Paladin moral delima

[Dausuul]

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.

According to the Dragonlance sourcebooks, Raistlin Majere was Chaotic Evil, while Caramon Majere was Lawful Good. Just sayin'.

 

[mmadsen]

Do you think Jeanne d'Arc would agonize over whether or not to escape from the English? Or would she do it without a second thought, to get on with the holy war the voices in her head told her to pursue?

The complication -- which seems very foreign to modern folks -- is that a medieval knight who has asked for and received mercy has given his (or her, in Jeanne d'Arc's case) word not to continue hostilities in return for being left alive.

There's an understanding there, between the two sides.

 

[jasper]

The complication -- which seems very foreign to modern folks -- is that a medieval knight who has asked for and received mercy has given his (or her, in Jeanne d'Arc's case) word not to continue hostilities in return for being left alive.

There's an understanding there, between the two sides.

No not always and not regularly. Just ask the French knights from the month of October 1415 the ones who surrender to Good King henry during the battle of aggie court or something like that. And Joan would have not been given mercy since she was a peasant.

 

[Janx]

According to the Dragonlance sourcebooks, Raistlin Majere was Chaotic Evil, while Caramon Majere was Lawful Good. Just sayin'.

I'm not saying my premise was correct, but I'm also not sure the DL sourcebooks got it right.

Obviously, the writers wanted the 2 characters to be diametrically opposed.

Raistlin was given to introspection, Caramon was not. If I recall, C was also more impulsive.

So i'd have pegged C as CG and R as LE in keeping with the design goal and their behaviors.

 

[Janx]

The complication -- which seems very foreign to modern folks -- is that a medieval knight who has asked for and received mercy has given his (or her, in Jeanne d'Arc's case) word not to continue hostilities in return for being left alive.

There's an understanding there, between the two sides.

I think what you're getting at here, which is why I highlighted it, is that there is a trust factor. It's not just that you surrender, but that I also treat you as well as your station requires.

For a peasant, when I accept your surrender, I might tell you to go home and swear to never raise arms again.

For a knight, I may put him up in a nice tent, underguard, but at ease.

As such, IF as your captor, I treat you well per your station, there is understanding that you are to wait until release or ransom or trial. You certainly aren't entitled to escaping (you surrendered, which effectively means you give your word that you submit). You aren't entitled to challenge me to a duel, because you already lost that fight when you had to surrender.

If I treat you like crap, and I have plans to execute you, given that you surrendered to save lives, unless the terms were your life for those of your men, then generally, you have a right to escape because I have not honored the terms of your surrender (don't kill you,otherwise you might as well kept fighting).

 

[haakon1]

Hey they can have gas if they want to.

Nod, I'm not aware of a rule against paladins eating the refried beans. Maybe in the Cavalier from UA, though . . .

A dm must never set up a no win dilemma for paladin. So no coming to intersection and having to choose between saving Grandpa Jones from the wolf or running into the burning hut to save Baby Huey.

SET UP, as in intentionally create philosophy class dilemmas to annoy the paladin's player and/or make the class unplayable as all roads lead to "zap, not a paladin", yes, I agree DM's shouldn't do that.

But I would disagree if this were exaggerated to the point of "plot protection" meaning the paladin will never face difficult choices.

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.)

Act with honor (No lying, no cheating, no poison use, insert dm views here). Ok here is where you need your dm’s input. Do I tell the border guards the truth, I here to toss Orcus off his throne or just say personal business? Is a bluff a lie?
Can I cheat a con man and win back the orphanage’s Christmas goose fund?
Can I use sleep poison to bring in Bad Bart Simpson for trial, or do I just hack him up when he is down for the count?

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.

Can Bucky the Wonder who is strip down to his Captain America and Barney the Dinosaur underroos, escape the EVILLLLL hobgoblin camp silently? yes. and tinkle in the hobgoblins beer on the way out depend on his code.
Can he acquire his gear? Yes. no matter what his code.
Must he wake the evil Chief Harry Plotter of Hobgobwarts Clan and challenge him to single combat? Depends on his level, his code, the player's view, his dm's views. Since he was low level enough to get capture and about to be served up as Pickled Paladin Relish to an EVIL god. No. No. he too low level to take the Chief and his clan out single handed.

Preach on, Brother Jasper!

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not saying my premise was correct, but I'm also not sure the DL sourcebooks got it right.

Obviously, the writers wanted the 2 characters to be diametrically opposed.

Raistlin was given to introspection, Caramon was not. If I recall, C was also more impulsive.

So i'd have pegged C as CG and R as LE in keeping with the design goal and their behaviors.

Really, the Lawful/Chaotic axis as presented in the rulebooks is junk. Any sweeping statement "This is Lawful, that is Chaotic" is contradicted by the rules... even if that statement is in the rules. Law and Chaos have been defined several different ways, often within the same book and even on the same page:

• Lawful is methodical, Chaotic is impulsive.
• Lawful prefers to work in a large community, Chaotic prefers to work alone or in a small group.
• Lawful behaves according to a code, Chaotic behaves according to the situation.
• Lawful puts the community first, Chaotic puts the individual first.
• Lawful supports the cosmic force of order, Chaotic supports the cosmic force of entropy.

These are all quite distinct definitions of the Law/Chaos axis, and you'll get radically different "reads" on a character depending on which you use. Raistlin is methodical, so he's Lawful. But he prefers to work alone, so he's Chaotic. But he has a code of behavior, so he's Lawful. But he puts the individual ahead of the community, so he's Chaotic. He wants to be master of the cosmic order, yet his actions produce total cosmic entropy, so... Neutral?

