PDA

View Full Version : How Do You Play a Paladin?



USS Sorceror
2020-03-02, 08:16 PM
I’m making a new character for Pathfinder 2E because my current society character is too high of a level to play in most adventures. At first I was gonna play a cleric but I’ve been convinced by another player to play a champion, path2’s version of the Paladin. Champions can be of any good alignment, but because of the deity I picked for this character I have to be Lawful Good.
I’ve never played a paladin before, and I know there’s not one true way to play such a character. However, I trust this forum’s advice. How should I go about playing this character?
For reference, these are the tenets from the core rules:
You must never perform acts anathema to your deity or willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting of an evil spell.
You must never knowingly harm an innocent, or allow immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn’t force you to take action against possible harm to innocents at an indefinite time in the future, or to sacrifice your life to protect them.
You must act with honor, never taking advantage of others, lying, or cheating.
You must respect the lawful authority of legitimate leadership wherever you go, and follow its laws.

Lord Raziere
2020-03-02, 08:39 PM
Generally: just be reasonable, be helpful, do what you can and if your party ever actually needs to break the law, lie, cheat or steal remember your specialization and let the rogue handle it, your code does not apply to them and you should not hold the rest of your party to your rules. your codes a personal thing and should not get in the way of other players fun.

Peelee
2020-03-02, 08:41 PM
I ask myself, "what would Obi-wan Kenobi do?"

Living, Alex Guinness Kenobi.

Kelb_Panthera
2020-03-02, 09:01 PM
3e version for me.

While there's obviously some cultural variation in paladins between the various races and regions of a campaign world, they all have a few things in common when I play them.

Good before Law and measured justice against wrong-doing.

Whiile you are charged by the cosmic forces of good with finding and rooting out evil and injustice wherever you can, you are -not- judge, jury, and executioner for everything that pings on your evil-dar. In any society with a legitimate power structure, you defer to the rules of that society unless doing so will cause direct, irreversible harm to the innocent. If that would be the case though then, the law be damned, justice must prevail.

When you do find evil, you need to know how much before you act on it. 1/3 of humans are evil but only a fraction of that are guilty of the sort of evil that requires a good smiting. Be on your guard with such people but talk to them and ask around. If a shopkeeper is shafting his customers and laughing about it, a stern talking-to is much more appropriate than a sword in the gut. That said, when you find the less banal form of evil; cultists, fiends, marauders, etc; become the implacable bulwark and hammer of righteousness against it. Mercy is a virtue, it is not a requirement (unless you're exalted).

Finally, you're nobody's nanny and you're -supposed- to have a positive wisdom modifier. When it comes to the misdeeds of your allies, turn a blind eye unless it's an act of genuine evil. They'll have to answer for their actions when they meet their gods. Not everyone can stand on the straight and narrow path without faltering, not even all paladins. Unless you're actually in command or custody of them, you are not responsible for what others choose to do.

Beyond these commonalities, my paladins vary a lot.

Mongobear
2020-03-02, 10:22 PM
"They were sometime known as the twelve peers.

Now, historically, they were the foremost members of Charlemagne's court. Although, many of their most famous exploits are largely ficticious--Representing Christian martial supremacy over the Saracen hordes.

Well, my friend... THAT'S a Paladin."

--Noah Antwiller

OldTrees1
2020-03-03, 12:31 AM
Paladins are intimately familiar with the concepts of Moral, Amoral, & Immoral. Not only do they want to do the right thing, but that motivation is their Prime motivation.

So when I play a Paladin I ask them these questions:

1) What makes moral actions moral? What makes immoral actions immoral?
2) What are your moral failings? Which of them are you currently working on?
3) What ought you do here?

Different Paladins have different answers.

I know I am doing a good job RPing a Paladin when the Paladin starts to ask me those difficult questions.

paddyfool
2020-03-03, 03:23 AM
I ask myself, "what would Obi-wan Kenobi do?"

Living, Alex Guinness Kenobi.

Hide in a cave for a couple of decades? Die in the first episode of the story while lying to his student about that student's father? :P

Pleh
2020-03-03, 10:32 AM
I ask myself, "what would Obi-wan Kenobi do?"

Living, Alex Guinness Kenobi.


Hide in a cave for a couple of decades? Die in the first episode of the story while lying to his student about that student's father? :P

Sworn to service of the Council and defense of Democracy. Could Obi Wan be Paladin with Oath of the Crown?

Lord Torath
2020-03-03, 12:51 PM
I ask myself, "what would Obi-wan Kenobi do?"[/COLOR]How about, "What would Hinjo do?"

Or even better, "What would O'Chul do?" Read "How the Paladin Got his Scar (https://gumroad.com/l/ootsgdgu)" for more on this excellent Paladin.

Man_Over_Game
2020-03-03, 01:12 PM
Sometimes, the best way a Paladin can play with a group is as an opinionated moral compass, not as a rigid zealot with a "White Knight" complex.

Complain when your friends try to cheat their way out of problems. Refuse to do crimes, unless you're convinced it's for the greater good. Try to help people, when doing so doesn't hinder your ability to do a greater good. Even if you're somewhat against it, go along if only so that you can ensure that the least amount of damage is dealt.

That's it. Nobody wants someone who feels like a turncoat, even if they're a goody-two-shoes. Nobody wants someone who demands that everything be perfect constantly. Intra-party drama is only good when both sides change for a compromise. Otherwise, they'll be forced to play your game.

That's what gives Paladins a bad reputation: bad players, who don't acknowledge everyone else as equals or partners.

LibraryOgre
2020-03-03, 01:29 PM
Ask yourself, "What would Mr. Rogers Do?" Steve and/or Fred, take your pick. More often, Steve; Fred was a bit less likely to bash someone in the face with a shield, which needs to happen sometimes when Evil is real and present.

Seriously, as others have said, your code applies to you. This does not mean you should wink and nod and let everyone else get away with everything ("I'm going to go get some donuts. Anyone want something?"), but your job is not to make everyone do everything the best way, but to advocate for the best way, provide an example of the best way, and support things getting better. Law is the Means, Good is the Ends, and the Means must always serve the Ends, not the other way around. Remember, in AD&D, you could get around the occasional Chaotic act, but never an Evil one.

Law is structure and institutions, not just what's written down in a legal code; a legal code that has ceased to serve good ends needs to be changed, not simply abolished... you don't make things better with anarchy, but by building something that lasts and will provide mercy and justice.

When dealing with mortals, consider redemption. Some men, you just can't reach, but that doesn't mean you don't try. To quote Wonder Woman, "Don't kill if you can wound, don't wound if you can subdue, don't subdue if you can pacify, and don't raise your hand at all until you've first extended it." This can go out the window with real Evil, of course; demons don't change, and a lot of people won't Diana still killed Maxwell Lord when it came time.

