PDA

View Full Version : Lawful good != Lawful Nice



Voleta
2007-02-08, 07:17 PM
In Brief:

Any ideas on how I can play a Paladin that does not have stick-up-the-rear as a class feature? A Batmanesque personality has been suggested, but being of a more recent generation, I don't really know about the 'real' batman. Personality summary please?

In detail:

I may shortly be playing a paladin in a homebrew setting. There is a strong personality clash between the so-called NG and LG group and my CN gnome bard (with max'd bluff). Despite having good alignments on their character sheets, they have attack and kill defenseless creatures, and chose to kill a prisoner for no reason that i can figure out besides that he was evil and an orc. They are new players, so I will be playing this girl out to her death, and then showing them what a completely different side of me as a character. I think our problems stem from thinking as people and not as PCs, and from having a tough time with roleplaying.

I want to show them that, while lawful good doesn't mean they don't get rained upon, it also does not mean that you can kill willy-nilly. I also want to be kind of a jerk at times. Thoughts?

Ivius
2007-02-08, 07:37 PM
When I think of lawful good, I think of a policeman. A (good) cop upholds similar morals to a paladin, in my opinion. Both protect the innocent, enforce just laws, and bring criminals to justice. It's always worked for me.

Behold_the_Void
2007-02-08, 07:39 PM
I think Complete Scoundrel had a great Paladin prestige class for this. Gray Knight or something like that.

1337_master
2007-02-08, 07:52 PM
what about a paladin of freedom?

Paladin Varients (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofFreedomClassF eatures)

Folie
2007-02-08, 08:10 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with Ivius that you should play the "good cop." If I were a paladin, I'd try to handle conflicting morals by saying something like this:

"I know that you feel that we should execute the prisoner, and I can understand your reasons for wanting to do so. It's true that he's evil, but everyone deserves the chance to change their ways. I'm asking you to give him that chance: otherwise, by destroying this orc, you may be destroying a potential force for good in this world.

"If you take him to the authorities so that he can receive his just punishment, I will help you do so, but if you try to harm a hair on his head, then I'll be forced to bring the power of my blade and my god against you. Please, I don't want to have to hurt you."

Raistlin1040
2007-02-08, 08:10 PM
I think he wants a LG character. Try playing something like Hinjo. Enforce laws and protect those that need protecting. Do good deeds as well as lawful deeds and don't force your morals on other characters. That's how I always play paladins.

edit:no offense folie but that's what I'd consider a badly played paladin. Being LG means seeing the "big picture" most likely the orc in question wouldn't change. If he attacked your party then he has no problem with killing people and won't change. Never threaten to hurt another party member. Ever. They will hate you forever.

Crusader
2007-02-08, 08:15 PM
In my views, the Paladin, who is Lawful Good, upholds laws that are good by nature.
Thus, a City with evil laws or an evil ruler would not count as Lawful for the sake of a Paladin's character.
A Paladin also, for instance, might have to decide between slaying an evil demon, or honoring the love it has for another of it's kind (Straight from Exalted Deeds).

In short, a Paladin is, in my views, the vision of the chivalric knight. Rescue damsels in distress, slay evil dragons, say 'no' the first time you're offered a reward, and always pray at the temples.

Maxymiuk
2007-02-08, 08:17 PM
I shall present you some quotes from a character in a game I'm currently GMing. He's an NG ranger, but he's playing what I believe a paladin should be like. I apologize for the length, but as this was the group's first adventure, this also represents Caedmon "settling" into his personality and how other characters (and players) react to him.

Caedmon Thaal: If nothing else, helping these people will guarantee us a larger modicum of hospitality, although I shouldn't expect much of a reward beyond that. But speaking for myself, I cannot in good conscience refuse their request. Will you come with me?

Goblin: Um... Hraask say, him no harm you. But he want sure, you no harm him too.
Caedmon Thaal: We enter with our weapons, or we leave now. How would you have it?

Caedmon Thaal: All right, men -- and goblin -- if we run into any artisans or Barons along the way, we can always parley with them. But for now, let's off to see the dragon. Lead the way, Ugly!

Morgan Seafood: "Well If I was to fight a dragon I proberbly rather would like to fight it in its lair so it can't take flight"
Caedmon Thaal: Indeed, that's how I would fight it
Caedmon Thaal: But let us still hope that fighting will not be necessary

Saldzar: Please, let's not talk of this... Caedmon, is it? I... did not like what I had become when goaded into anger.
** Caedmon Thaal nods in acquiescence **
Caedmon Thaal: I acknowledge that this is difficult for you, Saldzar. The reason we bring this matter up, however, is because the goblins in turn injured us humans.

** Caedmon Thaal 's shoulders slump **
Caedmon Thaal: Saldzar . . . We all admire your work, and agree that the goblins are not, and should not be free to destroy your magnificent creations. What they have done to you is abominable.
Caedmon Thaal: Nonetheless . . . we are not murderers. We will kill in self defense, or in defense of another's life, but we will not kill in cold blood.

** Saldzar frowns slightly at Caedmon, then brightens. "Ah, I forget. Of course you'd want payment for performing this service. Fear not, I have some small cache of items and such that are of little use to me. If you bring me their leader's head, they will be yours." **
Caedmon Thaal: Forgive me, Saldzar, I have not made myself entirely clear . . . We will not kill in cold blood. Not for payment, not for anything. Ever.

Caedmon Thaal: They do indeed, and when they threaten our villages, we act appropriately. But . . . *sigh* Small and nasty and smelly as they may be, they are still creatures who think and feel, even if differently than we do. They have a right to live like any other thinking and feeling being.

Caedmon Thaal: Gentlemen, in spite of what yon dragon just said, I regret that I have forgotten the way out.
Caedmon Thaal: Perhaps we should try this tunnel. *points at the other tunnel*

Kelsrod Duthertin: "I take it you have some plan for getting the dragon to listen to us again. I devoutly hope it doesn't involve getting him mad at US."
** Caedmon Thaalgrins **
Caedmon Thaal: Oh, I imagine he'll get mad all right.And I can't even guarantee that this will work . . . but if we want to save our friends in the village who are starving to death, without further bloodshed for anyone, it's our best bet.

