PDA

View Full Version : A thought on paladins



Lord Anath'Kash
2007-04-20, 10:25 PM
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate."
-d20srd.org

Is it possible for a paladin to be evil and act in an evil manner (Ethically speaking) and yet still retain his Lawful good alignment and paladin abilities? In my opinion yes, but only in very rare cases. A paladin's "Code of Conduct" is described in the PHB 3.5 as follows:

"Additionally, paladins swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness."
-PHB 3.5 Pg. 42

Studying the case of Kore (See www.Goblinscomic.com) where we could assume that his Code of Conduct is something along the lines of "Eradicate all evil and possibilities of evil". In his mind creatures like orcs, goblins and such are inherently evil and as such a child (Be it human, dwarven, elven etc.) raised by such creatures would be evil as ruled by the contact with the evil races. By killing all parties involved, Kore effectively stops the threat of evil and protects goodness as by states his code of conduct. Ethically speaking, killing a child too young to speak properly is an evil act, but as Kore sees it he is doing the actions of good by killing a possible future evil and therefore taking one step further in ridding the world of evil.

The arguement against this is of course what about their deities? If a god/dess saw an action as evil even if the paladin did not surely the paladin would be stripped of it's rank? Well, I draw your attention again to the PHB 3.5

"Paladins devoted to a god are scrupulous in observing religious duties and are welcome in every associated temple."
-PHB 3.5 Pg. 43

Does this imply that some paladins are NOT devoted to a god? If a paladin, like a cleric, follow a cause instead of a being surely that means they are the judge of their own character? Meaning someone who sees killing all possibilities of evil (And themselves act in an evil fashion in the views of the population) could still see themselves doing the good and should the paladin have been ordered to destroy all evil? He would obey, covering the lawful side.

In short, a paladin, despite the reputation of being a beacon of holiness, can be as evil and twisted as a chaotic evil necromancer.

(Of course, not saying that a necromancer IS always CE.)

Please comment with your thoughts and arguments (Or agreements)

brian c
2007-04-20, 10:33 PM
Hm... I think the best answer to this is in Unearthed Arcana, Paladin variants. The Paladin of Tyranny is LE, Paladin of Slaughter is CE. They're still Paladins in that they do have a Code, and I like to think that Pallys of Slaughter are often of the "my own code" type.

Lord Anath'Kash
2007-04-20, 10:41 PM
Hm... I think the best answer to this is in Unearthed Arcana, Paladin variants. The Paladin of Tyranny is LE, Paladin of Slaughter is CE. They're still Paladins in that they do have a Code, and I like to think that Pallys of Slaughter are often of the "my own code" type.

True, but this is concerning the run-of-the-mill LG paladins, fighting for justice and goodness.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-04-20, 10:43 PM
A truly Good character (like a well-roleplayed Paladin) is not allowed to paint in broad strokes or go on "holy purges" that ignore individual people or involve slaughtering everyone of a certain type.

The problem with the Paladin class is that players assume that it is synonymous with being either a narcissistic zealot or an overtechnical jerk who goes purely on the letter of alignment.

The Paladin class, when well-roleplayed, is moral but not moralistic, tries to advise the party but doesn't preach or judge them (doing so disrupts the game and belittles the party) and sees his alignment not as a technicality but as a guarantee that he will never compromise his own actions with evil. He couldn't kill a child to save the world, he couldn't slay all orcs via genocide.

Lord Anath'Kash
2007-04-20, 10:48 PM
A truly Good character (like a well-roleplayed Paladin) is not allowed to paint in broad strokes or go on "holy purges" that ignore individual people or involve slaughtering everyone of a certain type.

The problem with the Paladin class is that players assume that it is synonymous with being either a narcissistic zealot or an overtechnical jerk who goes purely on the letter of alignment.

The Paladin class, when well-roleplayed, is moral but not moralistic, tries to advise the party but doesn't preach or judge them (doing so disrupts the game and belittles the party) and sees his alignment not as a technicality but as a guarantee that he will never compromise his own actions with evil. He couldn't kill a child to save the world, he couldn't slay all orcs via genocide.

I'm not saying at all that a majority of paladins could live like this, but there would be some paladins who, if I may be so obtuse to say, don't quite have their head screwed on right. I'm talking about an absolutely tiny percentage. (.1%) who follow themselves and see it as their purpose in life to attempt to purge the world of evil.

Tallis
2007-04-20, 10:56 PM
In D&D alignment is based on an objective set of ethics and morals. How you see yourself really has nothing to do with it. Good and evil are quantifiable forces, not just opinions. Even if the paladin doesn't directly serve the gods he still lives in a world created by them. They've already set the rules of what is good and evil. His actions dictate his alignment, not his opinions of those actions.
So no, I don't think a paladin (or anyone else) can act chaotic evil and retain a lawful good alignment. If they act chaotic evil then they are chaotic evil.

Lord Anath'Kash
2007-04-20, 11:03 PM
In D&D alignment is based on an objective set of ethics and morals. How you see yourself really has nothing to do with it. Good and evil are quantifiable forces, not just opinions. Even if the paladin doesn't directly serve the gods he still lives in a world created by them. They've already set the rules of what is good and evil. His actions dictate his alignment, not his opinions of those actions.
So no, I don't think a paladin (or anyone else) can act chaotic evil and retain a lawful good alignment. If they act chaotic evil then they are chaotic evil.

:smallsmile: Well said ^^, It's a good counter-piece... I'll have to mull this over for a while.

Zincorium
2007-04-20, 11:04 PM
I'm not saying at all that a majority of paladins could live like this, but there would be some paladins who, if I may be so obtuse to say, don't quite have their head screwed on right. I'm talking about an absolutely tiny percentage. (.1%) who follow themselves and see it as their purpose in life to attempt to purge the world of evil.

For me, personally, a key and vital aspect of the paladins is this: they are given their power, or loaned if you want to be cynical. A paladin isn't able to smite evil or be protected from disease through training or a grasp of magic, this is a direct gift from some source which has chosen them specifically to advance the overall goal of good.

Most problem paladins are in fact unqualified to have become a paladin in the first place, being either too quick to jump to conclusions or so self-centered as to think that they are above certain aspects of the cause they serve, such as mercy and repentance.

If they no longer are the absolute best people for the gods/whatever else to grant these powers to, then they should be stripped of them, as it is certain that better candidates exist.


Of course, I feel the same way about any class which requires a high standard of behavior such as paladins (or jedi, for that matter): not as a beginning class, period. I embrace the idea of it as a prestige class, because when a person starts out playing a character, they have no in-game track record of that character being a wonderfully almost superhumanly good person. That only shows after several sessions in which the option to do something self-serving or ruthless is presented and dealt with.

The idea of it as a prestige class also reinforces the idea that paladinhood is something you've proved yourself worthy of rather than being granted automatically.

Tokiko Mima
2007-04-20, 11:05 PM
Is it possible for a paladin to be evil and act in an evil manner (Ethically speaking) and yet still retain his Lawful good alignment and paladin abilities?

No. The first willing Evil act commited nulls the Paladin's powers.


Studying the case of Kore (See www.Goblinscomic.com) where we could assume that his Code of Conduct is something along the lines of "Eradicate all evil and possibilities of evil". In his mind creatures like orcs, goblins and such are inherently evil and as such a child (Be it human, dwarven, elven etc.) raised by such creatures would be evil as ruled by the contact with the evil races. By killing all parties involved, Kore effectively stops the threat of evil and protects goodness as by states his code of conduct. Ethically speaking, killing a child too young to speak properly is an evil act, but as Kore sees it he is doing the actions of good by killing a possible future evil and therefore taking one step further in ridding the world of evil.

Which is why Good as defined in RAW is not subjective to the situation or idealogy. What Kore thinks is "Good" is not necessarily Good and doing what he does would make a D&D paladin fall in short order. Miko thought she was performing a Good act, but that didn't stop her from falling. Paladins don't get to argue mitigating circumstances when they break the Code.


The arguement against this is of course what about their deities? If a god/dess saw an action as evil even if the paladin did not surely the paladin would be stripped of it's rank? Well, I draw your attention again to the PHB 3.5

"Paladins devoted to a god are scrupulous in observing religious duties and are welcome in every associated temple."
-PHB 3.5 Pg. 43

Does this imply that some paladins are NOT devoted to a god? If a paladin, like a cleric, follow a cause instead of a being surely that means they are the judge of their own character? Meaning someone who sees killing all possibilities of evil (And themselves act in an evil fashion in the views of the population) could still see themselves doing the good and should the paladin have been ordered to destroy all evil? He would obey, covering the lawful side.

Agreed, Paladins don't derive their powers from their Gods.

I disagree however on the assertion that merely because one is Lawful means that one has to obey evil laws or commandments. Being Lawful means that one sees a positive value in social structure and tends to view things from that perspective and favor things like tradition, codified honor, and central goverance in general. It does not compel obedience.


In short, a paladin, despite the reputation of being a beacon of holiness, can be as evil and twisted as a chaotic evil necromancer.

(Of course, not saying that a necromancer IS always CE.)

Please comment with your thoughts and arguments (Or agreements)

I disagree. A Paladin by definition cannot be Evil in any way. The moment a Paladin commits a willing Evil act of any kind, they fall. The moment they change their mental idealogy (alignment) to something other than Lawful Good, they fall.

