Neutral Paladin

[GreatLemur]

The thread about scoundrels of each AL had James Bond as an example of a LN scoundrel character. He's all about queen & country, but he's also quite ruthless (notably, acting in a world filled with folks who're just as ruthless, if not even more so). He works for the good guys, but does some pretty severe things in order to achieve his goals. I think the Lawful bit of his AL also reflects that he is part of the lawful authority (the law permits him a discretionary licence to kill, which he'll easily use if it means his goals can be achieved).

(Not having read any Bond books or watched much of any Bond movie) I'd say that's a completely acceptable way to fit such a character into the rules. But, man, that whole thread--and, to a lesser extent, this one--made clear a lot of fundamental flaws in the whole alignment system.

 

[Deadguy]

Now, that brings up an interesting question: If a character selflessly follows an absurd worldview--perhaps to the extreme of terrorism--for the purpose of maintaining the safety and vitality of civilizaton in the long term, are they good, neutral, or evil? I don't know if the nine alignments have a place for "essentially good but horribly misguided", but I think characters who use "non-good" methods for a good cause are generally lumped in with the apathetic and mildly selfish in the "neutral" band.

People who are ruthless in pursuit of their goals will always end up sliding into Evil. But that doesn't prevent them from following essentially 'good' goals. I suspect they'd argue that if this good end is worthy enough then any means are acceptable to bring it about and preserve it. (Eberron has quite a few NPCs like this: ruthless evil folk who are the bane of supernatural evil, or ruthless supporters of peace.)

 

[Imaro]

Just read the post over and was pondering something...

Shouldn't Paladins be required (if there should really be any requirement at all?) to be Neutral Good. I always thought Paladins answered to a higher power than man's law and this higher power could require them to do things that are not within the laws of man to achieve a greater good.

Taking this a little further, no man is infallible and a paladin is still a man. So from that reasoning even the code he/she follows isn't infallible and the paladin may have to break even his own code in serving the greater good. Neutral good seems to define this thinking better IMHO than Lawful Good.

Oh yeah and Jack Bauer is the ultimate paladin. He does what is for the greater good, no matter what the cost. In my mind he epitomizes the hard choices and necessary long term thought, to determine what exactly is the greater good, that have prompted me to play paladins in the past.

 

[Celebrim]

Just read the post over and was pondering something...

Shouldn't Paladins be required (if there should really be any requirement at all?) to be Neutral Good. I always thought Paladins answered to a higher power than man's law...

First of all, being lawful doesn't mean being bound to a particular man made set of laws. It can, but what it really means is that you espouse a public widely agreed upon code of conduct which in some form or the other states "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few". The law, and the collective society of beings which uphold that law, are therefore most important than any of the individuals of that society.

So, whether you follow a man made code or a divine code, so long as its not a personal code or any other sort of code which elevates your choice higher than the code or your society higher than the code that defines, then you are lawful.

...and this higher power could require them to do things that are not within the laws of man to achieve a greater good.

And that would still be lawful. What would not be lawful is if the things that were required were not pre-specified, and the follower of the diety would not know what sort of thing would be required of him until the situation presented itself. What would not be lawful is if the code was not subject to scrutiny, so that an observer couldn't tell whether or not the individual was following a code or not. What would not be lawful is if the code is subject to change at any point, particularly according to the whim of individuals. But a code which publicly contains a meta-law, "This section 'Obedience to Mortal Rulers' is invalidated under certain provisions. See section 3.7. When invalidated, you are still required to obey the strictures of section #1 and #2, 'Obedience to Higher Powers'." is still lawful.

Taking this a little further, no man is infallible and a paladin is still a man. So from that reasoning even the code he/she follows isn't infallible...

What if the law was written by a diety? BTW, the dieties of D&D aren't infallible either. We aren't dealing with monotheistic benevolent and all powerful creator dieties here. However, infallible or not, you probably can trust someone with 40 INT and 40 WIS to write pretty darn good laws.

...and the paladin may have to break even his own code in serving the greater good.

Of course he might. He'd be very reluctant to do so, but that is why he is 'lawful good' and not 'lawful neutral'. He's making a comprimise between law and good because he ultimately believes no good can endure in the absence of law. But he also understands (or believes) that no law can endure in the absence of good character, since an evil spirit can always prevert the intention of the law (or so he believes).

A lawful neutral can't break his own code and remain long LN, but other lawfuls in extremity can. What a LG can't do is break his own code in order to do something evil, no matter how justified the ends may seem to be. Also, even when a LG had to go beyond the code, he'd consider himself operating in the blind and would immediately seek (if he could) the advise of 'higher authority' to make sure he correctly understood the situation and had acted appropriately. In other words, he 'turns himself in' and awaits judgement rather than relying wholly on his own judgement.

Neutral good seems to define this thinking better IMHO than Lawful Good.

Only if you can't differentiate between being good and following laws.

Oh yeah and Jack Bauer is the ultimate paladin. He does what is for the greater good, no matter what the cost.

Jack Bauer belives that the ends justify the means. I haven't watched the show enough to make a statement about his alignment, but I know enough about him to know it isn't LG.

In my mind he epitomizes the hard choices and necessary long term thought, to determine what exactly is the greater good, that have prompted me to play paladins in the past.

There are some schools of thought that way. However, IMO, a LG would not believe that in general he had the authority to decide what exactly is the greater good. That would be elevating himself above both the law and society.

