Perception Problems: Paladins. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Neon Knight

2008-03-23, 09:02 PM

Introduction: Purpose.

The purpose of this piece is to identify and explore three key areas in which people's perceptions pertaining to Paladins propagate prolific problems. By highlighting and discussing these areas, I hope to raise awareness about these conflicts to allow people to foresee them, create discussion and pose questions about these problems, and assess my abilities by seeing if anyone agrees with me that these are actual frequent problem areas.

As such, I approve of any criticism regarding the accuracy of my prescriptions, regardless of how frankly or downright meanly you phrase it. I would also like people's thoughts on the perceptions and the problems themselves. Questioning the alliteration in the beginning paragraph will not be tolerated. :smalltongue:

I use Core DnD and my own thoughts for these issues; People who want to use BoED, BoVD, FF, etc. for their thinking and reasons why their response is the correct one will be politely listened to, because I'm not a meany, or at least like to think I'm not most of the time, but told politely that their evidence is inadmissible.

Problem Perception One: Role.

A common area of strife when it comes to paladins is their role in the fictional cultures of DnD. The conflict can be summarized as "Soldier vs. Social Services" or "Policeman vs. Rambo."

Some feel that the Paladin should focus on martial and political problems above more social and domestic issues. The threat of an orc war band is greater than a poor harvest. The kingdom should be defended from hobgoblin invaders above an investigation of its officials for corruption. These thinkers might cite the Paladin's clearly martial abilities, such as Full BAB, Smite, Turn Undead, Weapon and Armor Proficiencies, Aura of Courage, and Mount indicate a preference for warrior activities. They argue the Paladin works best roaming about destroying evil, and that halting to get entangled in domestic problems allows the forces of evil to encroach elsewhere.

Others feel that the Lay on Hand, divine spell casting, Divine Health, and Remove Disease all point to a clear ability to aid in non-martial matters, and that the Paladin's social status as a Paladin (which, they argue, gives them great weight) allows them to address social problems. A paladin that fails to address such ills given the opportunity is guilty of negligence. These individuals are also quick to note that Clerics have similar martial and offensive abilities and demonstrate an aptitude for dealing with non-martial problems.

Factoring into this is the Paladin's rule of engagement. To what degree can Paladins go to hunt down and destroy evil? Obviously, Paladins cannot do evil deeds themselves, and they must remain lawful. Paladins must respect legitimate authority; but how far does all this go? Must a Paladin work within the legal system of the legitimate authority? Does a Paladin have the power to try, judge, sentence, and execute evil doers? What if there is a situation where there is no clear legitimate authority? There are many debates and arguments about this subject, too many to easily summarize.

Problem Perception Two: Alignment.

This one is a powder keg. A Paladin is lawful good, and must remain so to continue being a paladin. But is it lawful good, or lawful good?

Of course, a Paladin that does eve one evil deed falls, while a Paladin can do chaotic acts and remain lawful, and thus a Paladin. This does speak for a preference for good if the lawful course leads to evil, but what if the choice is between a lawful neutral action and a neutral good or chaotic good action? A paladin must respect legitimate authority. In addition, a paladin cannot give aid to anyone who would use said aid for evil or chaotic purposes. And gross violation of the code of conduct leads to ex-paladinship as surely as an evil deed.

So should a Paladin support a lawful neutral authority above a chaotic good opponent? Or vice versa?

A sub-debate is about whether Paladins are allowed to be merciful. Law is performing reaction A to situation B. Person steals bread, receives punishment. Obviously, an unjust or wrong punishment would be resisted by a Paladin, but once more, a problem; can a Paladin give mercy to evil people, or when a punishment is deserved? If Crime A demands death, is it alright for a paladin to spare his opponent if he apprehends him? If a Paladin apprehends a youth stealing frivolously, and the punishment is five lashes, can he let him off if he feels it would aid in his rehabilitation.

With all the horrible shenanigans this debate goes through, I feel the alignment is sometimes lawlful good. :smallamused:

Problem Perception Three: The Code.

This is the big one I feel. Instead of entering the specific debates about the code itself and its tenets, I'm going to address a different set of perceptions: People's perceptions about why there is a code.

Why does a paladin have a code? Is the code a set of standards, a set of ideals that all Paladins should obey and aspire to because they are the one true way? Or are they regulatory, necessary quality controls to insure Paladins do good and do not misuse their powers?

I feel, however, their is a certain perception that must be spotlighted. This is the crown jewel of my piece; so pay attention.

Certain people have the perception that Paladins have a code so that they might be tempted to break that code, and so that code can be used against them.

Alignment? A roleplaying tool? The Helm of Opposite Alignment weaponized alignment. In a similar vein, the code of conduct is the Paladin's kryptonite. The code was made so you can trick Paladins into violating it and thus losing their powers. It was made for sadistic DMs and opponents to exploit.

Force the paladin into a moral quandary and watch him squirm, or fall, or sometimes both. After all, perfect morals were made to be tried. Faith isn't true unless it is tested. And when you give control as to which response is correct, and which choices the Paladin is given to a sadistic DM, its like giving an unstable green beret version of MacGyver a machete, two claymores, 20 feet of wire, a copy of Rambo: First Blood for inspiration, and two days to set up at a Boyscout camp.

To this perception, the code was made to be broken. Paladins were made to fall. This perception will lead to paladins constantly finding themselves in contrived moral quagmires, unable to take an action without being damned in some manner or being forced to slavishly adhering to the DM's version of Good. (Which he was doing anyway, but now he is doing it constantly with the threat of losing his powers.)

Its true that there is a school of thought that says moral figures were made to be tested, and that the good roleplaying comes from "realistically" reacting to this testing. But most people seem to take this testing to the extreme, far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable.

Conclusion.

So those are the perceptions people have about paladins that proliferate problems, at least from my perspective. There are many ways to address each one, but the most important thing to do is to recognize and discuss these areas, particularly if you or a loved one are going to attempt playing a Paladin.

I guess all I can close with is asking for feedback: Things I missed, or misidentified, and people's thoughts on these problems.

Thane of Fife

2008-03-23, 09:29 PM

Problem Perception One: Role

I must say, I don't quite understand why all paladins have to fit into the same role here - why can't some paladins be Sir Galahad types, roaming the countryside, slaying dragons, and rescuing fair damsels, and some be Mary Poppins types, staying in town and making lives better one at a time?

So should a Paladin support a lawful neutral authority above a chaotic good opponent? Or vice versa?

Well, you're missing the last two options:
1. If possible, he could try to work out a compromise between the two - certainly that would be ideal to destroying one of the two viewpoints.
2. He could stay out of the dispute entirely, interfering only as necessary to prevent innocents from getting trapped in the middle. The conscientious paladin reserves his righteous fury for those deserving of it.

Why does a paladin have a code? Is the code a set of standards, a set of ideals that all Paladins should obey and aspire to because they are the one true way? Or are they regulatory, necessary quality controls to insure Paladins do good and do not misuse their powers?

Again, I think you're missing an option here - the paladin has the powers because he has the code. Whoever gives him his abilities doesn't say "You can have these powers as long as you don't do these things," he says "You follow this code, and I like that, so I'm going to give you these powers so you can follow it better."

As a final point - I'm curious. Who would you (and I address other people in general, here, not just you, Kasrkin), consider, from literature, to be a paladin?

The obvious candidates, in my opinion, would be Sir Galahad, some of the Twelve Peers (I don't know enough about Charlemagne to certainly say all of them), and Prince Edward the Just, of The Legend of Nightfall (and its sequel). But I'm curious - who else fits?

Xefas

2008-03-23, 09:38 PM

In my opinion, the easiest, most satisfying, and overall best answer to any problem with the paladin is...play a Cleric or a Crusader.

A Cleric is a martial class with holy flavor and spellcasting.

A Crusader is a very martial class with holy flavor.

A Paladin is a martial class with holy flavor, sub-par spellcasting, and horrendous, arbitrary baggage.

You can roleplay a Lawful Good Cleric or Crusader exactly like you would a Paladin. You can fight freakishly similar to a Paladin as a Cleric or Crusader, only better (if you choose).

The kicker is that you aren't tied down by their stupid code or the stigma around them. You can be as Lawful Good as you want, but no one can trick you into an impossible moral dilemma and make you fall.

Furthermore, you can choose to fall if you want your character to develop that way, and still remain useful. A paladin who falls is useless. A Lawful Good Crusader who falls gets to play the character he wants to play and still meaningfully participate in the game.

There is absolutely no reason to play a paladin. No reason. At all. Not even that one. Never will there ever be a reason. Paladins are bad by design. Playing a paladin is like saying you'd rather work in a cubicle for the rest of your life with no possibility of ever advancing, than work in a corner office with a bright and wonderful future ahead of you.

TheThan

2008-03-23, 11:51 PM

I’m going to modify a quote from my favorite starwars characters Corran Horn

if it’s an easy job, you wouldn’t need a paladin.

This is my entire point of view behind paladins. Paladins should be put on the spot, physically, emotionally and/or spiritually. Being a powerful force of good in the world has consequences that should impact the paladin character. Just like if a rogue was a pickpocket, eventually his thievery will catch up to him.

Challenging the paladin’s faith or code is a great way to do this, however there should always be a way out, even if it’s not easy to see. Can a paladin make a mistake? Sure, no one’s perfect, but there needs to be limits on what he can get away with. I use a 3 strikes clause when dealing with paladins, they violate their alignment or code three times, then they loose their powers and need to seek atonement. Now you may say why don’t he just keep doing it and get off with all sorts of mischief? I made the atonement a quest they need to fulfill, and they do not get either XP or any other reward, other than the return of their powers.

The major problem with the paladin class is that the code is far too vague in both its goals and its tenets. This has lead players to write their own codes with built in back doors, such as “you cannot steal except from evil beings”. That sort of stuff. This has lead to many of the situations you have described above.
Should the paladin stop and rescue the child’s kitten out of the tall tree. Yes, why because it’s a good thing (superman did it after all), even if it means that a bad guy gets away, the paladin can always hunt him down later. There are obvious situations where this is not feasible, such as if the paladin is in the middle of chasing down said bad guy, but I hope people get the idea.

Oh and another thing

The problem with the TOB is that it replaces the iconic classes with other generic multi-role classes. I don’t want to play a crusader with the flavor of a paladin; I want to play a PALADIN.

I’m tired of people assuming you can divorce fluff from EVERYTHING, no you can’t. Its ok to do it to some things, but other things you just can’t without destroying the essence of the class.

Yes the TOB goes a long way to making fighter types awesome, but it doesn’t fix the underlying problem with the core system, it just slaps a Band-Aid on it and calls it a day. That’s why it suggests you replace the original classes with the TOB classes.

I’m probably going to get flamed for the TOB remark, but right now I don’t care, I want to get it off my chest.

Starbuck_II

2008-03-24, 06:16 AM

Problem Perception One: Role.

A common area of strife when it comes to paladins is their role in the fictional cultures of DnD. The conflict can be summarized as "Soldier vs. Social Services" or "Policeman vs. Rambo."

Some feel that the Paladin should focus on martial and political problems above more social and domestic issues. The threat of an orc war band is greater than a poor harvest. The kingdom should be defended from hobgoblin invaders above an investigation of its officials for corruption. These thinkers might cite the Paladin's clearly martial abilities, such as Full BAB, Smite, Turn Undead, Weapon and Armor Proficiencies, Aura of Courage, and Mount indicate a preference for warrior activities. They argue the Paladin works best roaming about destroying evil, and that halting to get entangled in domestic problems allows the forces of evil to encroach elsewhere.

Others feel that the Lay on Hand, divine spell casting, Divine Health, and Remove Disease all point to a clear ability to aid in non-martial matters, and that the Paladin's social status as a Paladin (which, they argue, gives them great weight) allows them to address social problems. A paladin that fails to address such ills given the opportunity is guilty of negligence. These individuals are also quick to note that Clerics have similar martial and offensive abilities and demonstrate an aptitude for dealing with non-martial problems.

And Clerics do not fall if they decider not do either. So bringing Clerics into this makes the Paladin seem stupid to have to decide.

The Paladin will fall based on DM if he does not do which ever view the DM favors.

Factoring into this is the Paladin's rule of engagement. To what degree can Paladins go to hunt down and destroy evil? Obviously, Paladins cannot do evil deeds themselves, and they must remain lawful. Paladins must respect legitimate authority; but how far does all this go? Must a Paladin work within the legal system of the legitimate authority? Does a Paladin have the power to try, judge, sentence, and execute evil doers? What if there is a situation where there is no clear legitimate authority? There are many debates and arguments about this subject, too many to easily summarize.

Again, up to player, unless you had a bad DM.

A sub-debate is about whether Paladins are allowed to be merciful. Law is performing reaction A to situation B. Person steals bread, receives punishment. Obviously, an unjust or wrong punishment would be resisted by a Paladin, but once more, a problem; can a Paladin give mercy to evil people, or when a punishment is deserved? If Crime A demands death, is it alright for a paladin to spare his opponent if he apprehends him? If a Paladin apprehends a youth stealing frivolously, and the punishment is five lashes, can he let him off if he feels it would aid in his rehabilitation.

While we do not have conclusibve evidence on whether you can be merciful; we do have the opposite. Alhandra is a Paladin who shows no mercy toward evil.
So we know you do not have to be merciful, but we don't know if you can be.
I'd assume up to player again, but bad DMs exist.

Problem Perception Three: The Code.

This is the big one I feel. Instead of entering the specific debates about the code itself and its tenets, I'm going to address a different set of perceptions: People's perceptions about why there is a code.

Why does a paladin have a code? Is the code a set of standards, a set of ideals that all Paladins should obey and aspire to because they are the one true way? Or are they regulatory, necessary quality controls to insure Paladins do good and do not misuse their powers?

I feel, however, their is a certain perception that must be spotlighted. This is the crown jewel of my piece; so pay attention.

The Paladin has a code to applease playtest players during the making of 3rd.

Same thing is happening to the 4th edition Paladin sadly, they nerfed his Divine Challlenge because, " it didn't fit their view of how a Paladin should act".

I hate this nerfing to perception: can't they houserule if the only issue is thir perception...

Conclusion.

So those are the perceptions people have about paladins that proliferate problems, at least from my perspective. There are many ways to address each one, but the most important thing to do is to recognize and discuss these areas, particularly if you or a loved one are going to attempt playing a Paladin.

I guess all I can close with is asking for feedback: Things I missed, or misidentified, and people's thoughts on these problems.

You forgot. Is summoning their mount and letting it die good? The Mount reforms in 30 days so it isn't really dead, but is summoning something and letting it die, allowed?

I bet a DM or to might not like that.

AslanCross

2008-03-24, 07:38 AM

In my opinion, the easiest, most satisfying, and overall best answer to any problem with the paladin is...play a Cleric or a Crusader.
...

There is absolutely no reason to play a paladin. No reason. At all. Not even that one. Never will there ever be a reason. Paladins are bad by design. Playing a paladin is like saying you'd rather work in a cubicle for the rest of your life with no possibility of ever advancing, than work in a corner office with a bright and wonderful future ahead of you.

Before I say my piece I'd like to say that clerics are not as free to do whatever they want as most believe.

Ex-Clerics

A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

I think this is a rarely remembered stipulation of the cleric class description, but on the other hand, it rarely comes into play as well. A cleric of Kelemvor, for example (Forgotten Realms god of death who teaches about death being natural and fair, and undeath is one of the worst things ever) should fall if she tries to animate undead creatures. But just how often does that happen? Given the specific portfolios of deities, it's very clear as to what is a do and what is a don't for a cleric.

While I agree that clerics and crusaders are mechanically better (and that crusader was intended to fix the problems of the paladin), I think that's skirting the issue. The cleric's power was increased due to the lack of interest in the class in previous versions, while the crusader was created entirely to fix the weakness of the paladin. The "play a cleric or crusader instead" mentality does not fix the fact that there was a reason the class was created, just that it wasn't done well.

I believe it's clear that the paladin is an RP-heavy class who may eventually become a source of conflict in the party, though perhaps not as much as having an evil character in a good party. That's not to say it's a bad thing: conflict is, after all, what makes a story interesting, and having conflict between PCs (at a healthy level, of course, not we-can't-move-forward-because-Miko-Miyazaki-here-has-a-rectal-stick) helps stimulate RPing. And quite frankly, clerics and crusaders don't have the same level of dedication to what they are, ironically.

A paladin can and should be zealous, but that doesn't mean she can't have doubts. A paladin can and should be chivalrous and martial, but that doesn't mean she's an unstoppable avatar of divine punishment (granted I'd rather be stronger on the battlefield and be able to charge my sword with the exploding wrath of my God instead of being able to remove disease a bit more times each week). A paladin can and should be righteous, but that doesn't mean she'll eviscerate a street kid for picking her pocket.

The code should teach the paladin to be more careful with her actions and be more discerning with her actions. By definition it is limiting, but that doesn't mean all paladins will be robot clones. Sir Gregory the Merciful could be known for sparing bosses from his blade at the point of death (and still gain XP for it), yet he could also know that the best and unfortunately most tragic way of stopping the demon-possessed princess of his kingdom from wrecking everything he sought to protect is to kill her. In the same way, Lady Evangela the Valiant could be known primarily for smiting a rampaging orc horde to the abyss, while still being genuinely compassionate to a lost orc orphan left by the fleeing horde.

As such, I believe that paladins are better off lawful GOOD than LAWFUL good, though the ideal is LAWFUL GOOD. I think paladins are supposed to be paragons of everything that is altruistic, compassionate and just about mortals, and that law is only their preferred tool in upholding good. Paladins should be challenged to strike a balance between the two, and I think it's right that a paladin is not punished as much for committing chaotic acts as he is for committing evil acts. (The problem with this is how alignment works, though.)

I like the paladin. When I first saw the PHB, I flipped immediately to the Paladin's page. Not knowing what optimization was yet, I didn't complain about its lack of POWER OVERWHELMING. The first thing that came to my mind was that "This class is meant for leaders. This is the class I want to play because it represents something that the world sorely lacks nowadays."

The code is there for a reason: conflict. When you choose to play a paladin, it's not because "I want to be an avatar of divine ownage." It's because you want to play a paragon of justice and good. The code adds more of a bitter aftertaste to one's actions.

I agree that the paladin is mechanically inferior. But that doesn't mean there is absolutely no reason to play one (as opposed to say, Swordsage vs Monk). Crusaders can't fall. Clerics can, but they have it easy---it's too simple to avoid raising undead if you're a cleric of a god of life (or natural death), and it's for granted that a cleric of a god of slaughter will not heal little children. For the paladin, choosing what to do with that rampaging demon-possessed princess is a part of the job. The paladin should as much as possible preserve the lives of the innocent through the rule of law, but that doesn't mean he will balk at shooting the dog--in this case killing the princess--if he has to. If he is willing to sacrifice his life, he must be willing to sacrifice his class features. If his actions truly were meant to accomplish something good, he has faith enough in his god to restore him. If his god does not allow him to atone (because the DM's being nasty), it doesn't mean that the paladin automatically becomes a blackguard. The paladin would continue to advance in another class--maybe a fighter--and maybe continue to adhere to the code even if it doesn't technically apply to him anymore.

The paladin, despite its "lawful good" alignment and the "awkward shoehorning" of a personality, is far more morally ambiguous than the kleptomaniac CN bard or the apathetic TN wizard or even the CG rebel-with-a-cause ranger. The paladin has to struggle with his conscience. His worst enemy, in the end, is himself.

Narmoth

2008-03-24, 08:00 AM

Little_Rudo

2008-03-24, 08:21 AM

I'm not very capable of participating in this discussion, so I'll just comment on one question asked early on.

As a final point - I'm curious. Who would you (and I address other people in general, here, not just you, Kasrkin), consider, from literature, to be a paladin?

When I think of a Paladin, I think of St. Joan of Arc. Not necessarily the 'true' Jean D'Arc - there's plenty of speculation as to how she heard God's voice - but the idealized image of her. A woman who heard God's call and defied society's standards of women so that she could serve as a soldier and lead soldiers to great victories, then was martyred. (We read the transcripts from her trial in my Medieval History class; easily my favorite book of the class.)

Roderick_BR

2008-03-24, 08:33 AM

I must say, I don't quite understand why all paladins have to fit into the same role here - why can't some paladins be Sir Galahad types, roaming the countryside, slaying dragons, and rescuing fair damsels, and some be Mary Poppins types, staying in town and making lives better one at a time?

Well, you're missing the last two options:
1. If possible, he could try to work out a compromise between the two - certainly that would be ideal to destroying one of the two viewpoints.
2. He could stay out of the dispute entirely, interfering only as necessary to prevent innocents from getting trapped in the middle. The conscientious paladin reserves his righteous fury for those deserving of it.

Again, I think you're missing an option here - the paladin has the powers because he has the code. Whoever gives him his abilities doesn't say "You can have these powers as long as you don't do these things," he says "You follow this code, and I like that, so I'm going to give you these powers so you can follow it better."

As a final point - I'm curious. Who would you (and I address other people in general, here, not just you, Kasrkin), consider, from literature, to be a paladin?

