Lawful good != Lawful Nice

[Voleta]

In Brief:

Any ideas on how I can play a Paladin that does not have stick-up-the-rear as a class feature? A Batmanesque personality has been suggested, but being of a more recent generation, I don't really know about the 'real' batman. Personality summary please?

In detail:

I may shortly be playing a paladin in a homebrew setting. There is a strong personality clash between the so-called NG and LG group and my CN gnome bard (with max'd bluff). Despite having good alignments on their character sheets, they have attack and kill defenseless creatures, and chose to kill a prisoner for no reason that i can figure out besides that he was evil and an orc. They are new players, so I will be playing this girl out to her death, and then showing them what a completely different side of me as a character. I think our problems stem from thinking as people and not as PCs, and from having a tough time with roleplaying.

I want to show them that, while lawful good doesn't mean they don't get rained upon, it also does not mean that you can kill willy-nilly. I also want to be kind of a jerk at times. Thoughts?

[Ivius]

When I think of lawful good, I think of a policeman. A (good) cop upholds similar morals to a paladin, in my opinion. Both protect the innocent, enforce just laws, and bring criminals to justice. It's always worked for me.

[Behold_the_Void]

I think Complete Scoundrel had a great Paladin prestige class for this. Gray Knight or something like that.

[1337_master]

what about a paladin of freedom?

Paladin Varients

[Folie]

I wholeheartedly agree with Ivius that you should play the "good cop." If I were a paladin, I'd try to handle conflicting morals by saying something like this:

"I know that you feel that we should execute the prisoner, and I can understand your reasons for wanting to do so. It's true that he's evil, but everyone deserves the chance to change their ways. I'm asking you to give him that chance: otherwise, by destroying this orc, you may be destroying a potential force for good in this world.

"If you take him to the authorities so that he can receive his just punishment, I will help you do so, but if you try to harm a hair on his head, then I'll be forced to bring the power of my blade and my god against you. Please, I don't want to have to hurt you."

[Raistlin1040]

I think he wants a LG character. Try playing something like Hinjo. Enforce laws and protect those that need protecting. Do good deeds as well as lawful deeds and don't force your morals on other characters. That's how I always play paladins.

edit:no offense folie but that's what I'd consider a badly played paladin. Being LG means seeing the "big picture" most likely the orc in question wouldn't change. If he attacked your party then he has no problem with killing people and won't change. Never threaten to hurt another party member. Ever. They will hate you forever.

[Crusader]

In my views, the Paladin, who is Lawful Good, upholds laws that are good by nature.
Thus, a City with evil laws or an evil ruler would not count as Lawful for the sake of a Paladin's character.
A Paladin also, for instance, might have to decide between slaying an evil demon, or honoring the love it has for another of it's kind (Straight from Exalted Deeds).

In short, a Paladin is, in my views, the vision of the chivalric knight. Rescue damsels in distress, slay evil dragons, say 'no' the first time you're offered a reward, and always pray at the temples.

[Maxymiuk]

I shall present you some quotes from a character in a game I'm currently GMing. He's an NG ranger, but he's playing what I believe a paladin should be like. I apologize for the length, but as this was the group's first adventure, this also represents Caedmon "settling" into his personality and how other characters (and players) react to him.

Caedmon Thaal: If nothing else, helping these people will guarantee us a larger modicum of hospitality, although I shouldn't expect much of a reward beyond that. But speaking for myself, I cannot in good conscience refuse their request. Will you come with me?

Goblin: Um... Hraask say, him no harm you. But he want sure, you no harm him too.
Caedmon Thaal: We enter with our weapons, or we leave now. How would you have it?

Caedmon Thaal: All right, men -- and goblin -- if we run into any artisans or Barons along the way, we can always parley with them. But for now, let's off to see the dragon. Lead the way, Ugly!