USS Sorceror
2020-03-04, 12:27 AM
Thanks for the replies! A couple quick thoughts in response to them.
Since this character is for Pathfinder Society play I won’t really have to worry about my fellow PCs doing evil deeds. Therefore she’ll more likely lead by example. By virtue of her deity she will likely be diplomatic first but keep her weapon at the ready if necessary, which matches some of what I’m seeing here.
Additionally I see her as being a “team mom” who will slay any monster who strikes he “babies” (fellow PCs). I think it would be interesting to play a Paladin who is very protective/nurturing.

OldTrees1
2020-03-04, 01:17 AM
Additionally I see her as being a “team mom” who will slay any monster who strikes he “babies” (fellow PCs). I think it would be interesting to play a Paladin who is very protective/nurturing.

Nurturing the good in people is a wise way to move the world towards utopia.

Bulhakov
2020-03-04, 06:31 AM
“team mom”

Awesome if your friends agree with the role, but it might be worse if some decide to be "rebelious teens" :)
My advice is just to play the "moral compass" of a group and don't dive into "lawful stupid" territory (Warning! TV tropes link, may trigger a binge: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid)

Clistenes
2020-03-04, 07:26 PM
From my point of view, it is enough if you play your paladin as if they were a modern cop trying to capture a criminal, or a modern blue helmet soldier trying to keep peace in a war-torn region, or a modern soldier taking part in a war without breaking the Geneva Conventions... You don't have to be a martyr or a saint, just try to be civilized...

You don't have to pull out a holy book and start preaching to the captured bandits, or to offer yourself to be executed in place of a hostage... just do your job as a peacekeeper and protector in a civilized, righteous way...

Your average medieval dude may want to skin, eviscerate and/or burn alive the captured bandits... the paladin will fight (and kill) until they surrender, and afterwards he will keep them as prisoners without torturing them until he can hand them over to a legitimate judge who will give them fair trial.

ngilop
2020-03-05, 10:06 AM
Think "what would Optimus Prime do?"

Pop Culture peeps to think of when doing lawful good: Samurai Jack, Lone Ranger, Marge Gunderson, even Mr Feeny.

Dienekes
2020-03-05, 10:24 AM
Honestly, I just try to be the best I can.

Now I make certain to give my characters a flaw (all the best stories of chivalric knights involve them flailing then overcoming said flaw). But yeah as a whole, I just try to play a good person trying to navigate terrible circumstances.

Telwar
2020-03-05, 11:00 AM
Think "what would Optimus Prime do?"

Pop Culture peeps to think of when doing lawful good: Samurai Jack, Lone Ranger, Marge Gunderson, even Mr Feeny.

Optimus Prime is a very good example!

UnfavorableWit
2020-03-05, 12:17 PM
personally i always just took their oath and how might that paladin see what that oath would mean to them.

like what would a oath of vengeance paladin see as vengeance based on his background? do they play the long game or are they a loose cannon, do they see evil and rids it by measuring twice or do they cut three times at evil?

all i do know is that their background should shape how they act towards their oath as their own philosophies interpret what it means to be a paladin in their own eyes unless taught otherwise.

kyoryu
2020-03-05, 03:41 PM
Two fundamental rules.

1) You ARE your oath. You believe in your oath fully, and completely. You don't find it onerous, you think it's the only possible way to be. Breaking your oath is a betrayal of who you are. It's not something you keep while it's convenient, and it's not something you chafe against. If keeping those principles means something else bad happens, you're okay with that, because you see the principles as, in the long run, worth it.

2) You are not JUST your oath. You're an individual, with your own goals and desires that have nothing to do with paladin-ness. While your oath forms your moral center and your guidelines, it is not your motivation. You have things you like, people you love, people you hate. You have dreams, hopes, aspirations, and fears. You have likes and dislikes. You have a family and a history, and those are not marked "Paladin".

atanamis
2020-03-05, 11:21 PM
When playing any character with a strong focus, it is important to consider how the way you play your character impacts other players. The other players might enjoy tweaking the nose of your goody two shoed paladin, or they might find constantly having their actions second guessed to be annoying. Playing together with a group means finding a group dynamic that everyone finds fun. Over the first few sessions, how everyone plays their characters NEEDS to shift as you find that balance. And that's what a good paladin is. A character with a clear strong focus on their oath. This is something which is very important to them, but has to be important in a way that allows them to interact with the other characters in a way that is fun for all the players and game master.

Some player groups are able to handle inter-character conflict well and have it be part of the fun, many find it frustrating and potentially hurtful to player relationships. One of the best campaigns I played in had two of our characters consistently manipulating and hoarding loot from the other two. As players, we all knew what was happening and me and the player of the other "innocent" character thought it was hilarious when our characters consistently didn't pick up on the fact that our characters were being taken advantage of. But in other groups I have seen friends get into shouting matches because they didn't feel their character was being treated fairly. I think paladins tend to work best in groups where the players are willing to play well meaning characters who honestly want to help others. Then the paladin can be the kind of nurturing leader you describe.

If you do have players who "aim to be bad", playing your paladin like Shepherd Book (Firefly) can be a good model though. You don't approve the actions and won't participate in efforts you see as abusive, but as long as the general path isn't negative you can get along.

DataNinja
2020-03-05, 11:28 PM
The times that I've played a paladin, it's been a lead-by-example type. Note that this doesn't mean that you have to be a stick-in-the-mud, though. Mine was very much a 'charming rogue', putting that Charisma to use. He would drink heartily, carouse, and all that good stuff. (And making it clear that, yes, this is a one-night-stand that doesn't mean anything than he'll be leaving to go smite evil - Lawful Good means you're honest about that stuff!)

While your teammates might not be paragons, that's okay. The path of a paladin is hard. You can provide guidance, but trying to dictate a person's life will generally just make them push back. Show them the virtuous life, be the example to the world, the beacon to look up to. As long as your team isn't evil, you can hope that by doing good, some of that will rub off on them - maybe just because they're friends, and want to make you happy.

Peelee
2020-03-05, 11:34 PM
Hide in a cave for a couple of decades?
Lived in a house. Both the outside and inside are on-screen.

Die in the first episode of the story while lying to his student about that student's father?
Only considering the first movie, meaning he died at the end and only ever told Luke the truth.


:p


How about, "What would Hinjo do?"

Or even better, "What would O'Chul do?" Read "How the Paladin Got his Scar (https://gumroad.com/l/ootsgdgu)" for more on this excellent Paladin.
Also good.

