The conepts behind the paladin class and how to adapt them to the standard D&D game.

[Duke Malagigi]

I've found an RPGnet article (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/archetypology31jan02.html) about the paladin class' foundation that might be interesting.

Okay, after you've read the article let us begin this discussion on the origins and concepts behind the paladin. In addition we will discuss as how they can be adapted to polytheistic worlds and other good alignments. Just talk this out and and have reasonable in a paladin discussion thread for a change. Does everyone agree to these terms?

[Beleriphon]

Its an interesting read. I agree with most of it from the perspective of what it takes to be a paladin. You aren't kicking Evil's ass because you like, but rather because somebody has to do it.

[Bassetking]

One of the largest things touched on in that piece was Sacrifice. I think that bears consideration, when mentioning the concept of "Other Alignments of Good".

For my example, I'm going to drag out the single hoariest chestnut of D&D alignment defination, and mention, yes, Robin Hood. Chaotic Good.

"Basset" I can already hear you saying; "Robin Hood was a thief! His actions, while good, were not Holy!"

Oh?

That character's existence revolved around one of the most key tenets represented in that article.

Sacrifice.

A personal belief, augmented by the will of their god, that, regardless of law, decency, or his own self-interest, the poor should be fed, clothed, and sheltered.

A character that would work outside the laws of a corrupt and oppressive legals system, would put themselves in harms way; not only in the pursuit of the will of their god, but also in retribution for their actions, and would choose to do so regardless?

A character that would risk death to do the right thing.

I think that pretty solidly makes the case for a CN Paladin.

[Duke Malagigi]

I also have a few ideas for what all Good-aligned paladin variants could be called and some inspirations both from ancient (over 800 hundred years ago) and modern.

Lawful Good. Paladin. Roland, Ogier the Dane, Maugris d'Aygremont.
Neutral Good. Knight Benefactor. Can't think of any at the moment.
Chaotic Good. Marshal of Liberty. Shrek (I could see him as a rather individualistic pious knight) and Hellboy.

[Tokiko Mima]

One of the largest things touched on in that piece was Sacrifice. I think that bears consideration, when mentioning the concept of "Other Alignments of Good".

For my example, I'm going to drag out the single hoariest chestnut of D&D alignment defination, and mention, yes, Robin Hood. Chaotic Good.

"Basset" I can already hear you saying; "Robin Hood was a thief! His actions, while good, were not Holy!"

Oh?

That character's existence revolved around one of the most key tenets represented in that article.

Sacrifice.

A personal belief, augmented by the will of their god, that, regardless of law, decency, or his own self-interest, the poor should be fed, clothed, and sheltered.

A character that would work outside the laws of a corrupt and oppressive legals system, would put themselves in harms way; not only in the pursuit of the will of their god, but also in retribution for their actions, and would choose to do so regardless?

A character that would risk death to do the right thing.

I think that pretty solidly makes the case for a CN Paladin.


CN = Chaotic Neutral Paladin? Huh? :smalleek:

Sacrifice is an important part of the concept of Goodness, I agree. But Paladins don't have a monopoly on being Good. There are Chaotic Good Rangers of course that are as Good or better than any given Paladin.

I think you're applying the Lawful/Chaos line too harshly. No committed Lawful Good person, Paladin or not, would allow a murderous despot to sit on the throne and cause harm to the defenseless if there was something they could do about it.

Just because you're lawful doesn't mean you have to obey laws, only that it's your natural tendency. Robin Hood story can be used to show the story of a man laughing at the laws and sacrificing himself for the weak.... but if you see Robin Hood that way you're ignoring his greater purpose: To see the return of Lawful authority to England, in the guise of King Richard the Lionheart.

So wouldn't that make Robin Hood Lawful Good since he sacrificed himself for a cause that was ultimately Lawful and Good?

[Ulzgoroth]

I think the article is taking a flawed perspective on the nature of religion and spirituality in the fantasy setting. This question particularly exemplifies the problem:

So how does one willingly sacrifice his life to his god of choice when there are fifty other gods who'll be happy to hand out free passes to Elysium in exchange for a few coins in the donation box?

In a setting where gods are numerous, known, and straightforward, like Greyhawk, belief and faith go out the window as religious standards, and promises of afterlife lose their bite when there's someone offering them for anything. The question of what your god can do for you isn't the right one. For someone with the morals-centric outlook of a Paladin, the better question is what god meets your standards.

For any but the truly brainwashed cultist, the core logic can't be that something is good because Pelor wills it...plenty of other gods will it otherwise. Instead, you give your devotion to Pelor because he advocates what is good. The Paladin will willingly give his life (though I like to think just as willingly achieve the same without giving it) to Pelor's ends because those are the same ends he'd die for if no god favored them.

[Bassetking]

CN = Chaotic Neutral Paladin? Huh? :smalleek:

Sacrifice is an important part of the concept of Goodness, I agree. But Paladins don't have a monopoly on being Good. There are Chaotic Good Rangers of course that are as Good or better than any given Paladin.

I think you're applying the Lawful/Chaos line too harshly. No committed Lawful Good person, Paladin or not, would allow a murderous despot to sit on the throne and cause harm to the defenseless if there was something they could do about it.

Just because you're lawful doesn't mean you have to obey laws, only that it's your natural tendency. Robin Hood story can be used to show the story of a man laughing at the laws and sacrificing himself for the weak.... but if you see Robin Hood that way you're ignoring his greater purpose: To see the return of Lawful authority to England, in the guise of King Richard the Lionheart.

So wouldn't that make Robin Hood Lawful Good since he sacrificed himself for a cause that was ultimately Lawful and Good?

You caught me with my pants down, and with my edit button nowhere in sight.

I had intended to say "Chaotic Good" rather than "Chaotic Neutral".

However, may we explore the message rather than the letter?

What IF we had a Paladin that broke the laws of a just society in order to both benefit its citizens and to follow the tenets of his god?

What if we had a Paladin that not only acts against his self-interest, but also violates the laws of a just society in order to perform good actions?

That, I think, is the defining difference between the LG Paladin and the CG Paladin.

The CG Paladin follows his God.

The LG Paladin follows his God.

[Beleriphon]

That, I think, is the defining difference between the LG Paladin and the CG Paladin.

The CG Paladin follows his God.

The LG Paladin follows his God.

I think what's important for a D&Desque paladin is that he follows his beliefs. The fact that there is a deity whose core tenets happen to coincide with the paladin's is a nice benefit, but not a requirement.

The core of the paladin is that they are willing to sacrifice everything they have to see that justice, goodness, etc are done. If they have to die fighting a horde of demons to save a little girl, then they'll die fighting a horde of demons.

[Renegade Paladin]

You caught me with my pants down, and with my edit button nowhere in sight.

