Lawful Good: straightjacket or guidelines?

[Mithral88]

I've had a game I played in ruined before because of the paladin of Church of the Silver Flame in the group. The DM wanted the rest of the PCs (who were chaotic/neutral good) a chance to do something that required a bit of law breaking, we argued that it was Eberron, and even the the Player's Handbook describes alignments as 'a tool, not a straightjacket'. The paladin, however, argued that his PC was 'Lawful Good, he would never break into the the Cardinals' manor even if our patron says he has a powerful goblinoid artifact inside.' It just went downhill from there unfortunately.

[Shadowknight12]

Ugh. Dear gentle caress above.

Brace yourself for unending debates on alignment in T minus five...

Meh, for what it's worth, I believe alignments are even less than guidelines, but you wouldn't find my opinion useful. So... yeah. Brace yourself. Seriously.

[Darth_Versity]

It's nicknamed lawful stupid for a reason. Some people are just to set on alignment to be flexible but I think everyone should be able to do somethings that differ from their alignment depending upon the situation.

I tend to look at lawful alignment as a form of loyalty to others and a general following of the law rather than blind obedience, but saying that, breaking and entering is a bit much for a paladin, even if it is for the greater good.

[Yora]

Lawful good is no more restrictive than any other alignment. Do what you think fits best to how you image the characters personalty, and when you notice that this doesn't really sound much like lawful good, change alignment to neutral good or lawful neutral.

However, in a situation like this, when it's against the characters own rules about what he considers okay and what not, then he can refuse it just on the ground that he thinks it's wrong. Alignment does not have to come into play at all.

[faceroll]

Lawful good is no more restrictive than any other alignment. Do what you think fits best to how you image the characters personalty, and when you notice that this doesn't really sound much like lawful good, change alignment to neutral good or lawful neutral.

However, in a situation like this, when it's against the characters own rules about what he considers okay and what not, then he can refuse it just on the ground that he thinks it's wrong. Alignment does not have to come into play at all.

That's easy when your class features aren't tied to your alignment. When they are, I feel like it's a real challenge for me as a DM.

Luckily, I've just decided that in my campaign worlds, clerics and paladins don't notice when they fall- there's no loss of spells and what not- because there are always other... entities willing to step in and replace their god.

[Yora]

It's not an alignment issue, it's a paladin issue. All the bad reputation of LG is really just Paladin problems. If you're not a paladin, it's an alignment like any other.

[Saintheart]

It's not an alignment issue, it's a paladin issue. All the bad reputation of LG is really just Paladin problems. If you're not a paladin, it's an alignment like any other.

True. Consider the reverse, of a LE aligned character who decides to give a penny to the starving orphan. Would you switch the guy's alignment to Chaotic Good and start having Asmodeus looking for him to collect on that blood-signed soul deal?

[CommodoreCrunch]

Alignments are only restrictive to people with a certain mindset. I've noticed that the more literal-minded people are more likely to let themselves be restricted by alignment, because they follow what they read and either don't have the creativity/insight to see that what's in the books isn't just a flat guideline, or they're just too lazy to figure out what alignment X/Y means to their character.

I've had players who act Lawful Stupid because they see what the book has to say about Lawful and Good and don't realize that they can decide for themselves what Lawful means to their character. Someone raised in Country Y, or in a monastery might have a different idea of Lawful than the residents of County X. Good is kinda hard to bend in the same way, but it doesn't always mean that you have to feed every homeless child you see.

In regards to Paladins...if I have anyone who's interested in playing a Paladin, I always have to speak to them about the Code of Conduct. Most people play it as far more restrictive and Stupid than it really is, and I have to impress upon them that they have more range to freedom under the code than they might think.
Respect legitimate authority does not always mean that you have to follow the commands of every legitimate authority you meet. A paladin is free to ignore such commands if he has a good reason, such as said commands going against the ideals of his god.
Acting with honor is not hard to do, and not very restrictive. But many people read it as "Act with honor, and force everyone else to as well."
Helping those in need is pretty straightforward and could put the party in difficult spots, but it's hard to be too stupid about this one. Nevertheless, a paladin who charges headfirst into a hundred orcs to save a peasant may be following his code, but he's being stupid about it. He could try to go about it in a different way, and if there's nothing he could do, any good god would realize that he'd just be killing himself and not penalize him for choosing to live and continue to do good works.
Punishing those who harm or threaten innocents is the worst of the bunch. I've seen paladins who attack con artists instead of reporting them to the local watch. Players like that see things in such starkly monochromatic terms that they don't think of any other options.

Basically, alignments are pretty good as guidelines, but DMs should make players (especially newbies) aware that that's all they really are.

[Midnight_v]

Luckily, I've just decided that in my campaign worlds, clerics and paladins don't notice when they fall- there's no loss of spells and what not- because there are always other... entities willing to step in and replace their god.
I like that quite a bit, but it doesn't stop pally-man from trying to proseytlize.
I actually have talked to a couple of those guys who play pally primarily and i've been told that, the draw is the fact of saying "NO", because it impinges on my alignment. I digested that as enforcing aligment on others, but I'm sure thats only a small segment of pallies. Though when the crusader came out, this sentiment got expressed again quite a few times. Its weird.

So I'm thinking you can play pally all day long buuut, no ones gonna play gotcha with you, it distracts from the rest of the party too much.

Hey? Has anyone ever read the tome series? They have the best write up of paladins I've ever seen.

[erikun]

The paladin, however, argued that his PC was 'Lawful Good, he would never break into the the Cardinals' manor even if our patron says he has a powerful goblinoid artifact inside.'
The PC may choose to never break into the Cardinals' manor, but it has nothing to do with their alignment - especially in this case, where the alignment is specifically spelled out as flexible.

Note, however, that the Paladin's code of conduct explicitly states that she must "respect legitimate authority", and I doubt breaking into their house and stealing from them is a sign of respect. Eberron may have loosened the paladin's code as well, although I'm not familiar if it did.

[magic9mushroom]

The PC may choose to never break into the Cardinals' manor, but it has nothing to do with their alignment - especially in this case, where the alignment is specifically spelled out as flexible.

Note, however, that the Paladin's code of conduct explicitly states that she must "respect legitimate authority", and I doubt breaking into their house and stealing from them is a sign of respect. Eberron may have loosened the paladin's code as well, although I'm not familiar if it did.

Nope. Clerics get let off, but no such luck for paladins.

[KnightDisciple]

I've had a game I played in ruined before because of the paladin of Church of the Silver Flame in the group. The DM wanted the rest of the PCs (who were chaotic/neutral good) a chance to do something that required a bit of law breaking, we argued that it was Eberron, and even the the Player's Handbook describes alignments as 'a tool, not a straightjacket'. The paladin, however, argued that his PC was 'Lawful Good, he would never break into the the Cardinals' manor even if our patron says he has a powerful goblinoid artifact inside.' It just went downhill from there unfortunately.The player worded that poorly, but him objecting is sound.

I mean, your group was talking about breaking and entering (a crime) to take a "powerful goblinoid artifact (no mention of said item itself being stolen from rightful owners, or any mention of why this patron deserves it) from the house of a Cardinal of the Church of the Silver Flame (which said paladin belongs to).

This is like having a modern-setting game, then complaining that the devout Catholic character doesn't want to rob a Bishop (or, in fact, a Cardinal).

Maybe the player was using "I'm LG" as shorthand for "Can't you see why I don't want to do this, dude?". I see nothing that says someone that fits that alignment would engage in this (especially for no better reason than "we need to break some laws!"), so him bringing up this objection has some validity.

Also, it seems like nobody spent the 2 seconds necessary to see the other half-dozen reasons he'd object.

So while the paladin player could have phrased that better, he's not alone in fault for this.

