Sworn oath to his legitimate superiors (a Chaotic act) in the name of Good. Egro, this would mean that the Good part of his alignment is, in some immesureable way, "stronger" than the Lawful part.

now, if this is true, then surely, this means he can, if the case is clear cut enough, act in a Chaotic manner in the service of Good (for example, in the classic "hiding innocents form the evil empire" scenario, lie to guards about hiding the innocents).

since alignment and paladins have been discussed to death, I'm sure their is some hole in my logic. any thoughts?

tyckspoon
2010-10-03, 02:40 PM
No, that's basically right. Paladins fall for any Evil act at all. They do not fall for Chaotic acts, unless they are extreme enough to actually make the Paladin change alignments away from Lawful Good. Good is more important than Law; it's right there in the Code. (Also I would presume the Paladin swore his fealty to the old King, and only to the kingdom by extension of it being the King's responsibility, and would actually be looking at choosing to swear to the Heir as well or break ties and work against his evil rule.)

Name_Here
2010-10-03, 04:11 PM
Well when a new king is named everybody has to re-swear their oaths of service to the new king. If the Paladin chooses not to it's not a chaotic act. So that's the hole in your logic.

hamishspence
2010-10-03, 04:15 PM
There's nothing to suggest "refusing to swear an oath of fealty" is a strongly Chaotic act.

FC2 does suggest that swearing an oath of fealty is a strongly Lawful act though.

So- you can "choose not to swear an oath" and not be acting Chaotically.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-03, 04:23 PM
Mr OP, your hipothetical paladin would be fine. He wouldn't be able to remain in his position long, because either he'd have to drop his act and be openly against the whole thing, or he'd do something bad. But an oath? hardly something absolute. What is that oath? Did he swear it to the kingdom, or to the king? (there is an important difference here). What was the spirit behind the oath?


The code says "Act with honor yadda yadda", so it implies breaking an oath would be a bad thing. But is it really, when the source of the oath is no longer there?

quiet1mi
2010-10-03, 04:24 PM
I chose to remain rigid to my strict code rather than Change to something that offends my said code...

Chaotic Good =/= One act of non-law

Becoming a rebel is not chaotic despite being an agent of change, alignments are closer to behaviors rather than actions... Also remember scale...

Intentions IMHO are more important than the action itself...

Dethroning the King is not inherently Evil, if he was incompetent and his incompetence would result in great evil, taking him out of the equation is not evil.

Dethroning the King to take his place so that you may abuse the power... Evil territory A-Hoy

Storm Bringer
2010-10-03, 04:26 PM
only if he swears to the King, and not the Kingdom. While DnD is still mostly feudal, it is perfectly possible for the oath to be impersonal, and to the State that the king is Head of, rather than the king in person.

also, if he refuses to re-swear the oath, he would still be acting "chaotically"/placing Good above Law. The evil king, as the Legitmate heir to the throne, has the same right to the paladins loyalty as the old king did. By refusing, he is deliberatly choosing to defy the Lawful Head of State for personal reasons.

Ravens_cry
2010-10-03, 04:27 PM
Huzzah, a Paladin thread!
I grab my +3 Beanbag of Sitting and my Feedbag of Endless Popcorn.

Ormur
2010-10-03, 04:28 PM
I also think any sensible Paladin that really intends to do good should include a clause in any oath of allegiance he makes that it gets terminated if the ruler or his successors start behaving like selfish gits. The evil opt-out clause so as to say. Even in lawful terms you'd be denying to blindly follow a dishonourable liege.

I think the real killer in all those "you fall no matter what you do" instances is that people think you can actually reconcile the contemporary ideal of LG as honourable with the perceived medieval concept of LN honour.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-03, 04:30 PM
By refusing, he is deliberatly choosing to defy the Lawful Head of State for personal reasons.

And here is your mistake. You are putting in "Personal reasons" as if they were a bad thing or an absolute thing. Paladins are champions of a cause, so anything involving it is a "Personal reason". Turns out "Keeping the country safe from abuse" is a very personal reason for a paladin.

WarKitty
2010-10-03, 04:34 PM
Paladins are Lawful Good, but they fall for committing evil acts or for ceasing to be lawful in general. A Lawful character can still commit a chaotic act. Heck, I'd say a normally chaotic act undertaken in defense of a sworn code would be neutral. The paladin is Lawful Good (Good), not Lawful Good (Lawful).

