DnD Paladin in Real War scenario

[LordDrakulzen]

My current gaming group and I recently had a serious discussion during which I almost lost all hope in ever playing a Paladin without falling, though that does seem like a lot of fun.

Spoilered as I went on a ranting tangent :smallredface:

We were discussing what my Paladin of Heironeous (sp?) would do in this situation:
We've come to a town whose leaders are dragonkin, who to my face admitted to eating babies and toddlers, in fact had breeding times with the townsfolk to ensure the constant supply of food. I at first did not want to believe them, as no one would ever do that right? Did a gather info check, and rolled a 38, yes, the townspeople were being forced to feed their children to the leaders. I rounded up my party, and we decided to eliminate the evil.

After losing 26 con (still fighting though) and not hitting them a single time (rolled a 1 on a saving throw... all my gear got destroyed) The lords of the town gave us all a decision, give up now, or be destroyed. All others gave up quickly. I hesitated. Does giving up in the face of obvious evil cause me to fall? Does the fact that I was not able to hit them at all, after my equipment was destroyed mean that I should retreat? I accepted the loss, and stated simply that I would cease the attack now, but I vowed to return and destroy them. Boring roleplay later, session ends with us leaving the town, me seeking a way to track the leaders and hold my oath.

Now here comes the big question:
The debate later went to say that as a LG Paladin, I must hold equal respect to both the Law and Good sides of my Code of Conduct. Realworld example of the Law side given by group- If a Paladin were to be with a conquering army, and my side was victorious, I must allow the defeated enemies to be raped and plundered. I fought back as that is obviously an evil act, and any Paladin (or good person in general) would not allow the first part of that.

Their argument against me was that Pillaging and other acts were the laws of warfare. That it is completely acceptable for the conquerers to do as they pleased.

As Ex-Military, and a History buff, I accept that these acts did in fact happen, I don't deny their place in history. I do however deny their acceptance as a DnD Paladin. I would much rather fall than allow such acts to happen while I'm around.So, long winded, but who's right? Would a LG Paladin have to allow the full "rights of victory" to happen, or would he be obligated to stop them?

[navar100]

Face-palm! Gah!

1) Paladins don't fall for failing. Failing sucks, but it's not evil.

2) Lawful does not mean the letter of the law. Paladins do respect legitimate authority and follow the legal system, but if the law and/or legitimate authority is Evil, Smite them!

[crazyhedgewizrd]

War looting would be ok, but raping and enslavement i think goes aganist Heironeous.

[Menteith]

Paladins are good first, lawful second (I believe that's been confirmed by WotC). If it's a question, you always good with the Good option instead of the Lawful one. I literally can't think of a single instance where it's acceptable for a Paladin to let a rape occur, legal or otherwise. I'd strongly argue that a Paladin would fall for letting such acts occur, and would be obligated to protect the victims. Navar is also right in that failing isn't cause for falling - a person who tries their best and fails isn't Evil, they're tragic.

[T.G. Oskar]

My current gaming group and I recently had a serious discussion during which I almost lost all hope in ever playing a Paladin without falling, though that does seem like a lot of fun.

Spoilered as I went on a ranting tangent :smallredface:

We were discussing what my Paladin of Heironeous (sp?) would do in this situation:
We've come to a town whose leaders are dragonkin, who to my face admitted to eating babies and toddlers, in fact had breeding times with the townsfolk to ensure the constant supply of food. I at first did not want to believe them, as no one would ever do that right? Did a gather info check, and rolled a 38, yes, the townspeople were being forced to feed their children to the leaders. I rounded up my party, and we decided to eliminate the evil.

After losing 26 con (still fighting though) and not hitting them a single time (rolled a 1 on a saving throw... all my gear got destroyed) The lords of the town gave us all a decision, give up now, or be destroyed. All others gave up quickly. I hesitated. Does giving up in the face of obvious evil cause me to fall? Does the fact that I was not able to hit them at all, after my equipment was destroyed mean that I should retreat? I accepted the loss, and stated simply that I would cease the attack now, but I vowed to return and destroy them. Boring roleplay later, session ends with us leaving the town, me seeking a way to track the leaders and hold my oath.