[Hunter Killer]

I always hate when people look at alignments in back and white terms and refuse to do what is logical rather than blindly follow the concept.

Lawful doesn't mean that you follow every law on the books without question. It means you may have a code of honor, generally tend to listen to established authority figures, and that you tend to hold disciple and order in high regard.

Like wise, Good doesn't always mean that your actions have to be benevolent. You can threaten and make that bay guy uncomfortable (though maybe not outright torture him), you can refuse to hand your gold over to the beggar, etc...

Also, I don't believe that characters should follow their alignments 100% of the time. That's not how real people are... Alignments should be how the character acts most of the time.

Lawful Good is just any other alignment if you treat it that way...

[Zylle]

I agree that Lawful Good alignment doesn't HAVE to be played 100% strict and "by the book."

But perhaps that specific player WANTED to roleplay his character as being that particular flavor of Lawful Good? Certainly there's nothing wrong with that, if that's what he wanted to play, right?

Instead of looking for ammunition to tell him that he's wrong for wanting to play that way, look for ways to roleplay around it. For example, let him stay behind while the party went and broke into the manor. Alternatively, if he didn't even want to allow the rest of the party to retrieve the item and insisted on "smiting the evil-doers" or some nonsense like that, well... it's him against the rest of the party :P Of course, assuming you wanted to continue the campaign without killing him, just get into the manor without breaking in. Bluff or Diplomacy could work wonders :)

[faceroll]

I always hate when people look at alignments in back and white terms and refuse to do what is logical rather than blindly follow the concept.

Lawful doesn't mean that you follow every law on the books without question. It means you may have a code of honor, generally tend to listen to established authority figures, and that you tend to hold disciple and order in high regard.

Like wise, Good doesn't always mean that your actions have to be benevolent. You can threaten and make that bay guy uncomfortable (though maybe not outright torture him), you can refuse to hand your gold over to the beggar, etc...

Also, I don't believe that characters should follow their alignments 100% of the time. That's not how real people are... Alignments should be how the character acts most of the time.

Lawful Good is just any other alignment if you treat it that way...

But D&D isn't about real characters. Law and Chaos are actual physical things that can be objectively quantified in the D&D cosmos. It makes sense that someone who wanted to be the avatar of law would be arbitrarily lawful.

[Frozen_Feet]

It's not an alignment issue, it's a paladin issue. All the bad reputation of LG is really just Paladin problems. If you're not a paladin, it's an alignment like any other.

This is very true. If you want to see how restrictive the other aligments are, play Paladins of Slaughter, Freedom and Tyranny.

Outside characters with defined codes-of-conduct and in-game penalties for breaking them *), Alignment is descriptive rather than prescriptive. You are assigned the alignment that fits you and your actions, not the other way around. Alignment can and will change with character.

*) Includes more cases than just those of premade material; if a character makes an oath to some party within the game, violating it can be equally bad.

[elonin]

I'm guessing that more players who role play the code in a moronic way are due to dm's treatment that they've encountered.

There was a thread here some time ago discussing if a paladin should loose his special abilities due to breaking the code. My own take on that conversation was that the paladin's player would have had to have metagamed to know that the innocent was in the danger that he was in. I'm not trying to dig up past arguments; though the consensus here seemed to come down to loss of abilities but able to atone. This was just to make a point.

I've seen worse in table top with a player with VOP using the requirements of that feat to make sure that the rest of us didn't hit WBL. In short he counted everything, even unobtainable or items which we would have needed a gang of workers to transport. I went as far as to have a conversation with the dm who said that was the players choice. Then asked if we would see more loot to make up for what the VOP player was accounting for and was told that he only distributes for WBL once (unless we manage to get too much money somehow).

[Solaris]

Lawful good is no more restrictive than any other alignment. Do what you think fits best to how you image the characters personalty, and when you notice that this doesn't really sound much like lawful good, change alignment to neutral good or lawful neutral.

However, in a situation like this, when it's against the characters own rules about what he considers okay and what not, then he can refuse it just on the ground that he thinks it's wrong. Alignment does not have to come into play at all.

This post pretty much sums up any sensible conclusion I can see coming out of this thread. It renders all after it moot.

[Ephiel]

Alignments shouldn't matter unless your class is bound by an alignment specific requirement.

Are you lawful? Then there is likely a set of codes which you hold to be of higher importance than yourself.

Are you chaotic? Then you likely believe that the world is too circumstantial to hold to any set of black and white rules.

Good and Evil are more tricky, but lawful versus chaotic is easy. Lawful doesn't even necessarily mean the law of the land, per se. You could be a Lawful Neutral monk who's only set of laws are the code of his order. Most people who hide behind the "I'm lawful, and therefore will not engage in that course of action!" have likely spent far too much time indoors for their own good.

[Bovine Colonel]

Here's a simple test:

Would Batman shirk from doing it?

[Honest Tiefling]

I honestly never really liked the idea of a paladin code. I would much rather relax the paladin class and tell people that they should try to be as lawful and as good as possible. The gods understand if there are problems, after all, mortals aren't infallible creatures. They know that mortals will occasionally screw up and rather that an otherwise devout servant seek atonement then cast them out entirely unless the paladin shows no signs of repentance.

After all, that's what clerics do, and I see little reason to think that paladins are above clerics in anyway or considered more holy.

If a player wanted a code, I rather that they speak with the DM and make a code specific to their religion and/or order. Paladins should not be operating under the same code if they were trained by very different religions. So why not have the player make a reasonable code and have it checked by the DM, to make different religions seem different? This way, everyone knows the code as it can be written down exactly, and it is a good thought exercise for the paladin.

In the OP's case, however, I have to ask about the situation. Is the person they are stealing from obviously illegitimate authority? Will this goblinoid artifact lead to very bad things? Why is the team stealing it?

[navar100]

I've had a game I played in ruined before because of the paladin of Church of the Silver Flame in the group. The DM wanted the rest of the PCs (who were chaotic/neutral good) a chance to do something that required a bit of law breaking, we argued that it was Eberron, and even the the Player's Handbook describes alignments as 'a tool, not a straightjacket'. The paladin, however, argued that his PC was 'Lawful Good, he would never break into the the Cardinals' manor even if our patron says he has a powerful goblinoid artifact inside.' It just went downhill from there unfortunately.

Reminds me of an anecdote. I was playing a paladin. The country had legalized slavery. Two clerics of the church were taken into slavery, allegedly by accident. My task was to find them, i.e. the reason why my character started to adventure. I had gone to the city where they were sold. The only lead I could get was meeting the following day with the one who sold them. He could probably tell me who bought them and where they were headed. Meanwhile I'm told of a Sage who could give me their exact location tonight. Every player character had their own reason to see the Sage, i.e. how the party is to be created.

We all gather around the Sage. The Sage tells us he can answer our questions if we each pay him 5,000gp. Fat chance, since we're only 1st level characters. He then suggests we do a favor for him instead. There is a "book of Evil" he wants that some other wizard has. The wizard is out of town. We are to break into his house and get the book for the Sage. I ask what the book is. Sage just says it's Evil. I ask what the wizard wants to do with it. sage says to do Evil stuff. I ask why he wants it. He says just to have it and no else can use it.

The rest of the party agree to the deal. They're discussing plans how to sneak in at night, avoid the town guards, break into the place, sneak back out, and then get out of town. As I see it, I am to break into a citizen's home and steal something, to disguise my features and hide from town guards, to get an alleged evil book to give to a person I only just met who wanted to charge me 5,000gp to tell me where two clerics of my church have been taken, then get out of town fast so we don't get arrested.

I respond "Your price is too high" and walk out of the Sage's home. I had no intention of informing the town guard what was discussed, but I gave my word to the party when asked that I wouldn't. The rest of the players proceeded with the adventure while I just sat there. I got less XP.

