Dias Ex Machina
Publisher / Game Designer
The Ethics and Philosophy of Paladin
In the House Rules section, I reprinted the Amethyst Paladin we tooled over for over a year to perfect. It brought back memories over the issues we had in making it. I wanted to spend a moment or two (more like an hour) typing my thoughts on this.
What happened was that we had two different camps of opinions. One side promoted a class that included a set of rules dealing with a flawed paladin, along with a system of checks and balances about how a paladin should act (dealing with vows and oaths), which acts cause him to lose his abilities and what he must do to atone. These rules detailing with the Paladin's eventual fall (it implied a “when”, not an “if”) occupied a large section of the class and expanded the rules of how a Paladin redeems himself after he stops becoming a Paladin.
No less than three times does this class mention actions that have morale consequences. It felt like fanaticism as the rules of atonement included mentions of continuous prayer and self-mutilation. It endorsed the concept of vows and quests and explains that the Paladin ONLY gains the abilities of his class when he maintains his vow and is on a quest. If not, he loses these abilities. Their argument brought up ethics and how a true paladin like the ones mentioned in movies and games would never ever exist. Never. A paladin will break his path; he will test his ethics and will be forced to break his vow and lose his class when this test occurs.
The concept used the Lancelot argument. That when the paladin breaks this code, he would undergo psychological trauma. Rules would be included detailing this path. They thought the conflict and challenge of a heroic character was integral to the drama, and the rules would encourage that. They wanted a tortured knight (mort d'arthur, fairy queen) because they are conflicted and challenged. Vows and oaths will clash in their class, creating role-playing. He claimed Eddard Stark from Game of Thrones was a Paladin, a claim I strongly disagreed with.
The other side (my side), rejected the idea of creating a whole set of rules for telling how a paladin should act, detailing the actions that causes him to lose his class abilities and how he must atone. I believed someone playing a paladin wants to play as a paladin, so we shouldn’t need all the rules detailing HOW a paladin falls. I think the paladin player that acts willingly, instead of by threat, creates a more exciting character on the page and for the player.
The other side seemed to expect huge ethical dilemmas occurring, which resulted in them writing this section about atonement. On the other hand, I would prefer to say, "this is the code”--you follow the code. No “or,” we don't need an "or." Balian from Kingdom of Heaven never had an "or." He is a knight...of truth and dignity. His personal values are set so high, it never occurs to him. We don't need to create a rule set for something that may never occur and should never occur. I wanted the legendary knight, the one stories talk about. The player CAN create a conflicted character, I just didn't want to force it or create a rule system detailing how they act or how they perform. Our side used the Galahad argument to their Lancelot (also the aforementioned Balian from Kingdom of Heaven). Oaths and Vows of atonements force a player to follow a path. But what about cultures that don't have such rules? Why create a character doomed to fall if the Player doesn't actually want to do that? Eddard executed someone. A true paladin would never do that. I brought up the concept of nanawatai, a term known to Muslims, dealing with forgiveness and protection of those who need or ask for it, even if it is an enemy. King Leonides from 300 was no Paladin.
The paladin follows a strict code with simple edicts: benevolence, faith, humility, integrity, loyalty, mercy, and patience. The paladin must adhere to these and keep the standard, which he himself, wishes to uphold. This oath is neither forced upon the paladin nor should he ever question the morality of it. Breaking any of these codes brings upon a personal shame even if no others witness the act. Do we need rules for it? Even if allies attempt to convince the paladin the act was morally justified, the paladin's own guilt may prevent absolution. He never looks for an excuse to break his code. I thought the rules detailing his flaws were unnecessary.
The other side claimed all people are flawed. What makes characters interesting to play is that it allows you to assume the role of a character you normally aren't. They claimed my paladin was a robot, dull, a caricature of virtue. What makes virtue compelling is that it's the difficult choice. He said Balian from Kingdom of Heaven was an idiot for not killing the French lord because it would have saved thousands of people.
Then we went into philosophy and ethics. If you followed the topic this long, you know its not going to end well once ethics comes into it. Being a devout follower of it, a member from the other side brought up the train dilemma: A runaway train is about to kill 5 people. You can save their lives by pushing another person in front of the train (or diverting to train down another track, where a baby waits). What do you do? Murder an innocent or allow 5 other innocents to die. They claimed there's no correct answer.