Caedmon Thaal: Shall I accompany you part of the way? Just in case the draconian diplomacy deigns to be dismal.

Caedmon Thaal: Saldzar. If you remember me, then you'll remember our last conversation.
Caedmon Thaal: I said I wouldn't kill in cold blood, but I would kill in defense of myself or another -- particularly a friend. Do you recall?
Saldzar: Yes, I remember you. I also remember telling you to never set foot in my home again.
Caedmon Thaal: You said we were not welcome. We came anyway, because we need to. The lives of more innocent people, and your own, depended upon it.
Caedmon Thaal: Now: you release my friend, and I drop my weapons, and we will parley peacefully. Agreed?

Reed: *weakly* Reed have... *cough* important thing to tell. Where *cough* your boss?
** Kelsrod raises an eyebrow and glances at Morgan. "We sorta split that duty. Tell Morgan, he's in charge of knowing things. Our guy in charge of talking and our guy in charge of whether we give up our weapons while we talk to people are trying to reason with the dragon again." **

** Caedmon Thaal experiences a sinking feeling -- Reed is near death because Caedmon sent him. He feels responsible. **

Morgan Seafood: "Well, We could have the goblins swear an oath to you, in exchange for you swearing to protect them as long as thay serve you"
** Saldzar looks thoughtful for a moment, and then his teeth show in a widening grin. "Now there's an idea I like. A whole tribe of creatures devoted to serving me... Brilliant." **
Morgan Seafood: "Not against their will though" he adds in a low and meaningless voice realising that he might have gone way too far
Morgan Seafood: (( Caedmon is going to skin me alive and drag me through salt water ))

(this part is OOC)
Caedmon Thaal: So let me get this straight . . .
Caedmon Thaal: I'm both a future Paladin and a Magnificent Bastard?
Caedmon Thaal: There must be a prestige class for that . . .

(back to IC)
Morgan Seafood: "Hows the poor goblin?" Morgan asks trying not to look to happy about the situation
Caedmon Thaal: I don't know yet.
** Caedmon Thaal turns to face the others. **
Caedmon Thaal: Gentlemen . . . Enough is enough.
Caedmon Thaal: I have had it with these *bleep* goblins in this *bleep* forest.
Caedmon Thaal: (to Reed's sleeping form) Present company excluded.
Caedmon Thaal: I propose that, when Hraask comes, we *deal* with him.

Reed: Maybe *cough* ...maybe not bad idea? Dragon big chief. Not easy to *cough* kill.
** Crowid Beestinger sighs and looks out into the forest. "I hate to say this...but it may be the only way." **
Crowid Beestinger: "If not, he may go and kill off the rest of you..."
Caedmon Thaal: Unacceptable, unless we can be sure Saldzar would be a good chief. I'll not see the goblins enslaved.

Caedmon Thaal: Yes, Hraask -- my companions are working on . . . well, something like that anyway . . . as we speak.
Caedmon Thaal: Only I don't know where *they* are either.
Caedmon Thaal: To be honest, mighty chief, I don't think anyone likes me very much.

** Caedmon Thaal then drops his swords and slumps down to the ground, clutching his bleeding guts **
** Crowid Beestinger runs to Caedmon's side. **
Crowid Beestinger: "The Gods love you Caedmon...'cuz no one else will." the Halfling mutters, wondering what the hell to do with the wounds.
Caedmon Thaal: Don't kid yourself. **pats Crowid on the shoulder** You love me and you know it. Now give me something to wrap myself with.

Caedmon Thaal gently shakes the goblin awake. "Reed?" **
** Reed comes awake and looks up at Caedmon. **
** Caedmon Thaal bends down to whisper in the goblin's ear. **
Caedmon Thaal: Saanja is avenged.

Saph
2007-02-08, 08:22 PM
Any ideas on how I can play a Paladin that does not have stick-up-the-rear as a class feature? A Batmanesque personality has been suggested, but being of a more recent generation, I don't really know about the 'real' batman. Personality summary please?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking . . . do you want someone who is lawful and rule-abiding and who holds the party to good behaviour, or someone who isn't? Because a paladin who doesn't allow other members in the party to do evil deeds is going to get landed with the 'stick-in-the-rear' label, whether she deserves it or not.

Batman is definitely not a paladin - he routinely lies and breaks the law and will do just about anything that he thinks is necessary, regardless of how nasty it is. If you're looking for a comic-book character who acts like a paladin, the one you're looking for is Superman - works within the law, tells the truth, uses minimum possible force, and generally holds himself to an incredibly high standard.

Really, though, if you want a character who doesn't kill willy-nilly, just play a paladin properly, holding to the code. That means, for example, that killing enemies who've surrendered is unacceptable - you can't do it and you can't allow the other PCs to do it. Doesn't mean you have to be nice and charming, but it does mean you have to be good.

- Saph

kamikasei
2007-02-08, 08:23 PM
Any ideas on how I can play a Paladin that does not have stick-up-the-rear as a class feature? A Batmanesque personality has been suggested, but being of a more recent generation, I don't really know about the 'real' batman. Personality summary please?


Re: Batman: While strongly paladin-ish, I don't know if the personality would translate all that well to an actual paladin. Imagine a character who operates in a lawless or corrupt environment (or at the fringes of what law there is), bending the rules to keep the "good guys" from being powerless against the freedom of action that the "bad guys" enjoy. Batman knows perfectly well that "the law" is not necessarily just or effective, but is totally opposed to those who work outside it to impose their will on others through force (or to profit through exploitation, etc.). If you want to play a truly Batman-like character you'd have to be walking a fine edge a lot, and it would be prudent to have the understanding of your DM. Depending on how much of an understanding you can come to with your DM you could perhaps work up a sufficiently flexible Paladin's Code to let you work outside the written laws of the land to protect those the law is powerless to help and fight those the law can't touch. Of course, you have other options if you don't want to literally recreate Batman inside D&D.

