The Ultimate Playground Input Guide to the Fun Paladin

[Niek]

Short answer: the fact that this is Roleplaying Games General and not the 5e D&D subforum

Long answer: Conceptually, a Cleric is a servant of some Entity, while a Paladin is a champion of a Cause.

[Max_Killjoy]

Short answer: the fact that this is Roleplaying Games General and not the 5e D&D subforum

Long answer: Conceptually, a Cleric is a servant of some Entity, while a Paladin is a champion of a Cause.

Fair enough -- I guess "paladin" in an RPG is unfairly associated with D&D in my mind, and much of this discussion has been about Alignment and Character Class and other D&D-associated artifacts, so I was just going along with that.

[2D8HP]

Fair enough -- I guess "paladin" in an RPG is unfairly associated with D&D in my mind, and much of this discussion has been about Alignment and Character Class and other D&D-associated artifacts, so I was just going along with that.I know that I've mostly referenced 5e and 1970's rules D&D when posting about the Paladin in this thread (as have a couple of others), but I would guess that most are using 3.5/Pathfinder rules.
I would argue that more stays the same across editions than changes, "fluff"/setting matters more than mechanics, and unless directly contradicted an earlier rule is as "valid" as a latter one. But I would say that, since I now play 5e, but still remember 1970's rules D&D better (I don't say Oe and 1e because IIRC in actual play it became a jumble). and "homebrew" can be any edition.
But since you bring it up.... for "fun" Paladin - use 5e rules, Oath of Ancients Tenet.
Boom.
Done.
:smallwink:

[AMFV]

Perhaps it would help if we boiled down the Paladin to its bare essentials. Common points that we can all agree are necessary for the archetype to be recognizable. For me, that would be:

An individual who 1) places a Cause above all other concerns and 2) derives supernatural power from their dedication to that Cause


I believe any of the Paladin variations discussed in this thread could be described in terms of additions to these two base points.

The chief problem is that most people agree on those base points. But they also all include ADDITIONAL points for a character to qualify as a Paladin in their opinions. In fact a large bit of this debate comes from people having very different Paladin definitions.

[Niek]

Right, so if you do not consider those two points to be sufficient to make a Paladin, what would you call someone who met those criteria?

[veti]

BTW, the plot destroying "Atonement" Spell that stains the 3.5 PHB?
It's not in the 5e PHB, nor was it in the 1970's PHB!

It was totally in the 1e AD&D PHB, pretty sure that was published in the 70s.


Hardcore mode?

Being incapable of performing a chaotic action is ****ing terrifying.

"Oh I would love to keep knowledge of where the refugees are from the legal despot that rules over our land (that I cannot rebel from because rebellion is a chaotic action.) But I'm incapable of using deception (chaotic) so I have to either tell them where they are, or tell them that I know and am not telling them. Once my superior officer orders me to do I have no chance but to tell them where they are. If I do not have a superior officer, I will either be mind-controlled, or tortured."

You're assuming that refusing a command from a superior officer is automatically a chaotic action. (Assuming you even have a "superior officer".) That's not true in any edition that I know of.

[OldTrees1]

Right, so if you do not consider those two points to be sufficient to make a Paladin, what would you call someone who met those criteria?

1) places a Cause above all other concerns
2) derives supernatural power from their dedication to that Cause

I am not sure I would call them anything. Perhaps gifted exemplar?

Consider this
Paladin: Person that places "doing what one ought to do" above all other concerns to such an extreme that is a major or even defining part of who they are. This devotion grants them supernatural powers.

I only added 2 details:
1) I replaced cause with a specific yet abstract and general cause. To see why let us look at 4 people
"I help others because it is the right thing to do", "I paint the roses red because it is the right thing to do", "I help others regardless of whether it is or is not the right thing to do", & "I paint the roses red regardless of whether it is or is not the right thing to do". I would only classify the 1st and 2nd as Paladins (although I would question the 2nd's wisdom).

2) I added that the devotion needed to be a defining part of who they are. This should help separate the class Paladin away from everyone that merely has a good alignment.

[goto124]

"I paint the roses red because it is the right thing to do"

Making every rose look the same is the right thing to do? Blue roses have the right to retain their color!

[OldTrees1]

Making every rose look the same is the right thing to do? Blue roses have the right to retain their color!

I know right?

I think doing the wrong thing out of a misguided belief that it is the right thing is closer to Paladinhood than coincidentally doing the right thing because an amoral objective told you to.

[2D8HP]

It was totally in the 1e AD&D PHB, pretty sure that was published in the 70s.Yeah it's on page 49 of the 1978 PHB, between the Tongues and the Commune Spells, it's a fair cop. I'm BUSTED! :smallfrown:
In fact let's read the Spell entry in full:
This spell is used by the cleric to remove the onus of unwilling or unknown deeds from the person who is subject of the atonement. The spell will remove the effects of magical alignment change as well. The person for whom atonement is being made must be either truly repentant or not in command of his or her own will so as to be able to be repentant. Your referee will judge this spell in this regard, noting any past instances of its use upon the person. Deliberate misdeeds and acts of knowing and willful nature cannot be atoned for with this spell. The material components of this spell are the cleric's religious symbol, prayer beads or wheel or book, and burning incense.
From part of the long Atonement spell entry on page 202 of the 3.5 PHB:
Restore Class: A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell. Can you spot the difference?
Um, hmmm... I may have to walk back my stance that "fluff" matters more a bit, because this is a "crunch" difference that counts.
Why the distinction between willful and Magically induced evil acts in 1e AD&D? Because of stuff like:
You are a DM aren't you? Because
As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death.anyway
Helm of Opposite Alignment 'nuff said So that while in oD&D paladinhood lost because of an evil act could be regained by "Divine Intervention" or going on a "Divine Quest", as per, Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf), and in 3.5 paladinhood lost because of an evil act could be regained by having a Cleric buddy drop a Spell, in 1e AD&D nothing could restore paladinhood to a fallen Paladin who had committed an evil act.
Strict?
Well yeah, but keep in mind that in early D&D Paladins were extraordinary. First it took extraordinary dice rolls to play a Paladin in the first place, then they're graced with extraordinary powers on top of their abilities as a fighter, and in return they must exhibit extraordinary behavior. I just don't see the problem! Paladins were rare and special.
IIRC most PC's were regular Fighters, and if your Paladin PC "fell", it was a case of "join the club and be a Fighter like the rest of us slobs".
Example of a 1970's rules Paladin in action (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14957979/ConfessionsOfADungeonMaster1980.pdf)
In later editions the other classes were buffed up enough that the Paladin lost its "specialness" so it seems fair that it would be easier to become and stay a Paladin, but I do feel that some of the "magic" was lost from the class in the change, but not nearly the loss that occurred between the old "Aragorn" based original Ranger class, and what the class became in 3e and 5e (I simply don't know 2e AD&D or 4e D&D).
:smallwink:


Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek out a high level (7th or above) cleric if lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do penance as proscribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever know and willfully perform an evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are than lost, and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood; he or she is everafter a fighter.

Being incapable of performing a chaotic action is ****ing terrifying.
"Oh I would love to keep knowledge of where the refugees are from the legal despot that rules over our land (that I cannot rebel from because rebellion is a chaotic action.) But I'm incapable of using deception (chaotic) so I have to either tell them where they are, or tell them that I know and am not telling them. Once my superior officer orders me to do I have no chance but to tell them where they are. If I do not have a superior officer, I will either be mind-controlled, or tortured."
"This is all assuming of course that doing my duty as a citizen of our glorious empire doesn't require me to slaughter every man, woman, and child, and possibly bathe in their blood."
Yeah Paladins of Honor. You're the good guys. :smallannoyed:
In your scenario, if the Paladin's concern is only avoiding "fallen" status, by 1e AD&D rules, if the choice is between falling for a chaotic action, or falling for an evil action, then the chaotic action should be chosen, as acting chaotic can be forgiven, but evil cannot be (harsh or harsher).:smalleek:
Or play 3.5, do either and just have a Cleric drop a spell (and some XP) on you (lame, lame, lame, and lame).:smallyuk:
Or play 5e, where a specific "alignment" is not required, but some behavior is. Oath of Ancients Paladins would chose what would keep the most joy, for the most people possible, :smallbiggrin: Oath of Devotion Paladins (basically the "classic" Paladin) may feel some conflict between being honest, or protecting the weak, but would likely chose to protect. :smallsmile: Oath of Vengeance Paladins would fight their sworn enemy without considering innocents at all (douche) :smallfurious:
Or play pre-AD&D (oD&D) rules and
he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost.
Now get off my lawn

[8BitNinja]

BTW, the plot destroying "Atonement" Spell that stains the 3.5 PHB?
It's not in the 5e PHB, nor was it in the 1970's PHB and it was quite a bit more limited Spell, that only worked to atone for magically compelled evil in 1e AD&D!


:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

You made an old man smile!

Thank you very much, it is one of the many duties of a paladin to honor his elders

[2D8HP]

Thank you very much, it is one of the many duties of a paladin to honor his eldersThanks for that, but I'm a Johnny-come-lately compared to this guy:

In my junior year in college (1975), my roommate was deeply into wargaming. I listened, to be polite, but never got interested, until he brought home a copy of Metagaming's Stellar Conquest. This was different - this was science fiction. I had to play it. And I enjoyed it.

Then he brought home a small white box with three pamphlets called Dungeons and Dragons, and that seemed exciting. I played it once, and the idea seemed cool, but the rules didn't work well. But within a week he also had the brand new first supplement, called Greyhawk. Now the game played well.

I rolled up a natural paladin, and never looked back.

[veti]

Why the distinction between willful and Magically induced evil acts in 1e AD&D? Because of stuff like:
You are a DM aren't you? Because anyway 'nuff said So that while in oD&D paladinhood lost because of an evil act could be regained by "Divine Intervention" or going on a "Divine Quest", as per, Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf), and in 3.5 paladinhood lost because of an evil act could be regained by having a Cleric buddy drop a Spell, in 1e AD&D nothing could restore paladinhood to a fallen Paladin who had committed an evil act.

Well... there's a bit of wiggle room, if the paladin can make a case that they didn't know it was an evil act, or they weren't fully in control of their actions at the time. The Fall is only permanent and irredeemable if they knowingly and wilfully commit an evil act.

