Paladins and Pirates (Alignment Issues on the High Seas)

[Archpaladin Zousha]

A friend of mine and I recently have gotten into an argument about whether or not it's a code violation for a paladin to engage in piracy or privateer activities, especially if the raids are against other pirates and the agents of a tyrannical, devil-worshiping government.

The context is the upcoming Pathfinder adventure path, Skulls and Shackles, which begins with the player characters being press-ganged and then mutinying, after which they become Free Captains of the Shackles.

I argue that a paladin would be out of place in such an adventure path, as paladins are supposed to be Lawful Good and piracy, at least in my view, is definitely a Chaotic act. He argues that since most of the enemies such a character would have are either lawbreakers themselves or are evil (agents of Cheliax's government), that a paladin could maintain a Lawful Good alignment while striving to lead a sort of revolution against Cheliax at large.

I'd like the Playground's input on this issue. While I am a fan of paladins, I can't help but think that such a character would be very out-of-place in a campaign where you're supposed to engage in acts of theft, murder and smuggling in order to get ahead and keep your freedom. Even if a paladin could maintain his own moral integrity, he'd be constantly surrounded by others who think he's a stodgy jerk at best and a cop at worst.

Can one be a paladin and also be a pirate? Or is the pirate by definition (the definition here being a person who engages in maritime outlawry) one of the many antitheses of a paladin?

[Knaight]

Its his character, and his concept, Paladin just happens to be the class. Allow it.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

1. Skulls and Shackles is not out yet, nor will it be out for quite a while, as they've only just started selling the Jade Regent Adventure Path.

2. This isn't about any particular character, but a theoretical debate about whether a paladin may engage in piracy without breaking his code or alignment.

[Drachasor]

By that reasoning a Paladin couldn't go to war -- that's pretty chaotic too.

Lawful doesn't mean you have to blindly follow the Law of Every Land. Lawful Good certainly doesn't mean you have to follow the law when it is immoral or the government when it is evil. It is perfectly acceptable to fight it, and many evil countries in games do not provide reasonable ways to fight within the system.

Also, remember "lawful" can mean that they have their own code that they follow. It is the case that an extremely Lawful character could pay little attention to the laws of the land, as long as he vigorously followed his own rules. A chaotic person, on the other hand, would do what felt "right" to them at the time, with no particular code.

Lastly, a Paladin's Code of Conduct does not strongly stress Lawful behavior, it strongly stresses GOOD behavior. They lose their status if they do evil...as for law...

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.

Emphasis on LEGITIMATE authority. The evil empire is lacking that from a Paladin's perspective, and it need not be respected. I believe it is perfectly possible to be an honorable privateer. You hit military targets or targets which strongly aid the evil regime. You do not kill or harm innocents. You keep your word. You help ships that are in distress, and even go after other privateers who do evil. Pretty simple.

Beyond that, the Paladin needs to make sure he has no evil associates on his ship and he's good.

[Knaight]

2. This isn't about any particular character, but a theoretical debate about whether a paladin may engage in piracy without breaking his code or alignment.

Alright, fine. Given the precedent in D&D that good characters can be heavily martial provided the proper targets, and that the targets are brigands and enemy soldiers, the Good aspect seems to be entirely under control. Lawful and Chaotic are both better measures of methodology and the specifics of how one does things than what one does, and the maintenance of an orderly ship and as a military commander with self discipline within a planned structure, Lawful is achievable.

Besides, Alignment is vague, terrible, and in general nigh useless.

[flumphy]

Privateering, yes. Flat-out piracy, no.

[NecroRebel]

Paladins don't fall for committing Chaotic acts, only Evil acts.

Being a pirate, even engaging in piracy, isn't necessarily Evil. Privateering isn't necessarily Evil, either. As long as the paladin doesn't go out of their way to hurt, oppress, or kill others, they aren't acting Evil, and piracy and privateering involves mostly just seeking resources on the high seas. In fact, a privateer could very well ply that trade without ever hurting anyone (except perhaps by leaving them without food or water).

In the context of an adventure path involving murder, of course, that's problematic, but theft and smuggling aren't actually Chaotic acts. Law is defined by "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability," which a pirate who a) honored arrangements, b) obeyed their superiors, and c) always strove to do what they claimed they would do would be Lawful, yet still could do pirate-y things. In fact, consider the stereotypical Mafia; they'd probably be a Lawful Evil organization, but engage in theft, smuggling, and murder routinely.