The playing group and I parted ways soon after. That wasn't the reason, but it may have been a contributing factor.

As I see it, the paladin player did nothing wrong. The problem was the DM wanted to force the paladin player to go against his code. The paladin was quite right to refuse an adventure that would be known to break the law.

[Zonugal]

Here's a simple test:

Would Batman shirk from doing it?

Here's a simple question:

Which Batman?

[Zaydos]

Lawful and Chaotic, oh the arguments.

Okay, looking through the ages. Digging up my uncle's (then brother's) old Red Box player's book: Lawful is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. It goes on with will not lie, sometimes the freedoms of the few must give way for the good of all. Behaviours which we term "Good". But you could say this is outdated, since it's back when Law = Good.

AD&D, then, with all 9 alignments. It emphasizes that Lawful characters (although it has no entry for Lawful and only for Lawful Evil, Lawful Good, and Lawful Neutral) put great faith in rules and that they should be obeyed. Certain freedoms must sometimes be put aside for the best of all, but "truth is of the highest value, and life and beauty of great importance"... needs the word are in there. Theoretically alignment hasn't changed since this point till 4e.

2e (because personally I believe it does it the best): Actually Defines Law and Chaos without any look at the Moral axis, I'm just going to quote a whole sentence here

For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities. Strength comes through unity of action, as can be seen in guilds, empires, and powerful churches.

3.X:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

So lawfulness is very much respect and honor authority. Breaking into a mayor's mansion is a quite Chaotic act. Would it make a character instantly become Chaotic/non-Lawful? No. Would it be out of character except in extreme duress? Yes. Does it directly violate the paladin's code? Yes, assuming the mayor became mayor legitimately (respect legitimate authority). thought it was mayor not cardinal; is it a cardinal in his religion? If that was their only option would/should a paladin do it? Yes, the last two tenants of their code demand that. Should they have offered a lawful alternative? They should have tried. Possibly they should have brought up the idea of bringing it to the authorities (either their superiors in the church or the secular ones) and getting official sanction to perform a search.

tl;dr: Yes he was actually role-playing a lawful character. While it is possible for him to have done so and remained "lawful" it was taking the high, or in this case more lawful, road.


Here's a simple test:

Would Batman shirk from doing it?

I'd actually say that Batman is Neutral Good, he's commonly (in TAS, in Nolanverse, and in those pitifully few Batman comics I've read) willing to do things that a LG character would have qualms with. Now at the same time he has enough of a respect for the law to avoid being Chaotic. In the comics/TAS he's close to Bytopia alignment-wise. Meanwhile in Nolanverse I'd say he's a jaded lawful that slipped almost all the way down to Chaotic and leave it at that.

All in all Batman is an interesting look at the Law and Chaos axis, because he balances between them so well.

[Larpus]

I think that this image is relevant to the discussion:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a346/TehKellerz/batman-alignment.jpg?t=1241842178

Anyway, Paladins suffer from how most people perceive and expect them to be and from the "normal lore" of being really uptight guys who are often better than any local militia.

It's perfectly viable for a Paladin to break the law and possibly even do some rather atrocious deeds as long as it's for the greater good and his deity agrees with that, to which the Paladin can pray for his deity to ask for a sign of if that would be an ok thing to do.

Still, I always viewed the alignment system as a guideline to the "usual way your character thinks and acts" than something you have to follow strictly or else...!

It's good to talk to the DM and have him clarify his view on that issue before anyone attempts someone who is strict and uptight.

[Re'ozul]

I usually treat it as guidelines, but then again I often only employ it in the detectX sense and abandon all use of it otherwise.

To me it boils down to this:

Good: The needs of the many (even if its over that of the party)
Neutral: The needs of my friends/aquaintances
Evil: My needs mine, not yours, mine

lawful: I live by my own rules *puts on glasses and takes out scroll* rule #1...
neutral: Theres stuff I like and stuff I don't like
chaotic: Rule#1 there are no rules, wait that don't make sense, aw screw the whole thing.

[Kaeso]

It's perfectly viable for a Paladin to break the law and possibly even do some rather atrocious deeds as long as it's for the greater good and his deity agrees with that, to which the Paladin can pray for his deity to ask for a sign of if that would be an ok thing to do.

....What? If anything, doing atrocities for "the greater good" is Lawful Evil.

IMHO Lawful Good is a perfectly playable alignment, but people should realize that it consists of two elements:
1. Good: This, unlike what a lot of people think, encompasses more than just 'the most profitable outcome for all' (that could be, depending on how you see it, neutral), but doing what's right purely for the sake that it's right. Even if the odds are against you, even if there is no real purpose to it, even if another course of action would be downright more profitable, a good character will choose to uphold the values of Good. Yes, this will include doing some things that might be seen as stupid (because it puts you at a disadvantage), but nobody ever told you being good was easy.

2. Lawful: This is the most difficult to pin down IMHO. We have all been raised with some notion of Good and Evil, no matter what cultural or religious background we're from, but Law and Chaos aren't something we're usually raised with or think about, or at least not in those terms. I guess we can say law values order and hiarchy, it's basically the attitude that some people were born/raised/educated to rule and others to serve, and that the later group should obey the first one. The reasoning behind this differs per lawful alignment, but a Lawful Good person would say it's the best because the ruling group is the most capable and just ruler (which is why I can see a Lawful Good character being a fervent supporter of a Meritocracy). If the rulers stop being just, the LG character has no reason to obey them and should, in fact see it as his moral duty to oppose them. This is because a Lawful Good character puts one principle at the top of the political hiarchy: the principle of Good.

Now this can easily be played by anyone without being a straightjacket, but it has some consequences. Even slightly metagaming is useless if you want to maintain this character. Somebody before me said that attacking a group of goblins that clearly overpower you to save a child is useless because you will throw your life away and your god understands you'd be useless if you're dead but I disagree. Lawful Good is all about making personal(!) sacrifices in the name of good, justice and the American way virtue. No situation you ever come across has a 100% rate of either failing or succeeding. In the scenario where a child is kidnapped by a group of goblins and parlay has proven to be useless, it is the paladins duty, as a paragon of all that is good and pure in the world, to sacrifice himself, if only to distract turn the goblins' attention away from the child so he can escape. Yes, it's certainly not the easiest thing to do. Yes, it's from an utilaristic point of view not the smartest thing to do. Yes, it will most certainly lead to your demise, but there's a reason why your average Joe Farmer will never be a paladin.

EDIT: I forgot my conclusion, how dumb of me! Anyway, here goes:
To apply all I've textwall'd above, in the OP's situation the paladin should not only be allowed to work against the Cardinal despite the hiarchy of the church, but should see it as his duty to oppose him. He is no longer a just ruler (I assume) so he has lost all obedience he has once earned. However, if the party merely supects the Cardinal to no longer be a just ruler, then the paladin is in the right to oppose this housebreaking.


Here's a simple test:

Would Batman shirk from doing it?

I'd say more like "Would Capt. America do it?"

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/6/69070/1542594-captain_america_super.jpg

[TheOOB]

Honestly, lawful good isn't that hard of an alignment to keep down. The difficult thing is the paladin code, which in all honestly makes "Lawful Stupid" not a good idea for paladins.

A good person, as a general rule, is someone who is willing to take personal risks to help innocents

A lawful person, as a general rules, is someone who respects tradition and authority, is more likely to base their actions on a wide and long-term worldview.

Lawful good people help the innocent, respect legitimate authority and the traditional ideals of good and evil, and are unlikely to commit an evil act even if it would lead to good ends.

Paladins have it worse, they lose their power if they ever perform an evil act, and "Harming an innocent" is an evil act, pretty much whatever your intentions, ergo the paladins who tend to get super aggressive and attack people for the crime of being "evil" should lose their powers.

