The nature of Paladins

[Shadowknight12]

Um i think it has something to do with the whole "Raping the natural cycle of life with evil energies to molest a departed person's remains for your own benefit, and possible tainting of the person's ETERNAL SOUL!"

so, um, wtf you talkin' 'bout.

He's saying that a mindless creature cannot be evil because it contradicts the alignment rules. He's right, too.

What you're talking about is the necromancer, who may or may not be evil (depending on whether corpse desecration is evil in your campaign or not. That's another example of what I said earlier about only taking into consideration one specific kind of morality and disregarding all other alternatives. If I come from a culture that does not see corpse desecration as an evil thing, why am I suppose to adopt the cultural morality of D&D's creators? Why can't I adapt morality to what I know, rather than having to operate on completely alien ethics?), not the zombie or skeleton themselves.

[Cerlis]

He's saying that a mindless creature cannot be evil because it contradicts the alignment rules. He's right, too.

What you're talking about is the necromancer, who may or may not be evil (depending on whether corpse desecration is evil in your campaign or not. That's another example of what I said earlier about only taking into consideration one specific kind of morality and disregarding all other alternatives. If I come from a culture that does not see corpse desecration as an evil thing, why am I suppose to adopt the cultural morality of D&D's creators? Why can't I adapt morality to what I know, rather than having to operate on completely alien ethics?), not the zombie or skeleton themselves.

well that would be so if Evil wasnt a tangible force impowering the Undead. Its the difference between subjective evil and Elemental force Evil.

same way a character with powerpoints is subclassed as Psionic, so to is something full of evil energy subclassed as Evil

[JBento]

But it's NOT full of Evil energy. It's full of NEGATIVE energy, of which there are plenty of non-Evil examples

[Talakeal]

Undead have nothing to do with Evil, or in the case of lesser undead, the departed persons soul.

They are animated by the energy of the Negative Energy plane. The plane is not evil, the outsiders who dwell there are not evil, and 90% of spells which channel negative energy directly are not evil.

Also, desecrating someone's remains doesn't have to be evil, depending on the culture, the need, and if they are volunteering to let you do it. Even the BoED doesn't claim that it is. And if violating the natural cycle is evil, then any cleric who ever casts a healing spell, let alone a raise dead, is also evil.

[Jeebers]

Interesting. This has morphed a little into a debate as to whether or not undead are evil by nature.

The point I wanted to make was that an automaton, a robot, can't be evil. It only does what it is programmed to do; it can't act on its own. Saying a zombie or skeleton is evil would be like saying a spear or sword is evil. Both are tools that can't act on their own.

Saying that creating zombies or skeletons is evil is more of a cultural thing. Me personally, I figure if there's no soul present, it's nothing more than a shell, a rotting slab of meat, therefore it doesn't matter much. As well, the usage of poison is just as cultural (relativistic), because if you go around the world, most countries don't feel the way Europe does about poison.

Similarly, being possessed and then doing evil acts isn't evil for the one being controlled. Why? THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, IT WAS THE FREAKIN' DEMON THAT DID IT! So why atone for something you didn't do? Effectively your brain is disconnected from your body, and doesn't have control over it.

[JBento]

And that's all logical and true - unfortunately, D&D rules disagree, and even went to the effort of making zombies and skellies Evil in 3.5 (they weren't in 3.0).

And the alignment system says:

Logik! I no haz it! :smallsigh:

[Jeebers]

I dunno. I don't think the alignment system is illogical or "broken". I think it just needs some tweaking, that's all.

I forget, did Pathfinder address any of these contradictions?

[JBento]

It needs tweaking like the Truenamer - take a sledgehammer to it and try to make something useful out of what's left :smallwink:

[Jeebers]

Actually, I know nothing of the Truenamer so I can't comment. I am interested in Shadow magic as a PC class, but I've heard it was too weak. Anybody tell me where to find it, and do you have any ideas as to how to buff it up some?

Anyway, I still think Superman is a great example of a non fanatical Paladin. He's got more of a sense of perspective than most players seem to about being LG, that's for sure.