"Knowingly", I would say, means that "if they acted in a good faith attempt to do the right thing, but circumstances were so aligned that it was a horrible mistake" - then this clause doesn't apply. "Wilfully" implies a lot more wiggle room: if the paladin can make a case that they weren't in full control of their actions (e.g. they were controlled, or simply coerced, and let's face it, when can't you argue that?), then this clause doesn't activate.

Personally, in either case, I'd have the paladin Fall (because the knowledge of what they've done would be enough to shake their faith), but still be capable of atonement.

[Satinavian]

BTW, the plot destroying "Atonement" Spell that stains the 3.5 PHB?
It's not in the 5e PHB, nor was it in the 1970's PHB and it was quite a bit more limited Spell, that only worked to atone for magically compelled evil in 1e AD&D!
I like the (3.5) Atonement spell.

I don't need players to panic because of any possible greyish act the group wants to do because they can't really know if i will rule it evil and let the paladin fall for an undetermined time. The ealignment descriptions are selfcontradicting enough to get those situations often enough if one likes more complicated, political plots.

Neither do i particularly want to be kind of forced to run a character-centric redemption adventure when a fall happens. If i actually have an adventure which somehow involves the paladin more strongly i can already motivate him to do it without a fall.

[Lacco]

Juuuuuust one question, coming from a GM with very little D&D experience & almost no paladins playing in my party...

...was it possible for Paladins to have some sort of "moral compass"?

Like, look at the GM, state "my pally is thinking of doing this..." and waiting for a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" as confirmation...? :smallwink:

Also, GM's words "You sure you want to do that?" could be taken as pally's conscience speaking at him directly... :smallbiggrin:

[Florian]

There´s the very basic items Phylactery of Faithfulness (1K gp, headband slot) that tells the wearer if any intended action will have averse effects on alignment or standing with the patron deity.

It´s probably best to allow an 2K Ioun Stone version of it, as the Paladin needs the headband slot.

[AMFV]

Hardcore mode?

Being incapable of performing a chaotic action is ****ing terrifying.

"Oh I would love to keep knowledge of where the refugees are from the legal despot that rules over our land (that I cannot rebel from because rebellion is a chaotic action.) But I'm incapable of using deception (chaotic) so I have to either tell them where they are, or tell them that I know and am not telling them. Once my superior officer orders me to do I have no chance but to tell them where they are. If I do not have a superior officer, I will either be mind-controlled, or tortured."

"This is all assuming of course that doing my duty as a citizen of our glorious empire doesn't require me to slaughter every man, woman, and child, and possibly bathe in their blood."

Yeah Paladins of Honor. You're the good guys. :smallannoyed:

Ummm, an order can be unlawful. Also being lawful doesn't mean that you follow every single set of laws (that would actually be chaotic because they would come into conflict pretty frequently). An order that contradicts the laws of Goodness for a Paladin would be an unlawful order.


Well... there's a bit of wiggle room, if the paladin can make a case that they didn't know it was an evil act, or they weren't fully in control of their actions at the time. The Fall is only permanent and irredeemable if they knowingly and wilfully commit an evil act.

"Knowingly", I would say, means that "if they acted in a good faith attempt to do the right thing, but circumstances were so aligned that it was a horrible mistake" - then this clause doesn't apply. "Wilfully" implies a lot more wiggle room: if the paladin can make a case that they weren't in full control of their actions (e.g. they were controlled, or simply coerced, and let's face it, when can't you argue that?), then this clause doesn't activate.

Personally, in either case, I'd have the paladin Fall (because the knowledge of what they've done would be enough to shake their faith), but still be capable of atonement.

Seconded, I think that the Paladin's intentions when they fall should have a lot to do with exactly how difficult it is for them to atone. Also because for me, again, atonement isn't about righting the wrongs that were caused, it's about bringing the Paladin back to wholeness as a Paladin.

[2D8HP]

Seconded, I think that the Paladin's intentions when they fall should have a lot to do with exactly how difficult it is for them to atone. Also because for me, again, atonement isn't about righting the wrongs that were caused, it's about bringing the Paladin back to wholeness as a Paladin.In this thread I've quoted a lot of "rules" from different editions, and I've also said that even though I still (mostly) remember 1970's D&D better, I now play and favor 5e. Unfortunately just as I think the 3.5 "Atonement" Spell makes it too easy for a Paladin to get away with evil (which makes the class seem less special to me compare to oE D&D and 1e AD&D).Unfortunately, I don't really find any mechanic in 5e that causes a loss to a Paladin that has willfully committed evil acts, beyond a rather vague "a vigil", or "at DM's discretion" on page 86 of the 5e PHB (the way the "Oathbreaker class is presented in the 5e DMG doesn't seem to help). Normally I like that 5e "puts the M back in DM", but if you don't remember how previous editions handled these matters a new DM may just let gross evil slide, and makes the Paladin little different than other classes (the specialness was part of the "fun" for me). This bugs me.
Thoughts?

[Florian]

For later editions, it actually doesn´t make too much sense that the Paladin class still includes the "fall" clause. The class was pretty high-powered in AD&D, being Fighter+, but with 3E and upward, the editions concerned with actual balanced class design, the Paladin class did´t gain any special boost to power that still validates that special treatment. That is even more apparent with 4E and 5E and I think it´s well that those editions dropped the issue entirely.

[AMFV]

In this thread I've quoted a lot of "rules" from different editions, and I've also said that even though I still (mostly) remember 1970's D&D better, I now play and favor 5e. Unfortunately just as I think the 3.5 "Atonement" Spell makes it too easy for a Paladin to get away with evil (which makes the class seem less special to me compare to oE D&D and 1e AD&D).Unfortunately, I don't really find any mechanic in 5e that causes a loss to a Paladin that has willfully committed evil acts, beyond a rather vague "a vigil", or "at DM's discretion" on page 86 of the 5e PHB (the way the "Oathbreaker class is presented in the 5e DMG doesn't seem to help). Normally I like that 5e "puts the M back in DM", but if you don't remember how previous editions handled these matters a new DM may just let gross evil slide, and makes the Paladin little different than other classes (the specialness was part of the "fun" for me). This bugs me.
Thoughts?

I think you're missing a key section of the 3.5 atonement spell


This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf.

My emphasis. So for most casters you would need to potentially perform some kind of contrition or penance prior. Certainly I would have that be a fundamental part of the quest for any Paladin. Furthermore it's important to remember that as lawful entities Paladins would probably have a fairly strict hierarchical set of rules regarding with whom they are allowed to meet for atonements

I do agree that without a falling mechanic the source of a Paladin's power becomes somewhat obscured, it might be possible to write such a Paladin as having only institutional problems, or somesuch, but it would be a very different kind of Paladin.


For later editions, it actually doesn´t make too much sense that the Paladin class still includes the "fall" clause. The class was pretty high-powered in AD&D, being Fighter+, but with 3E and upward, the editions concerned with actual balanced class design, the Paladin class did´t gain any special boost to power that still validates that special treatment. That is even more apparent with 4E and 5E and I think it´s well that those editions dropped the issue entirely.

The issue is that Paladin's falling wasn't a power mitigation tool. Read Gygax's thoughts on it that were posted earlier. It was a thematic tool. Certainly it might be worth giving a Paladin something for their increased faith, but the whole thing is a theme exercise, not so much a balancing mechanic. Hell, falling doesn't even work well as a balancing mechanic, since it's all or nothing and depends on circumstances unrelated to the use or overuse of Palaidn's powers in a general case. It's definitely purely a thematic mechanic, rather than one that's supposed to relate to balance.

[8BitNinja]

For later editions, it actually doesn´t make too much sense that the Paladin class still includes the "fall" clause. The class was pretty high-powered in AD&D, being Fighter+, but with 3E and upward, the editions concerned with actual balanced class design, the Paladin class did´t gain any special boost to power that still validates that special treatment. That is even more apparent with 4E and 5E and I think it´s well that those editions dropped the issue entirely.

But keep in mind 4e was not traditional in any way. Besides, just some personal advice that I learned the hard way.

Mention 4e and be prepared to argue whether or not it is actually D&D

[AMFV]

But keep in mind 4e was not traditional in any way. Besides, just some personal advice that I learned the hard way.

Mention 4e and be prepared to argue whether or not it is actually D&D

Well this is actually pretty relevant here. There are many people who felt that 4E's Paladins were not as authentic or not as much what they believed to be Paladins, so whatever 4E has for Paladinhood it moves away from what many people believe is actually representative of Paladinhood.

[2D8HP]

I think I think you're missing a key section of the 3.5 atonement spell



This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf.
My emphasis. So for most casters you would need to potentially perform some kind of contrition or penance prior. Certainly I would have that be a fundamental part of the quest for any Paladin. Furthermore it's important to remember that as lawful entities Paladins would probably have a fairly strict hierarchical set of rules regarding with whom they are allowed to meet for atonements

I do agree that without a falling mechanic the source of a Paladin's power becomes somewhat obscured, it might be possible to write such a Paladin as having only institutional problems, or somesuch, but it would be a very different kind of Paladin..Good catch. My problem with the 3.5 "Atonement" Spell is not if it's cast by NPC's , in which case as a DM, I would imposed a "Quest for Redemption" ala Gygax in '76, no my worry is that the PC's will get it! PC's are a crafty, devious lot, and in their hands I fear it would become mere bookkeeping ("You got atonement ready? OK let's burn this orphanage to cover our escape!"). But basically I feel in love with the Paladin and Ranger classes back in '79 (both required a good "alignment", and while in later editions the Ranger was changed too much to recover, if you squint hard enough, the Paladin is still there, and I want to save what's left.

The issue is that Paladin's falling wasn't a power mitigation tool. Read Gygax's thoughts on it that were posted earlier. It was a thematic tool. Certainly it might be worth giving a Paladin something for their increased faith, but the whole thing is a theme exercise, not so much a balancing mechanic. Hell, falling doesn't even work well as a balancing mechanic, since it's all or nothing and depends on circumstances unrelated to the use or overuse of Palaidn's powers in a general case. It's definitely purely a thematic mechanic, rather than one that's supposed to relate to balance.
I agree completly, The "fluff" is still there but without the mechanics to back it up, somethings been lost. Maybe it's for the best, as more people will try the class now.