While I do agree that being LG would be problematic for a pirate, since it would have to involve always doing their best to make sure victims would survive any attacks, it isn't impossible.

[Hiro Protagonest]

If it sounds CG, let him play CG. Use the code of conduct for paladin of freedom. I, however, think it would be LG.

And Privateering is just a fancy word for piracy that only targets certain people.

[flumphy]

And Privateering is just a fancy word for piracy that only targets certain people.

Yes, but for a LG paladin, I think being government sanctioned is an important distinction.

I agree that having them play a paladin of freedom is a good solution, though.

[Knaight]

[QUOTE=flumphy;11671919]Yes, but for a LG paladin, I think being government sanctioned is an important distinction.

Hardly. Lawfulness is explicitly stated to be a measure of inner discipline, possession of personal codes, so on and so forth.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Privateering isn't exactly the best way to describe it here. The characters, if the little blurbs about the upcoming books are to be believed, are not hired by any other government to exclusively sink Chelaxian ships. Instead, they overthrow their tyrannical captain and decide to make a name for themselves among the Shackles, a chain of islands that's basically like Tortuga in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. There IS no lawful authority there, only tacit agreements among the most badass pirates there. The only thing that can unite them (and indeed this is what the PCs are forced to do later in the adventure path) is Cheliax making a sincere effort to wipe them out. You're not doing it for a monetary reward from Sargava or something, but rather to preserve the pirate way of life.

[Lord.Sorasen]

I always thought paladins should be allowed a lot more leeway then they are. But, honestly, I'm not seeing it.

Piracy is difficult for someone to do while remaining lawful good. For one, lying and cheating is pretty much your job. You'll be stealing: this requires you take what does not belong to you from others. This is difficult.

I'm a firm believer that a paladin isn't allowed to seek out and just kill evil for its own sake. Dragon terrorizes town? Awesome, go for it. Dragon sits around in dungeon for years? Killing it and taking its stuff isn't noble at all.

Being a paladin would definitely mean hurting the innocent. Evil government or not, unless they limited themselves entirely to stealing government things, they'd hurt the people under that government. Steal a food supply? People starve. It doesn't matter if the flag is evil; you're stealing from the people and that's not very paladin-like.

BUT! I want to hear your friend's view. I never thought batman could be represented as a paladin, but these days I think it's one of the better ways to do it. So I'm ready to have my eyes opened, really.

[Drachasor]

Well, a Paladin couldn't be a common criminal, so I don't see that working here. Frankly, it would be hard to be any good alignment, I'd think.

I mean sure, good guys can steal, lie, and cheat in the right circumstances (heck, even a Paladin can). However, hijacking boats and stealing as a way of living? That doesn't jive with being good. Neutral or evil, really.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Well, a Paladin couldn't be a common criminal, so I don't see that working here. Frankly, it would be hard to be any good alignment, I'd think.

I mean sure, good guys can steal, lie, and cheat in the right circumstances (heck, even a Paladin can). However, hijacking boats and stealing as a way of living? That doesn't jive with being good. Neutral or evil, really.

Well, for what it's worth, Robin Hood is the classic example.

[Coidzor]

A friend of mine and I recently have gotten into an argument about whether or not it's a code violation for a paladin to engage in piracy or privateer activities, especially if the raids are against other pirates and the agents of a tyrannical, devil-worshiping government.

Well, it's not piracy if you're pirate hunting, for one.

And for the other, if you're a duly-appointed representative of the crown, engaging one's crown's enemies rather than attacking and robbing merchants, how is this an issue at all?

Sure, it's waylaying them while they're on the high seas, but then, that's kind of part of life if one is an agent of an enemy nation that one is at war with on land too.

I argue that a paladin would be out of place in such an adventure path, as paladins are supposed to be Lawful Good and piracy, at least in my view, is definitely a Chaotic act.

On the contrary, a Paladin goes where he is needed and does Right where he's led. If the seas are lawless and violent, then stopping those who make them so is his Duty, especially if he finds himself drawn there by the Hand of Fate by getting placed aboard a ship and gaining control of it from its previous and nefarious controllers.

I'd like the Playground's input on this issue. While I am a fan of paladins, I can't help but think that such a character would be very out-of-place in a campaign where you're supposed to engage in acts of theft, murder and smuggling in order to get ahead and keep your freedom.

Why? They took the ship from the slavers and the only way someone can take their freedom away is by killing them. A true man never dies, even when he's killed!

