Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[Laman Stahros]

Nice, FranktheDM, I'm going to have to "borrow" that information.

LG alignment is so badly misunderstood that it is unavoidable that the paladin will be misunderstood. Lawful (imo) is not a good term for an alignment. Orderly would be better. If you look at the paladin in terms of an alignment of Orderly & Good, then much of the alignment arguements fall apart, as they should. Even the use of Good as an alignment is kinda bad, since people really don't understand the moral structure that a "medieval" world would use. Ah well.

 

[pawsplay]

More to the point, Good is used because it is a shorthand for specific beliefs which are significant to alignment in D&D. I consider myself "good," but in D&D terms, would probably rate a solid CN. While I could debate for hours or days with someone about what "good" really is, it's usually pretty straightforward to discuss whether something is Good in D&D.

Playing a Good character does not, however, tell you whether you are playing a Kantian moralist (treat others as you would for everyone to treat all others at all times) or a utilitarian one (like a Vulcan, the greatest good for the greatest number). It doesn't specify a Christian medieval good or a Buddhist one. It means precisely:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

HOW you go about doing that has endless variations, and Law vs. Chaos is just the beginning (with the nested question of individual versus social codes of behavior).

Playing a Paladin is hard, simply because they cannot drift in alignment. Not only, unlike most characters, must they maintain a specific alignment, but they cannot perform any evil acts whatsoever. Whereas a LG wizard might occasionally perform an Evil act if pressed.

Now, demanding that a Paladin not perform evil acts shouldn't be any more demanding than what you would define for any other character. Killing a captured orc is not a Good act, but it's not unquestionably evil, either, if you think the orc represents a threat to others. I think where people trip up is thinking these kinds of hard moral dilemmas is a fulcrum on which a paladin's powers may shift at any moment. Not so. Hard moral dilemmas are dilemmas, and as long as the paladin attempts to make a good choice, he is not in any real moral danger.

A paladin loses his powers, not for simply lacking a good answer to all of life's evils, but for committing an act which he should not commit. A paladin could even challenge another Good character and combat and kill them, if need be; an honorable challenge is not disrespectful of life, nor is an armed opponent an "innocent." However, a paladin could not be a professional gladiator, killing slaves or financially desperate opponents, or battling for petty honor. But a paladin could sponsor a war of conquest, if he felt the greater good truly justified it.

 

[Vegepygmy]

But to some folks, if only subconsciously, there is not a difference between in-game and out-of-game evil. When one person says ” this is not evil” in game, and someone else disagrees on a more personal level, a rift begins because someones personal beliefs have been challenged through the medium of the D&D game.

Very, very well said, Frank.

 

[Aus_Snow]

In the games I run, playing a priest or paladin is as difficult as a player finds it to obey a code of conduct and set of precepts/sense of ethos. And only as difficult as they are a creative thinker, in terms of presenting philosophical arguments that can sometimes blur the edges, without coming off as a weasal.

Likewise.

While certainly some DMs make it harder than it should be, I also think that some people just weren't meant to play those kinds of characters, and probably shouldn't.

Word.

 

[RangerWickett]

When I read the title I thought:

"Hm. That's a good point. Being goodly and honorable isn't really all that hard. It's a good idea for a deity to give a paladin a friendly reminder that a situation is ambiguous, but to trust that their servant will follow their best judgment.

"In D&D even the gods aren't omniscient, so it would be silly for a god to get rid of a loyal servant just because of a quibble on whether killing one orc prisoner is 'delivering justice' or 'simplifying things.' And really, if the gods are fallible, how do they know whether a mortal's actions actually are good or lawful? They only have their own flawed perceptions, so any wise god (and most are really frikkin' wise, like 20+) would rely on the common consensus.

"I agree with the premise of this thread, namely that the paladin code should be based on the beliefs of the paladin, rather than on the DM. As long as there are a fair number of people in the setting who would support the paladin's actions as just and good, and as long as he believes he is showing mercy, kindness, and honor, he should be able to do whatever he wants.

