Paladin moral delima

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Rather, we all know that they have been labelled CE in alignment. How they have been described is entirely another thing.

In practice, under my axis, how they have been described has been almost purely LE in alignment. They are coordinated under a single leader that they pledge alliegence too, they have a universal set of traditions and codes of behavior, they are coordinating together towards a grand end and purpose, they maintain institutions and relationships over long periods, they do not tolerate dissent, and the conduct of each Drow is reviewable according to standards known by other Drow. This is an almost pure description of LE AFAIC. Actual CE would look radically different in every way - no agreement over rulers or rules, no cooperation between groups, no grand goal or purpose, widespread tolerance and acceptance of individuality, ever changing institutions, culture, relationship, and laws, generally low value placed on community building institutions like families, civics, schools, and religion, and so forth.

I agree, labels and descriptions for a race that has been around since the late 70's who are supposed to be the pinnacle of the Chaotic Evil Alignment, yet they only act CE when they are by themselves. Their society is much more that of an almost lawful environment. They are definitely evil, but I don't think they are LE, CE, or NE they encompass all three - which I guess could be labeled as Chaotic. Kind of a conundrum, then you have those that buck the evil label all together like the famous Drizzt.

 

[steeldragons]

Rather, we all know that they have been labelled CE in alignment. How they have been described is entirely another thing.

In practice, under my axis, how they have been described has been almost purely LE in alignment. They are coordinated under a single leader that they pledge alliegence too, they have a universal set of traditions and codes of behavior, they are coordinating together towards a grand end and purpose, they maintain institutions and relationships over long periods, they do not tolerate dissent, and the conduct of each Drow is reviewable according to standards known by other Drow. This is an almost pure description of LE AFAIC. Actual CE would look radically different in every way - no agreement over rulers or rules, no cooperation between groups, no grand goal or purpose, widespread tolerance and acceptance of individuality, ever changing institutions, culture, relationship, and laws, generally low value placed on community building institutions like families, civics, schools, and religion, and so forth.

"Must spread some around..."

But I completely agree with everything said here. In my game setting, Drow are decidedly LE precisely for all of the reasons you present.

Which also offers to beef up the flavor of them being the absolute antithesis of surface elves who (I do maintain) have a CG societal norm (at least among High and Wood elves).

 

[racoffin]

What I tend to see in these "does my Paladin fall" threads is a lack of what their code is. Without that, we're left without some major information on what the Paladin is theoretically supposed to be doing and what might be considered a punishable offense, especially one that causes their powers to be ripped away.

I'd add that losing their Paladinhood would seem to be a major issue, and not one that the God would lay down just for the heck of it. Of course, that also depends on the God (or organization or whatever gives them their abilities).

Perhaps the next few of these "is THIS something that causes a fall" could include a bit more information other than "he's a paladin and LG, does not saving/doing/thinking X cause a fall"?

 

[Janx]

I agree, labels and descriptions for a race that has been around since the late 70's who are supposed to be the pinnacle of the Chaotic Evil Alignment, yet they only act CE when they are by themselves. Their society is much more that of an almost lawful environment. They are definitely evil, but I don't think they are LE, CE, or NE they encompass all three - which I guess could be labeled as Chaotic. Kind of a conundrum, then you have those that buck the evil label all together like the famous Drizzt.

I wonder if there's a differentiation between a societal alignment (all drow are LE) vs. personal alignment (this here trouble-making drow is CE).

Or that characters have 2 alignments, how they handle personal business, and societal business.

Thus, Caramon is CG with his personal life, but LG when it comes to bigger picture items.

I'll further accept that all humans have their hypocrisies. So it's totally OK to classify a PC with an alignment, where the majority of their behaviors fit, yet have situations where they contradict that alignment.

That is in effect, part of the introspection. When a character reaches a situation that conflicts with their common pattern, and they have to make a hard choice.

As to whether this introspection process is a good thing, consider that Drizz't and Raistlin were popular characters BECAUSE of this inner conflict and dialogue. That doesn't mean you have to make them all angsty, but the point of hard boiled detective fiction is that you get to hear this process the character is going through.

An extra ponderance. As a manager, when one of my guys screws up, the determining factor on what kind of talk I need to have with him has to do with whether they think they screwed up and are pondering how to fix it/do better.

I don't want my guys self-flagellating themselves, but I'd rather hear them tell me "for my part this is the mistake I made, this is how I fixed it, and this is how I think we can prevent it." If I hear "I didn't do anything wrong, it's all such and such's fault..." then I have a problem.

This is part of that introspection. If a paladin screws up, by whatever metric that means, a good paladin has regrets over it, and is seeking to make things right. A bad paladin won't think he did anything wrong. If you're wondering what offense to yank powers for, the latter example is your answer.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I wonder if there's a differentiation between a societal alignment (all drow are LE) vs. personal alignment (this here trouble-making drow is CE).

Or that characters have 2 alignments, how they handle personal business, and societal business.

