A question of allignment

[ChomZ]

hey, I was just thinking today about a paladins and how they have to be lawful good. But I was wondering just what that entailed?? For example, could I play a paladin who does everything for the greater good, but nothing for individual gain? (as in he would ignore the safety of individuals even to the point of not doing anything to save the fabled damsel, but would do anything at all to save a group larger than say... 10)

just sorta wanted some opinions on that

[PaladinBoy]

He'd fall. Hard. Ignoring the suffering of others is Evil, about to the point of killing them yourself. So much as doing it once violates the paladin code.

Although the type of cold-bloodedness it would take to just ignore a cry for help simply because it wasn't a major enough problem to take up your time or whatever? That doesn't seem Good at all; I wouldn't let an LG fighter do it without dropping to LN or LE.

[Townopolis]

*The hallway, once bathed in ambient white light, suddenly turns a bloody crimson as red warning lights activate and send rotating beams of crimson across the hall. Loud sirens are heard wailing from all directions. Danger!*

Really, this is going to open a huge can of worms, be prepared for a lot of debate and some very strong stances.

The short answer, of course, is talk to your DM and see what he'll let you get away with.

The long answer will be in the following posts, I am sure.

[horseboy]

Gotta agree with the "no". It's the little things that make the biggest differences.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd say yes, although being a paladin he still has to feel guilty about it.

[Arbitrarity]

We did this before, and decided that math doesn't work well with morality. You fall. Let's see if I can dig up the thread.
Psychopath Paladins (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36000)

[Yechezkiel]

hey, I was just thinking today about a paladins and how they have to be lawful good. But I was wondering just what that entailed?? For example, could I play a paladin who does everything for the greater good, but nothing for individual gain? (as in he would ignore the safety of individuals even to the point of not doing anything to save the fabled damsel, but would do anything at all to save a group larger than say... 10)

just sorta wanted some opinions on that

Sounds more LN to me.

[bugsysservant]

*Eager intake of breath* Debate!


He'd fall. Hard. Ignoring the suffering of others is Evil, about to the point of killing them yourself. So much as doing it once violates the paladin code.

Actually, that sounds more like neutral to me. Evil people cause suffering, neutral people just allow it to occur. (though he would still fall.)

Anyway


hey, I was just thinking today about a paladins and how they have to be lawful good. But I was wondering just what that entailed?? For example, could I play a paladin who does everything for the greater good, but nothing for individual gain? (as in he would ignore the safety of individuals even to the point of not doing anything to save the fabled damsel, but would do anything at all to save a group larger than say... 10)

just sorta wanted some opinions on that

Would he be willing to sacrifice a damsel if ten others would benefit (Such as letting one die, so that ten don't)? Because, depending on the situation, that could be good. Or would he not care about groups smaller than ten, meaning he would sit back and watch a preventable murder because only one person is dying? Because, again, that would be neutral, or (depending on the situation), evil. Good can make sacrifices, but they can't just abandon an innocent because he's alone.

[mostlyharmful]

it's almost impossible to say which way this would go, so many DMs see paladins as so many different things it would really be up to individual cases, no a very useful answer i know but the simple truth is that if you can talk your DM into it then it's good, if you can't its evil. either way it sounds lawful as anything, a complete denial of reality in favour of some random predetermined set of responses that become more and more unreasonable/obscure/ridiculous....... give me Chaos every thing!!!!!:smallbiggrin:

[Fishies]

What if only 9 people were dying?

[ChomZ]

The character I'm thinking about wouldn't so much as ignore the cries of a damsel, but, rather, would feel his (or her) time is better spent looking for a greater purpose. What I mean is he (or she) would rationalize his (from here on I'm using his as a-sexually as possible) not saving a crying damsel by saying, there may be a more important good deed that way *points* that will benifit a greater good! *heroic stance*

[Arbitrarity]

Meh, my old argument was "greatest good applicable", in every degree. If you do something evil, you better be repentant, and atone, 'cause you fall, even if it was for the "greater good".

If you think there is greater good to be done, i.e. ignoring any "small" problem, that's not really good.

[Tallis]

The character I'm thinking about wouldn't so much as ignore the cries of a damsel, but, rather, would feel his (or her) time is better spent looking for a greater purpose. What I mean is he (or she) would rationalize his (from here on I'm using his as a-sexually as possible) not saving a crying damsel by saying, there may be a more important good deed that way *points* that will benifit a greater good! *heroic stance*

As always it would be up to your DM, but in my game he'd fall.
If he knew 10 people were in mortal danger and left the damsel to go help then he'd be fine. Though he should be repentent.
Ignoring the damsel because there might be something he could do somewhere else is not good. I would call this LN, though he might very well believe himself to be LG.
If there is an immediate problem that he could help with and he's not pressed for time to to accomplish some greater good then he is bound by his code to help.

