The Ethics of the Paladin

[shilsen]

It looks to me that, in a fantasy RPG involving paladins, the answer is quite simple. In that case, a paladin doesn't push an innocent in front of the train. Rather, the true paladin wouldn't think about it twice, and would push himself under the train, sacrificing his life for the better of the others.

I was going to go with the paladin not pushing anyone under the train but making sure the train company pays for the Raise Deads for the people killed. This is D&D after all, right?

As for the OP's question, the answer is pretty simple for me. The paladin in the campaign should be one which both DM and player find interesting & fun to have in the game. If that's a paladin who is doomed to fall, fine. If that's a paladin who has absolutely no fear of falling, that's fine too. And it's also perfectly fine to have two completely divergent, maybe even antithetical, paladin concepts played as PCs in the same game. At the end of the day, the paladin is just a class in the game, which should presumably be as usable as any other. And for it to be so, you just need some agreement between DM and player(s). What the agreement is about really doesn't matter. Look at Cedric from my sig. Lots of people on ENWorld would have a heart attack if asked to let him in their game. But I played him in Rolzup's campaign since he was fine with it, and both of us enjoyed having him in the game. And that's all that matters.

 

[green slime]

Yes, it is interesting to have a tortured, soul-seeking, questioning knight, one who dwells upon his deeds, and considers each act carefully, and occasionally fails, because he is human.

The problem is that this character, while interesting in a literary sense, actually has nothing for it in the game. There are no rules (or rather, the rules are very vague) for defining an "interesting character" (even if somewhat cliché).

Secondly, the reason there are no rules for this area, is because it is recognised as an area in which opinions vary, and from a marketing view point, it is far better to be inclusive, than produce large chunks of rules that are going to 1) cause controversy 2) be ignored by at the very least a large minority of the base. Many of whom basically play to escape the angst-ridden real world, and have fun by killing things and taking their stuff (while wearing a suit of shiny armour, with a trusty Holy avenger by their side, either in spite of, or because of, orc baby slaughter).

Thirdly, there is nothing in the game which inspires humanity. It is a game about Heroes (with a capital H, I hope you noticed). Not frail weaklings who suffer attacks of angst. Same goes for temptation, greed, sexual lust, frustration, outrageous jealousy, schizophrenic maniac depressives, and a whole host of other things you have to roleplay.

 

[Whisper72]

Hmm... indeed. While an interesting premise maybe from a psychological point of view, personally, I have little wish, either as DM nor as Player, to put forth such 'mental torture' dilemma's with no way out. We are talking about a game, and in my own personal book, this should form a pleasant diversion from the humdrum and drearyness of everyday life. I do not need to have the horrors of the real world intrude upon my games. As I say, that is for me personally.

If DM and player are fine with it, then they can simply agree to this type of play. Since every god / Paladin / specific campaign world combo is pretty much unique, I see no reason to somehow codify all this stuff into 'generic rules'. I think it is a convenant between player and DM as to how a paladin should atone if he fell from grace. The variables are (IMHO) too many to put down in simple rules.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

What happened was that we had two different camps of opinions...

The other side seemed to expect huge ethical dilemmas occurring, which resulted in them writing this section about atonement...

The paladin follows a strict code with simple edicts: benevolence, faith, humility, integrity, loyalty, mercy, and patience...

This is all well and good, but how do you deal with;

1. A belligerent player who uses the paladin code to justify behavior, rather than to guide behavior?

2. A DM who, for whatever reason, tries to make a paladin fail, rather than simply presenting challenges and obstacles?

3. Other players who have their characters antagonize the paladin, to tempt him to failure?

 

[Whisper72]

This is all well and good, but how do you deal with;

1. A belligerent player who uses the paladin code to justify behavior, rather than to guide behavior?

2. A DM who, for whatever reason, tries to make a paladin fail, rather than simply presenting challenges and obstacles?

3. Other players who have their characters antagonize the paladin, to tempt him to failure?

A good solid whipping?

 

[green slime]

This is all well and good, but how do you deal with;

1. A belligerent player who uses the paladin code to justify behavior, rather than to guide behavior?

2. A DM who, for whatever reason, tries to make a paladin fail, rather than simply presenting challenges and obstacles?

3. Other players who have their characters antagonize the paladin, to tempt him to failure?

1. Belligerent players get the boot.

2. Vote with feet.

3. Vote with feet.

I play my DnD with my friends, amongst my friends. Issues we have we can discuss openly. Therefore there is a large measure of trust: we've seen thick and thin together for a long time. I don't do it because I have to, nor for some kind wish fulfillment. I do it for fun. If it aint fun, don't do it.

 

[shilsen]

1. Belligerent players get the boot.

2. Vote with feet.

3. Vote with feet.

I play my DnD with my friends, amongst my friends. Issues we have we can discuss openly. Therefore there is a large measure of trust: we've seen thick and thin together for a long time. I don't do it because I have to, nor for some kind wish fulfillment. I do it for fun. If it aint fun, don't do it.

QFT. In any of the situations the Grumpy Celt listed, I'd try to deal with it through open communication. If that didn't help, someone would be leaving.

 

[Cheiromancer]

One such example I posted some time ago (WWYPD: What Would Your Paladin Do) involved casting a Paladin in an actual, RW situation- the Paladin was the lone bridge officer of a sinking ship who made it to a lifeboat containing 1 other crewman and a bunch of civilians in and around it- too many survivors for the boat, in fact. The RW person (and thus the Pally) alone knew the ship's position at the time of sinking, so only he could do the navigating. He alone knew how many days out from land and major shipping lines the ship was, thus knowing that there was insufficient supplies for the number of people on the lifeboat, much less for those hanging onto the sides in shifts. He also knew that everyone would die if the lifeboat's load was not lightened- there was an approaching storm they couldn't avoid, and the waves would capsize the boat, dumping supplies and survivors overboard.

Don't want to sidetrack the thread, but do you have a link to this real world situation? I've only ever encountered it as a thought experiment.

 

[Wolfwood2]

My view is that I'm playing 3.5, and in this edition the paladin class is no more powerful than any other class. Consequently, the paladin code is all fluff and not some kind of balancing system to put on roleplaying restrictions in return for cool powers.

Therefore, I as a player ought to be able to interpret the paladin code and play my PC as I see fit within very, very broad guidelines. It's not the place of the DM to be hovering over my shoulder and constantly trying to trip me up with moral dilemmas.

My paladin may not always do the Good thing. Sometimes he'll make the choice that is non-good, but is not evil either. Lots of potential actions are both non-good and non-evil.

That too is fine, as long as he remains broadly good and broadly lawful and cleaves to some sort of code that is basically LG in nature.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Don't want to sidetrack the thread, but do you have a link to this real world situation?

No I don't. AFAIK, none exists.

I originally encountered the situation as a B&W movie "Based on Real Life events!"- similar to but different in salient points from Hitchcock's Lifeboat.

I had to do some actual Library research to find the case, involving (as I recall) 19+ people in and hanging onto the lifeboat made for 11. In it, the RW lifeboat commander did sacrifice people- some old or mortally wounded (waste of resources), some young (they had a chance on their own), and so forth. Even with his efforts, the lifeboat nearly capsized in the storm. When they were finally rescued, the commander was put on trial for murder and acquitted. (I'll try to see if I still have my notes on that.)