The obvious candidates, in my opinion, would be Sir Galahad, some of the Twelve Peers (I don't know enough about Charlemagne to certainly say all of them), and Prince Edward the Just, of The Legend of Nightfall (and its sequel). But I'm curious - who else fits?
Good points. I'd say this post completes what the OP meant. The paladin has more options than meets the eye.

A cool example of Paladin? Saint George. Dragon-Slaying included. http://www.anaflavia.com.br/download/saojorge_imagem.jpg

I have two opinions on paladins that always bothered me.
First, the paladin, as a concept, is kinda lacking to me. It's weirf that you can start the game as a 1st level holy knight thing. I like the option of playing a paladin as a PrC, because it makes you deserve your status. Try to imagine a base class version of the blackguard. Would look weird.
Second, the paladin's ability are both too static, and not good enough. The paladin has specific abilities (detect/smite evil at first level, divine grace an lay on hands at 2nd...) it looks more like a PrC than a base class. Then, we got to how a paladin can be weak, compared to others classes.
1st level:
Fighters, paladins, barbarians and rangers have bab+1
Fighters, paladins, and clerics have full armor proficiency
Then, the juicy bits:
Fighter gets a bonus feat, cleric gets domains and spells, barbarian gains rage (fast movement and a better hit die makes up for less armor).
Then paladin gets detect evil and smite evil. Then they get aura of good (whose only purpose is to turn the paladin into a target) and the code. His benefits and drawbacks balance themselves out, and I'd say that the code outweights his starting abilities by far. If you try to contabilize it, the paladin doesn't get much for his troubles.

I see that people likes the way the crusader from ToB works, and I like that too. But, as it was mentioned, the crusader is not a paladin. An idea I was having is to get the crusader as a base class (with a few tweaks to make his powers be more "divine based"), and make paladin into a prestige class for martial types (instead of a PrC for clerics).

And to Xefas: Technically, there is not reason at all to play ANY class :smalltongue: The reason people want to play paladins is to emulate the "knight in shinning armor" stereotype, with some added divine abilities, without to play a cleric.

AslanCross

2008-03-24, 09:03 AM

Now, I play only 2nd ed AD&D, and a lot of the problems you experience with the paladin, are non-excistent in this dinosaur version. Specifically, it's clearly stated in the AD&D rules (who were the first to have the paladin class I believe) that the paladin looses his status as paladin if he ever willfully commits an evil act. Chaotic acts he has merely to atone for.
How they managed to forget to include it in the 3rd ed I don't know, but that's the reason for half of the problems people have with the class.
The paladin could by 2nd ed steal the vorpal sword of destruction from the evil overlord. Heck, he could steal a horse from a farmer to warn the king of the approaching orc army. He just would have to recompensate the farmer for the loss afterwards and atone.

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Ex-Paladins

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

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

It's pretty much the same, actually. A single evil act causes a paladin to fall. Chaotic acts are tolerated, although eventually, if the DM determines that the paladin is no longer lawful, he falls. Atonement is done only in the event of a fall.

snoopy13a

2008-03-24, 10:41 AM

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-24, 10:55 AM

The kicker is that you aren't tied down by their stupid code or the stigma around them. You can be as Lawful Good as you want, but no one can trick you into an impossible moral dilemma and make you fall.

And Clerics do not fall if they decider not do either. So bringing Clerics into this makes the Paladin seem stupid to have to decide.

And this is why you fail.
Ex-Clerics

A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).
People always seem to overlook this bit...

Hagentai

2008-03-24, 11:45 AM

I'd put the traditional portrayl of Superman as a paladin as well (I don't read the comics so for all I know, Superman has recently been turned to an anti-hero like every other comic book character).

Fighters can also be LG "paladin" types if you want them to be.

Paladins exist so people can RP "knights in shining armor" characters. Overall, I think paladins should only be played in groups that are primarily LG or NG and in campaigns where there is a defined line between good and evil. I think a DM that places a paladin in a moral dilemna just to force him or her to fall deserves a punch in the face. Obviously, a paladin that commits evil actions by choice (randomly killing some NPC) deserves to fall but I don't think it is right to put players in moral dilemnas to make them suffer. RPGs are supposed to be fun, not ways for the DM to be a jerk.

My impression is that PC paladins work best as noble knights errant ridding the countryside of evil. Personally, I view the social justice champion as a role more fitting for a good cleric. Of course, this doesn't mean that a paladin cannot do this but I don't see it as the "stereotyped behavior" for the class. NPC Paladins probably either spend their time as knights errant, temple guards or as escorts of clerics or pilgrims.

“The paladin.”

Is a zealot. A balls busting, uncompromising, holy roller.

I’ve seen dms use them as the role as the villain a few times (Oh Lawful good can be obstructive).

A paladin might be understanding. But generally those are the kinds that dms get there rocks off tempting and teasing.

I would picture a country run by a paladin a dull, flavorless, tightly wound, martial state with little freedom and severe punishments for infractions.

The real question is, and it’s not covered, just how far can a Paladin jam his standards of living down others throats? It’s not said, a DM would likely and arbitrarily punish a player for this to be on the safe side, because that’s the nature of the paladin.

Not to allow wavering.

You know what a Paladin has up on the cleric? Sense motive. That's it.

All the other cute abilities (and mount) aren't worth the bull **** that goes into having them. Oh you heal with your hands, I have dozens of spells that puts me over you. I can cure disease, so forth and so on (cleric).

And if I have destruction domain I can even smite better than you.

I'm one divine power away from making you jank mr Paladin. But yes, Sense motive is pretty darn important. Kinda always tweeked me the cleric didn't have it.

elliott20

2008-03-24, 12:19 PM

I've always liked the paladin. Why? mostly because I like heroes, and supposedly, it doesn't get more heroic than a knight in shining armor upholding justice in all of it's glory.

But in d&d, I notice there is one thing that the paladin has that other classes does not... a flag. What do I mean by the flag? well, consider the following example:

In a lot of independant games, they put in a mechanic that is basically a flag for the player to tell the GM that they are interested in certain types of play, that they want to be challenged in a certain way, or that they want to experience a certain kind of encounter. Such flags can come in the form of maybe a quickly written belief system, a list of character goals, or some other variant.

In D&D games, there is no such thing as the flag. The only challenges and storylines you come up with are usually done exclusively by the GM and you kind of have to fit your story around the GM's work. Often, internal character development is player motivated and without gross violations or close GM observations, the player is the sole arbiter as to how their character develops.

The only exception to this rule is the paladin, where because of the strong iconic image that is attached to paladins, every paladin comes with an automatic "flag". This flag is predefined, but often not crystal clear for every player. And in a game where most other characters are not restricted by these things except through alignment, the paladin will extra restrictive.

To top this off, players who fail at this flag are mechanically punished for rules that are not mechanical.

This makes the paladin, to be quite frank, a very difficult act to do properly. Why? because a sadistic GM will pretty much make sure you're constantly challenged, and you're never going to be quite the hero you envision yourself to be.

Ascension

2008-03-24, 01:10 PM

Okay, if EE sees this he's gonna be all over me like chickens on a junebug, but let me have my say...

I like the Grey Guard and the Shadowbane Inquisitor.

If I ever play a paladin (in anything short of an Exalted Good party... I'd go straight paladin in an exalted game), it'll be for the purpose of going into one of the semi-paladin PrCs. Straight paladins would work well in traditional medieval European fantasy in the vein of The Song of Roland or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, but most of D&D is more inspired by the darker parts of the Arthurian mythos. Gawain and Galahad are straight paladins. Lancelot and Arthur are Grey Guards at best, fallen paladins at worst. Mordred's a blackguard.

The Grey Guard is the paladin who, like Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean, says "the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines.'" He's the paladin who realizes that sometimes things get sticky in the evil-fighting business, and it's good to have a little flexibility.

Granted, I think the WotC art of the Grey Guard goes too far in turning him into an obvious anti-hero. While they're more flexible, I don't think Grey Guards should be entirely fall-proof. I just think they should be able to survive, say... being King Arthur... without falling.

I don't think the Grey Guard is entirely a vehicle for evil-in-good's-clothing. I think it's more a vehicle for neutrality-for-the-sake-of-the-greater-good. The GG and SBI's MOTIVES should still be entirely good and lawful. Their METHODS, on the other hand, are somewhat flexible.

What it comes down to is this. I think that if you've got a code that King Arthur himself couldn't live up to, it may be a wee bit strict.

Eorran

2008-03-24, 01:23 PM

Mojo_Rat

2008-03-24, 01:33 PM

The problem with Paladins really isnt paladins.

It is Players and other characters alot of the time.

What i mean by this is at its heart a Paladin Is supposed to be aN honorable good law abiding man that believes in high ideals. Wether they enact these ideals through slaying monsters or acting as defenders of the helpless really doesnt matter. The fact is It gets needlssly complicated by as I said Other characters and Players.

Alot of the time in Parties of 'good guy' adventuers They areally are not good guys. They lie they cheat they Steal they Murder. They Often break laws etc. All it really takes is one member of the party doing this to cause a conflict and then /the paladin/ is made out to be the bad guy.

The problem partially is that while a 'Lawful Good fighter' Might be able to be flexible nd not be felt by his player that hes not being heroic if he ignores what the rogue is doing (its admitedly not always the rogue admitedly) But Most people playing Paladins Feel they cant.

The Code isnt that hard to follow its how others react to your trying to be honorable and good and lawful that causes the problems.

Im honestly of the opinion that Anyone playing a Crusader or Cleric who is trying to live up to the same Rp concept should have to live up to a code or whatever IF they are not then they are not really paladins are they or even very heroic.

elliott20

2008-03-24, 01:59 PM

I've played Paladins, and DM'd for Paladin-centric quests. They can be a great class, if the campaign supports it.
I had one experience (2nd ed) where a large group of PCs consisted of six multiclass thief/something and a single paladin, in a campaign that was mostly Mission: Impossible style. After a few missions, it became obvious that the Paladin didn't fit in, so he was NPC'd.
If you are going to play a paladin, the DM has to be willing to run a campaign where paladins can participate. I'd suggest that the player and DM come up with a more specific code than RAW, so that the player understands what's expected of him. (By "specific", I don't necessarily mean "restrictive"; answer questions like, does the Paladin have authority to try someone? Does he have to accept anybody's surrender? Respond to a challenge? etc.)

See, this I believe is a useful exercise because:

1. it syncs up your expectations of the paladin and general guidelines
2. it also helps the GM highlight what it is you might care to be challenged in. Do you want your paladinhood to constantly be challenged by the GM? Do you want your challenges to be very difficult with no way out or do you just want to be able to be presented with a challenge to overcome? When the GM ignores the player's desire on this, ultimately, the player is not going to have fun since his character is being needlessly punished.

Again, it's all about player expectations vs. GM expectations.

AslanCross

2008-03-24, 04:39 PM

“The paladin.”

Is a zealot. A balls busting, uncompromising, holy roller.

....
I would picture a country run by a paladin a dull, flavorless, tightly wound, martial state with little freedom and severe punishments for infractions.

The real question is, and it’s not covered, just how far can a Paladin jam his standards of living down others throats? It’s not said, a DM would likely and arbitrarily punish a player for this to be on the safe side, because that’s the nature of the paladin.

So the paladin is supposed to be Miko Miyazaki? :smallconfused: Hinjo is the wrong way to play a paladin?

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-24, 04:51 PM

“The paladin.”

Is a zealot. A balls busting, uncompromising, holy roller.

I’ve seen dms use them as the role as the villain a few times (Oh Lawful good can be obstructive).

A paladin might be understanding. But generally those are the kinds that dms get there rocks off tempting and teasing.

I would picture a country run by a paladin a dull, flavorless, tightly wound, martial state with little freedom and severe punishments for infractions.
WotC disagrees with you. The official campaign settings have countries run by paladins (the Forgotten Realms has several in itself) and they are not as you describe.

Talya

2008-03-24, 04:55 PM

Let's take the range of behavior further.

The FR deity Sune has an order of paladins, the Ruby Rose Knights.

Sune is the only CG deity in all of Faerun available to paladins. (And Faerun requires divine abilities to have a divine patron(matron), you can't serve an ideal or such.)

The Ruby Rose Knights still must remain Lawful Good, yet they protect and serve a church with primarily chaotic (even CN) adherents and priests.

How do you suppose they behave?

Reel On, Love

2008-03-24, 05:02 PM

The Ruby Rose Knights still must remain Lawful Good, yet they protect and serve a church with primarily chaotic (even CN) adherents and priests.

How do you suppose they behave?

Very carefully.

Rutee

2008-03-24, 05:18 PM

I’m going to modify a quote from my favorite starwars characters Corran Horn

This is my entire point of view behind paladins. Paladins should be put on the spot, physically, emotionally and/or spiritually. Being a powerful force of good in the world has consequences that should impact the paladin character. Just like if a rogue was a pickpocket, eventually his thievery will catch up to him.

Challenging the paladin’s faith or code is a great way to do this, however there should always be a way out, even if it’s not easy to see. Can a paladin make a mistake? Sure, no one’s perfect, but there needs to be limits on what he can get away with. I use a 3 strikes clause when dealing with paladins, they violate their alignment or code three times, then they loose their powers and need to seek atonement. Now you may say why don’t he just keep doing it and get off with all sorts of mischief? I made the atonement a quest they need to fulfill, and they do not get either XP or any other reward, other than the return of their powers.
I find it curious that a quest for redemption matters because it causes a loss in mechanical ability. If a Fighter identified with a deity well enough to serve a particular deity well, and betrayed what that deity stood for, would the quest be any less interesting just because the Fighter didn't lose anything, and is taking the quest for the sake of the redemption?

Could you not challenge the code of any character who has one, and it would be just as interesting?

horseboy

2008-03-24, 05:40 PM

How do you suppose they behave?
Like the Designated Driver. They're there with you, enjoying the music and dancing with the girls, too. They're just holding themselves to a higher standard of behaviour to make sure everything goes smooth.

Ascension

2008-03-24, 05:46 PM

Like the Designated Driver. They're there with you, enjoying the music and dancing with the girls, too. They're just holding themselves to a higher standard of behaviour to make sure everything goes smooth.

That's actually a pretty good concept for paladins in general... paladins as designated drivers... I've got to remember that.

Talya

2008-03-24, 05:50 PM

Starbuck_II

2008-03-24, 05:51 PM

And this is why you fail.
People always seem to overlook this bit...

And you overlooked what I quoted.

I'll requote it: A common area of strife when it comes to paladins is their role in the fictional cultures of DnD. The conflict can be summarized as "Soldier vs. Social Services" or "Policeman vs. Rambo."

Clerics do not have this issue. Theyt just have to stay within god's (or ideal's if that type of Cleric) alignment.
And this is why you fail: and as a Paladin fall.

horseboy

2008-03-24, 05:52 PM

That's actually a pretty good concept for paladins in general... paladins as designated drivers... I've got to remember that.
Totally, a large chunk of the "misconceptions" of paladins are actually problems of the rigidity of the alignment system in general.

AslanCross

2008-03-24, 06:00 PM

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-24, 06:02 PM

And you overlooked what I quoted.

I'll requote it: A common area of strife when it comes to paladins is their role in the fictional cultures of DnD. The conflict can be summarized as "Soldier vs. Social Services" or "Policeman vs. Rambo."

Clerics do not have this issue. Theyt just have to stay within god's (or ideal's if that type of Cleric) alignment.
And this is why you fail: and as a Paladin fall.
And if their god is Torm or Heironeous? What then?

Oh yeah. Paladin's code for them, if not even more strict. Clerics should be held to an even higher standard than paladins; they just don't tend to be due to the fact that WotC found it unnecessary to spend twenty pages spelling out codes for clerics of every deity... and rightly so; the DM should be able to see how a cleric of a given god is expected to behave.

Rutee

2008-03-24, 06:05 PM

Heironeous doesn't seem that bad. "Promotes justice, valor, chivalry, and honor"? Doesn't seem terribly limiting offhand.

TheThan

2008-03-24, 07:33 PM

The difference is that the paladin has his code tied to his abilities, where a fighter does not, if a fighter chooses to follow a code like say the ideals of a samurai, that’s great. But if he breaks that code, well the worst thing that happens to him according to RAW is his alignment might slip. That’s about the equivalent as a slap on the wrist, and basically no big deal (mechanically speaking of course).

But if a paladin falls, he looses everything and can’t advance as a paladin any more. So it’s a much bigger deal. It’s certainly not a square deal, but that’s the way the rules work. Now the only real reason why I make atonement a little bit more interesting is because I want paladins to care about their decisions and not develop a “meh I’ll just atone for it later” attitude. Paladins should not fall easily, some DMs think they should, or at least hate them enough to force the paladin to fall. I won’t do that, I’ll put the paladin in a position where he has to make a tough decision, but I won’t make it a lose/lose situation.

It also depends on how strong the role-playing dynamic is in the group of players. My group is particularly bad at it, though not for want of trying. It also has to do with the situation, does the player have an intimate (not sex mind you) relationship with his/her deity? Or is it more of a “yeah I follow this god just because its what I chose when I made the character” attitude?
But to answer your question, no, it wouldn’t be any less interesting, but like I said the consequences are far less sever and is certainly more in the realm of an optional quest.

Personally I believe that paladins don’t work well in a polytheistic society like most dnd worlds. Look at the contemporary paladins of folklore Gawain, Lancelot and Galahad for example were all Christian knights under King Arthur (not the most keen on the whole legend so excuse any inaccuracies). They followed one god and went around doing good (which I’m sure included killing those that they saw as heathens).

In a polytheistic society it’s difficult for the paladin to really find a place, since everyone worships different gods, several of which fall in with the paladin’s alignment and point of view. You end up with paladins that all worship a different god, which stretches at least my suspension of disbelief.

Well I tend to get long winded so I’m going to cut this short.

Talya

2008-03-24, 07:36 PM

Totally, a large chunk of the "misconceptions" of paladins are actually problems of the rigidity of the alignment system in general.

It's not that the alignment system that is rigid, but that those who don't understand it interpret it as so that is the problem.

Rutee

2008-03-24, 07:43 PM

Alignment is exactly as strict as the GM interpreting it, quite frankly. Neither camp is inherently correct on that count.

@TheThan: I see. You just like having some stakes there, and the mechanical ability does add an OOC impetus at least.

two_fishes

2008-03-24, 07:48 PM

Sometimes I want to shake the people on this forum and say, "It's your game! Do what you want! You shelled out the exorbitant dollars for it! Make it your own!" Paladins are what you and your group want them to be. Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil are defined as you and your group want them to be defined! Do you want a game where the differences are clear-cut and easy to see? Do that! do you want a game where you as a group struggle to define the boundaries of the alignments? Do that! Why is everyone always appealing to a higher authority to define their creative boundaries?!

Dode

2008-03-24, 07:53 PM

AslanCross

2008-03-24, 07:55 PM

Personally I believe that paladins don’t work well in a polytheistic society like most dnd worlds. Look at the contemporary paladins of folklore Gawain, Lancelot and Galahad for example were all Christian knights under King Arthur (not the most keen on the whole legend so excuse any inaccuracies). They followed one god and went around doing good (which I’m sure included killing those that they saw as heathens).

In a polytheistic society it’s difficult for the paladin to really find a place, since everyone worships different gods, several of which fall in with the paladin’s alignment and point of view. You end up with paladins that all worship a different god, which stretches at least my suspension of disbelief.

Well I tend to get long winded so I’m going to cut this short.

You have a point, but the presence of multiple deities doesn't necessarily mean that paladins don't get along with people of other faiths. A paladin of Heironeous might be a good friend and staunch ally of a cleric of St. Cuthbert, especially when they think someone needs a good smiting. On the other hand, they might still disagree on how much compassion to give. Devotion to one deity can still presuppose the existence and relevance of other deities, and does not necessarily mean gods would require their followers to kill followers of other gods just because they believe in other gods. Open conflict involving crusades and heathen-smiting would only arise if they're diametrically opposed (say, Pelor vs Nerull or Heironeous vs Hextor).

Rutee

2008-03-24, 08:03 PM

The alignment system isn't what causes problems, its the readers who take the small handful of sentences in the PHB describing each ethic and moral standing and read a tome of personal musings on ethics and morality "in between the lines" and try to impose these opinions as in-game law on other players.

The alignment system doesn't really support a liberal (or a strict) reading. That's hte problem with your point. Given the complete absence of discouraging strict reading, there's a distinct problem with the system.

Basically, it's so easy to use in such a drastically wrong way that the system itself carries this as a flaw.

Talya

2008-03-24, 08:10 PM

The alignment system as described in core is necessarily short. It isn't detailed, but it gives you a good idea to work with.

However, with two entire splatbooks dedicated to Good and Evil, that axis at least should be clear. Personally, I find "law and chaos" less ambiguous.

Corolinth

2008-03-24, 08:18 PM

Alignment in D&D, and its implications, is not that hard to puzzle out.