In regards to the OP, explain to the paladin that breaking into a house is not evil in an of itself(it's chaotic, but paladins don't lose their alignment for one chaotic action), and if the target is as evil as is implied, such actions against them are allowable by the code. Paladins are obligated to fight evil when they have the chance.

[Cerlis]

first of all i'd like to point out that for every thread you see of a paladin or other lawful character causing problems, you have about 8 of a Chaotic character causing problems. Its always "do some random crazy stupid thing rather because i'm chaotic."

WHile on the otherhand we have hear "I will not commit a crime cus its wrong"

I agree that we should call into question if the paladin was given any good reason to break the law.

A lawful good character is not restricted in the slightest.

Take police work as an example. Did they have evidence to suggest he had the item? Was the evidence real proof? Was the item in question actually dangerous? Was there another way we could deal with the situation?

and Of course the only wall you would run into if you answered all those above questions "correctly" is 1) the Cardinal is corrupt, 2) the law group is corrupt or incompentent. Thus falling under the "illegitimate authority" clause.

Now i'm guessing that This particular paladin might have stayed with the stick and never moved. but that is merely a logical assumption we are making. HOwever there are plenty of other characters and players who woulda used the same excuse as shorthand for "i think its wrong and we should find another way"

I'm reminded of the movie "Sandlot" where they tried to steal the ball back and at the end the guy said they shoulda just knocked on the door and ask for it.

---------
So basically the Player may have been wrong, but i dont think for the reasons we are discussing.

[Coidzor]

first of all i'd like to point out that for every thread you see of a paladin or other lawful character causing problems, you have about 8 of a Chaotic character causing problems. Its always "do some random crazy stupid thing rather because i'm chaotic."

WHile on the otherhand we have hear "I will not commit a crime cus its wrong"

Basically they both boil down to the same root cause. An unwillingness to play the same game as the rest of the group.

[hamishspence]

Paladins have it worse, they lose their power if they ever perform an evil act, and "Harming an innocent" is an evil act, pretty much whatever your intentions, ergo the paladins who tend to get super aggressive and attack people for the crime of being "evil" should lose their powers.

There's a bit of a grey area in the "harming an innocent" issue. For example, when the intention is to save/protect that same innocent.

Maybe, if a bunch of innocents are about to die- the paladin might have to act to save some while shortening the lives of others.

In a plague outbreak, authorizing the use of a dangerous cure, for example.

Another example of "harming the innocent who are already doomed to die in the hope of saving some":

from the short story Mistworld, in Simon R. Green's Deathstalker Prelude.
Captain Starlight, of the starship Balefire, has rescued some refugees from the scorching of the planet Tannim by the Imperial Fleet, & brought them to the rebel planet Mistworld:


"How many refugees have you brought us, Captain?"
"There were fifteen thousand. Most are dead now."
"What happened?" asked Topaz.
"I killed them." said Captain Starlight.
.....
"Tannim was already under attack when I raised ship," said Starlight, moving slowly along the narrow walkway, which now showed itself to be set high up on the cargo bay wall. Steel and Topaz followed close behind him. Within the nearest cylinders, they could just make out a few of the refugees, floating like shadows in ice.

"The Imperial Fleet was dropping out of hyperspace in its hundreds. Refugee ships were being blasted out of the sky all around me. The Balefire was under attack, and my shields were giving out. I needed more power, so I took it from the sleep cylinder support systems. I had no choice."

Steel frowned thoughtfully. Even with the extra power, the Balefire shouldn't have survived long enough to drop into hyperspace. He shrugged; maybe she just got lucky. It happened. Then the significance of what Starlight had said came home to him, and he looked at the Captain of the Balefire with a slow horror.

"How much power did you take from the cylinders, Captain? How much?"

Starlight leaned out over the walkway's reinforced barrier, and tried for a life support readout on the nearest sleep cylinder. None of the lights came on. Starlight dropped his hand, and turned back to face Steel and Topaz.

"The ship needed the power. I couldn't return it until the Balefire was safely into hyper. By then it was too late."
"How many?" asked Topaz. "How many of your refugees survived the power loss?"

"Two hundred and ten," said Captain Starlight softly, bitterly. "Out of fifteen thousand, two hundred and ten."

[Cerlis]

well usually in any situation i've heard of (or at least most of em) where its a choice between saving 2 groups of people, the paladin chooses C and does some crazy plan to destroy the evil(person) and save everything.

I think the main flaw in the paladin class entry is it not mentioning that Atonement spell in the Ex-paladin entry is not a super expensive 9th lvl spell that is rare as hell.

As Shojo said, thats what its for, when doing the right thing ruins your Paladin purity.

[Zonugal]

Sort of off topic but felt it applied with the discussion bringing in Chaotic Evil I'm watching Mr. Brooks right now and wish more players went down that type of path.

Man I love that interpretation of an insane murderer.

[Ravens_cry]

Sometimes the correct thing is still the wrong thing.
But a Paladin is all about making sacrifices. Sometimes that means breaking their code. That is what Atonement is for, atoning for the necessary sins.

[Mad Gene Vane]

I've had a game I played in ruined before because of the paladin of Church of the Silver Flame in the group. The DM wanted the rest of the PCs (who were chaotic/neutral good) a chance to do something that required a bit of law breaking, we argued that it was Eberron, and even the the Player's Handbook describes alignments as 'a tool, not a straightjacket'. The paladin, however, argued that his PC was 'Lawful Good, he would never break into the the Cardinals' manor even if our patron says he has a powerful goblinoid artifact inside.' It just went downhill from there unfortunately.

You do understand this is not just a "bit of law breaking", with regards do Eberron?

Your asking someone, who is totally committed to obeying his (her) superiors in the Church of the Silver Flame, with very few question, to break into a superior's house.

If it wasn't a Cardinal of the Silver Flame, I think the whole straight-jacket versus guideline would come more into play.

This is basically asking the Paladin to potentially be excommunicated from the Church, which would basically make him (her) an ex-Paladin.

I think the scenario goes a bit beyond breaking some laws and your DM really picked an extreme scenario to test the Paladin.

[Mad Gene Vane]

Just wanted to add Lawful Good as an alignment can be interpreted differently than the way a Paladin is played.

A Paladin is literally "on a mission from God", so they maybe a bit stricter in their code of conduct than another class that is Lawful Good.

[Lord_Gareth]

A Paladin is literally "on a mission from God", so they maybe a bit stricter in their code of conduct than another class that is Lawful Good.

No, they aren't (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205965).

To quote the relevant bit of text:


Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Now, there's no mention of a divinity of any kind in that text. Getting better, if you check the Cleric entry out, you'll find this gem:


Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

So you'd think if Paladins were required to have a god, there'd be something like that in there.

In short: the Paladin code is emblematic of what WotC thought the ultimate Lawful Good should be. They were grossly incorrect.

[wayfare]

No, they aren't (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205965).

To quote the relevant bit of text:



Now, there's no mention of a divinity of any kind in that text. Getting better, if you check the Cleric entry out, you'll find this gem:



So you'd think if Paladins were required to have a god, there'd be something like that in there.

In short: the Paladin code is emblematic of what WotC thought the ultimate Lawful Good should be. They were grossly incorrect.

How were they grossly incorrect? The class derives its power from its incredible dedication to a philosophy, a philosophy that is nearly unattainable. Its the pursuit of that philosophy that powers a Paladin's supernatural strength...IMHO, at least.

In my games, if a person wants to play a paladin, it has to be approved by the entire party. It is a decision that will effect everyone, so everybody has to approve it. That said, if it is approved, I try not to allow argument as to the paladin's code: its up to the player to act as he sees fit in service to that code, and up to me to see that proper judgment is passed if the code is broken.

