Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[robertsconley]

So are you saying that I could create the following Paladin:

She claims is that she herself is the only legitimate authority and that therefore she is infallible. Also, she is the ultimate arbiter as to whether another being must be destroyed.

You miss the point. Her paladin isn't the ultimate arbiter. A paladin is a SERVANT of good. A paladin heeds the call of good. But good is the one that directs the paladin.

This doesn't mean the paladin needs to abandon reason or is just some type of automaton. What is means that the paladin is receiving guidance in the form of her detect evil, and direction in prayer or commune from those she follows. A true paladin never acting alone and on a whim.

In practical terms that means a DM can define what is "good" for a paladin in his game by how detect evil, prayer, and commune works. A playing a traditional paladin means that you rely on the input of higher powers. A paladin's judgement comes into play when she decide how to best fulfill the goals her call outlines.

This supercedes party loyalty, fealty to kings, etc. Again traditional paladins answer to good and good alone.

 

[robertsconley]

I been arguing on the basis of what a TRADITIONAL paladin is. I.e. the setting less paladin that is presented in the core rule books.

A lot of the arguments are over details. What the various WoTC books say, what does FR says, etc, etc. And they are just that, details. What really sets a paladin apart is their faith. Faith to follow their god, creed, or philosphy and becomes it champion. That it. So the detail flow from the specific god, creed, or philosphy.

So what is the philopshy of good and evil behind the core D&D books. Answer that then you answer what a traditional paladin does. As for the specific incident that started this thread you need to ask what is the philopshy behind good and evil in Forgotten Realm. Which from what I understand stems from what god the paladin follows.

Understand that the concept behind the paladin isn't novel or special. Clerics are supposed to have the exact same issue. The main differences that by the core rules there are clerics of every alignment and that broad role of a paladin is to be the champion (i.e. confront the enemy) while the cleric's role is to be the pastor (i.e. protect and nurture the flock).

While I do run D20 most of my games are run using GURPS. There are no alignments in GURPS but in my campaign there are strong convinctions. The defining characteristic of paladin-types is to be the champion of their god and follow the call. Indeed I have not only Paladins but a group known as Myrimdons who are the paladin's counter parts following the major "lawful evil" diety of my game.

When I run D20 I use alignments as labels not absolute, what counts more is the cultural and religious backgroud of the characters.

Now this seems to bit contrary to what I was arguing about paladins before. But the core D&D rules have their own philosphy of good and evil that woven into it. There is absolute good, absolute evil, and the PC races occupy a broad grey range between the two. That even tho PC races have free will and choose there is a point where they become so committed that they are consider irredeemable lost to that side. For example a human Evil High Priest vs a elven paladin.

I admit there are points for alternative views for the philosphy that the core rules give. After all it not like D&D is meant as a work on good and evil but rather uses it as a means of structuring a game. But if you look at the history of D&D and the myths that it was founded on there are elements that help define what a traditional D&D paladin.

From there you get all the different campaigns that are run, and the differences that are found in published campaigns like Ebberron, FR, Greyhawk, etc.

 

[tonym]

I stood my ground, and asked if she was prepared to strike me down. She backed off.

Aha. Sounds like your PC was being a jerk to the paladin. Now it all makes sense.

You knew darn well that the paladin wanted that orc dead, but you went ahead and put that paladin in a sticky situation.

When a paladin enters a party of adventurers, the party TACITLY AGREES that the paladin does not get put into sticky situation by jerky PCs. And if a jerky PC thoughtlessly puts the paladin in such a situation, the paladin should not be criticized for getting herself out of the situation.

You knew you were angering the paladin and knew the paladin wanted the orc dead, but you went ahead and concocted a difficult situation. You should have done a much better job of getting information from the orc.

If I was running the paladin, I would've had her say to your PC, "Those who aid evil, may find themselves killed by the same blessed sword of justice," or some other threat to make it clear that the paladin HAS to follow her code, and to interfere with it is to imperil yourself.

Tony M

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

New info, some new points:

First, the setting: If the paladin follows Tyr, then they're going to have about the harshest interpretation of law and order and the least tolerance for chaotic and/or evil shenanigans of anybody around, so from a certain point of view that's to be expected. Doesn't mean they can use that to excuse un-paladin-worthy behavior - they're held to a different standard then the mainstream clergy, no matter what deity they follow.

And if you're adventuring in Thar, then "local authority" is as good as non-existant. (This really didn't figure into my earlier thoughts, anyway, but it's worth noting.) Thar is about as grim and dangerous a frontier as you're likely to see. So "escorting to the friendly neighborhood lockup" is probably not an option.

However, by the same token, if you're in Thar, this was more than likely a gray orc (assuming your DM uses Monsters and/or Races of Faerun, or previous products describing this). Which throws the MM out the window. These are (for those of you who aren't familar with the setting) an etirely different breed, with a much greater intelligence and capacity for honor. I don't actually have the entry in front of me, but I believe they are listed as often NE or LE, one or the other. Still evil, granted, but the sticking point is that they're not automatically going to lie to save their skins. (Again, this is i your DM even uses these products.)

The real thing that's standing out here, for me, is that she actually threatened your character simply for conversing in a language she doesn't understand - this paints her as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill bully, far from a divine champion of justice. Again, the real problem here is not so much her conduct towards the orc, but towards the members of her own party. Unless this is an extremely short-lived alliance of convenience, a paladin should (ideally) hold few in higher regard than their brothers (and sisters) in arms, members of her order or not. And she is simply not honoring her fellow "soldiers", in any regard. (This, of course, based on what facts have been established so far.)

 

[sckeener]

"Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good."

I believe I covered that he can ignore mercy under the guise of law...but there is an and there. What innocent did he protect? In other words, the paladin broke the good part.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing...out of duty to some...deity.
​

Not counting Always X critters who are born with their alignment as is mentioned expressly, still no. That means all evil sentient beings arn't born good, they're born neutral.

ack...true....good catch.

While within the bounds of civilisation, the paladin will feel bound to accept the surrender of foes, and turn them over to the legitimate authorities for trial and punishment (unless the legitimate authorities are manifestly corrupt or grossly incompetent). And note that if the villain has repeatedly escaped from captivity to continue his evil deeds, the paladin may justly feel that the authorities are incompetent, and that the burden of administering justice does fall to her. At which point, if the just punishment is deemed to be execution, the paladin is free to carry out the sentence.

Isn't it better to work on finding out why the villians are escaping? I think I'd rather capture that escaped villian to figure out where the hole in the system is. What brings more order and good to the world, wiping up one drop (the escaped villian) or fixing the hole in the bucket (the criminal justice system?)

However, while in the wild (read: typical adventuring environment), the ability to transport captives to the legitimate authorities is curtailed. What's more, the paladin can consider herself to BE the legitimate authorities.

nope. Someone considers that their land and unless that paladin is part of that societies' justice system, they are just being vigilantes.

You knew darn well that the paladin wanted that orc dead, but you went ahead and put that paladin in a sticky situation.

When a paladin enters a party of adventurers, the party TACITLY AGREES that the paladin does not get put into sticky situation by jerky PCs. And if a jerky PC thoughtlessly puts the paladin in such a situation, the paladin should not be criticized for getting herself out of the situation.

actually I believe the player that put the paladin in that spot is CN. I am not sure what the other alignments are in the group. It is more likely that the paladin isn't in the correct group.

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.​

The real thing that's standing out here, for me, is that she actually threatened your character simply for conversing in a language she doesn't understand - this paints her as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill bully, far from a divine champion of justice.

Agreed.

Again, the real problem here is not so much her conduct towards the orc, but towards the members of her own party. Unless this is an extremely short-lived alliance of convenience, a paladin should (ideally) hold few in higher regard than their brothers (and sisters) in arms, members of her order or not. And she is simply not honoring her fellow "soldiers", in any regard.

the player is CN/g so of course the paladin and him are not going to get along. It sounds like either the paladin or the chaotics in the party shouldn't be together.