What you describe when you speak of Kore is more in line with the Corrupted Avenger PrC. It's not a Paladin. The only way to have a Paladin commit evil and stay a Paladin is to have them dominated or controlled against their will. Then it's not really the Paladin being evil, it's the controlling mage.

Assassinfox
2007-04-20, 11:08 PM
Kore's a bit of a bad example. Even the goblin wisewoman thinks he should've lost his powers by now. Either he's got something shady going on that hasn't been revealed in the comic, or he really DID lose his powers. After all, have they actually shown him use any paladin powers?

Zagreen
2007-04-20, 11:11 PM
Is it possible for a paladin to be evil and act in an evil manner (Ethically speaking) and yet still retain his Lawful good alignment and paladin abilities?

Nope. Kore is an ex-paladin turned delusional serial killer.

Aquillion
2007-04-20, 11:53 PM
A truly Good character (like a well-roleplayed Paladin) is not allowed to paint in broad strokes or go on "holy purges" that ignore individual people or involve slaughtering everyone of a certain type.

The problem with the Paladin class is that players assume that it is synonymous with being either a narcissistic zealot or an overtechnical jerk who goes purely on the letter of alignment.

The Paladin class, when well-roleplayed, is moral but not moralistic, tries to advise the party but doesn't preach or judge them (doing so disrupts the game and belittles the party) and sees his alignment not as a technicality but as a guarantee that he will never compromise his own actions with evil. He couldn't kill a child to save the world, he couldn't slay all orcs via genocide.Don't say "well-roleplayed" about something that's just your preferred version. Maybe that's the RAW paladin (really, raw is rather vague about alignment and good/evil in most respects, letting players and the DM decide for themselves), but if the DM allows it there's absolutely no reason why someone couldn't roleplay a driven, hardline, boot-down-the-door-and-arrest-anything-that-pings Paladin and still make them interesting.

Javert, from Les Misérables, is a very interesting character that basically describes that sort of 'Paladin.' Views like that might have crucial inner flaws, but if played properly (and assuming its allowed to be considered Lawful Good), that could just make the character more interesting, not less, and leave room for character development if they're eventually forced to confront the contradictions in their philosophy.

Interpreting Lawful Good as "every Paladin must have a complete and perfect sense of right and wrong" is just as boring as saying that every Paladin is a narcissistic zealot.

Tokiko Mima
2007-04-21, 12:18 AM
Don't say "well-roleplayed" about something that's just your preferred version. Maybe that's the RAW paladin (really, raw is rather vague about alignment and good/evil in most respects, letting players and the DM decide for themselves), but if the DM allows it there's absolutely no reason why someone couldn't roleplay a driven, hardline, boot-down-the-door-and-arrest-anything-that-pings Paladin and still make them interesting.

Javert, from Les Misérables, is a very interesting character that basically describes that sort of 'Paladin.' Views like that might have crucial inner flaws, but if played properly (and assuming its allowed to be considered Lawful Good), that could just make the character more interesting, not less, and leave room for character development if they're eventually forced to confront the contradictions in their philosophy.

Interpreting Lawful Good as "every Paladin must have a complete and perfect sense of right and wrong" is just as boring as saying that every Paladin is a narcissistic zealot.

If every Paladin had a complete and perfect sense of right and wrong, there would be no need for Ex-Paladin rules! No one should start perfect, though.

However in the same sense you have to recognize that you are trying to make Paladins into something they are not, i.e. Evil. Javert was no Paladin, and was most likely Lawful Neutral or even more likely Evil. If you want to play a character that uses arcane magic, you pick a wizard or sorcerer, not a barbarian. Paladins are for people that want powers derived from being Good, not for people that want to be obssessed with vengenance, murder and mayhem at all costs. It just doesn't fit.

The DM can of course allow a barbarian to wield magic or a paladin to do evil, but that's going against the spirit of the rules. Play however you like of course, but I usually don't bend rules with a compelling story reason. That is of course, how I like to roleplay. I won't say you have to play the same way.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-04-21, 02:53 AM
I would just like to add: Kore is not a Paladin. I have no idea how Thunt plans to explain him, but he is not a Paladin.

Okay, I actually have three or four ideas. Point still stands.

Saph
2007-04-21, 05:09 AM
I haven't read that much of the Goblins comic, but from what I've seen, although it pretends to be set in the D&D universe, it doesn't actually follow the D&D rules. Kore's a good example. Paladins are not allowed to be serial killers, period. It doesn't matter how he sees things "in his mind" or what his "code of conduct" is. The paladin's powers come from a god. If he doesn't act Lawful Good, he loses them. End of story.

The Miko storyline in Order of the Stick is a much better treatment of what happens to a paladin who turns evil, IMO.

- Saph

Aquillion
2007-04-21, 05:24 AM
However in the same sense you have to recognize that you are trying to make Paladins into something they are not, i.e. Evil. Javert was no Paladin, and was most likely Lawful Neutral or even more likely Evil.Of course Javert was Good-aligned; I don't see how anyone could question that. It isn't always the same as being a good person, but his belief in the goodness of the law (in all respects) was total and complete, making him one flavor of lawful good--if he wasn't, he wouldn't have reacted so strongly when his beliefs were shattered. A lawful character of any alignment but good would have cheerfully brought Valjean in at the end.

It is unlikely that a lawful neutral character would be especially bothered when confronted with evidence that not all criminals are monsters; a lawful evil character would never care in the slightest. The fact that this revelation destroyed Javert's world shows that he was lawful good all along.

Having mistaken beliefs, no matter how major, doesn't make someone evil. Indeed, someone who is honestly driven to pursue criminals as Javert did on the basis that they are monsters must be good, because the question of whether they are monsters or not would only matter to someone who is good-aligned. A lawful character of any other alignment would have been content to hunt them because it is the law; Javert, as a good character, needed believe that Valjean was an irredeemable, inhuman beast in order to pursue him as he did.

Now, a Paladin cannot willingly commit an evil act, no matter what they believe. But that doesn't prevent them from from being grievously strict. I was taking issue with the contention that strict Paladins are, by definition, badly-roleplayed. That's just silly. There's lots of room to roleplay an interesting Paladin along those lines. That's not the only mode of Paladin, by a long shot, but calling everyone who plays a 'preachy' paladin a bad roleplayer is, well, painting with an awfully broad brush.

Snooder
2007-04-21, 05:46 AM
Honestly, I think a lot of people keep forgetting that the extreme alignments tend to be, well, extreme. LG != NG. A guy who puts good above all else and shines as a beacon of goodness and temperance and mercy for all to follow is neutral good. The preachy a**hole who arrests you for cutting across the lawn is lawful good.
Really, if you want to start labelling roleplaying decisions, the badly-roleplayed Paladin is the one who doesn't have a problem with the chaotic actions of the party.

Saph
2007-04-21, 06:27 AM
Honestly, I think a lot of people keep forgetting that the extreme alignments tend to be, well, extreme. LG != NG. A guy who puts good above all else and shines as a beacon of goodness and temperance and mercy for all to follow is neutral good. The preachy a**hole who arrests you for cutting across the lawn is lawful good.

More likely to be lawful neutral or lawful evil. Paladins are supposed to be Lawful AND good. Not lawful first, good second, and not lawful only. People keep forgetting that.

- Saph

Maxymiuk
2007-04-21, 09:47 AM
I haven't read that much of the Goblins comic, but from what I've seen, although it pretends to be set in the D&D universe, it doesn't actually follow the D&D rules. Kore's a good example. Paladins are not allowed to be serial killers, period. It doesn't matter how he sees things "in his mind" or what his "code of conduct" is. The paladin's powers come from a god. If he doesn't act Lawful Good, he loses them. End of story.

The Miko storyline in Order of the Stick is a much better treatment of what happens to a paladin who turns evil, IMO.

- Saph

You're forgetting though that we have yet to see Kore display any sort of powers typically associated with the class. He may call himself a paladin, he may think of himself as a paladin, but whether he is a paladin remains to be seen.

Morty
2007-04-21, 10:08 AM
Not to mention that both Fortune Teller and Big Ears express their astonishment that he's still a paladin even though he kills innocents on a regular basis. If he's still paladin by class, not by by self-proclamation, it's some mystery yet to be revealed.

Starbuck_II
2007-04-21, 10:11 AM
The Paladin class, when well-roleplayed, is moral but not moralistic, tries to advise the party but doesn't preach or judge them (doing so disrupts the game and belittles the party) and sees his alignment not as a technicality but as a guarantee that he will never compromise his own actions with evil. He couldn't kill a child to save the world, he couldn't slay all orcs via genocide.

Depends on the Party. If the party starts disobeying yor Code of Conduct (I kid you not) tiu are requited to preach to them to stop.

You are not allowed to adventure with people "who constantly offends your moral code."

Why even have that last line? Yes, we got the no evil from the previous line. Why are Paladins forced to make others follow their code?

So in essence you must preach or leave the party.

Snooder
2007-04-21, 12:11 PM
More likely to be lawful neutral or lawful evil. Paladins are supposed to be Lawful AND good. Not lawful first, good second, and not lawful only. People keep forgetting that.

- Saph

Why would following the law, a law that is intended to be for the benefit of mankind be anything but good?

I didn't say he killed people just for walking on the lawn, but generally, trespassing, which cutting across someone else's lawn when you shouldn't be is, merits an arrest.

I'm not saying that Paladin's ought to be lawful only, but if you have someone who is equal parts lawful and good, they will tend to be very strict. Sure their strictness is intended to reinforce good behavior, but it's still kinda stick-in-the-ass and/or holier-than-thou.

asqwasqw
2007-04-21, 12:51 PM
Paladin's get their power from their god. If they disobey their god's rule of conduct, they loose their power.