[Coidzor]

Well, Paladins are not the Blues Brothers unless they take some specific substitution levels and a feat....

[navar100]

Sometimes the correct thing is still the wrong thing.
But a Paladin is all about making sacrifices. Sometimes that means breaking their code. That is what Atonement is for, atoning for the necessary sins.

A paladin does not just break his code because it gets in the way as if to say "I'll just Atone for it." The paladin follows the code. He will follow the Good course of action over the Lawful course of action should they conflict because his code mandates never willingly commit Evil and says nothing about Chaos, though non-Lawful != Chaotic.

If the Lawful course was equally Right, the paladin may seek Atonement for personal salvation, but he's not divinely punished for making a decision, i.e. he doesn't lose his abilities. He's punishing himself and needs the Atonement so he can forgive himself. If the Lawful course was non-Evil, there's no problem. The paladin made the Right choice. If he chose it over the Good course he's not going to lose his abilities, but he'll need Atonement for personal and/or divine salvation. If the Lawful course was Evil, there's no conflict at all and choosing the Good course requires no Atonement of salvation of any kind.

[Coidzor]

A paladin does not just break his code because it gets in the way as if to say "I'll just Atone for it." The paladin follows the code. He will follow the Good course of action over the Lawful course of action should they conflict because his code mandates never willingly commit Evil and says nothing about Chaos, though non-Lawful != Chaotic.

If the Lawful course was equally Right, the paladin may seek Atonement for personal salvation, but he's not divinely punished for making a decision, i.e. he doesn't lose his abilities. He's punishing himself and needs the Atonement so he can forgive himself. If the Lawful course was non-Evil, there's no problem. The paladin made the Right choice. If he chose it over the Good course he's not going to lose his abilities, but he'll need Atonement for personal and/or divine salvation. If the Lawful course was Evil, there's no conflict at all and choosing the Good course requires no Atonement of salvation of any kind.

The Atonement Spell has nothing to do with making someone feel less guilty about something and things should probably not take the fluff in that direction...

[Feytalist]

Well, Paladins are not the Blues Brothers unless they take some specific substitution levels and a feat....

Or perhaps just take a few levels in bard.

"No ma'am, we're musicians."

A side note: in the FR setting, paladins are in effect on a mission from god. They must have a patron, and it must be one who supports paladins. This gets a bit weird when someone like Sune, a CG goddess of beauty and love, is explicitly stated to have paladins. I've always wondered how her paladins swing their code.

[Ravens_cry]

A paladin does not just break his code because it gets in the way as if to say "I'll just Atone for it." The paladin follows the code. He will follow the Good course of action over the Lawful course of action should they conflict because his code mandates never willingly commit Evil and says nothing about Chaos, though non-Lawful != Chaotic.

If the Lawful course was equally Right, the paladin may seek Atonement for personal salvation, but he's not divinely punished for making a decision, i.e. he doesn't lose his abilities. He's punishing himself and needs the Atonement so he can forgive himself. If the Lawful course was non-Evil, there's no problem. The paladin made the Right choice. If he chose it over the Good course he's not going to lose his abilities, but he'll need Atonement for personal and/or divine salvation. If the Lawful course was Evil, there's no conflict at all and choosing the Good course requires no Atonement of salvation of any kind.
Oh, of course not ,and that is indeed a dangerous road to go down. But to use an example from another thread, let us say that the Big Destroying the Universe Bad was using mental manipulation on anyone who came close and another player had a Protection from Good scroll. Using it is an Evil act, but it s the only way the Paladin can get close enough to strike the BDtUB down. Should a Paladin let the universe be destroyed so they don't Fall?

[Cerlis]

huh. interesting. according to the paladin code you dont even need to interpret it loosly. You only lose your powers if you cease to be lawful good (only a problem with DMs who think one chaotic act will ruin you, or players who decide one chaotic act no matter how chaotic if it is only one act wont ruin you), if you willingly commit an evil act or GROSSLY violate your code (the whole honor and authority stich)

So short of playing chaotic or neutral, murdering or torturing people, and Horribly offending your code, a paladin has no problems.

Again reinforcing the idea of how the problem is with the players and or DM , not the class. (unless the group is playing Chaotic stupid or Evil and then its just a matter of party clashing, nothing to do with the Paladin)

[hamishspence]

But to use an example from another thread, let us say that the Big Destroying the Universe Bad was using mental manipulation on anyone who came close and another player had a Protection from Good scroll. Using it is an Evil act, but it s the only way the Paladin can get close enough to strike the BDtUB down. Should a Paladin let the universe be destroyed so they don't Fall?

It is very low on the "Corrupt act" scale- 1 point, which is comparable to "humiliating an underling" or "intimidating torture" (torture that inflicts no damage).

While technically it's still "willingly committing an evil act" a case could certainly be made, that occasionally, Paladins have to choose between two evil acts (BoVD hints that failure to intervene when you have the power to do so, may qualify as "more evil" than intervening).

BoED (and, I think, FC2) does mention that sometimes this will happen, character will fall- and that the gods are very forgiving.

[Ravens_cry]

And that was my point. While a Paladin must be especially careful not to fall into the "for the Greater Good" potential trap, sometimes doing wrong is the correct thing to do.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much. Sometimes "the right thing to do" will make the Paladin fall- and this may be something the players need to accept.

Which is not to say the paladin shouldn't bend over backwards to avoid doing it- to find a better way- but when that fails, they may have to carry out the action.

[Frozen_Feet]

Occasionally, Paladins have to choose between two evil acts.

Lose - lose situations are fairly common emergent quality of games, for all characters - apparently, mechanical penalties associated with Falling just mean that there's a vocal proportion of players who consider moral lose - lose scenarios for a Paladin to be particularly outrageous, and a sign that the GM has a beef with the player.

[Midnight_v]

I'd say more like "Would Capt. America do it?"

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/6/69070/1542594-captain_america_super.jpg[/QUOTE]

You realize of course Dr.Doom would say the same thing right? The part that debones the Good Capt. here is that the argument he's using is just individual moral absolutism. Most lawful Evil Guys follow the same code, frankly. I don't mean to nitpick you but it kind doens't work for me. So here's one of the most interesting things about D&D Lawful Good, that I've ever seen written.


Originally Posted by FrankTrollman
You Are Not Good. And Your Mom is Not Good.
"I have made mistakes in my life, but basically I think I'm a good person."
I'm sorry, but you are not a Good person. You go through your life, you don't stab anyone in the face, you don't break any laws, you don't take pictures of naked children, and… so what? You want a medal for that? Shut up. The sad fact of the matter is that if you aren't exerting yourself for a cause, if you aren't exerting yourself for something, you aren't Good. You probably aren't Evil, but seriously: get over yourself. Before you can really get into the mind of a Good character you honestly have to come to terms with the fact that you, as a person, are probably Neutral. Your character is a much better person than you are.
The reverse is also true for villains, and should come as no surprise to people who play Evil characters, since most people don't consider themselves Evil. Characters are generally much more than the players who play them. Villains are blacker, heroes are nobler, and when you play one of those characters you should come to terms with that. Even though it probably hurts you a little bit to contemplate it, if you're going to even try to play a Good character you need to play them as a much better person than you personally are.
The Exalted: Slaves to Unreason
"This is why we have to eradicate the conversations that we can retreat without ending, that we have a lot of territory, that our country is great and rich, that we have a lot of population and we will always have enough bread. These conversations are false and harmful, as they weaken us and strengthen the enemy, for if we do not stop retreating, we will be left without bread, without fuel, without metals, without raw materials, without magic and forges, without roads. The conclusion is that it is time to stop the retreat. Not a single step back!"

