The Ethics of the Paladin

[S'mon]

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.

Yeah, I think to me the Paladin as the epitomy of Lawful Good is all about correct law. The law is right and good, so following it is always right and good. We postmoderns are mostly so far from this mindset that it's hard for us to get our head around it, which leads to endless Paladin threads predicated on the assumption that Paladins are supposed to be developing their own value system ab initio, desCartes-like, or like Kantian ethics from some Categorical Imperative.

By contrast I saw an interesting (non RPG) discussion of Mike Judge's Hank Hill character from King of the Hill, which argued that Hank makes the right decisions, not because of his (non existent) superior intelligence, but because he is grounded in the wisdom of his ancestors/ancestral community - the 'older America'. Whereas the more intelligent people he deals with go awry because they no longer have these moorings. This could be made into a D&D discussion of the relative merits of INT vs WIS, but I also think it makes sense to think of it in Lawful Good vs Neutral-to-Chaotic Good terms. King of the Hill makes the case for LG.

 

[Voadam]

When I want to play a paladin I want to play a heroic guy who stands up to evil. I don't want to play a character who loses his powers because someone else deems him not worthy.

I don't want to conform my actions to someone else's view of good or appropriate paladin actions. I don't want to be looking over my shoulder and wondering how the DM will interpret my actions and self censor my actions to stick within what I think their boundaries are. I don't want to debate ooc the morality of my choices and my PCs actions. I particularly don't want to atone for stuff I think was just fine.

I want to just take up my sword and heroically fight evil.

If a DM is fine with me playing a paladin how I want to without overbearing oversight then I consider playing paladins. If a DM has specific views of how paladins must act or lose their powers then I will not choose to play one even though I could RP conforming to those views.

I don't choose to play other people's visions of heroes, I choose to play my own.

I've talked it over with DMs before the game both times I played paladins. They were cool with my views, decided to trust me as a player, and assured me they would let me play how I wished without overbearing falling issues. It worked out fine both times.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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 is pretty much how the Paladins of myth and legend behaved, at least when they operated within their strictures. When they started to stray, they started to question themselves, hesitate, and show other signs of weakness.

In some ways of thinking, Paladins lose their powers, not because their deity strips them of their powers, but because their own internal turmoil prevents them from tapping into their abilities.

 

[wolfen]

I'm glad this thread exists.

One of my favorite characters is a paladin with high wisdom and low intelligence. So he has a parable or anecdote for everything, but he presents a humorously off-the-mark moral for the story. Or he has clear and insightful reasons for what he must do -- but he often wants to do something inappropriate, ineffective, or doomed.

In short -- how can you penalize the stupid paladin who's acting completely within his faith? I imagine his deity with face in hand, shaking his head, wondering what to do with this guy. Or laughing hysterically. The train example? My pally would kneel and pray. And when it smashed into a 100 pieces he'd stand up and say simply "I guess Tyr doesn't like trains. I wonder if that's because no trains go to the major temples. Maybe if the tracks were laid with more consideration for his followers...? Anyway, we did what we could...let's go help clean up. And I'll have a talk with those train reps when they get here."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In some ways of thinking, Paladins lose their powers, not because their deity strips them of their powers, but because their own internal turmoil prevents them from tapping into their abilities.

Just to clarify that a bit more...

In that way of thinking, the Paladin has not lost the faith & support of his divine inspiration, but instead, has lost his abilities because he has lost faith in his divine sponsor, thus has shut himself off. Its his crisis of faith, IOW, not the anger of the divine, that weakens him.

 

[Cheiromancer]

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.

There's a description of the case here. Thanks for the info!

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

I suppose, just like philosophy, this topic is unlikely to ever be resolved. In the end, I like what we did with Paladin and despite the debate around its creation, I think many players would like to give it a shot. Considering it has been downloaded over a 100 times already may be evidence of that. Amethyst is full of such deviations from the norm...like the fact the forces of Chaos in our setting are actually the good guys. I won't even get into that now...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll just say that standard D&D doesn't consider Law or Chaos to be Good or Evil- hence the axis based on Michael Moorcock's multiverse...

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

Here is a SMALL excerpt from the Amethyst rulebook that introduces the concept as well as how demons are dealt with in the story...


Chaos inspires creation. Random and uncontrolled, the universe, wild as it is, joys in its indiscriminate nature. Alas, science claims everything can eventually be forecast if all fac-tors of a situation are known and able to be measured. How-ever, this assumes a scenario can always be controlled and monitored. The multitude of layers the cosmos has prevents a situation from ever being predictable. Nevertheless, in theory, by knowing all factors present, one could predict an outcome with 100% certainty, if one's claim of omniscience matched reality. The term chaos theory postulates that distant, seemingly trivial events can have lasting repercussions a distance and / or a time later. These elements could theoretically be predicted if, again, one knew all factors involved. Chaos theory assumes no such pansophy exists. The best observers have is to know enough to predict an outcome with a large degree of certainty. This applies in the world of science as well as magic...

...But chaos begets chaos, for it hungers with an appetite unsatisfied by what it eats. Chaos never knows limits, never fathoms a frontier, refusing to acknowledge borders or thresh-olds. Chaos may also be responsible for all life in the universe. For if the universe were uniform and constant, waves in gravity would never converge; stars would never stir; planets would never form, and the spark of life would never ignite. By its nature, chaos is feral, anarchic, and thus cannot be controlled.