Voadam said:
I do. Paladins are their own archetype, not the template for all LG. I don't believe all LG are expected to personally step in to exact punishments of others who harm or threaten innocents. It does match up thematically for a divinely powered heroic LG smiter of evil though.
I think you are confusing moral expectation with social role. The expectation to not be a hypocrite is I think universally expected of all lawful goods. In other words, any lawful good which stood aside or looked the other way and allowed evil to take place would be in violation of his morality as a lawful good.
I think it is clear from the context what sort of association is meant. Is a paladin allowed to be a healer, evangelist, judge, jailor, executioner, etc. even if this brings him into contact with an evil character? Certainly, because his relationship between himself as the representative of light and the evil is proper. The 'no association' clause forbids the paladin from knowingly entering into an improper relationship - comprimise, alliance, hypocricy, mentoring, empowering - with evil, and such an improper relationship would be improper for any lawful good. I think that in context 'association' is much like the 'adhering' clause in the US laws on treason. It's a word intended to describe something more than casual contact.
When you talk about 'stepping in to exact punishments', you are talking about being granted magisterial authority - "the right to bear arms and the power to administer justice" - something Paladin's implicitly have. Obviously, if a lawful good person hasn't been granted magisterial authority, then they are not only not expected to act as judge, jury, and executioner but they are overstepping thier social authority to do so. This is a social role particular to paladins. But on the other hand, no lawful good regardless of social role can simply look the other way while an evil act is in progress and not do what is in thier power to stop it - even if it isn't take up a sword and smite.
Suppose that to join a particular Paladin order you had to take a vow of celebacy. This would become a moral code particular to the Paladin. Or, perhaps the Paladin takes a vow to never flee from battle. Or, perhaps, as in the 1st edition Paladin code, there is an implicit or explicit vow of poverty. Again, that's a code particular to the Paladin, or perhaps to the social role of being a Paladin, but its not general to all lawful goods in particular.
True, it is not a logical necessity that the paladin code does not match up with LG ideals. Similarly, however, it is not a logical necessity that the paladin code match LG at all.
I don't agree at all. It seems to me that by logical necessity the paladin code must be lawful good, and must have a high degree of congruity with lawful good in general. I can see differences between ritual, custom, and so forth between two lawful good moral codes, but I can't see the differing over something as fundamental as whether you can form an long term working/friendly association with evil. Just because Paladins are the only ones that immediately suffer consequences for doing so, doesn't mean that the 'powers of pure law and good' approve of such behavior by anyone or everyone else.
True, it is not a logical necessity that the paladin code does not match up with LG ideals. Similarly, however, it is not a logical necessity that the paladin code match LG at all.[/QUOTE]
