S
Sunseeker
Guest
Sure, that works, and evokes a bit more of that middle-age knight feel.
Paladin Design Goals ... WotC Blog
- Thread starter CAFRedblade
- Start date
Sure, that works, and evokes a bit more of that middle-age knight feel.
That's pretty traditional. The holy avenger figures in the list of class abilities for the paladin in the AD&D PHB, for example.
In 4e I think it can also be an axe or hammer. What is permitted in PF?
Personally, I'm a big fan of the code and the moral limitations and implications of the class being something that emerges out of the player's play of the class, rather than being imposed by the GM on the player's play of the class.
To put it another way, I want the game to encourage the player of a paladin to think about the meaning of his/her PC's actions through the lens of the code; not to be worried about what the GM thinks about the meaning of his/her PC's actions.
At the risk of being provocative, I would say that the difference is this: chivalry as an ideal of behaviour is something that actual real human beings, at a real time and place in human history, have conceived of as an ethical and moral ideal; whereas "lawful good" is a nonsensical concoction from a gaming writer that bears no meaningful connection to any actual system of human moral thought.
Well said.
If people want a class that favors social order over individual freedom, lacks creativity and judges those who fall short in their duties, respects rulers and follows traditions, more power to them -- but I just don't see how such a motley collection of personality quirks and philosophical precepts could form the basis of a useful D&D class. People "get" the paladin precisely because it *doesn't* embody these fundamental precepts of lawful goodness, and instead invokes deep-seated imagery of the noble knight who defends the weak and shows courage against the strong regardless of circumstance.
Whether the 5e paladin should embody chivalry or simply "defend the cause of his choice" is a debate worth having. But if we want to the paladin to embody chivalry, we ought to just say so, rather than somehow deducing that the only valid philosophical outlook from which chivalry could spring is the above-mentioned motley mix we call lawful goodness -- in my view at least.
Agreed.
I think treating the paladin as chivalric rather than LG makes a lot of the moral dilemmas that accompany paladins go away. Kill prisoners? Typically no - it's not very chivalric - but perhaps yes if they are beneath contempt. Mete out justice him-/herself? Of course! But those subjected to the paladin's justice will be given their due as the paladin sees it. It won't be unreasoned or (from the paladin's point of view) arbitrary.
CAFRedblade
Explorer
Going back to this, I like the idea of allowing Good, Neutral and Evil Paladins, since I do like the option of a Blackguard Paladin, and whatever the Neutral term might be.
I also like that they should be restricted to Lawful, simply because it should be lawful in relation to the Paladin Code he follows. Not necessarily Lawful to the Kingdom's laws he currently resides/travels within.
Now, you can take the Code of Chivalry as the default type of Laws a Paladin follows, or perhaps the Bushido Code of Honor. I'm sure there are others out there, or you could and should adapt for your own.
And as far as I can see it, this wouldn't preclude a Paladin of a Neutral Good God(dess), it's just that the Paladin follows a stricter Code for that deity. Although you could then have the choice of LG or LN Paladin.
[just basic examples]
I also like that they should be restricted to Lawful, simply because it should be lawful in relation to the Paladin Code he follows. Not necessarily Lawful to the Kingdom's laws he currently resides/travels within.
Now, you can take the Code of Chivalry as the default type of Laws a Paladin follows, or perhaps the Bushido Code of Honor. I'm sure there are others out there, or you could and should adapt for your own.
And as far as I can see it, this wouldn't preclude a Paladin of a Neutral Good God(dess), it's just that the Paladin follows a stricter Code for that deity. Although you could then have the choice of LG or LN Paladin.
[just basic examples]
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Sorry but I'm not following this attack on LG being the best alignment to reflect the chivalric ideal - ideal being the key word here.
Lawful as from the social-individual axis, and Good as from the altruistic-predatory axis, although the exact terminology can be debated.
Move away from lawful and the knight's honour becomes self focused, move away from good and the knight loses respect for the life of others.
You can want a non-LG paladin, sure. You can say you don't want alignment at all, ok. But if you say that LG is not the alignment for the chivalric ideal in a game with alignments, I say huh??
Lawful as from the social-individual axis, and Good as from the altruistic-predatory axis, although the exact terminology can be debated.
Move away from lawful and the knight's honour becomes self focused, move away from good and the knight loses respect for the life of others.
You can want a non-LG paladin, sure. You can say you don't want alignment at all, ok. But if you say that LG is not the alignment for the chivalric ideal in a game with alignments, I say huh??
nnms
First Post
We often forget that Gygax was not a historian, nor a philosopher. He was an insurance underwriter turned game designer. I see a lot of the adversarial nature of early DMing being informed by the claimant-adjuster relationship in the insurance industry.