I had intended to say "Chaotic Good" rather than "Chaotic Neutral".

However, may we explore the message rather than the letter?

What IF we had a Paladin that broke the laws of a just society in order to both benefit its citizens and to follow the tenets of his god?

What if we had a Paladin that not only acts against his self-interest, but also violates the laws of a just society in order to perform good actions?

That, I think, is the defining difference between the LG Paladin and the CG Paladin.

The CG Paladin follows his God.

The LG Paladin follows his God.
1.) Breaking the laws of a society does not in and of itself make you chaotic.

2.) Paladins as written do not fall for chaotic acts.

3.) What are these chaotic good paladins you speak of? That's simply a contradiction in terms.

If a society's laws are not serving good, then their authority is illegitimate. It's a rather open-and-shut proposition; a paladin has to do what he has to do. It's the Code that makes him lawful, not adherence to whatever laws the baron of Nowhereistan happens to have decided to enact that week.

[Saph]

Nice article, very interesting. It does a good job of explaining where paladins come from.

- Saph

[Jayabalard]

if you see Robin Hood that way you're ignoring his greater purpose: To see the return of Lawful authority to England, in the guise of King Richard the Lionheart.

So wouldn't that make Robin Hood Lawful Good since he sacrificed himself for a cause that was ultimately Lawful and Good?The Robin legends are pretty varied... they've existed in hundreds of forms, with as many different explanations for his actions. The Prince John vs King Richard bit doesn't appear in all of them, nor even does the "rob from the rich and give to the poor" motif if you go back far enough... So arguing specifics about that kind of undefined figure is kind of silly.

[Bassetking]

1.) Breaking the laws of a society does not in and of itself make you chaotic.

2.) Paladins as written do not fall for chaotic acts.

3.) What are these chaotic good paladins you speak of? That's simply a contradiction in terms.

If a society's laws are not serving good, then their authority is illegitimate. It's a rather open-and-shut proposition; a paladin has to do what he has to do. It's the Code that makes him lawful, not adherence to whatever laws the baron of Nowhereistan happens to have decided to enact that week.

Who's good must they be serving to qualify for legitimacy?

This may stray dangerously close to discussing politics, so, I promise in warning that from this point on, any comparison to actual places, political systems, or real life events is purely coincidental.

Alrighty. Let's take Nowheristan for an example. It's a lovely city, and has some beautiful fountains.

It also has, for whatever reason, a democratically elected clerical class. And they're the only healers in the city. By which, I mean, that this group of the city's clerics are, By popularly enacted law, the only ones allowed to Heal. Perhaps there's a very special temple in Nowheristan, and only one Deity can in it be represented at a time. Chosen by the will of the citizens in the city, this tradition has gone on for umpteen-umpteen generations. In the last election cycle, however, the Clerics, rather than using their state-funded positions of goodwill to aid every given individual of the population, Have decided to heal, cure, feed and clothe ONLY those who profess allegiance and piety towards the clerics' diety of choice.

By the democratically enacted laws of the city, the clerics are doing nothing wrong in requiring this pledge of those to whom they offer assistance; And, while unpopular among some, the city is comprised of about 70% worshippers of the current clerical class's deity, and about 30% assorted other deists.

I've taken this to an extreme example, but, I do ask you, How much of a population must not be "Served" by the government in order for the government to no longer be legitimate?

-----------------------------------------------

The question I am posing is not "How does one define 'Lawful'", but rather, "Could we accept a Chaotic Good Paladin?" Could an individual who feels that, consequences be damned, he WILL do the will of his god, who will do anything and everything to accomplish that goal, who would lay down his life in the line of accomplishing that task, and do this fighting against a Just society be accepted? At some point, regardless of "Lawful characters do not have to always follow the laws, no matter what" arguement, a character that chronically and regularly defies the laws and codes of the society in which they exist WILL be deemed Chaotic.

[Saph]

The question I am posing is not "How does one define 'Lawful'", but rather, "Could we accept a Chaotic Good Paladin?"

By RAW, no. Paladins must be LG. It doesn't matter whether 'we accept' them, and anyway, who's 'we'? If you want to play a CG paladin, ask your DM to houserule in one of the variant pallys.

Anyway, I don't see what the relevance of this is to the original article, which made very little discussion of lawful/chaotic.

- Saph

[Jayabalard]

By RAW, no.RAW arguments are pretty absurd in a discussion like this, especially since the article in question talks about the historical use of the term paladin (which far pre-dates D&D) more than it does the D&D class...

[Saph]

RAW arguments are pretty absurd in a discussion like this, especially since the article in question talks about the historical use of the term paladin (which far pre-dates D&D) more than it does the D&D class...

Well, what is he asking, then? If he's asking whether a RAW D&D paladin can be CG, the answer's no. If he's asking whether a variant D&D paladin can be CG, the answer's yes, you use the Paladin of Freedom. If he's asking whether a paladin can be both at once, then I've no idea what he's talking about.

- Saph

[clarkvalentine]

Neutral Good. Knight Benefactor. Can't think of any at the moment.



An unconventional example: Kyle Reese, from The Terminator.

Maybe.

[Jayabalard]

Neither... "can we accept" is pretty clearly asking a fluff question rather than a crunch one.


An unconventional example: Kyle Reese, from The Terminator.I'd say he's probably more CG than NG, simply because his motivation is based on anti-oppression/tyrrany.

[clarkvalentine]

...I'd say he's probably more CG than NG, simply because his motivation is based on anti-oppression/tyrrany.


I'd call it simple survival rather than opposing tyranny. They didn't want to oppress humans, they wanted to make them extinct.

[Jayabalard]

is there a worse sort of tyranny?

though I'll agree, since we only have a sketchy idea of his true motivations, and only flashes of his past actions, he's one that would be up for a fair bit of interpretation.

[Bassetking]

I've found an RPGnet article (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/archetypology31jan02.html) about the paladin class' foundation that might be interesting.

Okay, after you've read the article let us begin this discussion on the origins and concepts behind the paladin. In addition we will discuss as how they can be adapted to polytheistic worlds and other good alignments. Just talk this out and and have reasonable in a paladin discussion thread for a change. Does everyone agree to these terms?

My attempts were to discuss the most disparate Good alignment from the traditional and RAW alignment of the Paladin, and to promote the concept as a viable and acceptable understanding as to a potential concept for a Paladin.

[Beleriphon]

The question I am posing is not "How does one define 'Lawful'", but rather, "Could we accept a Chaotic Good Paladin?" Could an individual who feels that, consequences be damned, he WILL do the will of his god, who will do anything and everything to accomplish that goal, who would lay down his life in the line of accomplishing that task, and do this fighting against a Just society be accepted? At some point, regardless of "Lawful characters do not have to always follow the laws, no matter what" arguement, a character that chronically and regularly defies the laws and codes of the society in which they exist WILL be deemed Chaotic.

