playing a paladin in world that is not black and white

[Elf Witch]

Hmmm, is there a means that you can use to get information to the 'King in Exile' about this, so that he may be present when the miscreant is handed over to Breland's king? Use the cad as a political tool, and his crimes, once proven, to help wrest a bit more control for Cyre. Given that the Breland king gave sanctuary to the Cyre natives and king he has enough honor that having an audience might help.

The Auld Grump

That I could I have a ring that lets me use the spell that allows you to communicate with 25 words.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yeah, wow. That's obnoxious.

I think you and your DM need to get something straightened out: In the default D&D ruleset, paladins are Lawful Good, not (lawful) and (good). LG is a term of art, and in effect, it refers neither to law in the legislative/regulatory sense, nor to good in the purely relativist sense. Even though a denizen of Karrnath might think that it's "good" to partake in vampire blood feasts, that doesn't mean that it's Good. Likewise, just because the laws of Breland protect Breland's citizens from outlanders, doesn't mean that following them constitutes Lawful conduct.

Thus, while it is possible to have two paladins serving opposing powers, if one of those powers is "right" in the abstract D&D moral universe, and the other is wrong, then one of those paladins isn't going to be a paladin for very long. For example, if your Brelandish (?) paladin believes that protecting a man who has committed thousands of human rights violations and murders is "lawful" and "good"... well, he can go on believing that in character, but such conduct is neither Lawful nor Good in the D&D sense.

to be fair to the other player he does not know all this stuff going on in the background. He feels that the KIng of Breland is a noble ruler who opened his lands to a misplaced people. Off all the other players his character is the only really sympathetic to the plight of the refuges. I think he also wants to make sure he is not stepping on my toes which is why he did not want to swear an oath to my king. I also think he thinks that with my paladin serving Cyre and his serving Breland working together we could do more to help.

I know he thinks this man we are after should be punished.

I also knew that he was thinking of multiclassing into paladin from the very start of the game. And I don't have a problem with that.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

That I could I have a ring that lets me use the spell that allows you to communicate with 25 words.

Hmm, then perhaps you could speak, out of game, with the GM and tell him that you will be looking for a way to get word to Cyre's king rather than trying to trick the criminal out of the party's hands, saving that for a last ditch effort. Some GMs will take the idea and run with it, giving you the opportunity, and others won't. But it won't hurt to check.

The Auld Grump

 

[FCWesel]

Hmm, then perhaps you could speak, out of game, with the GM and tell him that you will be looking for a way to get word to Cyre's king rather than trying to trick the criminal out of the party's hands, saving that for a last ditch effort. Some GMs will take the idea and run with it, giving you the opportunity, and others won't. But it won't hurt to check.

I think The Auld Grump speaks wisely in this matter. You go, Auld Gump!

 

[Dragonblade]

Ok people, paladins ARE NOT COPS. They do NOT obey the "law". Paladins obey and answer only to the particular authority or deity THEY recognize as legitimate. Some guy calling himself king and declaring himself ruler over a hunk of land does not in any way give him any sort of authority that a paladin is obligated to respect in any way whatsoever.

If a paladin follows a particular church than that is the law they follow. If a paladin travels to a foreign land with different laws that conflict with his church's it does not mean the paladin is now in some sort of dilemma about which law to follow.

The paladin might simply view the other nation's laws as the scribblings of the ignorant heathen infidels. Depending on his personality, the paladin may arrogantly declare his law the true way, defying by sword and word any who would object. Or the paladin may respectfully follow the other laws in an attempt at humoring the native cultures. But either path is perfectly legitimate and at NO time would the paladin's status be in jeopardy.

A paladin in a foreign land that legalized slavery would have no problem denouncing slavery to the point of calling out a slaver as a vile criminal and cutting him down on the spot. And if other unbelieving heathens dare to stop him, he could theoretically denounce them all as vile enablers of evil and bring fire and death down upon them with absolutely NO RISK to his paladinhood. The people of that nation may declare the paladin a murderer and seize him and hang him for his crimes. But as long as the paladin was following his code, he would walk to the gallows as a full paladin knowing in his heart that he was RIGHT and they were WRONG. The people of that nation may believe the paladin to be a murderer but their belief is ultimately irrelevant in determining whether the paladin loses his status or not.

