The Ethics of the Paladin

[Dannyalcatraz]

To open up a bit on our setting, being set on Earth, Amethyst deals with human faiths like Christianity and Islam, so it was important to us to have god as unproven as he is...today. Knowing that, you can see why we wanted to distance any hard-line faith from Paladin. Most would be religious to be sure, but we didn't want a hard set of rules demanding that.

And yet it is those two faiths from which we get most of the paladin style legends, especially Christianity. King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Jean D'Arc, Charlemagne, Roland- all "paladins" of some stripe, all had their ups & downs. Some would also consider David of the Old Testament to be one of the first "paladins" in history, slaying a seemingly unstoppable foe with guidance from God.

If you take away the strictures- whatever they may be- then you also strip the class of its "potential voltage" in terms of roleplay. Your players won't have a rigid ethical structure within which to base "Paladinly" decision making.

Or look at it this way- faith is what "drives" a Paladin, and faith has rules. Even in postmodern literature, "driven" characters have frameworks beyond which they do not lightly stray. When they do, or when something disrupts their framework from without, they become shaken and unsure to the point of loss of power or even the will to live. At that point, they either rebuild their faith framework or find a new path.

A classic example of this would be found in Terry Brooks' John Ross, the main character in his Running with the Demon series of books, or even in comic book characters like Superman, Captain Mar-Vell, or Captain America.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

Oh no, I never said, the Paladin was not religious. I only said, he didn't have to be. In the end, he is a virtuous warrior. An even though the paladin of legend is based very much on Christianity, I was not going to force Christian ideals on how to play the class on the class.

This paladin may be one that endorses one of the new enchanted faiths of the fey, or maybe he is a Buddhist, or a Sikh (other religious possibilities). Because of specific dogma, I could not write individual rules for each of them. That would be too long. That’s why I added the "Don't sully this one" line, as it conveys the idea that one needs to make sure he knows what he is getting into.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oh no, I never said, the Paladin was not religious. I only said, he didn't have to be. In the end, he is a virtuous warrior.

Which is why I brought up the comic book characters. All are highly virtuous, ehtical characters without any expression of a particular faith system (AFAIK). Yet each stumbled at crucial moments when doubt assailed them. In their cases, it wasn't a loss of power, but of the will to use it.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

Which is why I brought up the comic book characters. All are highly virtuous, ehtical characters without any expression of a particular faith system (AFAIK). Yet each stumbled at crucial moments when doubt assailed them. In their cases, it wasn't a loss of power, but of the will to use it.

True, but I also think this should be up to the player and/or the DM. Such character arcs, in my opinion, should be left to the storyteller on how to proceed. I had a paladin player in my last game reject his god, tearing the symbol from his banner. He became a Warrior for almost 6 months before finally returning to his faith and gaining his abilities back. No spells and no rules were needed. The player did this willingly.

Can we agree we don't need rules on self-mutilation?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not hard & fast ones, no!

I'm just saying that this kind of character works best, if at all, with rigid boundaries.

They don't have to be the same from PC to PC, but they do need to be there.

 

[S'mon]

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.

IMO this Paladin had already massively failed; as an officer of the ship he had a duty to follow the law of the ship and not let too many people on the lifeboat; he should have followed whatever the rules were - eg in a Western European/Christian setting that's women and children first, married men before singles etc - and only let enough crew on the boat to let it be adequately manned. Having already acted or in-acted in an irresponsible and at best Chaotic good sort of manner, any action will be damage limitation. But the correct action will be in accordance with the laws that he is sworn to uphold, for a Christian type paladin that means getting the excess men (including himself, unless he's vital to the boat's survival) to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The key to being Lawful Good, and certainly to being a paladin, is that you accept that the laws exist for a reason, and you follow them as a strong guide to action. You don't come up with your own answer ab initio.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IMO this Paladin had already massively failed; as an officer of the ship he had a duty to follow the law of the ship and not let too many people on the lifeboat;

I'm sorry I wasn't clear (I did better in the original thread)- it didn't launch overloaded-the majority of the people in and around the lifeboat were plucked from the water, many in the first moments following the sinking.

In those hectic moments, who is keeping track? How does one turn away people floating in the water before the situation can be examined?

In addition, it is unfortunately unclear from my recollection of the real-world situation was whether the commander was among those in the lifeboat at launch or if he himself was rescued from the water.

(I am still trying to recreate my research on this one.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I found a link to the movie!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050091/usercomments

Also found, the name of one of the ships that faced this situation- the William Brown. In this case, the Seaman in charge was convicted- not for his action, but for his methodology.

He followed the convention of the day, forcing single men away from the lifeboat, prioritizing women & children, then fathers, etc. The Court, however, found that he should have used a lottery.

So the Court's point of view wasn't that he acted improperly because he ordered the deaths of innocents, but rather how he chose which innocents should die.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

The biggest problem with many of these situations is "armchair quarterbacking." We are seeing it now with the unfortunate loss of Heath Ledger, as people start questioning and judging the actions of others after the fact. Many people don't know how they will act in a situation until such a crisis presents itself. I guess what I think a paladin should represent is a value system so absolute, that he (or she...okay, he) would never need to second-guess decisions. That’s just a statement of principle, not actuality.

 

[S'mon]

He followed the convention of the day, forcing single men away from the lifeboat, prioritizing women & children, then fathers, etc. The Court, however, found that he should have used a lottery.

Sounds like a Lawful seaman & Chaotic judges!