LG standard by the book paladin comes across the city you speak of. Finds a dude dying the street because he won't convert. Paladin heals the dude even though he broke the laws of the city. Why? Because its the right thing to do, and laws are wrong.

The paladin is still lawful even if they break the certain laws. Continuous bucking of tradition and a tendency towards lawlessness (in the sense of legal codes) is certainly heading towards being chaotic, but the defiance of an unjust law (in the opinion of the character) does not make them chaotic by default.

As a whole I don't think you can have a paladin without making them lawful good. You can champions of different alignments, but one of the defining hallmarks of the RPG paladin is that they follow the lawful good model of behaviour.

[Duke Malagigi]

To me Law and Chaos are more about what power society should have over the individual. A Chaotic Good chevalier consacré would believe that force and coercion are only to be used protect some one from the hostile actions of others. While a Lawful Good chevalier consacré could believe it to be perfectly reasonable to try to physically protect some one from their own actions as well as from others.

Note I use the term chevalier consacré to encompass all Good-aligned paladin variants. It means "consecrated horseman" (or woman) or "consecrated knight."

[Vorpal Pete]

A couple posters have touched on it, but I would expand on the idea that lawful isn't the same as legal. Lawful represents a way of viewing the roles of people in the world, and it's what constrains a paladin to fight a foe he can't defeat in certain situations.

Imagine a questing paladin who comes across an evil dragon preparing to feast on a maiden sacrifice. The paladin is alone, the dragon is big. The paladin pretty much knows he can't beat the dragon, and those manacles holding the maiden to the altar look pretty tough, so he probably can't even sweep in and rescue her.

The paladin must fight the dragon, because he is highly lawful and highly good. His mind looks at it in an ordered, flow-list style. If the choice is between fighting a dragon and abandoning an innocent in need, then there is no choice for him.

What if the paladin encounters this in a village where the tribal elders, empowered as a legislative body, have passed legitimate laws allowing for the orderly sacrifice of the maiden to the dragon in return for the dragon's protection? Perhaps it's illegal to interfere in the dragon's lunch. There's still no choice for the paladin - he's not legal good. He must fight.

Other good heroes might turn away, realizing that they do not have the power to stop what's about to happen. They might cry. They might go round up a posse and make sure that maiden is the dragon's last. But the paladin, at the far end of the good and lawful spectrums, has no choice.

[Saph]

My attempts were to discuss the most disparate Good alignment from the traditional and RAW alignment of the Paladin, and to promote the concept as a viable and acceptable understanding as to a potential concept for a Paladin.

I've honestly never understood this.

Player: "I want to play a Paladin . . ."
DM: "Sure."
Player: "But I don't want to play Lawful Good."
DM: "Uh, then do you want to play a CG fighter, or cleric?"
Player: "No, I want to play a Paladin, but without having to be like a Paladin."

- Saph

[Closet_Skeleton]

Paladins have to be lawful really. Would you promote a chaotic hireling to your most trusted position?

The lawful part of paladin is about the code. Chaotic characters don't need a code.

A chaotic good character is able to adapt his ideal of good to the situation. A neutral good character tries to be as nice as possible. The LG Paladin has one way of doing good and must apply it to all cirumstances.

[Stephen_E]

Can a CG or NG person be a Paladin on the basis of the articles (which IMHO does a excellent job of identifying the basis behind the DnD class) rather than RAW?
Yes.

A CG or NG character can follow a code just as strongly as a LG. "Personal Codes" are, as per PHB RAW, not an exclusive feature of any alignment. Lawfulness is about external codes to a fair degree, and about structure, but neither of these are prereqs for a Paladin.

Imagine a Warrior who travells fighting in wars on the side he/she considers the most deserving, but always upholdoing the code that innocents (non-participating civilians) must be protected. In his travells he always encourages people to take personal responsibility for their choices, and to follow their concsiences rather than what their society deems "correct". He is risking his life to support the side he favours, but more importantly if some of the soldiers attack people on the otherside he considers "innocent" he'll put himself between his fellow soldiers and the innocents, and die to try and save them, even if he knows he has no chance of success.

What alignment is he? CG. He follows no particular authority. Indeed he'll even oppose an authority he's attached himself to if he deems it to have gone against his personal code, and encourages others to do likewise, but does his best to do good.

Is he a Paladin? Obviously, by RAW, no. But by the article and the general concept of Paladins, yes!
He beleives in doing good via a martial path, while teaching/leading people at the same time, and is willing to sacrifice himself even in a doomed cause, if it is the "right" thing to do ("Right" = maintaining his principles).

Obviously there are others who'd disagree with this (there are people who think Paladins should operate on the principles of "For the Greater Good" and "The Ends justifies the means", and that their principles are well up on the list of things they should sacrifice for the "Greater Good" or "The Ends") but operating on the principle that the OP's article is the foundation we're working from, I think it fits.

Stephen

[Darkeness66]

I debated about putting this disclaimer at the bottom of the post, but figured that after what I have written most would have ignored it so... I want to make it abundently clear that I am NOT christian, I do not want to convert you nor do I care what, how or who you worship. What I wrote is based on my study of history and society.

Reading many of these responses made me wonder how many of you actually read the same article I read? I found it informaitive and insightful right up until the end when the writer backed away from the delema that has always been know as "the Palaldin". Here is his own qoute:

"Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons which I won't get into here, discussing Christianity at the same time as one mentions Role-Playing Games like Dungeons & Dragons is considered at best unwelcome and uncomfortable, and at worst heretical and blasphemous. And many role-playing paladins undoubtedly suffer because of that. It's quite easy to lose the necessary sense of willing heroic fatalism that surrounds and defines a paladin when one is essentially trying to portray a class that evolved around a monotheistic belief system within the confines of a typically polytheistic fantasy universe."

Quite simply, a paladin is a holy, christian warrior. He is not a follower of Thor, Odin, Zeuss of any other pagan diety. As the author stated, it is a sore subject amongst gamers. That does not change the truth. The ideals of the paladin, just like the alignment system and just like the laws and morals of modern day America, are all based on what is taught by the christian church. You can bury your head in the sand, shout me down or flame me, it does not change the facts. No amount of justification or rationalization will change that truth. 2000 years of christianity has left its print upon our society and how we view things.

Can a paladin be something other than lawful good? No and there can be no other answer. The very ideals that they represent are lawful and good. Paladins are a living imbodiment of all that is pure and good in humanity (or at least they strive to be). Are there other holy wariors to their own gods? Sure there are, but they are not paladins. In a homebrew game they might have paladin like powers, might have codes and duties, but they are not paladins. The paladin is a unique creature in the D&D game.