Calmar
2010-10-03, 05:07 PM
As long the paladin stays close to the king he can assume a position of power to use his influence to advance good and to prevent the king from committing crimes. Maybe his his commitment to the late monarch obligates him to lead the new king back on the path good. If, on the other hand, he cowardly flees because he's afraid of succumbing to the ill influence of the ruler, or afraid of losing his divine blessing, he does not act as a champion of goodness and justice, or the deities representing these principles.
It is the duty of the king to justly rule the realm and it is the duty of the paladin to defend order. A king who fails to uphold justice and to protect his subjects is not fit for rulership and a paladin who fails to defend kingship and kingdom (possibly even by removing an evil holder of the throne) from corruption and evil fails as champion of justice. The life of a paladin is a series of divine quests to prove his quality. If he lacks the courage to risk his position or even his life for good he is unfit to be a paladin.

WarKitty
2010-10-03, 05:10 PM
As long the paladin stays close to the king he can assume a position of power to use his influence to advance good and to prevent the king from committing crimes. Maybe his his commitment to the late monarch obligates him to lead the new king back on the path good. If, on the other hand, he cowardly flees because he's afraid of succumbing to the ill influence of the ruler, or afraid of losing his divine blessing, he does not act as a champion of goodness and justice, or the deities representing these principles.
It is the duty of the king to justly rule the realm and it is the duty of the paladin to defend order. A king who fails to uphold justice and to protect his subjects is not fit for rulership and a paladin who fails to defend kingship and kingdom (possibly even by removing an evil holder of the throne) from corruption and evil fails as champion of justice. The life of a paladin is a series of divine quests to prove his quality. If he lacks the courage to risk his position or even his life for good he is unfit to be a paladin.

Wait what are you suggesting? The way I see it, the paladin in good conscience cannot swear an oath to the new king. He knows if he swears that oath he will be commanded to do evil, thus forcing him to disobey his oath later. It is better to not swear than to swear and disobey.

Calmar
2010-10-03, 05:33 PM
Wait what are you suggesting? The way I see it, the paladin in good conscience cannot swear an oath to the new king. He knows if he swears that oath he will be commanded to do evil, thus forcing him to disobey his oath later. It is better to not swear than to swear and disobey.

Does running away advance the cause of good? Taking risks to defeat evil might involve more than descending into a monster's lair.

Cerlis
2010-10-03, 07:01 PM
So the paladin is forswearing his duty cus his King wants to use the rules to advance himself?

No seriously, I agree with Calmar. Its not like this was some coup by an evil son who is going to start a reign of tyranny and slavery. UNless he starts breaking the law to oppress people and violate their lives, he isnt doing anything evil. Heck if the new king is smart he will do any changes he wants legally. Any acts of evil would probably be exterior (such as violating a treaty of alliance and attacking a neighboring kingdom...cus he is ambitious). I see the paladin has a duty to stay while he can and mitigate any damages. Advise the King and point out if his actions are wrong "Our allies wont like this." "THe people wont stand for it". I mean if he just raises Taxes that could easily be mitigated by him starting a charity to help the poor.

I see three options for a paladin here.
Stay and mitigate any damages and try to redeem his lord. Only leave if it becomes obvious the lord is a lost cause and any damages can not be prevented, mitigated, or fixed.

Be offended that the lord is a prick and forsake his honor and duty because he doesnt like what the ruler might do.

Stay and start an underground resistance.

THe second choices, assuming the ruler hasnt done anything overtly wrong would be CG in my opinion.

A True Lawful Good person believes that the law supports goodness and a better society. I think a true paladin would hope that the goodness of law and justice will prevent this from degenerating unless the Ruler gets corrupted beyond salvation

WarKitty
2010-10-03, 07:35 PM
Does running away advance the cause of good? Taking risks to defeat evil might involve more than descending into a monster's lair.

Running away? It would depend on the power of the paladin. If I knew that the son was evil and was going to use his power to be an evil tyrant, I'd do whatever I can to bring a proper government back.

Name_Here
2010-10-03, 08:50 PM
only if he swears to the King, and not the Kingdom. While DnD is still mostly feudal, it is perfectly possible for the oath to be impersonal, and to the State that the king is Head of, rather than the king in person.

