playing a paladin in world that is not black and white

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

I can see where your concern in this lies, however, I am not advocating a lose-lose scenario.

The character should, perhaps, suffer through the choice, and certainly feel some qualms either way he chooses. It is up to the DM to give the PC enough information to make the choice, or to give an alternative action to the obvious bad choices, though it is perfectly reasonable to make the alternative harder to accomplish. (Two wrong ways, and one hard way, let's take the hard way.) The paladin's church/liege may also prepare some form of atonement for those cases where there is no right path.

In some ways the Samurai of legend and some of King Arthur's knights make good examples, in others.... (Lancelot was a mean SoB.)

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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 pseudo-medieval setting I don't think modern views on good an evil are always right.

Its like executing prisoners in the wilderness is not always evil what are you supposed to do with them when you are days of travel maybe weeks 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.

And some nations of antiquity (Rome and Athens coming to mind) had very strict rules on the treatment of slaves. Late Republican/Early Juleo-Claudian Rome actually had more laws governing mistreatment of slaves than mistreatment of free men. In part because there were so darned many of them....

The Auld Grump

 

[Endur]

Paladins and Right and Wrong

To a certain extent, you should remind your GM that playing a Paladin is not a game of "gotcha." It is a game of right and wrong.

Your Paladin has sworn oaths to God and Country to do what is right and not what is wrong.

Sometimes people do the wrong thing. Because they are upset or angry. Because they are in a hurry. Because they are tired. Because they are drunk. Because they just don't care. Or because they are plain evil.

Paladins never do the wrong thing.

If the GM thinks your paladin is not doing the right thing, then your GM needs to explain his campaign world more to you, so that you can understand why your character would feel that the action is wrong. Once you (the player) understand why the GM feels the action is wrong for your character, then you can comply with his understanding.

It is not a question of violating your alignment. The GM is the one who has failed to explain. The PC is not in the wrong. Unless the player understands why the action is the wrong one before committing the action.

Losing or placing your paladinhood in danger or violating your alignment requires deliberate action on the part of the player character. You can't lose it by accident or misunderstanding. If the GM claims that your character is in danger, the GM must explain why. And you can simply respond after the explanation, that your character wouldn't have performed actions that would have violated his or her alignment.

 

[Celebrim]

Whenever anyone plays a lawful character it is a good idea to hash out ahead of time exactly what code or body of laws the character is beholden to, what is the characters heirachy of allegiances, and so forth. Alot of problems could have been solved had the DM made things explicit to begin with.

I hate to criticize a DM based on the word of a player, but it sounds to me like your DM is in the wrong.

Even if Cyre is gone and its people scattered to the winds, your Paladin is still loyal to the nation of Cyre in what ever form it is in until explicitly and formally transfering allegiance to something else or until some authority which the Paladin recognizes as legitimate orders the Paladin to transfer allegiance and is in doing so not seen by the Paladin as guilty of bretrayal himself. I don't know much about the setting, but if the Cyrean Avengers represent something which is in any way like the legitimate government of Cyre in exile or are in any fashion loyal to the idea of the nation as much as the Paladin is and aren't merely a band of honorless bandits, I would very much think it against your code of alignment to not treat them as peers or even lords.

The big sticking point here would be what was your explicit 'word' to the King of Breland. Did you in fact promise explicitly to do something for him? Did you give your word? Because if you foolishly gave your word to do something your higher allegiance requires you not to do, you are screwed. The only thing you can do is break your word to the King of Breland, seek atonement to your diety, and go to the King of Breland and confess. But if you didn't give your explicit word to turn over the man to the King of Breland, if you kept your silence and allowed the King of Breland to decieve himself, or if you only promised to 'bring him to justice' then you have the out of obeying the letter of your word.

Sometimes there really are situations where a lawful person can put himself in which its impossible to satisfy his obligations. A DM is under no obligation to keep you out of these traps or tell you how to get out them. A wise lawful person avoids putting himself in those situations, and is always thinking ahead to the implications of any action he does. A wise Paladin is also going to be able to find legitimate exceptions in his code for particular cases, or is going to be able to word things in ways that he can avoid legal traps. In fact, the ability to get out of seemingly insolvable legal traps is often seen as a sign that the Paladin truly is on a mission from god.