The problem comes when your group of budding young minds who have never read a book on the subject of ethics and philosophy want to debate semantics. Generally this happens when they wish to carry out a plan that they know violates their characters' alignments, but are too lazy to puzzle out an alternate solution, or are unwilling to accept the risk involved in actually playing out their alignment. Or, it leads us to come face to face with the fact that most of us are actually neutral, and not good. This is typically when you see the term "lawful stupid" come up.

Triaxx

2008-03-24, 08:31 PM

Paladin's are... cops. In an army, the Fighters are soldiers, Barbarians are body guards for officers, and Paladin's are the MP's, keeping order among the ranks.

Out in the wilds, Paladin's become mayors, or sheriff's. The job is keeping up the laws, and doing good, not merely acting good. A Fighter might help the widow work the farm to pay the mortgage. A Rogue would rob the bank to pay the mortgage. The Paladin just pays it and doesn't say anything about it.

Rutee

2008-03-24, 08:35 PM

Paying 60 dollars to hear WotC's bad philosophy is a bad deal. I could easily handle Alignment myself, I'm pointing out that the system itself doesn't really support liberal or strict interpretations; You could accurately say that the problems come from strict interpretations, but they're not using the system wrong by the rules of the system. That's my objection basically.

Tequila Sunrise

2008-03-24, 08:52 PM

I use Core DnD and my own thoughts for these issues; People who want to use BoED, BoVD, FF, etc. for their thinking and reasons why their response is the correct one will be politely listened to, because I'm not a meany, or at least like to think I'm not most of the time, but told politely that their evidence is inadmissible.

While as always anyone can dismiss anyone else's opinion for whatever reason, I think by limiting yourself to core rationale you are artificially limiting the quality of responses you will get. For example you may think of the PHB as the golden standard for paladins everywhere, my thoughts on this issue stem from my irreverence toward that same golden standard. So dismiss the following if you please, but keep in mind that there are plenty of players who share my attitude towards paladins:

I for the most part ignore the LG alignment restriction, the CoC and other paladin sacred cows because I mostly consider a character's class to be divorced from his history and personality. If a player wants to play a classical paladin character, they're welcome to. But they're also welcome to play a chaotic aligned paladin of Kord or even an evil aligned paladin of Erythnul if we're playing an evil campaign. As a result of this attitude regarding paladins, I just can't help but laugh when people get their panties in a knot about the technicalities of alignments and the CoC. To me, it's just a waste of time and energy--I play D&D to have an imaginative experience, not to play "Law and Order: the Role Playing Game".

The_Werebear

2008-03-25, 04:28 AM

I think they key problem with Paladins (and this thread, of course, helps prove it) is that everyone has a differing interpretation of how a paladin is supposed to act, both in their heads and from the information WoTC gives us. Personally, I think of Paladin's (and LG Crusaders) as in the Designated Driver role that was mentioned earlier. They are the ones who hold themselves to the higher standard, and when the rest of the party is slipping, they are the ones with a quiet word to remind them of what they are about to do. When it seems like there is nothing else to stop evil from advancing, they are there. Basically, an image of self sacrifice and courage. When it comes to a tough choice, they pick the best option and the time and pray they are right.

Others view them as delivery services for holy whupass, detecting evil and leaving a trail of broken monster corpses behind them. There has never been an alignment problem they couldn't stab until it was resolved. The viewpoint is equally valid.

So, in my opinion, the real problem is that WoTC said "Knight In Shining Armor, and all around Good Guy," and didn't expand it far enough beyond that. So, everyone fills in the blank with their own mental image, and they don't always overlap well.

That, and some DM's and players are just jerks who want to make other players suffer for trying to play a responsible, reasonable character who holds themselves to a code

MorkaisChosen

2008-03-25, 06:08 AM

One interesting take on the whole "Is it right to murder orcs on sight?" issue is this here prestige class (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Weeping_Knight_%28DnD_Prestige_Class%29) I made after reading Vow of Nonviolence. That shows the other extreme of Paladinhood- the holy warrior that eschews killing. It's not what every paladin is, sure- there are some who kill every murderer they come across. That's the point- not every Pally is the same.

One thing that really gets me is people saying stuff like, "Lawful Good means you always have to do XYZ in situation A." (for example, kill the evil warlord). That's not true. Lawful Good is a very broad thing. One LG guy could massacre his way through the whole enemy army, while another knocks soldiers unconcious and takes the leader prisoner. They're both LG- they could both even be paladins- but they react to the same situation in very different ways.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 06:38 AM

Personally, I think many Paladin dilemmas would be solve if we would ignore how WoTC's designers are airheaded and consider LG the goodest alignment and change the paladin to NG, which is even outright stated to be the goodest good. Suddenly, playing a paladin seems much easier, right?

Rion

2008-03-25, 08:49 AM

Wouldn't it be better we allowed both LG and NG paladins? While I think the comparison with a designated driver works, there are other versions too. For example someone like Durkon, a nice guy with added dependability, loyalty, honour and responsibility.

KIDS

2008-03-25, 08:54 AM

You've pretty much accurately summed up the issues with the Paladin class. Nothing to say there except I hope for more overall tolerance on the matter and relaxing that ********* code.

Talya

2008-03-25, 08:58 AM

Paying 60 dollars to hear WotC's bad philosophy is a bad deal.

Except both books are exceptional gaming books in their own right, apart from the clarification of the alignment system.

elliott20

2008-03-25, 09:10 AM

Azerian Kelimon, I would take that one step further and say that the CoC should be defined by the player instead of the GM, and that such a code, once established, need to be self-imposed.

that is, we can't constantly design rules around the idea that the players are going to try to cheat and twist the rules suit their own end. we can't force someone to play something they do not want to play. And we certainly cannot force someone to do so if there is a drastic difference in perception.

There needs to be a balance. In other games I've played, there were mechanics available where the players basically flag something that says "hey, look here." so the GM can design encounters to that end. In the paladins case, if you allow the player to design their own codes of conduct, you allow the players to say, "this is the kind of moral struggles I want this character to have." Completely and utterly subjecting a player to my whim, while a satisfying powertrip, means that if I want to do my job right, I need to in so many words read the players mind on what is right and what is wrong in their head. And god forbid if I'm wrong, (or if the player just isn't interested in the moral play) they will just try to skirt around the issue or do something else.

MorkaisChosen

2008-03-25, 09:13 AM

The various Vows in BoED can help with that to an extent- for example, a Vow of Nonviolnce character is obviously interested in compassion and avoiding violent solutions.

elliott20

2008-03-25, 09:31 AM

Vows in BoED makes a strong case for itself in that regard. Some of the vows I feel were ill suited for D&D due to the heavy emphasis D&D has on combat and such, which can result in some Vows basically never becomng part of the game. Having said that though, I would go as far to say that if possible, I would rather have a paladin's code be constructed entirely of the vows so that at least the player would know what they are getting into.

hewhosaysfish

2008-03-25, 10:02 AM

In other games I've played, there were mechanics available where the players basically flag something that says "hey, look here." so the GM can design encounters to that end. In the paladins case, if you allow the player to design their own codes of conduct, you allow the players to say, "this is the kind of moral struggles I want this character to have."

I feel that it may be a mistake to leave such flags entirely implicit: imagine if you put something into your code of conduct which says something like "will treat a surrendering foe with honour" and "will never allow harm to befall his home city" and the DM decide to throw in some mad wizard who is going to explode violently unless you kill him first -taking half the city with him- but who surrenders when cornered.

Is this going to be fun for you?
If you wrote your CoC the way you did specifically to wave these little flags then yes, this will be a great opportunity to explore your characters morals, angst, drives, motivations, angst, ability to cope with pressure and angst.
You would be disappointed if such a situation did not arise in the course of the campaign! You were waving a little flag for character development and all you got were orcs to beat up.

But if you wrote your CoC the way you did because you wanted to show that your character was a noble and honourable, four-colours Superman nice-guy, then is it still so fun? If you want to stay true to the concept (the concept you went to the trouble to write down and show to the DM) then you have to seek a third option (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption), like defusing the exploding mage or rushing him out of the city limits. And then the mage explodes and takes half the city with him and possibly your character too. And the GMs sitting there thinking "Wow, that was some great character exploration! I'm a great GM! The idealistic paladin bravely going to his heroic (if futile) death! I'm glad I spotted those little flags in his character concept! That's the sort of gaming story he'll be writing about on GiantITP for months!" And you're sitting there thinking "That evil $%^$! He put me in a lose/lose situation! Why does everyone hate paladins?! I'm going to complain about this to everyone on GiantITP tonight!

And the moral of the story is:
Screw semaphore.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 10:09 AM

Except both books are exceptional gaming books in their own right, apart from the clarification of the alignment system.

Perhaps; However, as they're books that weren't considered vital enough to put in the SRD, they're still not terribly good shows of the (Alignment) system itself in any case.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 10:23 AM

And they're absolute garbage, actually, because in the bottom line, they establish LG as the goodest alignment, and CE as the most evil alignment. **** 'em, I say.

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 10:25 AM

Perhaps; However, as they're books that weren't considered vital enough to put in the SRD, they're still not terribly good shows of the (Alignment) system itself in any case.
"Considered vital enough?" They're not going to put everything into the SRD because, gasp and horror, they want to make money. :smallannoyed: It has nothing to do with what's important and everything to do with not giving away what they're trying to sell.

And they're absolute garbage, actually, because in the bottom line, they establish LG as the goodest alignment, and CE as the most evil alignment. **** 'em, I say.
And? They are. Random slaughter is as evil as it gets, and good that doesn't have the discipline to restrain evil will not long remain so. Also, nowhere does it say neutral good is the "best" good.

Talya

2008-03-25, 10:34 AM

And they're absolute garbage, actually, because in the bottom line, they establish LG as the goodest alignment, and CE as the most evil alignment. **** 'em, I say.

They also don't.

Good is the "goodest" alignment. The law/chaos axis are immaterial to good or evil, BoEF doesn't in any way prefer one over the other.

Same with Evil. These books do not deal with the Law/Chaos axis.

BoED is the source for Eladrin, the Chaotic Good Celestials sorely lacking from Core. Don't tell me BoED considers them somehow morally inferior to Archons.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 10:34 AM

The mechanics for Immediate/Swift actions got in the SRD; They originate from non-core, and were added because of the sheer necessity of them in running the game (Because they're a vital assumption of mechanics in the books that followed). The mechnaics for Psionics are in the SRD; they originate from non-core (You could perhaps claim Age over necessity though.) Did they put BoED/VD's alignment stuff in the SRD due to it's necessity? Why, guess what!

Of course they need to make money; I'm aware of that. But if it wasn't important enough to put in the SRD, it's not a good showing of the system itself. It would be like me saying "Melee are fine compared to casters" based on the ToB putting them on a somewhat close playing field. ToB isn't a good show of the system as a whole, because it's non-core (Although an extremely good and interesting supplement, IMO).

Here's another good question; IF the BoED/VD are so vital, how often are they referenced in other books?

And they're absolute garbage, actually, because in the bottom line, they establish LG as the goodest alignment, and CE as the most evil alignment. **** 'em, I say.
Isn't that special? Yeah I'm not even going to bother looking for them now. Not even worth theft, let alone purchase.

They also don't.

Good is the goodest alignment. The law/chaos axis are immaterial to good or evil, BoEF doesn't in any way prefer one over the other.

Same with Evil. These books do not deal with the Law/Chaos axis.
I apologize, but the apologism of the poster above you makes believing you exceedingly difficult.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 10:36 AM

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 10:42 AM

Isn't that special? Yeah I'm not even going to bother looking for them now. Not even worth theft, let alone purchase.
You realize it doesn't actually say that, right?

I apologize, but the apologism of the poster above you makes believing you exceedingly difficult.
I didn't say the books actually said that; I said it was a true statement.
Nowhere? Elysium and Hades. Donnae see a lawful or chaotic component to 'em. "Unempeded by concerns of Law and Chaos, able to do good in it's purest form", direct PHB quote. Is that enough?
No, it isn't, because it doesn't say it's "more good," it says it's purer. Which is by definition true; it means there aren't other concerns. This doesn't mean that the other two are less good; it just means that they have an additional concern.

Talya

2008-03-25, 10:43 AM

Nowhere? Elysium and Hades. Donnae see a lawful or chaotic component to 'em. "Unempeded by concerns of Law and Chaos, able to do good in it's purest form", direct PHB quote. Is that enough?

Correct. NG and NE are more capable of doing good or evil than LG/CG/LE/CE. When concerns of the other axis are completely ignored, you can focus on good or evil. Neutral good or evil will of necessity be less encumbered by ethical baggage in the accomplishment of their goals. That doesn't make them "more good," but it does make them more capable of good.

elliott20

2008-03-25, 10:44 AM

I feel that it may be a mistake to leave such flags entirely implicit: imagine if you put something into your code of conduct which says something like "will treat a surrendering foe with honour" and "will never allow harm to befall his home city" and the DM decide to throw in some mad wizard who is going to explode violently unless you kill him first -taking half the city with him- but who surrenders when cornered.

Is this going to be fun for you?
If you wrote your CoC the way you did specifically to wave these little flags then yes, this will be a great opportunity to explore your characters morals, angst, drives, motivations, angst, ability to cope with pressure and angst.
You would be disappointed if such a situation did not arise in the course of the campaign! You were waving a little flag for character development and all you got were orcs to beat up.

But if you wrote your CoC the way you did because you wanted to show that your character was a noble and honourable, four-colours Superman nice-guy, then is it still so fun? If you want to stay true to the concept (the concept you went to the trouble to write down and show to the DM) then you have to seek a third option (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption), like defusing the exploding mage or rushing him out of the city limits. And then the mage explodes and takes half the city with him and possibly your character too. And the GMs sitting there thinking "Wow, that was some great character exploration! I'm a great GM! The idealistic paladin bravely going to his heroic (if futile) death! I'm glad I spotted those little flags in his character concept! That's the sort of gaming story he'll be writing about on GiantITP for months!" And you're sitting there thinking "That evil $%^$! He put me in a lose/lose situation! Why does everyone hate paladins?! I'm going to complain about this to everyone on GiantITP tonight!

And the moral of the story is:
Screw semaphore.

Well, if the GM is going to just be a **** about it and put you in a lose/lose anyway, then whether or not your wrote your own CoC will not make a lick of a difference. Also, if the GM is going to completely ignore your flags for character development and basically tell you to F-off, well, that to me just seems like selfish GMing. If you're not going listen to your players as to what they want, you might as well just go write a novel instead of forcing them to play a game where they will be ignored.

The point I'm making is that GMs and player need to be able to communicate what they expect out of their respective paladins and alignment issues because fact of the matter is, what you consider LG is not going to be the same as your GM until you guys talk about it and get on the same page.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 10:47 AM

Frankly, I trust Azerian more then the two of you put together. It also doesn't help that you /agree/ with the statements (It's less likely that you'll notice something that agrees with your worldview then disagrees)

Not going to get into an alignment fight, because every time you get into an alignment fight, EE bludgeons a puppy with the BoED. And well, I gotta think of the puppies.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 10:47 AM

Correct. NG and NE are more capable of doing good or evil than LG/CG/LE/CE. When concerns of the other axis are completely ignored, you can focus on good or evil. Neutral good or evil will of necessity be less encumbered by ethical baggage in the accomplishment of their goals. That doesn't make them "more good," but it does make them more capable of good.

That's more or less what I meant. That NG and NE can, because of being unencumbered by ethical problems, achieve a higher state of goodness. Thanks for rephrasing it.

That's more or less my beef with those books. They actually contradict the core on a basic aspect, and go around implanting a stupid belief on how alignment works.

Starbuck_II

2008-03-25, 10:52 AM

GammaPaladin

2008-03-25, 10:53 AM

BoED good is Dudley-do-right, superman, boy scout good.

BoVD evil is black mustache evil.

Neither should ever see the light of day in any game you want to see creative roleplaying in. Objective morality = fail.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 10:58 AM

Starbuck_II

2008-03-25, 11:00 AM

Agreed, brother.

Objective Good and Evil, semi objective Law and Chaos = Good.

Objective actions, regardless of intent = Bull****. If we go by that, every character is blackly evil, since everyone kills and eats the bodies of others to survive. Nope, self defense doesn't justify it, you're still killing. Sucka!

Elans (the creature) don't have to eat if they spend one power point. Does that make only Elans good?
I some ways, Elans represent Born again people.
We could just eat rocks. :smallsmile:

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 11:02 AM

They still can't adventure, they still destroy the environment by existing (Walk around? Wounding the Earth, you shift towards evil).

Hey. Waitaminit. I've found the ultimate counter for all the silly things said in morality debates!

Citizen Joe

2008-03-25, 11:12 AM

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 11:13 AM

Okay. Seems we stumbled upon something important. In honor of the playgrounder who crafted the post that granted me insight, I'm creating a fallacy named:

The AK/Paladin Fallacy:

D&D does not run based on an objective morality system. Instead, it runs based on objective moral forces, Good and Evil. Maintaining that D&D runs on the first system creates an undefendable position, for it means that, since killing is evil, all adventurers are evil, because they kill in self defense, thus making it impossible for an adventurer to be good, creating a paradox.

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 11:21 AM

Frankly, I trust Azerian more then the two of you put together.
Leaving aside the fact that I don't lie, what possible reason could I have to lie about it? Besides, plain as day on page 12 of the BoED, under the heading "Law, Chaos, and Good," it says specifically that none of the good alignments are inherently better than any of the others.
Though all paladins are lawful good, plenty of exalted characters of all classes are chaotic good or neutral good, and they exemplify the ideals of good in the D&D universe no less than the paladin.
Now, I happen to think this is mistaken, since this is what happens to disorganized societies, good or not:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/anarchymobile2.jpg

But it's what it says, and it doesn't say what Azerian says it does.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 11:36 AM

Talya

2008-03-25, 11:42 AM

That's more or less what I meant. That NG and NE can, because of being unencumbered by ethical problems, achieve a higher state of goodness. Thanks for rephrasing it.

That's more or less my beef with those books. They actually contradict the core on a basic aspect, and go around implanting a stupid belief on how alignment works.

uh...no they don't? They don't in any way imply law is more good than chaos.

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 11:42 AM

Okay, avoiding the obvious alignment fight, because any discussion through the lens of DnD's idiot morality system is going to just be stupid, one passage does not set or change the tone of the book.

And seriously, what the hell? The only person calling AK a liar is you. Why the hell should I trust you over him? Because you don't admit to lying?'

I mean /really/. I don't trust you already; Your solution tot his is is to insult someone I /do/ trust, and claim that I can trust you. You don't see how this is less then persuasive?
I don't care if you trust me. The fact remains that he's still wrong, and what's more won't bother to provide any references supporting his position (like I just did). If you won't bother to entertain this notion, that's not my problem.

elliott20

2008-03-25, 11:42 AM

All I can say is that if you can't envision Brock Samson (from the Venture Bros.) or Robocop as paladins then we aren't even on the same page.

http://home.ix.netcom.com/~jpettit/BrockSamson.jpg
http://home.ix.netcom.com/~jpettit/Robocop.jpg

and hey, if your GM/players are going to give a nod to that standard, who the hell am I to stop you from playing "Brock Samson the paladin"? fact of the matter is, the problem with paladinhood is that nobody can say for certain what it's supposed to be. Yeah, we have broad definitions and generalizations, but this in turn does not always translate well into actual behaviorial code. And to try to nail this down and enforce it as some kind of standard to me just seems like a recipe for people to end up going down the alignment debate spiral.

This is why I believe that paladin CoC should be more a guideline that helps the player and the GM create cohesion between what it is they want to play.

And if that somehow led to Brock Samson being a paladin who the hell am I to say otherwise? I mean, sure, it's really strange, if not awkwardly awesome at the same time, but hell, who cares? I'm not the one playing the game.

hamishspence

2008-03-25, 11:44 AM

It seems to me that the assumption people keep making is that being Exalted good requires adhering to all the Vows. Not true, that is why they are separate feats.

Vile Darkness and Exalted deeds are sources for guidance, and not the only sources. Exemplars of Evil, Champions of Ruin and Fiendish Codex 2 have more detail on evil traits.

I see Exalted as good at providing samples of the sort of things Good characters would do. Similarly, it frequently makes it clear that some things ARE possible for Good characters- it IS ok to use violence, even lethal violence, by the rules in the book, IF it has just cause it the level of violence is appropiate to the situation. The No killing non-combatants issue is one a lot of people would agree with.

Similarly, with mercy offered to surrendering enemies. the prevailing theme is that Good aligned chracters are held to a high standard.

If DM's insist on penalising players who want to play strongly good characters, thats a different problem.

PH and BoED both say all 3 alignments are equally good. However the game system does tend to bias against Chaotic behaviour, since Vile Darkness suggests stealing and cheating are wrong, and Lying is borderline. the Just Cause principle again comes in- if it is to aid others, rather than self, it is less bad.

It is not entirely 3rd ed that is responsible. in 2nd ed alignment system, it said killing innocents to save a larger number of innocents is Evil, the example citied being: Paladin burns down a plague-ridden village to protect surrounding area.