[sambo.]

The problem is that D&D uses a set of draconian restrictions in an attempt to enforce a "noble" code of conduct for Paladins. What it ends up doing is forcing (most) Paladins to play one specific way, and - due to the poorly worded or thought out code - forces the party to play along with them.

As such, a lot of players end up biased against Paladins in general - likely because they have played with the "Lawful Stickinmud" type before, and didn't like it. Certain DMs will stretch the restrictions to ridiculous lengths, or make up new ones, which isn't any fun to play with either.

with a little creativity and the Paladin's Code can be surprisingly broad.

careful choosing of a deity is also major factor. Bahamut, for example, is a good one for LG paladins. mostly because he doesn't expect his paladins to take up the burdens of others (even the burdens of other Paladins of Bahamut).

so merely offering a meal and the safety of the camp for the night or making a Lore/Religion/Dragons knowledge check on someone elses behalf can get a Paladin of Bahamut out of a whole range of situations that paladins of other gods might find potentially sticky.


Just a couple problems:

Players:Some players make a paladin out to be the dumb sort of goody two shoes type of guy. The guy that always tells the truth, and can not handle any lie, for example. The guy that can never do anything wrong. For example curfew is 10 pm, so the paladin will refuse to leave the inn after 10 pm, even to save someone being slaughtered by a were wolf just down the street.

They also have a problem with stealing. So if the group does the old ''grab some clothing off the laundry line to blend in'' the paladin will refuse to do so and will even expose them as the laundry thieves.

And they never want to go along with 'tricks'. They will refuse to hide or use misdirection or such. They won't sneak in to the castle, they must walk up and announce themselves...and worse.


DM's:A great many DM's have an unnatural hatred for paladins, or at least see them as a great chance to play around with ''laws/ethics/morality/life/death and such. So many DM's just attack a paladin player and try every second to destroy them. They will set up trap after trap to get the paladin to loose all their powers. They will constantly to all the crazy things like 'when fighting a troll and a girl asks for help finding her lost kitty, what should the paladin do?' A player might say ''fight the troll'', but the DM will jump up and scream ''Ha, you loose all your paladin stuff, you violated the oath of helpfullness''.

these are some good examples of common paladin screw-ups on the part of both DM and Player.

just because you're Lawful Good doesn't mean you're stupid.

perhaps it's worth remembering that the 1ed Paladin was amazingly powerful. with a few key items (eg: a Holy Avenger weapon!), they were a 1ed Tier One class.

granted, using the 3d6 straight-down-the-page ability generation system, they had some horrific stat pre-reqs to meet (17Cha?). but once they hit level 8'ish with a decent weapon they were nigh-on unstoppable against evil foes.

when 1ed Unearthed Arcarna hit the shelves and Paladins became a subclass of the Cavalier, things began to get really hairy and rules lawyers started having field days stripping paladins of their status.

in any event, it's incumbent upon the Prospective Paladin Player do a little reading and discuss a few things with their DM before deciding to take up the mantle of religious righteousness.

if you really want some great examples of how to play a Paladin, i suggest reading the Discworld books by Terry Pratchett. Specifically, the books about the City Watch. Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson of the Ankh Morpork City Watch can be considered a Paladin.

[hamishspence]

The way I see it, it takes effort to be either seriously good or evil. And, such people are relatively rare on the whole.

PHB "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" might imply otherwise.

In the same book, it does put Neutral as the most "typical" alignment for humans, but that doesn't mean the other alignments are "relatively rare on the whole".

[JBento]

Actually, I know nothing of the Truenamer so I can't comment. I am interested in Shadow magic as a PC class, but I've heard it was too weak. Anybody tell me where to find it, and do you have any ideas as to how to buff it up some?

Anyway, I still think Superman is a great example of a non fanatical Paladin. He's got more of a sense of perspective than most players seem to about being LG, that's for sure.

Shaodw Magic is in the Tome of Magic - it's chapter 2, between the Binder (the class that works) and Truenamer (the class that doesn't).