Those that refuse to step back, analyze the rules from both a historical and social perpective and study why these things are as they are will forever misunderstand both alignment in D&D and the role of the paladin.

So the pointless debate continues, those of use who play paladins, who understand them and what they represent, will be ridiculed and mocked. Some malicious DM's will even place hurdles in the path of a paladin to force them to fall from grace or die. I have made new characters before and will again. Killing a character proves nothing, all it does is show the immaturity of the DM and the players that clap when it happens.

Another note: I DO NOT play lawful stupid. That is for noobs and ignorant bafoons that do not understand the role of the paladin.

[Stephen_E]

Paladins have evolved from a Christian heritage, that doesn't mean they require a Christian approach to work (and it should be noted that the Christian heritage/practice ISN'T Lawful Good. While some of the heritage is Lawful, much of it is Chaotic by DnD standards).

Paladins are EASIER to play within a Monotheistic religion, although this doesn't require there only be one religion, afterall there has never been a world where Christianity was the sole religion.

Because Paladins evolved from a Christian heritage it helps play them if you have some understanding of Christianity and its background (and I'd note that many christians actually have a very limited understanding of the background to christainity, indeed your failure to recognise the Chaotic aspects to Christian heriatge/theology is a classic example).

But evolving from that heritage doesn't mean you have to be a follower to play a Paladin well. It doesn't even mean you need to play a Paladin as a member of a Monotheistic Christian-like religion. Although it is easier with a monotheistic religion with a heritage of sacrifice. Paksennarion by Elizabeth Moon is a perfect fantasy portrayal of a Paladin, yet is set in a Pantheistic Religion without any strong sacrifical heritage.

To be honest your post represents part of the reason it is hard to have a discussion acknowledging the influence of Christianity in the mythos of Paladins.

Stephen

[Closet_Skeleton]

"Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons which I won't get into here, discussing Christianity at the same time as one mentions Role-Playing Games like Dungeons & Dragons is considered at best unwelcome and uncomfortable, and at worst heretical and blasphemous. And many role-playing paladins undoubtedly suffer because of that. It's quite easy to lose the necessary sense of willing heroic fatalism that surrounds and defines a paladin when one is essentially trying to portray a class that evolved around a monotheistic belief system within the confines of a typically polytheistic fantasy universe."

Quite simply, a paladin is a holy, christian warrior. He is not a follower of Thor, Odin, Zeuss of any other pagan diety. As the author stated, it is a sore subject amongst gamers. That does not change the truth. The ideals of the paladin, just like the alignment system and just like the laws and morals of modern day America, are all based on what is taught by the christian church. You can bury your head in the sand, shout me down or flame me, it does not change the facts. No amount of justification or rationalization will change that truth. 2000 years of christianity has left its print upon our society and how we view things.

Paladins of Charlamagne - Frankish Germanic Knights
Knights of the Round Table - Celtic knights through a Germanic eye

The self-sacrifise in battle is a very Germanic idea. It's about going to Val Halla. There are plenty of other real world religions with representations of Lawful Good.

Monks have to be Lawful and they don't have to follow the laws of a particular society. Niether does the Paladin. He just has to be unswerving in his beliefs.

[Saph]

Imagine a Warrior who travells fighting in wars on the side he/she considers the most deserving, but always upholdoing the code that innocents (non-participating civilians) must be protected. In his travells he always encourages people to take personal responsibility for their choices, and to follow their concsiences rather than what their society deems "correct". He is risking his life to support the side he favours, but more importantly if some of the soldiers attack people on the otherside he considers "innocent" he'll put himself between his fellow soldiers and the innocents, and die to try and save them, even if he knows he has no chance of success.

What alignment is he?

Upholding the code that innocents must be protected = LG.
Follow conscience, always do the right thing = LG.
Risk life to support side you favour = LG.
Prevent slaughter of innocents = LG.
Die to save innocents, even against no chance of successs = LG.

Describes a LG paladin pretty well. A CG person COULD do all these things too, of course. But there's nothing particularly Chaotic about most of them.

- Saph

[Stephen_E]

Saph, you miss the follow no authority but his own conscience. Will ally with an authority but turn in it if it breaks his code. These are the Chaotic features.

As you point out, all the other feature that make him a Paladin can equally be CG as LG, which is my point. By the Article, the important aspects of Paladins are been Good, providing an example, willingness to sacrifice oneself. protecting others. None of these requires a Lawful Alignment by DnD definitions.

Stephen

[Saph]

As you point out, all the other feature that make him a Paladin can equally be CG as LG, which is my point. By the Article, the important aspects of Paladins are been Good, providing an example, willingness to sacrifice oneself. protecting others.

Mmm . . . no, I don't think so. It makes you Good, but not a Paladin. To me, the Lawful aspect of the code is really the defining feature of what a Paladin is. Lots of characters are Good, very few follow what you could call a Paladin's Code. That's why I've never been all that impressed by the variant paladins - it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to have a chaotic character following such a strict code. Chaotic characters tend to believe the end justifies the means, which is exactly what you said you didn't like.

- Saph

[Vorpal Pete]

Upholding the code that innocents must be protected = LG.
Follow conscience, always do the right thing = LG.
Risk life to support side you favour = LG.
Prevent slaughter of innocents = LG.
Die to save innocents, even against no chance of successs = LG.

I'd set it up something like this:

Upholding the code that innocents must be protected = G
Follow conscience = G
Always do the right thing = L
Risk life to support side you favour = brave, no alignment indicator
Prevent slaughter of innocents = G
Die to save innocents = G
Die with no chance of success = L (extreme L, assuming it's a reasoned decision and isn't done in a fit of passion)
Will ally with an authority but turn on it if it breaks his code = L

As for the article, here's an important quote: "The 4,000 line poem Song of Roland goes into much more detail, and demonstrates quite clearly why it is that Roland is, along with Galahad, the progenitor of the modern role-playing paladin."

The Knights Templar, Malagigi (sorry, OP), even Lancelot are not the inspiration for the paladin, says the author. Galahad and Roland, the most pure and faultless of the knights of legend, are the inspiration for the paladin. Self sacrifice, the author said, is the key. So we're on the right track.

Lawful and good are both continuums, not single points. The paladin is the finest, most good, most lawful example and that's why he has no choice in the situations a couple of us have mentioned. Another good character can retreat from a situation he knows is hopeless if he's thinking clearly. Ultimately it might serve the greater good more to retreat and apply your abilities in another place at another time instead of dying on some hopeless patch of ground. But, a paladin, thinking clearly, must do what is strictly right all the time. That's what's lawful about him, not an adherence to mortal, wordly authority.