[AMFV]

Good catch. My problem with the 3.5 "Atonement" Spell is not if it's cast by NPC's , in which case as a DM, I would imposed a "Quest for Redemption" ala Gygax in '76, no my worry is that the PC's will get it! PC's are a crafty, devious lot, and in their hands I fear it would become mere bookkeeping ("You got atonement ready? OK let's burn this orphanage to cover our escape!"). But basically I feel in love with the Paladin and Ranger classes back in '79 (both required a good "alignment", and while in later editions the Ranger was changed too much to recover, if you squint hard enough, the Paladin is still there, and I want to save what's left.

Well, you could push the Paladin out of having a Good alignment. I would say burning down an orphanage to cover your escape is a heinous enough act that the Paladin would no longer be Good. In which case, it wouldn't matter how many atonements they cast, until their alignment was actually LG again they wouldn't be able to use their awesome powers.

You also have to realize that there's a lot of potential for houseruling there. If it's something that the players are flagrantly abusing, then you can have houserules to deal with it. Or better yet, deal with it in games. After all Paladins aren't just Paragons of Good, but of Law, and there's an entire class of very unpleasant creatures that are sent out to deal with people trying to game the laws of Law itself. After they get murdered by an inevitable, possibly they'll stop using atonement that way.

The other alternative is to discuss that you don't think this is appropriate with them. They are after all people, and people are generally reasonable, so they'd probably be willing to work with you on this. Particularly since this is such an egregious breach of RAI, and since it's at an actual table, RAI can matter a great deal more than RAW.



I agree completly, The "fluff" is still there but without the mechanics to back it up, somethings been lost. Maybe it's for the best, as more people will try the class now.

I think that the mechanics are pretty key. A class should have mechanics that back up it's fluff. That's one of my chief complaints about 4E is that the mechanics are now only to balance classes against a role (at least insofar as I've read) and not so much to back up the fluff. For me at least, balance is less critical than verisimilitude and the dramatic roles that a certain thing implies.

[8BitNinja]

Well this is actually pretty relevant here. There are many people who felt that 4E's Paladins were not as authentic or not as much what they believed to be Paladins, so whatever 4E has for Paladinhood it moves away from what many people believe is actually representative of Paladinhood.

I think the main problem 4e had with paladins is that they forgot that the paladin is more than a character class, it's a mindset. If I wanted a fighter with some cleric abilities, I would have a game with multi classing. (hey! D&D has multi classing!) A paladin is more than his class. The paladin had his class because it highlighted everything he stood for. He was an honorable warrior who fought for good and was a paragon of righteousness. He is more than just a Tank/Healer.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The way I always saw paladins is that they're supposed to be exemplars of what a perfect world could look like, and that's the point of the code. They're supposed to lead by example and be an inspiration to others.

Which means, occasionally, when the ideal code of behaviour runs into the realities of an imperfect world, the code may be more of a hinderance than a benefit for the actual practical concern of getting good done. And what's more, I think both paladins, and the gods that empower paladins, should be fully aware of that fact. Paladins are willingly signing up to put themselves in difficult situations that don't necessarily need to be difficult ones, all for the sake of being that exemplar.

And that's why I don't think falling for the right reasons should be that big of a deal. If you break the code in service of the greater good it isn't necessarily a statement that you've done the wrong thing, but a statement that the ideal code of behaviour doesn't necessarily hold up in an imperfect world. Falling for the right reasons is more of a symbolic slap on the wrist, The paladin atones, and gets back on the horse again. Falling for the wrong reasons is a much graver thing to deal with, of course. I'll also note that occasionally breaking the code isn't even a thing that should make the paladin fall in the first place, so long as the violations don't involve the paladin doing evil.

And I guess, to bring it back to the original question, the biggest thing to do in terms of playing a fun paladin is to make certain the entire group is on board with it first. If they're not willing to make a group that can work well with a paladin then you probably shouldn't play one.

[8BitNinja]

The way I always saw paladins is that they're supposed to be exemplars of what a perfect world could look like, and that's the point of the code. They're supposed to lead by example and be an inspiration to others.

Which means, occasionally, when the ideal code of behaviour runs into the realities of an imperfect world, the code may be more of a hinderance than a benefit for the actual practical concern of getting good done. And what's more, I think both paladins, and the gods that empower paladins, should be fully aware of that fact. Paladins are willingly signing up to put themselves in difficult situations that don't necessarily need to be difficult ones, all for the sake of being that exemplar.

And that's why I don't think falling for the right reasons should be that big of a deal. If you break the code in service of the greater good it isn't necessarily a statement that you've done the wrong thing, but a statement that the ideal code of behaviour doesn't necessarily hold up in an imperfect world. Falling for the right reasons is more of a symbolic slap on the wrist, The paladin atones, and gets back on the horse again. Falling for the wrong reasons is a much graver thing to deal with, of course. I'll also note that occasionally breaking the code isn't even a thing that should make the paladin fall in the first place, so long as the violations don't involve the paladin doing evil.

And I guess, to bring it back to the original question, the biggest thing to do in terms of playing a fun paladin is to make certain the entire group is on board with it first. If they're not willing to make a group that can work well with a paladin then you probably shouldn't play one.

Paladin's are still human (and if this is not AD&D, other humanoid races). You can't expect them to be perfect

[Lacco]

Paladin's are still human (and if this is not AD&D, other humanoid races). You can't expect them to be perfect

I think you are in a disagreement with this guy:


I think the main problem 4e had with paladins is that they forgot that the paladin is more than a character class, it's a mindset. If I wanted a fighter with some cleric abilities, I would have a game with multi classing. (hey! D&D has multi classing!) A paladin is more than his class. The paladin had his class because it highlighted everything he stood for. He was an honorable warrior who fought for good and was a paragon of righteousness. He is more than just a Tank/Healer.

I'd say that paladins would expect themselves to be as perfect as the imperfect world lets them... :smallwink:


And I guess, to bring it back to the original question, the biggest thing to do in terms of playing a fun paladin is to make certain the entire group is on board with it first. If they're not willing to make a group that can work well with a paladin then you probably shouldn't play one.

This is quite important.

One thing I wanted to state before - the best paladin I have ever read about was Sturm Brightblade.

And now one thing that occured to me while reading the most recent responses (and I bow to 2D8HP for providing so much information about previous versions of pallys. Lots of entertainment too :smallsmile:). What situation would you, as player playing paladin enjoy if you had to fall?

I don't know if I phrased it well, so basically: in what situation would you roleplay the fall and enjoy it?

I've had this idea - that a paladin is stuck in situation, where he can either kill an unarmed man - saving lots of lives, but taking the fall for murder... and then atone - or let him live, lock him up, and see him later wreak havoc, getting lots of people killed - as he will get out of the jail even more powerful. He knows this well, as the man will tell him his plans.

...oh, yes, I know, I'm terrible GM, setting up the pally like this, so no need to bother to tell me :smallbiggrin:. I'm too old to change my ways. Because I understand player taking a paladin as his character as a statement that he wants to have to choose between a rock and a hard place :smallwink:. To be the paragon, to be "more than his class". To be perfect, just for one moment. And to inspire courage, righteousness and honor even in times when he falls.

I know that if I were to play a pally, I would want the GM to put in front of me lots of tough moral choices. It's more than a class. And losing the powers doesn't mean anything - you can still have that mindset, and the drive to make the world better.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Paladin's are still human (and if this is not AD&D, other humanoid races). You can't expect them to be perfect

No, of course you can't. Paladins aren't supposed to be perfect. They're supposed to try to be perfect, and inspire other people with that effort. It's expected they'll try and fail, but it's the trying that matters.

[8BitNinja]

No, of course you can't. Paladins aren't supposed to be perfect. They're supposed to try to be perfect, and inspire other people with that effort. It's expected they'll try and fail, but it's the trying that matters.

This is true, but the comment above said that they need to be perfect

[Florian]

@Iacco36:

Wonderful scenario, actually. It shows a lot of the misconceptions in this overall discussion.

Me, I´d don my iron helmet, grip my large shield and imbue my shortspear with the power of mercy. Then i´d implore the powers that be to grant me the strength to smite evil.
Midway in this fight, I´d implore my opponent to yield from his evil ways, surrender to what is true and right or face the ultimate consequence of his actions.
If not, it´s fighting time followed by a GdC and that´s it.

What you forget in your scenario is that the moment Detect Evil and Smite Evil would yield results, judgement has already been passed.

The moment a Paladin is truly challenged, is when things aren´t black and white anymore. Going up against Robin Hood would be a thing here.

[8BitNinja]

@Iacco36:

Wonderful scenario, actually. It shows a lot of the misconceptions in this overall discussion.

Me, I´d don my iron helmet, grip my large shield and imbue my shortspear with the power of mercy. Then i´d implore the powers that be to grant me the strength to smite evil.
Midway in this fight, I´d implore my opponent to yield from his evil ways, surrender to what is true and right or face the ultimate consequence of his actions.
If not, it´s fighting time followed by a GdC and that´s it.

What you forget in your scenario is that the moment Detect Evil and Smite Evil would yield results, judgement has already been passed.

The moment a Paladin is truly challenged, is when things aren´t black and white anymore. Going up against Robin Hood would be a thing here.

Detect and Smite are there to make the job easier, however it should not be a substitute for doing the job. When things aren't black and white, I say that the paladin is not being challenged, he is just asked to do his job.

[Florian]

Detect and Smite are there to make the job easier, however it should not be a substitute for doing the job. When things aren't black and white, I say that the paladin is not being challenged, he is just asked to do his job.

At that point, we´re again in the region of unspoken assumptions how the game works and what it´s all about.

I really enjoy games that deal with hard decisions and bad choices or explore moral issues. But then, I actually play games that really support that stuff on more than one level, like Pendragon or L5R.

But I play D&D exactly when I don´t want to deal with those issues and I never would use it to do so, as it really lacks any supporting features to make that enjoyable.