One sure-fire way to upset a philosophy major is to say there is one. Someone from the other side of the table thought me saying that was scary (terrifying was the actually quote) but in truth, I think there is a correct answer...and that is whatever you decide. Ethics are not a group consensus but one's own personal value system. It’s his or her ethics that dictate how someone responds to a situation like that. In opposite, I say there is no "wrong answer" for ethics are based on the person and if you know how you would react, regardless of what that is, it is right within your context.
I, for one, do not have the capacity of murder. I do not. If these people die, I cannot be held guilty by that because it is not in me to murder an innocent. I simply cannot do it. It’s not in my nature. I would be frozen by fear and dread but eventually not be able to act...cause I cannot intentionally cause murder. The train kills 5 people...I will not murder one. I would go further (and this really annoys philosophy and ethics majors I have learned) and say the concept is flawed. I would not be responsible for those deaths, it would be the psychopath presenting the situation. A true hero’s instinct would be to try to save them both. With the train scenario (if me MUST address it), the hero would look where the train is going and save the side immediately in danger. Of course, the one presenting it always has to retroact the scenario (“You’re tied up. You’re paralyzed. Someone has a gun to your head”). Batman and Spiderman would always try to save both (in fact, they did exactly that in both their movies).
My concept of Paladin is the hero, the true good guy, beyond any concepts of religious fanaticism, but rooted in fantasy, so he becomes the virtuous knight. Faith in a god is not even a requirement as our religion skill also doubles as philosophy. I was looking at Batman and Balian from Kingdom of Heaven as my inspiration for this class. The other side was hoping for a flawed Knight who comes face to face with moral choices and suffers effects when they go against his vow. Frankly, I think players choose a prestige class for what it gives you, not what it takes away. Players should be allowed to play the class as they wish and not be forced to create drama where they don't want it. I won't bother reprinting the description of the final paladin prestige class we ended up with. You can check out the class on my page or in the House Rules section.
This polarized our group for months and it never completely settled. One member reduced his involvement and another almost quit. There was some compromise but several people are still not completely happy. I open the floor (or rather the post) to people's thoughts on this. What would you play and why? Where do you stand?
In the House Rules section, I reprinted the Amethyst Paladin we tooled over for over a year to perfect. It brought back memories over the issues we had in making it. I wanted to spend a moment or two (more like an hour) typing my thoughts on this.
What happened was that we had two different camps of opinions. One side promoted a class that included a set of rules dealing with a flawed paladin, along with a system of checks and balances about how a paladin should act (dealing with vows and oaths), which acts cause him to lose his abilities and what he must do to atone. These rules detailing with the Paladin's eventual fall (it implied a “when”, not an “if”) occupied a large section of the class and expanded the rules of how a Paladin redeems himself after he stops becoming a Paladin.
No less than three times does this class mention actions that have morale consequences. It felt like fanaticism as the rules of atonement included mentions of continuous prayer and self-mutilation. It endorsed the concept of vows and quests and explains that the Paladin ONLY gains the abilities of his class when he maintains his vow and is on a quest. If not, he loses these abilities. Their argument brought up ethics and how a true paladin like the ones mentioned in movies and games would never ever exist. Never. A paladin will break his path; he will test his ethics and will be forced to break his vow and lose his class when this test occurs.
The concept used the Lancelot argument. That when the paladin breaks this code, he would undergo psychological trauma. Rules would be included detailing this path. They thought the conflict and challenge of a heroic character was integral to the drama, and the rules would encourage that. They wanted a tortured knight (mort d'arthur, fairy queen) because they are conflicted and challenged. Vows and oaths will clash in their class, creating role-playing. He claimed Eddard Stark from Game of Thrones was a Paladin, a claim I strongly disagreed with.
The other side (my side), rejected the idea of creating a whole set of rules for telling how a paladin should act, detailing the actions that causes him to lose his class abilities and how he must atone. I believed someone playing a paladin wants to play as a paladin, so we shouldn’t need all the rules detailing HOW a paladin falls. I think the paladin player that acts willingly, instead of by threat, creates a more exciting character on the page and for the player.