Morgan Seafood: "Well If I was to fight a dragon I proberbly rather would like to fight it in its lair so it can't take flight"
Caedmon Thaal: Indeed, that's how I would fight it
Caedmon Thaal: But let us still hope that fighting will not be necessary

Saldzar: Please, let's not talk of this... Caedmon, is it? I... did not like what I had become when goaded into anger.
** Caedmon Thaal nods in acquiescence **
Caedmon Thaal: I acknowledge that this is difficult for you, Saldzar. The reason we bring this matter up, however, is because the goblins in turn injured us humans.

** Caedmon Thaal 's shoulders slump **
Caedmon Thaal: Saldzar . . . We all admire your work, and agree that the goblins are not, and should not be free to destroy your magnificent creations. What they have done to you is abominable.
Caedmon Thaal: Nonetheless . . . we are not murderers. We will kill in self defense, or in defense of another's life, but we will not kill in cold blood.

** Saldzar frowns slightly at Caedmon, then brightens. "Ah, I forget. Of course you'd want payment for performing this service. Fear not, I have some small cache of items and such that are of little use to me. If you bring me their leader's head, they will be yours." **
Caedmon Thaal: Forgive me, Saldzar, I have not made myself entirely clear . . . We will not kill in cold blood. Not for payment, not for anything. Ever.

Caedmon Thaal: They do indeed, and when they threaten our villages, we act appropriately. But . . . *sigh* Small and nasty and smelly as they may be, they are still creatures who think and feel, even if differently than we do. They have a right to live like any other thinking and feeling being.

Caedmon Thaal: Gentlemen, in spite of what yon dragon just said, I regret that I have forgotten the way out.
Caedmon Thaal: Perhaps we should try this tunnel. *points at the other tunnel*

Kelsrod Duthertin: "I take it you have some plan for getting the dragon to listen to us again. I devoutly hope it doesn't involve getting him mad at US."
** Caedmon Thaalgrins **
Caedmon Thaal: Oh, I imagine he'll get mad all right.And I can't even guarantee that this will work . . . but if we want to save our friends in the village who are starving to death, without further bloodshed for anyone, it's our best bet.

Caedmon Thaal: Shall I accompany you part of the way? Just in case the draconian diplomacy deigns to be dismal.

Caedmon Thaal: Saldzar. If you remember me, then you'll remember our last conversation.
Caedmon Thaal: I said I wouldn't kill in cold blood, but I would kill in defense of myself or another -- particularly a friend. Do you recall?
Saldzar: Yes, I remember you. I also remember telling you to never set foot in my home again.
Caedmon Thaal: You said we were not welcome. We came anyway, because we need to. The lives of more innocent people, and your own, depended upon it.
Caedmon Thaal: Now: you release my friend, and I drop my weapons, and we will parley peacefully. Agreed?

Reed: *weakly* Reed have... *cough* important thing to tell. Where *cough* your boss?
** Kelsrod raises an eyebrow and glances at Morgan. "We sorta split that duty. Tell Morgan, he's in charge of knowing things. Our guy in charge of talking and our guy in charge of whether we give up our weapons while we talk to people are trying to reason with the dragon again." **

** Caedmon Thaal experiences a sinking feeling -- Reed is near death because Caedmon sent him. He feels responsible. **

Morgan Seafood: "Well, We could have the goblins swear an oath to you, in exchange for you swearing to protect them as long as thay serve you"
** Saldzar looks thoughtful for a moment, and then his teeth show in a widening grin. "Now there's an idea I like. A whole tribe of creatures devoted to serving me... Brilliant." **
Morgan Seafood: "Not against their will though" he adds in a low and meaningless voice realising that he might have gone way too far
Morgan Seafood: (( Caedmon is going to skin me alive and drag me through salt water ))

(this part is OOC)
Caedmon Thaal: So let me get this straight . . .
Caedmon Thaal: I'm both a future Paladin and a Magnificent Bastard?
Caedmon Thaal: There must be a prestige class for that . . .

