Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herpes Cineplex" data-source="post: 1509807" data-attributes="member: 16936">Fish, barrel, *blam!*An excellent point.  The "Good" part of Lawful Good is the kicker where paladin abilities are concerned.  They should lose their paladin status if they do evil, and should be encouraged to do good instead.  If they're doing something that is neither evil nor good, it simply doesn't matter as far as paladinhood goes (until they've done so many ethically neutral things and so few good things that their actual alignment has shifted, anyway).All too often it seems like people get hung up on the "Lawful" part first, like it's more important for a paladin to have an extensive checklist of regulations which must always be obeyed, and if one of them is bent or forgotten their god will shun them immediately.And that's wrong, I think.  It's more important that the paladin perform good acts and never participate (willingly or otherwise) in evil acts.  The Lawful part's there to tell you how the paladin seeks to accomplish that goal.  He doesn't consider "good" to be a relative term, or something which is subject to conditions or mitigating circumstances.  Good is an absolute as far as a paladin is concerned: you don't debate whether or not something is good, something IS or IS NOT good, and your job is to recognize it for what it is.  And the same goes for evil.  And since good is an absolute, it is actually possible to have a personal code which reinforces that, a code which you can follow that will actually prevent you from doing evil without getting caught up in angsty "but is what I'm doing truly a good thing?" digressions.Breaking that code in and of itself means nothing, unless they broke it by doing something evil or unless they break it so consistently that their alignment shifts to Neutral or Chaotic.In a very detailed campaign setting where paladins get affiliated with specific gods, it makes more sense to layer in paladinhood-endangering regulations like "you must always treat tombs with the utmost respect," so long as that particular proscription is something that makes sense with the paladin's god.  For example, a god whose portfolio includes shuttling souls peacefully to the afterlife and opposing the undead might very well require his paladins to protect the sanctity of burial sites, because popping open a tomb leads to restless and unhappy spirits and that in turn can create the undead.  Or whatever, you get the point.  But those are minor rules and traditions at best; sure, you could get zapped by your god if you break them constantly, willfully, and/or flagrantly, but not nearly as quickly as you'd be zapped if you went out and did something evil.In other words, my take on paladins is that there can be extenuating circumstances which will excuse their violation of a code...but there is never, ever a valid excuse for doing evil.  Doing evil immediately buys you a one-way ticket to Ordinary-Fighterland, no refunds or exchanges, hope you know someone who can help you with an Atonement, don't let the cathedral door hit you in the ass on your way out....and honestly, what bothers me the most about DragonLancer's story is the part where he asks the paladin's player "Are you sure you want to do that?"That's always been a very bad way for GMs to reality-check a PC's behavior, particularly when a hidden/nonstandard house rule is involved.  If this is a setting where paladins can lose their special powers just for cracking open a tomb and no mitigating circumstances can be argued for it, the player should really be told this explicitly.  Yeah, we all know that "Are you sure?" is GM-speak for "Here's your last chance to do something else and not be an idiot, because I will screw you mercilessly if you follow through on your first idea," but occasionally players get confused about that.  Providing them with some handy, helpful, in-character facts instead of a veiled threat seems to work a lot better.  (And for god's sake, you'd think that if a paladin's code demanded that corpses never be exhumed for any reason or that a particular ritual must be followed when doing so, the paladin would be the first person to know about it!)--nothing against mr. dragonlancer, it's just not the call i would've made</blockquote>

Verification