Zagreen
2007-04-21, 01:11 PM
Why would following the law, a law that is intended to be for the benefit of mankind be anything but good?

Laws are typically made

1. for the benefit of those making the law,
2. for the benefit of the supporters of the people making the law,
3. for the benefit of the nation the lawmaker belongs to,
and 4. for the benefit of mankind.

Usually in that order.

Suppose there's an empire controlled by an orcish emperor who has declared it his law that all elves within the territory are subject to summary execution. A paladin and his party inadvertantly wander into orc territory. Is the paladin required to kill every elf in his party on the spot? No, because that would be flat-out Evil with a capital E.

Paladins owe their allegiance to a higher set of laws. The difference between a lawful good paladin and a neutral good character is that neutral good characters follow moral guidelines and paladins follow moral laws. This generally means a certain amount of civic duty, but it doesn't mean you slavishly follow every law on the books regardless of its moral bearing.

EvilElitest
2007-04-21, 01:18 PM
Wow, good thing this topic hasn't been covered before.



"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate."
-d20srd.org

Basiclly while Roy might be able to kill a child to further the "Greater Good" and stay LG, at least for a time, Hinjo could not without falling.


Is it possible for a paladin to be evil and act in an evil manner (Ethically speaking) and yet still retain his Lawful good alignment and paladin abilities? In my opinion yes, but only in very rare cases. A paladin's "Code of Conduct" is described in the PHB 3.5 as follows:
1. A paladin be evil? What? A paladin, the normal verison is ment to be the living embodyment of Lawful Good aligment.
If you want an evil paladin, we have blackguard, the paladins of Tryanny and Slaughter varients, some dark knight classes in homebrew ect.
2. A paladin falls if he/she commits a single evil act ever. Game over end of story, atone
3. Ends do not justify the means
4. Rare cases? Well how do you judge? Their is not such thing as a Binary situation, so i don't think that works
5. If you don't agree, change the paladin class in your games



"Additionally, paladins swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness."
-PHB 3.5 Pg. 42
Meaning that a paladin has to follow a code, making them have higher standards than LG fighters. Also the Code is the same for all paladins everywhere

VERY IMPORTANT
A paladins code is universal. All paladins have the same basic code. Miko and Bob the paladin have the same laws they have to follow. Also the paladin's powers do not come from gods or the paladin themselves, it comes from the raw power of goodness ect. So while paladins do not need to worship a god, them doing so doesn't chagne their code, except maybe adding more rules
Miko can't break the code of conduct, she also can't break any law her gods set down


Studying the case of Kore (See www.Goblinscomic.com) where we could assume that his Code of Conduct is something along the lines of "Eradicate all evil and possibilities of evil".
1. We don't know as yet if Kore even keeps his paladin powers
2. Kore is not good
3. The mystery of Kore is not yet decieded
4. Koro's motto is
"All evil, even potiental evil, must be eraticated". Not good, just zealos


In his mind creatures like orcs, goblins and such are inherently evil and as such a child (Be it human, dwarven, elven etc.) raised by such creatures would be evil as ruled by the contact with the evil races. By killing all parties involved, Kore effectively stops the threat of evil and protects goodness as by states his code of conduct. Ethically speaking, killing a child too young to speak properly is an evil act, but as Kore sees it he is doing the actions of good by killing a possible future evil and therefore taking one step further in ridding the world of evil.
It doesn't matter what Kore thinks, if he draws his power form the raw power of the heavens (i realy don't think he does) he has to follows somebody elses code not his. Morals are not relative in D&D, they are very active forces and so his actions have him judged, not his intent.


The arguement against this is of course what about their deities? If a god/dess saw an action as evil even if the paladin did not surely the paladin would be stripped of it's rank?

Paladin's powers are not draw from their gods in normal D&D (unless you play FR) it is drawn from the raw power of goodness.
My argument is that morals in D&D are set in stone, and so Kore is evil by those standards


Well, I draw your attention again to the PHB 3.5

"Paladins devoted to a god are scrupulous in observing religious duties and are welcome in every associated temple."
-PHB 3.5 Pg. 43
Also look up Religion in the paladin class disription
Paladins don't draw their power from the gods


Does this imply that some paladins are NOT devoted to a god? If a paladin, like a cleric, follow a cause instead of a being surely that means they are the judge of their own character? Meaning someone who sees killing all possibilities of evil (And themselves act in an evil fashion in the views of the population) could still see themselves doing the good and should the paladin have been ordered to destroy all evil? He would obey, covering the lawful side.'
Morals are not relative in D&D, the PHB makes this very clear


In short, a paladin, despite the reputation of being a beacon of holiness, can be as evil and twisted as a chaotic evil necromancer.
Nope, unless your using a varient.


Javert, from Les Misérables, is a very interesting character that basically describes that sort of 'Paladin.' Views like that might have crucial inner flaws, but if played properly (and assuming its allowed to be considered Lawful Good), that could just make the character more interesting, not less, and leave room for character development if they're eventually forced to confront the contradictions in their philosophy
Javert is one of my favorite characters, but he is still LN
He follows the law, he bileaves in the law, he is devouted to the law,
But he lacks anything good
He has no mercy, empathy, kindness, or feelings for others
He might not be evil,
He is not working for his own benifit, but he is certainly hurting people, though maybe not innocent people. His treatment of the whore is think shows a good deal of brutatality.
I'd say LN in the most extreme case, LE at worst

from
EE

Aquillion
2007-04-21, 02:24 PM
Laws are typically made

1. for the benefit of those making the law,
2. for the benefit of the supporters of the people making the law,
3. for the benefit of the nation the lawmaker belongs to,
and 4. for the benefit of mankind.

Usually in that order.The thing is, this touches on what is really one of the most basic arguments in philosophical thought. It's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be; there are literally generations of philosophers (major ones, well-respected ones) who argued that it is generally the duty of all good people to follow laws, even unjust ones, because going against even an unjust law weakens the entire system of law, which is a good overall. This argument is less popular in recent years, mostly because it was usually based on religion; the Catholic church, for instance, once held as doctrine that all earthly authorities (yes, every single one of them) were to be respected even when wrong, and, therefore, any sort of rebellion against any earthly authority was sinful. Note that a Paladin's code, too, essentially contains a line to the effect that they must respect all legitimate authority. (And no, you can't just say that any authority you disagree with is illegitimate. "Legitimate" in that sense means the same thing as "rightful"--the legitimate heir to a throne, the guy the warlords support, whatever the local rules are. Doesn't matter if he's evil or not, you gotta respect him.)

This doctrine was turned away from after Vatican II, mainly to allow the Church to confront communist nations directly, but having a Paladin in a quasi-medieval world believe something along those lines is not only possible but quite thematically appropriate. It is normal for Paladins to argue that the law is inherently good, since the era that their morality and general form are based on was one where that was the dominant philosophical trend.

Many ancient thinkers likewise held that authority must be respected in all cases, because no matter how bad the law you are fighting is, to fight against it invites anarchy, which they thought to be the ultimate evil. (Anarchism as a unified political and philosophical movement didn't arrive until the 19th century.)

Now, if the law flat-out forces the Paladin to do evil, then they must (respectfully) go against it; but that isn't something they are supposed to do lightly. The Paladin code does strongly, strongly suggest that, yes, the default assumption for Paladins is that laws and authority are good. Why would Paladins swear to respect authority if they thought otherwise?

It isn't a very popular way of looking at things nowadays (to say the least!), and it's fairly heavily discredited in the modern world, so I can see why people would want to get away from it in their games; but if you're going to completely and fervently devote yourself to the cause of Lawful Goodness (and not just be someone who happens to be both lawful and good), it seems almost axiomatic that you would hold that laws are basically good.

Snooder
2007-04-21, 03:30 PM
Laws are typically made

1. for the benefit of those making the law,
2. for the benefit of the supporters of the people making the law,
3. for the benefit of the nation the lawmaker belongs to,
and 4. for the benefit of mankind.

Usually in that order.

Suppose there's an empire controlled by an orcish emperor who has declared it his law that all elves within the territory are subject to summary execution. A paladin and his party inadvertantly wander into orc territory. Is the paladin required to kill every elf in his party on the spot? No, because that would be flat-out Evil with a capital E.

Paladins owe their allegiance to a higher set of laws. The difference between a lawful good paladin and a neutral good character is that neutral good characters follow moral guidelines and paladins follow moral laws. This generally means a certain amount of civic duty, but it doesn't mean you slavishly follow every law on the books regardless of its moral bearing.

I think you miss the point. A law against trespassing on lawns is good and the just punishment for trespassing is arrest. Most people wouldn't bother arresting someone for doing so because its a bother and kind of petty, but hey, that's what a lawful alignment means. Certainly a Paladin wouldn't follow an evil law, but he would also wouldn't disregard a good or neutral law for the sake of expediency.

Given that many laws that are specifically good are also rather annoying to most people, for example laws against underage drinking and drug use, a character who follows good laws as strictly as possible while staying good, which is pretty much the definition of a Paladin, will be a preachy a**hole.



It isn't a very popular way of looking at things nowadays (to say the least!), and it's fairly heavily discredited in the modern world, so I can see why people would want to get away from it in their games; but if you're going to completely and fervently devote yourself to the cause of Lawful Goodness (and not just be someone who happens to be both lawful and good), it seems almost axiomatic that you would hold that laws are basically good.