NichG
2020-03-06, 07:32 AM
So, Paladins tend to be heavily stereotyped (both when played, and in how people view them when they hear 'such and such is going to play a paladin'). In that case, I think it can be useful to look at one's own assumptions about what a paladin 'must' be like, and find the assumptions you can flip around. That will give you this kind of constant background motivation to explore your own understanding of the possibilities and will help the character both be deeper and have the potential for growth. There's also something here about being 'as fair as possible' to the concept, but it's hard for me to phrase...

For example, in my case I have a bias that generally people who are of a Lawful alignment are motivated more strongly by aversion than attraction - that is, Lawfulness seems appealing to me when one 'wants to make sure they haven't made a mistake' versus someone who 'wants to make sure they made the best decision'; someone who wants to avoid wrongdoing more than they want to pursue positive change; etc. If I follow this line of thought, it leads to stodgy traditionalist severe conceptions of a paladin.

So if I wanted to play a paladin, I'd try to figure out the exact opposite motivation but with the same general end-point. That is, how could I imagine a character who had such a strong positive experience with regards to lawfulness and goodness (or their potential) that they're driven proactively to seek it and support it. Someone who doesn't follow their code because they'll be punished for breaking it, but who follows their code because doing so makes things better (for themselves, those they care about, others, the world, etc) in some kind of way that they can viscerally perceive or feel. Not just an abstract 'it is better if people do what they are supposed to' (which is just a repackaging of the fear of 'what if they didn't?!'), but something like seeing people be united in a transcendent moments where they finally received justice for a wrongdoing, or were able to come to a peaceful resolution of a quarrel, or unified a disparate people into a civilization by way of a common set of laws.

I'd try to make a paladin who is so strongly motivated towards this positive vision that every step brings themselves and others around them into alignment with this ideal of how good things could be - someone who leads by example, who inspires just on the basis of having a clear view of something others can't quite grasp or which seems out of the realm of the possible to them, etc. And I'd try to hold to that concept of a positive drive towards good rather than a negative drive away from evil in the details of all interactions between the paladin and others. E.g. punishing a criminal in isolation moves away from the fear that they may break the law again, but rehabilitating one (or allowing those who have been wronged to publically determine their punishment) are more 'moves towards' than 'moves away'. You could of course go very dark with this concept ('lets make an example of this wrongdoer, so others are spurred forward to righteousness') but I feel that sort of betrays the concept of being driven by positivity. That would, in essence, be what it looks like for this character to fall - where they were willing to make other people bring about their vision through fear and avoidance when their own inner motivations were to move towards a positive. And 'paladins fall' is another stereotype to be avoided, IMO.

So anyhow, that's what I might play if I were to play a paladin.

Morty
2020-03-06, 11:29 AM
Be brave, noble, protect the helpless, don't take the easy way out, don't take half-measures that compromise your sense of morality. The paladin code led to decades of furious overthinking, but I don't think it's really that complicated.

Segev
2020-03-06, 04:51 PM
When I played a paladin, he was kind, gentle, and friendly, with an easy sense of humor and a willingness to tease and be teased, but a sensitifity to avoid being mean about it. He wanted to see the good in everybody, even things his paladin senses told him were utterly evil. He would tolerate evil beings, but not evil acts, and would chastise - gently at first - those who misbehave. But if somebody or something pushed the line, and insisted they must engage in wickedness at the cost of innocents' suffering, he would intervene. Sadly, but resolutely.

That isn't to say he hated fighting. If it was to a non-lethal, non-permanent conclusion, he could enjoy such things as contests of strength and skill. But he hated doing harm that wasn't going to be swiftly aleviated, and though he was angry at times, he hated being so.

He's also the one with the white wyrmling cohort. The GM was lenient on alignment restrictions on cohorts to permit this. He spent a lot of time babysitting White Shadow's behavior, and White Shadow spent a lot of time convincing himself that he was acting in such a way because it was regal, and not because he'd be in trouble if he was malicious.

Waterdeep Merch
2020-03-06, 08:37 PM
A good-humored, commiserate hero. A grim-a-din has a habit of going Judge Dredd. You should be like the best depictions of Superman- honest, hopeful, helpful, willing to put yourself on the line to protect others. What others call corny naivete is in reality what gives you the strength to endure.

Smile and crack a corny joke every now and then. Tell your best dad jokes. Be a big lovable capital H Hero.

Jay R
2020-03-07, 06:09 PM
The biggest mistake most people make in playing a paladin is forgetting that loyalty is a virtue, as important as any other.

Be loyal to the party. These are your allies and partners; they are not your slaves. Your oath is binding on you alone.

Any moral dilemma cause by your oath is your dilemma. You must solve it yourself, not demand that the party change who they are to eliminate your problem.

Erik the Green
2020-03-08, 03:58 AM
First, on the meta level, here's a thought:

What if the hypothetical paladin is with the party because they asked for one? That is to say, in the context of a relatively good and mostly well-run kingdom, a party of good (or at least neutral with standards) freelance problem solvers ran into something that worried them enough that they decided the greater good (and their survival) meant that they needed a shiny supernaturally empowered special forces solder in the mix? And, since paladins are made by the gods but organized and paid by men, some reasonable authority figure assessed the threat matrix and assigned the party one. Said paladin might not be the team leader at first (or ever), might not be the team face, but they will be a source of fighting power, added options for survivability, organization, and staying on the side of good. The paladin will also be the party link with the larger temporal forces of good and law, and if the threat that brought them together was real, that's a win for the party, the paladin, and the kingdom as a whole. That's lawful good right there, and nothing says it can't be profitable, too, unless the only possible loot is, you know, all Vile artifacts.

Second, some inspirational quotes about the price you pay for the cool powers and the pretty maidens throwing flowers in your horses path:

"You are the tool, not the work. Expect to be valued accordingly."
"The rules say, when someone is in trouble, you have to go out. They don't say you have to come back."
"Who I am is where I stand, and where I stand is where I fall. Now, what do you believe in enough to die for?"