Now here comes the big question:
The debate later went to say that as a LG Paladin, I must hold equal respect to both the Law and Good sides of my Code of Conduct. Realworld example of the Law side given by group- If a Paladin were to be with a conquering army, and my side was victorious, I must allow the defeated enemies to be raped and plundered. I fought back as that is obviously an evil act, and any Paladin (or good person in general) would not allow the first part of that.

Their argument against me was that Pillaging and other acts were the laws of warfare. That it is completely acceptable for the conquerers to do as they pleased.

As Ex-Military, and a History buff, I accept that these acts did in fact happen, I don't deny their place in history. I do however deny their acceptance as a DnD Paladin. I would much rather fall than allow such acts to happen while I'm around.So, long winded, but who's right? Would a LG Paladin have to allow the full "rights of victory" to happen, or would he be obligated to stop them?

I'll refer to the one big bit that I find important for the discussion, and my opinion towards it:


The debate later went to say that as a LG Paladin, I must hold equal respect to both the Law and Good sides of my Code of Conduct.

Now, there's both a problem with THEIR statement and a difference regarding ethics.

Indeed, a Paladin must uphold their Code dutifully, but the Paladin's code of conduct specifically doesn't mention the "laws of warfare". What it DOES mention is the imperative of "act honorably". If a Paladin were to engage in the "laws of warfare" such as pillaging because "all other armies do and because it's the spoils of war", is it considered the honorable thing to do? A Paladin would consider that dishonorable; in fact, considering that you've mentioned being a history buff, there are two important statements as to why such a conduct is considered dishonorable. The first is that the Code of Conduct has a slight basis in the code of Chivalry, which states the importance of personal honor and also holds as one of its main duties the "protection of innocents". As a Paladin and a soldier, you may capture enemy soldiers as prisoners of war, but non-combatants are usually considered innocent (whether that's true or not is a discussion that generates equal heat). The second, of course, is more recent (so it belongs to a more "civilized" age), and is the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention), one of the four documents that regulate modern warfare. Read it well and consider whether a Paladin would consider Grecorroman/Medieval age rules of conflict the proper way to engage or whether they'd incline more towards a set of rules that eventually ends up in an expy of the Geneva Conventions.

The second, of course, is the bit of opinion that I mentioned. I've heard this a lot, and I'll relay it to you: whenever Law and Good are in conflict, a Paladin always defaults to Good. That bit about "legitimate authority"? A Paladin considers legitimate authority only those who earn that leadership, and the standards of leadership as the Paladin considers them are, essentially, influenced by its adherence to Good. A Paladin that serves upon an army and is FORCED to commit acts against innocents is not only allowed to defect, but actually FORCED by a moral imperative to do so, as its commanding officer has essentially lost all proper legitimacy; if the orders come straight from the king or liege lord, then it's evident that the liege lord's orders may be skewed, flawed, or outright wrong and thus undermine its legitimacy.

Thus, by all means: the Paladin has not fallen and is actually now steeled to face the enemy army once again (quite probably with some support, as reporting that his powers were not sufficient but that he kept his honor intact and that he steadfastly vouched against pillaging and other acts to the degree of swearing an oath to vanquish them). Furthermore, the Paladin cannot fall because of all the misses; it's a combination of the class' weaknesses and really bad rolls (not hitting is part of the problems with the Paladin; the 1 on the roll was the random element kicking in the nads). The Paladin cannot fall because of surrender, either; he was hopelessly outmatched and dying won't do anything, particularly if he lost the tools necessary to confront said evil, and the fact that he hesitated before considering a third option means you thought of it before taking the best option (in your opinion; otherwise, there would be no use for Atonement).

Regarding Looting: it's not an inherently bad thing if it's considered spoils of war. A Paladin is honorable, but not stupid (take that to heart): the equipment and goods of the enemy are yours if you defeated them (as much as your equipment and goods are theirs if they defeated you), though you may consider leaving some equipment behind if they were vanquished through surrender (probably rations and water, and maybe a dagger. MAAAAYBE...) If the Paladin were not to take spoils of war, it wouldn't be capable of conquering (whether in the name of its liege lord, its faith, or its own, if s/he considers itself to end up a benevolent ruler) and thus wouldn't have any need for war. Pillaging, though (taking stuff from non-combatants) is definitely the wrong thing, though, particularly if the goods you take don't belong to the vanquished, or when the goods are people. Pillaging and "war spoils" are on a gray area, though, so give it some thought.