That pretty much sums up what I am trying to say. LG seems to be equated with some sort of paragon of modern virtue when really it isn't. A virtuous modern person might be against capital punishment, feel that kids should be free to live their own lives or what have you, or support less government interference, but that's not what a Lawful Good character would do.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-21, 03:44 PM
Paladin of Wee Jas, lawful neutral goddess of magic and death.

Couldn't evil actions be within the paladin's code, as per his god??

Assassinfox
2007-04-21, 03:52 PM
Paladin of Wee Jas, lawful neutral goddess of magic and death.

Couldn't evil actions be within the paladin's code, as per his god??

If you're a paladin of tyranny...

Maglor_Grubb
2007-04-21, 04:13 PM
I completely agree with Aquillion. Your, Zagreen, post is in my opinion correct, but it would in D&D still be chaotic to think that way. That is one of the main pillars of the lawful good-chaotic good axis: Lawful thinks that society is in theory perfectly good, that theory is described by the laws, so the more society conforms to the laws, the better it is. If the laws are not good, they still need to be followed because humans need as much structure as possible. Chaotic good thinks that not laws, but people are good and laws interfere in people's abbility to do good and that there have to be as few laws as possible and that people should always do what they think is good, regardless of what the law says. These are a bit more extreme than your avarage CG of LG person, but paladins are a bit more extreme than your avarage LG person, eh? So a paladin would find the idea of a consistent construction of written and unwritten laws the best way to keep society going. So in the worldview of a paladin, a good act severely breaking a law might be an evil act because it weakens the structure of law (and thus good) of the society.

Chaotic good FTW.

Roderick_BR
2007-04-21, 04:15 PM
I haven't read that much of the Goblins comic, but from what I've seen, although it pretends to be set in the D&D universe, it doesn't actually follow the D&D rules. Kore's a good example. Paladins are not allowed to be serial killers, period. It doesn't matter how he sees things "in his mind" or what his "code of conduct" is. The paladin's powers come from a god. If he doesn't act Lawful Good, he loses them. End of story.

The Miko storyline in Order of the Stick is a much better treatment of what happens to a paladin who turns evil, IMO.

- Saph
If you read the whole story, you'll see many characters questioning HOW he can maintain his paladin status with all the terrible things he's been doing, so there's probably some plot secret there, that the author will reveal only in due time.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-21, 04:16 PM
What if you retain the ability to smite evil and all the stuff to buff allies?
It seems like good paladins would be useful additions to a god like Wee Jas. Paladins lead by example. Good for tending to the flock and conversions (which is preciely what remove disease/lay on hands are for). Paladins smite evil, Wee Jas has evil enemies, probably more than good enemies. And sometimes you just need to get something done. Why not let the paladin go against his alignment occasionally to further his god's goal? After all, the rules he abides by and powers he uses come from the goddess.

EvilElitest
2007-04-21, 04:26 PM
Paladin of Wee Jas, lawful neutral goddess of magic and death.

Couldn't evil actions be within the paladin's code, as per his god??

Paldadin powers come not from a god, so Wee Jas has not control over the code
from,
EE

Matthew
2007-04-21, 04:51 PM
Very true, Evil Elitist. Paladins do not have to worship a Deity and their supernatural powers need not come from one.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-21, 05:17 PM
But if they do?

Matthew
2007-04-21, 05:20 PM
Even if they worship and devote themself to a Deity, that Deity isn't usually the source of their supernatural powers in default D&D, but if that was to be the case, the Deity would presumably have to go along with the code, not vice versa.

Renegade Paladin
2007-04-21, 05:49 PM
Hm... I think the best answer to this is in Unearthed Arcana, Paladin variants. The Paladin of Tyranny is LE, Paladin of Slaughter is CE. They're still Paladins in that they do have a Code, and I like to think that Pallys of Slaughter are often of the "my own code" type.
Those abominations have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Now anyway, no a paladin may not commit an evil act, even if he maintains his alignment. The Code stipulates that he will fall if he does.

I'm of the opinion that Kore is not actually a paladin; we've never seen him use any paladin abilities whatsoever. In fact, the tower shield suggests that he's a fighter, as that's the only class that gains proficiency. Unless he just took the feat. If I were to take my guesses, he's likely fallen and is now advancing in the fighter class.

Zagreen
2007-04-21, 05:52 PM
Now, if the law flat-out forces the Paladin to do evil, then they must (respectfully) go against it; but that isn't something they are supposed to do lightly. The Paladin code does strongly, strongly suggest that, yes, the default assumption for Paladins is that laws and authority are good. Why would Paladins swear to respect authority if they thought otherwise?

A paladin is required to "respect legitimate authority." The word "legitimate" gives an awful lot of stretchiness to this rule, since no standard of legitimacy is included. Plus it says respect, not defer to. If a paladin happens across a city constable who is hauling a teenager off to prison for trespassing, the paladin would not intervene unless the situation was grossly unjust (which it arguably is, although unless they torture trespassers to death or something the paladin probably wouldn't do anything more defiant than trying to talk the constable into letting him go). But paladins are not (by default) charged with executing laws and punishments. If the paladin's teammates cut across a lawn, the paladin might berate them for it (because illegal or not, it's rude!) but wouldn't be compelled by any means to immediately haul them down to the nearest jail.


I completely agree with Aquillion. Your, Zagreen, post is in my opinion correct, but it would in D&D still be chaotic to think that way.

I disagree. The difference between LG and CG in D&D doesn't have much to do with the laws of the land, it has to do with moral laws. LG characters believe in absolute and universal moral laws which should be applied as equally as possible to everyone and every situation, CG characters believe that true higher morality comes from being flexible and being able to fairly judge every situation on its own merits.

For example: theft is generally agreed to be morally wrong. To an LG character, stealing a beggar's only copper coin is just as wrong as stealing from a wealthy noble who has millions of coppers' worth of property (well, they might see it as worse to steal from the beggar, but they still see stealing from the rich man as being absolutely wrong, too). A CG character says stealing a coin purse from the noble basically won't hurt them at all, and giving it to the beggar will do a great deal for them. What the law says about theft isn't very important to them.

Lord Anath'Kash
2007-04-22, 05:34 AM
Next thought concerning paladins and the ideas of ethics (What a community sees as "right") and morals (The individual's idea of "right").

A paladin raised in a city which has a certain ethical standpoint which is taught to anyone raised there. A culture of sorts. Surely something taught as "right" in one culture may be seen as wrong in another. A paladin should surely commit a wrong without realizing it, be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and still maintain his alignment?

Matthew
2007-04-22, 08:35 AM
Nope, Paladin morality exists in a vacum, just about. It wouldn't matter what he was brought up to believe is 'good' and 'lawful', in order to be a Paladin in that environment a character would need to have an almost supernatural ability to recognise what kind of morality doesn't accord with the code and a Lawful Good Alignment. Alignment is not relative to anything, it's just a game mechanic. In short, if that character was brought up to believe X is 'good' and Y is 'lawful' and believes them to be, when in fact they are not, and he seeks to be in accordance with them, then he cannot be a Paladin.

Lord Anath'Kash
2007-04-22, 09:18 AM
Nope, Paladin morality exists in a vacum, just about. It wouldn't matter what he was brought up to believe is 'good' and 'lawful', in order to be a Paladin in that environment a character would need to have an almost supernatural ability to recognise what kind of morality doesn't accord with the code and a Lawful Good Alignment. Alignment is not relative to anything, it's just a game mechanic. In short, if that character was brought up to believe X is 'good' and Y is 'lawful' and believes them to be, when in fact they are not, and he seeks to be in accordance with them, then he cannot be a Paladin.

I feel I must disagree with this. "Alignment" isn't merely a game mechanic, it is the moral standpoint a character has. It is unrealistic to believe a paladin HAS to instantly know every culture he comes in contact with. Just because he has a view of good/evil doesn't mean everyone will share his view.

Matthew
2007-04-22, 09:23 AM
Well, that's the way it works in D&D. Alignment is just a convenient game descriptor. There's no way for two contradictory things to be 'good' in D&D. Something is either Evil, Neutral or Good.

Let me put it another way, Paladins Are right. They don't just think they are. They simply are.

EvilElitest
2007-04-22, 10:11 AM
Next thought concerning paladins and the ideas of ethics (What a community sees as "right") and morals (The individual's idea of "right").

