The Misunderstood Paladin

[DragonLancer]

As I have pointed out at times, a Paladin might well execute a group of captives after they have converted from their former (Evil) alignment to Lawful Good, for that act saves their sould, prevents them from slipping back into error.

As much as I am loath to contradict the great maker, the above statement is an evil act if ever I heard one. Its not lawful and it certainly is not good.

Can a paladin lie? Yes, under the right circumstances. He cannot lie to his high priests or whoever his legitimate superiors are, but when faced with the evil city & gate guard proposal then yes. To do otherwise leads him to his death and he has failed his cause. Again we're back to lawful-stupid.

To martyr himself is also a waste of the gift he was given. To leave hundreds of innocents in a castle or city to die at the hands of the evil hordes because the paladin rode out of the gates to face them singlehanded in a show of bravery is not a good act. Those innocents are now going to be slaughtered and who knows what else will be done to them.

A paladin needs a good head on his shoulders. If riding out to his doom buys the innocents a couple more minutes, they are still going to die. If he can defend them from within the castle walls and perhaps hold the enemy off until help arrives, then that is what he should do.


As for the concept, I do prefer the idea of the paladin being a holy knight, choosen by his deity. I also believe that the path of the paladin is a very narrow one and many fall from that path. Maybe not becoming evil, but they do fail to uphold the moral and ethical needs of the class.

In the last campaign I DM'ed we had a paladin PC, who was tricked by members of an evil faith into desecrating a tomb in search of a holy relic that the party needed. Now despite the fact that this relic could save the lives of hundreds of innocents dying of a plague, he desecrated the tomb of a high priest of another good aligned deity. He was stripped of his powers until he atoned. In the end (and as part of a decent story twist) he refused. He swore at his god (not physically) and addressed the very issue that whatever he did he did with a good goal in mind. But the path should be that difficult to walk. The players problem was that he didn't think his actions through. He could have found another means to find the relic or even another way of defeating the cult and removing the plague.

 

[FireLance]

If it's Lawful Good and Paladinish to murder people immediately after they convert from Evil to Good, for the sake of their souls, it is also even MORE Lawful Good and Paladinish to exterminate all innocents that one meets, that way you can ensure that they NEVER sin. Thus, mass murderers are far more powerful forces of true Lawful Good and Paladinish behavior than is anybody who goes out and fights Evil directly. One can save far more souls by exterminating the pure before they sin than by fighting against the already corrupt.

This is, of course, correct, if the world is such that a person will enter paradise for eternity if he dies while he is "good".

However, even in such a world, it might still be necessary to stop the mass murderer in case he murders someone who is "neutral" or "evil" and either consigns their souls to limbo or an eternity of torment.

Moreover, even if the mass murderer does "good" by killing a "good" person, he does so for impure motives, so he remains "evil".

As such, the problem with killing people who are already "good" first is that it is a short-sighted action, resulting in only a short-term gain. The paladin who thinks long-term will see that these other people are needed to help him convert the people who are currently "evil" to "good" by providing him with food, shelter, equipment, etc. Once everyone in the world is "good", everyone can die and enter paradise. The long-term payoff would then be much greater.

 

[Agback]

Thus, then, in my view, are the ways of the Paladin.

Of course, any thoughtful questions or analysis is indeed welcomed!

I notice that you do not suppose that paladins are expected to use their curative and healing powers to treat the sick.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Jehosephat]

Me thinketh that there will NEVER be a consensus on what is a good act or what is an evil act for a paladin because there is not a consensus on what is good and evil. In both real world and game world everyone has their standard. What is evil to one is marginally evil to another. One person may be concerned with allowing a population to starve to death. Another may be more concerned with the honesty of a leader. Still another might think that the ultimate evil is the death penalty. Another might think the big sin is homosexuality. Another might think that it is intolerance. Still another might think that predjudice is the most evil thing. Granted, I don't think you can pigeonhole each person to one ultimate evil. IMO, most have several things they consider good and several things that they consider evil; some of those more serious and some less serious. But my point is that I don't think people will agree on what is proper for a paladin when there are many interpretations for good and evil.

 

[DragonLancer]

You're right, there will never be agreement on what a paladin is and what a paladin can or cannot do. Everyone has a very different out look on the class and from what I have seen on numerous D&D boards everyone has a different idea on the paladinic code.

Even if a book was released that explained it as so far the bods at WotC saw it, the majority of players & DM's would not agree.

Still, it makes for a great discussion.

 

[Silveras]

You're right, there will never be agreement on what a paladin is and what a paladin can or cannot do. Everyone has a very different out look on the class and from what I have seen on numerous D&D boards everyone has a different idea on the paladinic code.

Even if a book was released that explained it as so far the bods at WotC saw it, the majority of players & DM's would not agree.

Still, it makes for a great discussion.

That's why, for any campaign world that is going to have any Paladins, the DM needs to sit down and decide how certain actions fit into the cosmolgy and morality scheme. Better to do it "up front" than to be trying to decide when the Paladin is in the middle of a moral quandary during a session.

• Are certain races "born evil", and thus not able to be converted/redeemed ?
• When is taking treasure from a dungeon ok, and when is it tomb robbing ? Does the race of the dead make a difference ?
• What is the attitude toward drinking/drug use/abuse ?
• What is the attitude toward sex ? Marriage ?

With those anwered, the DM needs to come up with the code for his/her NPC paladins to follow. 1 code will usually do for all the NPCs, although DMs with the time and inclination could certainly work up separate codes for different orders.

 

[Atom Again]

As a side note, I agree with that bit of interpretation of the lawful alignment. I generally avoid alignment discussions, but I have long thought that the game designers could have saved us all a lot of headaches by referring to it as the Chaos/Order axis.

[Shrug] Then we would have been bombarded with endless threads debating what "Order" means.


Atom Again
[who believes that mortal relativists all become absolutists when you steal their wallet]

 

[Dogbrain]

Moreover, even if the mass murderer does "good" by killing a "good" person, he does so for impure motives, so he remains "evil".

It's not a mass murderer. It's a Paladin who has devoted his life to the slaughter of the innocents for their own good. Then he'll slaughter everything else, just to make sure that evil won't spread.

 

[Dogbrain]

The controversy over Paladin activity ultimately boils down to violation of the social contract behind a D&D campaign, usually by the DM, but sometimes by the player.

The DM, as the metaphysical font, has the power to completely and absolutely determine Good in a campaign, no matter how stupid that Good might be in the real world. However, as such, he has the responsibility to inform players to the extent that their characters would know if something were or were not Good.

Can anybody point out in the rules, even going back to first edition AD&D (in the actual published BOOKS, not a magazine article) where DMs are utterly and absolutely prohibited from making alterations?

 

[DragonLancer]

It's not a mass murderer. It's a Paladin who has devoted his life to the slaughter of the innocents for their own good. Then he'll slaughter everything else, just to make sure that evil won't spread.

But what he has done is perform an evil act in order to combat the spread of evil, which is not a good act, nor is it something that a paladin should ever consider.

For a paladin you can't fight evil with evil and still retain your paladinhood.