(back to IC)
Morgan Seafood: "Hows the poor goblin?" Morgan asks trying not to look to happy about the situation
Caedmon Thaal: I don't know yet.
** Caedmon Thaal turns to face the others. **
Caedmon Thaal: Gentlemen . . . Enough is enough.
Caedmon Thaal: I have had it with these *bleep* goblins in this *bleep* forest.
Caedmon Thaal: (to Reed's sleeping form) Present company excluded.
Caedmon Thaal: I propose that, when Hraask comes, we *deal* with him.

Reed: Maybe *cough* ...maybe not bad idea? Dragon big chief. Not easy to *cough* kill.
** Crowid Beestinger sighs and looks out into the forest. "I hate to say this...but it may be the only way." **
Crowid Beestinger: "If not, he may go and kill off the rest of you..."
Caedmon Thaal: Unacceptable, unless we can be sure Saldzar would be a good chief. I'll not see the goblins enslaved.

Caedmon Thaal: Yes, Hraask -- my companions are working on . . . well, something like that anyway . . . as we speak.
Caedmon Thaal: Only I don't know where *they* are either.
Caedmon Thaal: To be honest, mighty chief, I don't think anyone likes me very much.

** Caedmon Thaal then drops his swords and slumps down to the ground, clutching his bleeding guts **
** Crowid Beestinger runs to Caedmon's side. **
Crowid Beestinger: "The Gods love you Caedmon...'cuz no one else will." the Halfling mutters, wondering what the hell to do with the wounds.
Caedmon Thaal: Don't kid yourself. **pats Crowid on the shoulder** You love me and you know it. Now give me something to wrap myself with.

Caedmon Thaal gently shakes the goblin awake. "Reed?" **
** Reed comes awake and looks up at Caedmon. **
** Caedmon Thaal bends down to whisper in the goblin's ear. **
Caedmon Thaal: Saanja is avenged.

[Saph]

Any ideas on how I can play a Paladin that does not have stick-up-the-rear as a class feature? A Batmanesque personality has been suggested, but being of a more recent generation, I don't really know about the 'real' batman. Personality summary please?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking . . . do you want someone who is lawful and rule-abiding and who holds the party to good behaviour, or someone who isn't? Because a paladin who doesn't allow other members in the party to do evil deeds is going to get landed with the 'stick-in-the-rear' label, whether she deserves it or not.

Batman is definitely not a paladin - he routinely lies and breaks the law and will do just about anything that he thinks is necessary, regardless of how nasty it is. If you're looking for a comic-book character who acts like a paladin, the one you're looking for is Superman - works within the law, tells the truth, uses minimum possible force, and generally holds himself to an incredibly high standard.

Really, though, if you want a character who doesn't kill willy-nilly, just play a paladin properly, holding to the code. That means, for example, that killing enemies who've surrendered is unacceptable - you can't do it and you can't allow the other PCs to do it. Doesn't mean you have to be nice and charming, but it does mean you have to be good.

- Saph

[kamikasei]

Any ideas on how I can play a Paladin that does not have stick-up-the-rear as a class feature? A Batmanesque personality has been suggested, but being of a more recent generation, I don't really know about the 'real' batman. Personality summary please?

Re: Batman: While strongly paladin-ish, I don't know if the personality would translate all that well to an actual paladin. Imagine a character who operates in a lawless or corrupt environment (or at the fringes of what law there is), bending the rules to keep the "good guys" from being powerless against the freedom of action that the "bad guys" enjoy. Batman knows perfectly well that "the law" is not necessarily just or effective, but is totally opposed to those who work outside it to impose their will on others through force (or to profit through exploitation, etc.). If you want to play a truly Batman-like character you'd have to be walking a fine edge a lot, and it would be prudent to have the understanding of your DM. Depending on how much of an understanding you can come to with your DM you could perhaps work up a sufficiently flexible Paladin's Code to let you work outside the written laws of the land to protect those the law is powerless to help and fight those the law can't touch. Of course, you have other options if you don't want to literally recreate Batman inside D&D.