So i'm going to presume that you mean ethic evils
I want to make one thing clear, what sombody thinks is right does not mean it is good. Good is not better or worst than any other aligment, it is simple the way it is, as is neutral and evil.
Now lets take a look at a culture like early Japan, where oppression of commoners is not a crime
Well lets break it down
1. Tranny, never good
2. Opression
3. taking away the right of choice
4. Most often crulty
5. Obstruciton of human rights

Or take egypt, that had not problem with slavery
Slavery is inheritly evil, in an of itself.
Note, golems don't count as slavery as they have not minds
slavery is evil, just in and of itself, as i think Fredrick Douglas proved quite well
It is an evil, and evil in the soicaity, and a paladin is required to stop it
Morality is not relativei n D&D, as stated in the book of exalted deeds BOVD, and the PHB
No exception
Because if you make an exception, lets look at orcs
If you make moralty relative, then nothing the orcs do is evil ect.
Morality is a powerful and very much alive force in D&D, not based on an idivuisal. Take Kore for example
He doesn't think he is evil
He thinks he is a paladin
He thinks he is justified in his aciton
But he is not good, not by the holy power mentioned before
On a note on paladins lawful side, nope sorry, a paladin is not ment to obey every law in existence
A paladin is surrpose to act in a lawful manner, and be all around lawful, but not to obey every law, other wise the concept of paldins is ruined




A paladin raised in a city which has a certain ethical standpoint which is taught to anyone raised there. A culture of sorts. Surely something taught as "right" in one culture may be seen as wrong in another. A paladin should surely commit a wrong without realizing it, be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and still maintain his alignment?
Their are difference in cultures in good sociaties, but an evil is evil no matter what culture
If one culture say slavery is wrong and the other says it is right
Well htne, you know what?
The slavery one is not good, and so not paladins an abide by its laws
If the difference in question is something that normally not evil then it is a different matter
For example, culture one say being repectful of a women is very important, while number two is far more leaned back (they are not rude, just not super poliet)
So if a paladin from number two says "Nice rack" to a women in the lands of number one, he would get in trouble but not lose his paladin abilties because it is not a big dishonorable thing

Not is a paladin struck a women (that being ok in their culture) then he would fall, abuse
But retaining their aligment, a paladin could stay lawful good with some minor evils just major evils
A paladin's code is not flexibl;e sorry

feel I must disagree with this. "Alignment" isn't merely a game mechanic, it is the moral standpoint a character has. It is unrealistic to believe a paladin HAS to instantly know every culture he comes in contact with. Just because he has a view of good/evil doesn't mean everyone will share his view.
Nope sorry, aligments are living forces. Morals are not realitive, not in D&D
Aligment is a moral standpoint a character follows, but if they don't fit it they can no longer be it.
For example Kore can think he is LG, but in reality he is evil
Good is a powerful force, and to claim the title of good you have to really be good


from,
EE

Enzario
2007-04-22, 11:38 AM
Studying the case of Kore (See www.Goblinscomic.com) where we could assume that his Code of Conduct is something along the lines of "Eradicate all evil and possibilities of evil". In his mind creatures like orcs, goblins and such are inherently evil and as such a child (Be it human, dwarven, elven etc.) raised by such creatures would be evil as ruled by the contact with the evil races. By killing all parties involved, Kore effectively stops the threat of evil and protects goodness as by states his code of conduct.

^^This is the very definition of "LawfulStupid."
As has been said before, a Lawful Good code of conduct upholds both Law and Good, without putting one above the other. In a situation where the law went against what is defined as "good," a paladin would be in a moral conundrum (though most would argue that good overrules law). Hmm, I might have to throw that in a campaign somewhere...

The point is: a paladin is a paragon of good and law. Killing or attempting to kill an entire race or ethnicity is called GENOCIDE, and in any world where values exist, genocide would be defined as EVIL AND AGAINST THE LAW, since such mass killing only encourages mass chaos.

My two copper pieces.

Snooder
2007-04-22, 01:48 PM
The point is: a paladin is a paragon of good and law. Killing or attempting to kill an entire race or ethnicity is called GENOCIDE, and in any world where values exist, genocide would be defined as EVIL AND AGAINST THE LAW, since such mass killing only encourages mass chaos.


See, here's the thing though, you can't really classify genocide as specifically evil, at least not by the D&D definition of evil. In the same way that killing random evil creatures isn't evil, then killing ALL evil creatures is also not evil. In fact its a "good" action because the less evil creatures in the world, the further towards good the balance tilts.

People have tried to argue in the past that genocide is justified because the people they are eradicating are evil. That doesn't work in our world because there isn't an objective definition of evil. But, in the D&D world, there is.

Remember, D&D morality does not work by our modern, enlightened standards.

Aquillion
2007-04-22, 02:00 PM
A paladin is required to "respect legitimate authority." The word "legitimate" gives an awful lot of stretchiness to this rule, since no standard of legitimacy is included. Plus it says respect, not defer to. If a paladin happens across a city constable who is hauling a teenager off to prison for trespassing, the paladin would not intervene unless the situation was grossly unjust (which it arguably is, although unless they torture trespassers to death or something the paladin probably wouldn't do anything more defiant than trying to talk the constable into letting him go). But paladins are not (by default) charged with executing laws and punishments. If the paladin's teammates cut across a lawn, the paladin might berate them for it (because illegal or not, it's rude!) but wouldn't be compelled by any means to immediately haul them down to the nearest jail.Oh, I don't disagree that Paladins have a lot of leeway with regards to 'legitimate' and the like... the vagueness in many parts of the code is certainly deliberate. I'm just arguing that there's room for both kinds of Paladins in the world.

There can be both Paladins who say that unjust laws are illegitimate because they violate a 'higher law', and paladins who say that the law, as a conceptual whole, represents the higher law and is therefore is inherently good and just, and that individual unjust laws (as long as they don't reach the point of requiring evil) must therefore be followed to avoid damaging the law as a whole. These are two sides of an extremely ancient real-world debate over the nature of law and goodness.

Zagreen
2007-04-22, 02:03 PM
That only holds true if there is an entire race for which every member is truly evil. Killing a neutral hobgoblin because he associates with evil hobgoblins is not in and of itself good (if he's assisting them in evil, fighting alongside them, etc. then it becomes justifiable).

Zagreen
2007-04-22, 02:10 PM
Oh, I don't disagree that Paladins have a lot of leeway with regards to 'legitimate' and the like... the vagueness in many parts of the code is certainly deliberate. I'm just arguing that there's room for both kinds of Paladins in the world.

Gotcha. Personally I still think that a certain leniency regarding actual laws (and not just in cases of laws which are straight up obviously Evil with a capital E) is more or less required to avoid self-contradiction, but then I do have a slightly libertarian lean in my political philosophy.

JadedDM
2007-04-22, 02:52 PM
Paladins don't get their power from gods...they get their power from the DM. Really.

What constitutes as 'good' or 'evil' is entirely up to the DM. Which is what makes it so murky. Take this scenario: The party invades a goblin stronghold and kill all the warriors. They then stumble upon a group of helpless goblin women and children. Some DM's would penalize the paladin for mindlessly slaughtering these goblins. And some DM's would penalize the paladin for NOT killing them all.

That's why I declared a universal definition of good and evil in my own games, and I make it very clear to anyone playing a paladin under me.

Matthew
2007-04-22, 03:03 PM
Very true. However, even if the DM didn't ultimately decide precisely what is Good, Neutral or Evil, the Paladin still, by default, doesn't really draw his power from a Deity.

JadedDM
2007-04-22, 03:26 PM
Maybe not anymore, but he used to (back in AD&D).

Snooder
2007-04-22, 03:30 PM
That only holds true if there is an entire race for which every member is truly evil. Killing a neutral hobgoblin because he associates with evil hobgoblins is not in and of itself good (if he's assisting them in evil, fighting alongside them, etc. then it becomes justifiable).

True, which is where gameplay mechanics tend to mess with the story. While it's generally better for the story to have a neutral or even good hobgoblins, by the RAW hobgoblins are an evil race.

Actually, that leads to an interesting question. Is killing the neutral hobgoglin evil? If he associates with evil hobgoblins a Paladin might see the killing as neutral eh? Not something the Paladin has to do, but not something he is prohibited from doing either? Just wondering what you guys think.

kamikasei
2007-04-22, 03:39 PM
While it's generally better for the story to have a neutral or even good hobgoblins, by the RAW hobgoblins are an evil race.

By the RAW, hobgoblins are usually evil. The average hobgoblin you encounter has a greater than 50% chance of being evil. By no means does this mean that you're justified in killing every hobgoblin you see on the grounds that it's of an evil race.

Zagreen
2007-04-22, 03:46 PM
True, which is where gameplay mechanics tend to mess with the story. While it's generally better for the story to have a neutral or even good hobgoblins, by the RAW hobgoblins are an evil race.

As a race, yes, but the rules do not indicate that every hobgoblin is evil. Their MM entry says "Usually lawful evil". "Usually", by the monster manual, is defined as being a decent majority, so let's say 60%. So a fair estimate would be to say that 20% of hobgoblins are non-lawfully aligned and 20% are non-evil aligned. Obviously assumptions are going to vary a bit but it seems reasonable to say at least 1 in 10 individual hobgoblins is going to be non-evil. That's enough to say that an attempt at true genocide is going to be evil.


Actually, that leads to an interesting question. Is killing the neutral hobgoglin evil?

Geez, do you actually have to ASK that?! Of course it's evil. If a neutral's actions make it necessary to defeat them in order to stop the actions of other, evil individuals, then killing them is justified (but not necessarily preferable). But killing a neutral who's minding their own business and not getting in your way at all is never anything but evil.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-04-22, 04:17 PM
I'm not saying at all that a majority of paladins could live like this, but there would be some paladins who, if I may be so obtuse to say, don't quite have their head screwed on right. I'm talking about an absolutely tiny percentage. (.1%) who follow themselves and see it as their purpose in life to attempt to purge the world of evil.

As established above, there's not exactly a lack of worthy people out there so that the gods have to tolerate someone with a head "not quite screwed right"

I would imagine that theres a lot of good looking farmboys, with dreams of being heros and saving the galaxy, er world!

Why not giving supernatural powers to them, rather than the overzealous a$$#*!e that is not even leading by example and inspiring people to be good.