[Cespenar]

Their argument against me was that Pillaging and other acts were the laws of warfare. That it is completely acceptable for the conquerers to do as they pleased.

That's hilarious.

No. They are the realities of warfare. Not laws. Sheesh.

For the record, though, pillaging and looting are different things.

[Hawkings]

I hate paladins because they're almost always lawful stupid, but it sounds like you'd be one worth adventuring with.

Defeating those vile creatures should be your priority so a tactical retreat isn't the same as quitting, after all if you're dead who will save them.

Being lawful good doesn't mean you have to follow the laws of every place you go to, it means you follow the laws of your code, that being Heironeous's code's of conduct. I think the intention behind lawful good means you behave yourself in a responsible and considerate manner.
So accepting that behavior legal or otherwise would have gotten you smited by Heironeous himself.

That isn't to say a paladin can follow only his code, obviously you have to balance the fine line of chivalry and legality but I'd see it as Good > Code > local laws.

Ask yourself as a paladin would it be acceptable to kill an innocent if your code somehow demanded it?
Would you if the local laws told you to execute innocents or even kill yourself?
Would it be good to spare a mass murderer to save a dozen innocent citizens when you know the murderer will just go and murder hundreds?

Playing a paladin is asking for a huge morality quiz and so far I think you've done well.



Their argument against me was that Pillaging and other acts were the laws of warfare. That it is completely acceptable for the conquerers to do as they pleased.
If that is the philosophy of your group in character and they told that to yours, then your paladin should smite them as vile evildoers. Now THAT would be an interesting turn of events.

[Logic]

I'll refer to the one big bit that I find important for the discussion, and my opinion towards it:



Now, there's both a problem with THEIR statement and a difference regarding ethics.

Indeed, a Paladin must uphold their Code dutifully, but the Paladin's code of conduct specifically doesn't mention the "laws of warfare". What it DOES mention is the imperative of "act honorably". If a Paladin were to engage in the "laws of warfare" such as pillaging because "all other armies do and because it's the spoils of war", is it considered the honorable thing to do? A Paladin would consider that dishonorable; in fact, considering that you've mentioned being a history buff, there are two important statements as to why such a conduct is considered dishonorable. The first is that the Code of Conduct has a slight basis in the code of Chivalry, which states the importance of personal honor and also holds as one of its main duties the "protection of innocents". As a Paladin and a soldier, you may capture enemy soldiers as prisoners of war, but non-combatants are usually considered innocent (whether that's true or not is a discussion that generates equal heat). The second, of course, is more recent (so it belongs to a more "civilized" age), and is the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention), one of the four documents that regulate modern warfare. Read it well and consider whether a Paladin would consider Grecorroman/Medieval age rules of conflict the proper way to engage or whether they'd incline more towards a set of rules that eventually ends up in an expy of the Geneva Conventions.

The second, of course, is the bit of opinion that I mentioned. I've heard this a lot, and I'll relay it to you: whenever Law and Good are in conflict, a Paladin always defaults to Good. That bit about "legitimate authority"? A Paladin considers legitimate authority only those who earn that leadership, and the standards of leadership as the Paladin considers them are, essentially, influenced by its adherence to Good. A Paladin that serves upon an army and is FORCED to commit acts against innocents is not only allowed to defect, but actually FORCED by a moral imperative to do so, as its commanding officer has essentially lost all proper legitimacy; if the orders come straight from the king or liege lord, then it's evident that the liege lord's orders may be skewed, flawed, or outright wrong and thus undermine its legitimacy.

Thus, by all means: the Paladin has not fallen and is actually now steeled to face the enemy army once again (quite probably with some support, as reporting that his powers were not sufficient but that he kept his honor intact and that he steadfastly vouched against pillaging and other acts to the degree of swearing an oath to vanquish them). Furthermore, the Paladin cannot fall because of all the misses; it's a combination of the class' weaknesses and really bad rolls (not hitting is part of the problems with the Paladin; the 1 on the roll was the random element kicking in the nads). The Paladin cannot fall because of surrender, either; he was hopelessly outmatched and dying won't do anything, particularly if he lost the tools necessary to confront said evil, and the fact that he hesitated before considering a third option means you thought of it before taking the best option (in your opinion; otherwise, there would be no use for Atonement).

