What is considered ok for paladins in your game?

[bret]

There is a PrC in Song & Silence (think it is the Vigilantti) that has many of the characteristics of a 'Dark Paladin'. It is a cross between a Paladin and a Rogue, and would much better fit the examples given of someone backstabbing an enemy than a Paladin would.

I don't have the book at hand, but as I recall they even have a type of smite ability useable against anyone they see breaking the law.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Not that I'd allow _all_ would be paladins - eg Travis Bickle (sp?) in Taxi Driver _thinks_ he's a paladin, and eventually is treated as such by society, but isn't - his ends do not justify his means (shooting several fairly harmless pimps to free a child prostitute). Characters who actively seek out and assassinate bad guys rather than bring them to justice, like The Punisher or the bad cops in the 2nd Dirty Harry movie (The Dead Pool) likewise don't make the grade, the latter ultimately turning out to be greater villains than the mafiosi they hunt. But nor do characters whose concern for individual life overrides the greater good of society - eg possibly Batman, since he never kills the baddies even though they invariably escape to wreak more havoc, he's more NG-CG than LG IMO.

Oh, of course not. Like I said before, I would not even allow Dirty Harry. I don't have a problem with someone else saying they would, however.

Yeah, I'd like to think of batman as being a paladin type, but with Superman hanging around, it is hard to live up to the goody goody standard. (Teases about both batman and superman hiding their identity will be responded to with the following: )

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Axiomatic Unicorn wrote:

Quote:

"*IF* you put more emphasis on the honor of the paladin than me it would ONLY be because I put more empahsis on the protection of innocents than you. But I still don't allow "the ends justifies the means" "

End Quote.

I find that discussions involving paladins and the paladin's code often revolve around sticky little concepts just like this. For example, which is more important for the paladin:

(1) Accomplishing the mission, and thereby fulfilling the whole purpose;

OR

(2) Adhering to the letter of the paladin's code--but failing in the accomplishment of the mission?

It seems that some feel that the paladin needs to adhere rigidly to the letter of the code in being "honorable"--while at the same time evincing a more casual attitude about the mission being accomplished.

But I must say that if the paladin isn't accomplishing the mission, because the code hinders that accomplishment, then some reconsideration needs to be made for the code, whatever it happens to be.

I mean this:

The paladin exists for the purpose of fighting evil and defending the righteous,--that is the main purpose. The paladin's secondary purpose is to fulfill the code. For, if the code is more important than the mission, then it is a mockery of it's purpose. For the paladin fulfilling to the letter the code and all that--in and of itself--doesn't *do* anything. It just means that someone lives by a strict code and feels righteous in their devotion to their faith. But the larger question is, what does *that* really do?

If it isn't successful in vanquishing evil and defending the righteous, then it really isn't useful. It is then shown to be ultimately cosmetic.

As an example:

A paladin confronted in a situation where lying will save someone's life. Is it more important to *save a life* or remain absolutely consistent with one's moral code?

The problem that I think some people have is that they don't understand the heiarchy of moral *goods* Of course it is an absolute value to be honest at all times. That is *generally* true. But saving a life, for example, is a higher moral good, in this kind of circumstance, than in being *honest* There are many examples one could think of, and the questions are easy to navigate if one understands the different levels of morel *Goods*

Likewise, a paladin, if he has any wisdom at all, rather than just blind legalistic thinking, will understand different levels of moral *goods* as well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Good point SHARK

Looking at it that way, I would go so far as to say that putting the code before saving the innocent would be a chaotic act in and of itself. And in some cases Evil, if you put the honor of yourself above the life of the innocent, how can you be good?

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

That's quite right, Axiomatic! It makes me wonder, though. Some people scream that the code is everything, and that if the paladin doesn't abide by the code, then he shouldn't be allowed to remain a paladin. You know the drill. Now, as a US Marine, I'm quite familiar with what *codes* are about, and also how essential they are for teaching lessons, inspiration, discipline, and building in esprit de corps, individual pride, and so on, but--having said that, there is the *higher purpose* of getting the job done, that must be kept in focus. If you aren't getting the job done, for example, you're dead. or if you are alive,--your failure to get the job done, while somehow allowing you to escape death, will surely cause others to die from your failure. Thus, the code is important, but getting the job done is more so.

