The Problem with Paladin Villains (spoilers for SoD/GDGU)

[arimareiji]

We went over this a few times in this thread. Not everyone agrees that villains have to be evil, some believe that they can simply do evil (because not everyone that does evil is evil, just like not everyone that does good is good). Paladins are explicitly allowed by the rules to do evil without falling (we also covered this in this thread already).

EDIT: To pre-empt the obvious follow-up post: Paladins are allowed to do evil so long as they do so unwillingly and/or unwittingly. A paladin can do evil without understanding or knowing that they are doing evil, and still remain Good and not Fall.

I'm too cynical -- I know it's not at all what you mean, but I suspect there would be some Seinfeld-adins. (^_~)

Spoiler: 10-second Seinfeld clip

Show

[Shadowknight12]

I'm too cynical -- I know it's not at all what you mean, but I suspect there would be some Seinfeld-adins. (^_~)

Spoiler: 10-second Seinfeld clip

Show

You jest, but many Forgotten Realms novels have characters debate whether the children of creatures like goblins and orcs should be killed before they can grow up to do harm, and some supposedly good-aligned characters genuinely believe that they are irredeemably evil and killing them is saving future innocent lives.

If we have official D&D authors exploring these subjects in canon D&D novels, why can't others? And why should paladins be exempted from being wrong and having terrible beliefs?

[Kish]

To be fair, the reason debate on this topic is futile is due to the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

"Paladins can do evil."
"Ah, those are not true paladins."
"The setting enables it."
"Ah, that setting doesn't follow the true rules of D&D."
"The rules enable it."
"Ah, but the rules use the words 'good' and 'evil' and your definition is not the true definition of good and evil."

And so on.

Wow, I wonder how you'd represent an argument you disagreed with if you were actively trying not to be fair.

If you want to try being anything but smug, y'might want to consider that if your starting premise includes someone behaving in a fashion that--your argument completely hinges on--everyone recognizes as atrocious, it is perhaps not the strongest argument if you're claiming one bar later that it's invalid to observe that their behavior is evil and not good.

[Worldsong]

You jest, but many Forgotten Realms novels have characters debate whether the children of creatures like goblins and orcs should be killed before they can grow up to do harm, and some supposedly good-aligned characters genuinely believe that they are irredeemably evil and killing them is saving future innocent lives.

If we have official D&D authors exploring these subjects in canon D&D novels, why can't others? And why should paladins be exempted from being wrong and having terrible beliefs?

I blame whoever decided to have paladins get their powers from the concepts of Good and Law instead of just having them receive divine power from a deity.

[Shadowknight12]

I blame whoever decided to have paladins get their powers from the concepts of Good and Law instead of just having them receive divine power from a deity.

To be fair, despite the arguments, "obtains power from an amorphous source" is a lot better and more flexible than "gets power from deities" since not every setting has to be like Faerun. There is quite a lot in the Forgotten Realms that some people consider awful and would rather not have in their games.

[Worldsong]

To be fair, despite the arguments, "obtains power from an amorphous source" is a lot better and more flexible than "gets power from deities" since not every setting has to be like Faerun. There is quite a lot in the Forgotten Realms that some people consider awful and would rather not have in their games.

Power from mystical and strange forces is fine, but the fact that paladins get their power from the concept of Lawful Good is what results in people saying that a paladin who does seriously wrong things can't/shouldn't be a paladin.

[Dion]

And why should paladins be exempted from being wrong and having terrible beliefs?

Don't be ridiculous.

I've looked deep into my own heart, and I know that I'm good.

And also Paladins are good, because of the rules.

So therefore I know paladins believe exactly what I believe and do exactly what I would do in every situation.

And since I don't have any wrong or terrible beliefs, therefore Paladins don't either.

[Kish]

I blame whoever decided to have paladins get their powers from the concepts of Good and Law instead of just having them receive divine power from a deity.

I don't think there's any reason for the class to exist as a full class if they "receive divine power from a deity." Slap what 2ed AD&D called a "kit" or what Pathfinder calls an "archetype" on clerics to trade away a bunch of their spellcasting and turning power for more martial ability, and you have the deity-dependent paladin.

It is certainly true that if paladins had no alignment requirements and didn't fall if they ever committed an evil act (4ed or 5ed*), no one would point out that a story that hinges on Gestapo paladins doesn't really work (though 5ed has some weird oathbreaker paladins thing that presupposes that no-longer-alignment-restricted paladins are still in some way automatically good guys? I think? I don't really know).