 

[Halivar]

Isn't it better to work on finding out why the villians are escaping? I think I'd rather capture that escaped villian to figure out where the hole in the system is. What brings more order and good to the world, wiping up one drop (the escaped villian) or fixing the hole in the bucket (the criminal justice system?)

That's a discussion that only comes into play (IMHO) if the paladin has an INT of 12 or higher.

nope. Someone considers that their land and unless that paladin is part of that societies' justice system, they are just being vigilantes.

What if it's orc land? Is the paladin required to take the orc before an orc tribunal, or something? You're also assuming that the paladin's code precludes vigilantism.

Lawful for a paladin means adhering to a strict code of ethics, not political legalism. A perfect example of a LG character adhering to a strict vigilante code is Batman (yeah, I know, I'm a nerd).

 

[delericho]

Isn't it better to work on finding out why the villians are escaping? I think I'd rather capture that escaped villian to figure out where the hole in the system is. What brings more order and good to the world, wiping up one drop (the escaped villian) or fixing the hole in the bucket (the criminal justice system?)

A smart paladin would want to do that also. However, reforming the system is probably a long-term goal, if it can be accomplished at all. In the meantime, there are all these evil villains who keep escaping. At some point, you have to deal with the symptoms of the problem, rather than always going for the root cause.

nope. Someone considers that their land and unless that paladin is part of that societies' justice system, they are just being vigilantes.

Yes, the land belongs to the orcish tribe that the party are currently in the process of rooting out. Somehow, I doubt the paladin should be considered bound to the rules and legal system of the tribe.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

true but they had to know everyone else had planed to let them go they should have spoken out its a breach of trust between the pcs and as i said earler small staps is all it takes to lead down the path of the great fall

And letting a murderer go free ISNT wrong?

 

[Thanatos]

So are you saying that I could create the following Paladin:

She claims is that she herself is the only legitimate authority and that therefore she is infallible.

no, no one said she claimed she was infallible. I reiterate, in a lawless place like Thar, a paladin is likely the legitimate authority.

Also, she is the ultimate arbiter as to whether another being must be destroyed.

I don't know about "ultimate arbiter" -- but if its evil, her code is clear.

In general, she kills most people she meets who are not 'in need' (since she must help them) because she finds fault in them and considers them to be dangerous and non-innocent, but she always does it in an aboveboard manner with honour (no lying, cheating, or poison use).

Are most people she meets evil monsters? then probably so. Fault is completely different then being evil in alignment.

Also, her exception to those 'in need' is broken for Chaotic or Evil people, of course. Even if they are legitimately in need, if they are Chaotic or Evil (including Chaotic Good), they are never helped, as they will use the aid for Chaotic or Evil ends. In fact, they are killed, as by virtue of being Chaotic or Evil, they are automatically dangerous enemies who put innocents in harms way by virtue of being alive.

No, the code doesn't say anything about "chaotic" people. Just evil...you are trying to lump something else in there that should not be. One of these things is not like the other. This has no bearing on the issue in any event, its another of your "What If's" like if there were 2 paladins in the party.

So in summary, here is how she reacts to other characters:

Thats just nonsense. You're making up slanted examples up to try and show your right. You have no idea how this character behaves towards other characters of other alignments and trying to show you do with skewed examples is silly when I can do the same thing right back showing my point.

 

[sckeener]

You're also assuming that the paladin's code precludes vigilantism.

Lawful for a paladin means adhering to a strict code of ethics, not political legalism. A perfect example of a LG character adhering to a strict vigilante code is Batman (yeah, I know, I'm a nerd).

I believe there are a few posts in the anti-hero thread that put Batman in the Anti-hero. IMHO I think anti-heros paladins shouldn't be paladins...maybe corrupt avengers (heroes of horror).

I mean in the early days of Batman he killed criminals.

Yes, the land belongs to the orcish tribe that the party is currently in the process of rooting out. Somehow, I doubt the paladin should be considered bound to the rules and legal system of the tribe.

True, though it doesn't mean the paladin couldn't hold on to him until they get to civilization. It means that the paladin viewed the inconvenience of having a prisoner as more trouble than taking a life.