Regarding Looting: it's not an inherently bad thing if it's considered spoils of war. A Paladin is honorable, but not stupid (take that to heart): the equipment and goods of the enemy are yours if you defeated them (as much as your equipment and goods are theirs if they defeated you), though you may consider leaving some equipment behind if they were vanquished through surrender (probably rations and water, and maybe a dagger. MAAAAYBE...) If the Paladin were not to take spoils of war, it wouldn't be capable of conquering (whether in the name of its liege lord, its faith, or its own, if s/he considers itself to end up a benevolent ruler) and thus wouldn't have any need for war. Pillaging, though (taking stuff from non-combatants) is definitely the wrong thing, though, particularly if the goods you take don't belong to the vanquished, or when the goods are people. Pillaging and "war spoils" are on a gray area, though, so give it some thought.
Quote spoiled for brevity. But this is EXACTLY how a Paladin should be thinking.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wow, just..... wow.

I have no idea where that crap even came from. Everything you will ever find that's even semi-official about paladins will tell you that the G is more important than the L in a paladin's LG.

Also, the laws of war? I'm pretty sure modern society has labeled those war-CRIMES. D&D's moral and ethical systems are very modern.

There's no way any good character should be allowing those things to happen, much less a paladin.

In-fact, if I were a paladin who was serving in an army of a nation that had such laws, I'd almost certainly question the legitimacy of, not only the war, but the government that launched it.

You're completely in the right on these matters. Don't let your group tell you any different, and don't let them convince you to rob any liquor stores either.

Just........ wow.

[vrigar]

IMHO it depends on social norms. Of course today rape is considered evil (yet Justin Bieber isn't???) but if you play in a world in which women expect to get raped if their side loses and it is commonly considered an injustice to keep a soldier from a rape then a paladin could be OK with that.
But generally speaking - and if I was playing that paladin - there would be quite a few peeing challenged soldiers in that army.

[Killer Angel]

So, long winded, but who's right? Would a LG Paladin have to allow the full "rights of victory" to happen, or would he be obligated to stop them?

For the sake of discussion, and to play the devil's advocate, I'm gonna to debate that the paladin has to enforce the "rights of victory", as described.

....

....


I'm sorry, no way. A Paladin has to stop them.

[Peat]

I might be repeating what other people said but

They're not, by and large, the laws of war. They're the norms of war, or were/are in some quarters. Even in ages when this was more common - lets say, the Napoleonic era, when theft from the enemy was a-ok - there were indeed commanders whose view of such things were 'No'.

In fact, Wellington's gallows at Badajoz (albeit inspired as much by pragmatism as morality) are an excellent example of what a lawful character might do in such situations. Lay down the law; hang those who won't obey.

Even at the most morally lax, the conquerers are allowed to do what they want - you are the conquerer, you say no rape. And no other funny business too.

Seriously, this is one of the most weird and wrong arguments I've ever seen made.

[Gwendol]

This isn't even an argument: next time this is brought up smite them with the Geneva convention.

[hamishspence]

That isn't to say a paladin can follow only his code, obviously you have to balance the fine line of chivalry and legality but I'd see it as Good > Code > local laws.

Ask yourself as a paladin would it be acceptable to kill an innocent if your code somehow demanded it?
Would you if the local laws told you to execute innocents or even kill yourself?
Would it be good to spare a mass murderer to save a dozen innocent citizens when you know the murderer will just go and murder hundreds?

Playing a paladin is asking for a huge morality quiz and so far I think you've done well.

Agreed. There might be some cases where, to protect a group of innocents as a whole, the paladin must take decisions that he knows will result in some of those innocents dying.

But directly committing atrocities against them- or allowing allies to do so when the paladin can stop it- no.

[Mnemnosyne]

Keep in mind that a paladin's idea of legitimate authority is probably something similar to the Mandate of Heaven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven). Specifically, "The Mandate of Heaven postulates that heaven (天; Tian) would bless the authority of a just ruler, as defined by the Five Confucian Relationships, but would be displeased with a despotic ruler and would withdraw its mandate, leading to the overthrow of that ruler." If the laws are made by an a despotic ruler, that ruler has no legitimate authority, and a paladin is in no way bound to follow those laws.