[Kurald Galain]

Oh. Yeah. Maybe I misread that.

If he has a choice between saving the damsel and saving 10 people, and chooses the latter, he should feel guilty because he's a pally, but not fall because he is working for the greater good.

If he has a choice between saving the damsel and not, because potentially he might do something better some place else, he's deliberately ignoring a cry for help for no good reason, which may be acceptable for LG characters depending, but certainly not for paladins.

[CasESenSITItiVE]

As always it would be up to your DM, but in my game he'd fall.
If he knew 10 people were in mortal danger and left the damsel to go help then he'd be fine. Though he should be repentent.
Ignoring the damsel because there might be something he could do somewhere else is not good. I would call this LN, though he might very well believe himself to be LG.
If there is an immediate problem that he could help with and he's not pressed for time to to accomplish some greater good then he is bound by his code to help.

lol i love it when characters have one alignment, and believe they are another (LE thinking taking over the world is for the greater good, for example)

[psychoticbarber]

Wow, the last thread like this that I was discussing in was only 2 weeks ago. It's deja vu all over again.

[Ulzgoroth]

Er, I don't recall an alignment thread about ignoring a clear, immediate problem in favor of the theory that surely there's something better to do with your time.

In any sane world, a paladin like that would fall. Now, if the world is so messed up that he's actually likely to find something more critical in the time he'd save by ignoring the 'minor' problem that's another thing. All characters, paladin or not, do make choices of that sort. But as a rule, someone crying for help indicates a situation substantially worse than average...

I don't grant that math doesn't work well with morality. What doesn't work with math, doesn't work. You may have to pick math other than the most obvious though. On a similar note, I don't think you can be repentant about a decision that you recognize as right.

[psychoticbarber]

Er, I don't recall an alignment thread about ignoring a clear, immediate problem in favor of the theory that surely there's something better to do with your time.


My apologies. I was referring to Paladin/alignment threads in general.


In any sane world, a paladin like that would fall. Now, if the world is so messed up that he's actually likely to find something more critical in the time he'd save by ignoring the 'minor' problem that's another thing. All characters, paladin or not, do make choices of that sort. But as a rule, someone crying for help indicates a situation substantially worse than average...

And with this I completely agree.

[Ulzgoroth]

My apologies. I was referring to Paladin/alignment threads in general.
Oh. Fair enough. They're like weeds. Kind of ugly, sometimes spiny, and spring up everywhere. But fun!

[psychoticbarber]

Oh. Fair enough. They're like weeds. Kind of ugly, sometimes spiny, and spring up everywhere. But fun!

Hahaha. Fair enough.

[ChomZ]

believe it or not, usually the group I play with cares very little about alignment, and indeed I have never played with a paladin..

I guess it's safe to assume that just because a paladin (or more probably fallen paladin) thinks they are acting in a lawful good manor does not mean they will keep (or indeed ever reach) that alignment?

[psychoticbarber]

I guess it's safe to assume that just because a paladin (or more probably fallen paladin) thinks they are acting in a lawful good manor does not mean they will keep (or indeed ever reach) that alignment?

I would say, and I think a number of people would agree with me, that in D&D, good and evil is much less relative than it is in the here and now. That being said, most people in both worlds have a hard time figuring out what's good and what's evil. Unfortunately for the Paladin, his Lawful Good code-ness is objective rather than subjective.

Willing commission of an evil action (regardless of whether or not the Paladin realizes it's an evil action), and you're in fallsville.

There are some tricky interpretations, including the wonderful one that says "If you don't know it's an evil action, you can't willingly commit an evil action." I would say this in reply: "A Paladin is always able to pray for guidance if unsure about her course of action."

I've probably sparked a 10-page debate, but hey, what's life without a little bit of fun argument?

[darkzucchini]

I think that you could make a case for saving the 10 people instead of the one if it was a choice between one or the other. But saving 10 peoples' lives while not trying the save the one person's life, well it seems kinda pointless to just save 10 people when you could save 11 people.

[horseboy]

Yeah, this falls under the "Mary Jane vs the bus load of people" situation. Who do you save? Everybody.

[bugsysservant]

What I never understood about paladins is why everyone seems to favor the "good" over the "lawful". For instance, if a paladin knew an innocent person was being tortured, but it was done by the government, would they (illegally) intervene? Logic says no, since breaking the law is very clearly chaotic, whereas allowing an action to occur is neutral, or less evil than direct action, either way the chaos is worse. But I don't know of a single paladin I have ever seen played who wouldn't try to stop the government.