It is tempting to conclude that one's viewpoint is so important, so correct, that no argument or compromise is possible. Whether one's ideals are based on faith or reason, it can be truly confusing, even hurtful, to contemplate the fact that these ideals are not shared by the people around you. And it is from this natural frustration that flows fanaticism like blood from a wound. Fanatics do not compromise, do not rest, and push their agendas for good or ill at all times. And these fanatics are called "Exalted" by those who support their ideals.
Characters and creatures can be Exalted towards any alignment, though by definition it is not possible to share such an alignment and temper it with any other. A character who is Exalted Chaos cannot temper his Chaos with thoughts of Good or Evil. These alignments are represented with an X: XG is Exalted Good, XE is Exalted Evil, XC and XL are Exalted Chaos and Law respectively.<br>
The Exalted part is what Captain America is pulling right there, and its not an issue of right or wrong, its more issue of Moral Absolutism "My way is right and everyone else is wrong" I can't say that such a veiw is "good" or even unique to good, seems more a simple extreme justification for face stabbing. The scary thing about this is how many people of power in real life actually believe and lead under such a rubric.

[KnightDisciple]

...Um, Moral Absolutism, all debates about how it interacts with the Real World aside, is kind of an assumed thing in superhero comics and D&D.

Superhero comics: That's how you have heroes and villains, not "guys whose goals are violently opposed. Heroes are (or should be) Good.
In that instance, Capt wasn't just pontificating, he was right. Just look at all the crap that came from the Pro-Registration Side in Civil War. As much as it tried to "balance both sides", it ended up with pretty clear indications of who was right.

Beyond that, you need only look at every time Steve Rogers has fought any force of evil to see similar things being said. This dude selflessly faces down Thanos and the like. And you're trying to equate him to Doctor Doom?

D&D: Even more so than in comics, D&D has moral absolutes. I mean, we've got alignments for crying out loud? And Lawful Good is one that doesn't say "you know, these murderers might just be operating under a different moral code" or whatnot. It stops the bad guys, you know?

All of which is to say that: Someone asking "What would Marvel 616 Captain America do?" is a perfectly valid measuring stick for a Paladin.

...But not Ultimate Cap. He's a jerk. :smalltongue:

[Zonugal]

In that instance, Capt wasn't just pontificating, he was right. Just look at all the crap that came from the Pro-Registration Side in Civil War. As much as it tried to "balance both sides", it ended up with pretty clear indications of who was right.

Nah it really didn't, it was incredibly one-sides almost to a laughable scale.

[Kaeso]

@Midnight V: While you do make a point about the dangers of absolute individual morality, you have to be careful with that argument as well. We, real people, live in a world where morality is partly relative. The DnD universe, however, has a morality that's so absolute any character with class levels can easily judge wether or not somethings is good or evil. In that world, a wizard/cleric/paladin can literally say "Is that act evil? Let's ask my god/use the malev-o-meter". There's even a periapt that warns you when you're about to commit an evil act, how's that for absolute?

As for the fact that Dr. Doom could say the same as Capt. America said, I completely agree. That doesn't however make the "Capt. America criterium" less good or more evil. There's an English saying (by Shakespear if I'm correct) that goes "even the Devil can use the Scripture for his own purpose". Of course Dr. Doom can use the same phrases, reasoning and semantics as Capt. America, but that doesn't mean his acts originate from a feeling of empathy, altruism or a sense of justice, but are just cloaked as originating from these virtues. Dr. Doom as you describe him (I'm not familliar with any American comics to be completely honest, so I don't know if that's how Dr. Doom really is) would fit my image of a blackguard: one that does evil while claiming to work for the greater good (for example, by creating a perfect world through culling out the weak and feeble).

Just for some clarification: I used that quote/image because that, to me, displays what a paladin is all about. Even when he's in the belly of the beast, when he's in a society/world where evil reigns and he is ridiculed for his virtues and ideals (let's say that he's a goblin born in a tribe of baby-eating, puppy-kicking, corpse-desecrating goblins) he still makes a stand in the name of truth and justice (as a non-American, I don't really like the fact that he adds "and the American way" to his catchphrase, as if that's the only right way, but I digress), even if that means he has to break ties with all those he formerly called friends and even face the risk of death and torture. In my eyes, that's the grand difference between just being Lawful Good and being a Paladin: somebody who's LG defends truth and justice, but to a certain extent. A Paladin lives and dies for truth, justice and the LG way.

@KnightDisciple: *agrees*

[hamishspence]

Even when he's in the belly of the beast, when he's in a society/world where evil reigns and he is ridiculed for his virtues and ideals (let's say that he's a goblin born in a tribe of baby-eating, puppy-kicking, corpse-desecrating goblins) he still makes a stand in the name of truth and justice (as a non-American, I don't really like the fact that he adds "and the American way" to his catchphrase, as if that's the only right way, but I digress), even if that means he has to break ties with all those he formerly called friends and even face the risk of death and torture. In my eyes, that's the grand difference between just being Lawful Good and being a Paladin: somebody who's LG defends truth and justice, but to a certain extent. A Paladin lives and dies for truth, justice and the LG way.


BoED suggests applying this to NG and CG characters as well- just in different ways. And mentions that if the "accepted values" of the D&D society are somewhat Evil, that still doesn't undermine the duty to act Good.

Great idea- not so great execution.

Which is why I like BoED- but dislike occasional bits in it.

[Zonugal]

Dr. Doom as you describe him (I'm not familliar with any American comics to be completely honest, so I don't know if that's how Dr. Doom really is) would fit my image of a blackguard: one that does evil while claiming to work for the greater good (for example, by creating a perfect world through culling out the weak and feeble).

Hopefully not pulling the train of the rails too much but you have your fingers on the globe. He is a little worse than that, well... He is a lot worse than that. Discard the idea of a Blackguard, think of a Wizard (an Artificer works better but...) who knew he was smarter & better than everyone. Now imagine with such pride he decided that nobody was fit to rule as all were animals compared to himself. He is pretty much the terrifying version of a TO Wizard.

Here is the thing though, it has been proven in several comics that Dr. Doom is correct. When in command of a country (like Latveria) or even the world he pretty much turns it into a utopia. A perfect place expect for one thing, you have to acknowledge Dr. Doom as a God...

[marcielle]

HAL 9000 - He kills the astronauts for the GOOD of the overall mission according to the logical LAWS he is programmed with.

So the question is, would HAL 9000 do it?

[Zonugal]

HAL 9000 - He kills the astronauts for the GOOD of the overall mission according to the logical LAWS he is programmed with.

So the question is, would HAL 9000 do it?

Perhaps Lawful Neutral would fit HAL better, what him being so rigid with those Laws (after all he didn't decide what 'good' was, he merely followed through with a logical prerogative). If anything the Modron should be modeling themselves after HAL.

[Captain Caveman]

I think Lawful Good is just as much "Lawful Stupid" as Chaotic Evil is "Chaotic Stupid." Being lawful good doesn't mean you are held down by Superman logic every single time. Just like being chaotic evil doesn't mean you stampede into town killing everything you see because you can. Each alignment does have a bit of a fudge room. Here is the problem, there is no fudge room on the paladin. There is in fact so little room for fudging on the paladin that Dungeons and Dragons saw fit to create a prestige class to give the paladin some fudge room called Gray Guard. Becoming a Gray Guard is like ripping the paladins head back making him look at the big picture and going "hey torture is okay if we do more good as an end result."

My take in summation Lawful Good= Guidelines. Paladin=straightjacket.

[marcielle]

Perhaps Lawful Neutral would fit HAL better, what him being so rigid with those Laws (after all he didn't decide what 'good' was, he merely followed through with a logical prerogative). If anything the Modron should be modeling themselves after HAL.