I would say, however, that while much of the Good and Evil ideas in both books are well thought out, a bit of extra work should have been done to avoid logical flaws and other problems.

The_Werebear

2008-03-25, 11:46 AM

Rutee

2008-03-25, 11:47 AM

I don't care if you trust me. The fact remains that he's still wrong. If you won't bother to entertain this notion, that's not my problem.

Calling someone a liar is technically flaming, so the board might, but that's neither here nor there. The 'fact' remains that you have /one small line of text/. The tone of the rest of the book may follow this or may deviate from it heavily.

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 11:50 AM

Calling someone a liar is technically flaming, so the board might, but that's neither here nor there. The 'fact' remains that you have /one small line of text/. The tone of the rest of the book may follow this or may deviate from it heavily.
Yes, it might. I know for a fact that it doesn't, but what do you want me to do? Quote the whole thing? :smallyuk:

Talya

2008-03-25, 11:52 AM

BoED adds depth to good.

So you bravely defend villages by slaughtering the army lead by the BBEG that's set to attack them? Okay, so you're kinda good. But redeeming the BBEG is far better. Killing evil may be necessary, but showing mercy when warranted is far better.

I don't see BoED as being all 'boyscout good' at all. it actually shows how much more good a person can be other just "killz0rz all teh baddies with teh EVIL!!!1! descriptor."

Citizen Joe

2008-03-25, 11:53 AM

and hey, if your GM/players are going to give a nod to that standard, who the hell am I to stop you from playing "Brock Samson the paladin"?
Brock Samson is TOTALLY paladin. Particularly compared to the way most people willy nilly kill off supposed bad guys. He always protects the boys. He only kills minions (evil guys), and only when they attack or have kidnapped the boys. He gets all the girls. There was even an episode where he atoned and had his version of god put him back on track and tell him that he's going to a special heaven.

And then Robocop was literally hardwired to his code of conduct.

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 11:54 AM

I don't see BoED as being all 'boyscout good' at all. it actually shows how much more good a person can be other just "killz0rz teh baddies with teh EVIL!!!1! descriptor."
While at the same time adding ravages and afflictions. :smallyuk: That was one of the worst design decisions I've ever seen.

elliott20

2008-03-25, 11:58 AM

I personally don't like the BoED and the BoVD, but not so much because of their content as how their content tends to act with the rest of the game.

The BoVD is a personal experience. I was playing with someone who tended to try and one up anything I did. My character was going through a lot of strain at the time (he was training as a druid, as well as being one of the few defenders of an embattled colony), and I was trying to show he was starting to take the easy way and cut moral corners. I planned to do a slow, gradual increase up the evil-for-the-greater-good scale. However, this one upmanship character immediately seized on that idea (she was playing the druid who was training my character) and grabbed the idea, taking it further and saying that my characters decline took her with it. From there, with evil perpetuating itself, it wasn't long before the BoVD was broken out to check on the sacrifice rules. After that, everyone started using it and it very quickly shifted focus from "embattled colony members" to "rampaging psychopaths defile everything in a 15 mile radius." Eventually, it got bad enough that we got kinda disgusted in real life and quit that campaign. It isn't like we are immature players; until this time we had a record of being able to handle this type of stuff. But, it derailed that game so quickly and thoroughly that the whole business left a bad taste in my mouth about using it.

With the BoED: I appreciate that it tries to give a clearer view on the morality of the whole system, but I feel that it cuts too many options down. I am hesitant to try any of the exalted feats, especially the vows. The fact that you can be punished for your party member's actions so thoroughly (destroying class features) and that you have to maintain such a nearly impossible standard of good (including some epically stupid choices in morally questionable situations. Seriously, if someone is about to summon a demon that will destroy the universe immediately with no chance of stopping it once it is here, why wouldn't you kill the baby vessel it is being summoned into? If you do it, one human dies. If you don't, all things die, including that baby you spared). So, I approve of it in theory, and I think it could hold merit if you got everyone in the party to agree to the standard. However, it is such an uphill battle that for me it simply becomes unfun. It is hard enough to destroy the Demon Lord Girshnarflacketiabznarfian who dwells in the Sulfur Pits of Mount McDougalconnalshirebergmchaggisstan. It's even hard when none of you have half your feats or class abilities because the wizard rolled over a beetle in her sleep, the paladin picked up a copper coin on accident, and the rogue fell in a pit trap filled with corpses. (Nonviolence/Peace, Poverty, Purity). It just kinda bugs me.

Well, that's the byproduct having your mechanical abilities tied so closely to the morality in play. The paladin, as is, deals with is day in and day out. Roy said it best, "what kind of class has features that depend upon other people's behavior anyway?". And you know what, for a paladin or anyone who has their abilities tied to their moral codes, this is going to happen at some point. At some point, somehow, you're gonna end up in a situation that you just cannot win.

If this is not the kind of situation you want to be in, then you need to reconsider your class. The D&D system's interpretation of paladinhood can be rigid enough that this becomes a real issue.

It's almost like a "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" situation. Me? if I were put in that "sacrifice child or sacrifice world" situation, I would sacrifice the child, and then feel FULLY justified that my powers were stripped from me. After all, all the ideals that I tried to uphold were taken from me because I was faced with a situation that in any reasonable situation, shake my faith to the core.

If my GM is the kind of the person who has a good sense of story telling, I would want to work with him to figure the next few plotlines to be about how he restores his faith or at least finds some way to grow beyond this. Hell, I might even just let him become a blackguard villain and roll up a new character for myself.

But then those are MY expectations. If I were to make a character with these vows, that means I expect them to get challenged. And more so, I even expect that I might fail to meet these challenges at times.

elliott20

2008-03-25, 11:59 AM

Brock Samson is TOTALLY paladin. Particularly compared to the way most people willy nilly kill off supposed bad guys. He always protects the boys. He only kills minions (evil guys), and only when they attack or have kidnapped the boys. He gets all the girls. There was even an episode where he atoned and had his version of god put him back on track and tell him that he's going to a special heaven.

And then Robocop was literally hardwired to his code of conduct.

Like I said, awkwardly AWESOME.

man, now I feel like joining a D&D group just so I can run a Brock Samson paladin, completed with Mullet and all.

Talya

2008-03-25, 12:01 PM

While at the same time adding ravages and afflictions. :smallyuk: That was one of the worst design decisions I've ever seen.

Note that it's still not wrong to kill evil. Evil must be destroyed. It's just more good to "destroy" evil by redeeming it, than by killing it. Also, most ravages and afflictions cripple, rather than kill, making evil impotent and easier to subdue.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 12:05 PM

Yes, it might. I know for a fact that it doesn't, but what do you want me to do? Quote the whole thing? :smallyuk:

You can't really prove yourself correct, so you can stop claiming you have, perhaps.

But then those are MY expectations. If I were to make a character with these vows, that means I expect them to get challenged. And more so, I even expect that I might fail to meet these challenges at times.
The argument, I believe, is that the stringent code of conduct (And alignment requisite it requires) should not be hardwired into the Holy Warrior class, more then anything. Yes, I can also agree with the basic logic that if I want to make a big deal out of an oath, I want to see it come up at least a bit in story, but that neither requires a Lose/Lose situation, nor does it mean that I should need one just for entrance into the Holy Warrior class.

BoED adds depth to good.

So you bravely defend villages by slaughtering the army lead by the BBEG that's set to attack them? Okay, so you're kinda good. But redeeming the BBEG is far better. Killing evil may be necessary, but showing mercy when warranted is far better.

I don't see BoED as being all 'boyscout good' at all. it actually shows how much more good a person can be other just "killz0rz all teh baddies with teh EVIL!!!1! descriptor."
You shouldn't need a book to tell you any of this, quite frankly.

Note that it's still not wrong to kill evil. Evil must be destroyed. It's just more good to "destroy" evil by redeeming it, than by killing it. Also, most ravages and afflictions cripple, rather than kill, making evil impotent and easier to subdue.
Poisons mostly cripple, not kill. Only Con poison kills, and that only in sufficiently large doses.

elliott20

2008-03-25, 12:12 PM

The argument, I believe, is that the stringent code of conduct (And alignment requisite it requires) should not be hardwired into the Holy Warrior class, more then anything. Yes, I can also agree with the basic logic that if I want to make a big deal out of an oath, I want to see it come up at least a bit in story, but that neither requires a Lose/Lose situation, nor does it mean that I should need one just for entrance into the Holy Warrior class.

and hey, I can totally get behind that. My point is that sometimes, even in a situation that does have a way out, I STILL might fail. But that's okay, because that's all part of the game. However, this is not so simple as say that one side is entirely responsible for the success and morality of the character. The GM obviously needs to understand how to challenge his players before him. This is the kind of thing that requires thought and communication.

A lose/lose situation, if it was just dropped on the player without any notice, will just be hopeless. And if there is a mechanical punishment for it, will seem just unfair. I can understand that. Again, communication.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 12:16 PM

Oh, guys, for anyone who doesn't believe there's a focus on LG? Check out Celestia. It's practically the planar Mary Sue, overshadowing poor Elysium. Really, it doesn't get much clearer than that. A single city of Celestia is far more detailed than one of Elysium's layers.

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 12:24 PM

You can't really prove yourself correct, so you can stop claiming you have, perhaps.
:smallsigh: You demand absolute proof of me, knowing that the only way to provide it is to violate copyright, but take his word at face value? Gee, where have I seen that one before?

Azerian has not presented one iota of actual wording from the book supporting his interpretation. I provided a direct statement from the book supporting mine. Which is the actual supported position?
Oh, guys, for anyone who doesn't believe there's a focus on LG? Check out Celestia. It's practically the planar Mary Sue, overshadowing poor Elysium. Really, it doesn't get much clearer than that. A single city of Celestia is far more detailed than one of Elysium's layers.
Check out Celestia where in the book? I'm looking at it right now. The BoED does not detail any of the outer planes. No, not even Celestia. It talks about the celestial paragons who rule the upper planes - all the upper planes - in about equal detail, regardless of alignment. I think you're thinking of some other supplement.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 12:29 PM

:smallsigh: You demand absolute proof of me, knowing that the only way to provide it is to violate copyright, but take his word at face value? Gee, where have I seen that one before?
You held yourself to a higher standard outright, by claiming him to be a liar, and that you had proven your position. I'm not going to hold myself responsible for your need to clamber onto a pedestal. I may have bought it from him and not, you, as it were, but I didn't demand a higher standard of evidence until a higher standard was set forth in the first place.

Azerian has not presented one iota of actual wording from the book supporting his interpretation. I provided a direct statement from the book supporting mine. Which is the actual supported position?
He's provided 'a tiny iota' so far.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 01:21 PM

Paladin, I'm not talking of BoED. Go look at the planar handbook, and the other planar supplements. You'll see how Celestia has, far and away, the highest page count of the good and neutral realms, and is in fact only second to the classic evil planes, Baator and The Abyss, which obviously get the most screentime, as it's there where the most famous evil outsiders live. Hades and Elysium, meanwhile, get barely a description of how they are the embodiment of Good and Evil, and that's it. That's bad design, especially once Elysium is compared to the seventh layer of Celestia, Chronias, which is stated to be the ultimate reward, THE place where good people go to get their well deserved rest, more or less the equivalent to the classic Paradise. Thankfully, they avoided going into loving, slavish detail of it by saying "No one who has entered Chronias has come out", presumably because it's Teh Pwnzorz, and the D&D equivalent of Eden, or the place with the 72 virgins or whathaveyou.

horseboy

2008-03-25, 01:26 PM

Good is the "goodest" alignment. The law/chaos axis are immaterial to good or evil, BoEF doesn't in any way prefer one over the other.I lolled! Freud was right. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FreudWasRight)
Brock Samson is TOTALLY paladin. Particularly compared to the way most people willy nilly kill off supposed bad guys. He always protects the boys. He only kills minions (evil guys), and only when they attack or have kidnapped the boys. He gets all the girls. There was even an episode where he atoned and had his version of god put him back on track and tell him that he's going to a special heaven.Not to mention all that smite evil he lays down, obvious immunity to diseases, that sweet special mount of his and he even holds to the old 2nd edition "No ranged attacks" rule. "No guns, I don't use guns." Not to mention a higher wisdom: "Doc! There's a sign over there that says 'Death Ray Bargain Bin.'"

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 01:28 PM

He's provided 'a tiny iota' so far.
What, the part about the level of description of the planes? The book doesn't describe the upper planes in any detail; I don't know what he was talking about when he said that. They each get a one-paragraph blurb, and the cities of Celestia aren't described at all beyond mentions of their names in the stats of the celestial paragons that rule them. The Manual of the Planes might give it more detail; I don't know since I don't own it.

Edit:
Paladin, I'm not talking of BoED. Go look at the planar handbook, and the other planar supplements. You'll see how Celestia has, far and away, the highest page count of the good and neutral realms, and is in fact only second to the classic evil planes, Baator and The Abyss, which obviously get the most screentime, as it's there where the most famous evil outsiders live. Hades and Elysium, meanwhile, get barely a description of how they are the embodiment of Good and Evil, and that's it. That's bad design, especially once Elysium is compared to the seventh layer of Celestia, Chronias, which is stated to be the ultimate reward, THE place where good people go to get their well deserved rest, more or less the equivalent to the classic Paradise. Thankfully, they avoided going into loving, slavish detail of it by saying "No one who has entered Chronias has come out", presumably because it's Teh Pwnzorz, and the D&D equivalent of Eden, or the place with the 72 virgins or whathaveyou.
Ah, that's better. So why were you talking about this in the context of a complaint against the BoED?

No matter. You may notice that it's Elysium that has the Entrapping trait, making its inhabitants so happy that they do not wish to leave. Chronias doesn't have that going for it. :smallwink:

Ascension

2008-03-25, 01:30 PM

Paladin, I'm not talking of BoED.

For what it's worth, you did kinda make it sound like you were talking about it earlier. Not an incorrect statement, but somewhat misleading.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 01:59 PM

I switched from BoED to a full blown debate on how LG is mistakenly written as goodest and CE as the most evil alignment about 10 posts ago. PREVIOUSLY, yes, this was BoED. Now, THIS! IS! SPARTA! And an alignment design debate.

And yes, Chronias doesn't have the Entrapping trait. Neither does AO have divine ranks, or the lady any power.

The_Werebear

2008-03-25, 03:22 PM

Well, that's the byproduct having your mechanical abilities tied so closely to the morality in play. The paladin, as is, deals with is day in and day out. Roy said it best, "what kind of class has features that depend upon other people's behavior anyway?". And you know what, for a paladin or anyone who has their abilities tied to their moral codes, this is going to happen at some point. At some point, somehow, you're gonna end up in a situation that you just cannot win.

If this is not the kind of situation you want to be in, then you need to reconsider your class. The D&D system's interpretation of paladinhood can be rigid enough that this becomes a real issue.

It's almost like a "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" situation. Me? if I were put in that "sacrifice child or sacrifice world" situation, I would sacrifice the child, and then feel FULLY justified that my powers were stripped from me. After all, all the ideals that I tried to uphold were taken from me because I was faced with a situation that in any reasonable situation, shake my faith to the core.

If my GM is the kind of the person who has a good sense of story telling, I would want to work with him to figure the next few plotlines to be about how he restores his faith or at least finds some way to grow beyond this. Hell, I might even just let him become a blackguard villain and roll up a new character for myself.

But then those are MY expectations. If I were to make a character with these vows, that means I expect them to get challenged. And more so, I even expect that I might fail to meet these challenges at times.

That's what I was talking about earlier with other expectations of how Paladins should function. It is my opinion and expectation that, if there is literally no good alternative, then you shouldn't be punished for picking the least bad. Actually, this is giving me an idea for a character.

A Blackguard, who was formerly a paladin. When put in a tight situation as a paladin, one with no good option, he picked what he thought was the best solution. By the letter of the law, it was an evil act. By what would have happened if he hadn't done it, it was a good act. The powers that be stripped his Paladinhood after that act. Feeling bitter and betrayed by the removal of his powers, he instead takes up with a Demon and now fights to destroy what he once held dear, viewing it as unjust.

Ascension

2008-03-25, 03:48 PM

A Blackguard, who was formerly a paladin. When put in a tight situation as a paladin, one with no good option, he picked what he thought was the best solution. By the letter of the law, it was an evil act. By what would have happened if he hadn't done it, it was a good act. The powers that be stripped his Paladinhood after that act. Feeling bitter and betrayed by the removal of his powers, he instead takes up with a Demon and now fights to destroy what he once held dear, viewing it as unjust.

See, the way I look at it, someone who has an embittered reaction like that really didn't deserve to be a paladin in the first place. Falling is one thing, that's understandable, but turning to evil because you didn't get your way is an entirely different thing. See, someone who is truly committed to the ideal of the paladin should continue to try to adhere to the code even after falling out of favor with his or her god. He or she may no longer wield the power of the gods, but that doesn't mean that he or she can't be a force for good and a beacon of hope. Maybe, just maybe, he or she can even find redemption through continuing the good work and find him or herself back in the good graces of his or her divine sponsor.

If you whine and go find a demon as soon as you fall, that's evidence that you were just in it for the power, not to actually support the cause of good. If the cause of good is more important than personal might, you should grit your teeth, bear the shame of the fall, and keep on trucking.

The true paladin lives to do good deeds, not to get shiny powers from god, not to show off his or her might. Sure you might end up playing a "fighter without bonus feats" for a while, but your character shouldn't care about the loss of power, just about the personal burden of guilt caused by the sin. The true paladin always seeks redemption, never revenge. And the true paladin comes out of the experience of the fall a stronger person, knowing that while he or she may stray from the true path, it's always there for he or she to come back to, and a better person, knowing that his or her enemies, no matter how black their hearts may be, can find the same sort of redemption.

You know what, I take back what I said earlier. I would like to play a paladin in a normal D&D campaign. And I would like to fall. For the true strength of the spirit lies not in doing good while one has the backing of the gods, the true strength lies in continuing to do good while it seems that god has abandoned you. And down that road lies redemption.

Sure, the paladin's code is strict. Sure, it may not seem "fair," both in-game and out-of-game. But that's the point. The point is to weed out those who just want the power of the gods. They fall and never get back up again. When a true paragon of virtue is besmirched, he gets back up and tries again. And in doing so regains his paladinhood.

So yes, paladins are made to fall. But they're also made to get back up again. That's the beauty of the thing.

Thank you, Werebear. I think I've had an epiphany.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 03:55 PM

See, the way I look at it, someone who has an embittered reaction like that really didn't deserve to be a paladin in the first place. Falling is one thing, that's understandable, but turning to evil because you didn't get your way is an entirely different thing. See, someone who is truly committed to the ideal of the paladin should continue to try to adhere to the code even after falling out of favor with his or her god. He or she may no longer wield the power of the gods, but that doesn't mean that he or she can't be a force for good and a beacon of hope. Maybe, just maybe, he or she can even find redemption through continuing the good work and find him or herself back in the good graces of his or her divine sponsor.
Actually this is a pretty common trope, the Good Person turning to evil because they did everything to the best and were still screwed by the world. Except in this case, The World is the 'Objective' force of Goodness.

And 'didn't deserve to be a paladin'? Because when faced with a lose-lose situation the powers that be didn't have the decency to recognize the situation for what it was, and punished the Paladin for failing to uphold an ideal they /did their utter best/ in upholding? Lawful Good does not generally uphold a punishment clause on someone doing the absolute best they can to fulfill their end of a bargain. An example would be a lawful good moneylender who has the right to foreclose on a home if you borrowed to buy it from them, and missed a payment. If you're trying your hardest to get stuff in and times are tough, I imagine Lawful Good will work for your benefit too, even though ti's to their personal benefit to foreclose and sell; Perhaps give you more time, or find some alternate arrangement. It's Lawful Neutral that forecloses regardless of any form of extenuating circumstances.

Thank you, Werebear. I think I've had an epiphany.
You may wish to take an ethics class or two, as that would teach you far more then the genuinely bad logic you're following. Or just read The single most germane and useful comic strip OotS has in application to Paladins. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 04:01 PM

Agreed with Rutee here. If The powers that be screwed you for something you didn't have much choice in, you have all the right to take levels in swordsage, storm the gates of your God's residence, say "Gimme back my powers, bitch!" and sodomize him/her with thousands of attacks per round until you're back to paladin glory.

Petty? Yes. Less petty than taking your powers because of something you didn't have a good choice with.

elliott20

2008-03-25, 04:02 PM

well, this also depends upon how you see a paladin's fall. Is the falll literally the loss of a status as the Gods actually judicially and beaucratically strip of the paladin's powers, with the paladin kicking and screaming wondering why he was punished? Or could it be more like the paladin suddenly just found himself with crisis of faith, and said disallusionment just caused him to no longer have the divine touch with the powers that be? In one version, paladinhood looks a bit more like a membership card. And while that's all fine and dandy, can come across as a tad like paladinhood is some kind of wierd fraternity. The other, in my opinion, feels a bit more personal, more spiritual, and more intune with how I see paladins falling.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 04:05 PM

Hey, I have to thank you, Rutee, for the strip. Heck, even Rich agrees with that stupid "LG is best" thing! Look at the 16th panel. Speaking so despectively of NG is not nice.