Re: Sticks; the real question here is, why should a paladin be played as having a stick up his rear? Talk to your DM and come to an understanding that won't require you to always err on the side of Lawful Stupid or Naive Good to avoid a fall, and just play a guy who is sincerely driven to help people, and who is principled, honourable etc. - but who is nonetheless a cynical jerk, who'll call people on it when they're clearly feeding him a line, who'll challenge people bluntly and say: don't give me that - I can't do good for you, you have a chance to make good but you have to do it, and I will be on you like a sack of bricks if you don't try your damnedest. Play a guy who really believes people have a lot of good in them and who despairs of how they consistently fail to live up to it - but who keeps fighting for good and trying to redeem people anyway. Play someone with a bit of humility - think that Gandalf line: "Many that live deserve death, and some that are dead deserve life. Can you give it to them?" - when it comes to situations like your teammates killing a prisoner. Don't preach to people, but be willing to show by your actions that you think that what they're doing is wrong, and be willing to put your own body between an ally's blade and an incapacitated enemy's throat to stand up for what's right. Consider how much more powerful an influence for good is a person who does what's good and leads the way by his actions, than someone who just talks about what's good. Be aware of the consequences of your actions over whether the actions themselves would be considered innately good - and vice versa: that is, don't fall into the trap of maintaining an appearance of piety, but at the same time don't fall into sheer utilitarianism - I think it's fair to say that paladins more than most other classes should be willing to die rather than do what's expedient - and willing to fall rather than let an innocent die.

Whew. I guess all this stuff about paladins and alignment and Miko has been getting to me.

Short answer focused on what seems to be the central point of your question: play someone who is good, and doesn't have a stick up his rear, but who is also a jerk. It's not as complicated as it may seem.

[Folie]

On the contrary, Raistlin, I think that being LG involves exercising mercy without exception: as long as the potential to reform the orc is there, I feel that a paladin should do what's feasible to keep him alive without putting others in danger. Sure, it's not pragmatic, but being both Lawful and Good will sometimes entail sacrificing pragmatism for the sake of mercy and honor. (At least, I feel it should. If you think it shouldn't, we'll have to agree to disagree.)

[Raistlin1040]

If that's how you play your paladins then feel free. I think a paladin should see the line between mercy and stupidity. If there isn't a chance he'll change then mercy shouldn't be shown.

[kamikasei]

If there isn't a chance he'll change then mercy shouldn't be shown.

Well, there's the rub. No man can know when there is no chance of something; and it's arguably a paladin's duty to take these sorts of risks onto his shoulders, though not to transfer them to others.

[goat]

You're lawful, and you're good.

First, think about the religious law you're following (I'm assuming all paladins are religious, but I suppose some might not be...). What are their core laws? Do their laws automatically out-weigh the laws of the land? Are there situations where the Law as written is not applicable? Do you accept the Law as it is told to you, or do you only believe in your own version of it?

THEN decide what actions are good. Sometimes it may be necessary to defy the law of a state in order to fulfil your own understanding of the Law. You might need to slaughter unarmed men, if they have broken the divine Law you follow and there is no way to recompense.

Maybe you could be a Batman of the simplest sort. Society has not given you freedom to oppose those who break the law, but you will anyway. It's not your fault they're too slow to spot the need for swift justice, you'll just have to fill the gap and hope they don't get annoyed.

Understand the difference between laws and Laws.

[Elliot Kane]

A paladin upholds the laws of his deity first and foremost, and nothing says the deity you choose has to be the stern war god type. Deities of healing also have their paladins, and you can bet their priorities are absolutely not going to be the same as what is considered the 'normal' paladin.

Choose one of the many good aligned deities who are not dead set on smiting evil as their top priority and think about what that deity would consider worthy behaviour in their servants.

