Lawful Stupid Paladins (Got your Attention?)

[I'm A Banana]

The 3e Paladin has a Code of Honor right there in it's class features.

That's the only one it's assumed you hold to. None of this OBEY ALL COMMANDS AND SMITE ALL FIENDS gibberish.

Perhaps it may be best to think of Paladins in terms of chivalrous knights of "Yore." They help those weaker than them, they fight those who threaten those weaker than them, and they try their best to live up to the ideals set in place by their code.

What's with this self-appointed-slayer-of-all evil? You can be a paladin and fight wickedness, no prob, but you don't need to eradicate all evil everywhere.

Also, with the Orc issue...it's normally assumed Orcs are Evil. Thus, the Paladin wouldn't be at issue for slaughtering an Orc, if the circumstances fit. They'd be given the benefit of the doubt.

Orcbabbies is a bit of an issue -- a paladin is supposed to be honorable. This means, for instance, IMHO, no sneaky attacks. You can't exactly ambush someone, take them unaware. They have to know you're there, and you have to show them what you can do -- and then you either beat them, or you don't. They can use those sneaky tactics. You? You're better than that.

Of course, this doesn't mean that your friends can't do something sneaky. After all, you hold yourself to high standards, you don't need to hold others to the same. If they want to sneak, fine. Just so they know to keep you in the dark about it, because otherwise you won't fight. They can fight and win with sneaky methods, sure. But that's dishonorable. It's cowardly. It's saying "I can't take you in a stand-up fight, so I'm gonna kick you inna nuts when you ain't lookin'!"

That's the crux, for me. You have to be confident, and have faith. This doesn't mean Kill All Evil. It means Kill What Evil You Can. You also have to realize when you're outclassed, and then you can come back with reinforcements.

What's wrong with simple confidence in your skill as a straight-up combatant?

OA even provides a good mechanic fo a bit of extra damage based on the speed of your draw. It's not dishonorable. Once they know that you're challenging them, it's up to them to beat you. And if you beat them, that's effective.

The thing is, don't be a cowardly little hit-em-while-their-back-is-turned little weasel. You can't get them by surprise. That's dishonest, and dishonesty is dishonorable.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Wrong, all your "good" person has done is get himself killed. The end result is the woman still gets raped and the person ges killed.

Your example is merely an example of a lawful stupid or moronic good person.

A neutral person would not get involved if he didnt know the woman. Its none of his business.

An evil person may join in to get himself some when the other 5 are done.

A good person does something, ANYTHING to save the woman. The methods don't matter it is litteraly the thought that counts.

5 men raping a woman in an alley.

Unarmed man sees it and runs to the nearest authority to get help. Neutral.

Unarmed man bravely steps up and yells "Stop that! HELP HELP!!!!" and tries SOMETHING for gods sake. Throws rocks. Bangs lids. DOES SOMETHING to distract the guys or stop them. GOOD.

Sure the GOOD guy might very well die. That's the DIFFERENCE between good and neutral.

 

[Zappo]

A neutral person would not get involved if he didnt know the woman. Its none of his business.

Definitely not. Seeing a woman getting raped in an alley and walking away because it's none of your business is definitely evil, even though not so much as joining the criminals of course. At least in my country, it would also be a criminal offense if the police found out that you saw the event and didn't call them.

I think a neutral person would quietly get away and call the guards ASAP, while a good person would shout for the guards immediately and get ready to defend himself. If he thinks he can take on the rapers, he would do so.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I most certaily disagree. There is lots of things that happen in the world that people chose to ignore and not get involved in. That does not make everyone that does so an evil person.

We are talking from a moral point of view not a legal one. Just becuase countries like say Thailand have laws that require you to report criminal activity does not make someone who breaks that law immoral. In fact one could easily argue that such laws are immoral since they attempt to restrict personal freedom by controlling what a person can or cannot do even though their actions or lack of action do not in any way directly affect anyone else.

Definitely not. Seeing a woman getting raped in an alley and walking away because it's none of your business is definitely evil, even though not so much as joining the criminals of course. At least in my country, it would also be a criminal offense if the police found out that you saw the event and didn't call them.

I think a neutral person would quietly get away and call the guards ASAP, while a good person would shout for the guards immediately and get ready to defend himself. If he thinks he can take on the rapers, he would do so.

 

[Zappo]

I most certaily disagree. There is lots of things that happen in the world that people chose to ignore and not get involved in. That does not make everyone that does so an evil person.

We are talking from a moral point of view not a legal one. Just becuase countries like say Thailand have laws that require you to report criminal activity does not make someone who breaks that law immoral. In fact one could easily argue that such laws are immoral since they attempt to restrict personal freedom by controlling what a person can or cannot do even though their actions or lack of action do not in any way directly affect anyone else.