But yeah, Elliot, the bureaucratic system doesn't fit with D&D. It's a bunch of crap anywhere, to be honest, but it's much more fitting in Warhammer than our beloved game, considering the god himself is certainly not acting in a G manner there.

elliott20

2008-03-25, 04:08 PM

it's just that, I see the whole divine fraternity stripping someone of their membership kind of... welll.... funny.

of course, I could totally see the lawful afterlife being full of beaucratic procedures.

Ascension

2008-03-25, 04:11 PM

Actually this is a pretty common trope, the Good Person turning to evil because they did everything to the best and were still screwed by the world. Except in this case, The World is the 'Objective' force of Goodness.

And 'didn't deserve to be a paladin'? Because when faced with a lose-lose situation the powers that be didn't have the decency to recognize the situation for what it was, and punished the Paladin for failing to uphold an ideal they /did their utter best/ in upholding?

You miss my point entirely, Rutee. I'm saying that going evil because you couldn't keep to the paladin's code is a gross overreaction. It's a complete denial of the potential for redemption, it's a complete denial of the very same standard of good that the paladin supposedly upholds. It's a petty reaction, an inherently selfish reaction. "I did good, the world didn't like it, so now I'm going to take out my rage on the world." There's a hole in that logic big enough to drive a truck through. Reacting in that manner is a sign of extreme personal weakness. If they were that weak willed they shouldn't have answered the call of the paladin in the first place. Being a paragon of virtue isn't supposed to be a walk in the park.

I highly doubt that they "did their utter best" if they give up as soon as they fall. The true paladin keeps going after the fall, keeps trying to adhere to a standard of good.

The only major flaw in the D&D paladin is that yes, atonement is too difficult to come by. Atonement should be simplified in order to encourage paladins to atone for their wrongs instead of just saying "Oh well, evil gives me more power anyway" and going off to become a blackguard.

Surely you agree that the paladin who remains good despite falling from grace is more admirable than the ex-paladin who becomes a blackguard? If good crumbles to evil at the first sight of adversity, what chance does good have of accomplishing anything at all?

hamishspence

2008-03-25, 04:15 PM

i don't get the objection. That strip shows that trying is important. It doesn't say that Roy's acts wern't occasionally Non-Lawful, or even Non-Good. In fact, by the Roy Abandons Elan bit, Roy, had he been a Paladin, would have Fallen. But what it does say is Roy atones for his mistake, by rescuing Elan, and by going above and beyond the call of duty the next time Elan is in real danger.

As Hinjo said: the atonement spell would not exist if there wsn't a need for it. same principle applies. When a paladin does something wrong, but for very unselfish reasons, he can atone, and should.

Fiendish Codex 2, a supplement, suggests that for minor acts of evil, assuming total amount of acts is low, you do not need the spell, just the actions of fixing the wrong you did, apologizing, doing something Good as part of quest. for larger acts, the spell AND the actions are needed.

Quintesennial Paladin II, a 3rd party source, discusses this sort of thing in detail, suggesting that this kind of thing is key to the class: having to make difficult decisions, maybe fall and atone, etc. Some of it's ideas are interesting, though I wouldn't use the feats and prestige classes.

it would be fair to say the class is the most controversial of the lot, but that does not mean that the issues themselves should be dismissed out of hand. Many would say that objectiveness is vital to D&D, that, in game world, Good and Evil are real, and the ends do not justify the means.

On the other hand, a greyer theme is good for some games, Firefly-esque. the problem is when both are combined in the same game.

The_Werebear

2008-03-25, 04:27 PM

Thank you, Werebear. I think I've had an epiphany.

Well, glad I could help your understanding.

But, I'm imagining this Ex-Paladin thinking about it and raging at the sky in a thunderstorm.

"I did everything I could. I saved as many as I could. I tried my utmost, and picked the only option possible. I did as I was taught by YOU, *insert Divine power*! And yet, I get no sympathy, no understanding, no forgiveness for my actions. I spent my entire life trying to emulate you, and in one tough situation, you abandon me for picking an evil act to do good when the only other choice was evil that would cause evil. No leeway, no viewing of my intentions. What did you want me to do!? What could I have done!? What would you had done were you a mortal in my shoes?" *Cease screaming at the sky, arms drop to side. Rain continues unabated.*
"No... No, I'm done being your servant, delivering your message. You and all you stand for. You're a lie! You tell me to show mercy, to show forgiveness, to battle for what is right! Where is this when it applies to you? Where is the justice in this!? Where is it you uncaring bastard!?"
*Throws holy symbol in the mud, along with shield with deity's symbol*
"I'm not through with you. You'll pay for what you've done. Your lies will come down. I won't rest until they do."

Eh? Eh? LE Blackguard, anyone?

Number 6

2008-03-25, 04:41 PM

Rutee

2008-03-25, 04:43 PM

You miss my point entirely, Rutee. I'm saying that going evil because you couldn't keep to the paladin's code is a gross overreaction. It's a complete denial of the potential for redemption, it's a complete denial of the very same standard of good that the paladin supposedly upholds. It's a petty reaction, an inherently selfish reaction. "I did good, the world didn't like it, so now I'm going to take out my rage on the world." There's a hole in that logic big enough to drive a truck through. Reacting in that manner is a sign of extreme personal weakness. If they were that weak willed they shouldn't have answered the call of the paladin in the first place. Being a paragon of virtue isn't supposed to be a walk in the park.
I did not miss your point. Your point is predicated on the wrong circumstances. I shouldn't have to redeem myself because Good is being Dumb. Like I said, look at my moneylender example; Lawful Good doesn't foreclose just because it's contractually obligated to. That's Lawful Neutral. Even Lawful Evil isn't going to foreclose just because it can; It'll foreclose if it's more beneficial to Evil to do so though.

I highly doubt that they "did their utter best" if they give up as soon as they fall. The true paladin keeps going after the fall, keeps trying to adhere to a standard of good.
Doing their Utter Best is A
Falling is B.
Giving up is C

Order of Operations.
1. Paladin does A
2. Paladin experiences B
3. Paladin does C

Good doesn't get to claim C as a reason for B, because C came after. Honestly? I could see temporary revocation of powers. If the God themselves properly explains themselves. "I need to do /something/ to make sure you don't fall down the wrong path, but you've been a loyal and good servant, and you've done very well in general, so I'm certainly not going to godsmack you as hard as I can. *Applies divine Censure""

Surely you agree that the paladin who remains good despite falling from grace is more admirable than the ex-paladin who becomes a blackguard? If good crumbles to evil at the first sight of adversity, what chance does good have of accomplishing anything at all?

I'd say that it's 'more admirable'. I'd also say it's Good to seek your just desserts, even if the 'objective force of Good' is being retarded. Good may be Selfless, but DnD Good isn't blind to justice, nor is it "Turn the Other Cheek" good.

That'd be a pretty cool concept actually. A Good character out to bitch slap their Good God, because Good decided to be stupid as hell for a minute and won't admit the possibility of a mistake. They don't want to kill or supplant their God, and they don't seek to upend the Universe; All they want is their fair apology. And they will shake the heavens themselves to get it. Sounds suitably epic..

i don't get the objection. That strip shows that trying is important. It doesn't say that Roy's acts wern't occasionally Non-Lawful, or even Non-Good. In fact, by the Roy Abandons Elan bit, Roy, had he been a Paladin, would have Fallen. But what it does say is Roy atones for his mistake, by rescuing Elan, and by going above and beyond the call of duty the next time Elan is in real danger.
"We don't penalize for ineffectiveness"

We can surmise that they also don't penalize people for taking the absolute best option under the circumstances.

Number 6

2008-03-25, 05:00 PM

A theory to ponder. Paladins are always assumed to be like MIko because that's how lawful good types are potrayed in the media these days. We've become convinced that lawful good types are like Judge Dredd at best and Frank Burnes in MASH at the worst. (That would mean that our society is chaotic alignment, wouldn't it?)

All the modern heroes, Bruce Willis in Die Hard, Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry, Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon, Leonides in 300, Batman are chaotic good types who break the laws for the sake of good. The lawful types are the desk sargeants who scream at them because they don't follow the rules. Hector in Troy was more lawful, but he was secondary to Achilles who was chaotic on steriods. Case in point, they made a remake of Dragnet, Joe Friday was turned from a hero into a pompous idiot, and they added a new character played by wacky Tom Hanks to be the hero.

In short, there's a generation gap. Old fogeys like me who remember when Lawful Good was represented by John Wayne, Spider Man, Buck Rogers, and the Six Million Dollar Man tend to play paladins as nice guys. People who were born after 1970 and grew up on The Punisher, Wolverine, and The Simpsons tend to play them as jerks. I could be wrong, this is only a theory. What do you think?

AslanCross

2008-03-25, 05:35 PM

A theory to ponder....
In short, there's a generation gap. Old fogeys like me who remember when Lawful Good was represented by John Wayne, Spider Man, Buck Rogers, and the Six Million Dollar Man tend to play paladins as nice guys. People who were born after 1970 and grew up on The Punisher, Wolverine, and The Simpsons tend to play them as jerks. I could be wrong, this is only a theory. What do you think?

I had a similar theory, and it's more in terms of upbringing. We play paladins the way we see them represented in society around us (of which media is only a reflection). We see some people who claim to be devoted to a higher standard of good, and are pretty darn lawful (even legalistic) about it, and it rubs off on us. On the other hand, we might see LG as knowing where to draw the line between good and law (favoring good) and not being boring or oppressive about it.

I've been around both, so I tend to strive for a balancing act that favors good. I've never played a paladin in tabletop myself, but that's how I'd play/NPC one.

Bauglir

2008-03-25, 06:01 PM

On the BoED; I have two major problems with it. Firstly, it has mechanics that penalize you if your party does something wrong, or worse yet, penalize your party if they do something wrong. Playing a character that forces other characters to RP in a specific way is, in my opinion, wrong. Just because you want to be the merciful cleric who tries to redeem foes doesn't mean the other person can't play the grizzled mercenary who kills first and asks questions later because he doesn't want to risk a betrayal and he knows it's easier and likelier to work if you just end the depraved murderer here and now.

Secondly, it directly connects your roleplaying with your powers. You get powers for behaving in a certain way, and if you deviate slightly, you lose them. I have a similar beef with the Paladin's code and the Cleric's. Yes, that sort of thing has a place in D&D, but they are the sorts of things that should be designed on a campaign-by-campaign basis, or even better, a character-by character basis. You should think, "I think this class could accomplish the sort of abilities I want my character to have" and then sit down with your DM to discuss a set of rules for you to follow. Include a penalty for deviation if you want it to be strict enough. But, mostly, the mechanics printed by WotC ought to tell you HOW you do something, not WHY. That's what roleplaying is about.

And as for Falling and becoming evil. It's not, "Dang, I'm not getting my way, guess I'll worship Asmodeus now."

It's, "I devoted my life to helping people. I gave up so many opportunities for my own happiness so that I could ensure that others could sleep safely. I served <Insert Deity Here> every day of my life. I was merciful to opponents who surrendered, I sent countless fiends screaming back to the Abyss, I healed those who were sick. And now, because I was caught between two choices and chose the lesser evil, I have been stripped of the powers I used to help others. I have been rejected by the one I served. Where was the mercy I showed those who had erred? Where was the understanding so fervently preached? Those hypocrites should be brought to the justice they claim to bring to those they call evil. And I'll take whatever help I can get to do it. Besides, how can I trust that the hypocrites weren't lying about how evil Asmodeus really is?"

And it's not necessary that the Paladin have been selfish before their Fall, either. They didn't have to be. They weren't in it for the power, but they got it anyway. Their god told them that they deserved that power for the good they were doing, and they believed it. Only when it was taken away (when they were close enough to neutral already), and they realized they lost something, did they start thinking about their own well-being.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 06:08 PM

Agreed there, Bauglir. If, say, Heironeous says "Be good, brave, fair, merciful, and just", and goes "You did a small evil act that was the best thing you could do and lose your powers, neener neener!", the only part of the first statement he's not violating is "be brave". So much for being good, right?

horseboy

2008-03-25, 06:26 PM

The main problem, as I see it, with the Paladin class is that it is a character instead of a class. Let me explain. The Paladin was based 100% on Sir Galahad. A paladin has all of the abilities and powers that he had. The class requires you to act like him. It even pushes you toward wearing the same armor and using the same weapons (long sword and lance) that he did.
The only power that Galahad did not have was Detect Evil, I think they added that after play testing. Forgotten Realms changed this by adding paladins to other dieties, but the stereotype had already been formed.

This wasn't the only class that had that problem in first and second edition. The Barbarian class printed in the Dungeon was a carbon copy of Conan, and the Ranger was Aragorn.Well, to not Galahad did smite co-eds for sitting around giggling instead of being use when he was pursuing someone. Twice.
People who were born after 1970 and grew up on The Punisher, Wolverine, and The Simpsons tend to play them as jerks. I could be wrong, this is only a theory. What do you think?
Frank's more a Grey Guard than paladin. Well, fighter/cleric/Grey Guard

I did not miss your point. Your point is predicated on the wrong circumstances. I shouldn't have to redeem myself because Good is being Dumb. Like I said, look at my moneylender example; Lawful Good doesn't foreclose just because it's contractually obligated to. That's Lawful Neutral. Even Lawful Evil isn't going to foreclose just because it can; It'll foreclose if it's more beneficial to Evil to do so though.
Then comes the question: Who is actually "pulling the powers?" I'd personally run it more as in Terry Brook's (he's alright for someone alive) A Knight of the Word. The paladin falls and looses his powers not because Good stripped him of it, but because he turned his back in disgust from light. The powers of good were constantly trying to bring him back, even sent people to try and help him work through it. In the end, though, no one can help you if you're not willing to help yourself, so the odious to change was on him.
That'd be a pretty cool concept actually. A Good character out to bitch slap their Good God, because Good decided to be stupid as hell for a minute and won't admit the possibility of a mistake. They don't want to kill or supplant their God, and they don't seek to upend the Universe; All they want is their fair apology. And they will shake the heavens themselves to get it. Sounds suitably epic..I can certainly see it working in FR. Tyr's got some 'splainin' to do.

Ascension

2008-03-25, 06:29 PM

Doing their Utter Best is A
Falling is B.
Giving up is C

Order of Operations.
1. Paladin does A
2. Paladin experiences B
3. Paladin does C

Good doesn't get to claim C as a reason for B, because C came after.

Here's the way I see it. It can happen the way you see it, but it shouldn't. The paladin should see B as a bump in the road.

A true paladin's order of operations:
1. Paladin does A
2. Paladin experiences B
3. Paladin does A

The paladin should be devoted to the ideal of good regardless of his or her personal failings. Not every twist in the road is a reason to take a complete and total U turn. C is a sign of an inherent weakness. But even then the paladin still has a chance! Even a blackguard can atone! Your god gives you plenty of chances. Persisting in the road of evil after being offered forgiveness is inexcusable, regardless of your origin.

Honestly? I could see temporary revocation of powers. If the God themselves properly explains themselves. "I need to do /something/ to make sure you don't fall down the wrong path, but you've been a loyal and good servant, and you've done very well in general, so I'm certainly not going to godsmack you as hard as I can. *Applies divine Censure""

Falling is only "godsmack you as hard as I can" if that's how you RP it. The way I see it, "godsmack you as hard as I can" would be infinite damage, no save. Falling isn't permanent unless you make it permanent. It's up to you to decide whether it's a "temporary revocation of powers" or not. That's where atonement should come into play.

I'd say that it's 'more admirable'. I'd also say it's Good to seek your just desserts, even if the 'objective force of Good' is being retarded. Good may be Selfless, but DnD Good isn't blind to justice, nor is it "Turn the Other Cheek" good.

That'd be a pretty cool concept actually. A Good character out to bitch slap their Good God, because Good decided to be stupid as hell for a minute and won't admit the possibility of a mistake. They don't want to kill or supplant their God, and they don't seek to upend the Universe; All they want is their fair apology. And they will shake the heavens themselves to get it. Sounds suitably epic..

"Just desserts"! "Just desserts"! What do you deserve? Nothing! Your god doesn't owe you anything, it's the other way around. He's the one who's giving you power, not the other way around. He's the one who watches over you and loves you and protects you, not the other way around. He's not the one who needs to admit a mistake and apologize, you are. Even if you meant well by it, evil is still evil. If we let people get off for anything just because they thought it was a good idea at the time there wouldn't be a single prisoner in a single cell. Every criminal thinks it's a good idea at the time. Atone for your wrong, get back on that celestial mount, and get back to doing good! Don't just sit around and mope about goofing up!

"We don't penalize for ineffectiveness"

We can surmise that they also don't penalize people for taking the absolute best option under the circumstances.

Did you completely miss the part where it says that the important thing is trying? Where it says it's a bad idea to pick another alignment just because it's "easier"? Where "What matters is that when you blow it, you get back up on the horse and try again"?

Blowing it and getting back on the horse. That's falling and atoning for it. And that's what that strip says matters. They don't penalize for ineffectiveness in the long run, just as long as you keep trying to be lawful good.

Tell me how a blackguard is trying to be lawful good. I'm honestly interested in how you're going to justify this.

Tequila Sunrise

2008-03-25, 06:32 PM

I'd be interested in what Kasrkin has to say, now that he has four pages of commentary.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 06:32 PM

Ascension

2008-03-25, 06:37 PM

Ascension, I think we're doing different scenarios. In Rutee's, the god pettily took the powers back from the paladin as he did his best. In yours, the god took the powers away with a reason, perhaps doubting the capacity of the paladin at his role. That's probably why we're mixing it up.

I guess that's it. See, from my perspective a good god is completely incapable of being "petty." The gods do not strip their champions of their powers lightly, they do it because their champion messed up. And always, always they offer the hope of redemption. All the paladin has to do is humbly apologize and accept the offer. The only way a paladin can be forced to stay down is by the power of his own pride and inability to admit his mistake.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 06:42 PM

Falling is only "godsmack you as hard as I can" if that's how you RP it. The way I see it, "godsmack you as hard as I can" would be infinite damage, no save. Falling isn't permanent unless you make it permanent. It's up to you to decide whether it's a "temporary revocation of powers" or not. That's where atonement should come into play.
Gods can't do infinite damage, no save, unless you're in their sanctum. They can permanently revoke powers. The God should be up front about the whole damn thing. The anonymity and silence of it all really only makes it worse.

"Just desserts"! "Just desserts"! What do you deserve? Nothing! Your god doesn't owe you anything, it's the other way around.
He owes me the same patience he taught me to show.

He's the one who's giving you power, not the other way around. He's the one who watches over you and loves you and protects you, not the other way around. He's not the one who needs to admit a mistake and apologize, you are. Even if you meant well by it, evil is still evil. If we let people get off for anything just because they thought it was a good idea at the time there wouldn't be a single prisoner in a single cell. Every criminal thinks it's a good idea at the time. Atone for your wrong, get back on that celestial mount, and get back to doing good! Don't just sit around and mope about goofing up!
Breaking the Code isn't evil. Killing the Spider to save the Fly isn't Evil. The example is whether killing one innocent to save a world is acceptable; This is commonly referred to as "The Train Track Problem", if I'm not mistaken; A man sees 7 children playing on railroad tracks; 1 is playing by himself on one set, and 6 are on the other. The train is currently heading for the 6 children, and they refuse (Or are too scared) to get off the tracks by the time you 'could' warn them. There is one of the little route flipper switches next to you, and it would switch the train to the tracks that'll kill one child. Which is the Better action: Stand and watch the 6 kids die, or flip the switch? Would you penalize someone for taking the lesser evil? If so, why? All you've said was that the decision was evil. You never explain how the choice can be evil when it was the most good choice the Paladin can see.

This is the problem with saying an Infraction of the Code is by definition evil. No, an infraction of the Code is an infraction of the code. It is not by definition evil. No, not even then. Not that one either.

Did you completely miss the part where it says that the important thing is trying? Where it says it's a bad idea to pick another alignment just because it's "easier"? Where "What matters is that when you blow it, you get back up on the horse and try again"?
I'm tempted to ask you the same question. At what point did the Paladin stop trying to help people? They're being /punished/. That means /you did wrong/. Where?

I guess that's it. See, from my perspective a good god is completely incapable of being "petty." The gods do not strip their champions of their powers lightly, they do it because their champion messed up. And always, always they offer the hope of redemption. All the paladin has to do is humbly apologize and accept the offer. The only way a paladin can be forced to stay down is by the power of his own pride and inability to admit his mistake.
When did Gods become infallible? It's seriously only the Christian God that does that.

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 06:54 PM

Hey, I have to thank you, Rutee, for the strip. Heck, even Rich agrees with that stupid "LG is best" thing! Look at the 16th panel. Speaking so despectively of NG is not nice.
You know, I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that you have some sort of weird chip on your shoulder about this.

