What would a paladin do

[IcyCool]

Bah!

Lawful (as an alignment) != "obeys local laws"

True, but the Paladin's code requires that a Paladin "respect legitimate authority."

 

[Numion]

I currently play a paladin. My PC would seek the counsel of his god (through the graces of a cleric he trusts and Commune.) It may be that his god wants the paladin imprisoned. Perhaps there is another innocent man in prison who will shortly need a champion. Perhaps there is a wizened old cleric who needs to be broken out. For whatever reason, it may be God's Will that he go to prison, and he isn't wise enough to discern God's Will on his own.

So, Commune. Should this paladin allow himself to be imprisoned?

IMO it's not the Paladins duty to be the gods puppet of sorts - thats why the god channels his power through Paladins in the first place, so that he wouldn't have to attend to minutiae of the world. In meta-game level it would also create a boring DM-player relation, because the DM, not the player, would have to come up with answers to moral dilemmas. And I guess those are part of playing a Pally.

As for the scenario at hand, IMO the Paladin is free to break out or evade prison using reasonable (or minimal force). Obviously he's not breaking any [Lawful] laws since those laws were sending an innocent man to lock-up!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

True, but the Paladin's code requires that a Paladin "respect legitimate authority."

Being Good requires one to have a "respect for life." It doesn't mean Good characters can't or won't kill their enemies dead.

Respect for something does not mean blind subservience to it or an inability to act against it. A paladin will most likely consider very carefully before going against legitimate authority, but that doesn't mean he can't do so when the need arises.

 

[Numion]

Respect for something does not mean blind subservience to it or an inability to act against it. A paladin will most likely consider very carefully before going against legitimate authority, but that doesn't mean he can't do so when the need arises.

I agree. And how legitimate is an authority thats apparently sending innocent Paladins to Pelican Bay?!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

IMO it's not the Paladins duty to be the gods puppet of sorts - thats why the god channels his power through Paladins in the first place, so that he wouldn't have to attend to minutiae of the world. In meta-game level it would also create a boring DM-player relation, because the DM, not the player, would have to come up with answers to moral dilemmas. And I guess those are part of playing a Pally.

*shrug* Obviously I disagree. IMO, a paladin is a Sword of God. In most cases, he can feel confident that he knows against whom he should pit himself. His own morality guides him. But in a scenario where he finds himself lost and confused, unsure which path he should take, why wouldn't he seek out divine counsel? And per the spell description, it doesn't even necessarily bother the deity itself, either. Commune can make contact with an angel just as easily. My paladin won't quibble. Angelic counsel is good enough.

I also disagree with your comment about moral questions. I don't think playing a paladin means being subjected to silly moral paradoxes any more than playing a cleric, or a rogue. Moral puzzles can be part of a campaign certainly, but playing a paladin isn't about being constantly put in "who do you save, your wife or your mother?" situations all the time. It's about picking up a sword and bringing down the Wrath of Heaven on the skittering creatures of the Dark.

Not that your idea is wrong or unique. I've seen a lot of folks on these boards who believe as you do, that for some reason playing a paladin is tantamount to taking a moral philosophy test without the benefit of the class. But for me, it has nothing to do with it.

 

[Numion]

*shrug* Obviously I disagree. IMO, a paladin is a Sword of God. In most cases, he can feel confident that he knows against whom he should pit himself. His own morality guides him. But in a scenario where he finds himself lost and confused, unsure which path he should take, why wouldn't he seek out divine counsel? And per the spell description, it doesn't even necessarily bother the deity itself, either. Commune can make contact with an angel just as easily. My paladin won't quibble. Angelic counsel is good enough.

Bothering the deity is not really the issue. It's me as a DM thru the angel or whatever, giving the PC the 'right' course of action. Even in a nine-ways alignment world, there is no need for one right action. The god trusted in the first place to give the Paladin his powers - he'll trust the Paladin to do the right thing on his own now. Commune could give him more info so he can judge the situation for himself, if the Paladin so chooses to use it, but the direct answer to "What should I do?" would likely to be, in my game, "What your heart tells". Call it a cop out, but it puts the ball where it should be: on the players court.

