DM's and their Paladins

[Altamont Ravenard]

1. A paladin may not injure an innocent or, through inaction, allow an innocent to come to harm.

2. A paladin must obey orders given it by military, civic and church leaders except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A paladin must protect his or her own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

lol isn't this a rip-off of the 3 laws of robotics?

1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

(oops missed the part where you said they might look familiar)

I play a gnome paladin in a campaign, which is very new to me, since I usually play neutral rogue/fighters... I am not the group leader (we have a bard and/or a swashbuckler to fill that niche). I am not a crusader against evil. I'm just a gnome riding a dog that will do what he can to further the cause of good. I'd rather play tricks and tease evil people than strike them down, and I'll see that no lives are wasted before I charge the BBEG.

AR

 

[Kemrain]

(It should look familiar)

I Paladin, anyone?
Asamov would be Proud.

- Kemrain the Positronic.

 

[The_Gunslinger658]

Oh my gawd, a Gnome Paladin, thats just plain blasphamy

Scott

I play a gnome paladin in a campaign, which is very new to me, since I usually play neutral rogue/fighters... I am not the group leader (we have a bard and/or a swashbuckler to fill that niche). I am not a crusader against evil. I'm just a gnome riding a dog that will do what he can to further the cause of good. I'd rather play tricks and tease evil people than strike them down, and I'll see that no lives are wasted before I charge the BBEG.

AR

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Let me add: Philosophers: Immanuel Kant (LG), G. W. F. Hegel (LG), Thomas Aquinas (LG), Socrates (LG), Cicero (LG or LN), John Locke (NG), John Stuart Mill (NG), Karl Marx (CG or NE, depending on how you read him), Friedrich Nietsche (CN or CE, depending on how you read him), Spinoza (N), Rousseau (CN), Voltaire (CG), Lenin (LE, though he was not REALLY a philosopher), Bertrand Russel (NG), Sartre (CG to CN, depending on how he's read)

So, anyway, you can see that, if you know these figures, the alignments are open to a number of different interpretations. I'll be thinking of more examples overnight.

Though this is very off topic for the thread, I'm not so sure I'd characterize Nietzsche as CN or CE, at least based on a Straussian interpretation, which would land closer to a very peculiar LN. I'd go as far as saying he could be interpreted from about any alignment, given that Nietzsche is just shy of being a philosophical ink-blot (compare the Straussian, Heideggerian, and Kaufmann interpretations- yipes!). Nor would Socrates necessarily be LG- I'd say closer to CG, especially if Aristophanes' interpretation has any bearing on the matter.

Okay, enough philosophy geeking, back to paladins...

Judge Dredd and Dirty Harry are most definitely NOT archetypes I'd suggest for Paladins. Aragorn or Qui-Gon Jinn, perhaps. Though my game probably has a flavor slightly different from yours.

As for racial restrictions- though I agree that their removal in 3e was generally a good move, that doesn't mean that any class is necessarily appropriate for all races in a given setting. In my setting, for instance, there are two elven subraces- a Paladin from one would be a possible character, but would be highly unlikely coming from another. In my setting, only humans and half-elves can be wizards- wizardry was a human invention, and a relatively recent one. Members of other races could, in theory, learn wizardry, but they have their own magical traditions (Runes and clerical magic for the dwarves, clerical, bardic, druidic, sorcerous and witchcraft among the elves, shamans among the orcs, etc)... it just wouldn't happen. In theory, it *could* happen, though I think that this flattening out of class/race distinctions is another anachronistic, modern attitude being projected into D&D, and doesn't really fit with my setting. YMMV.

 

[Henry]

Jester47, that Aasimovian Paladin bit is beautiful, and yet, dead-on accurate. Thank you!

 

[Kelleris]

Let me add: Philosophers: Immanuel Kant (LG), G. W. F. Hegel (LG), Thomas Aquinas (LG), Socrates (LG), Cicero (LG or LN), John Locke (NG), John Stuart Mill (NG), Karl Marx (CG or NE, depending on how you read him), Friedrich Nietsche (CN or CE, depending on how you read him), Spinoza (N), Rousseau (CN), Voltaire (CG), Lenin (LE, though he was not REALLY a philosopher), Bertrand Russel (NG), Sartre (CG to CN, depending on how he's read)

I'd also argue for some slightly different interpretations here. Hegel strikes me as LN more than anything, especially in his Philosophy of Right. Bertrand Russell was almost definitely not good, though his philosophy might be. Personally, he was kinda scuzzy, so I'd say N. Kant was way more lawful than good as a person - you could set your watch by his schedule. And even besides that, the categorical imperative is more of a law than a moral guideline; it's really quite inflexible. And what about David Hume?

As far as paladins go, I have no experience. My chaotic neutral just-barely-heroic PCs chase them all off.

 

[jester47]

Jester47, that Aasimovian Paladin bit is beautiful, and yet, dead-on accurate. Thank you!

You're welcome. I got the idea when I went to see the "I, Robot" movie. I was thinking about the robots and I was like "Wow, its like a race of Paladins."

Then the wheels started turning... It makes sense. Humanity does not want to have to fear the robots, so they force the robots to be good. The robots are by nature lawful, so hey...

Its simple, easy to remember, and lets paladins kill stuff. Whats not to like!

Furthermore there is so much written on how the laws are interpreted it gives players and DMs lots to work with. Like when a superior is insane, or does not realise the implications of his orders, do you take thier orders? Is injuring an innocent ok if it protects them from greater harm(like knocking them out of the way). It also allows a Paladin to take up a cause like robin hoods. I was startled by its simplicty and depth myself.

EDIT: And changing it from robots to people makes it somthing that can be broken. A paladin can turn his back on innocents, a robot cannot turn its back on a human. Chainging it from humans to innocents also allows the paladin to put the smack down on those who would harm the innocent.

EDIT EDIT: I think it is much easier for a game than using somthing like the Boy Scout Oath and Law.

Aaron.

 

[Delemental]

Jester47, that Aasimovian Paladin bit is beautiful, and yet, dead-on accurate. Thank you!

Skimming through this, I could've sworn it read "Pavlovian Paladin" until I looker closer at it.

Pavlovian Paladin: does good every time the bell rings.