[Worldsong]

This would be a lot easier if paladins got their powers from concepts such as justice or devotion or selflessness. Just give me a moment to think of a way for selflessness to be Evil without relying on the paladin being unaware of the problem.

Creating a cult which encourages people to sacrifice themselves and everything they care for, including their loved ones, for a better future.

I don't think there's any reason for the class to exist as a full class if they "receive divine power from a deity." Slap what 2ed AD&D called a "kit" or what Pathfinder calls an "archetype" on clerics to trade away a bunch of their spellcasting and turning power for more martial ability, and you have the deity-dependent paladin.

It is certainly true that if paladins had no alignment requirements and didn't fall if they ever committed an evil act (4ed*), no one would point out that a story that hinges on Gestapo paladins doesn't really work.

*Not 5ed; if what I've heard is correct which it well might not be, that does go the "they're martial clerics" route.

I figured the relation between paladin and cleric would be similar to the relation between ranger and druid. Martial half caster versus full caster while holding similar themes.

And yes, in 5e paladins have no alignment restrictions and rather than dedication to Lawful Good they swear an oath to uphold a certain cause, whether that be service to a deity or the ideal of protecting the weak.

[Kish]

Still sounds like variant clerics--since, as OotS has mentioned a couple times, you can have a cleric of a cause (even theoretically a hand puppet).

[Worldsong]

Still sounds like variant clerics--since, as OotS has mentioned a couple times, you can have a cleric of a cause (even theoretically a hand puppet).

Maybe, but I think it'd be better to have someone actually thumb through the PHB to explain the exact differences.

I don't have it on hand right now.

[Kish]

Not talking about 5ed. Talking about "take away the champions of good thing and make them champions of specific philosophical concepts which they can warp as they please" paladin proposal.

[Worldsong]

Not talking about 5ed. Talking about "take away the champions of good thing and make them champions of specific philosophical concepts which they can warp as they please" paladin proposal.

I mean... if you think that the Lawful Good thing is fundamental to what makes paladins unique enough to be their own class, and I think the Lawful Good thing is not a very good idea, and you were to combine the two perspectives, then yeah the end result would be that paladins shouldn't be any more than a variant of cleric.

Quick look at AD&D suggests that paladins were always a bit odd as a class.

[Shadowknight12]

Also, with Unearthed Arcana it became possible to play CG/LE/CE paladins too. The CG paladin was the "Liberator" and had a very strong emphasis on freeing people from tyranny and oppression.

Yes, Unearthed Arcana wasn't mandatory, but then again, neither are any of the sourcebooks, and that didn't stop 3e from printing dozens and dozens. And yes, it needed DM permission, but so does literally everything in the game. Even a bog-standard human fighter straight out of the PHB might not work in your DM's setting.

[arimareiji]

Power from mystical and strange forces is fine, but the fact that paladins get their power from the concept of Lawful Good is what results in people saying that a paladin who does seriously wrong things can't/shouldn't be a paladin.

Sorry I keep responding to posts with videos, but I couldn't resist this parallel:

Spoiler: Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Show

Listen, strange concepts lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a character class. Supreme mystical power derives from a mandate from the deities, not from some farcical alignment ceremony. You can’t expect to wield divine power just because some watery code threw a sword at you!

...
"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

_{Edit: Wording tweak and +Redcloak}

[Kish]

Also, with Unearthed Arcana it became possible to play CG/LE/CE paladins too. The CG paladin was the "Liberator" and had a very strong emphasis on freeing people from tyranny and oppression.

Yes, Unearthed Arcana wasn't mandatory, but then again, neither are any of the sourcebooks, and that didn't stop 3e from printing dozens and dozens. And yes, it needed DM permission, but so does literally everything in the game. Even a bog-standard human fighter straight out of the PHB might not work in your DM's setting.

Unless you're suggesting that the Sapphire Guard includes Paladins of Tyranny and that's the explanation for Gin-Jun, I'm not really seeing the relevance here. Yes, lightning will not strike an author who chooses to write a fascist paladin, we've established that a couple times now. But Humpty-Dumptying the word "good" does not produce a story that has anything relevant to say about paladins or morality, any more than jumping in a car and driving to the finish line will enable someone to accurately say they won a footrace, and I'm pretty sure from Rich's commentary if nothing else that he's trying for more than a "the third word in 'the English language' is 'language!'" gotcha.

