Would you allow this paladin in your game? (new fiction added 11/11/08)

[Aurondarklord]

JamesonCourage, we definitely agree on the concept of do good or die trying, but in my opinion, die trying should be a last resort, and sometimes a paladin has to make compromises with the real world, just as some people have brought up in this thread that the mining industry, in medieval times, was largely a situation of people being forced into back-breaking slave labor. While a paladin would try to avoid intentionally contributing to such practices, he generally lacks the ability to discern the exact origin of every piece of metal he owns or uses, and recognizes that as he goes about his business, at some point he will likely own items that were produced in such a manner. Unless he takes the vow of poverty feat detailed in the book of exalted deeds, which he may but is not part of his class, he is making this compromise with reality so that he can do his job. Part of being a paladin is walking that line, recognizing the little compromises that have to be made simply to deal with the world as it is, while avoiding the big compromises that morally compromise you as a person and result in a paladin falling. Paladins are a high wisdom class, they are expected to be able to sort through this complex moral morass. Ned Stark and Stannis Baratheon failed to do so, and that's the context in which I bring them into this discussion.

Yes, sometimes a paladin may end up in a fall or die situation. But I don't believe it should be possible for them to end up in a fall or fall situation, where no matter what they do, they fall because they broke an article of the code, when multiple articles are in conflict. And I believe "fight with honor" and "protect the innocent" can be in conflict, and the paladin needs room to interpret and decide which side to err on.

As for the paladin being held to a higher standard...I would say it is more that the paladin is held to ADDITIONAL standards. The paladin must be lawful good, the code never says he is required to adhere to a higher standard of lawful good behavior than other LG characters, it simply says he will fall should he willingly commit an EVIL act, that is a specific additional restriction, however in general, he is simply required to be LG, not "more LG than thou", suggesting that while directly evil acts are out of the question, the paladin may occasionally commit chaotic acts and morally or ethically grey ("neutral") acts, so long as a sufficient preponderance of his behavior is LG that he retains the alignment, not that all of his actions at all times must be LG. Beyond that, the code lists certain specific behaviors that the paladin must or may not engage in. This is different than saying that his LG must be more LG than an LG fighter or cleric's LG.

And while you said you got my point about the code conflicting with itself, and thus I don't want to belabor the examples, it's worth pointing out that "resign from service" is not always an option, especially in a medieval setting where oaths and fealty were often "for life or until the lord releases the vassal", with no option for the vassal to quit. Another game of thrones example, Jaime Lannister (I AM IN NO WAY SAYING JAIME QUALIFIES AS A PALADIN) gets into this subject with his kingsguard oath and infamous betrayal of it when he points out that, as a sworn kingsguard, bound to his oath for life, and thus sworn to defend and obey the king, and also a sworn knight, another oath he was bound to for life, which required him to protect the innocent and honor fealty, including the fealty owed to his father, what the hell was he to do when the king is massacring the innocent and orders him to kill his father? No matter what choice he makes, he violates one of his oaths.

now, when you say that paladins draw their power from good itself, as opposed to the gods, this brings up certain problems of its own within the RAW, like what is this amorphous "good itself" that gives this power? is it The Light like in warcraft? is it The Force or a rough equivalent? Is it a morally absolute code of right and wrong that exists as part of the universe like the laws of physics? if so, who decided on those standards, or is morality objective and self-evident? Is it some sort of intelligent personification of an alignment? In that case, isn't it just a higher form of God by another name? If so, why have deities in such a setting at all? the RAW and the default D&D settings seem to assume, and phrase the rules as though they assume, that divine magic characters follow a deity and derive their powers from that deity, options are available for following an abstraction, but a deity is the default. But beyond those problems, this idea creates an internal contradiction when you say that honor is defined by society and thus the opinions of "most people" are relevant. If a paladin's code is determined by "good itself" then "good itself" has a pre-determined concept of what honorable fighting is, and the opinions of societies on the subject are irrelevant. Complicated, isn't it? This is one of the reasons I would say Gods are such a useful conceit in a D&D game, and one the RAW assumes are used by default, to avoid the above detailed mess.