I never played a shadow caster - from what I understand it isn't TOO weak, but it is a bit below the average. IIRC, it's only problem it's too few uses of abilities per day, and, thus, the general fix is to bump the number of uses. Don0t know to how many, though, but there might be a thread around the forum somewhere

[Jeebers]

PHB "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" might imply otherwise.

In the same book, it does put Neutral as the most "typical" alignment for humans, but that doesn't mean the other alignments are "relatively rare on the whole".

I was arguing from a real life perspective. That is the absolute truth. And the game, as a reflection of that reality, should concur. Bear in mind that I've spent my whole life studying psychology, hell, ever since I could walk. It's also my future career. Social psychology is a real eye opener.

[hamishspence]

It may be drawing the minimum for "good" too high though.

To be a potential candidate for "good" in D&D, a character needs to "make personal sacrifices to help others"

(and, given that Neutral specifies that it may make personal sacrifices for those with a connection, but not strangers, "personal sacrifices for strangers" might be the starting point).

But what's a personal sacrifice? Money and personal risk are among them- but "time" in a world with finite lifespans, may count as well.

To be a potential candidate for "evil" in D&D, one must "hurt, oppress, and kill, others (though I'd argue that these are "Or" rather than "And" requirements.

Again- given how much Good characters do these, "unnecessarily" might be added to these requirements.

Even then, a case can be made that "evil" should be almost as common as "neutral".

[Shadowknight12]

I was arguing from a real life perspective. That is the absolute truth. And the game, as a reflection of that reality, should concur. Bear in mind that I've spent my whole life studying psychology, hell, ever since I could walk. It's also my future career. Social psychology is a real eye opener.

The truism "Don't bring RL physics to D&D" applies to psychology, too. And pretty much every other science out there. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Nevertheless, several books tend to do so.

Savage Species points out that a big part of evil is compartmentalization- mistreating one group, while treating another with respect and affection.

[Jeebers]

Nevertheless, several books tend to do so.

Savage Species points out that a big part of evil is compartmentalization- mistreating one group, while treating another with respect and affection.

A very human trait. If you want a well documented but no longer controversial example, check out what the Norsemen did to Ireland's churches back in the 800-900's.

[hamishspence]

Does this suggest that, while "Good" might arguably be rarer than the other two, "Evil" and "Neutral" could feasibly be comparable in quantity?

[Jeebers]

Actually, I think Evil is just as rare as Good where human alignments are concerned. If you look at the statistics, approximately 1% of humanity are psychopaths, but even scarier is that 25% of criminals and corporate leaders are psychopaths as well (not sure if the latter number is totally correct).

Spooked yet?

[hamishspence]

The point of the Savage Species example- is that a character does not need to be a sociopath to be Evil- all they need to do is "dehumanize" some other group in their own minds- thus making it easier to commit evil deeds against them.

[Jeebers]

Oh, but being totally without a conscience or empathy sure helps with "Evil" alignments, now doesn't it?

[Shadowknight12]

Actually, I think Evil is just as rare as Good where human alignments are concerned. If you look at the statistics, approximately 1% of humanity are psychopaths, but even scarier is that 25% of criminals and corporate leaders are psychopaths as well (not sure if the latter number is totally correct).

Spooked yet?

I think I told you before on this very thread that all psychopaths may be evil, but not all evil characters are psychopaths. :smalltongue:

[Jeebers]

I think I told you before on this very thread that all psychopaths may be evil, but not all evil characters are psychopaths. :smalltongue:

Uhm, being totally without a conscience or any sort of empathy is the very definition of evil, since such individuals manipulate with no concern for others outside of getting caught.

Think about it. Try subtracting your own conscience and empathy from the equation for a while. And, I never accepted your point, since you offered NO EVIDENCE to support your argument.

[Shadowknight12]

Uhm, being totally without a conscience or any sort of empathy is the very definition of evil, since such individuals manipulate with no concern for others outside of getting caught.

Think about it. Try subtracting your own conscience and empathy from the equation for a while. And, I never accepted your point, since you offered NO EVIDENCE to support your argument.

We had this conversation before. You're not quite getting what I'm saying.