Re: Sticks; the real question here is, why should a paladin be played as having a stick up his rear? Talk to your DM and come to an understanding that won't require you to always err on the side of Lawful Stupid or Naive Good to avoid a fall, and just play a guy who is sincerely driven to help people, and who is principled, honourable etc. - but who is nonetheless a cynical jerk, who'll call people on it when they're clearly feeding him a line, who'll challenge people bluntly and say: don't give me that - I can't do good for you, you have a chance to make good but you have to do it, and I will be on you like a sack of bricks if you don't try your damnedest. Play a guy who really believes people have a lot of good in them and who despairs of how they consistently fail to live up to it - but who keeps fighting for good and trying to redeem people anyway. Play someone with a bit of humility - think that Gandalf line: "Many that live deserve death, and some that are dead deserve life. Can you give it to them?" - when it comes to situations like your teammates killing a prisoner. Don't preach to people, but be willing to show by your actions that you think that what they're doing is wrong, and be willing to put your own body between an ally's blade and an incapacitated enemy's throat to stand up for what's right. Consider how much more powerful an influence for good is a person who does what's good and leads the way by his actions, than someone who just talks about what's good. Be aware of the consequences of your actions over whether the actions themselves would be considered innately good - and vice versa: that is, don't fall into the trap of maintaining an appearance of piety, but at the same time don't fall into sheer utilitarianism - I think it's fair to say that paladins more than most other classes should be willing to die rather than do what's expedient - and willing to fall rather than let an innocent die.

Whew. I guess all this stuff about paladins and alignment and Miko has been getting to me.

Short answer focused on what seems to be the central point of your question: play someone who is good, and doesn't have a stick up his rear, but who is also a jerk. It's not as complicated as it may seem.

Folie
2007-02-08, 08:25 PM
On the contrary, Raistlin, I think that being LG involves exercising mercy without exception: as long as the potential to reform the orc is there, I feel that a paladin should do what's feasible to keep him alive without putting others in danger. Sure, it's not pragmatic, but being both Lawful and Good will sometimes entail sacrificing pragmatism for the sake of mercy and honor. (At least, I feel it should. If you think it shouldn't, we'll have to agree to disagree.)

Raistlin1040
2007-02-08, 08:27 PM
If that's how you play your paladins then feel free. I think a paladin should see the line between mercy and stupidity. If there isn't a chance he'll change then mercy shouldn't be shown.

kamikasei
2007-02-08, 08:34 PM
If there isn't a chance he'll change then mercy shouldn't be shown.

Well, there's the rub. No man can know when there is no chance of something; and it's arguably a paladin's duty to take these sorts of risks onto his shoulders, though not to transfer them to others.

goat
2007-02-08, 08:40 PM
You're lawful, and you're good.

First, think about the religious law you're following (I'm assuming all paladins are religious, but I suppose some might not be...). What are their core laws? Do their laws automatically out-weigh the laws of the land? Are there situations where the Law as written is not applicable? Do you accept the Law as it is told to you, or do you only believe in your own version of it?

THEN decide what actions are good. Sometimes it may be necessary to defy the law of a state in order to fulfil your own understanding of the Law. You might need to slaughter unarmed men, if they have broken the divine Law you follow and there is no way to recompense.

Maybe you could be a Batman of the simplest sort. Society has not given you freedom to oppose those who break the law, but you will anyway. It's not your fault they're too slow to spot the need for swift justice, you'll just have to fill the gap and hope they don't get annoyed.

Understand the difference between laws and Laws.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-08, 08:41 PM
A paladin upholds the laws of his deity first and foremost, and nothing says the deity you choose has to be the stern war god type. Deities of healing also have their paladins, and you can bet their priorities are absolutely not going to be the same as what is considered the 'normal' paladin.

Choose one of the many good aligned deities who are not dead set on smiting evil as their top priority and think about what that deity would consider worthy behaviour in their servants.

A paladin is an exemplar of the virtues of their faith. Nothing more and nothing less :)

Talyn
2007-02-08, 08:41 PM
If that's how you play your paladins then feel free. I think a paladin should see the line between mercy and stupidity. If there isn't a chance he'll change then mercy shouldn't be shown.

"If there isn't a chance he'll change..."

No mortal creature is irredeemably evil, my friend. This isn't a lich or an evil outsider, this is a goblin or an orc. Vicious and selfish as a race, perhaps, but that doesn't mean that every individual should be condemned for the sins of the whole. A paladin should have a rigid "no killing the prisoners" policy - which is, I might add, why they are not appropriate for many campaigns - because damn it, killing and intelligent and soul-possessing someone who can't fight back is WRONG, always.

If that's a stick up their moral rectitude, then so be it. A paladin can be grim, but she cannot be cruel. I applaud the OP for being willing to show her group what a true hero can be, and I would mention to her GM that maybe an alignment adjustment to the rest of the party might be in order.

Dervag
2007-02-08, 08:41 PM
Could someone please define the 'paladin stick' for me in terms that make it easy for me to understand what you're trying to avoid, here?


I may shortly be playing a paladin in a homebrew setting. There is a strong personality clash between the so-called NG and LG group and my CN gnome bard (with max'd bluff). Despite having good alignments on their character sheets, they have attack and kill defenseless creatures, and chose to kill a prisoner for no reason that i can figure out besides that he was evil and an orc.And the DM doesn't change their alignment? Their actions are not lawful or good.


A Paladin also, for instance, might have to decide between slaying an evil demon, or honoring the love it has for another of it's kind (Straight from Exalted Deeds).This doesn't strike me as being a very difficult choice.


On the contrary, Raistlin, I think that being LG involves exercising mercy without exception: as long as the potential to reform the orc is there, I feel that a paladin should do what's feasible to keep him alive without putting others in danger. Sure, it's not pragmatic, but being both Lawful and Good will sometimes entail sacrificing pragmatism for the sake of mercy and honor. (At least, I feel it should. If you think it shouldn't, we'll have to agree to disagree.)Good and pacifism aren't the same, and mercy isn't always warranted or called for. It might not be possible to be a paladin without being merciful at all times; but it is certainly possible to be Lawful Good without being merciful at all times.

AngelSword
2007-02-08, 09:29 PM
If that's how you play your paladins then feel free. I think a paladin should see the line between mercy and stupidity. If there isn't a chance he'll change then mercy shouldn't be shown.
To extend that, if the target's crimes are just to heinous to be ignored. One may not be beyond redemption, but after years of slaughtering infants, eating baby seal hearts, and driving a Hummer cannot be overlooked.