I also think that to exclude the book of exalted deeds from consideration unfairly limits the discussion. There's a lot in just the core 3 that's open ended or left to rule zero, which is fine, but if we're discussing the RAW, then we need to look at it as a whole, especially at books that were largely designed to fill in and clarify things that were open ended or unclear in the core 3, and the book of exalted deeds is THE most relevant piece of literature here because large portions of it are dedicated entirely to addressing player misconceptions of what good means in D&D and how to play good aligned characters, especially paladins, while avoiding lawful stupid behavior, thus placing the PHB paladin in a larger context and clarifying the intentions of the designers on where he fits in the "spectrum of goodness", and these things have to be taken into consideration when trying to suss out the intentions of the developers when they wrote the PHB. As such, I ask you, what is the difference in behavioral requirements between a paladin and the saint template? If a paladin is held to a standard of behavioral perfection, or as close to it as can be approximated by players, then where is there room for them to go "above and beyond" that to earn the saint template?

On a similar note, doesn't the use of the term "gross violation" inherently imply that it is also possible for a minor violation of the code, for which the paladin would not fall, to exist? And if there is a distinction between minor violations and gross violations, isn't there inherently room within the RAW for interpretation (if you choose to consider Cedric's combat tactics dishonorable or "justified dirty fighting") as to whether occasionally violating the code in such a way is merely a minor violation considering the circumstances? And if so, can't Cedric be allowed under the RAW as an imperfect, but still valid paladin who occasionally commits minor violations of the code, but never commits a gross violation? "Gross" is a pretty strong word in a context like this.

As for that argument that Cedric is not lawful, yes, I've read most of it, and I find it flawed. Most of what people have said in that regard seems to me to presuppose
1: that Cedric's personal appetites (drinking, sex, swearing) are morally wrong inherently, and
2: Cedric lacks the self control to resist those immoral desires, because a lack of self control is chaotic.
Now, I detailed in my original post my attitude towards each of Cedric's personal habits and why I don't believe they're inherently wrong or something that Cedric needs to strive to resist doing outright. I believe that lawful behavior only requires Cedric exercise moderation in his indulgence of them, as one must exercise moderation in all things to avoid them becoming unhealthy. And I see no evidence suggesting Cedric does not behave in moderation. He consumes precisely seven ales each time he visits the bar, and while that seems like a lot, if you consider paladin fort saves + divine grace, it's probably what he actually NEEDS to get the desired effect. And he knows that's his limit, that's how much he can drink before it adversely affects him, and he stops there, each and every time, that's Cedric exercising self control. Cedric also demonstrates control of his sexual appetites in the segment where Madame Catherine discusses with one of her girls how Cedric refuses to sleep with any woman who's gotten out of prostitution. Even if he's enjoyed his sexual experiences with a given girl, once she's out, she's off limits because he sticks to his resolve to avoid breaking hearts or leaving a widow when his duty inevitably kills him. Once again, Cedric is exercising self control. I see no problem here and no chaotic behavior. As for foul language, I personally consider it inherently silly to attach moral connotations to the use of different words that mean the same thing simply because society has arbitrarily decided one of those words is more vulgar than the other, for reasons also detailed in my original post.

Pemerton, a lot of what you're arguing comes to questions of personal moral outlook, and I cannot objectively debate you on the subject. What I can say is that the rules of D&D inherently seem to suggest that within the context of the game, death is considered a harm. Once again going back to the book of exalted deeds (and God people are gonna get tired of me thumping on that sourcebook eventually...), much time is spent on the subject of mercy and the obligation of good characters to give quarter to defeated enemies and accept surrender. This argument presupposes that death is a harm, because it explicitly disallows a paladin from finishing off a defeated and repentant enemy who asks for mercy using the logic "well, the Gods/goodness itself/whatever relevant cosmic authority will sort it out, if his repentance was sincere, he'll get a good afterlife, no harm no foul".