A paladin is an exemplar of the virtues of their faith. Nothing more and nothing less :)

[Talyn]

If that's how you play your paladins then feel free. I think a paladin should see the line between mercy and stupidity. If there isn't a chance he'll change then mercy shouldn't be shown.

"If there isn't a chance he'll change..."

No mortal creature is irredeemably evil, my friend. This isn't a lich or an evil outsider, this is a goblin or an orc. Vicious and selfish as a race, perhaps, but that doesn't mean that every individual should be condemned for the sins of the whole. A paladin should have a rigid "no killing the prisoners" policy - which is, I might add, why they are not appropriate for many campaigns - because damn it, killing and intelligent and soul-possessing someone who can't fight back is WRONG, always.

If that's a stick up their moral rectitude, then so be it. A paladin can be grim, but she cannot be cruel. I applaud the OP for being willing to show her group what a true hero can be, and I would mention to her GM that maybe an alignment adjustment to the rest of the party might be in order.

[Dervag]

Could someone please define the 'paladin stick' for me in terms that make it easy for me to understand what you're trying to avoid, here?

I may shortly be playing a paladin in a homebrew setting. There is a strong personality clash between the so-called NG and LG group and my CN gnome bard (with max'd bluff). Despite having good alignments on their character sheets, they have attack and kill defenseless creatures, and chose to kill a prisoner for no reason that i can figure out besides that he was evil and an orc.

And the DM doesn't change their alignment? Their actions are not lawful or good.

A Paladin also, for instance, might have to decide between slaying an evil demon, or honoring the love it has for another of it's kind (Straight from Exalted Deeds).

This doesn't strike me as being a very difficult choice.

On the contrary, Raistlin, I think that being LG involves exercising mercy without exception: as long as the potential to reform the orc is there, I feel that a paladin should do what's feasible to keep him alive without putting others in danger. Sure, it's not pragmatic, but being both Lawful and Good will sometimes entail sacrificing pragmatism for the sake of mercy and honor. (At least, I feel it should. If you think it shouldn't, we'll have to agree to disagree.)

Good and pacifism aren't the same, and mercy isn't always warranted or called for. It might not be possible to be a paladin without being merciful at all times; but it is certainly possible to be Lawful Good without being merciful at all times.

[AngelSword]

If that's how you play your paladins then feel free. I think a paladin should see the line between mercy and stupidity. If there isn't a chance he'll change then mercy shouldn't be shown.

To extend that, if the target's crimes are just to heinous to be ignored. One may not be beyond redemption, but after years of slaughtering infants, eating baby seal hearts, and driving a Hummer cannot be overlooked.

I think the original poster's comment about a "Batmanesque Personality," is more so a hero who doesn't enjoy his work (I'm guessing, so sorry if I'm wrong). Someone who does what is good and lawful, but doesn't necessarily like it.

A friend of mine played a paladin like this. He upheld the code of his order, but grudgingly. He didn't wantonly harm his quarry, but he had to fight the urge really hard. He loved challenging people to duels, since it gave him an excuse to strike someone (somewhat) unprovoked. Granted, that is what ultimately cost him his life.

[Dausuul]

I think he wants a LG character. Try playing something like Hinjo. Enforce laws and protect those that need protecting. Do good deeds as well as lawful deeds and don't force your morals on other characters. That's how I always play paladins.

edit:no offense folie but that's what I'd consider a badly played paladin. Being LG means seeing the "big picture" most likely the orc in question wouldn't change. If he attacked your party then he has no problem with killing people and won't change. Never threaten to hurt another party member. Ever. They will hate you forever.

Doesn't mean you can kill him out of hand. A Lawful Good character might kill a prisoner if there seems no alternative (dangerous enemy, no way to bring him back alive for lawful trial, can't risk letting him go), but it should be a last resort. And for a paladin, I'm inclined to say that it's not a resort at all; you just don't get to do that. Does that make your life harder? Yes. That's the price you pay for those neat paladin abilities.