Xuc Xac
2020-03-08, 05:36 AM
My favorite paladin was the total opposite of the rigid stick-in-the-mud, wet-blanket paladin stereotype. If you didn't see "paladin" on the character sheet, you would probably guess "bard" or maybe "rogue". When you're putting your life on the line every day and ready to die at a moment's notice to do the right thing, you have to enjoy every moment and suck the marrow out of life! And if you have a high amount of Constitution and Charisma, that means you have a lot of stamina and you're super charming. Combined with a supernatural immunity to diseases, there's no reason not to enjoy happy private time with all the ladies as long as you're not a paladin of one of those real world Abrahamic religions that considers chastity a virtue. I might die tomorrow fighting some horrible beast to save some people I don't even know because it's the right thing to do, but I'm alive right now, so bring on the wine, women, and song! He was more Thor than Captain America as far as "worthy" Avengers go.

rs2excelsior
2020-03-09, 11:18 AM
Most of what I was going to say has been said here already. Nothing about a paladin means you have to be a party cop or a stick in the mud—lead by example, but unless they go off the deep end evil you don’t have to demand they change their behavior. Your emphasis should be on the Good part of Lawful Good. If serving the goals of good require non-lawful actions, the law should bend (though not to the point of breaking your oath).

One thing that I saw on this forum that stuck with me—a paladin should be fully prepared to lay down their life for their ideals at all times. They should face every day fully realizing they might be called to lay down their life for the greater good—and be okay with that. Not that they should seek out death in battle, as you can protect people far more effectively alive than dead, but not shying away from deadly situations when necessary. Be the first into the fight and the last one out.

Paladins and similar are my favorite character archetype to play, so glad to see someone else giving them a try!

Sam113097
2020-03-14, 04:50 AM
I second most of what people have already said about playing a heroic paragon! I would like to add one thing: I'm not an expert on Pathfinder, but I know that in D&D, a paladin's spellcasting stat is Charisma, and so most paladins have pretty high Cha scores. To me, that means that they're experienced with communicating and explaining their ideals to others. A true paladin won't be aloof, holier-than-thou, or try to convert everyone to their way of thinking. Rather, he or she will use that Charisma score to help others understand why he or she does what they do in a good-natured way. To me, a paladin has high charisma not because he or she is attractive or good with words; a paladin's charisma comes from his or her kindness

Monsterpoodle
2020-03-16, 03:37 PM
My favourite paladins are sparhawk and pals from the david eddings novels. Arguably hellboy is a paladin too. They jave a moral compass but they still swear, complain, get pissed off, some of them will even trick people and lie for the greater good.

The good part is the easy part. Be a good person, however you interpret that. The lawful part is the tricky part. Can a paladin break laws... With great difficulty. Could they let other people break laws... Again with great difficulty. Do these laws apply to other societies. Nope, as a lawful paladin you have a great respect for law and order although your own personal values might demand action.

As many people have said you are not an obnoxious preacher nagging people, you have charisma and wisdom.

The lawful side of your alignment will always make you veer towards "the greater good". Could you have a paladin that supports slavery, drugs and prostitution but is against woman's sufferage and homosexuality, absolutely as long as it is framed in terms of the greater good. What does your society believe about these things.
I'll pose some moral questions.
1. Could you kill a goblin baby?
2. Is slavery good or bad for society?
3. Could you torture or execute someone to stop them from committing a crime again or to discourage others?
4. Are there any races that are inherently evil? If so, what do you do about that.
5. If you caught someone stealing to feed their family what would you do about that?

This is the challenge balancing the good of society vs good of the individual. Some very wellmeaning people have done some awful things for their society.

GrayDeath
2020-03-16, 04:03 PM
A lot of good advice alrady.

To avoid the pitfalls I faced, let me also add a few tips.

1st: make sure WHAT KIND of Paladin you are playing is abudantly clear, both between you and the DM and you and your Party members.
This does not only mean the mechanical aspects but also the "limits" of your paladins flexibility, his absolute no Goes (except Evil which always is one^^), and so on.

2nd: Remeber that you are first and foremost about Morality. Not efficiency, not Victory, not even survival.
A Paladin puts his Morals/The Good of others before all these things.
This might leads to a lot of "sub optimal" decisions. Make sure your party and of course you know that will happen.

And lastly: Given their limitations, Paladins are (depending on PF 2nd, only read it, dont like it, hence no experience) quite weak for what they give up.
Make sure your Group is not too disadvantaged due to that (eg if you dont have a Cleric, better play one, he can still be a paladin ^^).

AI hope this helps, and wish you the best of luck!

Pex
2020-03-16, 06:14 PM
Without need of an operation on the posterior.

Be kind, honest, and forthright. Be brave, courageous, and protective. Seek out the BBEG of the fight and smite him but allow for someone else might be better at the job such as a spellcaster against a mindflayer and protect the spellcaster.

You are entitled to your opinion and may express it. You get your vote in party matters. Let other players do what they want. Only take exception to the obvious Evil - no animating dead, no murder, no stealing from the party, etc. You are entitled to receive respect as you give it. You can have your way the party does not commit EVIL, and you let the party have their way in things you don't personally approve.

Democratus
2020-03-20, 08:41 AM
A paladin should try to embody the ideas of her deity or concept.

An example I like from TV was Worf in Star Trek:TNG.

Worf was not raised by Klingons. All he had was propaganda and stories about Klingons. So he patterned his entire life into the concept of the ideal Klingon - not knowing that wasn't how they really were. When he finally did start encountering Klingons, he was often admired for what a "True Klingon" he was.

That's what a paladin should be. Someone who totally embraces living the ideals they espouse. Even when it's a pain.

Pauly
2020-03-21, 08:58 PM
Firstly the Paladin needs to be played according to the deity. A paladin of a god of charity will play differently to a god of justice. Gods have their own likes and dislikes, so a if the paladin’s god holds a grudge against undead the paladin will be much less tolerant of necromancers than another paladin.

Secondly the player has agency in how the character responds to conflicts. LG characters will either be Lg or lG. For example Dirty Harry is lG, because when there is a conflict between lawful and good, he follows the path of good as he sees it. He will not do anything explicitly chaotic such as extra-judicial killing of evil doers, but will bend the law to breaking point to get good outcomes. Judge Dredd on the other hand is Lg and follows the path of lawful when there is a conflict. If following the law results in an evil result he will find a legal way out, but he won’t break the law. Both characters are trying to be lawful and good, but consistently prefer one side over the other.

Paladin’s don’t have to be boy scouts driven by altruism. Robert Howard’s Solomon Kane for example fits the role of a paladin despite being the most evil man on Earth. He is seeking to redeem himself to avoid being sent to hell for his evil past so he wanders the earth fighting evil wherever he finds it. Motivations like redemption, revenge, rebellion against their upbringing, or obligation can provide more interest to a paladin’s character than strictly altruistic motivations.

Komatik
2020-03-22, 03:57 PM
One reason people dislike and/or are bored by Lawful Good roleplaying characters is how flatly people tend to think of them. Their mental model of them is either:

* a very flat "I'll do the heroic thing because I'm a hero"/"I'm going to help because I'm a good person" or, pretty often,
* someone with very not LG motivations who has a laundry list of "you shouldn'ts" as a ball on their ankle

which is entirely wrong. Those people don't act the way they do because they'll be called Bad Boy if they don't, the magic is in that *they really, really want to, and feel it's natural to*.