[Thunder_Ranger]

Hmmm...an interesting article.
I think the main thing that makes a Paladin so strange to some is not the fact that they are Good, most heroes are. It's how far they delve into the lawful alignment. Does a paladin uphold the laws of society even if they pass into the grey areas of good *Miko*, or do they have their own set of laws that they themselves know and hold to?

[Stephen_E]

"Chaotic characters tend to believe the end justifies the means, which is exactly what you said you didn't like."

!? What the..., I'm a Chaotic person and no, I'm no fan of "the ends justifies the means". Indeed in my experiance proponents of "the ends justifies the means" are primarily, in fact almost soley, "Lawful". In particular by the definition "Lawful = Order". I'm not saying that "Lawful" people automatically follow this line, but that people who follow this line are predomiantly "lawful". Note: I don't consider this approach "good" and indeed while not per se "Evil" it is definitly the paving of one of the roads there.

"Always do the right thing = L"

I'll note that this should be "Always tries" but aside from that, why is this a "L" trait. Chaotic people who follow their consciences are just as likely to "always try to do the right thing". Chaotic doesn't mean Random, and can be just as constant in their approach as "L" people.

"Die with no chance of success = L (extreme L, assuming it's a reasoned decision and isn't done in a fit of passion)"

What is L about dying even when there is no chance of success? There is nothing inherently L about martyrdom.

"Will ally with an authority but turn on it if it breaks his code = L"

You're taking this one out of context. You skipped the bit about not placing himself under others authority. I fail to see how you can see some who refuses to place themselves under others authority except for limited alliances which he ignores if it run up against his personal code (Note: In general Personal code = conscience, follow ones conscience is a Chaotic trait by RAW PHB) as showing L traits.

Stephen

[Renegade Paladin]

To be honest your post represents part of the reason it is hard to have a discussion acknowledging the influence of Christianity in the mythos of Paladins.

Stephen
The other part that makes it difficult is the board rules. I'm expecting a thread lock at any time now that the heart of the issue has been cut to.

[Squatting_Monk]

That this thread has denigrated into an argument about whether or not a Paladin needs to be Lawful Good is proof that most of you have missed the point of the article entirely. It was not written to determine the alignment that a Paladin should have. Rather, it was trying to use historical precedent to determine how a Paladin should act.

In short, if your Paladin is "Lawful Stupid" (no matter what his alignment, if you allow variants), this article argues you're playing him incorrectly. The point of the Paladin, it says, is about sacrifice and honor and humility. Why turn these heroic ideals around into a pointless discussion of whether or not Chaotic Good characters can still embody them. Instead, apply the concepts when you play your own Paladin and see how much the other players appreciate your character not having "Stick Up The Ass (Su)" as a class feature.

A more fruitful discussion on the merits of this article would likely revolve around how to apply the concepts, rather than how to use them to justify your argument on why RAW sucks.

Here's an attempt:

My main character, a Paladin on a Neverwinter Nights server, has slowly been changing her philosophy. While she has never been "Lawful Stupid," she used to be possessed with intense bloodlust, embodied by a fearless and wild fighting style; she'd often throw herself into combat against impossible odds. Granted, she'd only release her wrath against evil creatures. Still, the point is that she'd attack out of hate.

Over time, her attitudes have changed with her experiences. She has come to guard a dank castle in a dreary land being invaded by demonic armies, and this has shifted her mindset to one of protection, rather than destruction. I've seen the differences in her. She will not mindlessly throw herself to enemies, but she will frequently take a stand against monsters she cannot beat to give less capable people a chance of escape. She's turned from a dark, brooding character into one who ranges across the planes seeking aid for her mission, which often involves fighting the enemies of dozens of other worlds to free their resources to help in her mission.

She has died dozens times, but thanks to her devotion to a righteous cause, Torm has let her return to finish her work. Like the article says of Corran, she's died valiantly, only to be brought back by her fellows many times. Does that cheapen her sacrifice? Somewhat, I suppose. She's never gone out in a big bang that would rattle the world, and if she did, I'd hope she'd not be resurrected (at least not without having to fight her way out of the Underworld :smalltongue:) so the memory of her would stand as a monument to the price of freedom. Still, her sacrifice has been noted by others. Protect the innocent and the defenseless and others will follow suit.

As I've been watching this change in her, I've been trying to introduce the concept I saw in this comic (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20061223.html), which is also represented in the article Duke gave us. Being a Paladin doesn't seem to me so much as wholesale slaughtering evil, but defending others from it. Being a beacon of light in a dark world matters. Even if you're not dying to save someone, simply following the path of the Paladin should be a sacrifice. As Ears says, be a Paladin so others don't have to. Take on the burden so that others can live in peace. Now that's a sacrifice.

Thanks for the link, Duke. Very enlightening to me since I play a Paladin. Favorited! :smallsmile:

[Duke Malagigi]

To me the difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is more of difference whether vast power it's self is to be feared and distrusted, or whether it depends upon the individual ruler. A Chaotic Good would believe that the problem with an oppressive government is both its leaders and how much power they have. On the other hand, a Lawful Good person would believe that the problem is that the wrong people have power. In other words, a Chaotic Good wouldn't want any government to have vast powers over its citizenry. While a Lawful Good would have no such problems, as long as the government did not use Evil means (such as rape, murder, torture, brain washing or mind control) to accomplish it's just and stated goals.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Why not just break chaos and order down into their primary components and apply those instead? Chaos is spontaneous, random even. It can be fleeting and unusual. Order is structured and has rules to it. It has to act in a particular fashion in every given scenario.

So the order/lawful stuff isn't really new. But the chaos/chaotic stuff certainly is. I mean, why is chaotic always about being sneaky and stealing stuff in D&D? That's not what the word means at all.

Thus, a chaotic good character can't be a core paladin simply by virtue of their inability to strictly adhere to an ordered structure. Such a character would see their sets of rules and say "Yeah, but what if this happens? I'm sure as hell not doing that every single time."

[Jothki]

To me the difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is more of difference whether vast power it's self is to be feared and distrusted, or whether it depends upon the individual ruler. A Chaotic Good would believe that the problem with an oppressive government is both its leaders and how much power they have. On the other hand, a Lawful Good person would believe that the problem is that the wrong people have power. In other words, a Chaotic Good wouldn't want any government to have vast powers over its citizenry. While a Lawful Good would have no such problems, as long as the government did not use Evil means (such as rape, murder, torture, brain washing or mind control) to accomplish it's just and stated goals.