[Thexare Blademoon]

What I never understood about paladins is why everyone seems to favor the "good" over the "lawful".

Because they fall for a single Evil act, but not for a single Chaotic act.

[Ulzgoroth]

Well, of course. There isn't a coherent meaning of lawful in which it forbids acting against the government.

[bugsysservant]

Because they fall for a single Evil act, but not for a single Chaotic act.

After rereading the paladin entry off the Srd, I see your point, but that still doesn't make much sense. While it says a paladin will fall if they willingly commit an evil act, it is directly preceded by the statement that a paladin will fall if they cease to be lawful good. How is committing a questionably evil act somehow more detrimental to a lawful good alignment than perpetrating an undeniably chaotic one.

Edit:

Well, of course. There isn't a coherent meaning of lawful in which it forbids acting against the government.
Ummm...what part of lawful am I missing here? Could it be someone who, oh I don't know, follows the laws? You know, those pesky suggestions enforced by big brother? And even if you believe lawful is more of an internal code, if that code consists of "always act good regardless of consequences," you're neutral at best, and probably chaotic.

[horseboy]

What I never understood about paladins is why everyone seems to favor the "good" over the "lawful". For instance, if a paladin knew an innocent person was being tortured, but it was done by the government, would they (illegally) intervene? Logic says no, since breaking the law is very clearly chaotic, whereas allowing an action to occur is neutral, or less evil than direct action, either way the chaos is worse. But I don't know of a single paladin I have ever seen played who wouldn't try to stop the government.

There's a line in the paladin's code that people tend to over look: "Legitimate Authority". For a paladin "legitimate authority" would be one that held justice as a central tenant. IF the government in question was "illegitimate" then yah, by all means summon up your magic high horse and bust him out. If it's a legit government then he'd have to utilize the legal system to either see to his better treatment or release. How he would do that would vary, either by defending him himself or by hiring him a really good mouth piece.

[bugsysservant]

There's a line in the paladin's code that people tend to over look: "Legitimate Authority". For a paladin "legitimate authority" would be one that held justice as a central tenant. IF the government in question was "illegitimate" then yah, by all means summon up your magic high horse and bust him out. If it's a legit government then he'd have to utilize the legal system to either see to his better treatment or release. How he would do that would vary, either by defending him himself or by hiring him a really good mouth piece.

If this were the case, I would have very little objections, but as it is not, and most paladins would be mobilizing before the first scream died away, I do. If the government was legitimate, but bureaucratic, and the person would be held in captivity for months, even years, few paladins would allow regulatory processes to run their course with minimum intervention. I acknowledge that my scenario was poorly conceived (I'm tired, and spent a grand total of half a second on it), but the point holds nonetheless. Virtually all paladins value good over law, despite the fact that both violate a lawful good alignment, the first tenant in the paladin code.

[Thinker]

I think the problem with paladins is the same as the problem with the alignment system in general. If you must have something resembling an alignment system, I must strongly recommend the Allegiance system found in d20 Modern. In the name of a cause people can do things that others may see as despicable or vile. I feel it gives greater opportunity for a more realistic roleplaying experience.

[Xuincherguixe]

By RAW, no.

Would I let it go? You betcha.

There's something about Paladins that has always struck me that they make better villains then heros. Getting in your face and telling you what your doing is wrong bla bla bla smite.

Really, grey guard in my mind wasn't a necessary class. Could have just been a variant (and after skimming the psychopath paladin thread I think it could have done without the condescending attitude to the 'champion' sort of Paladin)


I also actively encourage people to play pretty noble characters too. But I do not think that nobility should translate to game mechanics. Well, maybe but an entire class shouldn't be so limited. That's prestige class territory.

[Ulzgoroth]

After rereading the paladin entry off the Srd, I see your point, but that still doesn't make much sense. While it says a paladin will fall if they willingly commit an evil act, it is directly preceded by the statement that a paladin will fall if they cease to be lawful good. How is committing a questionably evil act somehow more detrimental to a lawful good alignment than perpetrating an undeniably chaotic one.
It isn't. That isn't the point. They fall automatically for doing evil. They also fall for going from LG to NG without doing any evil, but that doesn't happen the first time you commit a non-lawful act.

This is because Paladins are more Good-Evil aligned than Law-Chaos aligned. They smite evil, never chaos (except when people mis-designed the Grey Guard), detect evil, produce an exceptionally strong Good aura but only a normal-strength Law aura, and turn undead. They're Lawful exemplars of Good. Good exemplars of Law need not apply.