I'll give a historical example. At the sham trial of Joan of Arc, the prosecution was continually looking for some excuse to condemn her as a heretic (note that this was a legal fiction itself because under the law of the day heresy was only a capital offence on the second offense). One of the legal traps that the prosecution tried was asking Joan the question, "Are you in in God's grace?" If she answered, "Yes.", then she would have been guilty of a heresy because Catholic doctrine taught that no one could know if they were in God's grace. If she answered, "No.", then it would be as much as admitting that she could not have been on a mission from God and therefore her guilt. It was therefore an insolvable problem. Joan answered, "If I am not, then may God put me there. And if I am, then may God preserve me in it." Hearing, this some members of the prosecution said later that from then on they feared damnation, for they knew that they were dealing with "a holy woman".

Playing a Paladin well is hard. I confess I've never even attempted it.

 

[Aaron L]

Then do what you need to. Catch the bad guy. Hand him over to the Avengers.

But what will Captain America do with him?

 

[Elf Witch]

Whenever anyone plays a lawful character it is a good idea to hash out ahead of time exactly what code or body of laws the character is beholden to, what is the characters heirachy of allegiances, and so forth. Alot of problems could have been solved had the DM made things explicit to begin with.

I hate to criticize a DM based on the word of a player, but it sounds to me like your DM is in the wrong.

Even if Cyre is gone and its people scattered to the winds, your Paladin is still loyal to the nation of Cyre in what ever form it is in until explicitly and formally transfering allegiance to something else or until some authority which the Paladin recognizes as legitimate orders the Paladin to transfer allegiance and is in doing so not seen by the Paladin as guilty of bretrayal himself. I don't know much about the setting, but if the Cyrean Avengers represent something which is in any way like the legitimate government of Cyre in exile or are in any fashion loyal to the idea of the nation as much as the Paladin is and aren't merely a band of honorless bandits, I would very much think it against your code of alignment to not treat them as peers or even lords.

The big sticking point here would be what was your explicit 'word' to the King of Breland. Did you in fact promise explicitly to do something for him? Did you give your word? Because if you foolishly gave your word to do something your higher allegiance requires you not to do, you are screwed. The only thing you can do is break your word to the King of Breland, seek atonement to your diety, and go to the King of Breland and confess. But if you didn't give your explicit word to turn over the man to the King of Breland, if you kept your silence and allowed the King of Breland to decieve himself, or if you only promised to 'bring him to justice' then you have the out of obeying the letter of your word.

Sometimes there really are situations where a lawful person can put himself in which its impossible to satisfy his obligations. A DM is under no obligation to keep you out of these traps or tell you how to get out them. A wise lawful person avoids putting himself in those situations, and is always thinking ahead to the implications of any action he does. A wise Paladin is also going to be able to find legitimate exceptions in his code for particular cases, or is going to be able to word things in ways that he can avoid legal traps. In fact, the ability to get out of seemingly insolvable legal traps is often seen as a sign that the Paladin truly is on a mission from god.

I'll give a historical example. At the sham trial of Joan of Arc, the prosecution was continually looking for some excuse to condemn her as a heretic (note that this was a legal fiction itself because under the law of the day heresy was only a capital offence on the second offense). One of the legal traps that the prosecution tried was asking Joan the question, "Are you in in God's grace?" If she answered, "Yes.", then she would have been guilty of a heresy because Catholic doctrine taught that no one could know if they were in God's grace. If she answered, "No.", then it would be as much as admitting that she could not have been on a mission from God and therefore her guilt. It was therefore an insolvable problem. Joan answered, "If I am not, then may God put me there. And if I am, then may God preserve me in it." Hearing, this some members of the prosecution said later that from then on they feared damnation, for they knew that they were dealing with "a holy woman".

Playing a Paladin well is hard. I confess I've never even attempted it.

I never promised anything to anyone other than the King of Cyre. I went along with the group because I knew the land they didn't. I have never lied to the group. I told them I would guide them through the countryside and aid in the capture of the man.

Now I guess I could be guilty of lying through omission, because I have not told them everything.

I have tried very hard to play the paladin as someone who is just trying to fulfill her oaths without hurting anyone else.

I have been very careful in what I say. When the party talks about getting the man once we capture him to Starlaska and what to do with the reward I don't say anything.

one of the hardest things I see about playing a paladin is that you often can't take the easy way out of a situation. We had some of the party in jail the others wanted to just break them out. But I refused because they had broken the law. I went and arranged for them to do a few days of labor (helping build a wall) in exchange of a fine and spending thirty days in jail. I even helped with the wall. Some of the party were not happy with me and kept muttering blasted paladin under their breath.