That doesn't mean that a paladin can't be reasonably harsh with a conquered population. As long as he doesn't take away their means of survival, it is entirely reasonable for him to take food and supplies from enemy civilians in order to supply his army, especially if there is still war to be waged. A paladin shouldn't leave them destitute, unable to support themselves, and so on, but he can make proper strategic choices. A paladin would even have no problem doing a scorched earth campaign, destroying entire regions of land, if that was necessary for the war, as long as he did not kill the innocent civilians, allowed them to escape with enough to survive on, and so forth. Nothing prohibits a paladin from looting and pillaging lands acquired as part of war, so long as he's not completely destroying the people's livelihoods by doing so.

[mattie_p]

For an interesting take on a lawful good character (who is not simultaneously lawful stupid or stupid good), I recommend the Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell, AKA John Hemry. It is a sci-fi series, but the moral and ethical dilemmas and decisions made in that series have bearing on this discussion and paladins in general.

If you haven't read it I won't spoil it, but killing prisoners over the course of a century-long war has become the norm, although never "legal" (specifically, never in writing).

Due to the necessities of the mission, bringing prisoners back to home territory as POWs is impossible, so some captives are about to be killed. The commanding officer puts a stop to it, and requires that all prisoners be given (going off memory here) food, water, sufficient living space with adequate life support systems, (or access to transport to such quarters), and communications gear to reach higher command. The commander reminds the fleet about their honorable heritage, restoring morale, and over the course of the campaign his honor has a positive impact on ending the war.

He encounters several similar dilemmas, and finds a way to act lawful, good, and honorable in each. I strongly recommend the series for insights into how a paladin should act.

[Templarkommando]

Okay... let me get this straight. If I were a lawful evil villain and wanted to make myself impervious to paladins, all I would need to do according to this logic is run far enough away from society, establish my own government and then act like everything I do is okay because it's legal under the laws of my government.

In my thinking that's the sort of thing that gets Paladins sent after you in the millions, not something that makes you impervious to them.

[Andezzar]

This also would make already established evil regimes like Thay or Menzoberranzan impervious to paladins. That notion is simply ridiculous.

[awa]

what a paladin can or can't do should change with the nature of the setting
in setting with morals similar to a super hero setting their code would end up being much stricter, in a setting like war-hammer 40k their code would need to be a lot looser. That said this sounds like a screw the paladin plot not a real moral dilemma.

[charcoalninja]

what a paladin can or can't do should change with the nature of the setting
in setting with morals similar to a super hero setting their code would end up being much stricter, in a setting like war-hammer 40k their code would need to be a lot looser. That said this sounds like a screw the paladin plot not a real moral dilemma.

I disagree with this sentiment, and believe that the core of the paladin idea and class is that its moral stance is completely unwavering regardless of setting. A paladin can always be depended upon to do what is always right. They are the embodiment of virtuous absolute morality, and their actions are completely good and so just that people have to twist and bend their moral arguments in strange ways to see their actions as anything but.

Playing a paladin is deciding to stand up in front of the game world and say "this is how we should be." It's playing the ultimate idealist, a person with the drive to always do what is right and just with the resources to stand against those that would undermine their efforts.

War "laws" and loose morals have no place within a paladin's sight.

[Mnemnosyne]

What is right changes with the setting. Depending on your preferred understanding of D&D, the gods, or some unnamed force beyond the gods, determines what is good and evil in the objective morality system used in the game. In another setting, there may be no objective multiverse-wide absolute morality, therefore good and evil differ between cultures.

[Andezzar]

Unless you do a lot of additional rules-changes, D&D alignment only works with an objective alignment system.

[Slipperychicken]

Protecting the Innocent > Respecting legitimate authority (note it says "respect", not "follow").


If following law becomes evil, stop following it. You can make the argument that the authority which allows atrocities has lost legitimacy, so you no longer need to respect it (not that you needed to follow it anyway). Go ape on the looters, kill them all:smallcool:

Also, your DM is a ****. I bet he would've fell you either way.

[Gnoman]

Also, the laws of war? I'm pretty sure modern society has labeled those war-CRIMES. D&D's moral and ethical systems are very modern.