Ummm...what part of lawful am I missing here? Could it be someone who, oh I don't know, follows the laws? You know, those pesky suggestions enforced by big brother? And even if you believe lawful is more of an internal code, if that code consists of "always act good regardless of consequences," you're neutral at best, and probably chaotic.
No, it couldn't. It couldn't possibly. Because that would mean that no Lawful person has any principles whatsoever. One day, they'll apprehend an escaping slave and drag him back to his owner in chains. The next, they'll stop a man beating his servant. Why? Because they crossed a border.

I do agree that you can't use LG to mean 'I'm good, and also adhere to the tenets of goodness' or anything so vacuous, but it also doesn't mean 'if the king does it, it's got to be ok!'

[SMDVogrin]

Ummm...what part of lawful am I missing here? Could it be someone who, oh I don't know, follows the laws? You know, those pesky suggestions enforced by big brother?

Well, no, that's pretty obviously NOT the definition of a Lawful alignment in D&D.



Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.


Now, you tell me. Where does the term "Follow the laws" show there? Certainly, following the laws is part of "Respect Authority", but it's "respect", not "Blindly follow" authority.



"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.


Now, in a Paladin's case, they will demonstrate "obedience to authority". But that authority is, in most cases, the hierarchy of their own Order - NOT the government of whatever country they happen to be travelling through. They'll generally go along with that government - they respect authority, after all - but they are not bound to it's laws simply due to their alignment.



A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.


Again, nothing about requirements to obey the laws of the land.

[Diggorian]

For example, could I play a paladin who does everything for the greater good, but nothing for individual gain? (as in he would ignore the safety of individuals even to the point of not doing anything to save the fabled damsel, but would do anything at all to save a group larger than say... 10)

Yes to your general concept, absolutely. The greater good defended at personal sacrifice is definately a playable flavor of paladin. It sounds like a specifically Utilitarian paladin, which is interesting, but possible. The needs of the many often do outweigh the needs of the few; or the one. *makes Vulcan hand symbol* :smallamused:

Thing is a paladin shouldnt ignore any evil they witness or are made aware of. Not because to do so would be evil, but because they're commanded to punish evil and help the helpless. If it's an either/or scenario, there's nothing wrong with with choosing the numerically greater good. Determining this may not be esy though.

[Tallis]

Ummm...what part of lawful am I missing here? Could it be someone who, oh I don't know, follows the laws? You know, those pesky suggestions enforced by big brother? And even if you believe lawful is more of an internal code, if that code consists of "always act good regardless of consequences," you're neutral at best, and probably chaotic.

This part:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

[bugsysservant]

Wow...You have totally missed my point. My scenario was merely meant to indicate a prevalent, illogical trend amongst paladins, but you have somehow turned it into a strawman about my views on law and chaos.

Allow me to reiterate. I believe that the rules surrounding the paladin code are idiotic, because they favor the good vs. evil spectrum over the law vs. chaos, despite the fact that acting chaotically should logically cause a paladin to fall as much as acting evilly. Unfortunately this is not the case. Period.

Now before you attack my views on law and chaos again, allow me to give a more adequate outline. I believe law represents adherence to an internalized moral code. Chaos is acting randomly and rationalizing later. Neutrality involves the presence of a moral code which is somewhat flexible, but can govern his actions nonetheless.

In the example I gave the paladin would be acting in a non lawful fashion because his internalized moral code corresponded with that of the government, meaning that to rush in and save the victim he would have to adjust his personal code to incorporate actions he would not normally take, i.e. breaking the laws of a valid government. This is a neutral act.

The reason people associate lawful alignments with following the laws, is because the moral code people internalize tends to correspond with the environment in which they were raised. This need not be the case, for example one could have a value that forced him to accelerate whenever a light turned red, but the rarity of these generally means they aren't seen.

[SMDVogrin]

Wow...You have totally missed my point. My scenario was merely meant to indicate a prevalent, illogical trend amongst paladins, but you have somehow turned it into a strawman about my views on law and chaos.

Allow me to reiterate. I believe that the rules surrounding the paladin code are idiotic, because they favor the good vs. evil spectrum over the law vs. chaos, despite the fact that acting chaotically should logically cause a paladin to fall as much as acting evilly. Unfortunately this is not the case. Period.


Well, that's nice, but I think Ulzgoroth did an excellent job of pointing out that Paladins IN ALL ASPECTS favor Good vs Evil over Law vs Chaos, and thus the rules involving their code of conduct favor that spectrum because the CHARACTER CONCEPT favors that spectrum.