Caramon is impulsive and behaves situationally. But he prefers to work in a large community and puts the community first.

Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish, of "A Song of Ice and Fire," is methodical and prefers to work in a large community. But he puts the individual first and behaves situationally.

Luke Skywalker is impulsive, behaves situationally, and seems to prefer working alone or in a small group. But he puts the community first.

Et cetera.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Really, the Lawful/Chaotic axis as presented in the rulebooks is junk. Any sweeping statement "This is Lawful, that is Chaotic" is contradicted by the rules... even if that statement is in the rules. Law and Chaos have been defined several different ways, often within the same book and even on the same page:

• Lawful is methodical, Chaotic is impulsive.
• Lawful prefers to work in a large organization, Chaotic prefers to work alone or in a small group.
• Lawful behaves according to a code, Chaotic behaves according to the situation.
• Lawful puts the community first, Chaotic puts the individual first.
• Lawful supports the cosmic force of order, Chaotic supports the cosmic force of entropy.

These are all quite distinct definitions of the Law/Chaos axis, and you'll get radically different "reads" on a character depending on which you use. Raistlin is methodical, so he's Lawful. But he prefers to work alone, so he's Chaotic. But he has a code of behavior, so he's Lawful. But he puts the individual ahead of the community, so he's Chaotic. He wants to be master of the cosmic order, yet his actions produce total cosmic entropy, so... Neutral?

Some food for thought in regards to the Law/Chaos axis. One of the most popular evil races in the FR campaign setting are the Drow and we all know they are generally CE in alignment. Yet they have a thriving city, they are very impulsive, but yet they are methodical as anyone who has read the books on them know from their schemes to gain more power. They have large cities so the "prefers to work alone" doesn't really mean anything here, they have three academies and learn in them to better themselves even if it's just to gain more personal power. They even have their own sick codes of conduct (especially within their own Houses) even if they put their individual needs ahead of that of the collective. They will still work together when threatened or when they want to gain something such as waging war on Dwarves.

So as you've pointed out in the bottom paragraph there are a lot of extremes and reads on characters and I agree the axis is junk.

 

[Celebrim]

Really, the Lawful/Chaotic axis as presented in the rulebooks is junk. Any sweeping statement "This is Lawful, that is Chaotic" is contradicted by the rules... even if that statement is in the rules. Law and Chaos have been defined several different ways, often within the same book and even on the same page:

• Lawful is methodical, Chaotic is impulsive.
• Lawful prefers to work in a large community, Chaotic prefers to work alone or in a small group.
• Lawful behaves according to a code, Chaotic behaves according to the situation.
• Lawful puts the community first, Chaotic puts the individual first.
• Lawful supports the cosmic force of order, Chaotic supports the cosmic force of entropy.

These are all quite distinct definitions of the Law/Chaos axis, and you'll get radically different "reads" on a character depending on which you use.

Yes, this is true and one of the most important points you can make about the alignment system.

To a fairly large extent, the same sort of confusion exists around the description of the Good/Evil axis.

So anyone who considers the alignment system must do one of the following:

1) Play with a loose intuitive understanding of it, but don't pay too much attention to it. This will mean you will need to either avoid characters whose behavior depends on precise understanding of the system (like Paladins), because if you have those sorts of characters it will lead to arguments or play those characters anyway but pay only loose attention to alignment issues anyway. Or play those chracters and argue about it. Most groups probably do this.
2) Note the description given amongst the various books and examples is junk because as described, it gives no useful information about the character. Drop alignment as useless. Get on the internet and complain bitterly about the alignment system whenever it is mentioned. This is probably the second most popular option.
3) Decide that the problem is not that alignment can't describe something really interesting and useful, but rather that the people writing about the subject were coming from too many different perspectives or simply didn't have a lot of deep understanding of the problem, or if they did - weren't able to convey. On the basis of what is hinted at by the terms and the games discussion of them, work out for yourself an internally consistant description of the alignments that provides useful information while doesn't constrain you to playing unrealistic sterotypes. Get on the internet. Engage in heated discussions with the people in group #2 above about the utility of alignment. This is probably the second most popular option.
4) Decide that descriptions aren't internally contridictory afterall and that the game really intends for you to play simplisticfantasy sterotypes. Therefore all lawfuls are methodical, work in large communities, put others first, serve the forces of order, and have a code they are following, while all chaotics are the complete opposite - impulsive, loners, who put themselves first, have situational ethics, and serve the forces of chaos. This is probably a more common take than some people realize, its just that the groups doing this can be superficially similar to group #1 or even group #3. Indeed, arguably this is exactly the way that the D&D Basic game with its single axis of law/chaos intends characters to be played.

I'm in group #3. I think that the two axis alignment system is very fascinating, but that you can hardly blame people for throwing it out given how poorly its been explained and developed over the years. Since I had to work out the system early on, I went with just the very basic descriptions in the 1st edition PH and worked out a complex system on that basis on my own. Of the above ways the law/chaos axis have been described, none are sufficient, some are confusing, and in most cases they are irrelevant as I see the axis.

 

[Celebrim]

Some food for thought in regards to the Law/Chaos axis. One of the most popular evil races in the FR campaign setting are the Drow and we all know they are generally CE in alignment.

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.