Not simply modern. Codes of law dating back to the dawn of recorded history have forbidden them, though it was more often observed in word than in deed. The oaths of Chivalry, which are a major inspiration for the Paladin class, were particularly vehement against them. Outside of eras when Total War was the norm (and even in some eras when it was) soldiers were routinely executed for committing such acts. Not only should the Paladin not fall, the DM would have every right to peg the alignment of the rest of the group to Evil. Though that would force the Paladin to leave the group, it's a group that the Paladin wouldn't really fit into anyway.

[awa]

alignment has to change with the setting .
In a setting where every orc is by virtue of its gentics evil and that even if an orc is raised in a kind caring home it will still become a mass murdurer willing to suicidely throw itself at any human it sees a paladin who tries to do anything other then wipe them out is being willfully stupid.

In an idealistic superhero setting killing any human even a mass murdurer is alway a moral event horizon that makes you no better than the killer.

In a setting like 40K do you allow gene stealer infected civilans onto a hive world dooming 10s of billions of pepole to be devoured by a relentless army of zerg knockoffs or do you shoot down the transport killing a few dozen innocets along with them.

depending on the setting a paladins morales may make them a a vigilanty justifing murdur becuase their god said it was okay or a well intioned idiot responisble for genocide.

[Andezzar]

alignment has to change with the setting .
In a setting where every orc is by virtue of its gentics evil and that even if an orc is raised in a kind caring home it will still become a mass murdurer willing to suicidely throw itself at any human it sees a paladin who tries to do anything other then wipe them out is being willfully stupid.Not every orc is inherently evil by the MM. It is usually evil. So in any setting there can be exceptions. A paladin should at least observe their actions/use detect evil before smiting the orcs unless he wants to risk falling.

There are only very few creatures whose nature defines their alignment. Those are creatures native to an algned planes (i.e. angels, devils, demons etc.) Even among those statistically irrelevant exceptions are possible:
Alignment: This line in a monster entry gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a
qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to all monsters of that kind.
Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.


In an idealistic superhero setting killing any human even a mass murdurer is alway a moral event horizon that makes you no better than the killer.Independent of the setting killing is not a good act, but it isn't necessarily an evil act either.


In a setting like 40K do you allow gene stealer infected civilans onto a hive world dooming 10s of billions of pepole to be devoured by a relentless army of zerg knockoffs or do you shoot down the transport killing a few dozen innocets along with them.This would not be a good act even in a WH40k context, it would remain a necessary act though. The same justification can be made in a normal D&D setting, in a similar situation. It would not be a good act but it would not be an evil act either. To quote Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Making that decision is exactly what a lawful good character would do according to the alignment system. Good acts are altruistic and promoting life whereas evil acts are egotisical and destroying life.

[Callista]

It's a tough situation for any character to be in, but most paladins would come through it without falling. How they would respond depends on the individual.

First of all, think of your character--their personality, their background, the things they hold dear. Paladins are all different in those respects; if yours is not a unique character with his own identity different from all other paladins, you are not role-playing and I wish you lots of fun but can give you no advice. Your character, by his alignment, cares about other people (Good) and believes in discipline, honor, and order (Law). Other than that, you have a lot of leeway. Don't turn your paladin into a cliche.

Second, as has been said before, Paladins--even of Lawful Neutral gods like St. Cuthbert--follow Good before Law. When someone in authority is doing something evil, their duty is to fight that evil. Now, they may do so in a Lawful manner, if they can. Most paladins would much prefer to bring an evildoer before a judge, fight him in an honorable duel, or even convince him to change his ways, if that's possible. But if there's no other way, even a paladin will resort to Chaotic means to fight Evil. They won't like it; they may feel horrible about it; they may feel like they have lost their honor--but they know that they cannot let evildoers go on hurting people under their protection (and if you are a paladin, everyone is under your protection).

Paladins are mortals (for the most part) and fallible (almost always), and therefore they can fail, and often do. Their deities demand from them everything they can give--but (since these deities are Lawful or Good or both) they do not demand more than that. A paladin who fails may feel ashamed and dishonored, but he does not lose the approval of his deity. How he handles the failure is important.

