D&D 5E I have the worst Paladin ever!

[Guest 6801328]

If a brothel is against the law, and the punishment is death, this paladin would have been perfectly within their alignment to burn the place and everyone in it to the ground.

Oh? Is the Paladin empowered to be judge, jury, and executioner?

I suppose if the laws of the land were "...and anybody with a strong suspicion of illegal activity may take matters into their own hands and kill suspects..." then, yes, he would be Lawful.

I've never been able to find any fun or satisfaction in roleplaying a cartoonishly "evil" character, let alone a psychopathic/sociopathic one like this. I usually don't return to tables where it's going on.

 

[BookBarbarian]

There's nothing wrong with playing an evil paladin as long as your table is having fun.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm failing to see the issue. Heck, my last party burned down an arena with 1000+ villagers in it to stop a slaad infestation.

 

[Phion]

I’ve never had a paladin with the mindset you describe at my table, so it’s definately not something inherent to the class.

Also, the Knights Templar were evil, sadistic, rapacious, looting, greedy, sick bastards. Everyone but the folks back home pretty much saw them that way to some extent (depending on how much they knew about Templar behavior), as well.

There was no time in history when OP’s acts wouldn’t be considered evil by a decent chunk of the population.

There have always, in every society and time, been people opposed to such acts.

Sorry, went a bit off topic on the last part about paladin, my point was that a paladin becomes a concept when they take on a oath i.e. a paladin who has made an oath to uphold the law will likely uphold the law if they are doing their job correctly. Now if the party wants to break the law for whatever reason I know of many paladin players who will shut that plan down because they would not work with such a plan AND would not condone the plan happening at all willing to work against the party if they attempted the plan. I tend to find that confrontational individuals lean forward to the paladin because they like the idea that people will take their lead to maintain party unity.

And I totally agree with the Templars actions being condemnable in any era, but my focus was more on the fact if the OP was trying to replicate their actions he was going the right way about it and of all the classes a paladin probably fits this personality type the most.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So your standard for morality is people opposing something?
As for the Templars or more the early crusaders, they did "good". They did the work of god. At that time only a christian had rights in their world view. A heathen had NO rights protecting him. There was no such thing as basic human rights that accounted for everyone. They were just the enemy and and their call to arms was rather easy to understand: Kill those that act against god. Taking their wealth was big motivator too, but technically you were not stealing because given they were no christians they had no right to possess that stuff in the first place.

Would I call them evil? No. They were opportunists and professional warriors let lose. From our understanding they did gruesome stuff of which most was just doing their "job" for them. If its not a proper christian, everything goes.

That mindset that you describe wasn't even universal within the society from which the Templars came, or even amongst crusaders. The "it was a different time" excuse only goes so far.

Read up on European responses to the military jurisprudence of their Muslim adversaries, sometimes. Note how they admire their moral character, and often even decry their own neighbors in comparison.

Morality wasn't invented in the 18th century.

Also, the Templars literally went against their own vows throughout their careers. That is evil by their own worldview.


Now, the question of Drow is interesting. Their culture in Menzo is Evil. Nothing cartoon about it. They are raised to kill the weak, not for any greater good, or a delusion that it makes their society better, but because it pleases Llolth, and because if they don't they will die isntead. What's fascinating to me are stories like Daughter of The Drow, which explores how a person raised in that might come out of that culture and realise how messed up it is, and seek a better life. IMO, a much better exploration of non evil drow than the drizzt stories. Either way, though, the culture itself is quite evil. The drow aren't giggling about how evil they are, they are giggling (insofar as they giggle) about how much fun it is to murder people in the night and sacrifice them to Llolth. They're evil for the same reasons that serial killers are evil.

THey aren't even evil in the same way as Hitler or Stalin, because they don't want a better world. They don't seem to believe that Good folk are even genuine in their goodness. They look at the world and see a Frank Miller grimdark hellscape where all "good" is hypocritical lies meant to keep the weak from challenging the strong, because that's all they know.

That's genuinely interesting and a bit scary. "From my point of view the Jedi are evil" is, IMO, very meh.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, went a bit off topic on the last part about paladin, my point was that a paladin becomes a concept when they take on a oath i.e. a paladin who has made an oath to uphold the law will likely uphold the law if they are doing their job correctly. Now if the party wants to break the law for whatever reason I know of many paladin players who will shut that plan down because they would not work with such a plan AND would not condone the plan happening at all willing to work against the party if they attempted the plan. I tend to find that confrontational individuals lean forward to the paladin because they like the idea that people will take their lead to maintain party unity.

And I totally agree with the Templars actions being condemnable in any era, but my focus was more on the fact if the OP was trying to replicate their actions he was going the right way about it and of all the classes a paladin probably fits this personality type the most.

