Paladins...

Remove all ads!

@Sir Belisarius: Isn't it amasing my favourite virtue is the same as yours?

I also chose to support the peasants. Once tried to support the baron out of curiousity to see the Order's reaction. They just had heard some rumours that the matter was different, but they do need nobility's backing, so they will cover you and make it all look well. If that's LG I'm a Holy Liberator.

El Cid went too far. He lied under oath in order to help the king Alphonso that had insidiously (having specifically guaranteed his safety) murdered the previous king Sancho, his own brother, to whom El Cid owed fealty in the first place. It's neither good nor lawful in my opinion...

BTW: Anyone anything about the examples of counter-legal behaviour from my previous post from January 08, 2003 17:29 ?

[ January 09, 2003, 00:02: Message edited by: chevalier des Trois-Tours ]

 

Slaughtering innocents is fun!

Try Chaotic Evil, pallys! You might just develop a taste for it!





Sorry...couldn't resist. A quick lapse into my old SP days back when I had just a 100 posts...

 

*smites Shura*

I am gonna show this thread to my DM. I do so want to play an "anti-paladin". A champion of the dark would make excellent roleplaying material. As long as he isn't played as chaotic stupid (i.e. randomly killing everything in sight)that is.

 

If you have problems with paladins and why they are the alignment they are and what they should do etc visit

http://pjotr.kgb.cz/knihy/paladin/

I believe that this is the entire 2nd Edition handbook of paladins and I found it very helpful. (BTW, if u exhange 'paladin' for 'fighter', 'wizard', 'elf', 'dwarf' in the URL you get the respective guidebook, I couldn't get 'cleric' or 'priest' to work, nor 'thief', I don't know if that's just me.)

To be honest, I find roleplaying paladins quite easy in PnP but harder in Baldurs Gate and CRPGS because of the lack of options. Some people seem to think that the alignment 'Lawful Good' means that they all act the same which ain't the case.

As for the idea that all deities should have 'paladins' serving them-

Peace.

[ February 04, 2003, 21:57: Message edited by: Ulicus ]

 

Paladins?

Good whetstones for sharp objects.

 

Not alignment is the problem. The problem is about what really matters in alignment. Again I suppose balance is the key. The reasons are as following: If we say actions matter, good in action doesn't exclude not so good motives, if we say motivation is clue, then we have some problems with interpretation and a degree of relatavism.

In paladin's case there can be severe conflicts between good and lawful comportments. BUT, is being merciful rather than just inherently good? Mercy towards the wolf is cruelty towards the sheep. Or laws... and I mean laws of a kingdom: in each one they are different, so apart from sanctity of 'thou shalt not kill', 'steal' etc (w/o sufficient reason) are for example tax rates worth dying for? Or if they are, are they worth killing for?

A paladin this way has to make choices. Very difficult ones mostly. People have different views and so there are no two identical paladins. Only it depends on the DM what's appropriate. However we need some general outlines as an indeed experienced DM is needed to run a campaign with paladin PCs and without a loose approach. The reason is that a paladin (except rare specific characters) Falls when is out of his deity's grace. And the deity is run by DM... Thus the DM is involved with a particular paladin's set of values. This should be handled carefully. Example: A paladin sees a hungry child shoplifting. IMO: Lathanderian (NG deity) paladin Falls for calling the guards to take him away. Helmite (LN deity) could possibly Fall for not doing so. Torm's or Tyr's (both LG deities) follower would have some trouble deciding. This is actually a lame case, but the tention rises together with the seriousness of the conflict. My solution is that: paladins are Lawful in a fashion close to monks: internal discipline and also because of chivalry ideals: righteous, honourable, credible, faithful, kind, compassionate being more binding than any law possible this also applying to religious strictures. The lame rule 'A paladin never knowingly breaks any law' should be accompanied by an explanation of what law is applicable and generally what is considered law here. Especially that rules (3E) give examples of paladins performing certainly illegal activities like leading revolutions against tyrants (and they are still paladins, not Holy Liberator ex-paladins). What's in my eyes important is to be LG rather than look LG. Actions taken out of LG motivation may look NG, CG or LN depending on the situation and on the spectator. What looks LG for most doesn't have to be LG indeed.

I would even go farther: law, rules or orders can't be an excuse for a paladin acting other way than LG (considering the high Order as the supreme law) while motivation should be only a partial excuse if he errs.

Edit: Anyone who tried alignment tests knows that no one is a 100% example of his alignment. Keeping to one's alignment is not switching to another one and not performing acts that are against the alignment in nature. It's like that: an LG or LN having no inherent respect for authority may still be LG/LN as long as he understands authority is needed and disturbing the authority for the sole sake of it leads to no good ends. CG/CN is still CG/CN if he is obsessed with being a good citizen or a loyal subject as long as his internal voices take precedence. Acting good for profit or for the sake of disguise should bring you 20 rep but not good alignment. Acting evil when one's forced to will less probably make him evil.

This way, basing on priorities, a legal positivist will cease being lawful for breaking law for any possible purpose while a naturalist (including followers of religions featuring a moral code or even a whole law system) will cease being lawful if he follows positive law over natural law.

Using BG examples: a legalist paladin will speak against Jan when asked by a guard. A strict good-doer will pretend he hasn't heard anything as he won't suffer a man being put in prison for avoiding oppresive taxes. An especially holier-than-thou one will speak against him and pay to get him released (as I did )

A legalist is likely to support monks in Amkethran against smugglers while a good-doer will rather fight the monks who oppress the citizens for smugglers who occasionally help them. My own solution was to defend smugglers when they were attacked, use their help to get into the monastery, but neither trade with them nor support them (like with Shadow Thieves in SoA).

[ February 08, 2003, 13:57: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I would argue that a Paladin needs to be seen as an agent of both Law and Good. He follows the set of rules laid down by his order, not every rule that comes down the pike. I mean, if a Paladin were to wake up one morning in Hell, he would not follow the rules of the devils. Conversely, if he ended up in a society that condoned random murder, he would continue to follow the laws written in his heart, not cheerfully say "yay, it's legal here!"

 

I don't see a Paladin as an agent of Law. He's not able to Detect Chaos, is he? The lawful aspect is to guide and direct his good aspect. Law is a mean to an end.