Think of your character's personality. Is he a persistent, steady, level-headed sort of person? He's likely to take failure in stride, step back, re-think, re-plan, and come back at the problem from another angle. Is he a charismatic leader? He may consult with others, try to get advice, or delegate things that he is not good at doing; or he may recruit more help and try again with a team. Is he a passionate, emotion-driven person? He may simply get angrier, try harder, until either he breaks or he succeeds. A particularly easily discouraged paladin, or one who is losing faith, may see failure as a sign that his deity no longer supports him, but this is not the case--a paladin can reject his deity's help, of course, but that is the character losing faith, not the deity abandoning their servant.

In the case of the OP's situation, where the paladin has tried to depose the leaders oppressing a town and killing innocents, and failed, there are many options. Some paladins would indeed refuse to surrender and die in the process. If your character's personality supports this, then have him do it. Nobody lives forever, and a martyr can be a powerful thing. But beware: This is an expression of pride, perhaps a dangerous level of pride; it's the belief that simply making that statement that you won't retreat is important enough to deny your cause at least one sturdy warrior. It's wasteful, in most circumstances, however much you might want to do it.

Most paladins have the wisdom to realize that surrender now--however it shames them--may allow them to come back later and save the innocents they had been trying to save. This is the decision your character made. Depending on his personality, he may look at it as a regrettable necessity, or he may feel as though he's betrayed everything he believes in. But it is, ironically, the less Evil of the two choices, because it leaves open the option of returning to take on the enemy again. What you had was a CG option (dishonor yourself for a chance to save the children) versus a LN option (refuse to surrender on principle). Either one is consistent with what a paladin might do, the CG one more so in most cases.

A lot of these dilemmas can be solved by referring to what your character would do. If you have made a character whose personality is truly LG, then the right choice is probably also the one that your character would naturally make.

[cerin616]

Also, take into consideration that the alignment system is not a set of shackles to decide how your character acts, but is rather a tool to help understand your character's mindset. Lawful doesnt necessarily define you as "I will never break a rule" but rather "I believe that law is a necessary thing in society and that a just system can bring the best out in people" Neutral sees the value in law just as much as it understand that chaos has some positives too, while chaotic characters will be distrustful of limiting themselves with codes and laws but will follow laws if that so suits them.

A paladin being lawful good may face the tough decision of "do i follow law and fall more toward LN or do i follow good and lean more towards NG" and generally the decision will be "law is a necessary part of society, but in this specific case it is not"

[T.G. Oskar]

Also, take into consideration that the alignment system is not a set of shackles to decide how your character acts, but is rather a tool to help understand your character's mindset. Lawful doesnt necessarily define you as "I will never break a rule" but rather "I believe that law is a necessary thing in society and that a just system can bring the best out in people" Neutral sees the value in law just as much as it understand that chaos has some positives too, while chaotic characters will be distrustful of limiting themselves with codes and laws but will follow laws if that so suits them.

A paladin being lawful good may face the tough decision of "do i follow law and fall more toward LN or do i follow good and lean more towards NG" and generally the decision will be "law is a necessary part of society, but in this specific case it is not"

Actually, the example of Lawful behavior you've given explains the actions of a Lawful Good creature. A Lawful character would define its belief as "the need for stability and order in an unpredictable world". A Lawful character considers disorder as a huge problem (if not a sin), and order as the only solution. The moral outlook of the character is what defines how order is to be applied:

A Lawful Good character, indeed, believes that Law (and Order, by definition) is a necessity in society, and that a Just system will bring out the best in people. An Unjust system won't bring out the best in people and will incite disorder, so it's not the best form of Law.

A Lawful Neutral character believes in Law (and by definition, Order) as the ultimate maxim. A stable society is better than an unstable one, and Law ensures a society remains stable. Whether the Law is Just or Unjust, it doesn't matter; if the Law ensures stability, it is necessary. A Lawful Neutral character doesn't evaluate whether the Law is good or bad, but whether it ensures stability or if it promotes instability. If the Law promotes stability but people oppose the Law, then THEY, and not the Law, are the agents of instability and thus must be opposed. This isn't inherently evil, unless...