Javert, from Les Misérables, is a very interesting character that basically describes that sort of 'Paladin.' Views like that might have crucial inner flaws, but if played properly (and assuming its allowed to be considered Lawful Good), that could just make the character more interesting, not less, and leave room for character development if they're eventually forced to confront the contradictions in their philosophy.

Interpreting Lawful Good as "every Paladin must have a complete and perfect sense of right and wrong" is just as boring as saying that every Paladin is a narcissistic zealot.

Javert is the typical Lawful Neutral character that tends to think of himself as lawful good, who works for the Lawful Good letter of the law to such an extreme that he ends up not following the Good part, only the cold, strict, unforgiving law.

Having lived like that all of his life, it really messed with his head to know that he was wrong in his comfortable assumption that all criminals were evil and incorregible.

Javert was some sort of "Champion of Law" (I would name the class "Justicar" if you wanted to homebrew something similar), but not a paladin by any stretch of the imagination.


Honestly, I think a lot of people keep forgetting that the extreme alignments tend to be, well, extreme. LG != NG. A guy who puts good above all else and shines as a beacon of goodness and temperance and mercy for all to follow is neutral good. The preachy a**hole who arrests you for cutting across the lawn is lawful good.
Really, if you want to start labelling roleplaying decisions, the badly-roleplayed Paladin is the one who doesn't have a problem with the chaotic actions of the party.

Snooder, you are confusing your alignments. A Neutral Good character and a Lawful Good character both have the same capacity for goodness, the only difference is that the Neutral Good character will use chaotic methods from time to time, without hesitation or guilty feelings, and the Lawful Good character will avoid them as much as possible, and may feel a bit guilty if the party needs to break laws to reach their goal.

[shameless plug]Now, if you want a system where a character can be "More Good than Lawful" check the link below for my expanded alignment system [/shameless plug]

EvilElitest
2007-04-22, 04:46 PM
Actually, that leads to an interesting question. Is killing the neutral hobgoglin evil?
No, if you know the hobgoblin is evil

If Roy kills 100 hobgoblins, and one of them in in fact neutral, it is not evil because the guy is still attacking the city.
Hell it is evil to kill an evil hobgoblin who hasn't done anything

And genocide is evil, killing any creature based on their race is evil. However, this does not apple to certain creatures, like Demons, who are not even able to be good (unless you play ebberon)

A paladin can try to wipe out every single demon on the planet if he/she wants without turning evil, because all demons are evil, unless your playing a game where this is different.
from,
EE

Matthew
2007-04-22, 05:04 PM
Context is everything in this sort of thing. You cannot just randomly kill anything that is not a clear and present danger, I would say, and even then, if it possible to capture them, that may be more appropriate.

kamikasei
2007-04-22, 05:04 PM
Actually, that leads to an interesting question. Is killing the neutral hobgoglin evil?
No, if you know the hobgoblin is evil

The fact that this doesn't follow the question aside... I disagree. Killing someone you know to be evil is quite likely to be evil. Killing someone you know not to be evil is not necessarily evil. If I know that the traveling hobgoblin merchant in town is evil - he beats his wife, and participates in raids against other goblinoids while at home on which he kills his tribe's enemies indiscriminately, etc. - that doesn't mean I can go and kill him and it be non-evil. That requires him to be doing something that makes it non-evil to kill him.

EvilElitest
2007-04-22, 05:09 PM
The fact that this doesn't follow the question aside... I disagree. Killing someone you know to be evil is quite likely to be evil. Killing someone you know not to be evil is not necessarily evil. If I know that the traveling hobgoblin merchant in town is evil - he beats his wife, and participates in raids against other goblinoids while at home on which he kills his tribe's enemies indiscriminately, etc. - that doesn't mean I can go and kill him and it be non-evil. That requires him to be doing something that makes it non-evil to kill him.

I agree, as i said in the rest of that post.
from,
EE

Aquillion
2007-04-22, 10:59 PM
The fact that this doesn't follow the question aside... I disagree. Killing someone you know to be evil is quite likely to be evil. Killing someone you know not to be evil is not necessarily evil. If I know that the traveling hobgoblin merchant in town is evil - he beats his wife, and participates in raids against other goblinoids while at home on which he kills his tribe's enemies indiscriminately, etc. - that doesn't mean I can go and kill him and it be non-evil. That requires him to be doing something that makes it non-evil to kill him.Well, quite aside from the moral issue, there's the legal one. I don't think there are very many places that allow for summary execution on account of being evil.

They might be less inclined to offer mercy (they're not required to--offering mercy is a good act, but that doesn't mean mercilessness is always evil), and might be more inclined to move to maximum force the instant it would be legally justified, but quite aside from whether it's good a Paladin can't just go around regularly executing people for the crime of "walking while evil" because, in most places, that breaks the law.

(Note to self: Satire-utopia where evil is capital crime, administered by pseudo-Paladins who walk around performing summery executions on anyone who starts pinging as evil, would make for a hilarious setting. For maximum absurdity, say that "evil = death" is the only law on the books in this city. Naturally, although these pseudo-paladins are unaware of it, the mechanism they use to detect evil is controlled by the government, who decides who is 'evil' and who isn't. Hilarious.)

Counterpower
2007-04-22, 11:29 PM
Well, I've been seeing the "paladins need to follow laws" point here, so I thought I'd pop in with a quote that I saw touring a university:

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
That would be Martin Luther King Jr. speaking. And what I get out of it is that ignoring an unjust law is not disrespect for the law. It does not risk toppling the entire system of laws. Such a violation of a law that is wrong is instead a help to an LG viewpoint, as it helps to fix the laws so that they do represent an LG standpoint. A person who stands by while an unjust law is being carried out, say if a person was being hauled off to jail with no warning or mercy for an offense he knew nothing about, is not showing a paladin opinion. He's either LN for focusing on the law, or LE for knowing what the law will do and enjoying the idea. An LG paladin, when confronted with an unjust law being executed, will protest.

DSCrankshaw
2007-04-22, 11:57 PM
The whole "Kill all hobgoblins" issue reminds me of a recent encounter I had in a game. The elven cleric was captured by a band of goblins while the rest of the party retreated from the disastrous battle, believing she was dead (this is the sort of thing that can only happen in a PbP game, keeping that degree of knowledge from the rest of the players). She was badly mistreated by a band of goblins, and when the rest of the party returned and engaged all the goblin combatants, she escaped and started killing the rest of the goblins: old men, women, and children. When the others came from the battle to find her doing this, my lawful good dwarf fighter acted to stop her. When she told her tale, though, most of the party agreed that she should just slaughter them, some of them actually agreeing with her, others simply unwilling to oppose someone who'd suffered so greatly. It was something of a moral dilemma for me to decide what to do, as it seemed that the only way to stop her was physically, and the rest of the party threatened to attack me if I attacked her... which hardly seemed like the right thing to do anyway. What my character ended up doing was simply placing himself between her and the children, unarmed, and saying, pretty much, "Kill me first." It was low level, so the spellcasters were lacking in reliable ways to knock me out, so it was enough to get her to spare the children. The women and old men... not so much, but they hadn't been innocent in the abuse.

Of course, then I had to figure out what to do with eight screaming goblin kids. Now that was fun.

Renegade Paladin
2007-04-23, 05:18 AM
I want to make one thing clear, what sombody thinks is right does not mean it is good. Good is not better or worst than any other aligment, it is simple the way it is, as is neutral and evil.
Dude, this post makes my brain hurt. Get a spellchecker. Anyway, before all the atrocious spelling and grammar made me stop reading due to a growing headache, the above-quoted portion caught my eye.

Good is, in fact, morally better than the other portions of the moral alignment axis, by definition. There is nothing morally superior or even equivalent about being evil, because that involves killing, oppressing, and generally being a bastard towards those around you. Stop trying to equivocate between the two; there's nothing at all making them of equal moral value. :smallannoyed:

See, here's the thing though, you can't really classify genocide as specifically evil, at least not by the D&D definition of evil. In the same way that killing random evil creatures isn't evil, then killing ALL evil creatures is also not evil. In fact its a "good" action because the less evil creatures in the world, the further towards good the balance tilts.

People have tried to argue in the past that genocide is justified because the people they are eradicating are evil. That doesn't work in our world because there isn't an objective definition of evil. But, in the D&D world, there is.

Remember, D&D morality does not work by our modern, enlightened standards.
No, wrong. There is no humanoid race against which genocide would be justified; none whatsoever. And even if there was, Kore also killed a dwarf child for being exposed to orcs, but that's just clouding the issue. The only "races" that you could even remotely justify genocide against under the tenets of Good are the various types of evil outsiders, and even that's a little dodgy. Good and Evil are different in more ways than just the relative ugliness of those typically on their respective sides; it's a matter of goals and methods. Merciless slaughter is the methodology of evil, not good, and that is that.

As an aside, if the D&D cosmology existed in our world then it would be enlightened to wake up to it. Enlightenment implies seeking the truth; there's nothing unenlightened about D&D characters following D&D morality, because for those fictional characters in that fictional universe, it is the truth, and a far more certain truth than we will ever know, given that they have concrete evidence of a universal moral law.

Snooder
2007-04-23, 05:46 AM
Snooder, you are confusing your alignments. A Neutral Good character and a Lawful Good character both have the same capacity for goodness, the only difference is that the Neutral Good character will use chaotic methods from time to time, without hesitation or guilty feelings, and the Lawful Good character will avoid them as much as possible, and may feel a bit guilty if the party needs to break laws to reach their goal.