Some folks seem to think that paladins can do whatever they need to do in the service of the greater good. I don't hold with that; paladinhood is supposed to close off tactical options. The ends do not justify the means for a paladin. Finding a way to deal with situations like this is part of the challenge.

As for threatening to hurt another PC... I've both done it and had it done to me, and it's not the end of the world. Hell, I've played in parties where an outright battle broke out between the PCs, and everybody was still friends at the end of the night. Still, it's a pretty bad policy unless your group is good at separating player from PC. The best approach here, IMO, would be for the paladin to shove the orc behind him and say, "I won't let you kill a helpless captive." If they want to draw blades and try to force their way past, well, then, that's up to them.

Eliminating the stick-up-the-rear class feature for paladins is simple: Give your paladin a sense of humor. It sounds like you want somebody grim and cynical, so your paladin should probably be fond of black humor and sardonic remarks. Other options are the quipping, wisecracking paladin; the prankster paladin; the ladies' man paladin; etc.

[Folie]

Some folks seem to think that paladins can do whatever they need to do in the service of the greater good. I don't hold with that; paladinhood is supposed to close off tactical options. The ends do not justify the means for a paladin. Finding a way to deal with situations like this is part of the challenge.

QTF. Also, I want to point out that a paladin can't always make objective, rational judgments when deciding whether or not a person "deserves" to die. I mean, look at what happened to Miko.

[Wippit Guud]

Things that a lawful good paladin can do that most people never roleplay:

Drink. There's nothing against drinking in a paladin's code. Friar Tuck drank, and he was lawful good.

Sex. There may be a moral issue about extra-marital sex, but I figure that would only apply to certain deities. A paladin to a god of War wouldn't care much about whether or not a paladin is married. And hell, a paladin to the god of Fertility would most likely encourage it!

Gamble. As long as it's legal where they are, they can do it.

[Bears With Lasers]

Umm... play a paladin. Play him as a sincerely nice person. What's so hard about it?

In fact, given their usual WIS and CHA scores, Paladins *should* be an insightful, understanding, personable lot.

[Voleta]

Wow, excellent responses, folks!

"If you take him to the authorities so that he can receive his just punishment, I will help you do so, but if you try to harm a hair on his head, then I'll be forced to bring the power of my blade and my god against you. Please, I don't want to have to hurt you."

That is almost exactly what my bard said when they wanted to kill the evil orc prisoners. I had used Fascinate to subdue him and the other tough orc the entire fight, and neither had done anything except look stupid whilst the party took out their buddies. In my CN's eyes, they hadn't hurt anyone, and there might be a big bounty on them (Plus, they had a hot gnome prisoner whom she was trying to impress). Yes, I did talk with the Dm and the players after the session about their alignment, and he agreed if they had executed them, he would have slid them a few points twoards evil.

Maxymiuk, that pally had high ranks in diplomacy, right? While a beautifully played character, I'm trying to go with something a bit less friendly and kind.

Oh, and I did not mean to imply that I felt Batman was a paladin, I think he would be a fighter/roge or perhaps a shadowbane inquisitor.

Society has not given you freedom to oppose those who break the law, but you will anyway. It's not your fault they're too slow to spot the need for swift justice, you'll just have to fill the gap and hope they don't get annoyed.

A friend of mine played a paladin like this. He upheld the code of his order, but grudgingly. He didn't wantonly harm his quarry, but he had to fight the urge really hard. He loved challenging people to duels, since it gave him an excuse to strike someone (somewhat) unprovoked. Granted, that is what ultimately cost him his life.

That is an almost perfect way of phrasing the character idea I had in mind! A man who doesn't really want to be the hero, but someone has to right the wrongs, and he's the best man for the job. Blunt, but not rude. Excellent.

Drink. There's nothing against drinking in a paladin's code. Friar Tuck drank, and he was lawful good.

Sex. There may be a moral issue about extra-marital sex, but I figure that would only apply to certain deities. A paladin to a god of War wouldn't care much about whether or not a paladin is married. And hell, a paladin to the god of Fertility would most likely encourage it!