Psychopathy in itself is iffy to quantify in the alignment system because it is a form of insanity, and there's a lot of gray area on whether insane people fit in the alignment system at all, since they do not share the same perceptions as the rest of the world. Furthermore, it is actually possible to have a psychopath who, because of any number of reasons (say, he was put in stasis from birth) has never committed a single evil act.

Let us assume, however, that psychopaths are indeed evil, no argument about it. My point is not that psychopaths are not evil, but that your definition of evil is too narrow and excludes subjects that are evil and not psychopaths. That's the point that, as I see it, you're not getting.

You want evidence? Have some:

Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm).


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

It is entirely possible to have a culture that oppresses another (and this is therefore evil, as per that definition) and yet you cannot possibly say that they are all psychopaths. Especially when they may have empathy for the the oppressed culture (thereby proving that they are not psychopaths) and yet they still oppress them because of cultural indoctrination, fear of authority or any other number of reasons.

This is one example. There are millions more. I have as much evidence as you can possibly want, but the main one is right there, the very definition of Evil. It does not say, at any point, that evil equals psychopathy.

[paddyfool]

Uhm, being totally without a conscience or any sort of empathy is the very definition of evil, since such individuals manipulate with no concern for others outside of getting caught.

Think about it. Try subtracting your own conscience and empathy from the equation for a while. And, I never accepted your point, since you offered NO EVIDENCE to support your argument.

Empathy is a very useful tool and guide to what's good. But it is possible for people to arrive logically at ethical positions without it. Imagine the following:

a) Someone without empathy or conscience, who does however accept from a logical perspective that it's generally better to cooperate with others than to harm them (along the lines of The Prisoner's Dilemma). If you mess with him, he'll reciprocate with a proportionate hostile response, but he fundamentally views being any more harmful than that to others as a bad strategy. Since he also suspects his own emotional guides to ethics are faulty, he avoids roles in which they might put him at risk of harming others, and elects for a quiet, solitary occupation in line with his interests. Perhaps as some form of specialised craftsman.

b) Someone without empathy or conscience, who again recognises this and elects for a logically necessary job that others find distasteful, since he can do it without guilt, and who believes, logically, that he's actually helping other people than doing so, since doing the same job might harm them. (A state executioner, perhaps).

c) Someone without empathy or conscience, who's decided to seek them, and to adopt a life of study, meditation and so forth to fill the void within. Even if unsuccessful, (s)he isn't harming anyone while seeking to better him/herself.

d) Someone without empathy or conscience, who after being scorned for his/her moral cluelessness wishes to prove his/her critics wrong, becomes a Paladin and invests in a philactery of faithfulness to help ensure the choices taken are the right ones. As long as nothing finds a way to possess (hack) the philactery, and the deity at the other end is a sensible one, everything should be fine...

[Jeebers]

We had this conversation before. You're not quite getting what I'm saying.

Psychopathy in itself is iffy to quantify in the alignment system because it is a form of insanity, and there's a lot of gray area on whether insane people fit in the alignment system at all, since they do not share the same perceptions as the rest of the world. Furthermore, it is actually possible to have a psychopath who, because of any number of reasons (say, he was put in stasis from birth) has never committed a single evil act.

Let us assume, however, that psychopaths are indeed evil, no argument about it. My point is not that psychopaths are not evil, but that your definition of evil is too narrow and excludes subjects that are evil and not psychopaths. That's the point that, as I see it, you're not getting.

You want evidence? Have some:

Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm).



It is entirely possible to have a culture that oppresses another (and this is therefore evil, as per that definition) and yet you cannot possibly say that they are all psychopaths. Especially when they may have empathy for the the oppressed culture (thereby proving that they are not psychopaths) and yet they still oppress them because of cultural indoctrination, fear of authority or any other number of reasons.

This is one example. There are millions more. I have as much evidence as you can possibly want, but the main one is right there, the very definition of Evil. It does not say, at any point, that evil equals psychopathy.

No, but it goes a very long way into explaining it. Moreover, Evil with a capital E *IS* a form of insanity in the long run, at least for the warped individual. Second, I never said it was the ONLY possible definition, did I?

