Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 1343360" data-attributes="member: 3400">Actually, I believe you have that backwards. The 1st edition cavalier had no alignment restriction regarding good and evil. I'm not even sure they had one regarding lawful and chaotic. The cavalier was specifically a knight class, yes, with the codes of behavior regarding showing fearlessness, honor, and all that. The paladin was a subclass as a specifically religiously charged version.The way I see it, being both lawful and good, the paladin is neither pure in either realm. He can't submit wholely to being just good or just lawful and has to balance the tenets of good vs the tenets of law. If commanded by his god to kill an innocent, he should protest because it is not good. If helping someone in need should require the overthrow of a legitimate, if misguided, authority, he should protest because it goes against being lawful.I think there's a bit of trouble in using historical literature as examples of how a paladin should behave. In historical literature, the god who might be demanding absolute obedience is the only god there is. Monotheists are very touchy about disobeying the dictates of their god since that god is typically defined as the source of all that is good. Being against that god is the very definition of evil. Not so in D&amp;D where there is a higher authority (the rules on alignment that define the cosmology). You may expect a paladin of Hieroneous to obey his god, but you can also expect Hieroneous to be bound by his own LG alignment. He wouldn't demand you to do something evil to prove the purity of your soul (as ridiculous a notion as that is to modern post-enlightenment sensibilities). If he did, you'd probably suspect that something isn't right.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 1343360, member: 3400"] Actually, I believe you have that backwards. The 1st edition cavalier had no alignment restriction regarding good and evil. I'm not even sure they had one regarding lawful and chaotic. The cavalier was specifically a knight class, yes, with the codes of behavior regarding showing fearlessness, honor, and all that. The paladin was a subclass as a specifically religiously charged version. The way I see it, being both lawful and good, the paladin is neither pure in either realm. He can't submit wholely to being just good or just lawful and has to balance the tenets of good vs the tenets of law. If commanded by his god to kill an innocent, he should protest because it is not good. If helping someone in need should require the overthrow of a legitimate, if misguided, authority, he should protest because it goes against being lawful. I think there's a bit of trouble in using historical literature as examples of how a paladin should behave. In historical literature, the god who might be demanding absolute obedience is the only god there is. Monotheists are very touchy about disobeying the dictates of their god since that god is typically defined as the source of all that is good. Being against that god is the very definition of evil. Not so in D&D where there is a higher authority (the rules on alignment that define the cosmology). You may expect a paladin of Hieroneous to obey his god, but you can also expect Hieroneous to be bound by his own LG alignment. He wouldn't demand you to do something evil to prove the purity of your soul (as ridiculous a notion as that is to modern post-enlightenment sensibilities). If he did, you'd probably suspect that something isn't right. [/QUOTE]

Verification