Providence is also explicitly not always in favor of good in D&D, because the standard D&D 3E setting details a world in which there is a balance between good and evil, the evil gods and fiends are as powerful and have as much of a stake in the cosmos as the good gods and celestials, and the ultimate victory of good over evil is not guaranteed, the possibility that evil will ultimately win is very real and in fact often the very situation the PCs must prevent. Thus, optimism cannot be a requirement for a paladin, because it can require the paladin to have a view of the setting that is divorced from reality, and, as the book of exalted deeds specifies, "good is not nice, polite, well mannered, self-righteous, OR NAIVE". A paladin cannot be required to be naive.

Should a player get into a "fall or die" situation and not want to lose his character, that player, and his party, should consider resurrection magic or possibly the risen martyr prestige class, detailed in...you guessed it, the book of exalted deeds.

 

[JamesonCourage]

JamesonCourage, we definitely agree on the concept of do good or die trying, but in my opinion, die trying should be a last resort

Agreed.

Part of being a paladin is walking that line, recognizing the little compromises that have to be made simply to deal with the world as it is, while avoiding the big compromises that morally compromise you as a person and result in a paladin falling. Paladins are a high wisdom class, they are expected to be able to sort through this complex moral morass.

I agree, I think I just disagree on your interpretation of what falls under their code. Like I've said, I believe in "justified dirty fighting", but I don't think that it's good enough for the Paladin.

Yes, sometimes a paladin may end up in a fall or die situation. But I don't believe it should be possible for them to end up in a fall or fall situation, where no matter what they do, they fall because they broke an article of the code, when multiple articles are in conflict. And I believe "fight with honor" and "protect the innocent" can be in conflict, and the paladin needs room to interpret and decide which side to err on.

I'm sure, even by RAW, there might be times where's there's a "fall or fall" moment, in my eyes. I don't know think it's fair to purposefully inflict that on a player, but that's more of a social contract issue than a "in a bad situation, there's no wrong answer" issue, to me.

As for the paladin being held to a higher standard...I would say it is more that the paladin is held to ADDITIONAL standards.

I strongly disagree. Part of being a Lawful Good character is not willing acting Evil too often, else you become Neutral on your way to Evil. Not being able to willingly commit any Evil act is definitely a higher standard.

it's worth pointing out that "resign from service" is not always an option

I guess this is true in a sense. This is part of the Paladin conflict, I think. Is a tyrannical government "legitimate authority"? If so, you're going to run into problems like what you're pointing out. If tyranny isn't legitimate, in the Paladin's mind, he can dismiss it, including being bound to permanent service.

now, when you say that paladins draw their power from good itself, as opposed to the gods, this brings up certain problems of its own within the RAW, like what is this amorphous "good itself" that gives this power?

I wouldn't say it's a problem within the RAW, more of an unknown. It's Good. It may not be sentient. In the D&D universe, Good is an actual, objective force (Detect Good, and all). At some point, someone could have been granted Paladin powers by how they acted; over time, people were able to observe that under the right circumstances (the Code), they were granted power. Thus, granted by Good (in essence; commit any Evil act and lose your powers).

Is it a morally absolute code of right and wrong that exists as part of the universe like the laws of physics? if so, who decided on those standards, or is morality objective and self-evident?

Yes to the first sentence, and "who knows?" to the second. It's obviously self-evident; Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are all objective forces in the D&D universe. Who decided on them being objective forces? Based on the Core 3, I don't know. I know there's some lore on it, though.

the RAW and the default D&D settings seem to assume, and phrase the rules as though they assume, that divine magic characters follow a deity and derive their powers from that deity

Well, as we're talking about 3.Xe, as far as I know (and you note), it's explicitly clear that Clerics don't need to worship a deity (something I never much liked, but that's how it was). I think the same is true for the Paladin. I know the setting in the book is briefly mentioned as Greyhawk (I think), but I don't know much on the assumed setting other than what the rules imply (that lying, cheating, and poison are a matter of honor, for example).