I'm not talking about failing to report illegal activities in general, like, I dunno, you neighbour has a pirated game and you report him. That's neutral all right, and actually I could think up a few cases where reporting someone would be evil.

I'm talking about seeing a person suffering physical violence and possibly being under threat of death and failing to even attempt to call someone else to help her, when doing so poses no risk at all to you. That is 100% evil IMO and forbidden in Italy (no less a democratic country than any other). The most common case where that law is applied is in case of car accidents. If you pass by a car wreck with a person bleeding to death inside, and you just keep going, if that person survives (or if he dies but someone else has seen you) you could be into trouble (doubly so if you caused the accident, of course). You have to at least call an ambulance.

But the same would apply to a case of rape; if helping a person threatened with serious physical harm poses no risk or problem at all, because you just have to get to the nearest guard patrol and tell them, then not doing so is evil.

 

[JLXC]

I most certaily disagree. There is lots of things that happen in the world that people chose to ignore and not get involved in. That does not make everyone that does so an evil person.

We are talking from a moral point of view not a legal one. Just becuase countries like say Thailand have laws that require you to report criminal activity does not make someone who breaks that law immoral. In fact one could easily argue that such laws are immoral since they attempt to restrict personal freedom by controlling what a person can or cannot do even though their actions or lack of action do not in any way directly affect anyone else.

It might not make them Evil, but it sure as hell makes then Neutral in D&D and not good. ALSO, in this specific case, the rape in the alley. It DOES make them evil. What people seem to no understand is that going by D&D alignment in the real world don't work well as most people ARE EVIL. Goodness is laughed at and put down in the modern world. So let's not go there. Let's stick to D&D where for SURE if you are Good and watch some Horrible Evil happen, and do nothing, you are NOT doing Good deeds.

Now real life. Morally someone who lets someone get raped because they are a coward are straight up EVIL. Maybe you are arguing this because you feel you should be morally right to ignore crimes against others? You're not. You're morally and legally wrong and IMHO Evil if you argue that. See how the gray moral morass of our world creeps into people? They cannot even see basic moral Good anymore. Let's face it. Most people are selfish cowards and that is basically evil. So while you're in the majority, it does not make it Moral at all.

 

[Zappo]

Now real life. Morally someone who lets someone get raped because they are a coward are straight up EVIL. Maybe you are arguing this because you feel you should be morally right to ignore crimes against others? You're not. You're morally and legally wrong and IMHO Evil if you argue that. See how the gray moral morass of our world creeps into people? They cannot even see basic moral Good anymore. Let's face it. Most people are selfish cowards and that is basically evil. So while you're in the majority, it does not make it Moral at all.

Being a coward isn't necessarily evil. It would be neutral in most cases - like, if I don't jump in a burning building to rescue a child, I'm not necessarily evil (and not prosecutable of course).

In this case, however, I'm not risking anything at all by walking to a guard patrol and tell them to save the girl in the alley. That's why not doing so is evil.

 

[Bob Aberton]

First thing: a Rogue/Paladin is, IMHO, a bit of a contradiction.

In the real world example, it would be heroic and self sacrificing to take on the rapists. It would be GOOD, not STUPID, because just maybe the distraction you provided allowed the woman who was being raped to escape. Even if she didn't, you still TRIED, and thats what counts.

Going to the authorities is also GOOD, but it is cowardly, NOT HEROIC. Most of us in the real world would not take on 5 possibly armed and almost definately dangerous thugs unarmed for the sake of someone we didn't know. I know I would run for, or call up on my cell phone, the authorities.

 

[takyris]

"First thing: a Rogue/Paladin is, IMHO, a bit of a contradiction."

That's why I love playing them.

Rogue has no alignment restrictions in 3E -- a paladin/rogue would make a lousy pickpocket, but as a scout (Hide,Move Silently, Spot, Listen), diplomat/investigator (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Read Lips, Innuendo), trapmaster (duh), or acrobat (Tumble, Climb, Balance, Jump), he can be just as honorable as a guy in Full Plate swinging a Longsword.

He has a different flavor, certainly, and he sure as heck wouldn't refer to himself as a rogue, but it's an interesting character to roleplay -- he's NOT Lawful Stupid, because the rogue aspect of him can always see that there's a nice sneaky way to get something done, and so for him it's a much more conscious decision to say, "No, in this case, hiding in the shadows would be dishonorable. I step out, salute Lord Vilenus, and throw down my gauntlet."

It's a contradiction with the usual IMAGE of the paladin -- he's more likely to wear a chain shirt than full plate -- but no more so than a paladin/wizard or the oft-maligned paladin/sorcerer.

-Tacky

 

[Hand of Evil]

The above post are why it is important to define what is evil in your game.

List out things that you as a DM feel are evil acts. Put in exceptions for your world view/myth. In D&D a person who is evil performs most of the task on the list regularly.