[2D8HP]

I really enjoy games that deal with hard decisions and bad choices or explore moral issues. But then, I actually play games that really support that stuff on more than one level, like Pendragon or L5R.You actually got to play Pendragon?
Wow!
Over twenty years I have bought and read four editions of (King Arthur) Pendragon, and out of my giant pile of games that I've read but never played Pendragon is my favorite! (Castle Falkenstein is my second favorite because setting!).
Is Legend of the Five Rings a good enough read that I should get it as well?

[Florian]

You actually got to play Pendragon?
Wow!
Over twenty years I have bought and read four editions of (King Arthur) Pendragon, and out of my giant pile of games that I've read but never played Pendragon is my favorite! (Castle Falkenstein is my second favorite because setting!).
Is Legend of the Five Rings a good enough read that I should get it as well?

Funny that you mention it.

Yes, I actually got to GM the Great Pendragon Campaign, took us some 5 years, and I´m a player in a long-running Castle Falkenstein campaign. The later one is especially amusing because I originally hail from Bavaria and now play along with those lowly Prussians I life with....

L5R is a good system as it gets the shades of grey and gradients right. You´ve got stats on Honor, Glory and Status and expectations on your behavior will vary based on those. You first need to rise before you can take a fall and that system is very good at representing both aspects of it.

Story Hour time:

In my bi-weekly L5R campaign, we´ve one guy playing a Scorpion Bushi. That´s pretty much akin to a Rogue in D&D terms being based on underhanded tactics. This choice is actually easy for new players as you simply can´t take a "fall", as no-one expects any Scorpion to act with honor.
My player actually disregarded the archetype and went the pure Paladin/Samurai route, showing what honest dedication to Bushido can lead to, actually buying the character flaw "Junshin" (Pure Soul) along the way to show how he´s into the concept.
Right now, that´s an impressive combination. He has reached nearly inhuman stats (8 out of 10 in Honor and Glory) and is willing to "fall" if ever his clan demands it.

[Max_Killjoy]

You actually got to play Pendragon?
Wow!
Over twenty years I have bought and read four editions of (King Arthur) Pendragon, and out of my giant pile of games that I've read but never played Pendragon is my favorite! (Castle Falkenstein is my second favorite because setting!).
Is Legend of the Five Rings a good enough read that I should get it as well?

L5R is a good read, and there are some interesting concepts in the mechanics, but it's also a game where the mechanics don't match the fluff a bit too often, combat is built around a lot of assumptions, and player choice in character creation is deeply constrained.

[AMFV]

I'd say that paladins would expect themselves to be as perfect as the imperfect world lets them... :smallwink:


I agree, and it's important to note that for many Pallies, this is going to result in occasionally falling or being severely imperfect.



And now one thing that occured to me while reading the most recent responses (and I bow to 2D8HP for providing so much information about previous versions of pallys. Lots of entertainment too :smallsmile:). What situation would you, as player playing paladin enjoy if you had to fall?

I don't know if I phrased it well, so basically: in what situation would you roleplay the fall and enjoy it?


One where I discussed the matter with the DM beforehand. And one where I felt like the fall was going to result in my Paladin being a better Paladin following his atonement.



I've had this idea - that a paladin is stuck in situation, where he can either kill an unarmed man - saving lots of lives, but taking the fall for murder... and then atone - or let him live, lock him up, and see him later wreak havoc, getting lots of people killed - as he will get out of the jail even more powerful. He knows this well, as the man will tell him his plans.

Well Paladins aren't necessarily not allowed to kill people who are legally deserving of death. he should be willing to go to jail for his beliefs, because he should be willing to die for them. Also if the Paladin comes up another solution would you accept it? Or if the Paladin tries something different would you be open to it?

Also if the Paladin makes a decision and the player is able to articulate the morality of it, would you agree?



...oh, yes, I know, I'm terrible GM, setting up the pally like this, so no need to bother to tell me :smallbiggrin:. I'm too old to change my ways. Because I understand player taking a paladin as his character as a statement that he wants to have to choose between a rock and a hard place :smallwink:. To be the paragon, to be "more than his class". To be perfect, just for one moment. And to inspire courage, righteousness and honor even in times when he falls.

I disagree slightly. I think when the Paladin falls, it's a sad thing, not an inspiring one. It's the moment that he wasn't able to live up to what he wanted. And that should be sad. But it shouldn't necessarily be excluded, some of the best stories have sad parts. And there's nothing wrong with putting a Paladin to the test, if somebody plays one, that's probably part of what they want.



I know that if I were to play a pally, I would want the GM to put in front of me lots of tough moral choices. It's more than a class. And losing the powers doesn't mean anything - you can still have that mindset, and the drive to make the world better.

Certainly true, but I would argue that what people are against is being put in scenarios where they are not allowed to find a third option (if one exists), or where they are told that because their own moral views are different from those of the DM that theirs are wrong. Or worse yet, being put into a situation where one answer appears right and being told that it isn't.

[Niek]

I feel that there should never be a situation in which the only option is to fall. In my opinion, they should only fall if they start cutting corners, or acting in self-interest over the good of the cause, or otherwise are not making an honest effort to do the best that they can with the situation they have.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't think there should ever be a choice where any option leads to you falling. But I think it is okay if a situation occasionally comes up that's likely between falling or dying.

[8BitNinja]

I feel that there should never be a situation in which the only option is to fall. In my opinion, they should only fall if they start cutting corners, or acting in self-interest over the good of the cause, or otherwise are not making an honest effort to do the best that they can with the situation they have.

The only people who make paladins fall are mean GMs

[2D8HP]

The only people who make paladins fall are mean GMs"Nice" can turn "Mean" fast!
That's just not fair!
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much.So...
Note to the wise: Get the pizza toppings right!

[8BitNinja]

@2D8HP: reference to the book of Job? If so, nice reference. If not, I'm just not that smart

[Florian]

*Chuckles quietly to himself*

Please notice, I´m pretty drunk at this point. Today, a strange conversation happened between me and my ex-wife. We´re both into contractor business and often compare real life with media when we talk sometimes.

Today, we "watched" Deadpool and Civil War "together" and found that Steve Rogers is the Paladin. Full stop, no discussions, while Wade Wilson is the Anti-Paladin, no discussions.

Go with that, enjoy a bottle of Yamasaki 12 and all´s good.

[8BitNinja]

*Chuckles quietly to himself*

Please notice, I´m pretty drunk at this point. Today, a strange conversation happened between me and my ex-wife. We´re both into contractor business and often compare real life with media when we talk sometimes.

Today, we "watched" Deadpool and Civil War "together" and found that Steve Rogers is the Paladin. Full stop, no discussions, while Wade Wilson is the Anti-Paladin, no discussions.

Go with that, enjoy a bottle of Yamasaki 12 and all´s good.

I have come to the same conclusion

[Florian]

I have come to the same conclusion

Seriously, you want to get bloody drunk and not regret it the next day, japanese whisky is the way to do it.

The actual point I wanted to make still stands:

We live in a morally ambiguous world, therefore it´s easy to understand Tony Stark and get into the "technocratic mindframe". One problem, one solution, next problem after that.
It´s sad to say, but it can happen that one sees convictions and believe to actually go nowhere, even reduce or hamper the choices available and block you out from simply finding the solution to a problem right now.
That´s why I brought up Steve Rogers, as that character more exemplifies understanding the "Big Picture" instead of going for the simple problem-solution circle again and again, getting lost on the way while doing so. The later is exemplified by Wade Wilson.

I think that it´s really important to discuss the whole "Big Picture" issue with the GM as well as the group to get a handle on that. That´s not the same thing as tying down morality and the code into pure game concepts, as discussed some pages earlier in this discussion, but rather hammering out what "the thing" is in the campaign you play in.

[Lacco]

@Iacco36:

Wonderful scenario, actually. It shows a lot of the misconceptions in this overall discussion.

Me, I´d don my iron helmet, grip my large shield and imbue my shortspear with the power of mercy. Then i´d implore the powers that be to grant me the strength to smite evil.
Midway in this fight, I´d implore my opponent to yield from his evil ways, surrender to what is true and right or face the ultimate consequence of his actions.
If not, it´s fighting time followed by a GdC and that´s it.

What you forget in your scenario is that the moment Detect Evil and Smite Evil would yield results, judgement has already been passed.

The moment a Paladin is truly challenged, is when things aren´t black and white anymore. Going up against Robin Hood would be a thing here.

Ah, yes. I forgot about the detect evil/smite evil.

Let's up the thing: the person is "lawful good" and is going to kill lotta neutrals due to them not being lawful good. At this point, he's lawful good (they are not obeying the laws as set).

And the situation was that he yielded the fight, but his intentions remain :smallsmile:


But I play D&D exactly when I don´t want to deal with those issues and I never would use it to do so, as it really lacks any supporting features to make that enjoyable.

That's a valid answer - and I agree.


I agree, and it's important to note that for many Pallies, this is going to result in occasionally falling or being severely imperfect.

Had to break your post a bit down. Yes, and the "imperfections" should be atoned for - even those that don't lead to a fall. Especially all those that lead to a fall, but not to the "big fall" (=unatonable one).


One where I discussed the matter with the DM beforehand. And one where I felt like the fall was going to result in my Paladin being a better Paladin following his atonement.

Hmm... yes, I see your point. I'd surely discuss the matter beforehand - even warning the player that I foresee the fall if he continues in the course of action (IC warnings first, OOC second).

That kind of fall - where the paladin gets even better than he was - is exactly what I would aim for. No use of letting him fall otherwise - he has to get up and get better, or ... well... if he does not, was he truly a paladin material?


Well Paladins aren't necessarily not allowed to kill people who are legally deserving of death. he should be willing to go to jail for his beliefs, because he should be willing to die for them. Also if the Paladin comes up another solution would you accept it? Or if the Paladin tries something different would you be open to it?

Yes. Agreed. However, if there is no "legal"

If a player comes up with another solution, I'd accept it. Of course. That's what it's all about, isn't it?

In the situation I presented, if he tried to get him locked up and stated he will stay in the prison with the evil guy so he doesn't get a chance to get away - no problem. I'd "retire" his character for current time, give the player a backup character (if the rest of the party decided to go on adventuring, saving worlds, etc. - if they all decided to stay, I'd go for prison escape attempt which they could thwart...) and then award him XP he'd get with the new char when he switches back + hefty sum for staying IC.

On the other hand, if he just closed his eyes so the thief could slit his throat... weeeeell...what would you do?