But beyond those problems, this idea creates an internal contradiction when you say that honor is defined by society and thus the opinions of "most people" are relevant. If a paladin's code is determined by "good itself" then "good itself" has a pre-determined concept of what honorable fighting is, and the opinions of societies on the subject are irrelevant. Complicated, isn't it?

Not if you accept what I have

That is, Good is an objective force, that following certain rules (the Paladin's Code) can grant you power (Paladin class), and that the setting (noted as Greyhawk, I think?) assumes that lying, cheating, and poison are dishonorable (as per the description of the Paladin class).

This is one of the reasons I would say Gods are such a useful conceit in a D&D game, and one the RAW assumes are used by default, to avoid the above detailed mess.

I think the gods are assumed as part of the setting, just not part of the Paladin class.

I also think that to exclude the book of exalted deeds from consideration unfairly limits the discussion.

I'll agree to disagree, on this. Needless to say, I don't feel the need to include all the splat books when discussing RAW, as I find that it will actually lead a lot more to contradiction than the Core 3... but that's a discussion for another thread.

As such, I ask you, what is the difference in behavioral requirements between a paladin and the saint template? If a paladin is held to a standard of behavioral perfection, or as close to it as can be approximated by players, then where is there room for them to go "above and beyond" that to earn the saint template?

Cannot act Evil does not mean always acts Good. There's always inaction. And I don't mean letting innocents die; I mean constant proactive attempts to do as much Good as possible. There's no such thing as spending money for you, there's only Charity. There's no need for magic items; you have a vow of poverty (which is described as extra Good). Same for the other vows, I think. And so on. There's room to go.

On a similar note, doesn't the use of the term "gross violation" inherently imply that it is also possible for a minor violation of the code, for which the paladin would not fall, to exist?

As I said, I'd interpret that as "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the code, much as one might define "gross negligence" ("Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care"). If we go by that definition, then that means the Paladin might not lose his powers by making a mistake, but he will if he act against the Code knowingly. So, accidentally using a poisoned weapon wouldn't make him lose his powers (though it'd probably upset the Paladin), but using poison on purpose will.

Again, that'd be my interpretation of it, but as I said then, I can see a lighter interpretation of it.

As for that argument that Cedric is not lawful, yes, I've read most of it, and I find it flawed. Most of what people have said in that regard seems to me to presuppose
1: that Cedric's personal appetites (drinking, sex, swearing) are morally wrong inherently, and
2: Cedric lacks the self control to resist those immoral desires, because a lack of self control is chaotic.

I wasn't convinced by those arguments. But, I don't think he showed proper respect to the Paladin that showed up with orders from his church (which violates respecting authority) when he physically grabbed the man, I think he meets some of the guidelines for both Law and Chaos. You can read my reasoning based on 3e alignment guidelines in the spoiler.
[sblock]"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability." On this note, I think he probably tells the truth, keeps his word, judges those who fall short of their duties, and is trustworthy (4/9). I definitely think he doesn't honor tradition (the church disagreed with him), and I don't think he respects authority or is obedient to them (bucking the church enough that the head Cleric lost his powers). I don't think he's honorable. And I don't think I'd consider him reliable (he's going to do things his own way, and if I'm not on board, I can't really rely on him work with me in a way that I find helpful). That's 4/9 Lawful, and 5/9 not Lawful.

"On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should." Cedric isn't that close-minded, definitely doesn't have a reactionary adherence to tradition, is probably less judgmental than most (as long as it's not hurting people), and isn't lacking for adaptability (0/4). I doubt he believes in Lawful society being the only way for people to depend on each other (0/5).

"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility." On the Chaotic characteristics, I think that Cedric does follow his conscience, resents being told what to do, favors new ides over tradition, values his personal freedom, favors adaptability, as well as flexibility (6/7). I think he probably goes through with what he promised, whether or not he likes it (1/7). That's 6/7 Chaotic, 1/7 not Chaotic.