And once you start exploring that, that's when you get something interesting.

To quote Aristoteles:


"Any one can get angry — that is easy — or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy."

The vagaries of acting skillfully are in and of themselves something deep and exploration-worthy, even if the choice to be good is in some sense trivial.

And once you start exploring that, that's when you get something interesting even though it's quite different from the now-usual "conflicted/pragmatic gray".

If you can watch it, one interesting analogue and one of those examples that finally *clicked* it for me was the Street Fighter fan movie / miniseries The Assassin's Fist. The SF characters the series focuses on have a good/balance vs. ruthless obsession with there being an old teacher, two brothers as his students and then the good brother's students as the new generation.

In D&D alignment terms, Gouken (the good brother) and Goutetsu (the old teacher) are clearly the very Lawful characters of the older generation despite both diverging from their tradition, and Gouki (the obsessive brother), who follows the old teachings most faithfully is clearly more the chaotic maverick.

But Gouken is really interesting. He's LG, plain as day, when you stop to think about it, but a really nicely done character that is earnestly climbing to the top of the mountain along his own way. His desire certainly isn't "to be Good" - he says he's realized killing his brother and walking the path of murder would never lead to peace and enlightenment. He's interested in building up his students and developing them to be balanced people. His moral character isn't the end in and of itself, it is the way towards his ends. (In some sense it could be argued that 'the way you conduct yourself' is what morality actually is)

On the evil side, characters like Darth Sidious are similar: Oh, he enjoys being evil quite thoroughly, but his primary goal is power, not being evil. Evil conduct is the way he tries to gain power, and his evil nature is part of what drives him to want power.

As someone said before, your character is their oath, but they are not *only* their oath. I'd adjust it a bit and say that a character whose primary *want* is their oath is going to end up falling flat and being dull, a character who finds it natural to go after their wants with/by their oath is a better recipe for making something interesting and nuanced.

GreatWyrmGold
2020-03-22, 07:42 PM
I've played many a paladin (and the occasional technically-not-a-paladin, e.g. a LG cleric who acts similarly paragon); while I prefer reading stories with shades of gray, I prefer playing on the straight and narrow. So I have a good bit of experience with paladins.

I've played some as exasperated Straight Men (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StraightMan), trying to herd the cats because nobody else was going to. (And my group so rarely does.) I've played others as Don Quixote types (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WindmillCrusader), tilting at windmills until whoever designated themself cat-herder talked sense into me. I've played some as straightforward nice guys who only use violence when words fail them (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReluctantWarrior). I've even played a couple of short-lived sorcadins as shonen hero types (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StockShonenHero), though that might have something to do with all the Fate and JoJo references in the sorcadin guide I was using.

The point is, a paladin's code might seem restrictive, but there's no end to the ways you can play one. You can play paladins as a Knight Templar (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar), who does not suffer a true sinner to live. You can play them as a martial pacifist (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartialPacifist) whose sword barely leaves their sheath. They can be self-loathing heroes (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenAce), broken people who seek a good heroic sacrifice (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathSeeker), or a former criminal constantly struggling with the urge to ignore their oaths and return to familiar methods (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionFailure)...or you could play a successful ex-monster (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoAndSinNoMore), a warrior who never hesitates to solve any little problem they can (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SmallStepsHero), or even someone who rejects an illegitimate power structure and wishes to replace it with a just one (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefectorFromDecadence) (true king (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RightfulKingReturns) optional).

"Paladin" isn't a personality; it's a class, it's a job, it's a promise, but it isn't a personality. There are as many types of paladins as there are people with even a spark of justice in their hearts; all a paladin needs is to consciously feed that spark, trying to turn it into a weapon that burns the wicked or a beacon that comforts the innocent.

kyoryu
2020-03-23, 09:18 AM
As someone said before, your character is their oath, but they are not *only* their oath. I'd adjust it a bit and say that a character whose primary *want* is their oath is going to end up falling flat and being dull, a character who finds it natural to go after their wants with/by their oath is a better recipe for making something interesting and nuanced.

Yeah, entirely.

What I meant by that is I think what you're saying more clearly - the character is the oath, in that the oath is so internalized it's a part of them. But it's also so internalized that don't need to talk about it all the time - it's background noise to them. Of course we're not going to torture people to find the info, that would make us just as bad. But "don't torture" isn't a goal. It's a restriction on the means you use in pursuit of a goal.

Sometimes that means that the way is harder, and that's fine. Oaths are easy to follow when they're convenient. Principles are easy to have when they don't get in the way. And if the GM is playing fair and not two-dimensionally, there's pretty much always a way.

As I said:


You are not JUST your oath. You're an individual, with your own goals and desires that have nothing to do with paladin-ness. While your oath forms your moral center and your guidelines, it is not your motivation. You have things you like, people you love, people you hate. You have dreams, hopes, aspirations, and fears. You have likes and dislikes. You have a family and a history, and those are not marked "Paladin".

It's funny, because you've hit on something I strongly believe, which is that the most important thing for a character is their goals. Not necessarily "motivation", but what they're trying to get/achieve. I think that sometimes gets lost in RPG-land due to the prevalence of pre-written storylines.

GreatWyrmGold
2020-03-23, 05:08 PM
It's funny, because you've hit on something I strongly believe, which is that the most important thing for a character is their goals. Not necessarily "motivation", but what they're trying to get/achieve. I think that sometimes gets lost in RPG-land due to the prevalence of pre-written storylines.
Sometimes? I've never seen a PC's goals be relevant to the adventure at hand. Part of this is because players are conditioned into recognizing that giving characters specific goals will hinder gameplay more than it helps the story, so they get vague motivations instead; part of this is because trying to work specific goals from several players who don't even consider collaborating with each other is friggin' difficult. I know, I tried. There's a few reasons that campaign crashed and burned, and that's one of them. (If anyone from Renewed Legacy is reading this, I'm sorry I made promises I couldn't keep.)

Ideal world, the players and DM would collaborate to tweak the PCs into something that can be organically be tied together into an interesting narrative...but let's get real, the world's not ideal. (Hey, that rhymes.) Most of the time, doing so would require at least one player to compromise on their character concept, which they're not going to be eager to do just so they fit better into someone else's story. And then the DM needs to craft a whole plotline, or at least a robust skeleton and a whole first adventure, before these players you just spent a big Session 0 figuring out can ever hit the table.