Also if the Paladin makes a decision and the player is able to articulate the morality of it, would you agree?

Possibly. There are limits to this - if he goes against the tenets that would have been agreed on in the beginning (e.g. above example of slitting of throat while not looking, if a tenet is "shall not allow anyone to be killed without proper judgement"), he would get 0 points for trying and would get into trouble. If it was "shall not kill an innocent", then I would be open to explanation - and yes, I'd expect him to not like the situation and repeated offences would indeed result in some pretty nightmares as warning that he's not really acting "lawful good", but still - it's atonable in this case.


I disagree slightly. I think when the Paladin falls, it's a sad thing, not an inspiring one. It's the moment that he wasn't able to live up to what he wanted. And that should be sad. But it shouldn't necessarily be excluded, some of the best stories have sad parts. And there's nothing wrong with putting a Paladin to the test, if somebody plays one, that's probably part of what they want.

Have to agree with you on this one. The "falls" part is sad thing. The "gets back up to be even better" should be a really inspiring one. The tests should be mandatory :smallbiggrin: as the "paladin" as I see him is not about being "perfect". It's about trying to attain perfection in imperfect world, with imperfect companions and even more imperfect character.

I'd say that anything other invalidates the purpose of paladin. If he wants to prove worthy, he needs to be tested.


Certainly true, but I would argue that what people are against is being put in scenarios where they are not allowed to find a third option (if one exists), or where they are told that because their own moral views are different from those of the DM that theirs are wrong. Or worse yet, being put into a situation where one answer appears right and being told that it isn't.

I think this comes down to good GMing and good RPing - the player and the GM should discuss the tenets. The GM should put the character to a test, and then not only judge the result by some arbitrary decision, but also discuss with the player. There is lot of "gray areas".

The last one - where one answer appears right and it's wrong - there is some potential even in those scenarios. The paladin could have been deceived, lied to, manipulated - yet, he should get a fair chance to find out about it, counter it or even prevent it if he upholds the tenets he agreed to uphold.

To use Niek's reply (which I really like)...


I feel that there should never be a situation in which the only option is to fall. In my opinion, they should only fall if they start cutting corners, or acting in self-interest over the good of the cause, or otherwise are not making an honest effort to do the best that they can with the situation they have.

...if a paladin executes a man because he "pings" as "evil" without giving it a thought without further proof of him acting evil - is he still a paladin?

And the last one - the honest effort to do the best (or the right thing) - is often overlooked. Both by GMs and players.


I don't think there should ever be a choice where any option leads to you falling. But I think it is okay if a situation occasionally comes up that's likely between falling or dying.

If I understand correctly, the "any" in your sentence meant "every"... yes? In that case I would hesitantly agree.

The second part I can totally get behind - fall or die should be one of the tests that the paladin is submitted to - however, the paladin should be greatly rewarded for choosing the way correct for paladin (even by being saved by the forces of Law or Good itself).


The only people who make paladins fall are mean GMs

This isn't really a constructive approach. I could also say "the only players whose paladins fall are not worthy of playing ones"... :smallbiggrin:. I'm not, because I think that the fall-understand-atone-reinstate cycle is a very good story material, as well as very good path to character growth.

If you are not interested in character growth, or just want to smite clear-cut evil guys left and right, and enjoy being called "paragon/hero" while doing nothing special, I have no problem with it :smallsmile:. But I feel you might be missing out.


"Nice" can turn "Mean" fast! So...
Note to the wise: Get the pizza toppings right!

No anchovies, no artichokes or pineapple. Thaaaaank you!

:smallwink:

[goto124]

...if a paladin executes a man because he "pings" as "evil" without giving it a thought without further proof of him acting evil - is he still a paladin?

But the man wouldn't have pinged evil if he didn't act evil!

[Lacco]

But the man wouldn't have pinged evil if he didn't act evil!

Blame my poor knowledge of D&D, but is that a fact or just a opinion...?

[goto124]

Blame my poor knowledge of D&D, but is that a fact or just a opinion...?

Depends, because DnD alignment is weird.

It's why I didn't elaborate further - even I'm not sure D: Which makes it an opinion I guess.

The "a creature could be born Evil without actually doing anything" argument has been brought up a few times in other threads already. I personally figured that if a creature is born Evil, it's literally made of Evil or somesuch, and thus cannot do anything other than evil anyway.

If the creature isn't literally made of Evil, then its Evil alignment is due to performing Evil deeds. Another issue is that, maybe, the Evil deeds consists of e.g. robbing from homes or a series of other actions that are bad but not bad enough to warrant outright killing (murder?).

[Florian]

Blame my poor knowledge of D&D, but is that a fact or just a opinion...?

"Detect Evil" has three distinct levels to it. You can observe an act and see if it pings, you can look for an aura and see if it pings or you can look for the overall alignment of a person and see if it pings.

It´important to note that only people really dedicated to their evil ways (5 HD/levels+) actually show up, unless they´re dedicated to a greater evil (See Cleric and their Aura), which counts as being worse, despite individual justifications.

So in your typical fantasy town, it´s unlikely that even the iconic "Evil Merchant" would ping unless you´re using Detect Evil to observe an individual act or he´s deeply set to his evil ways. That differentiates "Everyday/Casual Evil" from "Dedicated Evil".

That´s when the parts about actual juristical laws and judgement calls come in.

"Evil" above that level is different, as it´s deeply set into it´s ways and is above mundane laws.

So strictly speaking, you won´t find out who´s a small-time criminal or steals because of hunger, but you´ll spot the local mafia don.

Smite Evil is a different beast entirely as that has to do with judgment...

[goto124]

Smite Evil is a different beast entirely as that has to do with judgment...

What do you mean, it's not a better Detect Evil that isn't fooled by alignment-hiding spells?

[AMFV]

So strictly speaking, you won´t find out who´s a small-time criminal or steals because of hunger, but you´ll spot the local mafia don.

Actually since Nondetection is a level 2 spell and lasts all day, you probably won't find the mafia don, just a perfectly reputable businessman, who's never been convicted (despite 47 arrests). Most evil people of over 5 HD that exist in polite society would probably have ways of disguising it.

[8BitNinja]

What do you mean, it's not a better Detect Evil that isn't fooled by alignment-hiding spells?

It isn't that? Does that mean that I'm a bad paladin?

[RedMage125]

But the man wouldn't have pinged evil if he didn't act evil!
Not entirely true. Alignment is a grossly oversimplified abstraction of one's general outlooks and beliefs, and is reinforced (or changed) through action, change only occurring when actions more in keeping with a different alignment are so consistent that they reflect an actual change in outlook (in mechanical terms of 3e D&D, this is to be a period of no less than a week of in-game time, as per DMG page 134).

To wit, a barkeep may be Neutral Evil simply because he's a selfish, miserly old man. He doesn't commit overt acts of evil. He's never murdered anyone. He may keep something valuable that he's found, but he doesn't steal because he's a coward. He waters down the ale he serves to make his supplies last longer, because he cares more about his bottom line that his customers' satisfaction. He has no one in his life that he cares for, and only wants to be left alone and make money. He would still ping as a "Faint" aura of evil on a detection spell.

Depends, because DnD alignment is weird.

It's why I didn't elaborate further - even I'm not sure D: Which makes it an opinion I guess.

The "a creature could be born Evil without actually doing anything" argument has been brought up a few times in other threads already. I personally figured that if a creature is born Evil, it's literally made of Evil or somesuch, and thus cannot do anything other than evil anyway.
Mostly right, with the caveat that there's that 0.001% chance that a creature made of evil (such as a demon or devil) might be able to act contrary to its nature and change alignment. The oft-vaunted succubus paladin is an example. However, it is worth noting that said paladin is still "made of evil", as she is an outsider with the Chaotic and Evil subtypes. Which only means that she'd suffer from a Holy Smite, Unholy Blight, Chaos Hammer and Dictum...sucks to be her. Also when she dies, her essence would return to the Abyss and make a new (probably Chaotic Evil) succubus.


If the creature isn't literally made of Evil, then its Evil alignment is due to performing Evil deeds. Another issue is that, maybe, the Evil deeds consists of e.g. robbing from homes or a series of other actions that are bad but not bad enough to warrant outright killing (murder?).
Quite correct. And you are on the track to one of the greatest truths about alignment...
ALIGNMENT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE BAROMETER OF ACTION OR AFFILIATION.

That Neutral Evil bartender? He's committed no crimes. A paladin who kills him because "he detected as Evil" is likely going to fall from grace (since he was an unarmed civilian and innocent of any wrongdoing), and is CERTAINLY going to be convicted of murder.

Your example of a thief, too. A paladin should bring him to authorities (or teach him the error of his ways and let him go, if forgiveness is the virtue of the day). But outright killing him would be murder.


"Detect Evil" has three distinct levels to it. You can observe an act and see if it pings, you can look for an aura and see if it pings or you can look for the overall alignment of a person and see if it pings.

It´important to note that only people really dedicated to their evil ways (5 HD/levels+) actually show up, unless they´re dedicated to a greater evil (See Cleric and their Aura), which counts as being worse, despite individual justifications.
I don't know where you're getting these numbers from. You seem to be referencing 3.x rules, but when I look at the chart, you are WAY off. Also what do you mean by "observe an act and see if it's evil"? There's nothing about that in the RAW of any edition of D&D. The spell detects the alignment of creatures and magic items (or spell effects in place).

ANYTHING with an evil alignment, even a 1 HD commoner, will register as a "Faint" evil aura. And non-cleric, non-outsider, non-undead individuals don't even register as "Moderate" auras until 10 HD.

Important to note is that Evil outsider means all outsiders withe evil alignments OR the Evil subtype. That Succubus paladin? Strong Evil Aura and Strong Good aura (weird, huh?).

More fun facts, look at the cleric ability that mentions his aura. Clerics have a strong aura of their deity's alignment, not their own. So a level 9 Lawful Evil cleric of Wee Jas (Lawful Neutral god) has a Strong Law aura, but only a Faint Evil one. Contrariwise, an 11th level Lawful Neutral cleric of Bane (LE god), who believes only in authority and power, and does not commit evil acts, will have an Overwhelming aura of Evil when detected.

