Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?

[Gold Roger]

By detaining them and going to the church. It better to say 'sorry dude, evil illusions and all' than to go to some mother and say 'I didn't mean to kill him. He was evil at the time...'. Cops have opened fire on folks who looked like a given role. We know what that got them.

What if one of those bandits happens to be an important noble's third son? Even if he is evil, your character's life can get very complicated very quickly.

Could you define what acting like a bandit looks like? If only some detect as evil, why are they all going to die? Why are the non-evil folk there to begin with?

Given that he's an agent of the church, a paladin has more to lose if they don't make sure they're right. You now have a rampaging paladin screaming 'SLAY THE EVIL!', a large group of people praying they never see him in case he thinks they're evil, and a church that now has to comfort these people and tell them that no, the paladin is not certifiably insane.

Those are all examples of foolish actions with dire consequences.

But they are extreme situations, that aren't bound to happen. And I fail to see what they have to do with being good or a paladin.

 

[Rel]

That evil warlord who slaughtered thousands can just renounce his ways and, poof, suddenly become good.

Um, not in my games. And even in the RAW, I'm not aware of any place that says alignment is like a toggle switch where one minute you're Evil and the next you're Good just because you decided to become so.

This is another part of why I have the conception of alignment that I adopted and why it isn't a huge hassle playing a Paladin (or Druid, or Monk or whatever class is alignment dependant that you want to play) in my games. If you (as a Paladin) abide by your code, try your best to adhere to what is right and just and act with good faith in a manner you believe to be right then you're upholding the Paladin way.

If you act in the wrong out of hatred, greed or that sort of thing then you're headed for Atonementville or you're simply off the reservation entirely. If you are tricked or duped when you felt that you acted in the right then, provided that you've got a long an largely unblemished record of do-goodery then you probably don't need to worry that your deity is going to come down on you like a Meteor Swarm.

 

[Storyteller01]

Those are all examples of foolish actions with dire consequences.

But they are extreme situations, that aren't bound to happen. And I fail to see what they have to do with being good or a paladin.

D&D is all about extreme situations. They get more so as the character gains levels; it's the nature of the game. They're more likely to happen to a player character than anyone else in the setting.

They're about paladins, with greater resources than the typical NPC (or some player characters), being held to a higher standard per their class. It's largely campaign specific, but if you're playing anything other than a dungeon crawl these and other situations have a tendency of showing up. Too many fantasy stories revolving around this theme have cropped up to expect otherwise.

 

[delericho]

If you're a low down, no good dog kicker, (and I mean chronic dog kicker, not a good upstanding citizen who once kicked his dog for tearing a hole in the bathroom sheetrock because I'll tell ya that I didn't kick mine when he did that but I came awful close) then you are certainly standing somewhere near that line across the field where Neutral become Evil.

If you're an active pet torturer who premeditatively maims and inflicts pain on baby hamsters for the sheer fun of it on a nightly basis, I'll probably go ahead and slide you over the line into Evil territory. Now you're no Orcish Baby-Slaughterer or Undead Overlord Who Pushes Castles of Orphans Into the Ocean, but you qualify as Evil. And if a Paladin walks up and demands that you pay for your crimes then he's got every right to inflict justice upon you.

Okay, I'd agree with that. Actually, I'd agree with everything in your post.

The bottom line is that I tend to run worlds that are grim and gritty where life is cheap and animal life is even cheaper. That doesn't mean worthless. But given that a family pet like a dog is going to be at least turned away from the table if not outright consumed for nourishment in the event of a famine, I'm not going to slap a "big E Evil" label on some mean old bastard who kicks Fido once in a while.

Fair enough. As I've mentioned before, it is the pattern of one's life that determines alignment, rather than a single incident. So, I would consider a person who kicked their dog to have commited an evil act, but certainly wouldn't change their alignment for it. If they did it regularly, though, I would.

As for the 'grim & gritty' thing, it's certainly true that in extremes, a family would eventually be driven to eat their pet dog. Hell, in extremes, even worse can be considered. Not that that would be a Good thing to do (and I'm sure the family would think the same), but in extremes, sometimes all you have are lousy options.

 

[Storyteller01]

Um, not in my games. And even in the RAW, I'm not aware of any place that says alignment is like a toggle switch where one minute you're Evil and the next you're Good just because you decided to become so.