Seriously. Could you at least try to separate the author from the characters? Of course a lawful outsider is going to think it's best. :smallsigh:

Archpaladin Zousha

2008-03-25, 06:54 PM

In the end, though, no one can help you if you're not willing to help yourself, so the odious to change was on him.

Not to quibble or anything, but it's onus, not odious.

Ascension

2008-03-25, 07:03 PM

Gods can't do infinite damage, no save, unless you're in their sanctum.

I know, and I think that's one of the things that makes the gods in D&D seem weak. I don't like a system in which a mortal can conceivably fight the gods and win.

They can permanently revoke powers. The God should be up front about the whole damn thing. The anonymity and silence of it all really only makes it worse.

First, I already said it isn't permanent unless you make it permanent. Secondly, and I meant to address this before, it's only anonymous and silent if you make it anonymous and silent. If I were playing a paladin who fell, he would immediately be on his knees conversing with his god, asking why he fell and getting a straight answer. Maybe not immediately, maybe not an audible voice from the heavens the moment he prays, but eventually.

He owes me the same patience he taught me to show.

Okay, let's look at it this way. You're trying to teach your child not to get into fights at school. Now one day at school Bobby hits your child, and your child fights back, knocking out one of Bobby's teeth. After your child explains that it was Bobby's fault, do you just say "Oh, I'm sorry, you were perfectly right to beat Bobby's face in," or do you say "I understand that Bobby started it, but it's still not good to get into fights at school. You should actively try to avoid coming to blows whenever you can. Now, I'm going to send you to your room for a little while to think about what you've done"?

Punishment does not imply a lack of patience. Punishment implies a lack of approval. Even if you did it for the greater good, a good god can't condone evil.

The example is whether killing one innocent to save a world is acceptable; This is commonly referred to as "The Train Track Problem", if I'm not mistaken; A man sees 7 children playing on railroad tracks; 1 is playing by himself on one set, and 6 are on the other. The train is currently heading for the 6 children, and they refuse (Or are too scared) to get off the tracks by the time you 'could' warn them. There is one of the little route flipper switches next to you, and it would switch the train to the tracks that'll kill one child. Which is the Better action: Stand and watch the 6 kids die, or flip the switch? Would you penalize someone for taking the lesser evil? If so, why? All you've said was that the decision was evil. You never explain how the choice can be evil when it was the most good choice the Paladin can see.

"Least evil" =/= "Good"

Yes, you did good by not letting the six kids die. But you also did evil by letting the one child die. It was a lesser evil, but it was still evil. Your god may understand your choice, but he can't in good conscience condone it.

I'm tempted to ask you the same question. At what point did the Paladin stop trying to help people? They're being /punished/. That means /you did wrong/. Where?

Yes, punishment means you did wrong. Yes, you can do wrong in an attempt to help people. This does not make the wrong right. It just makes the wrong justifiable. It's still wrong, regardless of how you look at it. The paladin should atone for his wrongdoing and return to his normal activities, not go screeching off the path of good like a panicked student driver overcompensating after running a little ways off the road.

When did Gods become infallible? It's seriously only the Christian God that does that.

...and here's where I'm going to have to drop out of the argument rather than violate forum rules. See, the "epiphany" I mentioned was when I stopped viewing paladins in terms of pure mechanics and started viewing them in terms of actual morality. Up till that point I was basically arguing paladin morality in terms of its effect on the game. After that point I started arguing paladin morality in terms of my worldview.

I have a tendency to view the paladin's relationship with his or her god in the same terms as our relationship with our God. I am a Christian, and I have a hard time viewing "good" gods as fallible because of it.

I admit most of my arguments for the last page don't have any place in a moral argument based on D&D, it's just sometimes I get tired of people acting like objective morality is a completely outdated concept. I can accept subjective morality in fiction much more easily than in reality, but when it gets to the point of completely refuting objective reality, it makes me mad.

The one thing I don't like about D&D is the polytheism, the fallibility, the impotence of the gods.

That's it. I'm done. And even this is probably going to get scrubbed. You won't have to worry about hearing from me in any paladin threads again.

horseboy

2008-03-25, 07:09 PM

Not to quibble or anything, but it's onus, not odious.
:smallredface: I'm going to blame Firefox's spellchecker on that one. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.

Bauglir

2008-03-25, 07:11 PM

"Least evil" =/= "Good"

Yes, you did good by not letting the six kids die. But you also did evil by letting the one child die. It was a lesser evil, but it was still evil. Your god may understand your choice, but he can't in good conscience condone it.

"Least evil" = "Good". It's a spectrum, not two completely different categories. By avoiding the most amount of evil, you are, by definition, shifting things more toward good.

Really, you, after all, didn't put the children on the tracks. That would have been evil. By saving as many children as you can, you are committing a good act, no different from a Paladin rescuing hostages from a tribe of goblins (whom we will assume, for the sake of argument, are all completely evil) after one has been killed. If you have one whit of a sense of justice, you will not hold your Paladins accountable for the circumstances in which they find themselves. Just for their actions.

horseboy

2008-03-25, 07:18 PM

By saving as many children as you can, you are committing a good act, no different from a Paladin rescuing hostages from a tribe of goblins (whom we will assume, for the sake of argument, are all completely evil) after one has been killed. If you have one whit of a sense of justice, you will not hold your Paladins accountable for the circumstances in which they find themselves. Just for their actions.Well, no, it's like the paladin had to sacrifice one of the hostages to get the other 6 to safety. It is something that the paladin should genuinely regret having done. Having him "fall" is a heavy handed mechanic to make sure regret is carried in those situations.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 07:19 PM

I know, and I think that's one of the things that makes the gods in D&D seem weak. I don't like a system in which a mortal can conceivably fight the gods and win.
You're not a big fantasy fan, are you? :smallconfused:

First, I already said it isn't permanent unless you make it permanent. Secondly, and I meant to address this before, it's only anonymous and silent if you make it anonymous and silent. If I were playing a paladin who fell, he would immediately be on his knees conversing with his god, asking why he fell and getting a straight answer. Maybe not immediately, maybe not an audible voice from the heavens the moment he prays, but eventually.
!?

WTF dood? It is by definition anonymous and silent if the God doesn't take steps to make it less so. The Paladin has /far/ less ability to speak to the God on command then vice versa. If he had the fine control to yank his powers on command, he has the fine control /to speak to him/. No, just because the Paladin /could/ open a dialogue doesn't mean it's /his/ job to do it when the boss does something. When the boss has orders for you, the boss makes them available for you.

I'll grant that if the Boss gets in regular contact with you that it can wait til then (Or at least, the God is justified in doing so), but the God still has to go through the same motions he usually does, just as the Paladin does. If there is no regular direct contact (Which seems to be the default), then it's the God's job to establish a dialogue.

Okay, let's look at it this way. You're trying to teach your child not to get into fights at school. Now one day at school Bobby hits your child, and your child fights back, knocking out one of Bobby's teeth. After your child explains that it was Bobby's fault, do you just say "Oh, I'm sorry, you were perfectly right to beat Bobby's face in," or do you say "I understand that Bobby started it, but it's still not good to get into fights at school. You should actively try to avoid coming to blows whenever you can. Now, I'm going to send you to your room for a little while to think about what you've done"?
The latter, naturally; Paladin Falling as it is is more "I'm going to lock you in the basement, and you're an EVIL child".

Punishment does not imply a lack of patience. Punishment implies a lack of approval. Even if you did it for the greater good, a good god can't condone evil.

"Least evil" =/= "Good"

Yes, you did good by not letting the six kids die. But you also did evil by letting the one child die. It was a lesser evil, but it was still evil. Your god may understand your choice, but he can't in good conscience condone it.
By that logic killing an evil person is NEVER okay, because the act of killing is inherently evil, and can't be washed away no matter what you did. Sometimes a not-good choice isn't really evil, even if, when speaking colloquially, it was the "Lesser Evil".

Yes, punishment means you did wrong. Yes, you can do wrong in an attempt to help people. This does not make the wrong right. It just makes the wrong justifiable. It's still wrong, regardless of how you look at it. The paladin should atone for his wrongdoing and return to his normal activities, not go screeching off the path of good like a panicked student driver overcompensating after running a little ways off the road.
The Paladin didn't really do wrong in this case. Honestly in my example the God is only censuring him because he has to.

Number 6

2008-03-25, 07:34 PM

I'm beginning to think that it's futile to talk about paladins because paladins have to act a certain alignment. And no argument about D&D alignment ever gets anywhere. Almost everyone has a different opinion on how to run each alignment.

It probably wouldn't be so bad if Gygax hadn't been such a Michael Moorcock fan and added law and chaos into the alignment. It's hard enough deciding on what good and evil is; settling on law and chaos is ten times harder.

I have seen many people using twisted arguments to explain how they can do things and still be in their alignment. They aren't even trying to role play, but it's no good arguing about it; you can't prove that they're wrong because it's only your opinion. Right now I'm playing in a game with a guy who has kidnapped people and sold them into slavery, refused to help people in trouble because he didn't want to take the time, and killed guards while they are asleep. Yet he is running a ranger.

But I digress. The point is, I've had so many people tell me that I'm running alignments wrong that I've started only running nuetral good or neutral evil characters. People don't disagree about them as much. Better yet, I've run games where there is no alignment at all, and they work much smoother.

horseboy

2008-03-25, 07:37 PM

Better yet, I've run games where there is no alignment at all, and they work much smoother.QFT!
123456

Rutee

2008-03-25, 07:47 PM

Of course, that's pretty much the crux of the problem. The question "Is she serving her God?" is probably less contentious then "Did she act Lawful Good?", and would seemingly go miles towards making them appear better.

Which is pretty much the purpose of the thread, to identify problems and find solutions.

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 08:09 PM

You flip the switch to the track with the single child, and then run like hell to get to that child and get him off the track. That's the operative part there; after all, presumably you're capable of taking some action apart from simply flipping the switch.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-25, 08:35 PM

Y'know, about the "What to do when your kid gets into fights" thing...

THAT'S the kind of thing where you take a third, available option, methinks.

Unlike the scenario we were discussing there, there's a third option: *Insert talk discouraging physical violence here*, and That's that. But remember, if someone tries to bully or ostracize you, go talk to them. If that doesn't work, ignore them for a while. And if that doesn't work, pull a big, mean prank on the bastard. He's not gonna stop, and it's going to cause you psychological damage, so be sure to do that or knock another teeth out of him once the other options are exhausted.

Cause sometimes, the Other Cheek approach doesn't work. In the words of G'N'R's Civil War:

"What we've go here is...failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."

And with those guys, it's sadly a question of getting their respect...or their fear.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 08:35 PM

Generally speaking, when faced with ethical quandaries in a theoretical void, you are only allowed the options given, so as to highlight the ethical question, rather then attempt to dodge it or force the question poser into all-encompassing legalese.

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 08:51 PM

Let's just say I appreciate Kirk's solution to the Kobayashi Maru. :smallamused:

Rutee

2008-03-25, 08:59 PM

As do I, but it did not address the question at hand, which was whether Kirk could actually handle a no-win situation. It displayed other important qualities, but the initial question remained unanswered. I can think of multiple ways to avoid this no-win situation, in a pure void. None of them would help me examine the concept of the 'Lesser Evil'.

Bassetking

2008-03-25, 09:01 PM

I know, and I think that's one of the things that makes the gods in D&D seem weak. I don't like a system in which a mortal can conceivably fight the gods and win.

Whereas me? I love this fact. I love the fact that this game can say to me that, should I so choose? Not even god can judge me. I love that should my rage be deep enough, my mettle firm enough, my resolve be stiff enough, that I can, eventually, bring my case and cause to the very chieftains of creations, and demand to be heard.

Okay, let's look at it this way. You're trying to teach your child not to get into fights at school. Now one day at school Bobby hits your child, and your child fights back, knocking out one of Bobby's teeth. After your child explains that it was Bobby's fault, do you just say "Oh, I'm sorry, you were perfectly right to beat Bobby's face in," or do you say "I understand that Bobby started it, but it's still not good to get into fights at school. You should actively try to avoid coming to blows whenever you can. Now, I'm going to send you to your room for a little while to think about what you've done"?

Following that arguement to its conclusion... When you look into your child's eyes, and tell them "I realize that Bobby started it, but you still shouldn't fight." Two things immediately whip through the kid's mind.

1) I am being punished for reasons I not only cannot understand, but wholly lack the frame or scope of reference to grasp in the terms you are couching them.

2)This person, who says they love me, who says they care for me, who says that they have patience and understanding of me would actively preferred me to passively get my ass beaten, rather than raising a hand in my defense. Would, in fact, prefer this so strongly, that they are punishing me for failing to sit there and let Bobby beat me.

"Through a glass darkly..." indeed.

Punishment does not imply a lack of patience. Punishment implies a lack of approval. Even if you did it for the greater good, a good god can't condone evil.

"Least evil" =/= "Good"

Yes, you did good by not letting the six kids die. But you also did evil by letting the one child die. It was a lesser evil, but it was still evil. Your god may understand your choice, but he can't in good conscience condone it.

A being of infinite mercy, infinite compassion, infinite justice and law. A being made of nothing but the burning raw solar light of truth and justice CAN'T SAY "Welp, sorry you walked into a situation that would cause you to fall regardless of what choice you made, and you made the decision that would most closely follow the tenets of my faith, you still screwed up, and if you're the kind of person that would already be following this, I don't have to explain any of this to you! You already are understanding and accepting of the fact that I am going to screw you over and punish you, through no fault of your own, for a situation in which you acted to adhere to your code as closely as you could.

Yes, punishment means you did wrong. Yes, you can do wrong in an attempt to help people. This does not make the wrong right. It just makes the wrong justifiable. It's still wrong, regardless of how you look at it. The paladin should atone for his wrongdoing and return to his normal activities, not go screeching off the path of good like a panicked student driver overcompensating after running a little ways off the road.

Except in this situation, After running a little ways off the road, the student driver is hurled out of the moving car by the driving instructor, and prevented from setting foot back into a car again until completing an exhaustive driving school course and driving recertification without access to driving manuals or automotive skills.

The main reason I'm not a Paladin fan is what their class, nearly mechanically, demands of the party. They become, by light of their restrictions and codes, the focus of the storyline. The DM can't place the rest of the party in any form of Morality Play, or use any form of ethical test, without the Paladin taking center-stage. Their mere presence alters party dynamics and interactions beyond the realm of roleplay, and enters the realm of mechanic dependency. The presence of a paladin makes demands on the roleplay and characterization of other party members vastly in excess of any other class. This class, beyond nearly all others, actively both demands the DM to curry to their character's requirements above the rest of the party, and demands that the party restrict their play to accommodate the roleplay and mechanics of the class. It accomplishes nothing, through this, that could not be accomplished through classes that do not force the party to significantly alter their character choices or in-character actions with a mechanical Sword of Damocles being used as a Bully Pulpit.

Renegade Paladin

2008-03-25, 09:09 PM

The main reason I'm not a Paladin fan is what their class, nearly mechanically, demands of the party. They become, by light of their restrictions and codes, the focus of the storyline. The DM can't place the rest of the party in any form of Morality Play, or use any form of ethical test, without the Paladin taking center-stage. Their mere presence alters party dynamics and interactions beyond the realm of roleplay, and enters the realm of mechanic dependency. The presence of a paladin makes demands on the roleplay and characterization of other party members vastly in excess of any other class. This class, beyond nearly all others, actively both demands the DM to curry to their character's requirements above the rest of the party, and demands that the party restrict their play to accommodate the roleplay and mechanics of the class. It accomplishes nothing, through this, that could not be accomplished through classes that do not force the party to significantly alter their character choices or in-character actions with a mechanical Sword of Damocles being used as a Bully Pulpit.
Clerics are the exact same way; if the party acts in a way that violates the tenets of the cleric's deity, the cleric can't go along with it or he falls. Same with druids; violate the druidic precepts of respect for nature and the druid has to either try and stop you or fall. In fact, any divine caster has this problem with the possible exception of rangers.

Jayabalard

2008-03-25, 09:09 PM

By that logic killing an evil person is NEVER okay, because the act of killing is inherently evil, and can't be washed away no matter what you did. Killing isn't inherently evil.

Perhaps you're thinking of murder? I'll agree that murder is inherently evil; it's a very specific subset of killing, characterized by malice aforethought.

"Least evil" = "Good". It's a spectrum, not two completely different categories. By avoiding the most amount of evil, you are, by definition, shifting things more toward good. Nope. The least evil is just the least evil, nothing more, nothing less. At no point does it become good.

Lupy

2008-03-25, 09:10 PM

Well, I my browser would belly up if I read 4 pages, so forgive me if this has already been said. A Paladin is a hero, a LG fighter, he's a good guy, but he isn't the one who gets the peasant his cow back after it's stolen because it's the right thing to do. He doesnt call out the way nore powerful wizard for tormenting the farmers. He doesnt pray to his god for forgiveness and stregnth while his friends sleep. Anone can be good. Only a few can be heros. Their (mostly) Paladins.

Paladins are like the parents. They take responsibility for the barabarians rampage. They pay for the rougue's theivery. That's a paladin.

This reminds me of a certain character (No, not Pun Pun, one of my own), who really showed what a Paladin was about. He started as a CG bard. He lived in a world where decay was everywhere. And he decided to take some responsiblity and try to fix it. He became a Paladin and fixed up the village. He took down the gangsters, paid the old widow's rent, founded a church of Pelor, and beat the crap out of the mayor who was over taxing to fill his own pockets. He was a hero. A real hero. He then went on to found a band of adventurers to bring down the king (a selfish chaotic neutral sorcerer). That's a Paladin. And when it was over, he went back to playing his lute at the inn (they wanted him to be king, bu he handed it over to the cleric and said "I can give them bread. You can give them God.")

Rutee

2008-03-25, 09:16 PM

Welcome to why Alignment as a mechanically enforced concept doesn't work, Jayabalard. I could argue with you to the ends of the earth on why I think you're subjectively wrong, and you could do the same with me, but it wouldn't change that it's all subjective viewpoints.

Which should probably not translate into something that's supposed to be used as the basis for mechanics.

FYI, the short version on how to defend Bauglir's argument involves comparisons to math, and |-(5)| being a 'smaller' negative number then (-5).

ShadowSiege

2008-03-25, 09:29 PM

Nope. The least evil is just the least evil, nothing more, nothing less. At no point does it become good.

Actually, if we approach this from the perspective of limit calculus, the least evil would be good as being less evil means you approach good. Eventually, the least evil would actually be "good" as it is a continuum. The values range from pure evil to pure good, with neutral in between.

For the sake of argument and simplicity, I'll simplify this to integers. Pure evil is -10. Pure good is 10. Neutral is 0. -9 is less evil than -10, and 9 is more evil than 10. Evil will be considered as having a value of -1, so that -9 is less Evil than -10 and that 9 is more evil than 10.

-10 - (-1) = -9, -9 > -10
10 + (-1) = 9, 9 < 10

Following this line of reasoning:

-9 - (-1) = -8
-8 - (-1) = -7
...
-1 - (-1) = 0 here we reach "neutral" by being less evil than that...
0 - (-1) = 1 we officially reach "good"

Jayabalard

2008-03-25, 09:30 PM

FYI, the short version on how to defend Bauglir's argument involves comparisons to math, and |-(5)| being a 'smaller' negative number then (-5).Greater evil = -10
lesser evil = -5

both are negative numbers (evil). At no point does the -5 become a positive number (good act), even though it's closer to being a positive number than -10 is.

Clearly math contradicts the evil = good theory.

Actually, if we approach this from the perspective of limit calculus, the least evil would be good as being less evil means you approach good. Interesting misinterpretation of the term "least evil"

The English term "Least evil" refers to something evil; while comparing it to something else that is also evil, the least evil act is less evil than the other.

If you assign evil to negative numbers, and good to positive numbers with 0 as neutrality

Then any item that qualifies as least evil is a member of the set of negative integers, by definition. Anything else doesn't qualify as a lesser evil.

It doesn't matter what the relative difference is; that act is always a negative number (evil act).

SmartAlec

2008-03-25, 09:46 PM

This is commonly referred to as "The Train Track Problem", if I'm not mistaken; A man sees 7 children playing on railroad tracks; 1 is playing by himself on one set, and 6 are on the other. The train is currently heading for the 6 children, and they refuse (Or are too scared) to get off the tracks by the time you 'could' warn them. There is one of the little route flipper switches next to you, and it would switch the train to the tracks that'll kill one child. Which is the Better action: Stand and watch the 6 kids die, or flip the switch? Would you penalize someone for taking the lesser evil? If so, why? All you've said was that the decision was evil. You never explain how the choice can be evil when it was the most good choice the Paladin can see.

I confess, I don't see this as a problem. Because the way I see it, a Paladin is responsible for his or her actions first, and everyone else's second.

The fault here lies with a lot of people - the kids, for playing on the tracks; their parents or guardians, for not keeping an eye on them; the train company, for building tracks apparently close to a residential area; the train driver, for having that sandwich at that particular time.