Huh. Definately different outlooks and experiences with the Paladin, which is fine. For my group, the LG Paladin is totally able to weigh circumstance, and who must weigh good and law when they come into conflict. I think people often try to make them absolutists on Law to the point where it overrides Good, even though they have also sworn themselves to Good.

Anyway, yes, the OP could definately be a Templar, other than not being dishonest, greedy, and willing to break his own rules for personal gain, which are hallmarks of the historical Templars. Not that there weren’t crazed fanatics amongst them.

 

[Phion]

Huh. Definately different outlooks and experiences with the Paladin, which is fine. For my group, the LG Paladin is totally able to weigh circumstance, and who must weigh good and law when they come into conflict. I think people often try to make them absolutists on Law to the point where it overrides Good, even though they have also sworn themselves to Good.

Anyway, yes, the OP could definately be a Templar, other than not being dishonest, greedy, and willing to break his own rules for personal gain, which are hallmarks of the historical Templars. Not that there weren’t crazed fanatics amongst them.

Yeah, I suppose I have not had the best experiences when it comes to paladins. Some paladins were fine and caused no issues, but I have never seen a "interesting" paladin character (which of course is probably more a reflection of my own tastes).

And agreed, however it is ultimately their own choice on how they want to play it. This situation could be turned into a interesting character arc if perhaps they start to questioning what they have done, would also be interesting to see if they are remorseful, indifferent (too late to change ways now) or decide their choices have been the correct one all along.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, I suppose I have not had the best experiences when it comes to paladins. Some paladins were fine and caused no issues, but I have never seen a "interesting" paladin character (which of course is probably more a reflection of my own tastes).

And agreed, however it is ultimately their own choice on how they want to play it. This situation could be turned into a interesting character arc if perhaps they start to questioning what they have done, would also be interesting to see if they are remorseful, indifferent (too late to change ways now) or decide their choices have been the correct one all along.

Could be interesting, sure. The OP seems to be enjoying it. They and their friend seem to be on the same page with that being fun.

I don't get it, but I don't really have to.

 

[FieserMoep]

Read up on European responses to the military jurisprudence of their Muslim adversaries, sometimes. Note how they admire their moral character, and often even decry their own neighbors in comparison.

This is a bit more complex than you think. The praise of adversaries, especially in vitaes, does also serve to raise the glory of those that defeat them. To portray something foreign as noble in certain regards is also "posh". A perfect status quo in written down is also vastly different from what people actually accept as good or okay. Take today time: In theory for any citizen of the western industrial countries it would be good to donate for the poor over in afrika, pay higher taxes for the best healthcare of all people etc. But how many actually do or support that? Not so many. Would we go so far and call their every day live bad? No. Why? Because good/bad is always up to perspective.

Also, the Templars literally went against their own vows throughout their careers. That is evil by their own worldview.

They look at the world and see a Frank Miller grimdark hellscape where all "good" is hypocritical lies meant to keep the weak from challenging the strong, because that's all they know.

So from their perspective they do the good thing because it is their way of live and right to do so.
Do you think they go to bed and reflect: "Oh boy, today I was evil."
I doubt that this would account for the entirety of the race.

Send slaves to fight against professional warriors?
Put people into prison?
There can always be made an argument to what would be the "good" choice yet we take things away from them that could be considered evil.
We do this for a reason.
Take away fredom "evil" to protect others "good".
Kill people "evil" to protect others "good".

It always boils down to how we put things into perspective into the agreed upon current norm. And yes, it was a different time pretty much applies to this. Even morality was not invented in modern times, it still was very different. Morality on its own just means that you have a moral, not what kind of rules are part of that morality.
You may very well think slaughtering an entire town to capture it in a blood bath may be a bit itchy, but then capturing it for the only true faith and getting redemption and forgiveness in the end makes it okay.

That was one of the MAJOR drives of the crusades. The absolute and unconditional absolution that was promised. You may do the most horrible things but in the end: Absolution. You are good and pure again, say hello to the paradise. Keep in mind, as you said, the first crusade was an important tool to keep the troublesome nobility in check and stop them from feuding as much as they did at that time. Only with the first crusade became the Miles christianus one of the most identity granting ideals of nobility and knighthood. The dominant institution for morality integrated the fighting class into its rules more tightly and while that prevented some violence amongst those with the same faith, it allowed for the most gruesome cruelty against those that were not.

Thing a few years back and slaughtering Chinese in the thousands was pretty much acceptable for European countries. Not to speak of other colonial territories. Sure, they may have always been a few voices against it, but the dominant idea was: Imperalism is friggin great, especially the wealth it brings. If a few natives die, who cares.