I also disagree with your comment about moral questions. I don't think playing a paladin means being subjected to silly moral paradoxes any more than playing a cleric, or a rogue. Moral puzzles can be part of a campaign certainly, but playing a paladin isn't about being constantly put in "who do you save, your wife or your mother?" situations all the time. It's about picking up a sword and bringing down the Wrath of Heaven on the skittering creatures of the Dark.

I just have aversion for making any decisions on the players part. Communion is good for information gathering, but I'd be vary of using it to give players directions of action. Players have only the PCs to control, I as a DM have everything else. So I'm very strict of them having 100% of that small piece. I'll give consequences for their actions, yes, but I won't give them the actions themselves.

Not that your idea is wrong or unique. I've seen a lot of folks on these boards who believe as you do, that for some reason playing a paladin is tantamount to taking a moral philosophy test without the benefit of the class. But for me, it has nothing to do with it.

Actually you'll notice that wrote "I guess.." those are part of playing a Paladin. I was about to add "..judging by the amount of threads here", but stupidly didn't. I don't play Paladins, or require them played, like you think I do.

In my games Paladins are pretty much "shoot from the hip" variety. Go with the flow, and for example killing prisoners might even be permissible - after all the Paladin is a judge, jury and executioner (for heinous crimes) in the same (that's from FRCS, IIRC). No point bringing live prisoners from lawless lands for judgement in city, because the Paladin can judge them on the spot, and death sentence is what's in store for most roaming and pillaging monsters anyway.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I don't play Paladins, or require them played, like you think I do.

In my games Paladins are pretty much "shoot from the hip" variety. Go with the flow, and for example killing prisoners might even be permissible - after all the Paladin is a judge, jury and executioner (for heinous crimes) in the same (that's from FRCS, IIRC). No point bringing live prisoners from lawless lands for judgement in city, because the Paladin can judge them on the spot, and death sentence is what's in store for most roaming and pillaging monsters anyway.

You're right, now that you explain it, your paladin playstyle is much closer to mine that I thought it was.

I just have aversion for making any decisions on the players part. Communion is good for information gathering, but I'd be vary of using it to give players directions of action. Players have only the PCs to control, I as a DM have everything else. So I'm very strict of them having 100% of that small piece. I'll give consequences for their actions, yes, but I won't give them the actions themselves.

Fair enough. Personally I see it more as a plot-hook, rather than telling the players what to do. The paladin's player isn't forced to seek divine guidance every time he sneezes, but if there comes a situation where the paladin feels the wrong choice could work against his god's interests, and he isn't sure which, I feel fine with giving a questioning paladin (and player) affirmation.

It's me as a DM thru the angel or whatever, giving the PC the 'right' course of action. Even in a nine-ways alignment world, there is no need for one right action. The god trusted in the first place to give the Paladin his powers - he'll trust the Paladin to do the right thing on his own now. Commune could give him more info so he can judge the situation for himself, if the Paladin so chooses to use it, but the direct answer to "What should I do?" would likely to be, in my game, "What your heart tells". Call it a cop out, but it puts the ball where it should be: on the players court.

Again, I can see your reasoning. But IMO no mortal can understand a god's designs, and it may be necessary for a paladin to get affirmation of where he belongs in it. Take the prison scenario. The god may have a reason for wanting the paladin imprisoned that the paladin doesn't know. His inclination is to not be imprisoned so he can continue to smite evil, but he wants to make sure he isn't working against his god's designs. So he asks a yes/no question to get him that info, then he makes his choice. Commune doesn't allow one to ask "what should I do?" But it does allow one to affirm if a considered course of action is in line with God's plan.

 

[Numion]

Take the prison scenario. The god may have a reason for wanting the paladin imprisoned that the paladin doesn't know. His inclination is to not be imprisoned so he can continue to smite evil, but he wants to make sure he isn't working against his god's designs. So he asks a yes/no question to get him that info, then he makes his choice. Commune doesn't allow one to ask "what should I do?" But it does allow one to affirm if a considered course of action is in line with God's plan.