"Furthermore, it is actually possible to have a psychopath who, because of any number of reasons (say, he was put in stasis from birth) has never committed a single evil act."
Malarkey. That's totally hypothetical, and you know it.

[Shadowknight12]

No, but it goes a very long way into explaining it. Moreover, Evil with a capital E *IS* a form of insanity in the long run, at least for the warped individual. Second, I never said it was the ONLY possible definition, did I?

Not really. Psychopaths are the most extreme and the rarest form of evil. You're not actually explaining anything. It's like saying that a person who is born with excessive empathy "goes a very long way into explaining Good." That's an extreme interpretation of the alignment system that, again, leaves out subjects that are not pathologically different from the rest of the setting's intelligent races and are still Good or Evil.

Evil is not insanity, not in the short run, the long run or any run whatsoever. This is stated nowhere in the rules. A person may well spend their entire lives performing very minor acts of evil (and therefore being actually Evil as per the alignment rules) without being actually insane. Or, if you're following a "tilted towards evil" interpretation of the alignment system in your campaign setting, committed a single evil act (murder in a fit of rage) and be Evil despite an entire life of good acts, both before and after the evil act in question.

You speak of evidence and all that, yet you don't present any yourself, to back up your claims. Amusing.


"Furthermore, it is actually possible to have a psychopath who, because of any number of reasons (say, he was put in stasis from birth) has never committed a single evil act."
Malarkey. That's totally hypothetical, and you know it.

Examples ARE evidence. Look at paddyfool's examples. If I can provide you with an example that falls within the rules (Temporal Stasis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/temporalStasis.htm) is a spell that exists and that can be cast on a psychopath before he has committed a single evil act), I am giving you solid evidence that your position is wrong because it does not cover this example, which is perfectly possible within the rules.

Since we are not talking about our world, we're talking about a fantasy world that does not exist, I can never bring you actual tangible examples. If I say "pines exist in D&D," I cannot bring you evidence of an actual pine in D&D, because D&D is make believe, and therefore actual, tangible evidence is impossible to produce. Examples that follow the rules of the game are the evidence we refer to when talking about D&D.

"That's totally hypothetical" is not a valid defence when talking about D&D because everything is hypothetical in D&D. If you want to disprove my examples, you must prove that they are not possible within the rules.

[Othniel Edden]

Stealing is evil for many, but isn't a psychopathic act. Or what about Vengence for the lost of a loved one, where the very desire is to cause the victim to feel empathy for the pain of themselves or that loved that person?

[Talakeal]

While I agree that sociopaths probably are generally evil as the only thing stopping them is the threat of getting caught rather than a desire to do good, they are not the be all and end all of evil.
Most sadists, serial killers, and sex offenders are not sociopaths. They actively enjoy hurting people, where as sociopaths simply don't care about other people's feelings one way or another. Are you claiming that these people are not evil as well?
Also, what about someone who has a conscience, but is simply in an environment where they are pressured into it by the group they belong to, belief that they need to do evil to get along, or simply because they are in a target rich environment and don't have the strength of character to say no?

All in all, I think the belief that all sociopaths are evil and and all evil people are sociopaths is taking it a bit too far.

[hamishspence]

BoVD separates "psychopath" from sociopath for D&D terms- defining it as someone who takes pleasure in the suffering, or deaths, of others-

and describes several monsters as "innately psychopathic".

Since they're generally "always evil" and MM describes Always X alignment monsters as "born with the listed alignment" - one can certainly have a psychopath who has never committed an evil act, and still has an evil alignment- if it's a monster.

That said- this doesn't mean that alignment is all personal attitudes. It's quite possible for someone to slip into evil alignment via doing evil deeds. Often for very sympathetic reasons.

On Faerun alignment- while I couldn't find anything in FRCS or Player's Guide to Faerun that said alignment definitions are different, I did find something in Champions of Valor that said:

"Alignment in D&D is more black and white than in the real world. However, in Faerun, things are not so clear cut".

So Faerun, like Eberron, can be "more generous" with alignment- with more grey areas.

