Because the source of the power lies within the precepts defined by good and it withdraws if the recipient commits an act within the precepts of evil -- I see no reason to present these forces as intelligent. They are in effect forms of elemental forces found in the D&D universe.
First, thanks for the reply. This actually makes sense to me as a cosmological set-up: good and evil aren't "values" or "aspirations" or "ideals" at all; they are just forces constituted by lists of requirements and permissions.
Personally, this isn't very attractive to me, because the actual lists seem somewhat arbitrary, in so far as they make no pretence to being motivated or generated by reference to some genuine higher ideal. I have always thought of reverence of a being like Imix as something like a sign of madness - what sensible person reveres elemental fire for its own sake? Your approach makes paladins (and clerics) too much like Imix worshippers (though perhaps less dangerous) for my taste.
The religious adherents, saints and paladins (both in the real world and from story and legend) revere the divinity/"providential force" that they do precisely because that force is (supremely) intelligent as well as perfect in its motivations and its appreciation of values. They are called to an ideal that presents itself as a genuine one, not as a somewhat arbitrary list.
Better Knight, or better Paladin? The two need not be the same.
Within the default D&D context they are exactly the same. Likewise within Dragonlance, and Tolkien, and Arthurian legend, and real-world attitudes of the high mediaeval upper class.
And here are some relevant quotes:
AD&D 2nd ed PHB, reprinted version
The paladin is a warrior bold and pure, the exemplar of everything good and true. . . T]he paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry.
Pathfinder SRD
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. . . Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
OSRIC p 18
The Paladin class in OSRIC superficially resembles such legendary warriors as Sir Galahad or Sir Gawaine of the Arthurian cyclecycle, but is more closely similar to characters described in the works of Poul Anderson. His “Three Hearts and Three Lions” [a book which draws extensively upon the tropes of Arthurian and Carolingian romance] is particularly highly recommended.
4e PHB pp 89-91:
Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. . . As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. . . Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins. Most of these rites involve days of prayer, vigils, tests and trials, and ritual purification followed by a knighting ceremony . . .
And of course both in Unearthed Arcana from AD&D, and in Essentials 4e, paladins are described as
cavaliers - which is a synonym for "knight".
But even if one thought that not all paladins were knights, how would that alter my point that Sturm Brightlblade is an example, at the heart of D&D canon, of fetishistic adherence to pointless rules being seen as a vice rather than a virtue, and hence not a marker of goodness?
did we set out to play a game where providence is real, or an REH model sword & sorcery world?
I don't know - but if it is established from the start that the gameworld is one without divine providence, what is a paladin even doing in that gameworld?
Whereas for me the matter is actually flipped around: default D&D permits the paladin as a class, and therefore has to leave open the rationality of being a paladin (otherwise the player of a paladin is being set up to lose from the get-go), and therefore has to leave open the question of divine providence. And for me, that is all I need - that the matter is left open. The players can sort out the details, and resolve the question, in play.
you playing a Paladin <snip> If the other Paladin keeps his powers, then yours must be wrong about torture being evil. If yours keeps his powers, then he is wrong about your actions being evil
Why? Divine beings move in mysterious ways (recall Job, and also the prodigal son). Perhaps providence has plans for this erring paladin that haven't been revealed yet, but that will be in due course.
It would be a sin of pride and a failing of humility to presume to judge in these circumstances! And of course you can always talk to the other player, whether in character or out of it.
And in case you think I'm just making all this up, this is exactly the approach taken by the paladin of the Raven Queen in my game to the "backsliding" invoker-wizard. Why does the Raven Queen keep him around and powered up? Because he's going to be useful in some grand scheme some day! It just hasn't been fully revealed yet.
pemerton said:
if N'raac as GM believes that killing in defence of others is never good, then a paladin who keeps doing that will probably drift away from LG towards LN. If the GM "addresses" this with the player, that strikes me as pretty close to the GM telling the player how to play a paladin. The player has two choices: stop playing a paladin; or play a paladin in the way the GM thinks is fitting. To me, this is no different from the GM telling the player of the thief that his/her PC is not sneaky enough, and so is going to have to forcibly change class to a fighter (but one who forevermore can use only leather armour).
You are conflating player with game role.
What do you mean by "game role"?
I no more have to bring my personal morality to the table as GM than I as a player must share my character’s belief system.
Who said that you do?
But how does this bear on the fact that if the GM tells the player that s/he is engaging in action that is drifting away from LG to LN, and hence that his/her PC's paladin status is in jeopardy, this
is telling the player how to play a paladin. Playing a LG PC is part and parcel of what it is to play a paladin, just as playing a sneaky PC is part and parcel of what it is to play a thief. Telling the player how to be honourable is not fundamentally different from telling a player how to be sneaky.
up front communication is the key
To what? It can be the key to making sure the player knows how the GM expects him/her to play a paladin. That doesn't speak to my contention, though, that the GM telling the player of a paladin (upfront or otherwise) how s/he must play to successfully be honourable is not very different, as far as I can see, from the GM telling the player of a thief (upfront or otherwise) how s/he must play to successfully be sneaky.
From my point of view all of that is the player's gig - part of playing the PC in accordance with the player's conception of it.
For someone who has said he does not want to bring his day job to the gaming table, it sure shows up a lot in your discussions of the gaming table.
Huh? Once again you seem to have mistaken me for you.
You are the one who is asking these questions about whether or not defensive violence is good or evil if perpetrated by someone who wants that assailant dead anyway (in post 1176). I just offered an answer to your question - but I didn't write that answer to adjudicate a D&D game, I can assure you! If you didn't want the question answered, why did you ask it? If you don't think moral philosophy is the best way to answer it, what alternative method do you suggest?
Because I don't play with mechanical alignment I don't need to answer that question before I play the game. I don't need to tell my player what s/he can or cannot do if s/he wants a PC to remain a paladin. As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has articulated pretty clearly, I want these matters, if they come up, to be addressed by the players in the course of play.
I really don't think the game table is the place to name drop or get swept up in philosophical jargon.
Luckily I'm not at the game table. I'm on a discussion board discussing things (including by answering a question which was put to me by another poster).