[Shadowknight12]

But Humpty-Dumptying the word "good" does not produce a story that has anything relevant to say about paladins or morality, any more than jumping in a car and driving to the finish line will enable someone to accurately say they won a footrace, and I'm pretty sure from Rich's commentary if nothing else that he's trying for more than a "the third word in 'the English language' is 'language!'" gotcha.

A story that portrays good people doing terrible things (because of misinformation, prejudice, ignorance, etc.) is a story worth telling, because it has real-world relevance (which is one of the Giant's goals).

Maybe the idea that paladins are trustworthy and beneficial to have around is worth criticizing, maybe people whose alignments are Good and their intentions are good can still be wrong, biased, prejudiced or just not have your best interests in mind, and paladins shouldn't get a pass just because the rules say they're Lawful Good.

[Jasdoif]

I don't think there's any reason for the class to exist as a full class if they "receive divine power from a deity." Slap what 2ed AD&D called a "kit" or what Pathfinder calls an "archetype" on clerics to trade away a bunch of their spellcasting and turning power for more martial ability, and you have the deity-dependent paladin.

Sounds a lot like the prestige-class-variant paladin. Which makes a lot of sense, the paladin concept feels rather...focused, for a base class.

[Vahnavoi]

[Paladins might] just not have your best interests in mind, and paladins shouldn't get a pass just because the rules say they're Lawful Good.

This is actually the most important point you can make with Paladins, because Lawful Good by the rules is not just anyone's definition of what's lawful and good - it's a very specific form of rule utilitarian altruism fitted around the concept of a crusading knight.

If you are not yourself a militant rule utilitarian altruist, you are not a Paladin, probably not even Lawful Good, by the rules.

If you are a pacifist, you should reject the idea of Paladins as necessary for society.

If you are an objectivist or any other flavor of individualist non-altruist, you should reject the very idea of Lawful Good, because by the rules you would be Chaotic.

So on and so forth.

[Keltest]

We went over this a few times in this thread. Not everyone agrees that villains have to be evil, some believe that they can simply do evil (because not everyone that does evil is evil, just like not everyone that does good is good). Paladins are explicitly allowed by the rules to do evil without falling (we also covered this in this thread already).

EDIT: To pre-empt the obvious follow-up post: Paladins are allowed to do evil so long as they do so unwillingly and/or unwittingly. A paladin can do evil without understanding or knowing that they are doing evil, and still remain Good and not Fall.

I mean, its the definition of villain. Somebody whose evil actions are important to the plot. Paladin antagonists are fairly easy. But paladins cant willingly commit an evil action, and not thinking or knowing that something is evil doesnt make it less evil (case in point, Miko). If youre a villain, you definitionally fail the requirements to be a paladin. Ipso facto, villains cant be paladins.

[hamishspence]

That's one definition of villain - but it's not the only definition. Given The Giant's emphasis in No Cure For The Paladin Blues on how he'd created Miko specifically to be both a paladin and a villain - before her Fall - it would appear that it's not the definition The Giant uses either.

And from the forum itself:

There was never an intention for there to be a relationship with Roy, merely a few clumsy attempts on Roy's part to start one, followed by a rebuff and the Order's capture. Miko was always a "villain", and I did not intend for Roy to have a long-running relationship with a villain, merely to make her an appealing enough antagonist that some people were rooting for her.

[Keltest]

That's one definition of villain - but it's not the only definition. Given The Giant's emphasis in No Cure For The Paladin Blues on how he'd created Miko specifically to be both a paladin and a villain - before her Fall - it would appear that it's not the definition The Giant uses either.

The Giant misusing "Villain" for "Antagonist" doesnt mean theres another definition floating around there somewhere. It just means he used the wrong word. To say nothing of the fact that having to use an unusual definition to back up your point dramatically weakens your arguments.

[Schroeswald]

I remember that conversation and reread it recently, the distinction between antagonist and villain was already in play, The Giant is of the opinion that Miko (and Javert) are not just antagonists but villains.

One of his reasons for this is because they represent ideas of law that the author is explicitly arguing against through the story and take morally wrong actions.

[hamishspence]

I remember that conversation and reread it recently, the distinction between antagonist and villain was already in play, The Giant is of the opinion that Miko (and Javert) are not just antagonists but villains.