It's the Paladin's duty to kick reason to the curb and go beyond the impossible to do what's right and be a man! His is the lance that will pierce the heavens, the seas, and all who would do evil upon them!

Even if a paladin could maintain his own moral integrity, he'd be constantly surrounded by others who think he's a stodgy jerk at best and a cop at worst.

That's the rest of the group's deal. & highly contingent upon the personalities they decide to go with. Personally, if I found out that one of the group was going to be a Kaminadin, then I'd totally be game to seeing where that was going to go.

For bonus points, get him to take devoted performer & go into Crusader with song of the white raven... <_< >_>

[Drachasor]

Well, for what it's worth, Robin Hood is the classic example.

Robin Hood didn't steal for stealing's sake. He was part of the resistance against an oppressive government. That's not the campaign the OP is describing, where the players are involved in trying to be pirate leaders and defend the "right" to steal and pillage. Naturally, they have to go and defend that "right" against the cops who come to try and stop it.

Fighting an oppressive regime as a criminal is perfectly fine for good characters. Fighting for the right to engage in criminal activities (stealing, killing, etc) because that's your "way of life" is not.

Edit: While at first it seemed like the PCs could be involved in a fight against an evil government because it was evil, now he seems to be saying the fact the government is evil is just happenstance. If the government was good then the PCs would be doing the same thing.

[Knaight]

Robin Hood didn't steal for stealing's sake. He was part of the resistance against an oppressive government. That's not the campaign the OP is describing, where the players are involved in trying to be pirate leaders and defend the "right" to steal and pillage. Naturally, they have to go and defend that "right" against the cops who come to try and stop it.

Except for the PCs being hunting pirates. Which means what they are doing is closer to active maritime policing, given that the setting hasn't actually established a proper organization to do that.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Robin Hood didn't steal for stealing's sake. He was part of the resistance against an oppressive government. That's not the campaign the OP is describing, where the players are involved in trying to be pirate leaders and defend the "right" to steal and pillage. Naturally, they have to go and defend that "right" against the cops who come to try and stop it.

Fighting an oppressive regime as a criminal is perfectly fine for good characters. Fighting for the right to engage in criminal activities (stealing, killing, etc) because that's your "way of life" is not.

What? I think they're pirates because it's a tactical way of fighting their enemies. And I think we should stop calling them pirates. They're pirate hunters and freedom fighters (don't go on about freedom being chaotic, it's not, because lawful goods aren't the dictator type. Unless you want to go on about democracies being chaotic).

[Kittenwolf]

Consider this everyone: If this was a land based campaign where the Paladin and his friends were captured by slavers, broke free and are now ranging across the land killing bands of slavers and looters while trying to destroy an oppressive government, would we even be having this conversation?

I think as long as the Paladin acts accordingly in other ways (eg trying to return spoils to rightful owners, accepting surrender, offering quarter, rescuing prisoners and confirming that their current target *is* a pirate ship etc, there isn't really any reason I can think of that he couldn't participate.

Now, the moment he starts attacking the ships of bastardly but not evil merchants or similar, he falls hard, but if he's only targeting pirates?

[Drachasor]

Except for the PCs being hunting pirates. Which means what they are doing is closer to active maritime policing, given that the setting hasn't actually established a proper organization to do that.

Fighting other pirates so you can figure out which pirate is in charge isn't maritime policing. It's basically gang warfare.

What? I think they're pirates because it's a tactical way of fighting their enemies. And I think we should stop calling them pirates. They're pirate hunters and freedom fighters (don't go on about freedom being chaotic, it's not, because lawful goods aren't the dictator type. Unless you want to go on about democracies being chaotic).

Again:

"The only thing that can unite them (and indeed this is what the PCs are forced to do later in the adventure path) is Cheliax making a sincere effort to wipe them out. You're not doing it for a monetary reward from Sargava or something, but rather to preserve the pirate way of life."

If that's the case, then I don't see "good" being an option. They also didn't become pirates to fight their enemies. They were pirates who want to keep on being pirates.

Consider this everyone: If this was a land based campaign where the Paladin and his friends were captured by slavers, broke free and are now ranging across the land killing bands of slavers and looters while trying to destroy an oppressive government, would we even be having this conversation?

It sounded like it might be that way at first. Now the OP has said it is like they are brigands who overthrew the head of their little group. Now they fight with other brigands for control of the area as well as the government who wants them to stop being brigands.


I suppose a Paladin could still work as someone who infiltrated the organization in order to take it out, and now is trying to stop both the indiscriminate piracy AND the evil government. That might require some modifying of the campaign line from the GM and probably also having the other players in on it (ideally).