These are problems that hold TRPG narratives back, and it bugs me that so few people seem to even understand/recognize them. If nobody cares, if everyone's just fine with mindless hack-and-slash, TRPGs will never rise above being clunky imitations of their video counterparts. Which is ironic, considering the opposite was true a few decades ago.

...gods, I'm gonna catch so much flak for that last paragraph.

Democratus
2020-03-23, 11:53 PM
PC goals are the most important thing in a campaign. Campaign start, at least for us, involves everyone creating their characters and figuring out what it is they want in life.

After that the DM creates the campaign around the stated desires of the various characters. In the game, characters proactively pursue their goals and this is what creates the emergent story.

If characters aren't driving the story of a campaign then you may as well be playing a video game or watching a movie.

kyoryu
2020-03-24, 11:24 AM
Ideal world, the players and DM would collaborate to tweak the PCs into something that can be organically be tied together into an interesting narrative...but let's get real, the world's not ideal. (Hey, that rhymes.) Most of the time, doing so would require at least one player to compromise on their character concept, which they're not going to be eager to do just so they fit better into someone else's story. And then the DM needs to craft a whole plotline, or at least a robust skeleton and a whole first adventure, before these players you just spent a big Session 0 figuring out can ever hit the table.

Nah. Just set up the premise, and the major players, or at least the ones the players will find. Pose interesting dramatic questions, and let the PCs resolve what happens. From there, let the situation evolve and pose new questions.

I find the "Lost" method of writing more effective than the "Babylon 5" method, even if in consumed material I prefer the Babylon 5 method.

Of course, if people *like* the Adventure Path method (and it has advantages, they're just not things that really matter to me), go with it.

GreatWyrmGold
2020-03-25, 04:32 PM
Interesting dramatic questions require a certain synergy between protagonist and plot...which is made all the more difficult when you're writing a story with an ensemble cast, each of whom was written by a different author with no attempt at synergizing them with each other (and in my experience, rarely any attempt at synergizing them with even the general premise), none of whom you have a solid grasp on because you're not actually a director so much as a suggestor when it comes to the protagonists. Which are arguably the most important part of the story.

Lost tried to write by the seat of its pants, never thinking beyond the end of the current season, and the lack of large-scale planning meant that the end result was a bit of a mess. (Note: I have never seen Lost and absorbed this information about production and results through cultural osmosis.) How much worse do you think that would get if the protagonist were each controlled by a separate author with no creative director keeping them focused on even short-term narrative goals? The resulting story would be a friggin' mess.

kyoryu
2020-03-26, 09:50 AM
Interesting dramatic questions require a certain synergy between protagonist and plot...which is made all the more difficult when you're writing a story with an ensemble cast, each of whom was written by a different author with no attempt at synergizing them with each other (and in my experience, rarely any attempt at synergizing them with even the general premise), none of whom you have a solid grasp on because you're not actually a director so much as a suggestor when it comes to the protagonists. Which are arguably the most important part of the story.

Lost tried to write by the seat of its pants, never thinking beyond the end of the current season, and the lack of large-scale planning meant that the end result was a bit of a mess. (Note: I have never seen Lost and absorbed this information about production and results through cultural osmosis.) How much worse do you think that would get if the protagonist were each controlled by a separate author with no creative director keeping them focused on even short-term narrative goals? The resulting story would be a friggin' mess.

1) That's why Session Zero and at least coming up with character concepts together is soooo important if you want to have that kind of structure. The model of "everybody show up at the first session with a character and a backstory, and meanwhile I'll write the story" is basically a recipe for disaster.

2) And yet a lot of people loved Lost. The story coming out of a roleplaying game isn't going to be high art, as its collaborative, emergent nature kind of precludes that. That doesn't mean that we can't do that, as creating a separately consumable piece of fiction isn't really the point. Even if the "story" coming out of an RPG isn't novel-worthy (and it likely won't be), that doesn't mean that the process is a waste.

Tradeoffs? Sure! That method is not ideal for every person or every group. But at the end of the day, I (and many people I know) prefer it to a pre-written plot that the PCs are basically shuttled through.

PintoTown
2020-04-27, 11:43 PM
One buddy played up the whole arrogant, opinionated, unwavering thing that you just loved to hate.
Another played a simple farmboy (which certainly plays to that dump stat), who just REALLY knew where his towel was.
I personally think of Discworld’s Carrot Ironfoudersson.

mindstalk
2020-04-28, 01:20 AM
I think a rather large fraction of fictional heroes, especially in superhero comics, could be seen as paladins (at least in some version, for those who've been around for decades.) Kind, honest, treat people with respect, and risk their lives protecting people.

Most versions of Superman, some if not most Batmans, Spider-Man, Captain America as mentioned, but possibly also Wolverine -- yeah he's a grumpy sarcastic lone wolf, but what does he actually *do*?

I haven't played an official paladin, but my longest running character was a kalashtar, whom I played pretty similarly. My inspiration for her personality and character was an amalgam of various magical girls and other anime heroines. Love, friendship, kindness to the hurt, reaching out to people, protecting those in danger, and pummeling those who kept endangering them. She tried talking and non-lethal takedowns, as per that Wonder Woman quote earlier, but wasn't afraid to freeze attackers to death if that's what it took. Party-wise, she could co-exist with general roguery, but took a firm stance against torturing prisoners, and felt conflicted about using mind-reading and short-term charm effects for interrogation instead.

Oh, and she was flamboyantly wacky. A kalashtar psion pretending to be a human "magical girl" to avoid Inspired assassins, dressing up like a pirate captain (Bodacious Space Pirates was a large part of this), the sort of genki anime girl who tries *really hard* to be your friend with a big smile... she caused a lot of facepalms, to which her reaction was one part "just as planned" and two parts "whatever, I'm having fun."

Apart from sneaking around and lying to their parents for genre reasons, I'm pretty sure all the Sailor Scouts are basically paladins, with various different personalities. Likewise Buffy, and in a different way, later Angel. Possibly a lot of people will argue with me that they're really Neutral or Chaotic Good instead, and that's an argument I'm not really interested in because I find Law/Chaos pretty vague, but they strike me as people who are generally honest, keeping their word, and tending to respect rules... except for ones that they have a really good reason (genre) for violating.

paddyfool
2020-04-29, 02:46 AM
I think a rather large fraction of fictional heroes, especially in superhero comics, could be seen as paladins (at least in some version, for those who've been around for decades.) Kind, honest, treat people with respect, and risk their lives protecting people.

Most versions of Superman, some if not most Batmans, Spider-Man, Captain America as mentioned, but possibly also Wolverine -- yeah he's a grumpy sarcastic lone wolf, but what does he actually *do*?


