Paladin vs. Paladin: How would you get there?

[The Duskblade]

So I've been wondering what it would take to get a Paladin to fight another Paladin. It seems to me that sort of set up could result in some interesting scenarios. So my question is how would you make it happen?

Some ground rules:

1. Both Paladins are classic LG Paladins. No Paladin's of freedom, no Greyguards ect.
2. No mind control, both Paladin's should know what they are doing.
3. Misunderstandings are allowed but both Paladins should be aware that the other is a LG Paladin doing what they think is right.
4. Neither Paladin should commit an action before, during or after the fight that would result in a fall.

Bonus points if you've had this sort of scenario happen in game.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Does the fight have to be lethal?

[The Duskblade]

Not necessarily but the stakes should be high.

[Koo Rehtorb]

There's an important city, the last stronghold in the region against a tide of rampaging monsters. It's been taking in refugees from the devastated land all around. It's the last best hope for tens of thousands of people to survive the apocalypse. It's also extremely Lawful Evil.

There's some breaking point, call it a show trial for a good aligned person who was trying to peacefully reform this city. One paladin can't stand it any more, breaks her out of jail, and begins a rebellion. The other paladin, though hating the LE government, cannot in good conscience risk sending the society into anarchy at the moment and doom the tens of thousands of people if the city falls to the monsters at the gate as a result of it.

[Phoenixguard09]

This may be cheating, but a tournament bout?

[tomandtish]

Not only have I done this in game, but BOTH Paladins were PCs.

I was playing a Paladin of Helm, and the other PC was playing a Paladin of Torm. For clarification, the DM had been playing Torm as a little more Lawful than Good, and Helm as a little more Good than Lawful, and this was reflected in each of our Paladins. This is also in 2E days.

We’d been working on two quests. We were trying to defeat a demon that had been terrorizing the realm, and the Paladin of Torm had sworn to destroy that demon whatever it took. We were also trying to find out what had happened to the souls of an entire small city (about 5000). We knew the souls were being held captive somewhere, and I had sworn an oath to free them to either return to their bodies or to move on to their final resting place. So of COURSE the two are connected…..

We discover the demon is using the souls to power a machine that opens a permanent rift between the Abyss and Toril. Some analysis and scrying, and we determine that the souls will be permanently destroyed if the ritual is completed. We also learn we can banish the demon back to the Abyss by smashing the machine. This seems pretty easy to do as he’s currently distracted by the ritual to open the portal. However, the souls go with him. On the other hand, if we interrupt the ritual by attacking the demon and successfully kill him, then we can figure out how to free the souls (killing him that way would banish him only). However, it’s a tough fight and the odds would definitely be against us (even I put odds at about 30% and I was the most optimistic). We back off to discuss (ritual has about 2 hours to go).

I (of course) want to fight. I’m not going to let the souls be destroyed and I’m not willing to let them be sent to the Abyss. The other Paladin wants to destroy the machine, since that guarantees the safety of Toril. They make an (excellent) speech about how there are unfortunate casualties in war, but sometimes you have to make the hard call and accept that you can’t save everyone (I’m, shortening, and this was back in the early 90s). I respond that even one is too much to sacrifice, and that I’d rather risk the world than give up those souls. They reply that their faith is strong enough to see this through, and I reply that mine is strong enough to stop them…

And we go to war. All abilities are working. We even ask the DM why one of our Gods hasn’t stepped in, and he responds that as far as he can tell we are both in character and following the beliefs of our Gods as he had established at the beginning of the game.

Thanks primarily to lucky dice rolls I ended up winning (and sparing my opponent). We healed up, and attacked the demon. We nearly lost that fight, until one party member finally figured out a clue that we hadn’t been able to understand for a while. A WILLING sacrifice by good characters would destroy the machine and free all souls. So of course both Paladins jump in. Souls are freed, demon is banished… and the two of us materialized in the Abyss. But that’s another story.

And the other Paladin? Did this situation between two PCs lead to future conflict? OF course there was future conflict. After all, I did marry her (22 years this September).

[JBPuffin]

Not only have I done this in game, but BOTH Paladins were PCs.

I was playing a Paladin of Helm, and the other PC was playing a Paladin of Torm. For clarification, the DM had been playing Torm as a little more Lawful than Good, and Helm as a little more Good than Lawful, and this was reflected in each of our Paladins. This is also in 2E days.

We’d been working on two quests. We were trying to defeat a demon that had been terrorizing the realm, and the Paladin of Torm had sworn to destroy that demon whatever it took. We were also trying to find out what had happened to the souls of an entire small city (about 5000). We knew the souls were being held captive somewhere, and I had sworn an oath to free them to either return to their bodies or to move on to their final resting place. So of COURSE the two are connected…..

We discover the demon is using the souls to power a machine that opens a permanent rift between the Abyss and Toril. Some analysis and scrying, and we determine that the souls will be permanently destroyed if the ritual is completed. We also learn we can banish the demon back to the Abyss by smashing the machine. This seems pretty easy to do as he’s currently distracted by the ritual to open the portal. However, the souls go with him. On the other hand, if we interrupt the ritual by attacking the demon and successfully kill him, then we can figure out how to free the souls (killing him that way would banish him only). However, it’s a tough fight and the odds would definitely be against us (even I put odds at about 30% and I was the most optimistic). We back off to discuss (ritual has about 2 hours to go).

I (of course) want to fight. I’m not going to let the souls be destroyed and I’m not willing to let them be sent to the Abyss. The other Paladin wants to destroy the machine, since that guarantees the safety of Toril. They make an (excellent) speech about how there are unfortunate casualties in war, but sometimes you have to make the hard call and accept that you can’t save everyone (I’m, shortening, and this was back in the early 90s). I respond that even one is too much to sacrifice, and that I’d rather risk the world than give up those souls. They reply that their faith is strong enough to see this through, and I reply that mine is strong enough to stop them…

And we go to war. All abilities are working. We even ask the DM why one of our Gods hasn’t stepped in, and he responds that as far as he can tell we are both in character and following the beliefs of our Gods as he had established at the beginning of the game.

Thanks primarily to lucky dice rolls I ended up winning (and sparing my opponent). We healed up, and attacked the demon. We nearly lost that fight, until one party member finally figured out a clue that we hadn’t been able to understand for a while. A WILLING sacrifice by good characters would destroy the machine and free all souls. So of course both Paladins jump in. Souls are freed, demon is banished… and the two of us materialized in the Abyss. But that’s another story.

And the other Paladin? Did this situation between two PCs lead to future conflict? OF course there was future conflict. After all, I did marry her (22 years this September).

Clap. Clap. Clap.

We have a winner, folks.

To OP: It's a challenge, to be sure. I think any situation where there's a LG choice and a GL choice can cause such a situation, though.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

There's an important city, the last stronghold in the region against a tide of rampaging monsters. It's been taking in refugees from the devastated land all around. It's the last best hope for tens of thousands of people to survive the apocalypse. It's also extremely Lawful Evil.

There's some breaking point, call it a show trial for a good aligned person who was trying to peacefully reform this city. One paladin can't stand it any more, breaks her out of jail, and begins a rebellion. The other paladin, though hating the LE government, cannot in good conscience risk sending the society into anarchy at the moment and doom the tens of thousands of people if the city falls to the monsters at the gate as a result of it.

I like this.

The other one too, but this one manages to do it even without playing up a conflict of law VS good. The second paladin may be acting more lawful, but their reasons for doing what they do is just that they think it's the most good option.

[OldTrees1]

"->" indicates removing a level of abstraction/offering a more concrete example

The rights of the many vs the rights of the few.

->The Trolley Problem

->->There is a unfortunate event incoming that will hit a large population. Paladin A has the power to divert the misfortune to only affect a smaller population. Paladin B feels responsible for protecting that smaller population and with strive to prevent Paladin A from diverting the misfortune towards the smaller population.

Basically since different moral theories can differ in their judgement of what is the right thing to do, two Paladins both can fully understand & respect the other's point of view but be unwilling to step aside.

[Vitruviansquid]

There is something good that both paladins want, but there are multiple, mutually exclusive ways to get it.

For example: the King has gone mad and become evil, one paladin believes in removing the king by force, the other believes in changing the system from within.

[Fri]

After the fiasco of Battle of Sometown where a group of good adventurers led by a paladin made a strategic blunder and destroyed a major city in an attempt to stop advancing demon horde, The Church of Lawgodful decreed that paladins can't work independently anymore, they must work under the Strategic Council of Lawgodful, where the higher ups can decide what's the best course of actions and where Paladins can be strategically deployed. This meant to have two reasons, one is to use supposedly more trained and unbiased strategists that see the bigger view, and to prevent backlash against individual paladins or adventurer groups, with the Council, any complains and blunder can be directed to the Church of Lawgodful instead.

Paladins of Lawgodful are split. There might be....

Sectarian War.

(Yes, I went there )

[BWR]

Easy.
All they have to do is be sworn to warring superiors.

[Berenger]

They act as champions for members of the royal family in a trial by combat.

Imagine the Kingsguard in Game of Thrones consisted of actual paladins instead of a cynical deconstruction of paladins. Now imagine there is a legal dispute between Cersei vs. Tyrion, older versions of Tommen vs. Myrcella or the like. Both have to pick their champions from the ranks of the Kingsguard and the members of the Kingsguard are sworn to obey and let the Seven sort it out.

Another example, if you don't like GoT: the Knights of the Round Table doing battle against each other at the pyre of Guinevere, resulting in the death of Gaheris and Gareth and open warfare between Arthur and Lancelot (With a LG dilemma between Law ["A just king doesn't get to cherry-pick when to apply law and custom."] and Goodness ["I don't feel it's right to burn good queen Guinevere."] being the source of the conflict - and no, "Just jettison that stupid law." wasn't an option in that context.).

[hymer]

Though a non-lethal fight, two paladins in my game today came to initiative rolls and wrestling over who got to go through the portal to the Abyss and close it from the other side.
Also, as Berenger mentioned above, I've had a paladin who killed a close comrade in trial by combat, though not in the actual game. It was part of his backstory.

[Delusion]

Lets say we have a non-paladin called Z. Z is suspected of some truly awful crimes and so Paladins X and Y go after them. Paladin X finds Z first but Z convinces X that Z has been framed and that Z has to go a certain meeting where the Z can stop an Evil plot. Lets assume there is a good reason why it has to be Z who stops it and that the paladins can't follow. Then Paladin Y arrives. Y doesn't believe Z's story and is convinced that allowing Z to leave will cause greater harm to come. Meanwhile X is now convinced that if X doesn't help Z to escape then they are all doomed.

So now neither X nor Y is willing to backdown and with heavy hearts they draw their weapons seeing no other way to prevent disaster than to fight their friend.

[RedMage125]

Happened during the Last War in Eberron.

Paladins that belonged to different nations fought with their nation's foces on the battlefield and even against each other.

Also from Eberron, a Paladin of the Sovereign Host and a Paladin of the Silver Flame would feel no kinship and have no problem facing each other across the battlefield. And both would have no trouble eliminating a Karrnathi Paladin of the Blood of Vol (remember, paladin deity devotion need not follow the "one-step" rule for clerics, and in Karrnath, lots of good people worship the BoV).

[D+1]

So I've been wondering what it would take to get a Paladin to fight another Paladin. It seems to me that sort of set up could result in some interesting scenarios. So my question is how would you make it happen?

Some ground rules:

1. Both Paladins are classic LG Paladins. No Paladin's of freedom, no Greyguards ect.
2. No mind control, both Paladin's should know what they are doing.
3. Misunderstandings are allowed but both Paladins should be aware that the other is a LG Paladin doing what they think is right.
4. Neither Paladin should commit an action before, during or after the fight that would result in a fall.

Bonus points if you've had this sort of scenario happen in game.

#1, in my opinion, makes it a flat-out impossibility. If two paladins come to blows based on their beliefs or ideology ONE OF THEM IS WRONG. They would have to be wrong by definition.

When a paladin character is faced with a moral or ethical conclusion then you have three possible outcomes:
A) the paladin is correct in his choice.
B) the paladin is INCORRECT in his choice.
C) the paladin's choice is not actually one which impacts morals or ethics to the degree of, "Somebody has to die for this."

The DM MUST know which of those three outcomes is applicable in order to EVER enforce alignment. If the DM doesn't know then there is absolutely no way for a player to know. Really, if the DM cannot or will not decide between A or B, then it MUST default to C. Players cannot make moral and ethical decisions for a paladin character when the DM himself can't decide if the players conclusion is correct or not. The decision therefore CANNOT be handled as having any moral or ethical impact upon the character, and the outcome defaults to C.

However, if the DM does decide between A and B then two paladins CANNOT make different choices and BOTH be correct. One of them MUST be wrong by definition. If both are correct then both are fully capable of understanding that the other is morally/ethically valid and therefore will not fight them FOR THAT REASON. If the definitions the DM is using supposedly allow for both paladins to be correct and for a valid decision to be made that the other must DIE for their choice, that contrary choice must validly be viewed as INCORRECT IN THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS EXTREME and the entire affair collapses under its own insupportable logic. One paladin MUST be incorrect for another to be seen as SO WRONG THEY MUST DIE. Oh they may THINK they made the correct choice, but they did not.

It is, of course, possible that BOTH are wildly incorrect if they come to blows. But in any case, both cannot be correct if one is so INCORRECT they must die.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

It is not illegal for a paladin to be wrong or unable to see the future, merely for them not to act to the best of their conscience. If one paladin thinks A has to be done while the other is convinced B is needed both can still be good paladins.

They're not oracles. They're always good, not always right.

[Grek]

The Temple of the Sacred Spring is one of the primary brewers of disease curing potions in the realm. They are focused on charitable works and healing the sick in particular. The Order of the Oaken Glove is a band of elven paladins devoted to the elimination of ghoul fever and the eventual reclamation of the Golden Wood from the ghoulish menace. Previous attempts at military intervention in the Golden Wood have failed, due to the small size of the Order of the Oaken Glove. The Order has asked the Temple for assistance in obtaining enough cure disease potions to allow the use of non-paladin forces in the upcoming invasion attempt. The Temple of the Sacred Spring is reluctant, as this would severely curtail their charitable healing for the next five years, and argue that a decapitation strike should be attempted instead. The Order points out that this is infeasible due to the unblinking vigilance of the restless dead. A bargain is struck: If an all-paladin strike team from the Temple of the Sacred Spring can infiltrate the fortress of Order of the Oaken Glove, abduct their Grand Champion and safely exfiltrate, the Order will give up on their plans for recruiting a non-Paladin army. If they fail in their attempt as the Order predicts, the Temple will throw their full military and economic support behind the next invasion.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

To be honest, that doesn't sound too much like typical paladins to me. Whoever wins this macho bet is right. I'd earlier suspect solutions along the line of "we will join you in an all out assault and risk our lives so that the weak and sick who depend upon our work don't have to risk theirs".

[wumpus]

Happened during the Last War in Eberron.

Paladins that belonged to different nations fought with their nation's foces on the battlefield and even against each other.

Also from Eberron, a Paladin of the Sovereign Host and a Paladin of the Silver Flame would feel no kinship and have no problem facing each other across the battlefield. And both would have no trouble eliminating a Karrnathi Paladin of the Blood of Vol (remember, paladin deity devotion need not follow the "one-step" rule for clerics, and in Karrnath, lots of good people worship the BoV).

Eberron is way too easy for the "warring superiors". Especially considering that it is quite possible that "most" paladins are sworn to the silver flame and thus taking orders from a LE ruler (in Eberron you can expect law and goodness from paladins. Not so much from clerics of "holy" gods (and the silver flame is pretty iffy)).

[Slipperychicken]

1. Both Paladins are classic LG Paladins. No Paladin's of freedom, no Greyguards ect.
2. No mind control, both Paladin's should know what they are doing.
3. Misunderstandings are allowed but both Paladins should be aware that the other is a LG Paladin doing what they think is right.
4. Neither Paladin should commit an action before, during or after the fight that would result in a fall.

They're both knights or men-at-arms, their lords are at war for reasons acceptable to a paladin (such as a disputed claim or something), and the lords called their paladins to partake in battle.


A lot of good people have gone and killed each other IRL because someone told them to.

[Red Fel]

#1, in my opinion, makes it a flat-out impossibility. If two paladins come to blows based on their beliefs or ideology ONE OF THEM IS WRONG. They would have to be wrong by definition.

When a paladin character is faced with a moral or ethical conclusion then you have three possible outcomes:
A) the paladin is correct in his choice.
B) the paladin is INCORRECT in his choice.
C) the paladin's choice is not actually one which impacts morals or ethics to the degree of, "Somebody has to die for this."

I generally agree with this. However, I feel that it paints an incomplete picture - it assumes that the Paladins are diametrically opposed on an issue of absolute Good on one side and Evil on the other, and that the Paladins should be aware of this. Allow me to offer three scenarios where this may not be the case.

1. The misunderstanding. One Paladin representing a noble cause - let's say, trying to save his people - comes across another Paladin, doing the same. Let's say that neither knows the other is a Paladin, and neither knows the other's noble cause. All they know is that there is someone preventing them from their goal. So, not having the foresight to talk it out, first, they come to blows. Note that this only works up until one of them reveals the truth of his cause - at that point, both are morally obligated to stop, and consider a peaceful alternative.
2. The worthy guardian. One Paladin seeks the sacred MacGuffin, for some noble reason. He enters the Cave of Trials, overcomes each in turn, until the last trial - another Paladin has guarded the MacGuffin, and will not permit it to fall into the hands of the unworthy. The aspirant must not only be morally pure, but also strong enough to protect the relic he seeks to acquire. Though there is no ill will between the two, Paladin Guardian will not permit Paladin Jones to take the relic until the latter bests the former in combat. No Good, no Evil, just a showing of strength and worthiness.
3. No mortal can control its power! Similar to the above, Paladin Jones seeks the dangerous and powerful MacGuffin, sealed away. He is confronted by Paladin Guardian, who cautions him that the MacGuffin is too dangerous to be allowed into mortal hands. Paladin Jones has the best possible reasons for seeking it, but Paladin Guardian has equally powerful reasons for preventing Jones - or anyone - from acquiring it. Again, they aren't quite diametrically opposed, and they won't kill each other over it, but it's a perfectly acceptable reason for them to fight.

They're on the same side. They shouldn't want to kill each other. But that doesn't mean they have to agree on what is right.

[IntelectPaladin]

Look. I've only skimmed the other posts,
as they don't affect my answer to Duskblade's question.

In all honestly, I've been in this sort of debate before. "Paladin vs Paladin"
Is often a case of one sort of paladin facing another.
Usually, it's a case of "the player who plays with ethics for fun and to be the good guy,"
Vs "the random guy who plays a paladin to just be an armored spell-slinger"

I realize that those aren't the most apt definitions, but they convey my meaning.
I mean, think about it.
We've all seen some real jerks at our table at least once, so what happens when that jerk plays a paladin?
Set aside story reasons for a moment and remember that there are people behind the characters,
And that each person is unique. With that in mind, conflict between players is usually inevitable.