The code of a paladin is not relative to whatever the prevailing culture is. It is an absolute covenant ordained by divine authority which supercedes any other man made law or rule. Regardless of where he is or who he is talking to, the way the paladin follows is the ONE TRUE way as far as they are concerned. A paladin only falls from paladinhood when the paladin strays from the one true code that the individual paladin follows. Not the code that others believe in or would have the paladin follow.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

In our Kalamar game slavery is legal and people who are sold into it or either captured from wars or criminals.

Kingdoms can pass whatever laws they choose but lawfulgoodness is defined at a higher level. Anyhoo, what that means is when the worldly lawfulgood does not match the heavenly lawfulgood then the worldly is in error. But I won't push this tangent any further.

Btw, good luck. I think your solution is amongst the above posts.

 

[Felix]

FCWesel & TheAuldGrump

PCs have to answer moral questions all the time during the game regardless of class. Paladin players have the added bonus of having to make sure that everything they do conforms to the code they've bound to. It then follows that paladins will have to deal with the usual moral questions while adventuring.

I'm not advocating sparing paladin players from moral questions, merely advocating against heaving no-win scenarios at them like FCWesel seemed to suggest. In that circumstance the paladin had to choose between two duties, and either way he chose could result in the DM ruling that he's broken his code. It's a lose-lose choice, and paladin players should not be subjected to them merely because they're playing a paladin.

Now, before you defend yourself, I understand that FCWesel seemed to think one solution was better than the other, and he did not say that he would lose his powers either way. But designing a moral dilemma for a paladin because he's a paladin, when the DM can easily have one "correct" solution in mind, is unfair to the paladin's player: he's going to have to make enough moral choices without the DM trying to trip him up as it is.

 

[Elf Witch]

Kingdoms can pass whatever laws they choose but lawfulgoodness is defined at a higher level. Anyhoo, what that means is when the worldly lawfulgood does not match the heavenly lawfulgood then the worldly is in error. But I won't push this tangent any further.

Btw, good luck. I think your solution is amongst the above posts.

I don't agree that slavery like in Kalamar is evil. If criminals go into slvaery to pay for their crimes instead of being locked away in a dungeon or executed then it is not evil. When playing in a pseudomedieval setting I don't think modern views on good an evil are always right.

Its like exeecuting prisoners in the wildnerness is not always evil what are you supposed to do with them when you are days of travel maybe weeeks away from the proper authority.

Now in Real life I think slavery and killing prisoners is evil but not necessarily in my game setting.

Thanks for good luck wishes.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that needs to be thrashed out at character creation time. If your DM wants a morally ambiguous world, he has an obligation to either disallow paladins as being too much trouble, or make it explicitely clear to the player what his expectations are. Failing that, he has an obligation to compromise with you and come up with a reasonable 'code' now that accomodates both your playstyle and his worldview as best it can.

Personally, I think your paladin is spot on - her loyalties are clear, and she swore an oath to obey the King of Cyre. She's bringing the evil man to justice, which he might not face if returned to the Breland authorities. If the situation were slightly different -- if she didn't know for sure that this was the man, or if his guilt was disputable, and she knew he wouldn't get a fair shake from the King of Cyre -- there might be some room for doubt on her part. But that's the good kind of gray, where the DM doesn't punish the player for what she can't know, but uses it as a good plot hook.

QFT

Paladins - by definition - KNOW what is the right thing to do. They don't just blunder around saying, "Gosh. I'd LIKE to do the right thing but I just can't figure it out. I'll just GUESS at what's RIGHT and GOOD and hope for the best - even though I might actually be doing what's WRONG, unethical, and immoral." When paladins encounter Orc Babies they KNOW what's right and what's wrong as far as deciding whether to kill them, leave them to fate, or ensure their survival and proper indoctrination.

Don't play this STUPID game of trying to read the DM's mind to learn what HE thinks is the correct answer and then get your character slapped for YOUR having guessed incorrectly. DEMAND to be told what your character has ostensibly been TAUGHT about what is right and wrong in this situation. If the DM wants to play alignment whack-a-mole then establish that NOW so you can proceed knowing where things REALLY stand.

 

[Felix]

If the DM wants to play alignment whack-a-mole

Good turn of phrase.