Pathfinder 1E Paladin Alignments - More than just LG?

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I really posted because, paladins are one of those concept classes that seem to generate endless arguments regarding alignment and edicts. In the face of new PF classes that also have their edicts, I never see threads about them. I was wondering why there is no real issues with those classes, but always and endlessly so about paladins. Of course, alignment seems to be the real issue here.

That's the thing, it's all about the alignment not the edicts. There are some who give Paladins a lot of leeway with some room for interpretation and some who hold to the LG alignment like a straightjacket and if a paladin bends or breaks a law they call for their fall. There's actually quite an interesting discussion about that going on right now on the Paizo forums which I'm also involved in. I also posed this same thread question to those guys/gals on there to obtain more feedback and insight.

The main reason I posted this thread in both forums was because of the endless Paladin alignment threads that happen and thought about "what if it was about the GOOD and not LAWFUL part for paladins?" I felt that it would give more players an opportunity to play a paladin without taking the law of the land into account for every little thing they do, they are more concerned about what their deity wants and what is GOOD. The same is true for the Anti-Paladins and their codes, it'd be about evil not the chaos all the time.

 

[gamerprinter]

The main reason I posted this thread in both forums was because of the endless Paladin alignment threads that happen and thought about "what if it was about the GOOD and not LAWFUL part for paladins?" I felt that it would give more players an opportunity to play a paladin without taking the law of the land into account for every little thing they do, they are more concerned about what their deity wants and what is GOOD. The same is true for the Anti-Paladins and their codes, it'd be about evil not the chaos all the time.

This makes more sense to me anyway - I can agree with your point of view. Of course, we might be the exception, in the face of years of conflict regarding how many/most see regarding the lawful aspect of paladin requirements.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Well not to derail my own thread [MENTION=50895]gamerprinter[/MENTION] -

There's a guy on the other forum who is going with the very very strict interpretation of the LG paladin and that character he describes to me is much more LN as he's adhering to Laws of man above all else in his arguments. My position is that there are a lot of different deities with different codes (good examples being in the Faiths of Purity book), different archetypes, different races, different experiences, different areas where they were raised, different players and different GM's. So the given way any paladin can handle any situation thrown at him is dependent upon ALL of that stuff, not just the core RAW of the paladin code. So again, that's what prompted me to think about this thread and post it in a few places to get more opinions about the subject without dissolving into another paladin alignment thread by expanding their alignments in a home-brew rules setting

 

[gamerprinter]

What if a given paladin inhabited a nation with a very corrupt law system, or had laws that enforced slavery, torture, a presumed difference between laws that are broken by aristocrats versus the same law broken by serfs - which would reflect how many feudal period societies operated. The concepts of the Rights or Laws of Man, are really a recent concept that wasn't even considered during the medieval period. It's my understanding that the true freedoms that people accept as universal, only came after European explorers discovered native Americans in the New World, who thought very differently from European thought up to that time.

I know we are modern players depicting a fanciful version of what is truly right in a medieval world, so reflections of how man perceived himself in history, might not reflect the ideals of the modern world, and perhaps the old way has no meaning at all to most players.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

That point has been brought to his attention quite a few times, including quite a few examples of if a Paladin enters Cheliax. It's a legitimate government with legitimate authority, yet it's full of slavery and all sorts of other nasty evil things. Paladins have to follow the laws when they enter there, but they don't have to like it. I personally brought it up where if a paladin was within the Cheliax boarders and saw some girl being beaten and taken as a slave on the side of the road without anyone around but the Paladin/his group and the slavers. That Paladin wouldn't think twice about breaking the "law" and saving the girl, but was rebuffed that it was still illegal and that Paladin would FALL because he broke his code concerning following the laws of the land... Anyhow, sorry I brought it up I'm still a little riled up about it as you can tell lol.

 

[delericho]

I really posted because, paladins are one of those concept classes that seem to generate endless arguments regarding alignment and edicts. In the face of new PF classes that also have their edicts, I never see threads about them. I was wondering why there is no real issues with those classes, but always and endlessly so about paladins. Of course, alignment seems to be the real issue here.

I actually rather enjoy a good paladin thread. But, yeah, it's alignment that's really at the heart of it, and especially the Lawful Good alignment. (Indeed, I don't think I've ever seen an LG PC except for when he's a Paladin. Though I did play one once... for all of a session before that "campaign" collapsed.)

What if a given paladin inhabited a nation with a very corrupt law system...