[Yukitsu]

Any in game disambiguation that makes people who like to study morality, psychology and ethics physically cringe when they read it is probably best ignored though.

[hamishspence]

Maybe- but it seems that people seem to confuse "has non empathy" with "actively enjoys killing or hurting people" a lot- and having separate terms for these, might help to keep things clear.

So "psychopath- BOVD version" is separate from "sociopath- CoR version"- but both can qualify for Evil.

Callista described "mildly Chaotic Evil" pretty well- and this probably represents decidedly more than 1% of a population:


Mildly CE is the sort of person who will watch someone being beaten up and not call the police. He'll drive dangerously because he likes the thrill and doesn't care that he's endangering others. He'll take out his anger by hitting or verbally abusing whoever happens to be nearby. He's willing to sell you a car with iffy brakes, a dose of heroin, or a cut of meat that's way past its expiration date. He probably terrorizes his spouse and children, if he stuck around long enough to actually live with them. If he's charismatic, he'll cultivate personal relationships and con people into thinking he's a nice guy. If he's smart, he'll use his intelligence to work the system and "win the game" wherever he goes. He may have a conscience; he may have limits to what he's willing to do; but in the end, he's out for himself and nobody else. (I use the male pronoun here, but this is equally common in females, with the primary difference being the prevalence of verbal/relational abuse rather than physical aggression.)

[UrsielHauke]

A better example is probably Michael Carpenter from Dresden Files. That's how I'd say most paladins should be played.

Alleran gains ten million points.

Also, I would suggest you check out this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193554) thread, it's a great bit of info on paladins for 3.5, with a full retooling of the class. As a player of Pathfinder, I am currently editing this to work in my game; though I would suggest most notably that you read over the code of conduct notes. It offers a great second opinion on how paladins should work. Personally, I don't think that there should be *no* code of conduct, but I also think that you shouldn't have to atone for beating a confession out of a heretic, or being in a barroom brawl (so long as you didn't start it for an unjust reason; self-defense is not an evil act, if someone makes a scene when you are trying to arrest (or hell, even speak to) them, then they are making a scene, not you, so you have done nothing wrong, and subduing people so they don't cause greater harm to themselves or each other is certainly a good one); also, I would argue that some evil acts should be tolerated, so long as they are for the greater good (Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, etc); of course this doesn't mean you can walk around killing people, but if you willingly associate with an evil character simply because it is the only way you can accomplish a task for the greater good, then I would say do so. And besides, there's no reason you can't try to redeem them along the way.

Also, being insane doesn't make you evil, and being evil doesn't make you insane. There can be, and are, evil people who completely understand what they're doing, that it's evil, and (In the D&D world, at least) that they will suffer some sort of eternal punishment for it. Just look at some of the classes in BoVD.

Conversely, perfectly good, upstanding members of society can indeed be stricken with a mental illness. Like pyromania: if a mentally afflicted pyromaniac burns down an inn, it's not because they don't like the inn so they committed arson, or wanted someone dead, they did it because they don't know any better. Is this an evil act? According to both 3.5 and PF rules, diseases (including mental diseases) are not something you can help; you just contract them, and unless you get hit with a remove disease and a restoration, you are gonna keep taking WIS damage and burning things.

Oh, and another thing. I believe that the best way to play paladins (Talk to your DM first, they may have mixed feelings about this) is that good always comes before law. To use an earlier example from this thread, you're not going to avoid stopping a mugging just because you can't go outside after curfew? If there is an evil empire that needs to be brought down, are you going to go to their evil Parliament and ask nicely for them to abolish slavery? No! You're going to go in there, get a resistance together, make with the smiting, and kick some +5 flaming ass!

To make a long story short, if you would do something that would probably jeopardize your alignment (Shifting to LN, NG, etc) then your DM should warn you. But beating a confession out of a heretic, causing them grave pain, possibly unnecessary to merely get him to stop, is ok, considering the balor he was in the process of summoning when you did so.

To put it bluntly: Lawful Good doesn't always mean Lawful Nice.

Thank you.