Thus, Caramon is CG with his personal life, but LG when it comes to bigger picture items.

I'll further accept that all humans have their hypocrisies. So it's totally OK to classify a PC with an alignment, where the majority of their behaviors fit, yet have situations where they contradict that alignment.

That is in effect, part of the introspection. When a character reaches a situation that conflicts with their common pattern, and they have to make a hard choice.

As to whether this introspection process is a good thing, consider that Drizz't and Raistlin were popular characters BECAUSE of this inner conflict and dialogue. That doesn't mean you have to make them all angsty, but the point of hard boiled detective fiction is that you get to hear this process the character is going through.

An extra ponderance. As a manager, when one of my guys screws up, the determining factor on what kind of talk I need to have with him has to do with whether they think they screwed up and are pondering how to fix it/do better.

I don't want my guys self-flagellating themselves, but I'd rather hear them tell me "for my part this is the mistake I made, this is how I fixed it, and this is how I think we can prevent it." If I hear "I didn't do anything wrong, it's all such and such's fault..." then I have a problem.

This is part of that introspection. If a paladin screws up, by whatever metric that means, a good paladin has regrets over it, and is seeking to make things right. A bad paladin won't think he did anything wrong. If you're wondering what offense to yank powers for, the latter example is your answer.

I'd probably go with tendencies instead of two alignments and just encompass that with a "good, neutral, or evil" because the Drow individuals and society for example are evil, but they don't act chaotic all the time, nor do they act lawful so I'd say they just have a tendency to be evil.

I think the skewing comes from the Chaotic, Neutral, & Lawful aspects of each alignment and the individual (written in rulebooks or opinions of players/DMs) interpretations therein.

Perhaps the next incarnation which has alignments of any kind should just be 3 alignments (Good/Unaligned/Evil) instead of the 4E with 5 or previous editions with 9?

I just feel that with more options comes more variations on what everyone believes is "correct" for any given situation.

 

[Janx]

Sometimes, Kobiyashi Maru situations come up "naturally", like when my party found slaves in the Vault of the Drow, and had the choice of freeing them (likely getting us all killed and causing the mission to fail and our homeland to be overrun by giants and drow) or leaving them behind and continuing with the mission.

I wouldn't say "it's wrong" to have such things happen, but I also wouldn't penalize the paladin for facing such a situation and making a choice. (I chose the "leave 'em behind", myself, and the DM didn't ding our paladin for it.)

I think situations where there's no "right" answer means that the paladin isn't making a Paladinhood Choice. If both choices are bad, all the paladin can do is try to minimize the damage. its not his fault the situation didn't allow for him to save both.

I think Haakon1 and I might differ on whether our respective paladins mope about it for roleplaying XP... But the choice itself wasn't a Paladinhood Choice.

IMHO, a paladin shouldn't LIE outright - a man's word is his bond, after all. However, speaking carefully, to neither lie nor tell the whole truth, is fine, if the situation requires it.

Conning a con man, I'd leave to the thief, as a paladin is unlikely to be good at it.

Sleep gas poison? No problem there.

Like the OP's original premise assumption, the paladin is not a skill monkey. It's pretty unreasonable to expect him to directly use these devious tactics effectively anyway.

I think a Paladin would try to be honest whenever he could, and would try to avoid needing to lie. However, if the situation did come up where lying was the only way to do the right thing (perhaps lying to a bad guy), then he would, but probably as minimalistically as possible.

On Sleep gas (or spells for that matter), a non-lethal means to capture a suspect is actually pretty respectful of life. If you know a suspect is likely to resist arrest because they are contrary or distrustful of the law, a sleep spell would avoid that conflict, allowing you to capture them safely and bring them to a fair trial where the facts of the matter can be reviewed. Rather than agitating them into a conflict, which may worsen their situation (or even make them look guilty when they are not).

Granted, a Paladin is a martial class. Defined by his manly ability to kick butt and respecting those that also kick butt. Poison as G. Martin says, is a woman's weapon. Better to look a man in the eye and see which is the stronger.

 

[RedTonic]

@haakon1

I'd like-like yours, too, but I've already hit you recently, it seems, and I've been a bit too polyamorous with my XP today as it is! ;D

I'll add some content...

In practice, most characters and organizations labeled with such and such alignment are going to behave inconsistently with that alignment some of the time and to some degree. Anarchists have organizations, but I think most of us can agree that they tend to behave in a way we can easily label "chaotic," since that's the point. I would think the best fitting social model for a chaotic organization or society would be one along the lines of tribes or cells, bound together more by (often temporarily) common interests, relatively freely joined, abandoned, and rejoined, with rivalries and allegiances that change with confusing regularity. A group characterized as chaotic probably wouldn't lend itself to a kingdom without a serious strong man in charge who:

1. has a goal
2. has the means of achieving that goal
3. can intimidate his followers
4. can entice his followers

In short, someone both extremely charismatic and driven, who has something he wants to achieve, and is willing to do practically anything to achieve it. Your average revolutionary or rebel leader or even terrorist leader would fit the bill pretty well. This type of individual doesn't really thrive in a peaceful/disorganized society and needs either a pre-existing conflict or to create conflict. The list above would even work for a chaotic neutral or chaotic good individual, depending on how the character intimidates others. A chaotic evil individual would probably take self-interest to the extreme, without even necessarily caring for their own physical/metaphysical well-being; the chaotic good type would go to the opposite end (since we like Jedi, why not the rebel Jedi, eh?).