Wonder Woman definitely deserves a shout here. Pretty much every Flash too.

SpyOne
2020-05-19, 11:51 AM
My 3.5 Dwarf paladin, Thorstane Lightbringer, has a few things to say:

There has been a lot of good stuff said here about how to be good, but not a lot about being a paladin.
For me, there are two main things to being a paladin.
The first is responsibility. Both the government and the church tend to be very reluctant to delegate power, and any such delegation generally comes with supervision. Minor nobles are expected to do exactly what the higher nobles they serve tell them to, and minor priests are expected to say exactly the prayers and perform exactly the rituals their superiors tell them to. But both those organizations allow paladins to act in their name effectively unsupervised.
In The Three Musketeers, the Cardinal gives his agent a letter that says "that which the bearer has done was done by my hand." Imagine how responsible you have to have proven yourself to be to be given that kind of power. A paladin is basically that letter with feet, and the signature is from his god.

The second is faith. This is one of those places where a paladin in D&D is a square peg that has been hammered into a round hole: paladins are from a monotheistic society, and they haven't really been adapted to fit the polytheistic society of D&D.
When former President Jimmy Carter held a press conference to announce that he had cancer that was probably going to kill him, one commentor said "It's hard not to envy him his faith". He just seemed so at peace, so sure that this is all part of some greater plan and would all turn out for the best.
Now magnify that.
"I shall fear no evil, for thou art with me."
Imagine a guy whose faith is so great that he cannot feel fear .
Now imagine a guy whose faith is so great it's contagious, and you become immune to fear just for standing near him.
THAT is a paladin.

There is one other thing. Some people have talked about paladins facing moral dilemmas, but I don't think thst really happens much. They don't let you become a paladin unless you know you're right. And just in case you have doubts, you can check to see if you're still a paladin (by laying on hands, or casting a spell, or smiting). That provides proof your god agrees.

That said, Miko and Hinjo and O'Chul have very different ideas from each other on how to be a paladin. But they are each sure they are right.

Sorlock Master
2020-06-24, 02:55 AM
Say "HERETIC" a lot, use smite when ever possible, and remind people how much better you are then them.

Azuresun
2020-06-24, 08:35 AM
“The light of God’s morning enters even into dark and lonesome lands.” said Solomon Kane somberly. “Evil rules in the waste lands of the earth, but even evil may come to an end. Dawn follows midnight, and even in this lost land the shadows shrink.

“Strange are Thy ways, oh God of my people, and who am I to question Thy wisdom? My feet have fallen in evil ways, but thou hast bought me forth scatheless, and made me a scourge for the Powers of Evil. Over the souls of men spread the condor wings of colossal monsters and all manner of evil things prey upon the heart and soul and body of Man. Yet it may be that in some far day the shadows shall fade and the Prince of Darkness be chained forever in his hell. And till then, mankind can but stand up stoutly to the monsters in his own heart and without, and with the aid of God he may yet triumph.”

2D8HP
2020-06-24, 11:46 PM
[...]because of the deity I picked for this character I have to be Lawful Good.
I’ve never played a paladin before, and I know there’s not one true way to play such a character. However, I trust this forum’s advice. How should I go about playing this character?
For reference, these are the tenets from the core rules:
You must never perform acts anathema to your deity or willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting of an evil spell.
You must never knowingly harm an innocent, or allow immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn’t force you to take action against possible harm to innocents at an indefinite time in the future, or to sacrifice your life to protect them.
You must act with honor, never taking advantage of others, lying, or cheating.
You must respect the lawful authority of legitimate leadership wherever you go, and follow its laws.

Take my advice with some salt, as I've never played Pathfinder and my impressions of how to play a Palladian are based on my playing a little 5e D&D this last decade, and my dimming memories of playing Oe and 1e D&D as a child and teenager in the very late '70's and early '80's

You keep your word.

You are your word.

What you do in the dark is what you would do in the light.

You are always watched...

...by your conscience.

You are still mortal.

You are still tempted...

...but there is never "just this once"

If you fail you seek redemption.

If unredemed you still strive to do good.

Always.

From an old thread:


[...]if you can spare the time, here are some non D&D world films that shape my view of what a "Paladin" is"
Billy Budd,
The Grapes of Wrath,
Saving Private Ryan;
Schindlers List, and
Selma (all are probably emotionally PG and R movies).
O.K. for more DnD like worlds, you've probably seen or read LotR.
Don't look at Aragorn, Frodo or Gandalf.
Look again at Sam, humble Sam.
And if you haven't seen it (don't watch this with young kids, I was 12 or 13),

Excalibur!

Did you see it? Take notes?
Not Arthur, not Lancelot, certainly not Gawain (in this movie and Malory, "Gawain and the Green Knight" is another story),
Percival.
The one who achieved the Grail.
That's a Paladin!
Does that help?

To expand on that, the next to last scene in Casablanca

Rick: Last night we said a great many things. You said I was to do the thinking for both of us. Well, I've done a lot of it since then, and it all adds up to one thing: you're getting on that plane with Victor where you belong.

Ilsa: But, Richard, no, I... I...

Rick: Now, you've got to listen to me! You have any idea what you'd have to look forward to if you stayed here? Nine chances out of ten, we'd both wind up in a concentration camp. Isn't that true, Louie?

Captain Renault: I'm afraid Major Strasser would insist.

Ilsa: You're saying this only to make me go.

Rick: I'm saying it because it's true. Inside of us, we both know you belong with Victor. You're part of his work, the thing that keeps him going. If that plane leaves the ground and you're not with him, you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.

Ilsa: But what about us?

Rick: We'll always have Paris. We didn't have, we, we lost it until you came to Casablanca. We got it back last night.

Ilsa: When I said I would never leave you.

Rick: And you never will. But I've got a job to do, too. Where I'm going, you can't follow. What I've got to do, you can't be any part of. Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that.



Rick: Now, now...

[Rick gently places his hand under her chin and raises it so their eyes meet]

Rick: Here's looking at you kid.

http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/casablanca.jpg


Ma: Tommy, you’re not aimin’ to kill nobody.

Tom: No, Ma, not that. That ain’t it. It’s just, well as long as I’m an outlaw anyways… maybe I can do somethin’… maybe I can just find out somethin’, just scrounge around and maybe find out what it is that’s wrong and see if they ain’t somethin’ that can be done about it. I ain’t thought it out all clear, Ma. I can’t. I don’t know enough.

Ma: How am I gonna know about ya, Tommy? Why they could kill ya and I’d never know. They could hurt ya. How am I gonna know?

