A Paladin's Fall From Righteousness?

[The Sigil]

At the end of the day, there's only one thing that matters to determine if Bronwyn is in trouble or not.

It's not what I think, or what {insert name here} thinks, or what anyone else thinks of Bronwyn's actions.

It's not what Vandor would think of Bronwyn's actions (he's a bit emotionally involved anyway and couldn't be trusted to get the response right).

It's not even what Bronwyn thinks of her actions (she's also too emotionally involved to get it right).

The only thing that matters - and the only criteria that can be used is: WHAT DOES BRONWYN'S DEITY THINK OF ALL THIS?

If the deity thinks she's in trouble, she's in trouble - the deity is the source of her powers and can cut them off should she be out of line. If the deity is not of the opinion that she's in trouble, she's not.

Only Shark can tell us what the deity thinks. Though if I were the deity, she'd be in serious need of an atonement spell and one or two more "strikes" away from "stripped and banned from even being eligble to reclaim her powers again."

But then, I'd probably be a fire-and-brimstone kind of deity if I were the deity of war and strength, so maybe I'm a bit too harsh. But if you want to take up the mantle of paladinhood with me as your deity, you'd better be darn sure of your choice and never let anything - especially your emotional involvement with someone else - ANYONE else (especially someone you're sexually involved with) cloud your vision of the road I, your deity, set before you.

--The Sigil

 

[Halivar]

I just wanted to state that the paladin's ethical guidelines are NOT dependent on the deity. They very fact that a paladin may not have an deity at all is somewhat indicative of that. The PHB seems to indicate that, unlike clerics, paladins may favor deities, but do not directly receive their abilities from them.

Rather, the paladin's powers come from self-righteousness and an unswerving adherence to a strictly LG ethical and moral code. The fact that Bronwyn worships a deity who does not frown on promiscuity has nothing to do with the issue, since her powers do not come from that deity.

Anyone disagree? I base my opinion out of the class description for the Paladin in the PHB.

 

[aurance]

The DMG implies that the standard D&D game is one without complex moral/ethical issues (check out the orc babies paragraphs). The paladin code is written with that in mind.

I'm firmly of the opinion that in a more "realistic" campaign with real, difficult moral ambiguities, paladins should be given much more lattitude; otherwise, you quickly run into "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations that you just wouldn't encounter in a standard D&D campaign. Paladins would be dropping out of the class left and right.

It should be difficult to play a paladin but it shouldn't be so difficult that you should have to agonize over moral trivialities all the time. It is a game, after all.

-A

 

[Umbran]

Actually I would think the perspective of the power granting the paladin power was more relevant than the character's home culture...

Presumably, thge character was taught the Code and it's interpretation by some member of her home culture. And the power granted paladin status based upon her understanding and behavior at that time. So continuing on under the same guidelines she was originally taught should cause her no problems.

Unless the power granting paladin status wants to change the rules without telling her, behaving as she did (or would have) when she was originally granted Paladinhood should be safe.

 

[Voadam]

One other thought WRT lying/deceiving her comrades... though it may be an Obi-Wan Kenobi line, IMO I should NEVER have hear this out of the mouth of a paladin...

"You see, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

--The Sigil

But, but, but he is THE Paladin, I wouldn't say "no force for you, that misleading truth is the dark side." I'd say, good job answering the call to action against evil (big picture view).

 

[Voadam]

Presumably, thge character was taught the Code and it's interpretation by some member of her home culture. And the power granted paladin status based upon her understanding and behavior at that time. So continuing on under the same guidelines she was originally taught should cause her no problems.

Unless the power granting paladin status wants to change the rules without telling her, behaving as she did (or would have) when she was originally granted Paladinhood should be safe.

Religious orders can have very different views from the home culture they reside within.

Also, a person who is called by God may be tasked with going against the existing culture, such as a prophet pointing out a culture's decadence or again Joan of Arc taking up arms.

How a paladin is taught is generally campaign specific (order of knights that trains young paladins, God calling directly, just feeling the need to do good). It does not necessarily have to coincide with her parent culture's values.

I agree that changing the rules after the fact is bad form.

 

[Umbran]

It does not necessarily have to coincide with her parent culture's values.

It doesn't have to, no. But since the religions shape the culture, and vice versa, to have the teachings of an order that is accepted within her culture be completely contrary to that culture is unlikely. One reasonably expects the interpretation of religious law to roughly coincide with the values found within the culture.

The paladin is supposed to be the epitome of righteousness, right? So, what does the culture think is righteous?

 

[Voadam]

It doesn't have to, no. But since the religions shape the culture, and vice versa, to have the teachings of an order that is accepted within her culture be completely contrary to that culture is unlikely. One reasonably expects the interpretation of religious law to roughly coincide with the values found within the culture.

I'd have to disagree with you, many religious orders put restrictions on their members to separate them from the normal worldly culture they come from. Monastic orders with celibacy restrictions or vows of silence do not mean that talking is frowned upon in normal society or that normal people are expected to be celibate their whole lives.