I have a theory that the primary difference between being Lawful and being Chaotic is the extent to which you trust and rely upon other people. Someone who is Lawful Good believes that a strong society is necessary, while someone who is Chaotic Good believes that laws can only hinder the actions of Good people, while being open to being exploited or simply ignored by Evil ones. A Lawful soldier sees a battle as being between armies as a whole with individuals making little difference, while a Chaotic soldier sees a battle as being a series of clashes between individual combatants. A Lawful villain sees other people as puppets who will do whatever you want them too as long as you pull on their strings the right way, while a Chaotic villain sees other people as wildcards that could betray them at any moment.

[Lemur]

I liked the article. It expanded on some things I already knew and had an idea about, and reaffirms a lot of my opinions on the D&D paladin. It also gave me some new things to think about.

I'll say this: I never liked the paladin's code. I think it's silly. Not silly that a defender of righteousness and all that jazz actually needs to be righteous, but that being able to use any of his skills depend on him anally following the code.

As a class, paladins are intuitively set up backwards: you spend hard earned experience on levels, then you have to live up to expectations or be punished, rather than surpassing expectations and being rewarded. You end up with Miko-like characters, who assume they're automatically good (even further, more "good" than everyone else) because they're paladins.

To really be accurate, a paladin should be someone, anyone, who demonstrates his resolve before it's asked of him, rather than being required to jump through hoops to keep his precious horse. If a character willingly shows he's got the stuff of a paladin, and consistantly upholds it, then the DM can grant the character special powers. For that to really be successful, I think the player shouldn't have prior knowledge that there would be crunch benefits from being good.

The D&D paladin is based off of storybook characters, and is therefore appropriate to storybook campaigns that don't attempt to seriously challange the paladin's code. No lose-lose situations, where even the paladin sacrificing himself is ultimately evil. Paladins as written don't belong in grim settings, because their inspirations are not grim.

[Squatting_Monk]

You end up with Miko-like characters, who assume they're automatically good (even further, more "good" than everyone else) because they're paladins.

To really be accurate, a paladin should be someone, anyone, who demonstrates his resolve before it's asked of him, rather than being required to jump through hoops to keep his precious horse.

In one game I ran, I had a player who was known for playing Lawful Stupid paladins (he was almost one in real life, actually). The problem stemmed from exactly what you say: he thought he was good by virtue of the fact he was a paladin. He preferred playing a Paladin of Helm, but for my game, I asked him to play a Paladin of Ilmater, the god of suffering. Before we started, I asked him to review the dogma of the church of Ilmater and use it to form his own code for his Paladin. He turned his emphasis from smiting evil to healing others, and seemed very much more Paladin-like. In the future, I want to make sure Paladins in my game are more like this, people who care genuinely for others, who act to aid rather than to keep their cool powers.

Good insight. :smallsmile:

[Matthew]

I've honestly never understood this.

Player: "I want to play a Paladin . . ."
DM: "Sure."
Player: "But I don't want to play Lawful Good."
DM: "Uh, then do you want to play a CG fighter, or cleric?"
Player: "No, I want to play a Paladin, but without having to be like a Paladin."

- Saph
Me neither.

This argument just goes round and round, but I guess I'll hurl my two pennies into the pot anyway.

The Forgotten Realms setting did the greatest disservice to Paladins when it forced them to worship a Deity. In any other Campaign World, but most especially in Default Core D&D, a Paladin does not need to derive his powers from a Deity. He may worship Deities that accord with his beliefs, but does not need to. It's easy to play a Paladin, because moral struggle is what the Class is all about. He doesn't have all the answers, he's just seeking to live as righteously as he can.

[Stephen_E]

Part of the difficulty in DnD is that the Paladin is a base class, so you have 1st level Paladins, and it's a fairly weak class.

So you have players having to work the system just to keep their PC alive. Even if they want to play the appropriate "shining but humble sacrifical Paladin", by the time they've survived to a sufficient level to do so, they've lost the mindset (that's if they don't have the high level Wizard or Cleric look at them funny and go "That's all right. You don't have to die, I just zap them with a spell, or super buff myself and kill them all".

To adapt the DnD Paladin you need some fiddling with the Paladin code, to shift the focus. Some work with the class abilities to buff them up, and last but probably most important, the player and DM needs to sit down together and work out where the Paladins going, and the DM has to guide the game to allow her to get there. Paladins rely on/are Divine Intervention. GMs are the "Divine" in the game.

Stephen

[Duke Malagigi]

I'll see if I can come up with some ideas Stephen. Thank you for the help.

[Stephen_E]

I was just looking at Fax's Paladin rework and I was thinking whether the concept of a "Evil" Paladin could work within the concepts behind the class.

At 1st I thought "no way" but then it occurred to me that that it would.
It would be very hard to play, but you have the PC who is aiming for some great cause, and for that cause he'll sacrifice anything and everything, including himself. He'll stain himself with the darkest deed forthe glorius future he can see. Basically you take the concepts "For the Greater Good", "The Ends justify the Means" and "The intent is all that matters" to their darkest conclusion. He may or may not see himself as good, but the important thing is that he sees his cause/conclusion as "GOOD". The perfect fictional example is the Agent from Serenity, the Firefly movie. The world he's trying to build is not for one as soiled as him, but if by destoying himself and some others, he can bring paradise to the greater part it'll all be worth it.

You have the concept of Sacrifice and Martyrship for a good cause. As well as the sense of honour. Indeed the Martyrship could be seen as even greater, since he is willingly guaranteeing he'll never see the paradise he's trying to make, he sacrifices not just his body, but his soul. Where Galahad battles to reach the Grail, the Agent builds a bridge of bodies, including his own, so that others can reach the grail.

Stephen

[Aquillion]

"Evil" varient Paladins are easy. Just create a class with aligment "any lawful", and say that they hold themselves to a higher law, and will believe themselves to be on the side of right, truth, and justice as long as they abide by some code (which can vary from character to character, but shouldn't include any mention of evil. Examples could be provided.) I'll call them "Temple Knights" for now, although that name is a bit too monastic for my tastes (they don't have to worship a god, after all.)

Also, replace 'detect evil' with 'sense faith'; instead of magically knowing someone's alignment, they know what deity or general code they're devoted to, and how devoted they are (characters with levels in a divine class radiate their deity/code's power like high-level aligned characters do for 'detect evil' et all.) Other aligned features would get likewise de-aligned. If a character follows a different faith (or no faith at all) but nonetheless generally acts in accord with the Temple Knight's general beliefs, this ability will pick that up as a positive sign, too. For good characters, this 'similarity' will often (though not always) match with other good characters; but with evil ones, it usually depends on a much more legalistic interpretation.

A Temple Knight's Smite Evil ability works on any sentient creature that does not follow their beliefs, and does not generally act in accord with them as described above. The ability will also work on anyone of their beliefs who has egregiously violated these beliefs and has not yet attoned for it. This is something of a boost, but it's not like the class can't use it.