I think the original poster's comment about a "Batmanesque Personality," is more so a hero who doesn't enjoy his work (I'm guessing, so sorry if I'm wrong). Someone who does what is good and lawful, but doesn't necessarily like it.

A friend of mine played a paladin like this. He upheld the code of his order, but grudgingly. He didn't wantonly harm his quarry, but he had to fight the urge really hard. He loved challenging people to duels, since it gave him an excuse to strike someone (somewhat) unprovoked. Granted, that is what ultimately cost him his life.

Dausuul
2007-02-08, 10:20 PM
I think he wants a LG character. Try playing something like Hinjo. Enforce laws and protect those that need protecting. Do good deeds as well as lawful deeds and don't force your morals on other characters. That's how I always play paladins.

edit:no offense folie but that's what I'd consider a badly played paladin. Being LG means seeing the "big picture" most likely the orc in question wouldn't change. If he attacked your party then he has no problem with killing people and won't change. Never threaten to hurt another party member. Ever. They will hate you forever.

Doesn't mean you can kill him out of hand. A Lawful Good character might kill a prisoner if there seems no alternative (dangerous enemy, no way to bring him back alive for lawful trial, can't risk letting him go), but it should be a last resort. And for a paladin, I'm inclined to say that it's not a resort at all; you just don't get to do that. Does that make your life harder? Yes. That's the price you pay for those neat paladin abilities.

Some folks seem to think that paladins can do whatever they need to do in the service of the greater good. I don't hold with that; paladinhood is supposed to close off tactical options. The ends do not justify the means for a paladin. Finding a way to deal with situations like this is part of the challenge.

As for threatening to hurt another PC... I've both done it and had it done to me, and it's not the end of the world. Hell, I've played in parties where an outright battle broke out between the PCs, and everybody was still friends at the end of the night. Still, it's a pretty bad policy unless your group is good at separating player from PC. The best approach here, IMO, would be for the paladin to shove the orc behind him and say, "I won't let you kill a helpless captive." If they want to draw blades and try to force their way past, well, then, that's up to them.

Eliminating the stick-up-the-rear class feature for paladins is simple: Give your paladin a sense of humor. It sounds like you want somebody grim and cynical, so your paladin should probably be fond of black humor and sardonic remarks. Other options are the quipping, wisecracking paladin; the prankster paladin; the ladies' man paladin; etc.

Folie
2007-02-08, 10:47 PM
Some folks seem to think that paladins can do whatever they need to do in the service of the greater good. I don't hold with that; paladinhood is supposed to close off tactical options. The ends do not justify the means for a paladin. Finding a way to deal with situations like this is part of the challenge.

QTF. Also, I want to point out that a paladin can't always make objective, rational judgments when deciding whether or not a person "deserves" to die. I mean, look at what happened to Miko.

Wippit Guud
2007-02-09, 12:38 AM
Things that a lawful good paladin can do that most people never roleplay:

Drink. There's nothing against drinking in a paladin's code. Friar Tuck drank, and he was lawful good.

Sex. There may be a moral issue about extra-marital sex, but I figure that would only apply to certain deities. A paladin to a god of War wouldn't care much about whether or not a paladin is married. And hell, a paladin to the god of Fertility would most likely encourage it!

Gamble. As long as it's legal where they are, they can do it.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-09, 12:40 AM
Umm... play a paladin. Play him as a sincerely nice person. What's so hard about it?

In fact, given their usual WIS and CHA scores, Paladins *should* be an insightful, understanding, personable lot.

Voleta
2007-02-09, 12:41 AM
Wow, excellent responses, folks!




"If you take him to the authorities so that he can receive his just punishment, I will help you do so, but if you try to harm a hair on his head, then I'll be forced to bring the power of my blade and my god against you. Please, I don't want to have to hurt you."That is almost exactly what my bard said when they wanted to kill the evil orc prisoners. I had used Fascinate to subdue him and the other tough orc the entire fight, and neither had done anything except look stupid whilst the party took out their buddies. In my CN's eyes, they hadn't hurt anyone, and there might be a big bounty on them (Plus, they had a hot gnome prisoner whom she was trying to impress). Yes, I did talk with the Dm and the players after the session about their alignment, and he agreed if they had executed them, he would have slid them a few points twoards evil.

Maxymiuk, that pally had high ranks in diplomacy, right? While a beautifully played character, I'm trying to go with something a bit less friendly and kind.

Oh, and I did not mean to imply that I felt Batman was a paladin, I think he would be a fighter/roge or perhaps a shadowbane inquisitor.


Society has not given you freedom to oppose those who break the law, but you will anyway. It's not your fault they're too slow to spot the need for swift justice, you'll just have to fill the gap and hope they don't get annoyed.

A friend of mine played a paladin like this. He upheld the code of his order, but grudgingly. He didn't wantonly harm his quarry, but he had to fight the urge really hard. He loved challenging people to duels, since it gave him an excuse to strike someone (somewhat) unprovoked. Granted, that is what ultimately cost him his life.

That is an almost perfect way of phrasing the character idea I had in mind! A man who doesn't really want to be the hero, but someone has to right the wrongs, and he's the best man for the job. Blunt, but not rude. Excellent.


Drink. There's nothing against drinking in a paladin's code. Friar Tuck drank, and he was lawful good.

Sex. There may be a moral issue about extra-marital sex, but I figure that would only apply to certain deities. A paladin to a god of War wouldn't care much about whether or not a paladin is married. And hell, a paladin to the god of Fertility would most likely encourage it!

Gamble. As long as it's legal where they are, they can do it.

I agree wholeheartedly. Drinking and smoking are habits that every fine gentleman should have. As for sex, I'm sure some groups require celibacy, but most shouldn't care. I think for my character, he might be one to oogle the pretty ladies, but would never press the issue, so to speak. And he would be the first person to step up should someone lay an unwanted hand on a tavern wench.