[Kittenwolf]

It sounded like it might be that way at first. Now the OP has said it is like they are brigands who overthrew the head of their little group. Now they fight with other brigands for control of the area as well as the government who wants them to stop being brigands.

Aha.

Instead, they overthrow their tyrannical captain and decide to make a name for themselves among the Shackles, a chain of islands that's basically like Tortuga in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies

Well, this kind of negates the possibility of him being a Paladin in the first place. If they were part of a group of pirates and mutinied, well, he was a Pirate, he can't be a Paladin.
On the other hand, if he saw the error of his ways, overthrew the captain, found a shrine somewhere and prayed to become a Paladin (or whatever fluff you wish to use) and is now trying to steer the crew down the "Right" path, that could work ;)

[Hiro Protagonest]

Fine, just use the Paladin of Freedom's code of conduct. Now stop arguing and go read One Piece.

Edit: to clarify. Monkey D. Luffy is unambiguously chaotic good. Try arguing he isn't.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Okay, bit more clarification. They're not brigands to start with. They wake up in the hold of the ship to find that they've been press-ganged by the Chelish navy. They become brigands when they rebel against the conditions on the ship and overthrow the captain. They become pirates because the only ports they can get to are either Chelish, where they'd be executed on the spot at best or jailed and tortured for a few weeks and THEN executed at worst, or ports in the Shackles, which as I've said are basically Tortuga. They turn to piracy to survive, which is honestly what historical pirates did. They didn't plunder gold and riches. They plundered food and ammunition. They didn't kidnap fair maidens or dashing heroes. They kidnapped carpenters and doctors. The PCs turn to piracy because that's how you survive in the Shackles. Do it well enough and you don't just survive, but thrive. The reason they fight against Cheliax is because everyone hates Cheliax. Technically every pirate in the Shackles IS a privateer because the nation of Sargava pays them to keep Cheliax's navy from sailing south to reconquer them.

In any case, the PCs aren't necessarily committing piracy because they think it's fun. They're doing it because in the Shackles that's how things work, and they can't go home because the only way to get there would be through Cheliax, where they'd be in even greater danger.

[Coidzor]

Okay, bit more clarification. They're not brigands to start with. They wake up in the hold of the ship to find that they've been press-ganged by the Chelish navy. They become brigands when they rebel against the conditions on the ship and overthrow the captain. They become pirates because the only ports they can get to are either Chelish, where they'd be executed on the spot at best or jailed and tortured for a few weeks and THEN executed, or ports in the Shackles, which as I've said are basically Tortuga.

Pfft. Technicalities. And if you wanna be technical, they become mutineers.

Which is pretty much meaningless when one's a Paladin who has been pressganged by the Nation of Eville.

Hell, a proper Paladin would probably spark the damn mutiny in the first place by showing his fellow pressgangees that it was possible by tearing down the bonds of oppression & speaking straight from his hot-blooded heart.

And if the Evil nation is so hard-pressed for willing servants that it has to press-gang Paladins for its crews, how loyal are they going to be? Set fire to the hearts of the people, kick reason to the curb and take that navy & turn it back upon its masters!

[Drachasor]

Fine, just use the Paladin of Freedom's code of conduct. Now stop arguing and go read One Piece.

Edit: to clarify. Monkey D. Luffy is unambiguously chaotic good. Try arguing he isn't.

From what I saw, he doesn't actually engage in piracy. Calling yourself a pirate doesn't make you one.

[Hiro Protagonest]

From what I saw, he doesn't actually engage in piracy. Calling yourself a pirate doesn't make you one.

They've attacked plenty of other pirates. Arlong, Jango, Buggy, Crocodile. They also stormed the Gates of Justice to rescue Robin, and attacked the Marines to try and save Ace.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

From what I saw, he doesn't actually engage in piracy. Calling yourself a pirate doesn't make you one.

I was about to mention this myself. From what I've seen of One Piece (haven't watched the whole show, but I enjoy it), Luffy doesn't fit the definition of a pirate I laid out in the OP, a person who commits crimes on the sea. Luffy's on a quest. He spends most of his time fighting actual pirates. The only reason the Navy seems to get involved is because Luffy says "I'm a pirate," and that's good enough for the Navy to want to attack him. Skulls and Shackles, from what little information there is, does involve searching for buried treasure and beating up other pirates to prove your right to rule as such, but you're still more like Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa than you are Monkey D. Luffy.