I can't believe anyone took that seriously but I guess you might be right. Though I feel the neutral response would have been leave things as is and carry on.

[Starbuck_II]

Paladins have it worse, they lose their power if they ever perform an evil act, and "Harming an innocent" is an evil act, pretty much whatever your intentions, ergo the paladins who tend to get super aggressive and attack people for the crime of being "evil" should lose their powers.


Innocent is loose term that isn't defined.
Heck, Innocent in Vampire the Masquade: Bloodlines RPG on Steam is not anyone who attacks you/others (excluding cops for some reason) or is evil.

So Innocent isn't evil. So you can't lose powers by that logic.

Unless Innocent is defined by WotC, we are getting in houserule territory to argue innocent can be evil.

[hamishspence]

While WotC doesn't specifically define Innocent, several splatbooks do say that there are Evil people that "don't deserve to be attacked by adventurers".

If you go with Innocent as "hasn't done anything evil" a newly hatched Chromatic dragon, or someone newly hit with a Helm of Opposite Alignment to turn them evil- is innocent.

Combine the two- and you can have quite a few Evil, Innocent beings.

[Ravens_cry]

While WotC doesn't specifically define Innocent, several splatbooks do say that there are Evil people that "don't deserve to be attacked by adventurers".

If you go with Innocent as "hasn't done anything evil" a newly hatched Chromatic dragon, or someone newly hit with a Helm of Opposite Alignment to turn them evil- is innocent.

Combine the two- and you can have quite a few Evil, Innocent beings.


Not to mention someone might already have been punished for whatever acts they did that would make them Ping as Evil. They could be Innocent in a sense that they did not do the crime and a justice that relies on a scapegoat, however foul, is no justice at all.

[NecroRick]

Well, Paladins are not the Blues Brothers unless they take some specific substitution levels and a feat....

That would totally rock... come on, share! :D

[Kaeso]

Hopefully not pulling the train of the rails too much but you have your fingers on the globe. He is a little worse than that, well... He is a lot worse than that. Discard the idea of a Blackguard, think of a Wizard (an Artificer works better but...) who knew he was smarter & better than everyone. Now imagine with such pride he decided that nobody was fit to rule as all were animals compared to himself. He is pretty much the terrifying version of a TO Wizard.

Here is the thing though, it has been proven in several comics that Dr. Doom is correct. When in command of a country (like Latveria) or even the world he pretty much turns it into a utopia. A perfect place expect for one thing, you have to acknowledge Dr. Doom as a God...

Ouch, that sounds a lot deeper than you'd expect from a character with a name like Dr. Doom. At first I mostly expected him to be "lulz, for teh evilz" but now that you explain it that way he might be one of the most interesting villains around.


I think Lawful Good is just as much "Lawful Stupid" as Chaotic Evil is "Chaotic Stupid." Being lawful good doesn't mean you are held down by Superman logic every single time. Just like being chaotic evil doesn't mean you stampede into town killing everything you see because you can. Each alignment does have a bit of a fudge room. Here is the problem, there is no fudge room on the paladin. There is in fact so little room for fudging on the paladin that Dungeons and Dragons saw fit to create a prestige class to give the paladin some fudge room called Gray Guard. Becoming a Gray Guard is like ripping the paladins head back making him look at the big picture and going "hey torture is okay if we do more good as an end result."

My take in summation Lawful Good= Guidelines. Paladin=straightjacket.

First, let me agree with you that the paladin is supposed to be far above the normal LG in their devotion to Law and Good. Next, I hear the phrases "Chaotic Stupid" and "Lawful stupid" a lot around here. I can fully understand "Chaotic Stupid", even the most Chaotic and Evil individual has to plan at least a bit lest he gets beaten to a bloody pulp by an angry mob, but I don't understand Lawful Stupid. Is a paladin "stupid" because his path will sometimes lead to death? If the people on the board think this is the reason to call him stupid, IMHO they don't understand what being a paladin is about. Utter devotion to good doesn't mean you intend to live to fight another day as much as it means... well.... being utterly devoted to law and good. A paladin knows from day 1 that he's facing an uphill struggle and he will most likely have to sacrifice himself, but there's nothing more glorious than sacrificing yourself for the good of all. Would superheroes be interesting (or even worthy of the label 'superhero') if they weren't willing to sacrifice themselves?

As for the bit about torture, there's two cases here:
1. Let's say there's a magical spell/ritual/device that's about to destroy the entire known world, and only one person knows how to stop it. He can't be persuaded by other means. This is where torture might be deemed the best course of action. In such a case a paladin shouldn't fall, because inaction is even worse than torture. However, cases like these are/should be EXTREMELY rare. More often than not they shouldn't even come up in a campaign.
2. Any other case. In any other case the paladin should fall for even contemplating torturing another. Paladin are devoted to doing 'Good', not 'the greater good' (note how one is spelled with a capital G while the other isn't), because that route can lead to evil. Yes, torturing a character that is labeled as evil could be the easiest route, but anybody who calls himself good shouldn't think about it, and a paladin should be ashamed if he catches himself thinking about it, if you ever choose to fight an evil power on its own terms, in a way Evil has already won. If there is another way, a paladin (or any character that can truly call himself any kind of good) must walk that way. Yes, it will be more difficult, mindnumbing and physically painful, but nobody ever said being a hero was an easy thing to do. That's why Joe Farmer doesn't get on his horse (or cow, as is more likely) to defeat the evil dragon. Heroes are respected for their willingness to suffer, not because they make the most efficient choices. That's not to say that the paladin should throw himself in front of an evil dragon as a martyr when there's another choice, but he should judge morally first, utilistic judgments should merely be second.

[hamishspence]

As for the bit about torture, there's two cases here:
1. Let's say there's a magical spell/ritual/device that's about to destroy the entire known world, and only one person knows how to stop it. He can't be persuaded by other means. This is where torture might be deemed the best course of action. In such a case a paladin shouldn't fall, because inaction is even worse than torture. However, cases like these are/should be EXTREMELY rare. More often than not they shouldn't even come up in a campaign.

BoVD does give "inaction is worse than action- therefore action does not make you fall"- but that was for killing a not-evil, deluded person about to commit mass murder, when there's no other way.

Torture is a trickier one, what with consistantly being listed as an Evil act in numerous books, and as a Corrupt act (varying with the intensity of it) in Fiendish Codex 2.



2. Any other case. In any other case the paladin should fall for even contemplating torturing another. Paladin are devoted to doing 'Good', not 'the greater good' (note how one is spelled with a capital G while the other isn't), because that route can lead to evil. Yes, torturing a character that is labeled as evil could be the easiest route, but anybody who calls himself good shouldn't think about it, and a paladin should be ashamed if he catches himself thinking about it, if you ever choose to fight an evil power on its own terms, in a way Evil has already won. If there is another way, a paladin (or any character that can truly call himself any kind of good) must walk that way. Yes, it will be more difficult, mindnumbing and physically painful, but nobody ever said being a hero was an easy thing to do. That's why Joe Farmer doesn't get on his horse (or cow, as is more likely) to defeat the evil dragon. Heroes are respected for their willingness to suffer, not because they make the most efficient choices. That's not to say that the paladin should throw himself in front of an evil dragon as a martyr when there's another choice, but he should judge morally first, utilistic judgments should merely be second.

Players Handbook 2 does say in the paladin section that one credo is "in the absence of moral absolutes, a paladin should act on the greatest good for the greatest number."

When the act is one that the book says is evil, but the players think of as very minor (such as rebuking undead, from the PHB) a case could be made that atonement should be easy here.

[Ravens_cry]

@Kaeso:
No, he should still Fall. Just because it was the best thing to do, even the only thing that can be done, does not make it good.
If you're going to do things like that, you have to be ready to take the consequences. Such things should be atoned for at the very least.