"On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them." I see Cedric as somewhat reckless (the scene where he gets in a fight to get to the Ogre, and then the aftermath where he died), and he seems to resent his church to some degree. I don't think he's acting arbitrarily, and he doesn't seem irresponsible (unless going into a situation as a Paladin where you're positive you're going to die without really changing anything is irresponsible, as Cedric does). I'd put him at 2/4 on this Chaotic scale. I think he'd lean towards individuals expressing themselves, but maybe not "unfettered personal freedom". So maybe 2/5 on this Chaotic side.

"Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished." This isn't entirely inaccurate, but the first line doesn't ring true for my view of Cedric at all. The rest I can see him following.

"Chaotic Good, "Rebel"
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society." I think this describes Cedric more accurately. He doesn't care what others think, follows his conscience, makes his own way, but is kind and benevolent. He follows his own good moral compass, even though it may not fit with society.

"Neutral Good, "Benefactor"
A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them." This has the least description, but I think it could describe him. He's looking out for Good. And, I think with how he acts in combination of Law and Chaos, he probably lands here, with Chaotic tendencies.[/sblock]

Anyways, this has been a very interesting, civil conversation still. And I want to thank you again for that. As always, play what you like

 

[Aurondarklord]

As I've said before, I don't believe circumstances can MAKE a person evil, I don't believe a valid moral system can exist where a person is evil no matter what they do. faced with two horrible choices, a good person who makes the less horrible choice for the right reasons (mainly "because it's less horrible") is still good. So I do not accept "fall or fall", but this is a question of personal views on morality and I don't think either of us could prove the other objectively right or wrong. I mean, the human species has been debating the nature of morality since we were doing it in grunts.

I will acknowledge that "commit no evil acts AT ALL" is a higher standard, you're right, but it's a specific higher standard, it does not impose or imply a general higher standard. what I mean is:

Average LG person: mostly commits lawful and good acts, occasionally may commit a neutral, evil, or chaotic act.

Paladin as I believe the class to be written: mostly commits lawful and good acts, occasionally may commit a neutral or chaotic act, may never commit an evil act.

Paladin as some people seem to believe the class to be written: must commit only lawful and good acts, may never commit neutral, chaotic, or evil acts.

Plus, of course, the specific mandates and prohibitions also listed in the code, but I consider them additional standards, not a general higher standard.

The resign from service question isn't always as simple as a tyrannical government. Sometimes a just, legitimate, even elected government does things, and asks its operatives to do things, that may offend the code of a paladin.

I grant you, within the setting of D&D, good, evil, law, and chaos have some form of actual objective substance, that much is true. but by default, divine magic characters are assumed to follow gods, hence the art in sourcebooks almost always shows them with holy symbols, hence rules tend to be written assuming a god first and then addressing the exception of a divine magic character who follows an ideal, etc. Yes, D&D explicitly provides rules for running such characters without Gods, but it treats Gods as the default.

vow of poverty =/= saint template, if I remember correctly, you have to have a couple sacred vow feats to be a saint, but I don't happen to have my books on hand to consult either, aftermath of hurricane Sandy, I can only get internet at a library, but you can pick which ones, so no particular sacred vow feat is part and parcel of the saint template. So...excluding specific rules covered by individual sacred vows, where is the line between paladin and saint? is it just as simple as the saint gets no "down time" and must be on the clock 24/7? Some people who've posted in this thread seem to expect that of Cedric anyway...

As for the question of "gross violation" meaning willing violation, while unintentional or unwilling violations are considered minor, I would say this is suggested not to be the case by the way the atonement spell is written. Specifically, that if a cleric atones a paladin (or other class that has violated a code of conduct) who committed the violation unwillingly or unknowingly, they can do so for free, but if it was an intentional violation, the cleric must pay 500XP. This suggests that an unwilling "gross violation" can occur, which suggests the intent of the designers was not to conflate "gross" with "intentional", so "gross" must have a different meaning...I would posit the meaning I've given to it. Now personally, believing the way I believe about moral catch 22s, I find the idea that a paladin can lose class abilities for something they did as a result of magical compulsion laughable, but I accept it as part of the RAW.