...it's used for the benefit of others, which leads to Lawful Evil thinking. A Lawful Evil character believes in Law as a way to promote stability, but instead of considering the Law sacred, it USES the Law for its own benefit. Note the difference between LG's "a just law for everyone" (the needs of many) against LN's "the law is absolute" (the needs of a few) and LE's "the law that benefits me is the best law" (the needs of one). Lawful Evil characters will adhere to the letter of the Law if it benefits them, use loopholes when the Law does not benefit them except for that loophole, and will consider other Laws unimportant if it doesn't benefit them. If that Law just happens to benefit many others as much as itself, the LE character will defend it; it just happens that with everyone else, s/he will seek other ways to screw or bust them. Note that this doesn't mean rules lawyers are inherently evil, but if they become disruptive, they do. ;)

A Paladin follows the LG maxim to heart: if the Law is Unjust, it cannot be a proper Law, and thus it must be derogated (by force if it's necessary). Each and every Law must serve to bring the best in others; the Law is in service of all, not all are in service to Law (which is the thinking of LN characters). Thus, if the "laws of war" (which are, as mentioned, actually war crimes) bring the worst in people, the Paladin will not just oppose them, but oppose them by force. Period. That doesn't mean the Paladin will be stupid enough to do it without resources; the Paladin isn't stupid, unless for some reason it has an Int AND Wis score of 3 (lack of perception to realize an action is wrong and no logic to explain it). If it's better to hold back or retreat and reconsider, the Paladin will do so (more in this case, where he was hopelessly outmatched), knowing that he's against time. He'll return, for sure, and with redoubled resources and effort to stop them.

Regarding St. Cuthbert: he's LN only because his methods are pretty harsh for LG characters, but he behaves in many ways as an LG character. He's right between LG and LN: Just Laws bring the best in all individuals, so people are in service of those Just Laws. If the Law is Unjust, oppose it; if the Law is Just, obey it or be punished. It's his penchant for discipline and punishment that puts him on the LN camp, but he HAS the best intentions at hand.

[awa]

that's one possible way those alignments could come about but it is far from the only way, lawful evil does not necessarily mean evil lawyer.

An honorable warrior with a strict code of honor who duels and kills every warrior who tries to pass his land.

an assassin who would die rather then betray an employer

a fascist warlord bringing order at the cost of making every one virtual slaves.

all of these characters are lawful evil.

[Menteith]

One could also act in a self-sacrificing way, with complete devotion, toward a horrifyingly Evil code or set of laws, though such conviction is relatively rare.

[awa]

not really just think about the real world, plenty of people are willing to give their lives killing innocents in the process. They might not agree that their evil but it doesn't change the fact.

[Kelb_Panthera]

not really just think about the real world, plenty of people are willing to give their lives killing innocents in the process. They might not agree that their evil but it doesn't change the fact.

Whoa, let's steer clear from taking the conversation in that direction, shall we?

[Callista]

(Yes, let's not get too political--that will only start flame wars.)

My thoughts: Being willing to take actions that will result in your own death isn't Good-aligned; it isn't aligned in any particular way, not without the details. What it does mean that you are extremely devoted to whatever it is you're trying to accomplish.

It's the "whatever it is you're trying to accomplish" that's the critical factor. It can be Good, Lawful, Chaotic, or in rare cases Evil, and that's what determines the alignment of your self-sacrificing action.

We don't see a lot of Evil characters taking suicidal/self-sacrificial actions because by definition Evil characters are willing to hurt others for their own benefit, or to further their own goals. There aren't too many things that they value more than their own lives, but every once in a while, it'll happen, mostly with the reasoning that, "Life wouldn't be worth living without--" whatever it is that they're dying to accomplish. LE characters may die to preserve their honor, for example. CE characters might prefer to die rather than be captured. Your basic Evil Cultist (tm) might do so because he knows very well that if he doesn't, his evil deity or his superiors in his cult are going to do much worse to him.

Just being willing to die isn't a mark of a Good alignment; it's what you're willing to die for that's the critical factor. If what you're willing to die for includes things like "the safety of the innocent", chances are you're Good-aligned.

I wish I still had a link to it--there was a big long topic on the 3.5 ed WOTC forums, with a lot of people's stories about how their characters had died; some funny, some epic, a few the result of deliberate sacrifice of the character. I recall there being some Evil-aligned characters in that last category, including one who died because she wouldn't leave her lover, and another who basically called in a magical artillery strike on his own position because he knew it would also kill the longtime rival wizard he was dueling at the time. Both were thoroughly Evil, neither incident broke character.