What is considered ok for paladins in your game?

[Alhandra]

To lie or cheat is not something I would do.

To attack a helpless foe is not something I would do.

Disobeying an evil law would be my duty.

Attacking a melee opponent with a ranged weapon makes good sense, unless we are locked in a duel of honor.
Plus, a bow is in my starting character package!

accept the word of one who knows.

P.S. What's sneak attack?

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

I have never fully realised what it is that get's everybody knickers in a knot whenever you talk about alignment - and especially paladins.

To me it's simple. A paladin has to act like a heroic knight.

No need for particularities: If he doesn't act heroic, and if he doesn't act as a knight, then he's doing it wrong. Play by the spirit, not the letter!

 

[S'mon]

To attack a helpless foe is not something I would do.

So if an enemy troll, demon or evil priest has been temporarily 'held' or commanded' by your side, or reduced to negative hp (but about to regenerate back to positive) you would hold off attacking the enemy until they were no longer helpless?

I can see that as an honour thing against enemy warriors/fighters, but against a troll, say, it seems pretty dumb.

 

[S'mon]

I have never fully realised what it is that get's everybody knickers in a knot whenever you talk about alignment - and especially paladins.

To me it's simple. A paladin has to act like a heroic knight.

No need for particularities: If he doesn't act heroic, and if he doesn't act as a knight, then he's doing it wrong. Play by the spirit, not the letter!

I agree. IMO it's not unheroic to bop the evil enemy over the head when they're down for the count, if it prevents them rising up to fight again.

Of course if they offer to surrender AND you accept their surrender you shouldn't then kill them. I think the Geneva Convention provides pretty good guidance as to what constitutes 'just war' behaviour.

 

[Deadguy]

"The needs of the many outway the needs of the few" seems quintessential lawful-good to me. However your example is poor since if you kill the 10 the 50 never exist to start with.

"The needs of the one (individual) outway the needs of the many" seems chaotic-good if altruistic, or neutral/evil if the one is the person making the decision.

It does my heart good to see someone saying this. This has always been my view on the niche of the Paladin! Paladins can make those horrible, ethically challenging decisions which others put off.

It's the huge advantage they have in acting - they have a Code (of Law) to support them in making choices! It's horrible to have to decide between people, but if he must do it, then the Paladin can. His Code tells him how to make the judgement, who is more worthy. And number must come into this, if he must decide whether the 'few' or the 'many' are more important. Of course, he seeks to protect both, but sometimes he can't.

I can't help thinking that the view that too many espouse of Lawful Good is actually Chaotic Good to Neutral Good. Supporting the 'Little Man' isn't always the right thing to do. A Lawful Good needs to look at the bigger picture (being Lawful, he will tend to do just this anyway), because his actions might have repercussions for the welfare of a great many more.

 

[S'mon]

I can't help thinking that the view that too many espouse of Lawful Good is actually Chaotic Good to Neutral Good. Supporting the 'Little Man' isn't always the right thing to do. A Lawful Good needs to look at the bigger picture (being Lawful, he will tend to do just this anyway), because his actions might have repercussions for the welfare of a great many more.

It doesn't help that D&D seems to see LG as 'highest good' whereas modern western culture idea of 'highest good' is more NG to CG. So we get a lot of arguments that Paladins must act in accordance with modern-western-highest-good - protecting the little man even if it creates disorder in society - completely against the Lawful element of LG.

To my mind, pure NG is consequentialist-utilitarian: "greatest net sum total of happiness".

CG emphasises individual rights & freedoms - eg right to bear arms or take harmful drugs - as having greater weight than the good of society/mass of the population.

LG tends to emphasise the good of society over individual rights & freedoms. LG will if necessary sacrifice themselves _or others_ for the greater good, but unlike LN they are altruistic - they care about individuals and will (in theory) sacrifice themselves to save an individual.

 

[S'mon]

IMO:

"Marines don't leave their men behind" is lawful-good as a general policy applied in all circumstances - if you go back to save even that annoying Marine you don't like, it's LG.

"Go save private Ryan so his mom don't lose all her boys" is chaotic-good - sacrificing a group for a specific individual.

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

I agree. IMO it's not unheroic to ...

And that's what really matter: Your Opinion. As long as it's heroic and the thing a knight would do in your eyes and the general eyes of the players - then that is that. (For what it's worth - I agree in your assessments of those actions.)

 

[S'mon]

And that's what really matter: Your Opinion. As long as it's heroic and the thing a knight would do in your eyes and the general eyes of the players - then that is that. (For what it's worth - I agree in your assessments of those actions.)

Yeah - of course the problems arise when my Paladin PC finishes off the wounded orcs and the GM thinks I've breached the Code...

As you say, it all comes down to opinion as to what constitutes LG and there really is no solution, but I don't like it when people try to impose clearly NG or CG values on LG just because they're seen as 'better'.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I have never fully realised what it is that get's everybody knickers in a knot whenever you talk about alignment - and especially paladins.

To me it's simple. A paladin has to act like a heroic knight.

No need for particularities: If he doesn't act heroic, and if he doesn't act as a knight, then he's doing it wrong. Play by the spirit, not the letter!

I also really agree.


I find it quote frustrating that over half of the voters feel that no paladin can sneak attack, ever. Narrow limitations are the opposite of what role-playing should be about.