One of his reasons for this is because they represent ideas of law that the author is explicitly arguing against through the story and take morally wrong actions.

Indeed:

I absolutely consider Javert a villain, full stop. And not in a weak, "All antagonists are villains," sort of way. I mean I find Javert's actions (and especially his inactions) over the course of the novel to be villainous.

I thought Javert was "supposed" to be Lawful Neutral (Hugo didn't use alignments). In fact, I think the only way he could be more Lawful Neutral is if he wore a sign saying "I'm Lawful Neutral". You saying Lawful Neutral people are villains?

No, I'm saying they can be villains, based on their actions. In the same way that Miko is a villain. Maybe not mustache-twirling do-it-for-the-lulz villains, but villains nonetheless.

As I recently referenced in the comic, all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, and Javert went quite a bit further in the wrong direction than just "doing nothing." He supported and enforced an unjust set of laws even above and beyond what was required of him. He tricked his way into the good graces of the students with a plan designed to lead to their deaths. When Fantine dies and Javert confronts Valjean, and Valjean says he must take care of Cosette, Javert could have said, "I'll make sure the girl is taken care of if you turn yourself in." He didn't. He didn't care whether she lived or died when he easily could have without compromising his duty. The idea of mercy is so incompatible to his mindset that when he finds himself having displayed it, his only solution is to commit suicide because his world doesn't make sense anymore. When you get to the point that the idea of mercy is incomprehensible to you? You're a villain.

And "Merciless paladins" are very much a thing in 3.5's PHB2, with one of the sections on roleplaying the various paladin archetypes, saying "Do any deserve mercy? No." and "There is no mercy, there is only judgement".

[Keltest]

Ok, even better. So Rich wrote some of his paladins with the intent that they were actually evil the whole time and were just... allowed to continue to be paladins anyway, in spite of such being against the rules of being a paladin.

Is this... meant to be an argument against the idea that so-called villainous paladins are often just flat out not actually paladins in the first place except by author fiat declaring them to be so?

[hamishspence]

Ok, even better. So Rich wrote some of his paladins with the intent that they were actually evil the whole time and were just... allowed to continue to be paladins anyway, in spite of such being against the rules of being a paladin.

Not "evil" but "morally bad even if technically good in the D&D sense".


As people love to point out in the D&D section of the forum, "D&D good" is often wildly at odds with the opinions of players, DMs, or both.

[Keltest]

Not "evil" but "morally bad even if technically good in the D&D sense".


As people love to point out in the D&D section of the forum, "D&D good" is often wildly at odds with the opinions of players, DMs, or both.

The idea of "technically good" is exactly the authoral fiat i am referring to. Heck, Roy calls out how Miko shouldnt actually qualify for anything better than Lawful Neutral because she fails to meet the criteria for LG.

[hamishspence]

"Regularly risking yourself against the Forces Of Evil without expecting compensation" is a big credit in the Good column for Roy. Presumably it is for Miko as well.

[Keltest]

"Regularly risking yourself against the Forces Of Evil without expecting compensation" is a big credit in the Good column for Roy. Presumably it is for Miko as well.

"opposing evil" doesnt make you good though. It doesnt even make you neutral.

[Worldsong]

The idea of "technically good" is exactly the authoral fiat i am referring to. Heck, Roy calls out how Miko shouldnt actually qualify for anything better than Lawful Neutral because she fails to meet the criteria for LG.

I'm guessing Rich's idea is that he includes paladins who shouldn't be paladins in his story because he wants to showcase how problematic such characters can be and what implications the existence of such characters can have on the setting. He's made it clear that he considers Order of the Stick an opportunity to comment on certain trends he's observed at DnD tables that he considers objectionable, so it's no surprise that one of those trends would be players who play paladin PCs who should fall but don't because the player uses loopholes to convince the DM the character is still technically Lawful Good.

In which case what you're basically seeing is Rich saying "Miko and the paladins who attacked Redcloak's village shouldn't be paladins, but I've seen PCs get away with similar stuff and I'm using this story to showcase why that is bad."

The problem then arises from him trying to explain how these paladins are still paladins in the story if, according to him, they shouldn't be paladins at all. So we end up with the situation where it appears that the deities you serve determine whether you're still fit to be a paladin, which in turn causes people to focus on how paladins work in the story which distracts them from the original idea of "Here is an example of paladins behaving un-paladin-like and why this is a bad thing."