Evil Temple Knights do not worship evil. That's silly. Worshipping evil for the sake of evil is great for NPCs who cackle, spout three lines, then get killed by the PCs, but it isn't a basis for any character who's supposed to actually stick around and do stuff. Evil Temple Knights place the emphisis on their lawfulness instead--they believe strongly in honor and duty, and won't hesitate to kill in the service of either. Many evil temple knights believe that whatever code or law they follow is the sole measure of good and evil itself, and that the concept of good and evil has no meaning beyond whether you follow those rules or not. (Some good ones feel the same way; in that case, the exact wording of their code makes a big difference as to whether they're good, evil, or neutral.) Such temple knights will also view their 'sense faith' ability as the only true judge of good and evil (and, in fact, will believe that it is the exact same thing as a traditional paladin's detect evil ability.)

Chaotic (or even nonlawful) paladins are much harder. I don't think it can be done, really. The concept of a Paladin is completely centered around the idea of holding yourself to a higher standard and a higher law--someone who doesn't fervently believe in that is never going to resemble the Paladin archtype, no matter how many house rules you use. You can say that your version of Roland is delusional, fanatical, or misguided, but you can't be Roland without a commitment to some sort of higher law, and that is, at the end of the day, always going to describe a lawful character.

[Stephen_E]

Chaotic (or even nonlawful) paladins are much harder. I don't think it can be done, really. The concept of a Paladin is completely centered around the idea of holding yourself to a higher standard and a higher law--someone who doesn't fervently believe in that is never going to resemble the Paladin archtype, no matter how many house rules you use. You can say that your version of Roland is delusional, fanatical, or misguided, but you can't be Roland without a commitment to some sort of higher law, and that is, at the end of the day, always going to describe a lawful character.

Chaotic Paladins only seem difficult if you see Chaos as Chaos=Random/erratic (often called Chaos=lesser Evil). Chaotic people can follow a personal code. A Galahad or Roland can follow a personal code (admitedly a Galahad is more likely). Remember people can take on a outside code as a personal code (indeed personal codes and consciences MUST utimately be created from your reactions to what you observe around you).

The CE Paladin is the difficult one. Possibly you could do it as a person who sees authority organisation (Govts ecetre) are the ultimate evil and people must be freed by any means possible no matter the cost. Probably the most difficult to play.

The important points for Paladins in general are that they must be beleiving they're doing good in the long run for others. They must be willing to sacrifice themself for others. They should have a code they follow, but that code doesn't need to exteranlly applied. The difference between the "good" Paladin and the "Evil" Paladin is that the "Good" Paladin should be trying to do good at each step on the way, while "Evil" Paladins are focused on the "Good" result they're working for.

The important point is where Blackguards do evil for the pleasure of it, Paladins, be they good or evil, should never do evil for "fun". Even the Evil Paladin only does evil because he deems it necessary for bringing about good. Miko would probably make a reasonable "Evil" Paladin. She know's she's doing "good". Something may've gone wrong somewhere, but she'll work it out, and she's shown what she'll do to any goddamn evil succubus, because "Evil" is the enemy and always will be. The interesting quirk is that even Evil Paladins are likely to go out of their way to stop other people doing evil, so long as doing so doesn't interupt the path to the glorius end they aiming for.

Paraphrasing a peice from a David Gemmel book.
A Paladin sees a child drowning in a pond. He is told from a source that he trusts that if the child survives it'll grow up to do great evil.
The Good Paladin leaps in and saves the child. That's what heroes od. Afterall the horse may learn to sing (Arabic proverb).
The Evil Paladin will not save the child and will stop anyone else doing so. He'll grieve for the child, and say prayers over it's grave, but he will make sure it dies. Because that's what heroes do, they make the hard choices.

Stephen

PS. The Arabic proverb involves a thief who has been caught and sentanced to death. The thief tells the Sultan "Spare me and I will teach your prize horse to sing". The Sultan is skeptical but decides to give him a year, and if he fails he'll be executed, but if he suceeds he'll be freed. A friend of the thief comes to him later and asks him why did he say he could teach the horse to sing. The thief replys "Who knows what'll happen in a year, the Sultan may die, I may escape, or the horse might learn to sing!".

[Aquillion]

Chaotic Paladins only seem difficult if you see Chaos as Chaos=Random/erratic (often called Chaos=lesser Evil). Chaotic people can follow a personal code. A Galahad or Roland can follow a personal code (admitedly a Galahad is more likely). Remember people can take on a outside code as a personal code (indeed personal codes and consciences MUST utimately be created from your reactions to what you observe around you).
I don't think that's correct. From the SRD:
Law Vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them. A chaotic character might have a 'personal code' of freedom, but nobody who adheres rigidly to a code of any sort, personal or otherwise, can be chaotic. Robespierre, say, while a revolutionary, is the very model of a lawful character--he was famous for his austere and unbending nature.

A chaotic character might feel that they have a code of conduct of some sort, but they'll be willing to drop it more or less immediately if their heart tells them to do otherwise.

I don't understand what you mean by "chaos=more evil." Chaotic characters don't have to act randomly; they just, by definition, can't seriously respect any codes of honor or structures of law beyond the limits set by their conscience (in the case of good or neutral characters) or what they feel like doing (in the case of neutral or evil ones.) Following that, you can be a good character; you just can't fit any definition of Paladin that I'm aware of.

...possibly you could have a chaotic good Paladin along Don Quixote lines, although some people might argue that Don Quixote's belief in chivalry and honor makes him lawful despite his apparently chaotic nature.

[Stephen_E]

What do you think following your conscience is?

Your conscience IS your personal code.

The concept that a Chaotic person can't steadfastly follow something is a holdover from the old Chaotic = Random concept.

As the SRD says "can include recklessness and irresponsibility". I emphasise the word "CAN", not "Must".

I'd also note that the term "Rigidly following a code" is something you've come up with. "Rigid" has a number of negative connatations that is particuly suitable for a Paladin (at least not a Good Paladin) and isn't particuly supported by the article of the OP. A code can be looked on as one of those childs toys where you have a tray/frame with various shaped holes. You then have to fit blocks through the various holes. If you rigidly follow the code and get a block that doesn't match any of the holes you reduced to trying to hammer the block through a hole it's not built for. While someone who follows the code steadfastly but with flexability will look at modifiying the tray/frame to create a hole for the new block, while keeping the overall purpose the same. I'd also note that "reactionary adherence to tradition", which is a fairly good description of rigidity, is listed as one of the downsides of Lawfulness. So I'd suggest that LG paladins should not be following their code "rigidly".