The one person whose fault the situation is NOT is the Paladin, who has simply walked into the situation and is now expected to sort it out. And the one thing that is absolutely not permissable is flipping that switch. By flipping that switch, that Paladin is assuming responsibility for other people's lives and deaths, and exercising it in a split-second decision. Any Paladin who thinks that's a good idea is suffering under a messiah complex, and saying "I know best". He or she is claiming foresight and understanding that he or she does not have, and that's what makes it evil, in a way. Trying to claim that putting the one in danger to save the six is somehow a worthy choice is a lie, both to oneself and to any LG system of morals.

So, powers or not, code or not, two things a Paladin must keep are his sense of perspective, and her sense of humility. A Paladin is only human, and imperfect. Saving everyone from death is not possible; saving everyone from bad luck, bad judgement, fate or even themselves is even more impossible. Anyone who tries is going to break down one day, and break hard, from all the assumed guilt of failure. Failure is implicit, in the Paladin code; no-one can live it up to it perfectly for all their life. No-one can save everyone. The trick is accepting that, and when that situation where failure is inevitable comes, being able to see it for what it is and let it go rather than letting it turn into a mistake. Flipping that switch is a mistake.

This is my problem with the 'human shield' dilemma, with a baddie using an innocent bystander as ablative armour while putting his evil schemes in motion. Sure, saving the bystander is good; but if it couldn't be done, and the bystander dies because the baddie had to be stopped, that's not the Paladin's fault. The Paladin didn't suggest the use of a human shield to the baddie, he/she give that bystander to the bad guy, he/she didn't tell the bad guy to kill him. Tragic things can happen, but that does not equal a fall.

And that makes sense, really; it's the inevitable conclusion of trying to uphold an angelic, transcendental code in a grey, mundane world. To make that work, you need to take the long view from time to time. Assuming you beat the bad guy, then at worst that's one town/city/country saved, and a number of human shields prematurely reaching the afterlife, which may or may not be a bad thing from every perspective. Yes, there is grief, yes there is pain, and recrimination; but the Paladin must see past these things - pray for the dead, but do not let them drag him or her down. You can't save everyone; and that means the people you can't save are not your fault.

In this case, the Paladin should do his or her best to warn or drive off the kids without flipping the switch; and if that means all seven kids die, then so be it. They died, because they were stupid enough to play on GOD-DAMN railroad tracks. That's sad, and stupid, and senseless, but you can't blame the Paladin for that, and the Paladin did not do evil; indeed, he or she did everything he/she could, short of killing someone.

And that should be ok in the eyes of any LG god.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 09:49 PM

Interesting misinterpretation of the term "least evil"

The English term "Least evil" refers to something evil; while comparing it to something else that is also evil, the least evil act is less evil than the other.

If you assign evil to negative numbers, and good to positive numbers with 0 as neutrality

Then any item that qualifies as least evil is a member of the set of negative integers, by definition. Anything else doesn't qualify as a lesser evil.

It doesn't matter what the relative difference is; that act is always a negative number (evil act).

He's exactly as correct as you, because both are entirely subjective viewpoints.

Does this not highlight in any way why mechanizing subjectiveness can be a Bad Thing (tm)?

ShadowSiege

2008-03-25, 09:57 PM

He's exactly as correct as you, because both ar entirely subjective viewpoints.

Pretty much. He's arguing that good and evil are wholly different, I'm arguing that they're part of a contiguous behavioral spectrum. I'm not quite sure what the proper term for this debate is, but philosophers have certainly argued about it in the past and far more eloquently than I could hope to.

Jayabalard

2008-03-25, 10:07 PM

He's exactly as correct as you, because both are entirely subjective viewpoints.Nope. Lesser of two evils has a very specific meaning. It refers to a situation where someone must make a choice between two evils; It does not apply in a choice between an evil and a neutral act, or between an evil and a good act; there's no ambiguity there.

In his example, he does not adhere to that meaning when he converts it into the math domain, making his argument fallacious. My argument isn't fallacious (at least as far as I can see, feel free to shoot some holes in that if you can) so by definition, he cannot be exactly as correct as me.

He's arguing that good and evil are wholly differentNot at all; I'm arguing that in a choice between a good act and an evil one you cannot have a lesser of two evils since you only have one evil. The term "least evil" act can only apply to evil acts.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 10:14 PM

Sure, he converts the colloquial meaning. To my knowledge, we're not discussing the colloquial meaning. We're discussing the concept it discusses.

Neon Knight

2008-03-25, 10:24 PM

I just wanted to say that I have been following this, and am composing a response to the all the comments thus far.

Quite honestly, I didn't expect such a strong response. I thought people were tired of alignment threads.:smalleek:

Citizen Joe

2008-03-25, 10:31 PM

RE: Main Track problem

Paladins only have code conflicts if they actually commit the evil act. Inaction does not have an effect on them. So, switching the track involves sacrificing a child that would not die if no action were taken. Letting the 6 others die is not blood on his hands, thus inaction is the proper solution for the paladin.

Jayabalard

2008-03-25, 10:44 PM

I thought people were tired of alignment threads.:smalleek:I like alignment threads. They wind up being much more interesting and meaningful than discussions that are limited strictly to the game rules.

Sure, he converts the colloquial meaning.I disagree that what he's using is the colloquial meaning. Even colloquially, the lesser of two evils isspecific to situations with moral ambiguity that you don't get in the choice between something that is evil and something that is non-evil.

In any case, using the colloquial meaning does not help your case that his argument is as correct as mine.

We're discussing the concept it discusses.Actually, I just discussing the "lesser of two evils = good" bit. It's a pet peeve of mine. I don't mind if people want to try and justify the evil that they do. But no amount of handwaving or justification can turn something evil into something good; it may be the best that you can do, but that doesn't make it good.

If the best grade that you can get is a D, that doesn't make it a good grade. Sure, it's better than an F, but better than is not the same as good.

RE: Main Track problem

Paladins only have code conflicts if they actually commit the evil act. Inaction does not have an effect on them. So, switching the track involves sacrificing a child that would not die if no action were taken. Letting the 6 others die is not blood on his hands, thus inaction is the proper solution for the paladin.A big part of the paladin code, and really just part of the whole "iconic good guy" archetype is that it's not enough for them to just refrain from doing evil; they must actively strive to do good.

there's plenty of cases that can be built supporting one position or the other depending on

how much responsibility you place on the paladin for the situation
whether saving the 6 children is, in fact, good at all.
whether it's worth doing evil to accomplish something good, and if so, where the threshold is.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 10:54 PM

In any case, using the colloquial meaning does not help your case that his argument is as correct as mine.
...I was saying he doesn't use the colloquial meaning. My argument in fact hinges on this to an extent, since he's wrong, speaking colloquially. He's just as correct as you are on a conceptual level, because you can not prove that a continuum-based viewpoint is less correct then a more discrete one.

turkishproverb

2008-03-25, 10:56 PM

He's exactly as correct as you, because both are entirely subjective viewpoints.

Does this not highlight in any way why mechanizing subjectiveness can be a Bad Thing (tm)?

Not necessarily.

Your forgetting, this is essentially fiction. IN fiction, nothing HAS to be subjective. you can build very strict morality into your world if you want to. Though if you do such a thing, it's only right to warn players.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 10:58 PM

Perhaps I should have refined my statement. The problem with /the PHB/ setting down objective morality. Make it a concept in your universe; I couldn't care less. But the PHB doing it makes it a game-wide assumption, and that means anyone with ethics that don't sync up is going to have problems.

Jayabalard

2008-03-25, 11:08 PM

He's just as correct as you are on a conceptual level, because you can not prove that a continuum-based viewpoint is less correct then a more discrete one.Definition: The lesser of two evils: Of two evil acts in a proposed moral dilemma, the act that is less evil than the other.

Do you have a different definition that you would like to propose? If not, a proof by contradiction of my argument is fairly trivial (it's just set theory and the pigeonhole principle).

Perhaps I should have refined my statement. The problem with /the PHB/ setting down objective morality. Make it a concept in your universe; I couldn't care less. But the PHB doing it makes it a game-wide assumption, and that means anyone with ethics that don't sync up is going to have problems.The phb does it in fairly general terms, which are pretty clearly up for interpretation, so I don't see the problem.

Rutee

2008-03-25, 11:17 PM

Sigh. Your definition relies on it being Evil to do X, when X is the Most Good action, because it is not Good.

If you have -2 and -9, and choose -2, by your viewpoint, -2 is still Evil.

So the argument goes, choosing -2 is a Good act; -2 itself may be evil, but as it was the closest choice to Good, it was the right thing to do.

You repeat correctly that -2 is still -2.

But -2 was the most positive action

-2 is still -2.

Subjective. Viewpoints.

Ryusacerdos

2008-03-25, 11:28 PM

Choosing the lesser of two evils is a neutral act really. As such, a paladin should not fall for it as it isn't explicitly evil.

Another example is killing someone who is about to kill you - its justified, but not quite good.

(Subduing, and then showing mercy to the person who tried to kill you would be good)

Dervag

2008-03-25, 11:38 PM

Well, no, it's like the paladin had to sacrifice one of the hostages to get the other 6 to safety. It is something that the paladin should genuinely regret having done. Having him "fall" is a heavy handed mechanic to make sure regret is carried in those situations.Imagine the following situation:

Two goblins are holding six peasants hostage. Both goblins are in a position to deliver a coup de grace to one hostage each.

The paladin only has one attack per round. Now what?

If the paladin falls for attacking the goblins (with the virtual certainty that at least one of them will be killed), and this is true in every possible condition of things, no matter how desperately urgent it is that the paladin not simply back away from the situation... then the moral incentive structure for paladins is so perverse that they become almost unplayable unless the DM takes care to avoid putting them in alignment-challenging situations.

It should not be almost certain that everyone who starts as a paladin will eventually fall; the class makes no sense with that flavor. But if the paladin who attacks the goblins in the above example falls automatically, regardless of circumstances, then it is effectively guaranteed that all paladins will fall, and rather quickly, too.

Nope. The least evil is just the least evil, nothing more, nothing less. At no point does it become good.So then you believe that there are acts which are choiceworthy, and which a rational and good person would prefer over all other options, but which are nonetheless evil?

Clearly math contradicts the evil = good theory.This only holds true if you don't normalize your "good and evil" scale to the environment the moral choice is being made in.

By refusing to normalize the scale so that it has a 'zero' somewhere for a given situation, you can create situations in which there are nothing but negative or nothing but positive numbers.

This leads one of two conclusions:
A)The scale of good and evil is almost useless, because there will be so many situations in which you cannot choose which action to take because they're all on the same side of the scale. Either all your options are good, or all your options are evil. Either way, the knowledge of good and evil will not guide you.
or
B)There are situations (the ones where all options are evil) where a good and rational person would prefer an evil option over all other options. Which strikes me as a perverse idea.

The problem is that by rejecting the "-5 is the right choice compared to -10," you end up rejecting the only thing that makes the number scale of good and evil work in the first place. Without that, you can't compare two options and make a valid choice.

And if you don't reject it, then you have no good basis for saying that there can ever be a situation in which there is no choice corresponding to "0." You have to give your scale a zero point or it is meaningless.

Ryusacerdos

2008-03-25, 11:52 PM

Morally ambiguous actions are neutral - they are dictated by logic more than anything.

Saving the world or the child. Logic dictates the world, as it would serve a greater purpose - a neutral stance. The good stance would be trying to find a way out of the whole mess (ala Captain Kirk), and killing the child only if no other possibility is found.

I think a lot of problems arise from the lack of understanding what separates neutral from good or evil.

Rutee

2008-03-26, 12:04 AM

horseboy

2008-03-26, 12:07 AM

Imagine the following situation:

Two goblins are holding six peasants hostage. Both goblins are in a position to deliver a coup de grace to one hostage each.

The paladin only has one attack per round. Now what?Paladin offers cunning plan of asking mage if he can make them fall asleep like he did the kobolds yesterday. Paladin charges on, ranger shoots the other. Paladin attacks tree. Tree falls on both goblins. Paladin lines up his charge, skewers one, rides down the other. If the paladin is allowed the questionable tactic of ranged weapons he shoots the guy in charge of the ceremony, throwing the whole thing into disarray.

If the paladin falls for attacking the goblins (with the virtual certainty that at least one of them will be killed), and this is true in every possible condition of things, no matter how desperately urgent it is that the paladin not simply back away from the situation... then the moral incentive structure for paladins is so perverse that they become almost unplayable unless the DM takes care to avoid putting them in alignment-challenging situations.No, it just calls for more lateral thinking on the player's part than just "I kill it".

It should not be almost certain that everyone who starts as a paladin will eventually fall; the class makes no sense with that flavor. But if the paladin who attacks the goblins in the above example falls automatically, regardless of circumstances, then it is effectively guaranteed that all paladins will fall, and rather quickly, too.I disagree. I've played more paladins in D&D than any other class. It's not nearly as hard as people want to make it out to be.

So then you believe that there are acts which are choiceworthy, and which a rational and good person would prefer over all other options, but which are nonetheless evil?Yup.

This only holds true if you don't normalize your "good and evil" scale to the environment the moral choice is being made in. That's situational ethics. Those things that you have to utilize situational ethics to justify are not good.

Ryusacerdos

2008-03-26, 12:16 AM

"Winning" the Kobayashi Meru is a cheap copout in a moral dilemma. Of course we know that finding some solution better then our options is /good/. The question is what the right course of action is with our /actual dilemma/.

Sure. The right course of action is whatever is most logical at the time - consult your local Vulcan. Making the choice in a moral dilemma is neutral - they are created with a lose-lose situation in mind, and the most logical choice is to simply take the lesser of the two losses.

To clarify - choosing to send the train to the one child instead of the six, within the bounds of the problem, is not good or evil but rather neutral.

Moral dilemmas shouldn't cause paladins to fall, because they aren't evil for choosing the lesser of two evils.

Rutee

2008-03-26, 12:18 AM

Hm, well I'm glad you got my intent; The thought occured to me that it didn't broadcast well. Still, if it's the Right choice, isn't it a Good one?

Ryusacerdos

2008-03-26, 12:23 AM

Hm, well I'm glad you got my intent; The thought occured to me that it didn't broadcast well. Still, if it's the Right choice, isn't it a Good one?

Its was the logical choice, made with the best intents.

Its a neutral act - sacrificing the life of one child to save six others. An "evil" means to a good end.

Edit:
"The ends justify the means" isn't really an evil statement, but a neutral one. An evil person uses the statement as an excuse however, as usually he doesn't have a "good" end in mind.

Rutee

2008-03-26, 12:28 AM

Hm. Well, I'll still settle on "Not Evil", as within the context of Paladins that's all that really matters. I think, anyway..

Ryusacerdos

2008-03-26, 12:31 AM

Hm. Well, I'll still settle on "Not Evil", as within the context of Paladins that's all that really matters. I think, anyway..

I agree. It wasn't an outright evil act, it was someone who is human with limited choices doing the best he could.

Edit:
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there is a middle element on the moral compass, and there isn't anything wrong with a good person straying into there once in awhile.

The_Werebear

2008-03-26, 01:48 AM

For the Train Tracks question.

The paladin can't just stand by and let six children die. By virtue of accepting the mantle of Paladin, they are put in the situation where they have to make a choice there. Knowing nothing else, the solution with the most good is to save six lives at the cost of one. If causing the death of a child is -5 on the scale, saving one from certain death is a +5. It balances out to more positive.
My opinion on what the paladin should do- Flip the switch to the track with one child and run like hell to get there in time. Then, shove the child off the track, even at the cost of his own life.

As for the goblins with the peasants, the paladin should break out the toolbox. Diplomacy is a class skill, and charisma is high. Offer to exchange places with the hostages, or negotiate the goblins getting to leave in exchange for the hostages lives.

GammaPaladin

2008-03-26, 05:00 AM

Okay, let's look at it this way. You're trying to teach your child not to get into fights at school. Now one day at school Bobby hits your child, and your child fights back, knocking out one of Bobby's teeth. After your child explains that it was Bobby's fault, do you just say "Oh, I'm sorry, you were perfectly right to beat Bobby's face in," or do you say "I understand that Bobby started it, but it's still not good to get into fights at school. You should actively try to avoid coming to blows whenever you can. Now, I'm going to send you to your room for a little while to think about what you've done"?
Wait. Wait. WHAT?

What kind of parent would punish their child for a fight that another child started? Seriously, once a punch is thrown, the fight is started, and the other child should be free to defend himself. Self-defense is no less a valid defense for children than it is for adults. If some guy throws a punch at me, I'm fully legally allowed to knock him on his ass. I'm not going to hold my child to a different standard.

And honestly, what kind of a lesson is "Just sit there and take it and hope some authority figure comes and saves you."

Jesus Christ. Raising a lifelong victim much?

The paladin can't just stand by and let six children die. By virtue of accepting the mantle of Paladin, they are put in the situation where they have to make a choice there. Knowing nothing else, the solution with the most good is to save six lives at the cost of one. If causing the death of a child is -5 on the scale, saving one from certain death is a +5. It balances out to more positive.
My opinion on what the paladin should do- Flip the switch to the track with one child and run like hell to get there in time. Then, shove the child off the track, even at the cost of his own life.
I'd actually argue he shouldn't throw the switch, but rather simply run to try and save the six, knock them off the tracks, etc.

That way no action of his can have caused the deaths of innocents.

The only factor that could change this would be if one group of children were closer to the switch and his position than the other. Then he should obviously flip the switch because it increases the likelihood of being able to get there in time.

Khanderas

2008-03-26, 05:54 AM

Wait. Wait. WHAT?

What kind of parent would punish their child for a fight that another child started? Seriously, once a punch is thrown, the fight is started, and the other child should be free to defend himself. Self-defense is no less a valid defense for children than it is for adults. If some guy throws a punch at me, I'm fully legally allowed to knock him on his ass. I'm not going to hold my child to a different standard.

And honestly, what kind of a lesson is "Just sit there and take it and hope some authority figure comes and saves you."

Jesus Christ. Raising a lifelong victim much?

You can't really say it's ok to use violence provided you were provoked. Certainly not to a kid.

Self defense is just that. Self defense. Not a carte blanche to do whatever you want on someone just because "he started it".

GammaPaladin

2008-03-26, 06:27 AM

Being hit is not just being provoked. It's an assault (And I would actually press charges against a child who punched mine), and entitles them to defend themselves.

Being punched, and throwing a punch back knocking the other kid's tooth out is completely reasonable.

Expecting a child to simply allow the other kid to hit him (Which will mean that he keeps hitting him) until an adult happens to show up to stop it is, as I said, raising a child who will be a victim for the rest of his life.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-26, 07:26 AM

And in fact, while that's an easy dilemma, think of the classic "The kids are picking at me at school!" complaint. What do most parents do? "Tell the adults, they'll stop it". Bull****. It only flogs them towards a greater level of spite. What you have to do is gain their fear or respect. By any means necessary. I'm convinced part of a generation (My generation, and the next one too) is currently having tremendous difficulty in communicating, having raised psychological barriers to endure the verbal abuse. They're nice people, but when angry, they go berserk, tearing everything in their path, because they've reached breaking point, and in fact, I'm betting that's what happens with those kids who go berserk and do killings every now and then.

And THAT'S what we're encouraged by society to do? **** it. I'd tell my child "If they verbally abuse you, make their life a hell. Make them suffer with pranks and mindgames until they don't want to screw you anymore."

Sad, yes. Necessary because some idiots don't learn? Yes.

"If you got a job, you better do it well,
you better give the other fella hell!".

Starbuck_II

2008-03-26, 08:10 AM

You can't really say it's ok to use violence provided you were provoked. Certainly not to a kid.

Self defense is just that. Self defense. Not a carte blanche to do whatever you want on someone just because "he started it".

Why not? If someone starts it; I want my kid to finish it. I don't believe in victim mentality.

Bauglir

2008-03-26, 08:44 AM

If the best grade that you can get is a D, that doesn't make it a good grade. Sure, it's better than an F, but better than is not the same as good.

Actually, getting the D is getting a good grade, because in this situation, the Grading Scale runs from F to D. There is no C, B, or A. Thus, a D must be a good grade. There actually are classes where students are expected to get, say, only 70% as a final grade.

Citizen Joe

2008-03-26, 08:55 AM

Imagine the following situation:

Two goblins are holding six peasants hostage. Both goblins are in a position to deliver a coup de grace to one hostage each.

The paladin only has one attack per round. Now what?

If the paladin falls for attacking the goblins (with the virtual certainty that at least one of them will be killed)...
I've stated this numerous times. The paladin only falls if HE commits the evil act. He could just do nothing. The blood is on the hands of the goblins. He could attack the goblins and if the goblins kill the hostages, then the blood is STILL on the goblins hands.

"This could be a millions will die if you don't kill this innocent child" situation and the paladin still should not kill the child, because those millions dieing are not at his hands. Paladins don't focus on the Greater Good. They are focused on punishing the evil now. Not even stopping the evil, just punishing them. In fact, Paladins can't exist without evil out there.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-26, 09:00 AM

horseboy

2008-03-26, 09:31 AM

Why not? If someone starts it; I want my kid to finish it. I don't believe in victim mentality.True that, my kid would get a martial honour lecture then be taught proper "Knee to the nuts" techniques and Weapon Proficiency: Bag of Oranges.

elliott20

2008-03-26, 09:35 AM

Subjective. Viewpoints.