And you will note that the line for Undead does not say "evil undead". The magicks that animate an undead creature are, in and of themselves, objectively evil. A vampire, turned against his will, who refuses to kill people and is holding onto his Good alignment? He detects as Evil. A lich who just wants to be left alone to his studies, and doesn't like hurting people? Still detects as Evil.


So in your typical fantasy town, it´s unlikely that even the iconic "Evil Merchant" would ping unless you´re using Detect Evil to observe an individual act or he´s deeply set to his evil ways. That differentiates "Everyday/Casual Evil" from "Dedicated Evil".

That´s when the parts about actual juristical laws and judgement calls come in.

"Evil" above that level is different, as it´s deeply set into it´s ways and is above mundane laws.
While I agree about where and how jurisdictional law comes in, everything else you are saying is....wtf...

I don't know if you've just played with some houserules for so long, or if you are playing a different system that is not D&D, but so much about what you said is wrong as far as the RAW. Since you've most closely hinted at 3.x rules, I'm going to assume you mean those, in which case you CANNOT use the Detect Evil spell to "observe an act". You can't "detect" the measure of evil of an action, only a creature or object. The closest you come is the rules for a "Lingering Aura". If a 15th level caster used a spell with the Evil descriptor (let's say he summoned a demon), by the RAW, the evil aura from that spell would linger for 1d6x10 minutes. That's the closest you get to observing the evil of an action.

How "deeply set in their ways" a person would be is reflected in their alignment. If they are otherwise a good person who occasionally does something selfish, they may be Neutral, or heck, even Good, depending on the nature of what they do and how they feel about it. The PHB says a Lawful Good person could have a greedy streak that occasionally prompts them to take things that are not theirs. Someone who is consistently doing Evil things, even minor evil, like lying and stealing, who is completely at ease with what they do is probably Evil in alignment. Just because someone is Evil, however, doesn't make them a mustache-twirling villain.

You could have a Lawful Evil ruler who's a great king. Leads his nation into prosperity and is beloved by all, but inside he's heartless and cold. He enjoys personally attending the torture and execution of those who are actually convicted of crimes against the state (by a fair court of law). He's undoubtedly Evil. But he's the lawful ruler of the realm, what he does causes the realm to prosper (and him, too, by virtue of taxes), and he's more likely to be a patron to a group of Good-aligned adventurers than a villain. Those goblinoids massing an army on the border? He wants them gone. Local baron's daughter abducted? This king will help pay the reward, he wants to encourage loyalty in his vassals. He wants order in his kingdom, because he benefits from it. He understands that he benefits from patronizing "heroes" publicly, and the quests he sends them on are for the benefit of all, but he, as a person, is still Evil.

Alignment, like I said, is not an absolute barometer of action or affiliation.


So strictly speaking, you won´t find out who´s a small-time criminal or steals because of hunger, but you´ll spot the local mafia don.
If you only steal some food to feed yourself or your family, that's not even an evil act, it's a Neutral one. If the small-time thief is evil in alignment, he probably steals more than just food. And he steals for his own benefit. After all, Robin Hood stole all the time, more than just food, and he's credited as Chaotic Good.


Smite Evil is a different beast entirely as that has to do with judgment...
I don't even know what you're saying here. Smite Evil, Detect Evil, Holy Smite, all these things use the EXACT SAME barometer of objective definition of Evil that the rest of the D&D cosmos uses.

Actually since Nondetection is a level 2 spell and lasts all day, you probably won't find the mafia don, just a perfectly reputable businessman, who's never been convicted (despite 47 arrests). Most evil people of over 5 HD that exist in polite society would probably have ways of disguising it.
A very good point.

[goto124]

I honestly didn't like the succubus paladin thing. Felt like it was for purposes of "look a being made of Evil... doing Good!".

I still think Detect Evil should be replaced by Smite Evil with a rolled-up bath towel.

[2D8HP]

I still think Detect Evil should be replaced by Smite Evil with a rolled-up bath towel.
SNAP! Evil?

[OldTrees1]

I honestly didn't like the succubus paladin thing. Felt like it was for purposes of "look a being made of Evil... doing Good!".

If it makes it easier, consider it as an emergent property for realities where Free Will is a necessary condition for Moral Agency. If Free Will is required for the capacity to be Good, then the capacity to be Evil is required for the capacity to be Good (and vice versa).

[8BitNinja]

I honestly didn't like the succubus paladin thing. Felt like it was for purposes of "look a being made of Evil... doing Good!".

I still think Detect Evil should be replaced by Smite Evil with a rolled-up bath towel.

Or just use a merciful weapon

[RedMage125]

If it makes it easier, consider it as an emergent property for realities where Free Will is a necessary condition for Moral Agency. If Free Will is required for the capacity to be Good, then the capacity to be Evil is required for the capacity to be Good (and vice versa).

That only applies to mortals, though, right? What about angels?

[AMFV]

That only applies to mortals, though, right? What about angels?

I think that at least in 3.5 (where that example exists), the rules are relatively silent on this issue. I would assume that if Devils such as Asmodus can fall and become the embodiment of evil, then the reverse might also be possible. But as far as I am aware there is no official commentary on that matter, save for in the example cited, and the section of the BoED where it states that killing fiends for any reason is always good.

This suggests to me that since there's some clear dissonance in the rules, you'd probably have to make a call based on the cosmology of your particular setting. But which direction would make the most sense likely depends on your setting and it's associated cosmology.

[goto124]

That only applies to mortals, though, right? What about angels?

My personal theory that due to magic/way the world works/etc, there are creatures intelligent enough to make complex plans that fulfill their objectives, but none of whatever is required for moral understanding.

[OldTrees1]

That only applies to mortals, though, right? What about angels?

No. It would apply to both or neither. There is no special pleading.

If reality requires Free Will for Moral Agency then both mortals and angels would need Free Will or else not have Moral Agency(and thus have no moral character). On the other hand if reality does not require Free Will for Moral Agency, then it would not require mortals nor angels to have Free Will or else lack Moral Agency.

So in a world where Moral Agency requires Free Will you could have angels that lack Free Will, but they would be unaligned servants of Good rather than Good beings themselves.

[Max_Killjoy]

No. It would apply to both or neither. There is no special pleading.

If reality requires Free Will for Moral Agency then both mortals and angels would need Free Will or else not have Moral Agency (and thus have no moral character). On the other hand if reality does not require Free Will for Moral Agency, then it would not require mortals nor angels to have Free Will or else lack Moral Agency.

So in a world where Moral Agency requires Free Will you could have angels that lack Free Will, but they would be unaligned servants of Good rather than Good beings themselves.

I've seen it claimed that "angels" (or whatever beings) are "good by their inherent nature".

However, as my understanding of morality is based partially on intent, it's hard for me to see a being without free will, and thus without intent, as "good".

[Koo Rehtorb]

Imagine a morally repugnant act that you, personally, have absolutely no desire to perform. Would you say that lacking that desire means you have no free will?

Angels would be like that, but with no desire to perform any morally repugnant act.

[Max_Killjoy]

Imagine a morally repugnant act that you, personally, have absolutely no desire to perform. Would you say that lacking that desire means you have no free will?

Angels would be like that, but with no desire to perform any morally repugnant act.

"No desire" and "no choice" are not the same thing.

[Koo Rehtorb]

But functionally the same in terms of results.

[Max_Killjoy]

But functionally the same in terms of results.

Dying in your sleep and being pushed out the window of a skyscraper also have the same result.

So flipping what?

[Koo Rehtorb]

So how would you distinguish between angels physically not being able to perform evil acts and angels simply having no desire to perform evil acts?

[OldTrees1]

I've seen it claimed that "angels" (or whatever beings) are "good by their inherent nature".

However, as my understanding of morality is based partially on intent, it's hard for me to see a being without free will, and thus without intent, as "good".

If by Good you mean their Moral Character resulting from their Moral Agency is Good, then they follow the rules that reality has for Moral Agency including if Free Will is a prerequisite or not.

I've seen it claimed that "Humans are Moral Agents by their inherent nature". I don't necessarily agree with that claim since some traits that might be relevant to Moral Agency are only almost always found in humans. But if all the necessary conditions for Moral Agency were inherent parts of human nature, then Humans would be Moral Agents by their inherent nature.


Imagine a morally repugnant act that you, personally, have absolutely no desire to perform. Would you say that lacking that desire means you have no free will?

Angels would be like that, but with no desire to perform any morally repugnant act.

If you are speaking of a being with the ability to choose freely but remains consistent in their choices, such a being has Free Will.

Since most people imagine themselves as beings with the ability to choose freely (regardless of whether humans actually have Free Will or not), I presume your thought experiment assumes beings with the ability to choose freely.

However inherent in the claim that a being can choose freely is that the being could have chosen one of the other options. So if we are imaging Angels as beings with Free Will, then it stands to reason that an Angel choosing evil is merely unexpected rather than inconceivable.



However goto124 mentions one of the rarer consistent positions

My personal theory that due to magic/way the world works/etc, there are creatures intelligent enough to make complex plans that fulfill their objectives, but none of whatever is required for moral understanding.
If I am reading this correctly (please correct me if I am not!):
Rather than use a reality where Moral Agency does not require Free Will or use a reality where outsiders lack Free Will, goto124 decided to have outsiders with Free Will but still unable to make moral choices. Under this system those creatures would still have null moral character so it might not be for everyone, but it avoids the fallen angel/risen demon by essentially rendering all outsiders unaligned in the moral context (they would still be aligned in an allegiance context) but does so in a way that retains their Free Will and consequences thereof.

[goto124]

If I am reading this correctly (please correct me if I am not!):
Rather than use a reality where Moral Agency does not require Free Will or use a reality where outsiders lack Free Will, goto124 decided to have outsiders with Free Will but still unable to make moral choices. Under this system those creatures would still have null moral character so it might not be for everyone, but it avoids the fallen angel/risen demon by essentially rendering all outsiders unaligned in the moral context (they would still be aligned in an allegiance context) but does so in a way that retains their Free Will and consequences thereof.