In this sort of case, it could be that the latter is doing something that the former just cannot condone.
They say "I'm just playing the game." Which is sometimes the case.
But often enough,
those words can be used as a sort of shield by the less desirable players,
usually to get away with what they know will disturb or offend others.

I realize that I'm rambling, and I apologize for that, but I'm unsure how to get my point across.

Thank you for bearing with this post, and I hope you have a better day today!
Also, I'll be waiting for the negative comments in reaction to my own.
I apologize for offending or otherwise going against your grain enough to warrant such a reaction.

[halfeye]

#1, in my opinion, makes it a flat-out impossibility. If two paladins come to blows based on their beliefs or ideology ONE OF THEM IS WRONG. They would have to be wrong by definition.

...

One of them MUST be wrong by definition. If both are correct then both are fully capable of understanding that the other is morally/ethically valid and therefore will not fight them FOR THAT REASON. If the definitions the DM is using supposedly allow for both paladins to be correct and for a valid decision to be made that the other must DIE for their choice, that contrary choice must validly be viewed as INCORRECT IN THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS EXTREME and the entire affair collapses under its own insupportable logic.

What is your opinion of Godel's theorem?

[OldTrees1]

So I've been wondering what it would take to get a Paladin to fight another Paladin. It seems to me that sort of set up could result in some interesting scenarios. So my question is how would you make it happen?

Some ground rules:

1. Both Paladins are classic LG Paladins. No Paladin's of freedom, no Greyguards ect.
2. No mind control, both Paladin's should know what they are doing.
3. Misunderstandings are allowed but both Paladins should be aware that the other is a LG Paladin doing what they think is right.
4. Neither Paladin should commit an action before, during or after the fight that would result in a fall.

#1, in my opinion, makes it a flat-out impossibility. If two paladins come to blows based on their beliefs or ideology ONE OF THEM IS WRONG. They would have to be wrong by definition.

When a paladin character is faced with a moral or ethical conclusion then you have three possible outcomes:
A) the paladin is correct in his choice.
B) the paladin is INCORRECT in his choice.
C) the paladin's choice is not actually one which impacts morals or ethics to the degree of, "Somebody has to die for this."

While you trisection of the situation is accurate (moral, immoral, amoral), that trisection is inherent in all moral cases and thus does not support your claim that it is "flat-out impossible" for 2 paladins of the same alignment to disagree to the point of conflict(especially non lethal combat).

To be more explicit. Dame Jane and Sir John are Paladins in the same group. Someone needs to stay behind to buy the party enough time to go save others. Both Sir John and Dame Jane believe they are obligated to be the one that remains behind and that the party will need the other. Less stubborn Janes and Johns might settle this with rock paper scissors, but this John and Jane are stubborn. They agree to knock out the other so that the party can take them to safety.

Is the choice to have someone stay or not an amoral choice? Nay, someone staying behind certainly is a choice with moral character (in this case positive moral character). So both paladins are stubbornly resolved towards a different yet moral choice. The non lethal conflict of arms was a resolution between the two valid moral choices in cases where neither side is willing to cease championing the moral choice they defend.

[Frozen_Feet]

What is your opinion of Godel's theorem?

Hah, someone beat me to it.

To clarify, in case someone is not familiar with the incompleteness theorem: for any sufficiently complex logical system, ethical systems included, there are things which 1) may be true or false but 2) cannot be proven true nor false within the system's own language.

In other words, it's possible for there to exist an honest-to-god moral dilemma where there is no one "right choice", or there are multiple mutually exclusive "right choices" but it can't be said which is better.

Another thing worth noting: D&D moral alignment is tri-state, not binary. There are actions where the answer to the question "is this good or evil?" is "neither", but which are a point of contention in several good philosophies.

One example that jumps up is: killing animals for food is morally neutral in D&D. But it would be perfectly possible for a Paladin of specific god or tradition to argue it's not, and this could be source of conflict between paladins of different traditions.