 

[Celebrim]

Anarchists have organizations, but I think most of us can agree that they tend to behave in a way we can easily label "chaotic," since that's the point.

Anarchists do have organizations, but they are seldom organized. More importantly, even within an Anarchist organization, you will when you investigate seldom find a common goal beyond regime change. Exactly what they want to do after that is something everyone in the organization will have different incompatible opinions about. If you call for a rally of Anarchists, expect them each to show up with a different pet cause, and often will march while together screaming totally incompatible slogans.

In fact, in the real world, anarchist organizations are often financially backed by groups who have long term goals quite the opposite of anarchy. If the anarchist group is larger than a cell and shows any sign of organization at all, dig into the funding of an anarchist group enough, and you'll usually find some government actually behind it.

I would think the best fitting social model for a chaotic organization or society would be one along the lines of tribes or cells, bound together more by (often temporarily) common interests, relatively freely joined, abandoned, and rejoined, with rivalries and allegiances that change with confusing regularity.

Agreed. Drow in my campaign world are organized along social lines similar to lion Prides.

A chaotic evil individual would probably take self-interest to the extreme, without even necessarily caring for their own physical/metaphysical well-being; the chaotic good type would go to the opposite end (since we like Jedi, why not the rebel Jedi, eh?).

Personally, I feel the original trilogy was largely a world of Good vs. Evil, while the prequels showed largely a world of Law vs. Chaos. While Palpatine was Chaotic Evil in both series, I think Lucas sufficiently reinvented the Sith to the point that I don't think evil was an inherent trait of them, and ultimately ended up making the Jedi so loathsome that I lost most sympathy for their extinction. Chaotic good Jedi only make sense (to me at least) in the original trilogy; it's a contridiction in the universe of the prequels. The two series are internally inconsistant, such that Vader's moral journey within the second series does not make sense within the moral framework of the prequels - nor for that matter does Luke's. The only way to reconcile this is to assume that both stories are told by an unreliable narrator.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

A Jedi is probably a paladin. The rest of those fictional examples? Less likely, more likely a ranger.

going by your gut is chaotic. going by your reasoning is lawful. therefore, a lawful character is one who is seen to be reasoning their way through problems.

Just for the record, I don't agree with any of that.

Q.E.D.

EVERYONE has differing opinions on what it means to be lawful, what it means to be good, what it means to be a paladin, where's the line where you fall from grace, etc... The first meaningful source to define it/ explain it all for a player is the DM of their game. You don't necessarily even have to agree with the definitions they present but you can't just assume that you personally have it all figured out and then expect the DM (or for the DM to expect the players) to agree. And it's foolish to wait until it's a problem for the two sides to start discussing it - it needs to be sorted right from the start. Frankly there just is no By-The-Book on this topic. There's only what any one individual THINKS it should be.

We can argue our various perspectives until we are knee-deep in beaten-dead-horse gore and it will still be irrelevant for any given player and DM. they have to talk to each other and come to a mutual agreement or at least understanding and tolerance of their positions. A lot of people whom I'd otherwise agree with in this thread still state details which I personally would have issues with. If I were a player in their game and had NOT gotten the bottom line with any of them it seems almost certain that at some point the game would come to a screeching halt due to disagreements even on relatively minor points.

I'd post my thoughts and conclusions on the whole topic in detail if I thought it would add anything or people were genuinely interested, but I'd still have to preface it with, "Even though I think this is the right way to go about it I don't expect others to actually agree with me - check with your DM, speak with your players." Better, faster, more reliable than a hundred articles or a dozen threads on the subject.

 

[RedTonic]

Anarchists do have organizations, but they are seldom organized. More importantly, even within an Anarchist organization, you will when you investigate seldom find a common goal beyond regime change. Exactly what they want to do after that is something everyone in the organization will have different incompatible opinions about. If you call for a rally of Anarchists, expect them each to show up with a different pet cause, and often will march while together screaming totally incompatible slogans.

In fact, in the real world, anarchist organizations are often financially backed by groups who have long term goals quite the opposite of anarchy. If the anarchist group is larger than a cell and shows any sign of organization at all, dig into the funding of an anarchist group enough, and you'll usually find some government actually behind it.

I don't think I said anything that materially contradicts this.

As for Star Wars, it's a franchise spanning several decades; any hope of consistent narrative voice is futile. I thought the example might be useful nonetheless.