At which point the king has no right to issue any orders to the paladin at which point I really have no idea what is really going on in the example.


also, if he refuses to re-swear the oath, he would still be acting "chaotically"/placing Good above Law. The evil king, as the Legitmate heir to the throne, has the same right to the paladins loyalty as the old king did. By refusing, he is deliberatly choosing to defy the Lawful Head of State for personal reasons.

How is that chaotic at all? He has a right not to re-swear his loyalty and the king has no right to demand his oath. He's choosing to follow his own code of honor and he's not violating his oath or the law so I don't know how you can claim this is a chaotic act.

quiet1mi
2010-10-03, 11:35 PM
A single act that changes your characters alignment would have to be so big that it registers on a cosmic scale... otherwise it is but one act.

Does stealing one piece of bread make you a kleptomaniac? Does burning one sheet of paper make you a pyromaniac?

The act of repeatedly doing something changes your alignment. Blindly following orders makes you LN. Being a "cowboy" cop is roughly CG...

If this Paladin swore an Oath, he would not swear it to a seat but to a kingdom and in her best interest. If this Paladin did not swear an Oath to the new king, this should speak volumes about this new King. LN is the letter of the law, LG is the spirit behind the law...

Seriously they should make a LN paladin whose job it is to blindly swear their loyalty and follow the letter of their agreements...

HenryHankovitch
2010-10-03, 11:54 PM
And this is why, if you are a paladin, you swear oaths to serve a god, not a king.

sambo.
2010-10-04, 01:07 AM
a paladin needs no king and has no king.

paladins serve their deity and receive all class features to aid them in the service of their god, not their king.

a paladin could only be bound in service to a king that also serves the paladins deity and such an oath would be voluntary on the paladins part (after spending time in prayer and meditation seeking guidance from said deity ofc).

should the king, or his heirs and successors, cease to act in the interests of the paladins deity, the paladin is no longer bound to that king.

at least, that's how i'd rule it at my table and how i'd argue it at another.

people who get the idea that a Paladin is some stuffy fuddy duddy with a kahoona up the whatsit are very much mistaken.

with some creative roleplaying, you'd be suprised just how broadly the paladins oath can allow you to act.

it also pays to discuss the exact contents of your Paladins Oath with your DM while (de)generating the 'toon, as the Oath may vary from deity to deity.

hamishspence
2010-10-04, 03:44 AM
There is an intermediate zone between "lord is too bad for paladin to serve" and "lord is so bad the paladin is morally obliged to overthrow him".

Paladins are not supposed to associate with evil-aligned people- and swearing an oath to obey an evil-aligned person might fall under this.

FelixG
2010-10-04, 04:01 AM
a paladin needs no king and has no king.

paladins serve their deity and receive all class features to aid them in the service of their god, not their king.

it also pays to discuss the exact contents of your Paladins Oath with your DM while (de)generating the 'toon, as the Oath may vary from deity to deity.

Um yah...about that...your wrong...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

You could be a paladin, declair yourself in the name of palor, then walk up and tell him to go screw himself while you still serve the forces of good and law not a specific diety and retain your powers.

Why?

Because paladins dont draw their power from gods, they draw their power from the cosmic uberness that is good. thank you.

------------------------------------------------

Now that im back on track -clears throat-

The paladin who has sworn an oath to the kingdom would be remis in breaking that oath, at worst he would have to get atonement cast.

However he could serve his code and the kingdom at the same time, he can uphold the law but state that he would be morally compromised and incapable of performing in his current office should he be forced to commit an evil deed and request to be relieved of his office.

Lawful evil guy would see that his minion dude is going through proper lawful channels to make this claim and will likely release him from his vows OR only give the paladin jobs he can do to strengthen his own rule by saying "I cant be all bad see! i have a paladin on the pay role!"

Having a beacon of justice and good at your side can be a good way to throw the scent off the evil tracks if you know what im saying :smallbiggrin:

Edit:


There is an intermediate zone between "lord is too bad for paladin to serve" and "lord is so bad the paladin is morally obliged to overthrow him".

Paladins are not supposed to associate with evil-aligned people- and swearing an oath to obey an evil-aligned person might fall under this.

People are misreading the OP.

The Paladin here is not swearing the oath to the evil person, he has an existing oath with the KINGDOM not the KING, it would be like how the US armed forces swear to the USA not the president. The pres just leads them, they dont have to all swear new oaths when a new pres is elected, the first one still holds true.

hamishspence
2010-10-04, 04:10 AM
People are misreading the OP.