From the SRD (emphasis mine):
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

BUT, the Paladin doesn't OWE you a shot at redemption. If you were interested in redemption then you could have redeemed yourself yesterday or a week ago last Tuesday. But once the Paladin is on your doorstep, any chance at redemption he gives you is a gift, not an obligation. If he leaves you sitting with your head in your lap then that's your fault, not his. Evil doesn't rest and he can't always be bothered to sit around babysitting you to make sure that you don't go back to your old, hamster torturing ways.

I've seen this sentiment before, even posted it, and I must say it pretty much sums up for me what it means to be a paladin. There's no requirement for a paladin to be a soft, caring, merciful individual. The paladin cleanses the world of evil, for whatever reason he happens to have for doing so. He isn't there to negotiate; he's a cosmic janitor. He's got an appointment to smite you, and then he has to rush off to his 4 o'clock smiting. If you really wanted to avoid getting smote, you had plenty of opportunity to stop being evil before he got there.

 

[Fishbone]

I like the whole tempting thing, but not when its blatant. To me a DM deliberately goading a player into losing powers is one of the biggest dick moves in the game. Sometimes could all these armchair philosophers just let a paladin kick ass in the name of the Lord?

 

[Sejs]

From the SRD (emphasis mine):
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose...

The counterpoint being (from the PHB, didn't make it into the SRD):

"Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions."

In essence, it's saying that declairing your alignment to be X is fine and dandy, but until you back it up with actions all you're doing is stating intent.

So saying "Huzzah! I'm good now!" doesn't do a single thing to make you any less evil in alignment. Actions speak louder than words; you have to do good deeds before the ringing of a bell will earn you your wings. Moreover, you have to do enough good deeds to put you over that whole 'not everyone is required to be consistant, badguys can occasionally be nice' hump before you start seeing real results.

 

[Sejs]

By detaining them and going to the church. It better to say 'sorry dude, evil illusions and all' than to go to some mother and say 'I didn't mean to kill him. He was evil at the time...'. Cops have opened fire on folks who looked like a given role. We know what that got them.

Right, but again, paladins arn't cops. As for going up to the mother to appologise, that really depends. If her son was out a-banditing, she may not be too proud of his actions in the first place and may not hold it against the man who delivers his effects and says he's sorry for the situation that he and her boy found themselves in. That all comes down to people, though, and really is neither here nor there.

What if one of those bandits happens to be an important noble's third son? Even if he is evil, your character's life can get very complicated very quickly.

Absolutely It's a classic adventure hook, really, but one that doesn't touch on alignment or paladining. Heck, even happened in Firefly.

Could you define what acting like a bandit looks like? If only some detect as evil, why are they all going to die? Why are the non-evil folk there to begin with?

Lurking, armed, off the road and jumping out at travelers demanding their money or their life would be a good start.

If some detect as evil and others don't, it could be as simple as the fact that some of the bandits are black-hearted, castle-full-of-orphans pushing bastards, and some of them are just down on their luck ranchers that see this as an easy out from their circumstances. But the fact still remains that all of them are telling you "Give us your money or we will kill you".

 

[Storyteller01]

The counterpoint being (from the PHB, didn't make it into the SRD):

"Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions."

In essence, it's saying that declairing your alignment to be X is fine and dandy, but until you back it up with actions all you're doing is stating intent.

So saying "Huzzah! I'm good now!" doesn't do a single thing to make you any less evil in alignment. Actions speak louder than words; you have to do good deeds before the ringing of a bell will earn you your wings. Moreover, you have to do enough good deeds to put you over that whole 'not everyone is required to be consistant, badguys can occasionally be nice' hump before you start seeing real results.

What that says is that you can choose your alignment, and the DM has the right to change it if you don't live by those standards. He may make the change retroactive, but until they do the change is solid. Once you make the choice to live a certain way, you change your methods accordingly. There are too many stories of evil folks turning good over a single event to say 'nope, can't happen that way'.

Look at the helm of opposite alignment. You don't need to back up your new alignment, it instantly changes and you act approprately. It doesn't slowly poison you, you just change.

A paladin doesn't have to slowly become evil to become a blackguard. All he has to do is say 'Screw this, I'm going to that party!' and he gets bonuses or instant conversion. Same with the warlord. He chooses to be good, then backs his choice after the fact. A DM may force you act in a manner that slowly turns evil, but the conversion charts for this PrC don't require it.