Sounds about right. To be honest, it's a bit confusing, but I came up with an idea I want to put out:

Imagine a simple computer game. Let's say, Super Mario (http://www.bumario.com/free-mario/Free_Mario_428159.png). What can you do in that game? Not much. You jump about, stomp goombas, lose a few lives, and save the princess. You do get to choose where to walk or jump to (with limitations), whether to stomp on a goomba or walk into one and lose a life, etc. But the nature of the universe - the mechanics of the game - itself is a huge limitation. You can't choose to talk to the goomba, or walk in a direction not accounted for by the game. Well you could choose to do nothing, but that's literally doing nothing for your entire life.

Doesn't have to be Super Mario. Could be a point-and-click adventure game, or StarCraft, or League of Legends. Any game that's linear but still has strategy. If we go by the LoL example (disclaimer: only), there's not much you can do there either. Your purpose is to destroy the enemy's base. There're many different complex strategies to go about it, but your goal is always the same - destroy the enemy's base. You can't diplomance the enemy, or set up trade routes. You can choose what hero to use, which lane to focus on, what items to buy.

Let's say this computer game is the way the mind of an angel/demon works. The mechanics of the game don't allow for much in the way of a differing morality other than the kind it's already programmed for. There's still a lot of space as to how the angel/demon comes up with different ways to achieve the same goal, but it's always the same goal.

[AMFV]

This is all kind of a moot point, since it virtually every lore that has angels (All editions of D&D included). There is always at least one example of an angel that falls or becomes evil. Suggesting that angels have moral character of some sort. Now many mythologies have angels who have differing rules of morality. or different moral systems than the main folks do, which creates a slightly different system. It's also arguable that angels are less likely to fall, but after all if an Angel can fall, then cannot one be likewise redeemed?

If anything Asmodus (in D&D) or Morgoth (in Tolkien) or any number of examples I am not allowed to list, show that Angels can certainly fall in almost every conceptualization of Angels. So I would suggest that the interpretation of them as computer programs is probably a little bit too narrow since even the limited evidence we have backs the moral character of the beings.

As far as free will being inherent to morality. That's a complex question. I would argue that a being that has no free will would not have morality as we currently perceive it, but that would not prohibit them from being good or evil. Particularly in a system like D&D, where good and evil are cosmic forces. If we define good and evil differently then it shifts up how that would work.

A lot of that has to do with us having a moral system based on intention vs. one based on action. And if the moral system makes adjustments for a choice that is the default one or not. And most moral systems approach these issues very differently. I would suggest in D&D, morality being a cosmic force, would suggest that intent is not the only factor in morality, and an Angel could be good, even supposing that they have no choice in the matter (although evidence suggests that they do).

[OldTrees1]

As far as free will being inherent to morality. That's a complex question. I would argue that a being that has no free will would not have morality as we currently perceive it, but that would not prohibit them from being good or evil. Particularly in a system like D&D, where good and evil are cosmic forces. If we define good and evil differently then it shifts up how that would work.

A lot of that has to do with us having a moral system based on intention vs. one based on action. And if the moral system makes adjustments for a choice that is the default one or not. And most moral systems approach these issues very differently. I would suggest in D&D, morality being a cosmic force, would suggest that intent is not the only factor in morality, and an Angel could be good, even supposing that they have no choice in the matter (although evidence suggests that they do).

Oh yeah it is a complex question! You might have noticed I skipped past it with wording like "If reality has Free Will as a necessary condition for Moral Agency" rather that claiming one way or the other.

As far as trying to answer the question, a useful prior question is "What do we mean by Good?" (which is completely different from "What makes something Good?"). For me "Good is the option or options we ought to choose when given a choice of moral significance". Such a conceptualization of Good renders Moral choice to only exist in the case of Free Will (more than once option) or the Trivial case (only 1 option which is always moral by definition). So while my conceptualization of Good does allow for Deterministic Moral Agents, all such beings are inherently and trivially Good (which obviously rules out Deterministic Evil Outsiders).

Other answers to "What do we mean by Good?" can result in different conclusions to "Is Free Will necessary for Moral Agency?".

[veti]

This is all kind of a moot point, since it virtually every lore that has angels (All editions of D&D included). There is always at least one example of an angel that falls or becomes evil. Suggesting that angels have moral character of some sort. Now many mythologies have angels who have differing rules of morality. or different moral systems than the main folks do, which creates a slightly different system. It's also arguable that angels are less likely to fall, but after all if an Angel can fall, then cannot one be likewise redeemed?

Merely because there exist several mythologies in which angels fall, doesn't prove that there is something inherent in the concept of "angels" that means they must be capable of it. Particularly since the examples you cite both borrow from a common ancestor, which is the example you don't cite.

But the idea of angels "falling" comes from a very-non-D&D-like cosmology, in which Good and Evil are not opposing forces of similar kind. The story of Asmodeus was always awkwardly bolted on to D&D, without much regard for coherence, and it simply doesn't fit the rest of the cosmology. If Good and Evil alike are both part of the same ineffable Great Wheel, then the idea that evil is defined by its relation to good - specifically, as the denial of good - makes no sense. And with that idea goes the entire logic of the "falling angel".


Oh yeah it is a complex question! You might have noticed I skipped past it with wording like "If reality has Free Will as a necessary condition for Moral Agency" rather that claiming one way or the other.

Can you define either "free will" or "moral agency", without using circular logic? (By "circular logic" I mean this sort of thing:)


As far as trying to answer the question, a useful prior question is "What do we mean by Good?" (which is completely different from "What makes something Good?"). For me "Good is the option or options we ought to choose when given a choice of moral significance".

Then you have defined "good" in terms of the equally vague term "ought". Now you need to define "ought", without (of course) introducing more undefined terms such as "should". (I also suspect there'll be more circularity in "moral significance", but I don't think we're in a position to assign any meaning to that yet.)

[goto124]

So I would suggest that the interpretation of them as computer programs is probably a little bit too narrow since even the limited evidence we have backs the moral character of the beings.

It's called glitching and hacking :smalltongue:


I would argue that a being that has no free will would not have morality as we currently perceive it, but that would not prohibit them from being good or evil. Particularly in a system like D&D, where good and evil are cosmic forces. If we define good and evil differently then it shifts up how that would work.

That's how I see it as well. Good and Evil in the fantasy world are different from good and evil IRL, just because they can literally exist in the former.

[8BitNinja]

That's how I see it as well. Good and Evil in the fantasy world are different from good and evil IRL, just because they can literally exist in the former.

Define exist. Do you mean take physical manifestation or be in reality.

With the fantasy world, I mean the world 's reality

[OldTrees1]

Can you define either "free will" or "moral agency", without using circular logic? (By "circular logic" I mean this sort of thing:)

Then you have defined "good" in terms of the equally vague term "ought". Now you need to define "ought", without (of course) introducing more undefined terms such as "should". (I also suspect there'll be more circularity in "moral significance", but I don't think we're in a position to assign any meaning to that yet.)

If we require all words to be defined and require none of those definitions are circular, then we either have a contradiction or an infinite number of words. A trivial proof is to take a chain of words that define each other in a linear manner, and then try to define the first word in that chain. You can either do so by making a circular definition or by adding a word. If you choose to add a word the problem begins anew.

As such I use "Ought" as an undefined/circularly defined word by which I define the rest of the words I use in moral contexts.

A choice with at least one "Ought" option is a Moral Choice
Good is choosing one of the "Ought" options in a Moral Choice
Moral Agency is the ability to make Moral Choices
Free Will is the ability to choose between multiple options in a choice (Note that this word was not defined by "Ought". Not all discussion of Free Will is in a moral context.)
Sidenote: I currently am using choice to include 1 option choices(like under Determinism). I am conflicted on whether "choice" should include or exclude such 1 option choices.

[Florian]

But the idea of angels "falling" comes from a very-non-D&D-like cosmology, in which Good and Evil are not opposing forces of similar kind. The story of Asmodeus was always awkwardly bolted on to D&D, without much regard for coherence, and it simply doesn't fit the rest of the cosmology. If Good and Evil alike are both part of the same ineffable Great Wheel, then the idea that evil is defined by its relation to good - specifically, as the denial of good - makes no sense. And with that idea goes the entire logic of the "falling angel".


I´m pretty much a fan of how Golarion updated the Great Wheel and how things are handled there.

Here, the multiverse has a beginning and an end and all things were actually spawned from the Maelstrom (this replaces Limbo), the primal chaos, while the Abyss will swallow all of creation in the end, being the downward spiral of ultimate mindless destruction.

Each plane is a living, sentient "creature" of its own and is made up entirely out of the souls/spiritual energy coming from the prime material plane. "Heaven" or "Hell" are not just places, they are actual and very powerful beings in their own right. (That is, amongst other things, the explanation of how a Paladin works. He has been chosen by Heaven to do his duty).

In the beginning, the distinction between the alignments was actually not clear at all and some of the major outsider races were living side by side. Angels and Devils were part of the same outsider race and internal tension led to a civil war, with Devils finding Hell and moving there entirely.

That is important as Asmodeus doesn´t just have the role of just being the Adversary here, but he´s part of the "Godclaw", the pantheon of the gods of civilization, along with some major LN and LG deities.

In this setting, it is entirely possibly to try and align your Paladin to the "Godclaw", or, more strangely, to Asmodeus himself and see how far you can go before "falling".

Edit: In this setting, the biggest and most powerful human empire, Cheliax, has aligned itself with Asmodeus/Hell on purpose to avert a civil war. Even there, they´re open to other religions and believes and followers of the other "Godclaw" deities are welcome, going even so far as tolerating a CG follower of Shelyn, the goddess of love.

In the end, the Skull Moon will dominate the sky until the dichotomy of Bahamut/Tiamat will make the multiverse rise again.

Edit 2: If you can find the time, read the setting, especially Inner Sea Gods. It´s less black and white than imagined and touches on some very good point in regard to this very topic, namely Paladins.

[Max_Killjoy]

But the idea of angels "falling" comes from a very-non-D&D-like cosmology, in which Good and Evil are not opposing forces of similar kind. The story of Asmodeus was always awkwardly bolted on to D&D, without much regard for coherence, and it simply doesn't fit the rest of the cosmology. If Good and Evil alike are both part of the same ineffable Great Wheel, then the idea that evil is defined by its relation to good - specifically, as the denial of good - makes no sense. And with that idea goes the entire logic of the "falling angel".


Incoherence is usually a problem in mashup / kitchen-sink settings -- which D&D settings often try to be.