 

[GreatLemur]

I love how we just had two back-to back posts definining a "the ends justify the means" philosophy as evil, and as Neutral Good. This is why the alignment system fails, folks. The real world is too complicated for it, and so is any fantasy setting that's halfway interesting.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's hard to figure out what the code of a TN paladin is supposed to be. I mean, the code is supposed to be hard to follow, but probably the majority of all people are True Neutral, so how difficult can it be?

"I passionately believe in the cause of doing whatever the heck I want!"

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I love how we just had two back-to back posts definining a "the ends justify the means" philosophy as evil, and as Neutral Good. This is why the alignment system fails, folks.

We're blaming the instrument and not the musicians, are we? How very modern.

 

[Imaro]

First of all, being lawful doesn't mean being bound to a particular man made set of laws. It can, but what it really means is that you espouse a public widely agreed upon code of conduct which in some form or the other states "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few". The law, and the collective society of beings which uphold that law, are therefore most important than any of the individuals of that society.

So, whether you follow a man made code or a divine code, so long as its not a personal code or any other sort of code which elevates your choice higher than the code or your society higher than the code that defines, then you are lawful.

And that would still be lawful. What would not be lawful is if the things that were required were not pre-specified, and the follower of the diety would not know what sort of thing would be required of him until the situation presented itself. What would not be lawful is if the code was not subject to scrutiny, so that an observer couldn't tell whether or not the individual was following a code or not. What would not be lawful is if the code is subject to change at any point, particularly according to the whim of individuals. But a code which publicly contains a meta-law, "This section 'Obedience to Mortal Rulers' is invalidated under certain provisions. See section 3.7. When invalidated, you are still required to obey the strictures of section #1 and #2, 'Obedience to Higher Powers'." is still lawful.

What if the law was written by a diety? BTW, the dieties of D&D aren't infallible either. We aren't dealing with monotheistic benevolent and all powerful creator dieties here. However, infallible or not, you probably can trust someone with 40 INT and 40 WIS to write pretty darn good laws.

This is exactly my point. To me and too most people I think a Paladin is good before he is lawful. Yes a code can be infallible. Ex. Paladin has captured a prisoner who has hidden an evil artifact in a village that will, in a limited amount of time, turn the villagers into undead. is he justified in torturing the man, poisoning him etc. if time is running out?

Under Lawful Good:"Combines honor and compassion" is torture honorable?

Under Neutral Good:"Doing what is good without bias for law or chaos" Yep saving a village from undeath is good. Whether your actions are chaotic or lawful as long as they result in good.

Of course he might. He'd be very reluctant to do so, but that is why he is 'lawful good' and not 'lawful neutral'. He's making a comprimise between law and good because he ultimately believes no good can endure in the absence of law. But he also understands (or believes) that no law can endure in the absence of good character, since an evil spirit can always prevert the intention of the law (or so he believes).

I think you are confused. I said I think a paldin should be Neutral Good not Lawful Neutral. I think what you're saying above supports this assumption, since in the end the Paladin should be more concerned with good than law.

A lawful neutral can't break his own code and remain long LN, but other lawfuls in extremity can. What a LG can't do is break his own code in order to do something evil, no matter how justified the ends may seem to be. Also, even when a LG had to go beyond the code, he'd consider himself operating in the blind and would immediately seek (if he could) the advise of 'higher authority' to make sure he correctly understood the situation and had acted appropriately. In other words, he 'turns himself in' and awaits judgement rather than relying wholly on his own judgement.

So in the above example the paladin would let the village become undead? If not he is acting in a neutral good manner.

Only if you can't differentiate between being good and following laws.

Yeah its called Neutral Good.

Jack Bauer belives that the ends justify the means. I haven't watched the show enough to make a statement about his alignment, but I know enough about him to know it isn't LG.

It's Neutral Good, my point is he does the greatest good without necessarily staying in what our society considers "lawful" behavior. Arguably he accomplishes more actual good in acting this way than a Lawful Good person would.

There are some schools of thought that way. However, IMO, a LG would not believe that in general he had the authority to decide what exactly is the greater good. That would be elevating himself above both the law and society.

I'm not talking about deciding what exactly is the greater good, I'm talking about once defined what is more important...

1.)Following a strict code that may or may not be effective in achieving what the ultimate purpose is.

2.) Achieving that goal if, through a higher power than yourself you know that to be the most important thing

 

[GreatLemur]

We're blaming the instrument and not the musicians, are we? How very modern.

When no one can agree on how the instrument is played, and it consistently sounds lousy anyway, it's probably time to go a capella.

Or, to stop mangling your metaphor for a moment, I'd say that the very fact that the alignment system constantly brings up such disputes is an indication that it's pretty seriously flawed. It's not a question of a few people just getting it wrong. The fact is that the system really doesn't cover everything that it tries to cover, and its attempt to do so has lead to a lot of weird, abstracted thinking and completely unbelievable in-game moral systems.

 

[ephemeron]

I think there was a dragon magazine article with variant paladins for every alignment. A Plethora of Paladins? Someone with the old article or the Dragon archive CD could probably give you specifics.

Yep, "A Plethora of Paladins." It was in issue 106, way back in 1e days. I haven't been able to find a 3e conversion of the Parmander anywhere, but this old thread on another forum might give you some ideas.