Gamble. As long as it's legal where they are, they can do it.

I agree wholeheartedly. Drinking and smoking are habits that every fine gentleman should have. As for sex, I'm sure some groups require celibacy, but most shouldn't care. I think for my character, he might be one to oogle the pretty ladies, but would never press the issue, so to speak. And he would be the first person to step up should someone lay an unwanted hand on a tavern wench.

[Raistlin1040]

Good point. Many paladins I see as a DM don't go near a tavern's bar or gambling tables. Which may explain why the rogue and bard with good sleight of hand checks always have the best gambling rolls/hands and end up with better gear then the paladin. The exception is a paladin to a virgin goddess (Athena, Artemis from Deities and Demigods ect.) who should not get married.

[Bears With Lasers]

Meanwhile, a Paladin of Sune.. well, actually is generally big on romanticism and wooing and all that jazz. It's the clerics who sleep around all they like. But the paladins could, too.

[Rockphed]

If you are dealing with a goblin, you can just get their word about not doing whatever it was that you captured them for. An orc, not so much. I never liked taking captives, but if you are a paladin, totally pull a Hinjo saving belkar if your allies want to just kill captives. You can even throw in snarky remarks about standing between murdurers, or maybe stopping murder.

[Beleriphon]

Re: Batman: While strongly paladin-ish, I don't know if the personality would translate all that well to an actual paladin. Imagine a character who operates in a lawless or corrupt environment (or at the fringes of what law there is), bending the rules to keep the "good guys" from being powerless against the freedom of action that the "bad guys" enjoy. Batman knows perfectly well that "the law" is not necessarily just or effective, but is totally opposed to those who work outside it to impose their will on others through force (or to profit through exploitation, etc.). If you want to play a truly Batman-like character you'd have to be walking a fine edge a lot, and it would be prudent to have the understanding of your DM. Depending on how much of an understanding you can come to with your DM you could perhaps work up a sufficiently flexible Paladin's Code to let you work outside the written laws of the land to protect those the law is powerless to help and fight those the law can't touch. Of course, you have other options if you don't want to literally recreate Batman inside D&D.

Batman is arguably lawful good, but not a paladin. Superman however is a fine example of exactly how you can play a paladin within a good aligned group. If you take the JLA as a whole then Superman is the paladin of the group, with other characters being good and filling other roles.

[TheOOB]

Any discussion about alignment is officially meaningless when a paladin is brought into the eqution. A paladin has a code that superceeds alignment.

The party you described is evil, killing defensless creatures and prisoners is not something a good, or even a neutral person would do. Since the party is evil, as a paladin you cannot work with them. You don't have to kill them because they are evil, but the code very specifically says you can't associate with evil people.

That doesn't mean you can't play a good or even a lawful good person with them, but if you rolled a paladin you'd just be brewing a party conflict because you'd either have to force them to roll play to your class, or fall.

[Daracaex]

Heres my view on aignment: the reason why there are so many debates on what good/evil or law/chaos means is because the alignment descriptors set forth are vague. This is not a shortcoming, but a purposefull move. Law for you can be anything you want it to be (within reason). It can be anything from adhering to every law set forth to you, to adhering to your own personal code, even if you break the laws of the town, you can still be lawfull if you make sure you're obeying your code. Or you can take it to the extreme as well, but it's going to take a bit of skill to be able to pull that off without hindering the party a bit.

[TheOOB]

Alignment is simple, people make it complex.

A good person is willing to make sacrifices or take risks to help someone they don't know

An evil person is willing to harm someone they don't know for personal benefit.

A lawful person is stable, predictable, reliable, and has strong values(whatever they may be) that they are usually unwilling to break or change.

A chaotic person is unpredictable, free, and generally unreliable and possess a flexible set of values that allows them to do whatever suits them at the moment.

It's really that simple.