Also, in the real world, deities and mythical cosmologies come down to faith, while in the typical D&D setting, it's a factual part of the universe... there's a lot more room for competing beliefs, than there is for competing facts.

[AMFV]

Incoherence is usually a problem in mashup / kitchen-sink settings -- which D&D settings often try to be.

Also, in the real world, deities and mythical cosmologies come down to faith, while in the typical D&D setting, it's a factual part of the universe... there's a lot more room for competing beliefs, than there is for competing facts.

I'm not sure I agree, there are often many competing theories about how to explain a particular factual phenomenon in the sciences. I don't see why similar issues might not occur in D&D. After all fiends rising or angels falling is extremely uncommon, so uncommon as to practically be unobservable. So people might disagree as to whether it was in reality actually possible, just as many scientists do in our world over phenomenon that are rarely observed and generally only theorized about.

[Florian]

I'm not sure I agree, there are often many competing theories about how to explain a particular factual phenomenon in the sciences. I don't see why similar issues might not occur in D&D. After all fiends rising or angels falling is extremely uncommon, so uncommon as to practically be unobservable. So people might disagree as to whether it was in reality actually possible, just as many scientists do in our world over phenomenon that are rarely observed and generally only theorized about.

I´m sorry to repeat myself, but again: Golarion. Do yourself the favor and read "Death´s Heretic" and "The Redemption Engine". This might be the most insightful novels about the nature of the multiverse and also double as the best Planescape novels around the block. It´s worth it.

[AMFV]

I´m sorry to repeat myself, but again: Golarion. Do yourself the favor and read "Death´s Heretic" and "The Redemption Engine". This might be the most insightful novels about the nature of the multiverse and also double as the best Planescape novels around the block. It´s worth it.

That one's on my list to read. For what it's worth, I tend to disagree pretty strenuously with Pathfinder's handling of alignment most of the time. It seems like they get wires crossed that makes the whole system more complicated and odder metaphysically than 3.5 did, in an effort to fix what they saw as problems with 3.5's alignment.

Although I can't speak to the novel's themselves, since I haven't read them, but again, generally I disagree with Paizo itself, although I'll admit that that's just me, and I can't think of the particulars of my issues with them, since that was a long time ago.

[8BitNinja]

We've gone from talking about paladins to morality to freewill to angels.

Wow

[Florian]

We've gone from talking about paladins to morality to freewill to angels.

Wow

Makes total sense.

What better roles models for a Paladin than an Archon/Angel?

And it pretty much showcases one of the lingering aspects in this discussion. Angels lack free will, being creatures of pure morality made manifest. Once they fall, they fall hard with no way back.

I´m always amused how that topic changed in-between editions. Especially Planescape was a bit too human about it. Anyone remembers the Arcanoloth in Sigil you actually had to ask yourself why this creature is evil?

Touching on what AMFV wrote earlier, what I actually do like with PF right now is that "alignments" are not absolute anymore. There´s a broad overlap in between the alignments and the dividing line is, again, back to Chaos vs. Law instead of Good vs. Evil.

Yes, I find it great that the most powerful force of Order in the setting is LN/LE and models itself after the forces of Hell. And yes, I find it great that even as a Paladin, you can join a Hellknight order and be part of that.

If you´ve been following the ongoing development, the whole story around the "Glorious Reclamation" is a splendid example for Paladindom and what the Code means and doesn´t mean.


That one's on my list to read. For what it's worth, I tend to disagree pretty strenuously with Pathfinder's handling of alignment most of the time. It seems like they get wires crossed that makes the whole system more complicated and odder metaphysically than 3.5 did, in an effort to fix what they saw as problems with 3.5's alignment.

Although I can't speak to the novel's themselves, since I haven't read them, but again, generally I disagree with Paizo itself, although I'll admit that that's just me, and I can't think of the particulars of my issues with them, since that was a long time ago.

How so? What they do is differentiate hard between the "pure concept" and how it works on the simple prime material plane. They really showcase the difference between the abstract and the concrete.

Read those novels. The protagonist has had his class, Inquisitor, and a Mythic Rank thrown upon him by a deity and is not very fond about it, being an atheist himself.

It really is refreshing to have a semi-mortal going up against a fully fledged outsider on certain issues, because the outsider simply can´t understand anymore what it means to be human.

[OldTrees1]

We've gone from talking about paladins to morality to freewill to angels.

Wow

Well, the Moral Agency of Angels is a stand in for if there can be non-Evil Fiends which is directly applicable to how the Paladin might have a Moral Duty to behave.

Aka: When does one destroy evil doers vs prevent them from doing evil vs redeem them? And how does this affect how we treat the various beings that are initially under suspicion of being evil doers? [warning: I meant these as rhetorical questions]

[Florian]

That, truly, is free will and how we chose to engage it.

[8BitNinja]

Makes total sense.

What better roles models for a Paladin than an Archon/Angel?

And it pretty much showcases one of the lingering aspects in this discussion. Angels lack free will, being creatures of pure morality made manifest. Once they fall, they fall hard with no way back.

I´m always amused how that topic changed in-between editions. Especially Planescape was a bit too human about it. Anyone remembers the Arcanoloth in Sigil you actually had to ask yourself why this creature is evil?

Touching on what AMFV wrote earlier, what I actually do like with PF right now is that "alignments" are not absolute anymore. There´s a broad overlap in between the alignments and the dividing line is, again, back to Chaos vs. Law instead of Good vs. Evil.

Yes, I find it great that the most powerful force of Order in the setting is LN/LE and models itself after the forces of Hell. And yes, I find it great that even as a Paladin, you can join a Hellknight order and be part of that.

If you´ve been following the ongoing development, the whole story around the "Glorious Reclamation" is a splendid example for Paladindom and what the Code means and doesn´t mean.



How so? What they do is differentiate hard between the "pure concept" and how it works on the simple prime material plane. They really showcase the difference between the abstract and the concrete.

Read those novels. The protagonist has had his class, Inquisitor, and a Mythic Rank thrown upon him by a deity and is not very fond about it, being an atheist himself.

It really is refreshing to have a semi-mortal going up against a fully fledged outsider on certain issues, because the outsider simply can´t understand anymore what it means to be human.

I actually like it when the dividing line is between good and evil.

But that's me though

[ShadowFighter15]

Just to try and get this back to the original topic...

One paladin character I've always enjoyed using was one that grew from the design concept of "a very un-Paladin-y Paladin". Making her a demon-blooded Tiefling was the first, easy bit. The next bit was making the most of how there's nothing in the paladin's code forbidding sex and made her an incorrigible flirt who hits on just about any attractive or interesting woman she meets (drawing the line at the smaller species - gnomes, halflings, dwarves, etc - as well as fellow tieflings who have hooves instead of feet; hooves can be sharp and she's not big on pain "in the act"). But to avoid potential issues; she's always clear, honest and upfront with her lovers, making sure that they know the relationship's not more than it is and that any such fun is always secondary to her duties as a paladin - if she has a choice between a passionate night with a pair of Ulfen (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Ulfen) bombshells and risking her life to stop a violent gang of thieves, she's grabbing her sword and introducing it to the crooks (though not without a few complains).

Plus, as a paladin of Lymnieris (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Lymnieris), I gave her a more long-term goal of setting up a... high-end escort service (and prayer-house to Lymnieris who, among other things, has willing prostitutes as part of his portfolio). Supplemented by also providing massages and just basic companionship (not sex; just talking). Or even having some of the girls (or guys; the place would cater to both) trained in combat; if someone's needing a companion for a fancy, high-society shindig, then they can hire someone from the service and they can act as both a date and a bodyguard. Plus the training would help them stay in shape, which always helps.:smalltongue:

I admit, that last part can lean the concept a bit closer to the adult than some GMs would be willing to have in their game, but I can easily chop that bit off and leave her as just a flirt.

[Florian]

I actually like it when the dividing line is between good and evil.

But that's me though

While I can understand that, I think exactly that point is very problematic to talk about.

To give you an example: Germany is roughly the size of Texas but right now has, EU non-residents included, roughly 1/3 of the total US population living in that space.

"Good" and "Evil" are luxury concepts to even think about when compared to these conditions and are practically devoid of meaning when compared to the other alignment axis and what they´re all about.

[8BitNinja]

Just to try and get this back to the original topic...

One paladin character I've always enjoyed using was one that grew from the design concept of "a very un-Paladin-y Paladin". Making her a demon-blooded Tiefling was the first, easy bit. The next bit was making the most of how there's nothing in the paladin's code forbidding sex and made her an incorrigible flirt who hits on just about any attractive or interesting woman she meets (drawing the line at the smaller species - gnomes, halflings, dwarves, etc - as well as fellow tieflings who have hooves instead of feet; hooves can be sharp and she's not big on pain "in the act"). But to avoid potential issues; she's always clear, honest and upfront with her lovers, making sure that they know the relationship's not more than it is and that any such fun is always secondary to her duties as a paladin - if she has a choice between a passionate night with a pair of Ulfen (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Ulfen) bombshells and risking her life to stop a violent gang of thieves, she's grabbing her sword and introducing it to the crooks (though not without a few complains).

Plus, as a paladin of Lymnieris (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Lymnieris), I gave her a more long-term goal of setting up a... high-end escort service (and prayer-house to Lymnieris who, among other things, has willing prostitutes as part of his portfolio). Supplemented by also providing massages and just basic companionship (not sex; just talking). Or even having some of the girls (or guys; the place would cater to both) trained in combat; if someone's needing a companion for a fancy, high-society shindig, then they can hire someone from the service and they can act as both a date and a bodyguard. Plus the training would help them stay in shape, which always helps.:smalltongue:

I admit, that last part can lean the concept a bit closer to the adult than some GMs would be willing to have in their game, but I can easily chop that bit off and leave her as just a flirt.

My friend and I came up with a joke paladin character named Chad the Barely Righteous. He first started as a joke about lay on hands, but escalated quickly.

[ShadowFighter15]

My friend and I came up with a joke paladin character named Chad the Barely Righteous. He first started as a joke about lay on hands, but escalated quickly.

That's a little like how my paladin got started, but more from the angle of "how can I play this idea straight?"... which is a bit ironic, considering she isn't.:smalltongue: