How Do You Play a Paladin?

[rs2excelsior]

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

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

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

[Sam113097]

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

[Monsterpoodle]

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

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

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

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

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

[GrayDeath]

A lot of good advice alrady.

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

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

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

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

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

[Pex]

Without need of an operation on the posterior.

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

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

[Democratus]

A paladin should try to embody the ideas of her deity or concept.

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

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

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

[Pauly]

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

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

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

[Komatik]

One reason people dislike and/or are bored by Lawful Good roleplaying characters is how flatly people tend to think of them. Their mental model of them is either:

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

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

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

To quote Aristoteles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GreatWyrmGold]

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

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

Yeah, entirely.

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

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

As I said:

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

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

[GreatWyrmGold]

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

Sometimes? I've never seen a PC's goals be relevant to the adventure at hand. Part of this is because players are conditioned into recognizing that giving characters specific goals will hinder gameplay more than it helps the story, so they get vague motivations instead; part of this is because trying to work specific goals from several players who don't even consider collaborating with each other is friggin' difficult. I know, I tried. There's a few reasons that campaign crashed and burned, and that's one of them. (If anyone from Renewed Legacy is reading this, I'm sorry I made promises I couldn't keep.)

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

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

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

[Democratus]

PC goals are the most important thing in a campaign. Campaign start, at least for us, involves everyone creating their characters and figuring out what it is they want in life.

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

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

[GreatWyrmGold]

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

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

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

[PintoTown]

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

[mindstalk]

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

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

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

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

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

[paddyfool]

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

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

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

[SpyOne]

My 3.5 Dwarf paladin, Thorstane Lightbringer, has a few things to say:

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

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

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

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

[Sorlock Master]

Say "HERETIC" a lot, use smite when ever possible, and remind people how much better you are then them.

[Azuresun]

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

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

[2D8HP]

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

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

You keep your word.

You are your word.

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

You are always watched...

...by your conscience.

You are still mortal.

You are still tempted...

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

If you fail you seek redemption.

If unredemed you still strive to do good.

Always.

From an old thread:

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

Excalibur!

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

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

Spoiler: Rick and Ilsa

Show

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ilsa: But what about us?

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

Ilsa: When I said I would never leave you.

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

[Ilsa lowers her head and begins to cry]

Rick: Now, now...

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

Rick: Here's looking at you kid.

Spoiler: Tom Joad's farewell scene in the Grapes of Wrath

Show

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

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

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

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

Ma: Then what, Tom?

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

Ma: I don’t understand it, Tom.

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

---

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

Spoiler: This has Helen Mirren!

Show

Spoiler: What happens

Show

Despite her being played by Helen freakin' Mirren, Sir Percival resists Morgana, achieves the Grail, brings it to King Arthur, and heals him (and the land with him).

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

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

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

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

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

That's a Paladin.

[aglondier]

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

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

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

This.

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

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

[aglondier]

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

One word...Atonement...

[hamishspence]

The spell is meaningless without repentance - which means accepting that what you did was wrong in the first place.

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

This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.

[malloc]

Read Powder Keg of Justice. It is a short game tale that completely redefined the way I viewed paladins when I first read it.

[2D8HP]

The spell is meaningless without repentance - which means accepting that what you did was wrong in the first place.

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

This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- E. Gary Gygax

(more context here)

For examples: Percival's quest in the film Excalibur

and

Lancelot's redemption from the same film.

Really, watch Excalibur[ to see what a Paladin is, or read the script

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

[hamishspence]

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


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

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

[mindstalk]

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

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

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