As for Cedric getting upset with Magnus...Magnus is not his superior, as far as I can tell, Magnus is a novice or at least "still kinda green" member of the church, inferior to Cedric within the hierarchy. So Cedric did not disrespect legitimate authority, Magnus does not have authority over him. Cedric became gruff with an inferior for disrespecting...in this case unfairly judging...him. Does this maybe cast Cedric as a bit arrogant or short tempered? Yes. But, "Good is not NICE, POLITE, WELL MANNERED, self-righteous, or naive". And further fiction seems to suggest that Cedric was less losing his temper with Magnus than teaching him a needed lesson. Perhaps Cedric could have handled that situation better, he's not a perfect person, clearly. But I do not see that instance by itself as grounds for falling, it was simply not severe enough. At worst it was an isolated minor chaotic act, in that he momentarily broke self control and acted temperamentally.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The resign from service question isn't always as simple as a tyrannical government. Sometimes a just, legitimate, even elected government does things, and asks its operatives to do things, that may offend the code of a paladin.

In that situation, resign. If they don't let you, we're getting close to a type of tyrannical government again.

vow of poverty =/= saint template, if I remember correctly, you have to have a couple sacred vow feats to be a saint, but I don't happen to have my books on hand to consult either

I wasn't trying to say that the Vow made you a Saint, I was just speaking of ways to be Extra Good, since you asked how it would be possible. I referenced your Vows (from the Book of Exalted Deeds).

So...excluding specific rules covered by individual sacred vows, where is the line between paladin and saint? is it just as simple as the saint gets no "down time" and must be on the clock 24/7? Some people who've posted in this thread seem to expect that of Cedric anyway...

As a template from the book, I'm sure it talks about what it means to be a Saint. I'm sure it's different from the Paladin. It might be compatible, it might not. I'd need to read it to be able to describe the difference.

But when we're talking about how to be a more "Good" Paladin, I already commented on that.

As for the question of "gross violation" meaning willing violation, while unintentional or unwilling violations are considered minor, I would say this is suggested not to be the case by the way the atonement spell is written. Specifically, that if a cleric atones a paladin (or other class that has violated a code of conduct) who committed the violation unwillingly or unknowingly, they can do so for free, but if it was an intentional violation, the cleric must pay 500XP.

The only explicit reference to the Paladin is "A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell." It does not mention the Code.

The spell does say "When cast for the benefit of a creature whose guilt was the result of deliberate acts, the cost to you is 500 XP per casting (see above)." However, we don't know if that's referencing Paladins, or if it's referencing things in general in a sort of blanket statement (which is what I suspect). For example, Clerics have a lot of ways to lose their powers, depending on the deity they worship. If they lose their powers (even unintentionally), or the Paladin loses his powers (by unintentionally committing an Evil act... which seems hard to do), then they can be restored at an XP cost.

However, it doesn't talk about the Code at all. It talks about committing an Evil act. So, the clause at the end (about the XP cost) could apply to Paladins, but it may not apply to the Code whatsoever; it may only apply to accidental acts of Evil (if that's possible).

As for Cedric getting upset with Magnus...Magnus is not his superior, as far as I can tell, Magnus is a novice or at least "still kinda green" member of the church, inferior to Cedric within the hierarchy. So Cedric did not disrespect legitimate authority, Magnus does not have authority over him.

I'd consider it not respecting legitimate authority if a Paladin disrespecting any messenger from the church, a legitimate lord he served, etc. Disrespecting the messenger is disrespecting the authority they represent. But again, it's not laid out in RAW, and so it's my take on it.

At worst it was an isolated minor chaotic act, in that he momentarily broke self control and acted temperamentally.