This is because Paladins are more Good-Evil aligned than Law-Chaos aligned. They smite evil, never chaos (except when people mis-designed the Grey Guard), detect evil, produce an exceptionally strong Good aura but only a normal-strength Law aura, and turn undead. They're Lawful exemplars of Good. Good exemplars of Law need not apply.


So I'm really not sure why you think you haven't been answered.

[PaladinBoy]

Wow...You have totally missed my point. My scenario was merely meant to indicate a prevalent, illogical trend amongst paladins, but you have somehow turned it into a strawman about my views on law and chaos.

Allow me to reiterate. I believe that the rules surrounding the paladin code are idiotic, because they favor the good vs. evil spectrum over the law vs. chaos, despite the fact that acting chaotically should logically cause a paladin to fall as much as acting evilly. Unfortunately this is not the case. Period.

I do agree that the fact that a paladin orders his life and fights with honor are important parts of the paladin, and don't think the paladin should be breaking them at all. It might be true that a chaotic act is punished less severely by the gods, but the paladin has willingly sworn to follow the code. He doesn't care what the punishment will be; he doesn't want to violate it.


Now before you attack my views on law and chaos again, allow me to give a more adequate outline. I believe law represents adherence to an internalized moral code. Chaos is acting randomly and rationalizing later. Neutrality involves the presence of a moral code which is somewhat flexible, but can govern his actions nonetheless.

Interesting way of looking at it. I'm not sure I agree, but that definition will do, I guess.


In the example I gave the paladin would be acting in a non lawful fashion because his internalized moral code corresponded with that of the government, meaning that to rush in and save the victim he would have to adjust his personal code to incorporate actions he would not normally take, i.e. breaking the laws of a valid government. This is a neutral act.

I would say that if the paladin deserves his title, things like torture would be viewed as wrong and evil no matter who did them. He wouldn't be changing his personal code, just his personal opinion of his country.

That holds true even though breaking the law would normally show disrespect for authority. Here's an interesting quote about that:

"The person who breaks the law, and willingly accepts the punishment of imprisonment in order to arouse the public conscience over the law, is in fact showing the highest respect for the law."
-Martin Luther King Jr.

So is it really violating the "respect for authority" provision of the paladin's Lawful code to break the law? Depends on the circumstances.


As for a paladin that would ignore the needs of the few to save the many, I would be cautious about that. If you have a choice between saving 5 people and saving 10, then you should probably go for the 10. However, if you do that all the time in similar situations, then you will never save everyone, only most of them. And it's rarely an either-or choice...... most of the time, it will be possible to save 15 if you try. I don't believe the "no-win" situation where you have to make a choice between losing some or losing all is really that common........ If you act like every situation is like that, then a lot of people who you could have saved are going to die. If you only realize that afterward and act repentant, then you'd probably be fine, morals-wise. However, if you continue to ignore the few in favor of the all, and only realize afterward that you could have saved everyone, then you're not acting truly repentant...... you're making no effort to avoid making the same mistakes again and again. If you don't care that you could have saved more from the beginning, and rationalize it by saying that at least some are still alive, then IMHO that character has entirely the wrong attitude for a paladin.

[Jayabalard]

Allow me to reiterate. I believe that the rules surrounding the paladin code are idiotic, because they favor the good vs. evil spectrum over the law vs. chaos, despite the fact that acting chaotically should logically cause a paladin to fall as much as acting evilly. Unfortunately this is not the case. Period.Yes, we got that... False statement highlighted.

[mostlyharmful]

whenever i DM and whenever the game I'm in meets it's first Paladin i always root for the homebrew rule "Paladins can be any flavour of GOOD" boot out the lawful rubbish right from the start, make them holy warriors, like the character concept, not well meaning lawyers like the LG alignment makes so many of them. There's nothing wrong with playing a Qwibbling rule junkie with a Greatsword but to say (as DnD does implicitly) that that is morally supperior to a guy that wanders around trying to solve problems that he finds without a predetermined set of resposnses just seems daft to me.

[horseboy]

If this were the case, I would have very little objections, but as it is not, and most paladins would be mobilizing before the first scream died away, I do. If the government was legitimate, but bureaucratic, and the person would be held in captivity for months, even years, few paladins would allow regulatory processes to run their course with minimum intervention. I acknowledge that my scenario was poorly conceived (I'm tired, and spent a grand total of half a second on it), but the point holds nonetheless. Virtually all paladins value good over law, despite the fact that both violate a lawful good alignment, the first tenant in the paladin code.

Well, paladins have Charisma, diplomacy and sense motive for a reason. If it's that bureaucratic then that means he could try and persuade a senator, especially one known to himself have some sense of honour and/or integrity.