Paladins with powers being deluded/deceived?

[tomBitonti]

Thinking over the world setup of Celebrim, I am intrigued that Paladins don't exist in this world. I find the world setup interesting, and don't have any dispute with it. However, since Paladins are removed, the question of how to arbitrate whether a Paladin's powers should be removed in various cases is removed.

A question then, is how would Paladins be handled in Celebrim's world, if an attempt were made to fit them.

I do agree that authorities, and the world common law, so to speak, could take a pragmatic view. That is, essentially, as I read it, "We can't tell whether a person is guilty, so we will shy on the side of assuming guilt" plus a bit of "Justice demands that a person be punished for the act; in the absence of a more suitable party, we'll punish the actor".

But, that would be the view of mundane authorities, not necessarily the view of divine authorities. If Paladins were allowed, that could result in cases where the Paladin retained their powers but were punished still by mundane authorities. Or, that the Paladin still had their powers could create a mess, where that was used to prove the Paladin's innocence.

But then we still run into a problem of what the GM should do, since the GM still has to figure out what the divine authority would rule. Which is the initial question, now run through a merry chase but still unresolved.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Celebrim]

Thinking over the world setup of Celebrim, I am intrigued that Paladins don't exist in this world. I find the world setup interesting, and don't have any dispute with it. However, since Paladins are removed, the question of how to arbitrate whether a Paladin's powers should be removed in various cases is removed.

No, it's not remove; it's clarified. Each deity has a specific list of major commandments that I'll develop for an individual PC Champion. We no longer get a situation where the DM interprets the requirements of being a Champions as: "Commit no non-good acts." or "Commit no non-lawful acts". So we never get in a situation where we are arguing with the player over whether or not something is good or evil in situation critical to the player's identity. Instead, ideally we have a concensus between the DM and the player about what's critically important and the player is aware when he's on the line.

If I feel that there is actual alignment drift because of accumulating small deviations from the alignment standard as defined by the campaign, I can deal with that through a less heavy handed method than removing powers.

A question then, is how would Paladins be handled in Celebrim's world, if an attempt were made to fit them.

If you took a diety like Justian as your patron and played a Champion, the result would look a lot like a Paladin with a very similar sort of code. You are upholding righteousness and the protection of the righteous and innocent from the wiles and treachery of evil. You can detect evil, smite evil, lay on hands, and pretty much all the things you'd expect a Paladin to be able to do. That's all in the rules.

But you'd be handled as just as special instance of a Champion (with the portfolio's of Righteousness and Protection). I'd work out with the player a small list of axioms that Justian was just hard nosed and uncomprimising about.

I don't have a Champion of Justian and haven't had one - because the usual way people greet my Champion rules is not, "Can I be a Paladin?" but "You mean I can be a Paladin of Anything? Awesome!" - so I don't have a full write up, but I can provide some related examples.

One of the current PC's is a Shaman. Shamans have to pick a set of Taboo's that they abide by. One of the Taboo's of the PC Shaman is, "Never touch a [humanoid] member of the opposite gender". When the player took the taboo, I told him explicitly that the spirits providing his spells did not care whether you meant to violate your Taboo, or what the circumstances where, or whether it was fair, or whether you thought they weren't being just. They are gettiing 'paid' by your fulfillment of your vow, and they won't pay you with spells if you aren't paying them with your conduct.

Sure enough, early on the Shaman got jostled from behind by an Orine bravo, and immediately lost all spellcasting powers. This so discouraged the player that he almost abandoned the character, and I had to explain to him what taking up that Taboo meant by saying things like, "The spirits always consider it your fault. If you didn't want to be touched, you should have smeared yourself with horsedung until you stank for 10 yards away and noone wanted to come near you. You should have walked through the street swinging a briar bush wildly around you so that no one came near you. You are a witch. You can look scary if you want to. IF you don't behave like that, then they think you want to be touched and you are just making excuses and trying to trick them. They are not understanding. They are alien and implacable." He's since then gotten more the hang of it without needing to go to such extremes, but the point is, you take one of the classes with an RP burden - Shaman, Cleric, Champion especially - you take it seriously. It's not just color.

But then we still run into a problem of what the GM should do, since the GM still has to figure out what the divine authority would rule. Which is the initial question, now run through a merry chase but still unresolved.

Thx!

TomB

My answer ultimately would be 'Rule on What?' What is the explicit code of the Paladin that defines proper conduct, and by inference gross misconduct. And I've already told you my answer. Deities lean toward strict liabililty in terms of following the code in thier champions, even ones that would otherwise be more merciful and lenient with regards to other followers. In 3e in particular, I believe this is the implication of the "gross misconduct" clause. The clause doesn't say "knowing AND grossly violate" their code. It says "knowingly OR grossly violate" the code. Violating the code grossly, even unknowingly or unwillingly, is still a violation - albiet a more forgivable one. The rest of the merry chase has been to defend my claim of strict liability against those that find it repellent under modern legal constructions.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

Wasn't meaning to provoke there.

The answer seems to be to make the rules much much more specific. That is, saying "A Paladin may not willfully perform an evil act", leaves undecided what "willful" and "evil" means.

Modified, a Paladin's code changes from: "A Paladin may never willfully harm an innocent." To "A Paladin may never harm an innocent." "Willfully" is removed.

Of course, even with very specific rules, there are ways to mess with people: Have I touched someone if:

I push a cart off it its supports, it rolls down the street, and bumps into them.

I'm pushing a cart down the street, and it bumps into them.

I throw them one end of a rope that I am holding, and pull them up a slope.

I reach out with a 10' pole and poke them.

I reach out with a short 1' wand and poke them.

I back up and bump them with my backpack.

I reach out with a gloved hand and shake hands with them.

I reach out with an ungloved hand and shake hands with them.

They drop their artificial hand; I pick it up, and hand it back to them.

Someone cuts off one of their hands. I pick it up, hand it to the party Cleric, who places it back and casts a high level spell to cause it to reattach.

Eventually, intent and interpretation (states of mind) become important.

Thx!

TomB