Tom: Well, maybe it’s like Casy says. A fellow ain’t got a soul of his own, just little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody, then…

Ma: Then what, Tom?

Tom: Then it don’t matter. I’ll be all around in the dark – I’ll be everywhere. Wherever you can look – wherever there’s a fight, so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad. I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry and they know supper’s ready, and when the people are eatin’ the stuff they raise and livin’ in the houses they build – I’ll be there, too.

Ma: I don’t understand it, Tom.

Tom: Me, neither, Ma, but – just somethin’ I been thinkin’ about.

https://travsd.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/url8.jpg?w=723


While my first two choices are "non-genre" my third pick is actually the three or four scenes involving the Grail quest of Sir Percival in the film Excalibur:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i3B4oLj5fQMDespite her being played by Helen freakin' Mirren, Sir Percival resists Morgana, achieves the Grail, brings it to King Arthur, and heals him (and the land with him).



And I would be remiss if I didn't include this:


You want a real Paladin? You want a symbol of Law and Good, a representation of justice, compassion, and mercy, a pillar of strength, an upright gentleman, and a truly decent soul?

Atticus Finch, [I]To Kill a Mockingbird. For best results, see the 1962 film starring Gregory Peck.

Good father. Pillar of the community. Moral man in a corrupt world. Educated man in a backwards time. Standing tall in the face of adversity, advocating for justice and compassion.

For a generation of people, Atticus Finch represented what it meant to be a good father, a good lawyer, a good citizen, a good human being. He was a paragon of virtue and principle.

That's a Paladin.

aglondier
2020-06-26, 02:35 AM
Being lawful good means balancing the greater good for the maximum number of people against the rule of laws often made by less than moral lawmakers. Like Arthas, sometimes the greater good requires that you slaughter a town full of innocent civilians. Is it more moral to leave morally difficult tasks to others or take that upon yourself, someone better spiritually equipped to deal with those responsibilities...?

Our party paladin steps aside when deception or larceny are required, simply because she lacks those skills, not because she is turning a blind eye. She co-leads the party to ends that benefit the people, while hoping that a moral example will guide her teammates to a better path.

A previous character I had was born to a prostitute and raised in a brothel. He knew him mum loved him, he knew the ladies were good people, even if they were technically breaking the laws of the land. He became a paladin, and tried to provide a good example to those around him. Not the brightest, but wise enough to not judge people for their situation when they were just trying to survive...

hamishspence
2020-06-26, 02:45 AM
Be kind, honest, and forthright. Be brave, courageous, and protective. Seek out the BBEG of the fight and smite him but allow for someone else might be better at the job such as a spellcaster against a mindflayer and protect the spellcaster.

You are entitled to your opinion and may express it. You get your vote in party matters. Let other players do what they want. Only take exception to the obvious Evil - no animating dead, no murder, no stealing from the party, etc. You are entitled to receive respect as you give it. You can have your way the party does not commit EVIL, and you let the party have their way in things you don't personally approve.

This.


Being lawful good means balancing the greater good for the maximum number of people against the rule of laws often made by less than moral lawmakers. Like Arthas, sometimes the greater good requires that you slaughter a town full of innocent civilians. Is it more moral to leave morally difficult tasks to others or take that upon yourself, someone better spiritually equipped to deal with those responsibilities...?

"Slaughtering a town full of innocent civilians for the greater good" and "non-Fallen Paladin" just don't go together.

aglondier
2020-06-26, 09:58 AM
"Slaughtering a town full of innocent civilians for the greater good" and "non-Fallen Paladin" just don't go together.

One word...Atonement...

hamishspence
2020-06-26, 10:19 AM
The spell is meaningless without repentance - which means accepting that what you did was wrong in the first place.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

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.

malloc
2020-06-26, 10:51 AM
Read Powder Keg of Justice. It is a short game tale that completely redefined the way I viewed paladins when I first read it.

2D8HP
2020-06-26, 11:31 AM
The spell is meaningless without repentance - which means accepting that what you did was wrong in the first place.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

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.


Used to be that a "Divine quest" was called for a Paladin to be redeemed:


“[...]"Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area 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. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- E. Gary Gygax



(more context here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?559645-D-amp-D-Alignment-a-history&p=23097071#post23097071))

For examples: Percival's quest in the film Excalibur (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nGm-zkRNj58)

and

Lancelot's redemption (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YXUXI19XDno) from the same film.

Really, watch Excalibur[ to see what a Paladin is, or read the script (http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/e/excalibur-script-transcript-arthur-merlin.html)


Percival: "I can't give up hope, Lancelot, it's all I have"

hamishspence
2020-06-26, 11:32 AM
Still is, if you use Champions of Valor's recommendations - the atonement spell is a shortcut, that circumvents roleplaying - and quests are for those who don't want this kind of shortcut.


Fiendish Codex 2 suggests that, to remove corruption points, the atonement spell is not enough - it requires a quest, and apologising to those you've wronged.

Gygax's "Most of humanity is lawful" appears to have been dropped in 3.0 - which has "True Neutral" as the typical alignment for humans - as well as saying that humans have no tendencies toward any alignment.

mindstalk
2020-06-26, 03:32 PM
Gygax's "Most of humanity is lawful" appears to have been dropped in 3.0 - which has "True Neutral" as the typical alignment for humans - as well as saying that humans have no tendencies toward any alignment.

Gygax seems to be using a rather different idea of Law and Chaos, one that's *more* fundamental and cosmic than good and evil (which he says is relative to an ethos, whereas Law is absolute.) Which makes sense: D&D started with Law and Chaos from Three Hearts and Three Lions, and maybe Moorcock. Good and evil is a modifier to that. This is also how we get Neutral as an active balancing act (largely between Law and Chaos).

By the time you have the Blood War between evil fiends, the labels are the same, but the meaning has become very different. Good and evil is the primary axis -- reinforced in 3e, where paladins have more leeway to veer chaotic than to veer evil -- while law and chaos have amalgamated a confusing mass of contradictory definitions.

aglondier
2020-06-26, 07:40 PM
The spell is meaningless without repentance - which means accepting that what you did was wrong in the first place.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

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.

I never suggested otherwise. Rather I was saying that the paladin would take the burden upon themself.

Nifft
2020-06-30, 01:41 PM
Paladin edicts, from least to most important:


Be Strong,
Be Brave,
Be Just,
BEHAVE!

Paladins work to be strong, that their efforts may be effective for the cause(s) they serve.

Paladins demonstrate bravery, that their deeds may hearten and inspire the righteous.

Paladins seek out and fight for justice, that the good will not have cause to hate the law.

Paladins hold their own conduct to a higher standard than what they require of others.