Raistlin1040
2007-02-09, 12:42 AM
Good point. Many paladins I see as a DM don't go near a tavern's bar or gambling tables. Which may explain why the rogue and bard with good sleight of hand checks always have the best gambling rolls/hands and end up with better gear then the paladin. The exception is a paladin to a virgin goddess (Athena, Artemis from Deities and Demigods ect.) who should not get married.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-09, 12:44 AM
Meanwhile, a Paladin of Sune.. well, actually is generally big on romanticism and wooing and all that jazz. It's the clerics who sleep around all they like. But the paladins could, too.

Rockphed
2007-02-09, 12:44 AM
If you are dealing with a goblin, you can just get their word about not doing whatever it was that you captured them for. An orc, not so much. I never liked taking captives, but if you are a paladin, totally pull a Hinjo saving belkar if your allies want to just kill captives. You can even throw in snarky remarks about standing between murdurers, or maybe stopping murder.

Beleriphon
2007-02-09, 12:53 AM
Re: Batman: While strongly paladin-ish, I don't know if the personality would translate all that well to an actual paladin. Imagine a character who operates in a lawless or corrupt environment (or at the fringes of what law there is), bending the rules to keep the "good guys" from being powerless against the freedom of action that the "bad guys" enjoy. Batman knows perfectly well that "the law" is not necessarily just or effective, but is totally opposed to those who work outside it to impose their will on others through force (or to profit through exploitation, etc.). If you want to play a truly Batman-like character you'd have to be walking a fine edge a lot, and it would be prudent to have the understanding of your DM. Depending on how much of an understanding you can come to with your DM you could perhaps work up a sufficiently flexible Paladin's Code to let you work outside the written laws of the land to protect those the law is powerless to help and fight those the law can't touch. Of course, you have other options if you don't want to literally recreate Batman inside D&D.



Batman is arguably lawful good, but not a paladin. Superman however is a fine example of exactly how you can play a paladin within a good aligned group. If you take the JLA as a whole then Superman is the paladin of the group, with other characters being good and filling other roles.

TheOOB
2007-02-09, 12:55 AM
Any discussion about alignment is officially meaningless when a paladin is brought into the eqution. A paladin has a code that superceeds alignment.

The party you described is evil, killing defensless creatures and prisoners is not something a good, or even a neutral person would do. Since the party is evil, as a paladin you cannot work with them. You don't have to kill them because they are evil, but the code very specifically says you can't associate with evil people.

That doesn't mean you can't play a good or even a lawful good person with them, but if you rolled a paladin you'd just be brewing a party conflict because you'd either have to force them to roll play to your class, or fall.

Daracaex
2007-02-09, 01:02 AM
Heres my view on aignment: the reason why there are so many debates on what good/evil or law/chaos means is because the alignment descriptors set forth are vague. This is not a shortcoming, but a purposefull move. Law for you can be anything you want it to be (within reason). It can be anything from adhering to every law set forth to you, to adhering to your own personal code, even if you break the laws of the town, you can still be lawfull if you make sure you're obeying your code. Or you can take it to the extreme as well, but it's going to take a bit of skill to be able to pull that off without hindering the party a bit.

TheOOB
2007-02-09, 01:22 AM
Alignment is simple, people make it complex.

A good person is willing to make sacrifices or take risks to help someone they don't know

An evil person is willing to harm someone they don't know for personal benefit.

A lawful person is stable, predictable, reliable, and has strong values(whatever they may be) that they are usually unwilling to break or change.

A chaotic person is unpredictable, free, and generally unreliable and possess a flexible set of values that allows them to do whatever suits them at the moment.

It's really that simple.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-09, 06:25 AM
Check this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34312
It's a good take on how paladins are supposed to be. LG characters that kills innocents and execute prisioners for no reason? If I were the DM, I'd change their aligment acordingly.

Dausuul
2007-02-09, 07:25 AM
Any discussion about alignment is officially meaningless when a paladin is brought into the eqution. A paladin has a code that superceeds alignment.

The party you described is evil, killing defensless creatures and prisoners is not something a good, or even a neutral person would do. Since the party is evil, as a paladin you cannot work with them. You don't have to kill them because they are evil, but the code very specifically says you can't associate with evil people.

Mm... I don't agree with the idea that killing prisoners is necessarily evil. While I agree that Lawful Good characters should not be killing prisoners except in the most extreme circumstances, I could see a Chaotic Good character saying, "Look, he's a plundering murdering villain. If we let him go, he'll kill more people. If he got a fair trial, y'all would have no problem with executing him, and we know he'd be convicted at a fair trial, so why not cut to the chase?"

Of course, this presupposes the CG character knowing that the prisoner is in fact a plundering murdering villain. If there's any significant doubt on the subject, then yes, no Good character should be willing to kill the prisoner.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 08:06 AM
It depends on whether the paladin is killing a prisoner or executing them. As a sanctioned enforcer of divine law he most certainly should be able to investigate the prisoner's actions and decide on a suitable punishment.

The trick is not 'does he kill the prisoners' but 'if he kills the prisoners, is it for the right reason?' If it's just convenience, that's definite loss of paladinhood right there. If thorough investigation reveals crimes worthy of execution, that's something else.

***

It should also be noted that sex outside of marriage (At least between heterosexuals) is generally considered a bad thing in any culture where reliable contraception is not available.

Jayabalard
2007-02-09, 08:57 AM
In Brief:

Any ideas on how I can play a Paladin that does not have stick-up-the-rear as a class feature? A Batmanesque personality has been suggested, but being of a more recent generation, I don't really know about the 'real' batman. Personality summary please?

In detail:

I may shortly be playing a paladin in a homebrew setting. There is a strong personality clash between the so-called NG and LG group and my CN gnome bard (with max'd bluff). Despite having good alignments on their character sheets, they have attack and kill defenseless creatures, and chose to kill a prisoner for no reason that i can figure out besides that he was evil and an orc. They are new players, so I will be playing this girl out to her death, and then showing them what a completely different side of me as a character. I think our problems stem from thinking as people and not as PCs, and from having a tough time with roleplaying.