"Anyone who was chosen by a god to be a paladin should obviously be trusted to know what is good and what is evil. If he commits evil, he's wise enough to know that going in."

 

[Sound of Azure]

A lot of people I've gamed with tend to make a lot of connections between the Paladin and their perceptions of real-world religion, even more than they do with Clerics. There's also the morass of using modern-day morality for a medieval-style character.

The above practices have made playing good characters (particularly those with codes of concuct) a lot less pleasant.

Then again, being good isn't supposed to be easy. Ultimately, it is more rewarding (at least for some people).

I would, however like to see just one CRPG where you meet a Paladin character who isn't insensitive, rude, bigoted, or hypocritical. Or turn blackguard for that matter!

 

[Hammerhead]

A lot of people I've gamed with tend to make a lot of connections between the Paladin and their perceptions of real-world religion, even more than they do with Clerics. There's also the morass of using modern-day morality for a medieval-style character.

The above practices have made playing good characters (particularly those with codes of concuct) a lot less pleasant.

Then again, being good isn't supposed to be easy. Ultimately, it is more rewarding (at least for some people).

I would, however like to see just one CRPG where you meet a Paladin character who isn't insensitive, rude, bigoted, or hypocritical. Or turn blackguard for that matter!

Keldorn, from Baldur's Gate 2? And you at least have to give Aribeth credit for not being insensitive, rude, bigoted, or hypocritical even though she went blackguard.

 

[Xyanthon]

I think Frank is right on with the whole definition of "Good" in a campaign. It seems that some folks try to apply modern values to a medieval mindset, which really just does not work. The knightly codes that paladinhood seems to be based on were certanly far from egalitarian and most people today would think that the knights and nobles of that period were horribly misogynistic. If you were not of the faith, not of a certain social standing, and not of a certain race, then in many cases you were no more than cattle. Not being viewed as human, knights did not have to pay the same sort of respect to serfs and slaves let alone saracens and the like. Yet the ideas enspoused by chivalry tend to be upheld as the very definition of what in game terms would be percieved as Lawful Good. So, I think that it is best from the outset to have players and the DM come to a consensus on what is good and evil in a campaign. Otherwise it is unfair to everyone when someone such as a paladin or cleric loses their abilities because the standard for good and evil were not properly defined.

EDIT:

So on topic, it should not be hard to be a paladin or any other such character as long as the moral underpinnings of the campaign are laid out up front.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Knight != Paladin.

 

[Fat Daddy]

Actually Paladins and Clerics are my two favorite classes to play (in that order). My last Paladin started out as the archetypical do gooder / goody two shoes but as he experienced the world (gained levels) he became more and more jaded. He remained a paladin, just quit seeing everything in black and white terms.

My favorite (and indeed I think defining) moment was when he performed some rather brutal and callous deeds and the rogue (the Rogue!!) said, "you can't do that, you're a paladin" and Sebastian replied, "Just because I do bad things to bad people, that doesn't make me a bad person."

I think that being a paladin is challenging RP wise but not more so that any other LG character. The problem is that everyone (most everyone) has these pre-conceived notions about what a paladin can/can't and should/shouldn't do or be and as a result they often get pigeonholed into their stereotype.

Talk with the DM and if necessary, the other players and explain what you are looking at in your paladin. If you break the cliche's up front you can prevent these good/evil lawful/chaotic arguments and have some truly memorable RP moments. (As a DM my favorite was when one of my players as a paladin bluffed his way into a heavily defended enemy stronghold without ever once lying. Oh he decieved the heck out of them but did so by making somewhat ambiguous statements. "I've been sent to see how you are running things. Important people aren't happy with what's been going on here. " and the like. The guards thought their superiors sent him and even though I had to throw out pages and pages of battle tactics and notes and make up some intrigue on the fly, I loved every minute of it!!)
My 2 cents (well, more like a nickel but who's counting).