I see Paladins more of freelancers for the god. They just lay the wrath on those injustices they are aware of. Now they should strive to always "not look the other way", and uncover as much of the vileness as they can, but at the same time they should not try to connect dots that just aren't there. Not let their doubts distract them from the task at hand (of course, not saying that a single commune would do that )

When a sentence such as in this case happens, that the Paladin in most cases would do his utmost to avoid (so his smiting evil and wrath unleashing for his god isn't hindered ) normally, and thinks it's divine intervention it's IMO seeing something that probably isn't there. Like if the Paladin can't prevent a Vampire from escaping and loses him, should he then too think that it might've been intended by the god? It just seems too contrived, when the other option of tracking the Vampire down is so much more obviously Paladinly. In the same way, to a lesser degree, staying out of prison is more Paladinly to me.

I think were pretty much on the same page here, it's just a difference of degree. The Paladin shouldn't be a completely oblivious tool, but shouldn't see divine signs when there are none. Middle of the road and all that

In any case, as a DM, I would not go as far as to play with the "take the powaaars awaaay!" card. Both choices are actually decent from the gods POV, IMO, but it's just that playing an imprisoned character sucks.

 

[babomb]

His associated religion cannot risk breaking their own word or to be seen directly breaking the laws of the land.

Right now, his most convenient ploy is self-exile in a savage land outside the political reaches of the country. This is what everyone wants him to do (his church, his friends and his family) to avoid the ugly scene of an honoured paladin and son of the city being brought back to the city in chains. Right now, he is on the borderlands, still officially part of the country but in areas where the law is merely a convenience. He is still able to fulfill his vows but he does not know why he was set-up and afraid it may be a past of a bigger plot to hurt his religion or his noble family.

This sounds pretty good. The only issue I see is that the paladin's conviction is bad politically for his religion, perhaps not as bad the paladin being brought back in chains, but bad nonetheless. They should be exerting considerable effort to get it overturned: try to appeal, exert political power, refusing services to those who convicted the paladin, peaceful protests, etc. (depending on the power the church has). Besides the political hit, it's probable that the paladin was framed and his conviction in absentia pushed through by someone with a lot of power, and they need to find out who and why. It may be that they are doing this, but you didn't mention it, so I thought I'd point it out.

While "an honoured paladin and son of the city being brought back to the city in chains" could be bad, it could be good. When people see this holy person undergo such dishonor, treated as a common criminal, it could bring the issue to a head. Depending on how people feel about the church and how much of a public figure the paladin is, a few diplomacy checks could see half the city up in arms. Or it could backfire.

So the paladin staying in exile for now may be the safest plan. It's not necessarily unpaladin-like, since the sentence is unjust. Going back would be fine too. As long as the paladin and his church are trying to uncover the plot as best as they can, nothing's wrong.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

It seems to me that what you have here is a conflict between paladinhood and politics (that is, the politics that are occurring in your campaign setting.)
I always thought of paladins as being strongly on the side of life and everything about life, as it were. They would call this Right.
And I always thought of paladins as being strongly for upholding the value of life, the quality of life, and the other particulars of life, be it for themselves or for others. They would call this Justice.

Where is the Right and the Justice here? There is most certainly Law, but I would hardly call a frame-up Right or Just, and fantasy politics aren't typically about what is Right or Just.

If I was playing said paladin, he would evade the authorities and his friends. If he could not do so, he would surrender (hurting innocent people doing their jobs is not right or just.)
The paladin would go on a quest to find the means to prove his innocence instead.
I'm guessing the friends of the paladin - if they are actual friends - would go with him on that quest.
Once he had found that proof, the paladin - sadly aware of the oftentimes dark nature of politics - would give the evidence to people of power he could trust to aid him, then he would turn himself in to the authorities.

Needless to say, paladins do not flourish in areas where the politics are dark and the schemers and the ruthless get ahead while the principaled lose out.
Said paladin needs a supportive government, a government that is strongly good aligned, restrained and checked by some force, and which actively promotes paladin orders.