It's a common misconception that Lawful means "obeys the law". But rather, it's about the concept of law, and order, and society. (Among a whole bunch of other things, of course.) So, an LG Paladin in the situation described would generally not feel bound by those corrupt laws, but would work to change those laws for other, better laws, and would go about it in a lawful way. As opposed to his CG counterpart, who would be happy simply to tear down those laws entirely, trusting to the innate goodness of people to make replacement laws unnecessary.

The concepts of the Rights or Laws of Man, are really a recent concept that wasn't even considered during the medieval period. It's my understanding that the true freedoms that people accept as universal, only came after European explorers discovered native Americans in the New World, who thought very differently from European thought up to that time.

Here, I'm inclined to take the view that while a society's notions of what is right and wrong may vary, that's largely because their views are not necessarily correct. So, where for a long time it was considered perfectly acceptable to own slaves, for example, that doesn't make it right - I like to think that that's a case where we've definitely made progress. I tend to reject the notion that the game should use some other definition of 'good' just because it's not set in modern-day Britain (or the US, or wherever).

Of course, on that one, YMMV quite considerably.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] - I agree, I like partaking in the occasional paladin alignment thread as well. It's always interesting to see other people's opinions and in the case of the one guy on the other forum it sometimes boggles my mind how people think. I just have to remember that morals/ethics/laws in different parts of the world vary as they did back in the medieval age and how they do in a fantasy setting such as Golarion.

The reason I like Faiths of Purity so much is because it gives specific Codes/Tenets for each of the major good deities and expands upon what their paladins would/should do. It more information for interpretation vs the small code that is given in the core rulebook. Such as how a paladin of Torag would react differently to an evil person/monster compared to say a paladin of Sarenrae.

I guess I should stop now before I invite people in to debate the LG paladin alignment and completely derail my own thread

 

[gamerprinter]

Here, I'm inclined to take the view that while a society's notions of what is right and wrong may vary, that's largely because their views are not necessarily correct. So, where for a long time it was considered perfectly acceptable to own slaves, for example, that doesn't make it right - I like to think that that's a case where we've definitely made progress. I tend to reject the notion that the game should use some other definition of 'good' just because it's not set in modern-day Britain (or the US, or wherever).

Of course, on that one, YMMV quite considerably.

Oh, I definitely agree with your point of view.

As an aside, I recently read an article about pre-1959 Tibet and how their society was 'extremely medieval' even in the 20th century.

Not defending China in any way here, nor especially slamming the Dalai Lama, but Tibet before the China take-over was a nation governed by elite Buddhist monks and a very small population of land owners, with the majority of society being slaves, unpaid servants or serfs - numbering in the tens of thousands. Debt obtained by someone's grandfather (borrowing money from the temples at 20 - 50% interest rates) might still apply to the grandchildren. Extreme taxes were required for all travel, planting crops, purchasing herd animals, every birth, marriage, death, etc.

The idea that the medieval period was over 500 +/- years ago, only applies to Europe. Much of that which one might consider corruptions of a medieval society, aren't necessarily older than I am. So much for modern thought...

 

[randomeric]

Paladins!

My favorite is a Human Paladin named Arthur... he was a follower of Heironeous if I recall. Bards across the land turned many-a-tale of Arthur into silver and gold. Arthur discovered that, by reading the Handbook of Players, he, as a Lawful-Good Paladin, need not obsessively attack and destroy anything that might look evil or occupy the shadows momentarily... he discovered that he could use judgement to effectively mete out justice to those who deserved it while letting alone those beings who, though historically evil, had not yet in the eyes of the Paladin done evil.

Let it first walk like a duck and talk like a duck before you slay it in the name of Heironeous!

His fellow adventurers were aghast at Arthur's revelation and nearly abandoned him for some doppelganger!

And their alignments were chaotic and good at best, yet they saw fit to judge him harshly for not following what they insisted were his precepts... to blindly kill evil.

It is not the Paladin, my friends, who is as issue. It is those around him who think they know what the Paladin ought to be doing.

Huzzah!

 

[SirAntoine]

I'd have to say that paladins should only be LG, and I'd say that even in the face of the three variants in 1st edition's Unearthed Arcana (which were written by Gygax himself). I'd be fine with knight-like, "believers in other ideals", to embody other alignments and even deities and their tenets, but the paladin is distinct and "can only arise from the unique blend of discipline and self-sacrifice" that is LG.