Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[DungeonmasterCal]

Read Oath Of Gold or the Deed of Paksenarrion by Elisabeth Moon. It has what I consider the definitive word on traditional paladins.

I love those books. It's been years since I read them, but I may have to dig them out and do so again. IMO, Moon really did create the ideal paladin.

 

[robertsconley]

Our games dont use alignment (Arcana Evolved/D&D hybrid), and the players have mature, in-character discussions on eithics, morality, religion, etc. Some characters are more merciful, some are more honorable, but there is no litmus test for determining if someone is "good" or "evil". Indeed, their adventures have brought them into conflict with both sides of the classic D&D spectrum. None of this would be helped by adding a dated and juvenile concept like alignment. There's a reason peopel frequently create "what alignment is this character" threads - its not a very good descriptor to begin with, particularly if the character has complex motivations. People whine about D&D being dumbed down by WOTC? Hell, D&D's sacred cows dumb it down to a kiddie style game to begin with.

Granted I agreed with you. Also granted that we don't know the full circumstance of the campaign in which this incident took place.

But if we use the concept of alignment as given in the spirit of the original rules and the concept of paladin, orcs,etc in the spirit of the original rules. Is the paladin acting like a paladin?

My own answer is by the rules he is.

Because

a) the Orc is Evil.
b) Paladin is the champion of GOOD.

The paladin being the champion of Good overrides all other consideration. His lawful oath is to the force of good not to a party, lord, or king. In a situation where there conflicting resolution then a paladin's oath to good takes precedence.

In this case means running down the clearly evil Orc so he can't breed or support his evil children that will venture forth and slay hapless farmers and travellers. This is despite the wishes of the party because his oath to good outweigh his oath to support the party and its leadership.

Of course if you don't like the traditional paladin then it perfectly alright to make a campaign with different codes, and a different treatment of alignment.

But in a world where gods and forces are real and give power to true believers you will have the "paladin" problem. There will be characters (good, evil, lawful, chaotic, whatever) who will be champions of these gods and powers and their oath will always be to them first. And they will be REWARDED for follow that oath and PUNISHED for failing to uphold that oath. That of course if your campaign has such champtions.

This is what makes traditional paladins a pain in the ass to those who deal with them. They are so damn uncompromising. Chosen to follow a call that few others will willingly take up. Willing to sacrifice everything including thier own life for the sake of the cause of good. That what the traditional paladin represents.

In this particular case the paladin sacrificed his good standing with the party in order to prevent the evil aligned orc from ever again commiting another act.

 

[Umbran]

Not really, its a crappy rule that causes WAY too many arguments in all but the best run games (where its unnecessary to begin with), and its time to be ditched. If not liking a poorly thought out game rule constitutes a "chip" then yes.

Consider, ehren37, that you have just called a major game concept "juvenile".

The implication is that you are an authority on maturity, and have a right to proclaim that other ways of playing the game are immature. To folks who like alignment, this can easily come off as being pretty "high horse", and rather insulting.

Dislike aspects of the game all you like, but please remain respectful of other people, and how they like to play.

 

[delericho]

Our games dont use alignment (Arcana Evolved/D&D hybrid), and the players have mature, in-character discussions on eithics, morality, religion, etc. Some characters are more merciful, some are more honorable, but there is no litmus test for determining if someone is "good" or "evil".

Good for you. I'll submit that your experience is far from universal. In my experience, having run many many games featuring alignment, and a similar number not featuring alignment, games which feature alignment are far more likely to spawn interesting debates about the nature of ethics and morality than those without. Putting those two little words on the character sheet has a way of focusing attention on such matters, while simply omitting them tends to lead to morality simply being sidelined throughout the game. Characters operate under a morality of expedience, and don't give a second thought to the wider implications of their actions.

There is value in running games without alignment. But they have a distinctly different feel to them than games featuring alignment. As such, the use of alignment can be considered a stylistic choice, and as such the use of alignment has merit. You may choose to discard it, but doing so is because of your opinion, and should not be confused with an objective measure of the value of the alignment system.

None of this would be helped by adding a dated and juvenile concept like alignment.

Alignment works for some games. It doesn't work for others. That doesn't make the concept "dated and juvenile". Unless, of course, you consider ethics and morality "dated and juvenile".

There's a reason peopel frequently create "what alignment is this character" threads - its not a very good descriptor to begin with, particularly if the character has complex motivations.

It's a coarse measure. A sundial rather than an atomic clock, if you will. And since mankind as a whole has not been able to objectively quantify good and evil, it's hardly surprising that the extremely small subset that is D&D players have not yet resolved the issue.

People whine about D&D being dumbed down by WOTC? Hell, D&D's sacred cows dumb it down to a kiddie style game to begin with.

Funny, I've been using alignment for years, and there's nothing kiddie-style about my games. I'm sure others have had similar experiences. I guess sacred cow just doesn't agree with you.

Alignment is 2 words written on your sheet,

And a marriage certificate is just a bit of paper. It's the meaning that these things have that is important. I'm sure any newlywed couple will agree.

 

[delericho]

But if we use the concept of alignment as given in the spirit of the original rules and the concept of paladin, orcs,etc in the spirit of the original rules. Is the paladin acting like a paladin?

My own answer is by the rules he is.

Because

a) the Orc is Evil.
b) Paladin is the champion of GOOD.