 

[Celebrim]

I never promised anything to anyone other than the King of Cyre. I went along with the group because I knew the land they didn't. I have never lied to the group. I told them I would guide them through the countryside and aid in the capture of the man.

Then you are golden.

Now I guess I could be guilty of lying through omission, because I have not told them everything.

You can only commit lies of omission with people whom your duty to them compels you to be forthright with them - people like your lord, your spouse, your family, etc. Other people have no claim on you that obligates you to reveal anything to them at all, least of all someone who may in fact be in the final test your enemy.

Be careful how much obligation you accumulate with respect to other party members. Friendship is a very serious thing.

I have tried very hard to play the paladin as someone who is just trying to fulfill her oaths without hurting anyone else.

Don't forget that while the Paladin is lawful good, they are also a lawful good soldier. The chivilric code is a warrior code. You have the right to bear arms and are empowered to dispense justice by the sword. It's a good bet that you are legally a magistrate, although your jurisdiction may well be limited depending on how the DM runs the campaign and how much attention he pays to that sort of thing. Your duty will require you to hurt people from time to time, even ones that aren't strictly speaking 'bad people'. So you are probably better off phrasing the Paladin's world view as someone who is trying to fulfill her oaths without hurting anyone more than she has to, and who sincerely means that. As you say, you can't take the easy way out.

I have been very careful in what I say. When the party talks about getting the man once we capture him to Starlaska and what to do with the reward I don't say anything.

Good job. The surest way to get in trouble as a Paladin is open your mouth.

one of the hardest things I see about playing a paladin is that you often can't take the easy way out of a situation. We had some of the party in jail the others wanted to just break them out. But I refused because they had broken the law. I went and arranged for them to do a few days of labor (helping build a wall) in exchange of a fine and spending thirty days in jail. I even helped with the wall. Some of the party were not happy with me and kept muttering blasted paladin under their breath.

I've never played Paladin, but I've DMed alot of groups and in my experience its that last part which seems like it should be the hardest part of playing a Paladin. If the muttering was all 'in character', then your fine. The problem is that alot of groups will have one or more players who 'out of character' detest the notion of a Paladin and think that it interferes with the way that as far as they are concerned the game should be played. In trying to bring to life a LG character, you tend to start running a foul of the real life personalities (and dare I say alignments) of the players.

 

[rgard]

Nor by watery tarts flinging swords about.

I'd concur, though, that tricking the party probably isn't kosher.

Now if she is a moistened bink and lobs a scimitar at you...that's a different story.

 

[rgard]

I hate being the one to start another paladin thread but I need some help.

I understand that a paladin is supposed to uphold and follow the law of a legitimate goverment. Here is my question what if the paladin has sworn and oath to the ruler of one Kingdom and that includes gathering information and maybe going around the legal system of another Kingdom?

In Eberron my paladin is from a Cyre she is loyal to who she views as the rightful ruler of Cyre. With Cyre gone and its people scattered to the winds she is in Breland helping as best she can the plight of the refugees.

There is a man who is behind the plot to kill as many Cyre refugees as he can. Now the Breland goverment has put a price on his head and I am part of the group going after him. The King wants the man delivered to his agents not the goverment of Breland. So my character has a method to communicate with some Cyrean Avengers to let them know we have the man and arrange for them to take him.

Now there has been some debate over this with my DM he thinks that I am close to violating my alignment.

I am confused on one hand the game is not run in a black and white way. The DM plays up the mistrust of countries that have just come out of a major war.

He is really playing up how badly the Cyreans have been screwed. Their lands destroyed, some of their people slaughtered by the elves (when fleeing the destruction they ended up in the elven lands), to losing any voice in the new threaty and basically a lost and defeated people.

He also plays up the fact that in the last war the Cyreans were the ones in the right there leader was the rightful ruler and the war started when the others decided not to follow the law of inhertience.

He wants a world that is not friendly a world full of intrigue and back stabbing but he expects a paladin to be straight from the players handbook no deviation.

I really don't see how to play that. So how does one play a paladin in a world like this?

Sorry if you already answered this, but is this the same dm that had your character drive on the wrong side of the road and run over an MP?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Harlath]

If the major issue is cash you could offer the rest of the PCs the difference in rewards to allow you to take him to your preferred option. If necessary you could even go into debt to the other PCs.This would be a noble sacrifice on the part of your PC, some DMs may even make an effort to equalize the Paladin's loss later. I do feel for you playing a character following the DM's story outline when others don't.