[Kaeso]

BoVD does give "inaction is worse than action- therefore action does not make you fall"- but that was for killing a not-evil, deluded person about to commit mass murder, when there's no other way.

Torture is a trickier one, what with consistantly being listed as an Evil act in numerous books, and as a Corrupt act (varying with the intensity of it) in Fiendish Codex 2.



Players Handbook 2 does say in the paladin section that one credo is "in the absence of moral absolutes, a paladin should act on the greatest good for the greatest number."

When the act is one that the book says is evil, but the players think of as very minor (such as rebuking undead, from the PHB) a case could be made that atonement should be easy here.

Hmm, it seems my opinion is more or less in line with the official rules, that's nice to know. However, it's weird that WotC brings up the clause of killing a non-evil deluded person as an evil act that does not make a paladin fall because inaction is worse, but never considered that in some very specific cases torture could be the only way. If there really is an evil ritual going on somewhere in the world that's going to summon Cthulhu, and you happened to catch one of the few wizards who knows where and when this will take place, and you know for a fact that Cthulhu isn't just visiting for some tea, biscuits and a good talk about politics, then why whould torture be more evil than killing a non-evil, deluded mass murderer? In the latter, we defend the lives of a handful of innocent people (not that such an endeavour isn't noble), while in the first we save all of existance.

Also, I'm probably completly missing the point but is it even possible for a paladin to rebuke undead? :smallconfused:

[NOhara24]

Here's a simple test:

Would Batman shirk from doing it?

Batman is Chaotic Good. Paladin =! Batman.

[hamishspence]

Hmm, it seems my opinion is more or less in line with the official rules, that's nice to know. However, it's weird that WotC brings up the clause of killing a non-evil deluded person as an evil act that does not make a paladin fall because inaction is worse, but never considered that in some very specific cases torture could be the only way.

It's phrased more as "Is doing this evil? No, because standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the act".

So it's a subtype of the general "Is killing people always evil" question.
Narrowed down to "Is killing nonevil people always evil".

Killing in general is one of those actions that's "Evil unless (insert justification here)".

Torture, for one reason or another, doesn't get that "insert justification here" option.

As to Batman- Complete Scoundrel calls him Lawful Good- but all "scoundrel characters" get a bit more slack on alignment.

So a scoundrel Lawful Good character, can get away with breaking a few laws.



Also, I'm probably completly missing the point but is it even possible for a paladin to rebuke undead? :smallconfused:

If they got their hands on the right magic item, or prestige class, probably.

It's more relevant for LN clerics of Wee Jas, or Dread Necromancers- that need to know what acts are evil (though minor) so they can behave in a Good enough fashion to compensate for this and avoid slipping from Neutral to Evil.

[Ravens_cry]

Batman is Chaotic Good. Paladin =! Batman.
Batman is all alignments, a motivational poster told me so (http://furiousfanboys.com/2010/10/if-batman-played-dd/).

[hamishspence]

However, how he consistantly behaves (rather than how he behaves for a moment or two) may show a trend more toward Goodness (taking personal risks for strangers, avoiding committing serious evil acts with any regularity) and Lawfulness (organization, desire to make the world a more orderly place).

On D&D acts- While the whole concept of "Always Evil acts" may be a little iffy- they may also make sense in universe (Evil spells, Evil as a cosmic force) or from a design perspective (the designers didn't want to convey the idea that torture was ever acceptable, lest they provoke a backlash).

[Kaeso]

However, how he consistantly behaves (rather than how he behaves for a moment or two) may show a trend more toward Goodness (taking personal risks for strangers, avoiding committing serious evil acts with any regularity) and Lawfulness (organization, desire to make the world a more orderly place).

On D&D acts- While the whole concept of "Always Evil acts" may be a little iffy- they may also make sense in universe (Evil spells, Evil as a cosmic force) or from a design perspective (the designers didn't want to convey the idea that torture was ever acceptable, lest they provoke a backlash).

I think the problem with Batman is that he has over 70 years of continuity and a plethora of writers who describe him (and the batman villains) differently. For example, the "goddamn Batman" from Frank Miller is, IMHO, not even close to any definition of good, he just happens to mostly fight people that are bad.

[hamishspence]

The minimum standard for Good tends to be "makes personal sacrifices to help others" + "avoids committing evil acts"

With the latter getting a bit of slack (minor evil acts on an irregular basis might not be enough to pull the character out of Good, but more routine evil acts, or more serious ones, might- Champions of Ruin does suggest this.).

A case could be made that one's time, + one's safety, can both be both personal sacrifices.

[Engine]

I've had a game I played in ruined before because of the paladin of Church of the Silver Flame in the group. The DM wanted the rest of the PCs (who were chaotic/neutral good) a chance to do something that required a bit of law breaking, we argued that it was Eberron, and even the the Player's Handbook describes alignments as 'a tool, not a straightjacket'. The paladin, however, argued that his PC was 'Lawful Good, he would never break into the the Cardinals' manor even if our patron says he has a powerful goblinoid artifact inside.' It just went downhill from there unfortunately.

I really don't see why it's the paladin's fault, seriously. Your fellow player did something absolutely in character, IMHO.

[Starbuck_II]

While WotC doesn't specifically define Innocent, several splatbooks do say that there are Evil people that "don't deserve to be attacked by adventurers".

If you go with Innocent as "hasn't done anything evil" a newly hatched Chromatic dragon, or someone newly hit with a Helm of Opposite Alignment to turn them evil- is innocent.

Combine the two- and you can have quite a few Evil, Innocent beings.

Yes, but have they defined wht those evil don't deserve it? If not than the mention is meaningless and mean of those splatbooks: Why not say why these are free from being attacked.

[hamishspence]

One reason is "Because there's no evidence of particular wrongdoing" (alignment detection doesn't say why the being is evil).

Another is "Because it's disproportionate" (where the evil deeds are, so far, known to be petty- nothing serious enough to warrant the death penalty).

The first reason is given in BoED, the second in Eberron Campaign Setting.

[Zonugal]

Batman is Chaotic Good. Paladin =! Batman.

Based on which interpretation you read many of them push heavily towards Batman being Lawful Good. The problem is that the wording for Chaotic Good fits Batman pretty well:


A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Except that it leaves out his overtly-fascistic elements like him turning everyone's cell-phones into sonar radios for his own use or creating various clones of himself over the world (Batman Incorporated). Not to mention his level of dedication, practice and preparedness is typically out-side the realm of a chaotic creature. For all the laws he breaks Batman is one of the most lawfully-structures beings in DC.

The real problem with Batman is that he is a Lawfully Good character who is desperately trying to be Chaotic Good.

[PersonMan]

The real problem with Batman is that he is a Lawfully Good character who is desperately trying to be Chaotic Good.

Sounds like Neutral Good to me, then, or LG leaning NG.

I mean, isn't X Neutral often "does lawful stuff, but also chaotic stuff"?

[Sylivin]

This is really more of a paladin thing. His rules make it more difficult than it needs to be.

A lawful good person is simply someone that is helps others at their own loss (the most typical "loss" for a good character is time) and believes that society is better off being orderly with laws that restrict everyone. He also believes that following those laws is better than not following them.

So in the example from the beginning, is a lawful good character going to break into the cardinal's house to steal a goblinoid artifact? Most likely not. It's certainly not a good thing to do, and if they really need it maybe there are legal ways to get a hold of it?

Of course a lot of this can be smoothed over by the DM - what's that? The cardinal got it from murdering an entire village? He doesn't deserve it in the first place! Now it is no longer stealing - the lawful good character is "liberating" the statue and might end up bringing the cardinal to justice in the process as well.. assuming he can find some more incriminating evidence.