And, as you mentioned, admitting thusly is not the same as saying, "well, screw it. The ends justifies the means." No, to the contrary, it simply means that sometimes, in order to get the job done, one must proceed as follows:

Adhere in all ways possible to the code in pursuit of accomplishing the mission; However, where one finds that the success of the mission, or the lives one is entrusted with, are thereby jeapardised in rigid adherence to the code, the mission and those lives must take precedence. Though faithful, one must remain mentally flexible at all times in order to be successful on the modern battlefield.

It always grinds me when people insist on rigid obedience to the code, even when the mission fails, or when others die. What good then, is the damn code? Does the code serve the purpose, or does the purpose serve the code?

Now, the code isn't a purpose, in and of itself. The code is a *response* to a reality, or a purpose. If the code doesn't facilitate victory, then there's something wrong with the code. But yet, we have people that argue such all the time, huh? And it's like, wait a minute. The paladin is serving his god, his kingdom, his community. There isn't some intrinsic virtue in being honest, if that honesty gets *me* killed. Thanks very much, but LIE YOU IDIOT! I mean, it's fine to some extent, I suppose, if the paladin wants to remain rigidly honest to the code, and be hung anyways. But when the mission is at stake, or other lives hang in the balance, what virtue is there in being so stupidly honest? As the victims are horribly raped and tortured, I'm sure they'll be grateful that the paladin was "faithful to his code" right?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[S'mon]

Good point SHARK

Looking at it that way, I would go so far as to say that putting the code before saving the innocent would be a chaotic act in and of itself. And in some cases Evil, if you put the honor of yourself above the life of the innocent, how can you be good?

Well said, Shark. Uni - I don't think the blind adherence to the Code Gargoyle advocates would be Chaotic, though, or evil, it seems a very good example of Lawful Neutral behaviour, like the bliblical example of the pharisee in the Good Samaritan story.

 

[reapersaurus]

Heya, SHARK!

Your approach to paladins is always a welcome contribution.

Ya, it really chaffs my hide when people get all "Oh! The Code! The Code!" about paladins.

A paladin, more than any other character in the history of fiction, KNOWS right from wrong.
To concentrate on a code to the exclusion of an organic, anything-can-happen-in-real-life solution does the paladin a great disservice.

It lowers him to the level of an automoton, who can only accomplish his goals thru the following of laws and regulations.
Any computer or robot can be programmed to follow instructions and codes.

It takes a divine soul to make those hard decisions time in, time out.
It takes a strong soul to live with those decisions, and agonize over whether they were right.
It takes a dedicated soul to make sure those situations don't happen again.

 

[reapersaurus]

Originally posted by Gargoyle:

A rogue character with levels of paladin would consider himself primarily a paladin, regardless of his skill set. Answering the call of being a paladin defines a character. The paladin class is much more than a skill set.

I agree on this point.

In fact, this does lead us to the conclusion that rogues don;t make good paladins.

I would contend that the virtues and skills that a rogue values are in direct opposition to the virtues and skills that a paladin values.

So as a rule - I *still* don't see how a rogue/paladin character makes much sense to me.

Just because someone has supposedly played it effectively doesn't make it a viable character type.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Just because someone has supposedly played it effectively doesn't make it a viable character type.

This assumes that you lock them into a stereo-type.

1e paladins had a code, but it got worse with Unearthed Arcana with the introduction of Cavaliers and the declaration that paladins were a sub-class thereof.

Somehow the super-tight stereo-type has endured.

To bad.

At least barbarians can use magic now, so Unearthed Arcana didn't mess up everything.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Well said, Shark. Uni - I don't think the blind adherence to the Code Gargoyle advocates would be Chaotic, though, or evil, it seems a very good example of Lawful Neutral behaviour, like the bliblical example of the pharisee in the Good Samaritan story.

Yeah, I guess chaotic was not the best comparison.

But neutral is a generous assessment of putting your honor before the lives of others.