I want to show them that, while lawful good doesn't mean they don't get rained upon, it also does not mean that you can kill willy-nilly. I also want to be kind of a jerk at times. Thoughts?
My opinion: Batman isn't necessarily LG... he's too much of an "ends justify the means" character, breaking laws when it suits him, and acting as judge jury and executioner; I'd put him at more neutral good, with both some lawful and chaotic tendencies. He's one of the types of characters that shows off the problems in Role Playing by alignment.

the link by Roderick is a good one.

headwarpage
2007-02-09, 09:25 AM
In Brief:

Any ideas on how I can play a Paladin that does not have stick-up-the-rear as a class feature? A Batmanesque personality has been suggested, but being of a more recent generation, I don't really know about the 'real' batman. Personality summary please?

Suddenly, I have an urge to play a character based on Adam West's Batman.

As a serious response to your question - remove stick, play character. There's some good advice on here, but the most important thing is to play your character, not your class. Think about who your character is and why he's that way, rather than trying to fit into some preconceived idea of what a Paladin is.

I think a big reason for the perpetuation of the rectal stick is players' fear of losing their powers. People worry that if they even think about doing something that doesn't have 'Good' written all over it, they'll fall. If you're worried about that, talk to your DM. Some DMs are pretty lenient - they don't want a stick-up-the-arse paladin running around, or they just don't want to ruin your fun, so they won't make you fall unless you do something fairly bad. Other DMs are more strict, so you'll need to work out exactly what your Code of Conduct is to make sure you can remove the stick without breaking the Code.

Peregrine
2007-02-09, 10:52 AM
I see Roderick's already linked to the thread in the Homebrew forum in which I express my views on this question. I umm'd and ahh'd a bit over whether to post it in Homebrew or Gaming d20, but ultimately it made it into Homebrew because it's just different enough from the PHB paladin that I suspect some DMs would see a paladin played 'my way' as being a variant.

So with that in mind, my main advice to add to what others have said would be to talk to your DM, and make sure that playing a paladin the way you imagine will not fall outside the DM's view of what LG means.

Also, since you say a few things about the other players, but not about the DM's attitude, I'd worry that a DM who lets such players go will not make it easy for you to come up with alternatives to killing the prisoners. But that's just a guess.

Telonius
2007-02-09, 11:05 AM
A non-obnoxious LG character? There are a few examples in pop culture. Superman's already been mentioned. Qui-Gon Jin is another one. Roy in Order of the Stick is another. Try imagining a paladin of Garl Glittergold; just because you're high and holy doesn't mean you can't have a sense of humor. You don't have to be Sir Galahad in order to be a paladin; Sir Gawain can do just as well.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 11:51 AM
Telonius raises a great point. Aren't the Jedi basically paladins, when all is said and done? Certainly the idea is there.

Joran
2007-02-09, 12:41 PM
Another thread that was ongoing was how to play a Paladin different from Miko.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33145&highlight=Iranon


Telonius raises a great point. Aren't the Jedi basically paladins, when all is said and done? Certainly the idea is there.

Jedi are taught to master emotions. Paladins can be righteously angry if they want to, while this leads to the dark side for Jedi.

P.S. I really like the idea of an insecure paladin, someone who doesn't really know what they should do when confronted with a gray type situation.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 12:54 PM
Jedi are taught to master emotions. Paladins can be righteously angry if they want to, while this leads to the dark side for Jedi.

Jedi are not identical to D&D paladins in powers or restrictions, but the idea - the holy warrior fighting for justice - is pretty much the same, wouldn't you say?

As such, a Jedi-type outlook would not be wrong for a paladin, IMO.

Starbuck_II
2007-02-09, 12:56 PM
Another thread that was ongoing was how to play a Paladin different from Miko.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33145&highlight=Iranon



Jedi are taught to master emotions. Paladins can be righteously angry if they want to, while this leads to the dark side for Jedi.

P.S. I really like the idea of an insecure paladin, someone who doesn't really know what they should do when confronted with a gray type situation.
But don't foirget "only Sith believe in absolutes". So a little angry is okay for Jedi apparently (as no anger is an absolute).

Quietus
2007-02-09, 01:10 PM
I suppose that's because there's different KINDS of anger; There's temper and rage, which I would consider to be "bad", and then there's the kind of Righteous anger that a LG character would likely feel when they saw innocents being harrassed, harmed, or worse. The difference with the Jedi is that they can't allow themselves to use that anger and let it get out of control, for fear of touching the Dark Side. A Paladin, however... the first might be a bit of a grey region, but most Paladins I see would be perfectly justified in using the second.

Elliot Kane
2007-02-09, 01:14 PM
'Righteous wrath' is anger on behalf of others, and I can't see anything wrong with a paladin getting annoyed at the mistreatment of innocents.

talsine
2007-02-09, 01:22 PM
i'll start with Batman and then move on to an actual contribution to the thread.

Batman is not LG, at best he's NG, though i feel thats stretching it a bit. Batman is a sociopath held in check only by his few friends and a moral code that is somewhat lacking. He feels that he is better than the law, that it doesn't go far enough and its his responcibility to fix everything because no one else is to be trusted. Not even his friends. The only thing that seperates him from his villians is that he won't kill, but that has more to with DC's unwillingness to explore him as a character than anything else.

As for Paladins, i've never beena huge fan myself, but good examples of Paladins, if you want to go from comics is the previously mentioned Superman, along with Wonder Woman if you want a more militant Paly or, from marvel, Captain America (the origonal, not so much the "good solider" Ultimate Cap though i like him better.) All of them have a very strong sense of justice, a defined code of morals and ethics, and a willingness to do what they must to fight. Hell, Cap gave up the mantle of Captain America for a couple of years but still continued on because he felt it was his duty. Same thing with Wonder Woman, though she was a whole martial arts spy thing, blah.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-02-09, 01:41 PM
Hmm...Complete Scoundrel gave Batman as the quintessential example of a LG scoundrel, but I guess that's just a sourcebook. (Lawful doesn't mean following the legal code, it means following your own sense of morality. Note that Batman (When written correctly) never kills or allows to die the Joker or any other villain intentionally, no matter how far beyond redemption they are or how much damage they can do in the future.)

Good as an alignment is about striving to make the world around you, either through your own actions or by guiding the actions of others, a better place for all people, on a small scale or large scale.