My point with the comparison is that both beacon and a**hole are good. The only real difference between them is that the NG beacon has the leeway to place good above the law. Can't exactly be a beacon of pure goodness if you are continually forced to be a paragon of law and order as well; and you shouldn't really be forced to. In the same way that a LG character's devotion to good tempers his adherence to the law, his belief in law and order shapes the good he is permitted to do.

The "Perfect" Paladin who many seem to tout is one who shows mercy at will and goes counter to authority, law, and his own deep seated principles in order to advance the cause of goodness when necessary.

That seems to me to run more toward the NG alignment than toward the LG alignment. Perhaps it's just me.

I am going on the assumption that unless a law is specifically evil, a LG Paladin would see no reason to break the law in order to reach a goal. Not merely "feeling a bit guilty", the Paladin runs the risk of falling each time he bends the law merely for the sake of convenience.

For example, lets say a town has a dusk curfew. The party however, needs to hunt vampires. A NG character can simple ignore the law and go vamp hunting. Heck, so can a LG character. A LG Paladin, on the other hand is reminded every time he looks at the stars that he is betraying his belief in the fundamental sanctity of law and order. The first couple of times he breaks the law is ok, but eventually it will add up (depending on the DM of course).

This sort of situation leads, as is most realistic, to Paladins who are constantly wary of stepping outside the bounds of law and order and interpret things in the strictest manner possible. The "lawful stupid" alignment.

It's not that there can't be any Paladins who puts good above his duty to the law, its just they would tend to be relatively rare, compared to the strict Paladins, because they would get frustrated at the bounds placed on them by the Paladin Code.

Counterpower
2007-04-23, 07:13 AM
The "Perfect" Paladin who many seem to tout is one who shows mercy at will and goes counter to authority, law, and his own deep seated principles in order to advance the cause of goodness when necessary.

No, no. That isn't the case at all. Well, "mercy at will" should probably be the case. Counter to authority or law? Maybe, but only when it's absolutely necessary and every other course had been tried. Counter to his deep-seated principles? Never. A paladin IMO is an agent of justice, the view of LG. As for why he wouldn't run counter to Law if he breaks one........... my view on that is in my previous post.


I am going on the assumption that unless a law is specifically evil, a LG Paladin would see no reason to break the law in order to reach a goal. Not merely "feeling a bit guilty", the Paladin runs the risk of falling each time he bends the law merely for the sake of convenience.

For example, lets say a town has a dusk curfew. The party however, needs to hunt vampires. A NG character can simple ignore the law and go vamp hunting. Heck, so can a LG character. A LG Paladin, on the other hand is reminded every time he looks at the stars that he is betraying his belief in the fundamental sanctity of law and order. The first couple of times he breaks the law is ok, but eventually it will add up (depending on the DM of course).

This sort of situation leads, as is most realistic, to Paladins who are constantly wary of stepping outside the bounds of law and order and interpret things in the strictest manner possible. The "lawful stupid" alignment.

It's not that there can't be any Paladins who puts good above his duty to the law, its just they would tend to be relatively rare, compared to the strict Paladins, because they would get frustrated at the bounds placed on them by the Paladin Code.

Well........... I might have to use that scenario sometime. I can see the RPing with the town's mayor now. As for the rest, I still don't think that any paladin has to follow laws, without any regard for their purpose, intent, or actual effect. After all, what if that law against going out at dusk was created to prevent people from discovering or going against the nearby vampires? I mean, the paladin certainly should talk with the ruling authorities first for an exception to said law or even a revocation of that law, depending on what the law is and what its scope is. If it's not critical but the law needs to be changed, then the paladin shouldn't change it by going around interfering with its execution. He should attempt to get it changed in the manner that the law specifies. But what happens when that's not possible? When the government is LE and refuses to listen to reason? Should the paladin still be obligated to follow the law that makes it a crime to be a paladin? Or the one that specifies instant death, at the scene, for anyone who intentionally or unintentionally steps on a flower? If it is far more critical to stop an unjust law being carried out (probably due to a harsher penalty) then wouldn't justice be better served with the paladin insisting on an end to this facade that the government is trying to call justice? Is that Good? Yeah, defending people that the government is trying to kill for little justification is probably Good. Is that Lawful? Harder question, but...... still yes. My previous post has that information in it.

Renegade Paladin
2007-04-23, 07:16 AM
If the party needs to hunt a vampire, then the paladin good and well goes and hunts that vampire. That is, after all, his job. That's pretty much the end of the story; if a curfew is resulting in a vampire running rampant and killing people, then there are more important things to worry about than the curfew.

Counterpower
2007-04-23, 07:32 AM
If the party needs to hunt a vampire, then the paladin good and well goes and hunts that vampire. That is, after all, his job. That's pretty much the end of the story; if a curfew is resulting in a vampire running rampant and killing people, then there are more important things to worry about than the curfew.

That's generally my view on the matter, but then, I'm Chaotic.

I think some adherence to the law is necessary for the paladin. Thus, the meeting with said town's ruling authority to get an exception. There are several possibilities from this meeting.

1. The authorities grant said exception. Easiest option. There you go, we do have that law but yours is a just and necessary reason to bend it.

2. The authorities refuse to even consider the exception to any law. This one's the hardest. If you make it absolutely sure that they recognize the consequences of strict adherence to the law, and they still refuse an exception, then.............. yikes. This one really is hard. Personally, I would err on the side of the Good action that may not be as Lawful. That isn't necessarily what I think all paladins should do. But, see scenario 3.

3. The authorities consistently refuse an exception, even after presented with 17 dead bodies and after being confronted 3 times. This is when it starts to get to the point where the authorities may have some complicity in the events. Even if they don't, can you honestly say that a paladin can ignore such repeated deaths and remain Good? I can't. When it starts to reach this excess, then it may become time to resist the law.

This just occured to me: go to the OotS comics and read #282, the closing arguments in the trial. Specifically Celia's. That puts some of what I'm trying to say about ignoring laws in a good way.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-04-23, 10:13 AM
For example, lets say a town has a dusk curfew. The party however, needs to hunt vampires. A NG character can simple ignore the law and go vamp hunting. Heck, so can a LG character. A LG Paladin, on the other hand is reminded every time he looks at the stars that he is betraying his belief in the fundamental sanctity of law and order. The first couple of times he breaks the law is ok, but eventually it will add up (depending on the DM of course).


Well, If I were playing the paladin in question, he would first try to get a permit to operate after dusk from the authorities, pointing out that the party is out to destroy the vampire that has been preying in the populace and which is (I assume) the reason why the curfew is there in the first place.

Of course, if the authorities are not being reasonable, then the dusk curfew law is not acting for the benefit of the populace (the only reason there are laws, in the LG point of view, is that an ordered society works for the betterment of all), and therefore the paladin can break the curfew without feeling too bad about it, knowing in his heart that he is breaking a minor local law in order to bring order and good for the people by hunting down the vampire.



This sort of situation leads, as is most realistic, to Paladins who are constantly wary of stepping outside the bounds of law and order and interpret things in the strictest manner possible. The "lawful stupid" alignment.


I agree that going out there, "detecting and smiting" without sparing a thought for the consecuences of their actions, is "lawful stupid" as you say. The ideal paladin chooses his actions striving to the "greater good and order" and therefore, while he respects legitimate authorities, he is ultimately only bound by his own conscience.

But the Paladins Deity (read: The DM :smallwink: ) also has to interpret the actions (and the intentions!) of the character with "the greater good and order" in mind, as well. Otherwise the paladin concept doesnt work.

It is just ridiculous for a DM to strip the paladin's powers out of a character that has been working for the greater good and order, in basis of a technicality, while Clerics and Druids (who should be even more restricted by the ethos of their deity/beliefs) can do pretty much whatever they want.

[begin off-topic rant, please ignore]

That's why in my games, Clerics are not considered overpowered, as they are under close scruitiny of their deities.
I mean, if you are going to be the "agent of the god" in the world, you must stay close to the gods philosophy and spread his message constantly, be it war, love, "gnomishness" or nature...
And a D&D deity can certainly refuse to grant certain spells or abilities to a cleric or druid that has been "straying" from the path... You may argue that this is not RAW, but it certainly has logic and if you read the Torah, Bible, Quoran or almost any other holy book, that's the kind of relationship holy men/prophets/etc. had with the divinity.

[end off-topic rant, thank you for your patience]

AllisterH
2007-04-23, 10:22 AM
You're basically ignoring the Lawful aspect of the LG axis in the above scenario. Really, unless the curfew was intended to protect people from the vampire, I can't see how a LG person (not just a paladin) is going to break that law.

A LG person would have to find out why the law was implimented and see about getting a permit IMHO.

Tokiko Mima
2007-04-23, 11:02 AM
I think what's being ignored here is that adventurers are more or less vigilantes in the first place. A Paladin who respected the law would probably be serving in military or police forces, not carousing with the Rogue, Wizard, Fighter, etc. at the local tavern and going out and hunting down villians, monster or otherwise.

So adventuring Paladins have to be looser with their interpretation of the law as applies to them. Because they are more powerful than the average city guard they have a responsibility to protect people from more powerful threats. It's kind of Spiderman-like in a way. Spiderman wouldn't worry about a curfew impossed on the average people in New York. That's a good law, but it wasn't written with Superheroes and Paladins in mind.

Renegade Paladin
2007-04-23, 12:29 PM
You're basically ignoring the Lawful aspect of the LG axis in the above scenario. Really, unless the curfew was intended to protect people from the vampire, I can't see how a LG person (not just a paladin) is going to break that law.