The paladin being the champion of Good overrides all other consideration. His lawful oath is to the force of good not to a party, lord, or king. In a situation where there conflicting resolution then a paladin's oath to good takes precedence.

The paladin is also required to be lawful, and that's where she's running into problems. Had the paladin not allowed her group to make the deal with the orc, and conducted the 'trial' and execution, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as the paladin makes the deal, she's bound to it. Otherwise, she's behaving with less honour than the orc, which can't be considered right.

And by not speaking up when the party made the deal, the paladin consented to it.

 

[delericho]

I agree, your "I'll do..." statement is very chaotic, however I don't agree thats what the Paladin likely was saying. "I'll follow my code no matter what you guys want." is probably more accurate and that is not a chaotic attitude, that is lawful.

You can respect a decision made by a party member and not consider yourself bound to it if it violates your code, because to do so would be to sacrifice your entire class. Just because you can't agree to abide by party decisions that would cause you to forfeit your class, doesn't mean you are being disloyal.

Abiding by the party's decision would not threaten the paladin's status, so that argument is moot. Furthermore, the 'party's decision' here is something to consider: isn't the paladin part of the party? As such, didn't she have the opportunity to influence that decision? What's more, if she felt so strongly about it, why didn't she simply veto the decision? All it would have taken is a statement that "if you don't kill this orc, I will".

No, the paladin stayed silent because it was convenient to let the orc think he was going to live. When she had no further use for it, she reneged on the deal she struck (or, by not opposing, consented to). And that's chaotic.

Depends on the alignement of the party, if they are all chaotic neutral, a Paladin could be seconds from attacking them for some of their actions and decisions

Now, why is it that in-party alignment differences always seem to be seconds away from violence? If the relationships within the party are so strained that that's the case, how can they possibly hold together long-term? (I see this frequently in paladin threads. I see it frequently in threads where one party member has knifed another in his sleep over some trivial matter. It's crazy. To survive long-term, a party simply must trust one another, probably with their lives, and that doesn't really allow one or more members to be "seconds from attacking" one another, no matter their alignments.)

Some more information would go a long way to making it more clear as to what was really going on from a wider perspective and not just how the OP was interpreting what the Paladin was thinking/agreed to.

If more information becomes available, I may revise my assessment, as happened in two of the "Is this fair" threads. However, given the scenario as presented, the paladin took a distinctly chaotic (and non-good) act. In itself, that doesn't matter too much, but a pattern of such actions calls for an alignment shift, and the fall from grace that goes with it.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Granted I agreed with you. Also granted that we don't know the full circumstance of the campaign in which this incident took place.

But if we use the concept of alignment as given in the spirit of the original rules and the concept of paladin, orcs,etc in the spirit of the original rules. Is the paladin acting like a paladin?

My own answer is by the rules he is.

Because

a) the Orc is Evil.
b) Paladin is the champion of GOOD.

It's probably within the range of paladin behavior.

However, the player shouldn't play his PC in a way that will just tick people off.

Also, this logically ends up making the paladin a bad person, which seems wrong.

The paladin being the champion of Good overrides all other consideration. His lawful oath is to the force of good not to a party, lord, or king. In a situation where there conflicting resolution then a paladin's oath to good takes precedence.

You seem to be assuming that there is only one answer that is GOOD.

There are probably multiple answers consistent with the ideal of GOOD, some of them mutually contradictory.

In this case means running down the clearly evil Orc so he can't breed or support his evil children that will venture forth and slay hapless farmers and travellers. This is despite the wishes of the party because his oath to good outweigh his oath to support the party and its leadership.

His "evil children"?

You don't seem to hold out much odds on the orc learning his lesson.

What if a successful Sense Motive roll had shown the Orc meant what he said about reforming? Would that change things?

Of course if you don't like the traditional paladin then it perfectly alright to make a campaign with different codes, and a different treatment of alignment.

Or chose to emphasize other aspects of GOOD.

But in a world where gods and forces are real and give power to true believers you will have the "paladin" problem. There will be characters (good, evil, lawful, chaotic, whatever) who will be champions of these gods and powers and their oath will always be to them first. And they will be REWARDED for follow that oath and PUNISHED for failing to uphold that oath. That of course if your campaign has such champtions.

Paladins do what they views as the right thing, because they view it as the right thing. That some force or entity chooses to assist them with power is purely a nice bonus.

In this particular case the paladin sacrificed his good standing with the party in order to prevent the evil aligned orc from ever again commiting another act.

Ever committing another act, good or evil.

 

[Halivar]

The paladin is also required to be lawful, and that's where she's running into problems. Had the paladin not allowed her group to make the deal with the orc, and conducted the 'trial' and execution, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as the paladin makes the deal, she's bound to it. Otherwise, she's behaving with less honour than the orc, which can't be considered right.

And by not speaking up when the party made the deal, the paladin consented to it.

To which my orc-killing paladin replies, "I'm a paladin, not a lawyer."

After all, all lawyers are inherently LE.

 

[sckeener]

Mercy

The paladin is guilty....from Book of Exalted Deeds

MERCY
For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme — respecting and honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter
and become merciless.

A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible.​

 

[Deuce Traveler]

To which my orc-killing paladin replies, "I'm a paladin, not a lawyer."

After all, all lawyers are inherently LE.

Beautiful.