Lawful as an alignment is about having a code of morality that supercedes situational pressures and your own needs and convenience.

PCs hate paladins because they often act as moral centers. But, really, that is kind of their problem too. Yes, poorly played paladins demean everyone else's characters and force everyone to conform, but a well-played paladin will sometimes stop others from doing things.

I play with a LG Cleric (very like a Paladin in his playing) and he once stepped in and stopped my CN character from torturing a captured murderer for information, and then told me why it wasn't alright to do, even in this situation. This was a really good scene, and a really good RP moment because there was a real conflict, but it wasn't him just saying "No Torture" and it wasn't him just standing back and saying "Okay party, torture away, I'll just not get involved so I don't have to atone."

In short: A good paladin should see himself as a moral center in the way of a mentor figure; his party is good at heart but could use some moral guidance in the proper way to act. It's your duty to lead by example, and make sure they don't cross the line. But always be forgiving: they're your friends, and they'll learn with time and patience.

talsine
2007-02-09, 01:50 PM
Batman, as origonily written by his creater, killed people all the time. Hell, he even shot them sometimes, something the "modern" batman wouldn't do. I blame the 70's for ruining many a good super hero, even if they tried to fix that in the 80's (Dark Knight Returns, Batman + Plaining vs Superman = superman gets omgwtfpwnd). Batman's "code" is the result of psychosis, and if he ever got over his parents death, he should be a serial killer, but that makes for a pour hero. /shrugz

I liked Scoundrel, but thats one thing i completely disagree with. But this comes from hours and hours of discussion amongest comic geeks, a completely different, though complimentary, kind of fandom that has lead to more fist fights than i care to think about (Batman can to beat up Spiderman. Not without Spiderman being drunk, passed out, and with 4 broken limbs. /sigh)

While i don't like playing paladins, i don't mind them playing the "moral" center of the party, it even makes sense, as long as its not done specificaly to de-rail a party. If your group is full of moraly ambigious people trying to do what they think is best as they see it, ala most typical adventureing parties, playing a paladin can take away from the fun in escaping from reality, which is why a lot of people play. Or maybe just my group, who knows.

Cobra
2007-02-09, 02:29 PM
I think our problems stem from thinking as people and not as PCs, and from having a tough time with roleplaying.

I want to show them that, while lawful good doesn't mean they don't get rained upon, it also does not mean that you can kill willy-nilly. I also want to be kind of a jerk at times. Thoughts?

I don't think you should play a paladin at all! From the sound of it, you want to play a paladin to show the other players the 'right' way to play a good character, and basically try and force them to conform to how you think they should play.

This might work in a game with experienced RP'ers who would enjoy a little interparty conflict. But you mentioned that several of the players are new to RP'ing. What you have is a setup for a lot of unfun sessions and hurt feelings. Especially with that bit about being a jerk at times. That's just a bad idea.

I'd strongly suggest playing a more flexible character, who, while capable of expressing her feelings, is willing to compromise after discussion in order to maintain party harmony.

headwarpage
2007-02-09, 02:54 PM
Paladins can compromise in order to maintain party harmony. They can't do anything evil, and they can't violate their code of conduct, but that doesn't mean everybody has to do what they want all the time. The paladin code of conduce is strict in many ways, but not as strict as some people make it out to be.

Telonius
2007-02-09, 03:02 PM
You could play a LG Wizard with a paladin-stick, if you wanted. The problem is the stick, not the paladin; trying to force others to act according to their own way of thinking.

Jayabalard
2007-02-09, 03:16 PM
I suppose that's because there's different KINDS of anger; There's temper and rage, which I would consider to be "bad", and then there's the kind of Righteous anger that a LG character would likely feel when they saw innocents being harrassed, harmed, or worse. The difference with the Jedi is that they can't allow themselves to use that anger and let it get out of control, for fear of touching the Dark Side. A Paladin, however... the first might be a bit of a grey region, but most Paladins I see would be perfectly justified in using the second.A paladin that gives into that "Righteous anger" is still risking a fall to the dark side.

There are differences, sure, it's not a bad model either.

Joran
2007-02-09, 04:26 PM
A paladin that gives into that "Righteous anger" is still risking a fall to the dark side.

Perhaps, but many a god would be fine with a paladin smiting people in anger. For instance, in Episode 2 (god, I hate those new ones), Anakin kills a bunch of sand people in anger. In the movie, this is shown as a kind of slip into the dark side. A paladin in the same situation would be perfectly fine. Sand People = evil, paladin kills them all.


A good paladin should see himself as a moral center in the way of a mentor figure

As I said before, a paladin doesn't necessarily need to be this. A well-played paladin could be one who is still wet behind the years. He's spent a great deal of time training, but now is tossed into the outside world with no experience and still uncertain about whether or not he has what it takes to be a "good" paladin.

P.S. I just read the OP again. It's true, in that case, don't play a Paladin, just let your characters know that they are slipping closer to the neutral side of the alignment. If they ask why, then you can tell them. Don't beat them over the head with a "You shouldn't do that"; they will get irritated at you.

kamikasei
2007-02-09, 04:38 PM
A paladin that gives into that "Righteous anger" is still risking a fall to the dark side.

That would only matter if there were such a thing as a 'dark side' outside Star Wars. There isn't really. Letting anger override your judgment may lead you to do evil, but simply being angry does not do that. As David Brin has said about Star Wars, the model of morality shown implies that we'd expect, say, Allied soldiers fighting in WWII to get very angry about the actions of the Nazis and go out, buy swastika armbands, and sign up with the Reich as a result.

Cobra
2007-02-09, 04:53 PM
The stars wars light/dark side compared with 'real' morality and DnD morality probably deserves its own thread.

Voleta
2007-02-09, 09:20 PM
I don't think you should play a paladin at all! From the sound of it, you want to play a paladin to show the other players the 'right' way to play a good character, and basically try and force them to conform to how you think they should play.

This might work in a game with experienced RP'ers who would enjoy a little interparty conflict. But you mentioned that several of the players are new to RP'ing. What you have is a setup for a lot of unfun sessions and hurt feelings. Especially with that bit about being a jerk at times. That's just a bad idea.