Stephen

[Dnjscott]

Quite simply, a paladin is a holy, christian warrior. He is not a follower of Thor, Odin, Zeuss of any other pagan diety. As the author stated, it is a sore subject amongst gamers. That does not change the truth. The ideals of the paladin, just like the alignment system and just like the laws and morals of modern day America, are all based on what is taught by the christian church. You can bury your head in the sand, shout me down or flame me, it does not change the facts. No amount of justification or rationalization will change that truth. 2000 years of christianity has left its print upon our society and how we view things.

Can a paladin be something other than lawful good? No and there can be no other answer. The very ideals that they represent are lawful and good. Paladins are a living imbodiment of all that is pure and good in humanity (or at least they strive to be). Are there other holy wariors to their own gods? Sure there are, but they are not paladins. In a homebrew game they might have paladin like powers, might have codes and duties, but they are not paladins. The paladin is a unique creature in the D&D game.

Those that refuse to step back, analyze the rules from both a historical and social perpective and study why these things are as they are will forever misunderstand both alignment in D&D and the role of the paladin.



I agree with you. I don't want to get into any 'culture war' questions, but it is odd to me that there is such an urge to sort of homogenize the DND Paladin, both on the religious and the Law / Chaos axis. To take the example of another code and history-centered warrior, I haven't seen many Chaotic Samurais out there, and most discussions of the class touch upon concepts of Bushido. But the Paladin is oddly unmoored from everything.

I liked the 2nd Ed Paladin, which was more powerful than other classes but had a great many more restrictions as well. But, the concept of classes that balance on a level by level basis makes this hard and so you get a Paladin that can be brave but not necessarily protect people. They sort of tried to bring this back with the BOED, but then that was sort of... I don't know. Silly, I guess. Overdone.

[EvilElitest]

I also have a few ideas for what all Good-aligned paladin variants could be called and some inspirations both from ancient (over 800 hundred years ago) and modern.

Lawful Good. Paladin. Roland, Ogier the Dane, Maugris d'Aygremont.
Neutral Good. Knight Benefactor. Can't think of any at the moment.
Chaotic Good. Marshal of Liberty. Shrek (I could see him as a rather individualistic pious knight) and Hellboy.

Shrek yes now that i think about it


Hellboy, maybe, possible Neutral, but hey
from,
EE

[Duke Malagigi]

Shrek yes now that i think about it


Hellboy, maybe, possible Neutral, but hey
from,
EE

Okay, so how would you label Parry from the 1991 film The Fisher King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fisher_King_(film))? Just based on personality.

[EvilElitest]

Who's good must they be serving to qualify for legitimacy?

ummmmmmm, the LG one detailed both in their code and in hte book of exalted deeds?


This may stray dangerously close to discussing politics, so, I promise in warning that from this point on, any comparison to actual places, political systems, or real life events is purely coincidental.
Morals are not relative in D&D, ethic are, but that has nothing to do with the paladin code



Alrighty. Let's take Nowheristan for an example. It's a lovely city, and has some beautiful fountains.

It also has, for whatever reason, a democratically elected clerical class. And they're the only healers in the city. By which, I mean, that this group of the city's clerics are, By popularly enacted law, the only ones allowed to Heal. Perhaps there's a very special temple in Nowheristan, and only one Deity can in it be represented at a time. Chosen by the will of the citizens in the city, this tradition has gone on for umpteen-umpteen generations. In the last election cycle, however, the Clerics, rather than using their state-funded positions of goodwill to aid every given individual of the population, Have decided to heal, cure, feed and clothe ONLY those who profess allegiance and piety towards the clerics' diety of choice.

By the democratically enacted laws of the city, the clerics are doing nothing wrong in requiring this pledge of those to whom they offer assistance; And, while unpopular among some, the city is comprised of about 70% worshippers of the current clerical class's deity, and about 30% assorted other deists.

I've taken this to an extreme example, but, I do ask you, How much of a population must not be "Served" by the government in order for the government to no longer be legitimate?
That is not evil intentionally, but evil none the less, by denying some people the right the heal others who most likely need it and causing persacution of other gods. The paladin is not obliged to throw this system down, but if he can he should try to fix it and he should heal any one who need help, regardless on weather or not the law says so
-----------------------------------------------


The question I am posing is not "How does one define 'Lawful'", but rather, "Could we accept a Chaotic Good Paladin?" Could an individual who feels that, consequences be damned, he WILL do the will of his god, who will do anything and everything to accomplish that goal, who would lay down his life in the line of accomplishing that task, and do this fighting against a Just society be accepted? At some point, regardless of "Lawful characters do not have to always follow the laws, no matter what" arguement, a character that chronically and regularly defies the laws and codes of the society in which they exist WILL be deemed Chaotic.
We have CG paladin sadly:smallmad:

As for CG heroes, yeah we have that, its called the CG fighter or the CG ranger
from,
EE

Edit:


Okay, so how would you label Parry from the 1991 film The Fisher King? Just based on personality.
Parry, well that discription doesn't tell much except he is a deluded homeless guy, so i'd say NG sense he does try to help people.

[Poppatomus]

Your conscience IS your personal code.


might be, but doesn't have to be. Conscience, assuming you're not using summon monster one: tiny insect, means your general feeling of what's good or bad. It varies by situation, it varies over time, hell, even your mood can effect it. It's a voice pushing you to do good or bad in a particualr situation.

It isn't a code, personal or otherwise. It certainly isn't a paladin's code which is far more structured and covers every aspect of their life, more or less.

personal code just means you've made yourself an order of one, that you've looked at the moral universe and decided on set of rules for your behavior that apply all the time, regardless of how you feel. trusting your conscience means you believe your instincts will guide you rightly, situation by situation.

Thou shalt not murder could be part of a personal code or not, but if it is and a paladin is following that code they CAN'T murder anyone. period. no murders allowed. A person who thinks murder is wrong, following their conscience, might never murder someone, but they also may, if their conscience suggests it's necessary, or justified in this one case, etc...

For instance, a guy that sacrafices children to demons gets away with murder on a technicality, and might well commit a crime again soon. My Chaotic Good champion for justice, knowing he's guilty, wants to call him out and kill him. This is murder. It's extrajudicial killing, but it's justified and my conscience and sense of justice demand it. The Lawful Good paladin disagrees. He tries to stop me from killing the guy, because his code, personal or religious, says murder is not just wrong sometimes, it's wrong all the time. Instead, the paladin says we should wait to catch him in the act, or we should convince the king to send the army to take him.)

The ultimate difference between lawful and chaotic is that lawful characters see an inherent value in order and rules, even if they're personal rules or monastic rules and not the rules of the country. They respect the existance of the system. Chaotic characters see rules as inherently wrong, necessary evil's at best. They might not hold you're code against you, but they see all the problems and contradictions before they see the benefit. with that as thedistinction, making conscience eqal to personal code just means you've gotten rid of chaotic characters, because everyone has a code.