A LG person would have to find out why the law was implimented and see about getting a permit IMHO.
Correction: A LG person might bother to find out why the law was implemented and see about getting a permit. Characters are individuals and that particular letter combination, just like the others, can mean many, many different things.

Aquillion
2007-04-23, 01:34 PM
Well, I've been seeing the "paladins need to follow laws" point here, so I thought I'd pop in with a quote that I saw touring a university:
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

That would be Martin Luther King Jr. speaking. And what I get out of it is that ignoring an unjust law is not disrespect for the law. It does not risk toppling the entire system of laws. Such a violation of a law that is wrong is instead a help to an LG viewpoint, as it helps to fix the laws so that they do represent an LG standpoint. A person who stands by while an unjust law is being carried out, say if a person was being hauled off to jail with no warning or mercy for an offense he knew nothing about, is not showing a paladin opinion. He's either LN for focusing on the law, or LE for knowing what the law will do and enjoying the idea. An LG paladin, when confronted with an unjust law being executed, will protest.As I said previously, though, the view you express there was actually very much a minority view before the 20th century. In particular, for much of history the dominant philosophers (in particular, the ones who governed religious-militant orders that Paladins are based on) said that obeying even unjust laws was necessary to uphold the larger structure of the law. There were exceptions, certainly, but that was the general trend. (In a world before printing presses, authority generally controlled what information got out.)

It's fine to disagree with it; it's even fine to say that that just doesn't apply in your games. But you have to realize that this is like having your Paladin stand up and give a speech about the natural rights of man, the importance of free speech, and the value of democracy; or having his battle cry be "The equitable exchange of goods and services is the sole basis for a free and just society!" D&D isn't historical, no, but Martin Luther King and the principle of nonviolent resistance really don't fit in the setting. In most societies like those described in D&D, if you went up to a typical philosopher or priest and asked them if you should obey an unjust law, the answer would've been yes.

There is a difference between running a Paladin like this and playing "lawful stupid." A Paladin can say "My personal feeling is that this law is unjust, but I am nonetheless sworn to uphold it; if I took the law into my own hands I would be doing far more damage in the long run." They can bring a criminal in for stealing bread, then appeal to the judge for leniency. Note that this sort of Paladin is the polar opposite of a vigilante kill-it-if-it-pings Paladin.

Paladins don't generally fall for the occasional minor unlawful act, so in extreme cases they can ignore the law when it's the right thing to do; but, in general, a lawful character isn't someone who will say "I'm going to do what's right and screw the law that says otherwise." That's the very essence of chaotic good.

EvilElitest
2007-04-23, 02:34 PM
Dude, this post makes my brain hurt. Get a spellchecker. Anyway, before all the atrocious spelling and grammar made me stop reading due to a growing headache, the above-quoted portion caught my eye.

Good is, in fact, morally better than the other portions of the moral alignment axis, by definition. There is nothing morally superior or even equivalent about being evil, because that involves killing, oppressing, and generally being a bastard towards those around you. Stop trying to equivocate between the two; there's nothing at all making them of equal moral value.

Sorry about the spelling, i was not using my own computor and my school does not allow me to download a spell check:smallfrown:
Anyways, on your second point, i think your being way to angry i'm talking about the idea of good being able to judge others simple by viture of being good, Miko is not better than V morally, they just have different views. Roy is better than Miko morally by a LG stand point though

On the paladin's obeying laws thing, a paladin is lawful meing they have to follow and act in a lawful manner, nothing about obeying every law in the area. Why is the midnight curfew their? What purpose does it serve? If the law is not LG, then i don't see why it would come before innocent lives
from,
EE

Maglor_Grubb
2007-04-23, 02:43 PM
I think what's being ignored here is that adventurers are more or less vigilantes in the first place. A Paladin who respected the law would probably be serving in military or police forces, not carousing with the Rogue, Wizard, Fighter, etc. at the local tavern and going out and hunting down villians, monster or otherwise.

So adventuring Paladins have to be looser with their interpretation of the law as applies to them. Because they are more powerful than the average city guard they have a responsibility to protect people from more powerful threats. It's kind of Spiderman-like in a way. Spiderman wouldn't worry about a curfew impossed on the average people in New York. That's a good law, but it wasn't written with Superheroes and Paladins in mind.

My view on the law exactly: it was written with a specific situation in mind, if the situation is different, the law is meaningless. But then again, I'd be chaotic. Law to the extreme is the belief that laws are universal and should apply to any situation, even when they were made with another situation in mind. Lawful characters are a less extreme version of this.

Renegade Paladin
2007-04-23, 02:44 PM
As I said previously, though, the view you express there was actually very much a minority view before the 20th century. In particular, for much of history the dominant philosophers (in particular, the ones who governed religious-militant orders that Paladins are based on) said that obeying even unjust laws was necessary to uphold the larger structure of the law. There were exceptions, certainly, but that was the general trend. (In a world before printing presses, authority generally controlled what information got out.)

It's fine to disagree with it; it's even fine to say that that just doesn't apply in your games. But you have to realize that this is like having your Paladin stand up and give a speech about the natural rights of man, the importance of free speech, and the value of democracy; or having his battle cry be "The equitable exchange of goods and services is the sole basis for a free and just society!" D&D isn't historical, no, but Martin Luther King and the principle of nonviolent resistance really don't fit in the setting. In most societies like those described in D&D, if you went up to a typical philosopher or priest and asked them if you should obey an unjust law, the answer would've been yes.

There is a difference between running a Paladin like this and playing "lawful stupid." A Paladin can say "My personal feeling is that this law is unjust, but I am nonetheless sworn to uphold it; if I took the law into my own hands I would be doing far more damage in the long run." They can bring a criminal in for stealing bread, then appeal to the judge for leniency. Note that this sort of Paladin is the polar opposite of a vigilante kill-it-if-it-pings Paladin.

Paladins don't generally fall for the occasional minor unlawful act, so in extreme cases they can ignore the law when it's the right thing to do; but, in general, a lawful character isn't someone who will say "I'm going to do what's right and screw the law that says otherwise." That's the very essence of chaotic good.
You're discounting that in D&D worlds there is a concrete morality to follow that isn't just what the rulers say it is. In the Forgotten Realms setting, clerics and paladins of Tyr will specifically engage in civil disobedience when a law is unjust; they break it when they need to and then calmly wait around to be brought in. This is possible because their system of morality and the historical medieval one is different by design; they have magic to tell them whether something is right or not, and a god who personifies justice to call up and ask if they're really not sure (and are powerful enough to commune or be worth Tyr's time to contact). D&D is only pseudo-medieval in the tech level; similarities beyond that are few and far between.

Sorry about the spelling, i was not using my own computor and my school does not allow me to download a spell check:smallfrown:
Anyways, on your second point, i think your being way to angry i'm talking about the idea of good being able to judge others simple by viture of being good, Miko is not better than V morally, they just have different views. Roy is better than Miko morally by a LG stand point though

On the paladin's obeying laws thing, a paladin is lawful meing they have to follow and act in a lawful manner, nothing about obeying every law in the area. Why is the midnight curfew their? What purpose does it serve? If the law is not LG, then i don't see why it would come before innocent lives
from,
EE
I'm not angry at all; if I was, there wouldn't be any "I think;" you would know it. Anyway, if you need to, you can always run your posts through Word and run the spellchecker built into it. I tend to type long posts in a word processor anyway so that they're not lost if the forum decides it wants to hiccup while I'm posting.

Anyway, the "there's no 'better,' only different" viewpoint is entirely invalid, because it is very clear that there are values which are intrinsically superior, helping your fellow man as opposed to killing him in the street being just one of them.

Koga
2007-04-23, 02:59 PM
Nothing short of killing babies and throwing puppies into a river would warrant The Koga making a paladin loses thier paladinhood. Let's face it, you gotta do some pretty hanus stuff to earn an alignment change.

Then again as said with the uneatched arcana varaint, that's a way to go. The paladin transgresses with alignment. Depending the alignment, gains the powers and crap of the alignment counterpart.

The paladin is jank anyway. Not worth the trouble.


Alignment shouldn't be a ball and chain, it should just be a label to represent your deeds and thoughts. There's plenty of ways to penatalize people ingame without having to resort to taking away thier abilities.

For example, the same paladin that failed to meet the quota of lawful good, when in peril will play to Hennerious for a mircale. And Hennerious will simply answer "Why?"

When the paladin can't answer, and realizes he's failed to impress Hennerious, that's a much bigger sting then saying "you have no abilities, you're a warrior npc with more stuff".

Renegade Paladin
2007-04-23, 03:02 PM
A paladin doesn't have to change alignment to fall; he only needs to commit an evil act.

Matthew
2007-04-23, 03:12 PM
Paladins and Clerics and such don't always have the opportunity to find out whether something is definitely contrary to their Alignment, though, and there is plenty of room for manoeuvre with regards to how much guidance a given Deity will provide. Moral uncertainty is certainly possible (though perhaps not fun) within D&D.

EvilElitest
2007-04-23, 10:22 PM
Anyway, the "there's no 'better,' only different" viewpoint is entirely invalid, because it is very clear that there are values which are intrinsically superior, helping your fellow man as opposed to killing him in the street being just one of them.
From a good view point yes you are correct, and i agree. But from a world view, their is no such thing a right and wrong, it is up to gods/outsiders/mortals to decide that
from,
EE