Musings on the "Lawful Jerk" Paladin

[Tanin Wulf]

It can work that way, but this isn't a magic formula for perfect paladins, even if the GM isn't out to get them. Sometimes it only leads to a frustrated or unsatisfied player.

Absolutely agree. I don't think our statements are mutually exclusive.

As I said, in my experience, that's what led to the best/most memorable Paladins I've seen. My experience is hardly enough to make a generalized argument from, and I'd say both GM and Paladin-player have to want to seek/support the idea of, "What is right?" as a fun and engaging creative space (along with the others at the table) for it to work.

It's not easy, but nor would I say it's unattainable (nor would I say it's the only right, or rightestest way).

 

[Gladius Legis]

The Code of Conduct was the main problem with earlier paladins specifically because it included and made references to alignment. Not only did the paladin have to stay LG, it could never commit an evil act, ever, or a chaotic act without penance. Which seemed easy until you argued your case with the DM that a certain act was or wasn't indeed chaotic and/or evil. And on top of that, earlier paladins couldn't associate with anyone not of good alignment except on a single-mission basis and had to seek out LG companions above all else (hence, party policing or acting like a jerk to other non-good PCs).

5e's Oath tenets work because (a) they do not specifically refer to any one particular alignment, and (b) they don't have those silly restrictions on who the paladin can or can't associate with. And even the Oath mean to reflect the classic LG paladin (Devotion) has its tenets written in a way to address the Lawful Jerks and Lawful Idiots of the past. Like Courage's "caution is wise," so you don't go Leeroy Jenkins-ing something that's bound to kill you, Compassion's "show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom," in case a certain enemy just may be obviously too dangerous to leave alive, and Duty's "obey those who have just authority," so, no, you do not have to blindly obey some usurper or some unworthy ruler just because they're a ruler.

 

[jayoungr]

I've heard the stories, and am aware of the stereotype. But I've never actually encountered one in play.

Actually, I (the OP) haven't either. But that post was adapted from something I wrote up for another board when someone asked for advice on how to deal with a player who was exhibiting this behavior. So I guess they are out there in the wild--but I bet they're not as prevalent as the stereotype suggests.

 

[jayoungr]

As I said, in my experience, that's what led to the best/most memorable Paladins I've seen. My experience is hardly enough to make a generalized argument from, and I'd say both GM and Paladin-player have to want to seek/support the idea of, "What is right?" as a fun and engaging creative space (along with the others at the table) for it to work.

I agree. To expand/riff on this, I think that when the paladin player is forced to ask "What is right?", there should be an answer to that question that both the GM and the player can feel good about.

For example, say you want to play a paladin because you want to feel like you're doing some good in life, even if it's only in your tabletop fantasy. If the GM throws an endless string of "trolley problems" at you, where the only question is "Which of these choices is less evil/destructive?" and none of them really makes you feel like you've actually done good, then that won't be a really successful game. It's challenging and nuanced, and by many standards, it's good storytelling. But you as the player aren't going to get what you wanted out of your paladin character.

On the other hand, if you're a GM who wants to present NPCs who can do good or bad things depending on the situation, and your paladin player classifies all of them as either "good" or "evil" while ignoring evidence to the contrary, and without any self-awareness of how reductive that is, you're going to feel like your work is wasted on at least one member of the party.

In the first case, the GM is withholding the answer to "What is good?" that the player wants to engage with. In the second case, the player is insisting on being the sole arbiter of what is good, and denying the GM's input.