[Berenger]

[...] When a paladin character is faced with a moral or ethical conclusion then you have three possible outcomes:
A) the paladin is correct in his choice.
B) the paladin is INCORRECT in his choice.
C) the paladin's choice is not actually one which impacts morals or ethics to the degree of, "Somebody has to die for this."

The DM MUST know which of those three outcomes is applicable in order to EVER enforce alignment [...]

I don't think so. That logic falls apart as soon as the GM decides that there are several "correct" approaches to a situation. Paladins are embodiments of several knightly virtues and those virtues may well be at odds with each other. If a paladin vows to challenge a rogue knight that torched several villages and killed all the peasants to a duel to the death, I'll accept that as lawful good behaviour with an emphasis on courage and justice. If a paladin takes pity on a repentant sinner that forswore his sword and promises to escort the sinner to a remote monastery where he can spend the rest oft his life in peace, I'll accept that as lawful good behaviour with an emphasis on mercy. If the rogue knight and the repentant sinner are one and the same person and the paladin sworn to kill him and the paladin sworn to protect him on his journey come to blows, both act in a perfectly lawful good manner and according to knightly virtues. As a GM, I won't declare one of the paladins as the "correct" one and the other as the "incorrect" one if both are sincere in their conviction. None of them will fall from grace.

[goto124]

"->" indicates removing a level of abstraction/offering a more concrete example

The rights of the many vs the rights of the few.

->The Trolley Problem

->->There is a unfortunate event incoming that will hit a large population. Paladin A has the power to divert the misfortune to only affect a smaller population. Paladin B feels responsible for protecting that smaller population and with strive to prevent Paladin A from diverting the misfortune towards the smaller population.

Basically since different moral theories can differ in their judgement of what is the right thing to do, two Paladins both can fully understand & respect the other's point of view but be unwilling to step aside.

Especially when unfortunate implications arise from the smaller population being a discriminated minority...

[erikun]

I've actually had a line of thinking similar to this, although more in a Good v. Good and Evil v. Evil sense. Specifically, it is the idea that Good would typically fight Good over ideals, while Evil would typically fight Evil over power. That is, while an Evil creature would fight another Evil creature in hopes of acquiring more power for itself, a Good creature would fight another Good creature so that a power would be used in its manner of generating "Goodness" rather than how the other creature would do so.


Or, more specifically relevant to the threat topic:

We have a Paladin of Helm (LN god of laws and cities) and a Paladin of Pelor (NG god of healing). There is a powerful artifact which would grant the holder some blessed divine ability - perhaps a single Wish, or perhaps the ability to cast a spell of the users choice repeatedly. The Paladin of Helm wants the artifact to secure power for their city, because they believe - correctly - that their (Lawful Good) city is doing good for the people, and believe that a stronger influence will do even more good for even more people. The Paladin of Pelor wants the artifact to grant power to heal more people, cure more diseases, and bless more crops, believing - corrently - that going out and providing aid to innocent people would be doing good.

Neither paladin is incorrect. Both are right in that securing the power for themselves would help a large number of people. Both think that, while the other might help some, that the other's methods are a poor and inefficient use of that power. Both are willing to fight to secure that power for themselves, with the full intent and promise that it will certainly help other people.

This is a bit of an extreme case, but demonstrates just how two paladins can fight over a single object, while both maintaining LG actions and intentions. A somewhat less extreme case would just be two competing LG paladins of LG deities, who which to secure funds/treasure/lands for their particular city. Or who are working to secure something for their particular deity, since the actions one deity wants aren't necessarily the actions another deity cares about.


I suppose a more twisted scenario could occur where one paladin, in order to maintain their code (say, protecting an innocent hostage) would need to attack another paladin who must maintain their code (say, following a good law?) This is a bit more contrived, because it relies on some trickery or situation which would require both to fight, and would somehow require both paladins be unable to just stop and fight whatever is the origin of the problems... but I guess such a situation is possible.