That's exactly what I was aiming at several pages ago when it comes to alignment subjectivity.

It is the very reason why the alignment mechanics in D&D is often seen as fundamentally flawed. And when encounter something that is subjective, people are going to disagree and argue about it. That's just the way it's going to go. Even just the viewpoint that morality is objective or subjective is still just that: an opinion and a belief. we have a hard enough time discussing belief in real life without it becoming a real conflict, what makes you think a game with extremely simplified rules on morality is capable of making any better judicial calls?

Believe it or not, this is one of the primary reasons why I started thinking about using the belief system in the other thread I started. (shameless self-promotion!) That way, a belief is kept personal or at least is something that is discussed prior to any choices being made.

hamishspence

2008-03-26, 10:31 AM

the Train dilemma is a common trope of moral philosophy. I read that it was tested across a wide range of cultures and thr same general result came in: that the majority of people, in cases where one set ofpeople were actuallly guaranteed to die, would save the larger number. By contrast, in cases where the choice involved actually killing someone: e.g. pushing a bystander into path of train to save the group, the majority of people said it was an evil thing to do.

Or, in an alternative version, dissecting a healthy person to provide the parts to save multiple dying people. Again, the majority of people: 90%, said it was evil and should not be done.

the bully dilemma: the general rule is that teachers will punish both, regardless of who started it. Retreating or blocking, in this case, is in fact the sensible thing to do and does not automatically make one into a lifelong victim.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-26, 10:34 AM

Sadly,

"REAL LIFE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! Goodnight!".

You can't back off, since it's usually worse for you if you do it.

elliott20

2008-03-26, 10:44 AM

the bully dilemma: the general rule is that teachers will punish both, regardless of who started it. Retreating or blocking, in this case, is in fact the sensible thing to do and does not automatically make one into a lifelong victim.
There is also a difference between protecting yourself through a little bit of resistance and responding with excessive force. If a kid punches you, and you punch him to just show him you will fight back, but then stop from escalating the conflict, that's fine. If on the other hand, you proceed to break his arm for picking on you, that's a problem.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-26, 10:45 AM

Indeed. The idea is to get their fear or respect, not to cause them lifelong body and mind trauma.

hamishspence

2008-03-26, 10:49 AM

when dealing with a bully more dangerous than you are, you bet backing off is the right thing to do. Most times, hitting back will get you into trouble of various kinds.

Many philosophies state that relaliation is dangerous. Which doesn't mean that when you are in great danger you should not use appropiate force to protect yourself, but the key word is appropiate. Police officers WILL arrest both people fighting, regardless of who started it, and might charge both. Sometime, even people who genuinely believed their lives were in danger have been sentenced for assault, manslaughter, etc.

Exalted Deeds morality tends to follow this, with restraint in actions being a virtue. there are differences, to cater for the fact that it is an adventuring game, but it is strong on mercy, forgiveness, generosity, etc.

elliott20

2008-03-26, 10:52 AM

and you also have to ask yourself when does escalation of conflict actually solves the problem you have with them.

when I was teenager, there was a period of time when I was friends with the wrong group of people, causing me to get into quite a few fistocuffs. (often very much one sided since it's almost always a bunch of people ganging up on one person.)

during those times, I felt 100% justified in what I was doing... somebody came after me and tried to give me crap for being friends with someone, so I responded and defended myself by knocking two of his teeth out of his mouth with my boot. Of course, not to be outdone, the kid eventually calls up 5 of his friends and try to jump me in the parking lot. Seeing as I got into a fight on account of him, my friend called up his friends and had them accompany me out to the parking lot, which caused an even BIGGER conflict as the two groups both felt slighted by each other, and both sides are too stupid to back down.

luckily, a lot of these kids were in positions that would greatly embarass their parents for getting caught in things like this so a lot of the times people were able to draw a line somewhere before somebody got seriously hurt. But still, this doesn't mean sometimes things don't get out of hand.

And usually, it ends up taking the original two people who started it to sit down and talk things out to really resolve this whole thing.

Citizen Joe

2008-03-26, 10:57 AM

Joe, you're confusing it. Doing nothing gets you this:

*Judge Voice*

GUILTY BY NEGLIGENCE!

*Hammer, and the powers go away*

Doing SOMETHING to prevent a bigger tragedy doesn't make you fall. Totally different.
Not as written. The core code just says no committing the evil act. It doesn't even say anything about stopping it. Just punish those that commit evil acts.

Besides, in the train situation, there could be a thousand sick children that MUST make it to the hospital by a certain time and if you (not being a RR engineer) flip a switch willy nilly, you might endanger all of them.

Greater good is NOT in the purview of the core paladin code. Now you can pull out all the splat books that you want... I have none of them and have no intention of getting them.

Think of it this way. There is an infinite amount of evil in the world. You cannot stop all of it all the time... apparently not even the gods can do that. Thus you only stop the evil that you can, in this case you stop yourself from doing evil. Six kids getting mowed over by a train because they were playing on the tracks is a tragic accident but has nothing to do with good and evil. Intentionally killing the one kid IS evil and not something that you have the right to meddle with.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-26, 10:59 AM

Escalation does not solve things. It's more on dealing psychological impact (Non freudian, thanks. Contrary to the bearded guy, sex is NOT the focus of the universe, just a very important aspect), on making it clear that "If you hit me, I'm going to hit back. And in a way that'll make having your heart ripped out and living an eternal age of torment and misery seem tame in comparison. Got it, pal? 'Kay, glad we solved that. *Pat to the head*.". It's about either scaring the pants off the other guys, or making them respect you, and treat you as an equal. The other choice is an increasing dose of ostracism and a communication breakdown, and not in the Led Zeppelin style.

elliott20

2008-03-26, 11:03 AM

I suppose. Most of the time, I'd say MOST people just aren't that keen about getting hurt. In my case, my mistake was not my defense, but in how I did it. I did it in a way that threatened their sense of self, and to those guys, me not respecting them means I might turn around and prey upon them. So, by that point, they escalate not because they're just dumbasses, but also because they feel that if they don't, they'll in turn become victim. Had I been able to just get it across that I'm not trying to disrespect them, just trying to tell them to leave me alone and I will leave them alone, that would have probably stopped a lot of the crap that had taken place.

The_Werebear

2008-03-26, 11:04 AM

For the Child in the Fight-

At my school district, it didn't mater if you threw the punches or just backed away blocking, or even stood there and got beaten to a pulp. For being attacked and standing passive, you got the same punishment as the attacker.

So, for me, I would teach my child that, if you are really attacked, to fight back until you have pushed the foe back enough to be able to simply walk away. If you knock your foe down, offer them a hand back up. If they attack you again, hit them again. But fight only as long as you have to and show mercy when you can. I would also be very clear that the only time to fight back with physical force is against physical force. If they are verbally attacking, ignore them. They get bored and leave you alone eventually. And, while that sucks to put up with, I survived being insulted until they grew tired of trying to get a rise out of me, and they can too.

But the debate is kind of off topic by now.

elliott20

2008-03-26, 11:07 AM

my apologies for that. anyway, back to paladins.

I was talking about paladinhood being a pretty subjective thing to begin with. I think that was what Rutee was driving at as well. (and I do of course, hear a couple people echo the sentiment about moral absolutism)

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-26, 11:08 AM

I'd agree on everything, 'cept the verbal abuse part. If they do that, prank the hell out of them until they don't say anything about you. Having the whole class pranking you tends to make a person slightly asocial, and kids are stupid and like to join in that kind of fun.

hamishspence

2008-03-26, 11:25 AM

D&D does have some slack for both the intent and the nature of the action, specified in Vile Darkness, where there is Accident, Negligence, and Wilful. And, as Celia says in OOTS, even in a system of absolute Good and Evil, there is room for nuance and exception.

that said, it does require a lot of work just to get some idea of whats good, evil, and lawful, with Exalted Deeds, Vile Darkness, and Fiendish Codex 2 being the best sources. Players handbook just doesn't have that much info. Second ed sources are useful, but changes have been made. Neutral is no longer balance-fixated, Chaotic neutral is no longer mildly barmy, but simply represents those with a strong attachment to personal freedom and no strong good or evil traits.

Each source needs careful reading to avoid problems. Vile Darkness is a lot of detail on evil traits, but should be used carefully to avoid spoiling the game.

its also partly the DM. if DM's don't like the alignment system its too easy to make a messy game where players end up not having fun- forcing players to violate their Vows, giving them evil/evil/negligent choices, etc. Or the player/player dynamic, people playing darker characters conflicting with paladin types.

The police syndrome, where one player refuses to let others do things he doesn't like, is not unique to paladin, but as written the class tends to encourage it too much.

I wonder how 4th ed will handle it? 3rd ed has lots of evil but not always criminal characters, with Evil being common and paladins may not be allows to slay Evil creatures freely unless there is just cause AND good intent: Exalted Deeds and Cityscape both touch on this.

Races and Classes suggests Evil and Good will be narrower, Good is closer to Exalted Good, Evil closer to Vile Darkness, with most characters being Unaligned. Law and Chaos still exist, but appear to get less spotlight.

Starbuck_II

2008-03-26, 12:00 PM

elliott20

2008-03-26, 12:20 PM

No one started a fight when they name called. Yes, it isw offensive, but not a fight. You started the first blow.
Not really, I'm not exactly blameless in that since I refused to back down and I did verbally provoke him back.

But eventually, the korean kid just decided he had enough words and just went for a swing. I never said it was a good idea, or that it was necessarily the BEST way to handle it. But at the time, I felt fully justified in what I was doing.

elliott20

2008-03-26, 12:26 PM

after trying to post an actual reply to this thread for like, 30+ times, my post still won't go through. Screw it.

GammaPaladin

2008-03-26, 01:24 PM

the bully dilemma: the general rule is that teachers will punish both, regardless of who started it. Retreating or blocking, in this case, is in fact the sensible thing to do and does not automatically make one into a lifelong victim.
It's not the sensible thing to do. Showing weakness to a bully just means they will bully you all the more later, and they generally don't care at all about punishments from the staff, of they wouldn't be bullying kids in the first place.

Yes, the teachers will punish both parties. However, as is pointed out further down the thread, they will typically punish both parties no matter what the attacked child does.

Furthermore, just because the school system will punish the child, doesn't mean their parents have to support that action or pretend to agree with it. If I were to send my child to public school and he got attacked and fought back and was punished for it, I'd tell him not to sweat it, and if he was suspended he'd get to just have it as a vacation, and if he got one of those ridiculous new "in school suspensions" I'd just keep him home for the duration of it (And if they wanted to be stubborn about it and say he had to serve it when he got back to school, I'd simply find a different school for him).

hamishspence

2008-03-26, 01:48 PM

School would be a serious failure if it punished equally, especially if there is is an obvious disparity. if teacher arrives on the scene to unconcious child on ground with bully standing over them then any normal school would exclude or suspend the aggressor. On the other hand, biased witnesses (the bully's cronies) can make claims that the victim was responsible, but the evidence should contradict this.

That said, the legal system as written, in Britain and America, is designed to discourage hitting back unless your life depends on it. Of course one should defend oneself, but with the minimum necessary force, which can mean retreating.

the "stand up for yourself" theory fails a lot of the time in the real world. the physically weak can get in far more danger from resisting, in some cases. Police advise people being mugged not to resist physically.

In the early 20th century bullying could be exceptionally bad, and it has not completely improved. When defending yourself can get you expelled, it is safer to avoid physical conflict entirely.

its a common theme in many moral philosophies that violence is something to be generally avoided.

However, D&D has charcters which are supposed to use violence in a good cause, with good intentions. those are the key words (exalted Deeds) This leads to a rather conflicted paladins code, so DMs should work carefully with players who want to play Paladins as truly good characters.

Some of the trouble comes from people who take the class, but want to play it more ruthlessly: hard to resolve.

GammaPaladin

2008-03-26, 02:08 PM

School would be a serious failure if it punished equally, especially if there is is an obvious disparity. if teacher arrives on the scene to unconcious child on ground with bully standing over them then any normal school would exclude or suspend the aggressor. On the other hand, biased witnesses (the bully's cronies) can make claims that the victim was responsible, but the evidence should contradict this.
It's rarely the case that things are so blatantly obvious. Generally the teacher comes across somone hitting someone else. MANY school districts have zero tolerance policies, and simply punish both parties equally, regardless of the circumstances. This is intentional, and done so that the school district's officials can't be criticized, because they're not allowed to exercise judgement, therefore nothing can be their fault.

Police advise people being mugged not to resist physically.
They used to. They don't so much any more. Statistics show that you're less likely to end up dead if you do resist/flee than if you cooperate, in basically any crime. Therefore the "party line" from the cops has changed.

its a common theme in many moral philosophies that violence is something to be generally avoided.
This is true, but I am not a believer in, or supporter of, the "violence never solves anything/is always bad" camp. If someone attacks me and I disable them physically, violence has absolutely solved that problem.

hamishspence

2008-03-26, 02:29 PM

more a view that violence should always be the last resort, and that ordinary people are not likely to be able to use it well, when confronted with violence from someone better at it.

In Britain, the system is biased against violence in general, and it is too easy to be punished for defending yourself. when schools punish you for doing it, you learn to avoid the situations entirely.

which is not to say that it does not have its place in certain situations, still, whether police officer or soldier, there is the rule that it must be appropiate to the situation, and the minimum needed to resolve the situation. Thats what negotiation is for. Rules of engagement. Codes of conduct in these sort of professions.

Getting back to paladins, it is the class with the code. How to make it work well, is something I hope 4th ed will add to.

elliott20

2008-03-26, 02:59 PM

I'm curious as to how everyone would modify the paladin to make them play more seamlessly.

here's what I'd do

- remove alignment from the mechanical aspects of the character.

Alignment, as Rutee has noted, is highly subjected to interpretation. Say what you will, but for every person out there, they probably have a different idea as to what Lawful Good means. This kind of ambiguity is the cause of many many many arguments between GM and player and it detracts from the playability of the paladin. I say, remove alignment from mechanical portions entirely or do it in a way so that the crystal clear and precise interpretation is not necessary to play the game.

- make the paladin's power a divine connection rather than a membership badge

A paladin gains his powers from the divine connection. As such, it is not necessarily RULED by behavior, but rather behavior could potentially affect it. I would suggest we make a paladin's power be contingent on maintaining the divine connection instead, very much the same way we see a cleric, a ranger, a druid, etc. It needs to be held to the same standard as a cleric of an LG status.

- explicitly encourage players and GM to spend more time talking about character concepts

a big problem in D&D is that there is a mentality among a lot of people that character development is solely the domain of the PCs, whlie story development is solely the domain of the GM. With a paladin, who has plenty of both, it needs special coordinated attention. Otherwise, we'll have the same disconnect in opinions and expectations.

hamishspence

2008-03-26, 03:15 PM

would agree with the above. divine connection was the theme anyway in FR, and it is not had to simply stress it in 4th ed. Currently there is an argument over on Stick forum as to whether the sapphire guard get theirs from the 12 gods. Apparently the dramatic Miko Falls scene is not enough evidence for some.

3rd party Quintesennial Paladin 2 had a Build your own Code set, as well as sample version of the basic code, with most major things shown. I would not allow building own code (too abusable) but more detailed version of the current one, and alignment in general, would be nice. Without overconstricting, the way 2nd ed did with Neutral and Chaotic Neutral alignments.

4th ed seems to be going the way of less mechanical problems. One other things stated was: Being good shouldn't make you MORE vulnerable to Evil, as it does in 3rd and 3.5 ed, due to the way protection from evil spells work.

The hard part will be discouraging the "police syndrome" as the OOTS Paladin Blues book calls it. Without having paladins who seem to condone everything their buddies do, and without having the paladin compelled to put the smackdown on buddies for minor offences.

GammaPaladin

2008-03-26, 03:54 PM

Heh, I hate FR's divine angle. It drives me insane.

I prefer Eberron's "Your powers come from your own faith, not an external source" angle.

Personally, I remove alignment restrictions from the Paladin, but I leave alignment mechanics in place. You can play any alignment you want as a Paladin (Well, except that I don't usually allow evil characters period, but that's beside the point), and your smite/protection/detect powers simply work on the opposite. Well, I change the detect spells and powers to simply detect alignment, so that's not an issue anyway... but...

Bah! Point is, evil Pallys get smite good, good pallys get smite evil. Simple as that. Neutral pallys get to choose.

EvilElitest

2008-03-26, 10:51 PM

Problem Perception One: Role.
Personally, i think the paladin's role is a LG emebodyment with special powers as of such. I think they should get their own spell list however

I also support 4E's idea on new and special smites [QUOTE]
Factoring into this is the Paladin's rule of engagement. To what degree can Paladins go to hunt down and destroy evil? Obviously, Paladins cannot do evil deeds themselves, and they must remain lawful. Paladins must respect legitimate authority; but how far does all this go? Must a Paladin work within the legal system of the legitimate authority? Does a Paladin have the power to try, judge, sentence, and execute evil doers? What if there is a situation where there is no clear legitimate authority? There are many debates and arguments about this subject, too many to easily summarize.
A paladin works within the legal system of their own code. Thus if the legal system demands the death of an innocent, the paladin must resist it

Problem Perception Two: Alignment.

This one is a powder keg. A Paladin is lawful good, and must remain so to continue being a paladin. But is it lawful good, or lawful good?

Of course, a Paladin that does eve one evil deed falls, while a Paladin can do chaotic acts and remain lawful, and thus a Paladin. This does speak for a preference for good if the lawful course leads to evil, but what if the choice is between a lawful neutral action and a neutral good or chaotic good action? A paladin must respect legitimate authority. In addition, a paladin cannot give aid to anyone who would use said aid for evil or chaotic purposes. And gross violation of the code of conduct leads to ex-paladinship as surely as an evil deed.

So should a Paladin support a lawful neutral authority above a chaotic good opponent? Or vice versa?

A sub-debate is about whether Paladins are allowed to be merciful. Law is performing reaction A to situation B. Person steals bread, receives punishment. Obviously, an unjust or wrong punishment would be resisted by a Paladin, but once more, a problem; can a Paladin give mercy to evil people, or when a punishment is deserved? If Crime A demands death, is it alright for a paladin to spare his opponent if he apprehends him? If a Paladin apprehends a youth stealing frivolously, and the punishment is five lashes, can he let him off if he feels it would aid in his rehabilitation.

With all the horrible shenanigans this debate goes through, I feel the alignment is sometimes lawlful good. :smallamused:
1. I think good comes before law, law is more the manner in which the Paladin commits his good deeds, such as being honorable
2. here is the thing through, the paladin needs to have the dude tried. Should he be found guilty, and should the punishment be an somewhat just one (so the kid wouldn't be killed for pickpocketing) then no he should have teh youth lawfully punished. Because other wise he is going to have a double standard, what is somebody who isn't as charismatic gets tired for the same crime?

Problem Perception Three: The Code.

This is the big one I feel. Instead of entering the specific debates about the code itself and its tenets, I'm going to address a different set of perceptions: People's perceptions about why there is a code.

Why does a paladin have a code? Is the code a set of standards, a set of ideals that all Paladins should obey and aspire to because they are the one true way? Or are they regulatory, necessary quality controls to insure Paladins do good and do not misuse their powers?

I feel, however, their is a certain perception that must be spotlighted. This is the crown jewel of my piece; so pay attention.

Certain people have the perception that Paladins have a code so that they might be tempted to break that code, and so that code can be used against them.

Alignment? A roleplaying tool? The Helm of Opposite Alignment weaponized alignment. In a similar vein, the code of conduct is the Paladin's kryptonite. The code was made so you can trick Paladins into violating it and thus losing their powers. It was made for sadistic DMs and opponents to exploit.

Force the paladin into a moral quandary and watch him squirm, or fall, or sometimes both. After all, perfect morals were made to be tried. Faith isn't true unless it is tested. And when you give control as to which response is correct, and which choices the Paladin is given to a sadistic DM, its like giving an unstable green beret version of MacGyver a machete, two claymores, 20 feet of wire, a copy of Rambo: First Blood for inspiration, and two days to set up at a Boyscout camp.

To this perception, the code was made to be broken. Paladins were made to fall. This perception will lead to paladins constantly finding themselves in contrived moral quagmires, unable to take an action without being damned in some manner or being forced to slavishly adhering to the DM's version of Good. (Which he was doing anyway, but now he is doing it constantly with the threat of losing his powers.)

Its true that there is a school of thought that says moral figures were made to be tested, and that the good roleplaying comes from "realistically" reacting to this testing. But most people seem to take this testing to the extreme, far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable.

I think that "Code was made to be broken" and the "lets make the paladin squirm" are simply bad DM/ideas. THe real point of the paladin code is because of the morality of it. Part of being good is that it is hard but morally rewarding task
from
EE