The other side seemed to expect huge ethical dilemmas occurring, which resulted in them writing this section about atonement. On the other hand, I would prefer to say, "this is the code”--you follow the code. No “or,” we don't need an "or." Balian from Kingdom of Heaven never had an "or." He is a knight...of truth and dignity. His personal values are set so high, it never occurs to him. We don't need to create a rule set for something that may never occur and should never occur. I wanted the legendary knight, the one stories talk about. The player CAN create a conflicted character, I just didn't want to force it or create a rule system detailing how they act or how they perform. Our side used the Galahad argument to their Lancelot (also the aforementioned Balian from Kingdom of Heaven). Oaths and Vows of atonements force a player to follow a path. But what about cultures that don't have such rules? Why create a character doomed to fall if the Player doesn't actually want to do that? Eddard executed someone. A true paladin would never do that. I brought up the concept of nanawatai, a term known to Muslims, dealing with forgiveness and protection of those who need or ask for it, even if it is an enemy. King Leonides from 300 was no Paladin.
The paladin follows a strict code with simple edicts: benevolence, faith, humility, integrity, loyalty, mercy, and patience. The paladin must adhere to these and keep the standard, which he himself, wishes to uphold. This oath is neither forced upon the paladin nor should he ever question the morality of it. Breaking any of these codes brings upon a personal shame even if no others witness the act. Do we need rules for it? Even if allies attempt to convince the paladin the act was morally justified, the paladin's own guilt may prevent absolution. He never looks for an excuse to break his code. I thought the rules detailing his flaws were unnecessary.
The other side claimed all people are flawed. What makes characters interesting to play is that it allows you to assume the role of a character you normally aren't. They claimed my paladin was a robot, dull, a caricature of virtue. What makes virtue compelling is that it's the difficult choice. He said Balian from Kingdom of Heaven was an idiot for not killing the French lord because it would have saved thousands of people.
Then we went into philosophy and ethics. If you followed the topic this long, you know its not going to end well once ethics comes into it. Being a devout follower of it, a member from the other side brought up the train dilemma: A runaway train is about to kill 5 people. You can save their lives by pushing another person in front of the train (or diverting to train down another track, where a baby waits). What do you do? Murder an innocent or allow 5 other innocents to die. They claimed there's no correct answer.
One sure-fire way to upset a philosophy major is to say there is one. Someone from the other side of the table thought me saying that was scary (terrifying was the actually quote) but in truth, I think there is a correct answer...and that is whatever you decide. Ethics are not a group consensus but one's own personal value system. It’s his or her ethics that dictate how someone responds to a situation like that. In opposite, I say there is no "wrong answer" for ethics are based on the person and if you know how you would react, regardless of what that is, it is right within your context.
I, for one, do not have the capacity of murder. I do not. If these people die, I cannot be held guilty by that because it is not in me to murder an innocent. I simply cannot do it. It’s not in my nature. I would be frozen by fear and dread but eventually not be able to act...cause I cannot intentionally cause murder. The train kills 5 people...I will not murder one. I would go further (and this really annoys philosophy and ethics majors I have learned) and say the concept is flawed. I would not be responsible for those deaths, it would be the psychopath presenting the situation. A true hero’s instinct would be to try to save them both. With the train scenario (if me MUST address it), the hero would look where the train is going and save the side immediately in danger. Of course, the one presenting it always has to retroact the scenario (“You’re tied up. You’re paralyzed. Someone has a gun to your head”). Batman and Spiderman would always try to save both (in fact, they did exactly that in both their movies).
My concept of Paladin is the hero, the true good guy, beyond any concepts of religious fanaticism, but rooted in fantasy, so he becomes the virtuous knight. Faith in a god is not even a requirement as our religion skill also doubles as philosophy. I was looking at Batman and Balian from Kingdom of Heaven as my inspiration for this class. The other side was hoping for a flawed Knight who comes face to face with moral choices and suffers effects when they go against his vow. Frankly, I think players choose a prestige class for what it gives you, not what it takes away. Players should be allowed to play the class as they wish and not be forced to create drama where they don't want it. I won't bother reprinting the description of the final paladin prestige class we ended up with. You can check out the class on my page or in the House Rules section.
This polarized our group for months and it never completely settled. One member reduced his involvement and another almost quit. There was some compromise but several people are still not completely happy. I open the floor (or rather the post) to people's thoughts on this. What would you play and why? Where do you stand?