[Drachasor]

Okay, bit more clarification. They're not brigands to start with. They wake up in the hold of the ship to find that they've been press-ganged by the Chelish navy. They become brigands when they rebel against the conditions on the ship and overthrow the captain. They become pirates because the only ports they can get to are either Chelish, where they'd be executed on the spot at best or jailed and tortured for a few weeks and THEN executed at worst, or ports in the Shackles, which as I've said are basically Tortuga. They turn to piracy to survive, which is honestly what historical pirates did. They didn't plunder gold and riches. They plundered food and ammunition. They didn't kidnap fair maidens or dashing heroes. They kidnapped carpenters and doctors. The PCs turn to piracy because that's how you survive in the Shackles.

That's BS and it's BS for historical pirates too. It isn't like there weren't other options besides piracy for either. There are other places to go and frankly you can survive just fine by fishing and even make a profit.

It's also PATHETIC rather than heroic. Personally I wouldn't let my PC get caught dead in that sort of plotline. I could see myself being a Paladin who started the insurrection. He got labeled a "brigand" for fighting against slavery, and now helps lead a group against the evil regime. Targets are picked for military significance, innocents saved indiscriminately, etc, etc.

Do it well enough and you don't just survive, but thrive. The reason they fight against Cheliax is because everyone hates Cheliax. Technically every pirate in the Shackles IS a privateer because the nation of Sargava pays them to keep Cheliax's navy from sailing south to reconquer them.

In any case, the PCs aren't necessarily committing piracy because they think it's fun. They're doing it because in the Shackles that's how things work, and they can't go home because the only way to get there would be through Cheliax, where they'd be in even greater danger.

Again though, if they didn't want to be pirates there are a hundred other things they could do instead besides going towards Cheliax (which isn't an option). Heck, they could still go to Cheliax and be resistance on land.

Given this, I think it is possible to be good, so long as there is no DM railroading. If you can be good, you can be a paladin.

They've attacked plenty of other pirates. Arlong, Jango, Buggy, Crocodile. They also stormed the Gates of Justice to rescue Robin, and attacked the Marines to try and save Ace.

Fighting other pirates is kind of the opposite of piracy. Rescuing friends who deserve rescue is not piracy. Stopping evil acts is not piracy. He's really not a pirate at all. Again, he just claims he is a pirate.

Naturally he must, since being an actual pirate would involve capturing ships, ransoming people, taking their valuables, killing innocents, etc, etc. Well, with very, very careful work you can avoid the killing of innocents, I think.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I was about to mention this myself. From what I've seen of One Piece (haven't watched the whole show, but I enjoy it), Luffy doesn't fit the definition of a pirate I laid out in the OP, a person who commits crimes on the sea. Luffy's on a quest. He spends most of his time fighting actual pirates. The only reason the Navy seems to get involved is because Luffy says "I'm a pirate," and that's good enough for the Navy to want to attack him. Skulls and Shackles, from what little information there is, does involve searching for buried treasure and beating up other pirates to prove your right to rule as such, but you're still more like Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa than you are Monkey D. Luffy.

Ahem.

They've attacked plenty of other pirates. Arlong, Jango, Buggy, Crocodile. They also stormed the Gates of Justice to rescue Robin, and attacked the Marines to try and save Ace.

That's BS and it's BS for historical pirates too. It isn't like there weren't other options besides piracy for either. There are other places to go and frankly you can survive just fine by fishing and even make a profit.

It's also PATHETIC rather than heroic. Personally I wouldn't let my PC get caught dead in that sort of plotline. I could see myself being a Paladin who started the insurrection. He got labeled a "brigand" for fighting against slavery, and now helps lead a group against the evil regime. Targets are picked for military significance, innocents saved indiscriminately, etc, etc.



Again though, if they didn't want to be pirates there are a hundred other things they could do instead besides going towards Cheliax (which isn't an option). Heck, they could still go to Cheliax and be resistance on land.

Given this, I think it is possible to be good, so long as there is no DM railroading. If you can be good, you can be a paladin.

So, uh, you're completely ignoring what he said, and say that if they call themselves pirates (even though the One Piece guys are strangely exempt from this), they have to fit the definition of historical pirates.

[Drachasor]

So, uh, you're completely ignoring what he said, and say that if they call themselves pirates (even though the One Piece guys are strangely exempt from this), they have to fit the definition of historical pirates.

No I'm not. He is saying the players are engaging in the same activities. I am saying there's no reason that needs to be the case.