The Paladin here is not swearing the oath to the evil person, he has an existing oath with the KINGDOM not the KING, it would be like how the US armed forces swear to the USA not the president. The pres just leads them, they dont have to all swear new oaths when a new pres is elected, the first one still holds true.

True- but if the king manages to (slowly and subtly) corrupt the kingdom to the point at which it becomes "an evil kingdom" despite the paladin's efforts, there will come a point when the paladin has to break with the kingdom.

DeltaEmil
2010-10-04, 04:12 AM
The pitiful pre 4th edition-paladin has to reject the evil king's demand for an oath of fealty anyway. The paladin cannot work under, for or at the side of an evil person, no matter how legitime the heir is.
If the paladin knows that the new king's evil, then the paladin leaves, or he's going to go atone every day, every second, immediately after atoning.
The paladin doesn't have to kill or depose the king, as long as he didn't commit any evil act (who knows, perhaps the king will change alignment and become a swell guy like his daddy), but he'll lose his weak abilities if he doesn't move.

FelixG
2010-10-04, 04:14 AM
True- but if the king manages to (slowly and subtly) corrupt the kingdom to the point at which it becomes "an evil kingdom" despite the paladin's efforts, there will come a point when the paladin has to break with the kingdom.

Hmm, this could lead to an interesting thing. The paladin could still serve his oath to the kingdom but not the kingdoms government, taking it upon himself to protect the people of the kingdom from predation and the kingdom as a whole from external forces. Somewhat like a Robin Hood type character...with shiny armor and a longsword

hamishspence
2010-10-04, 04:23 AM
In some fiction, Robin does wear shiny armour when it's called for.

"Robin The Paladin" would be an interesting variant on the classic archetype.

On "working alongside somebody evil" Defenders of the Faith does suggest that paladins can do this in an emergency- as does BoED.

Zen Master
2010-10-04, 05:35 AM
In my mind there is no doubt that lawful/chaotic is just as important as good/evil. Furthermore, I consider it far more likely that respectively lawful and chaotic nations wind up in war with each other, than that good and evil ones do.

Further, a single evil act does not alter alignment, nor does a single chaotic. Either one might cause the paladin to fail - but neither will automatically do so.

For me, the paladin would have to weigh the consequences: I can remain with the king, try to convince him to act Good - or I can oppose him, plunging the kingdom into civil war. I will have to chose the lesser evil.

But then again, I find grey zones far more interesting than absolutes.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-04, 05:39 AM
Acromos, the code conflicts directly with what you said. Evil Stuff is way nastier to the paladin's shiny paladinhood than chaos. Kinda like augmented cooties.

hamishspence
2010-10-04, 06:05 AM
Yup- in 3E one Evil act always causes a Fall, one Chaotic act probably won't (unless it happens to be a "gross violation of the code").

Even in earlier editions, similar principles applied.

In 2nd ed, one Chaotic act caused a Fall, but paladin could redeem themselves. But one Evil act caused a permanent Fall.

Calmar
2010-10-04, 09:46 AM
People are misreading the OP.

The Paladin here is not swearing the oath to the evil person, he has an existing oath with the KINGDOM not the KING, it would be like how the US armed forces swear to the USA not the president. The pres just leads them, they dont have to all swear new oaths when a new pres is elected, the first one still holds true.

Unless this is some form of constitutional monarchy it's hard to separate king and kingdom in such a way. If it's a classical feudal realm the king is the ultimate owner of anything within the kingdom. All land and titles belong to him in the end and are lent to his subjects. When a new king succeeds to the throne all oaths have to be renewed. To legally get rid of that guy one probably would have to find someone with better claims to the throne which might be difficult in the OP's scenario.


However, if the campaign resolves around "evil person" = "can be killed without any consequences" anyway and the DM's primary goal is to find a reason for the paladin to F4LL at any opportunity it's admittedly useless to discuss legal matters and knightly duties. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-10-04, 10:08 AM
However, if the campaign resolves around "evil person" = "can be killed without any consequences" anyway and the DM's primary goal is to find a reason for the paladin to F4LL at any opportunity it's admittedly useless to discuss legal matters and knightly duties. :smalltongue:

Do those two go together? I got the impression that "evil person" = "can be killed without any consequences" was preferred by DMs who prefer paladins to not fall for any but the worst of offenses.