As an ethicist, Gygax doesn't even merit consideration and the alignment system shows it.
In one of the Arthur stories (Chretien de Troyes) Lancelot, in leaving Camelot, kills 10 (?) knights, including some of his friends. This is presented as an unfortunate occurence - as if those friends had been killed in a landslide - but not as a wrong on Lancelot's part.
Chivalry isn't especially concerned with the life of others. Chivalry is about honour, respect and dignity. Not welfare.
The AD&D DMG defines LG in utilitarian/Benthamite terms ("greatest happiness of the greatest number"). This is a quintessentially modern ideal. Even in the late 19th/early 20th century it was regarded by many as compromising other important values, like honour and dignity. As Max Weber put it, utilitarianism is a morality for shopkeepers (and by implication, the English, unlike the Germans, are a nation of shopkeepers - like many European intellectuals, Weber welcomed the war when it came).
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Sure, many of King Arthur tales are pretty flippant in regards to lives. You're talking about fairly faithful adaptations of tales told in a time that had, to put it bluntly, less morally demanding or sophisticated ideals. Ironic as it was closer to the dawn of Christianity - the cultural foundation of modern morality.
Or not so ironic. The Christian Church basically promoted the concept of Chivalry to put at least some kind of rein on the otherwise unruly pagan mounted warriors that were descendants from invading Franks, Saxons, Angles etc... Treating kindly towards weak was part of the package, which is hardly surprising given the Christian basis.
But enough history, the modern ideal of Chivalry most definitely includes active efforts to preserve life, and sacrificing a few for the many is no longer really good enough - there is an expectation to make great efforts to preserve the few even if that risks oneself. In effect to a paragon of chivalry, should the few have to miss out for the good of the many, said paragon will number amongst the few - probably the first.
Such a person would definitely qualify as extremely chivalrous and extremely lawful good.
I don't really think there is a modern ideal of chivalry. Like honour, I think it's an animating value that hasn't survived into modernity.
Respect remains important in modernity, and also (at least according to international human rights instruments) a certain conception of dignity, but this is very different from the chivalric conception.
For example, the reason the weak are to be treated kindly is because they are base. They are humble. They are meek. It's not a doctrine of equality - it's a doctrine of magnanimity. Conversely, when Lancelot kills the other knights for (what would for most moderns be) no good reason, he is not doing them a disservice. He is treating them as their station warrants, according them due respect.
To bring this back to D&D. If a group wants to run a game in which the gap between chivalric and contemporary liberal moral norms is a focus of play, go for it! I've run that game (or a variation on it), and it's fun if sometimes challenging. But alignment will be no help, because the contrast between chivalry and modernity, which consists in differing conceptions of dignity, of station and the like, is not something that alignment provides any analysis of. Max Weber, Neitzsche, or just a sympathetic viewing of the movie Hero will be far more helpful.
Conversely, if a group wants to run a game with chivlaric knights, but doesn't want to get into all that "shades of grey", "historically contextualised morality" stuff, then alignment won't help either! Because all it will do is tell you that the behaviour of your chivalric knight is perhaps not lawful good, because s/he's not always acting according the modern liberal ethos that Gygax set out as the tenets of LG in the AD&D rulebooks.
It's a bit like classic superhero comics. Why are they fighting bankrobbers and Dr Doom rather than using their powers to actually transform the world in dramatic ways that would alleviate suffering? If you want to play a light superhero RPG, you have to just put those questions to one side, as having no place in the genre. And alignment definitions that bring those questions back into play won't help the game, they'll just muddy the waters and potentially lead to conflict among the participants.
Likewise with a chivalric D&D game. If you want to challenge the paladin, don't put in goblin babies to slaughter. How does that help? Instead place a black knight on a bridge - the PCs can only get through the forest to fight the goblins if they cross the bridge, but fighting the black knight in a one-on-one joust will cause delay and needlessly injure the paladin. That's a test of chivalric standards that can be tackled from within the light heroic fantasy frame of reference, without having to worry about the many gaps between mediaeval and contemporary values. And it doesn't need the GM's heavy hand punishing the player of the paladin for choosing one way or the other, either. It can all be resolved ingame - joust the knight, the goblins maraud. Beat up on the black knight as a party, and tales of the paladin's lack of chivalry spread. Maybe the clever player strikes a deal with the knight - let my friends pass first (thus the rest of the PCs speed on to the goblin lair) and I'll joust you afterwards, making my head their ransom.
Of course, this would require some rules for handling a split party, but that's another issue, but one that is likely to come up anytime there's a PC with disinctive and intimate ties into the fiction of the gameworld.
Similar Threads