I'd strongly suggest playing a more flexible character, who, while capable of expressing her feelings, is willing to compromise after discussion in order to maintain party harmony.

That is kinda how I'm playing right now. My Cn character stood aginst what she felt was an evil act, despite having now downsides for her. (If she interrogated and then killed him, it would have actually been better for her in the long run, as she wouldn't have to guard him.) I want to play a paladin , not to force them to play good as I (and the DM, who is encouraging me) see it, but to show them how it could be played, to show them that what they are currently doing is not good in any context. The group needs a good moral center, and our Lg cleric is not suitable for the part.

After a trip to the bookstore, I did look up the class mentioned in Complete Scoundrel. Gray Guard is the perfect prestige class for this kind of character. It is a knight that is 'allowed' to use the tricks of evil for the benefit of his order. I think I can work with my Dm to allow it, or at least the concept, as an alternative to a standard paladin.

Yes, the DM did have a talk with the other players about what will happen if they stray too far from their alignment.

I feel like Batman is Lg (emphasis on lawful), because he (as others have stated) has a very strict moral code, which is what Lawful means. He does have societies' wellbeing at heart, though he does use that as an excuse to punish the people that he thinks hurt him. Some definate evil leanings.

Rabiesbunny
2007-02-09, 10:04 PM
Perhaps, but many a god would be fine with a paladin smiting people in anger. For instance, in Episode 2 (god, I hate those new ones), Anakin kills a bunch of sand people in anger. In the movie, this is shown as a kind of slip into the dark side. A paladin in the same situation would be perfectly fine. Sand People = evil, paladin kills them all.

According to various books, this isn't quite true! Just because the race itself is generally evil doesn't lend to innocents being killed. If a LG Paladin walks into a society that worships an evil god, and begins killing not only the LE clerics, but everyone, it is inherently evil. As with Anakin's actions, slaughtering the women and the children is an evil act, because they aren't the ones who committed offending act in the first place. By default, they are innocent.

Jaguira
2007-02-09, 10:31 PM
Try looking at Hinjo ;D

Lord Iames Osari
2007-02-09, 10:39 PM
This should help you, I think. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34312

Edit: Beaten to it.

NecroPaladin
2007-02-09, 10:53 PM
I always spare the prisoners except on my obsessive-schizoid, overjudgemental lawful evil cleric. I mean, it's just not an option for a character who's even SLIGHTLY vulnerable to guilt.

Cobra
2007-02-10, 03:15 AM
to show them that what they are currently doing is not good in any context. The group needs a good moral center, and our Lg cleric is not suitable for the part.


You are the best judge of what will work and be fun with your group. But here's a couple of points you might want to think about.

A: If orcs are intrinsically evil, then they should be killed whenver possible. Think demons, or even better, the orcs from the lord of the rings movie. Those orcs were spawned as full grown adults and certainly seemed to be inherently evil. Even if orcs aren't ACTUALLY inherently evil, many people might well think that they were, and thus think that killing them was a good act. Elves and dwarves might well be prone to this view, since in many settings they are involved in protracted wars for racial survival.

B: Paladins and other ultra good folks should certainly be willing to sacrifice their time and energy in an effort to redeem creatures capable of redemption. But they have no right to expose innocent folk to danger simply to salve their own consciences. Thus unless the PC's can garuntee that the prisoners will not escape and wreak havok while they try and reform them, they should probably execute them.

C: Taking prisoners to a nearby civil authority that is nearly certain to execute them (with or without a trial) is simply passing the moral buck.

D: The other players may or may not care about whether they are good or evil. New players especially are more interested in having a fun time killing monsters and collecting loot than worrying about moral quandries. There's nothing inherently wrong with that style of play. You guys just have to talk it out and find something that you can all enjoy playing.

kamikasei
2007-02-10, 03:22 AM
C: Taking prisoners to a nearby civil authority that is nearly certain to execute them (with or without a trial) is simply passing the moral buck.

I have to strongly disagree here. Say you manage to capture a dangerous criminal alive, get him bound and helpless. This guy is, say, an escaped convict on death row. He's no pardons left. He's going to be executed. Is it 'passing the moral buck' to call the cops, or for the cops to bring him back to prison for execution, rather than just cutting his throat while he's trussed up in your garage? Isn't one of the features of authorities, especially in matters of law, that they take certain matters out of the hands of the individual citizen and make them something that the citizenry does as a whole?

Elliot Kane
2007-02-10, 04:23 AM
According to various books, this isn't quite true! Just because the race itself is generally evil doesn't lend to innocents being killed. If a LG Paladin walks into a society that worships an evil god, and begins killing not only the LE clerics, but everyone, it is inherently evil. As with Anakin's actions, slaughtering the women and the children is an evil act, because they aren't the ones who committed offending act in the first place. By default, they are innocent.

Completely agree. There's also the reason behind it. Anakin killed all the Sand People not because they were evil or to protect others, but out of hatred and a desire for revenge. Even if they'd all been combatants, his reasons - however understandable - were evil.

***


I have to strongly disagree here. Say you manage to capture a dangerous criminal alive, get him bound and helpless. This guy is, say, an escaped convict on death row. He's no pardons left. He's going to be executed. Is it 'passing the moral buck' to call the cops, or for the cops to bring him back to prison for execution, rather than just cutting his throat while he's trussed up in your garage? Isn't one of the features of authorities, especially in matters of law, that they take certain matters out of the hands of the individual citizen and make them something that the citizenry does as a whole?

I agree. The whole point of criminal law is that it is - or should be - impersonal; concerned only with justice.

For the state to condemn someone to death for their crimes is not at all the same as a citizen killing someone they think is guilty.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-10, 04:55 AM
what about a paladin of freedom?

Paladin Varients (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofFreedomClassF eatures)


Said it before, will say it again, and will keep saying it until it gets through: The UA paladin variants suck. They're poorly written, have no real substantial differences from the base paladin even though they should have different goals, and just to top it off they fall for not being lawful good as per the ex-paladin section of the PHB, which as they're written, they still use.

Besides, your response to asking for advice on playing lawful good is to point him towards not playing lawful good? How does that help him at all?