I'm curious as to your take on the Alignment by RAW and my points on it in the spoiler I left. By those descriptions, Cedric doesn't seem Lawful to me. What is your take on what I wrote? As always, play what you like

 

[Manbearcat]

I think this one is simple.

Would I let someone play this character? Yes.

Do I consider this character a Paladin? No.

This character drips nihilism as an oozing sore drips puss. Further, not only does he drip nihilism but he perpetuates it. He unabashedly proselytizes the young Paladin before him in the fatalistic faith of "in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters". The struggle with man's primal yearnings (pleasures of the flesh, lechery, and all other manner of vice) is a natural theme for an oath-bound man. However, giving in to nihilism...and worse yet, willfully proliferating it...nothing could be more "un-Paladin-like."

If one of my players wanted to play this character then, ok (and one has played something quite similar). But I would play it like Mel Gibson's fallen Catholic Priest character in Signs...robbed of faith (admittedly no longer a Father and chafing at the mention of the title) and the power that faith entails. That would be the Theme and "Redemption of Belief, of Spirit" would be the major quest (not of his own volition but a product of emergent play) for this character and minor quests and milestones would follow suit.

 

[pemerton]

the rules of D&D inherently seem to suggest that within the context of the game, death is considered a harm. Once again going back to the book of exalted deeds (and God people are gonna get tired of me thumping on that sourcebook eventually...), much time is spent on the subject of mercy and the obligation of good characters to give quarter to defeated enemies and accept surrender.

This could be framed not in terms of harm but in terms of courtesy or honour. What I mean is, to infer from "I would wrong X by refusing to grant quarter" to "I would harm X by refusing to grant quarter" is already to make assumptions about the relationship between wronging and harming that I think are at odds with the romantic ethos of paladinship.

That said, I wouldn't expect the Book of Exalted Deeds to be clear on this. In my view, at least, coherent moral philosophy has never been a prominent feature of D&D's alignment rules!

This argument presupposes that death is a harm, because it explicitly disallows a paladin from finishing off a defeated and repentant enemy who asks for mercy using the logic "well, the Gods/goodness itself/whatever relevant cosmic authority will sort it out, if his repentance was sincere, he'll get a good afterlife, no harm no foul".

As I've said, it presupposes that refusing quarter is wrong. It is an open question, though, whether the wrongfulness consists in harming, or in something else.

There is also a further question of how the wrong is to be analysed - as a breach of duty to the person who is offering surrender, or as a failure of virtue on the part of the paladin.

My own view is that a paladin works best when the wrong is analysed by reference to the paladin's virtue, with the duty (if any) being a duty owed to the gods (or, if you prefer, the principles of LG) to uphold that virtue.

Providence is also explicitly not always in favor of good in D&D, because the standard D&D 3E setting details a world in which there is a balance between good and evil, the evil gods and fiends are as powerful and have as much of a stake in the cosmos as the good gods and celestials, and the ultimate victory of good over evil is not guaranteed, the possibility that evil will ultimately win is very real and in fact often the very situation the PCs must prevent. Thus, optimism cannot be a requirement for a paladin, because it can require the paladin to have a view of the setting that is divorced from reality, and, as the book of exalted deeds specifies, "good is not nice, polite, well mannered, self-righteous, OR NAIVE". A paladin cannot be required to be naive.

First, on a tangential point - it seems to me to be highly arguable that good ought to be polite and well-mannered. Courtesy is related to respect, and respect for others is meant to be one of the animating concerns of the good.

But putting that to one side, I think that you are right to identify this as an issue. But my take on it is different from yours. In my view, what you've shown here is that the Planescape-style cosmology of 2nd ed AD&D and 3E is, at its core, incompatible with the existence of paladinhood.

That's not to say that paladins must be naive in the ordinary sense - they need not be gullible; they can be aware that many of those who promise to repent will in fact sin again; etc. But they have to have faith.

It seems to me that there are two ways the broader framework of the game can respond to that need for faith. It can vindicate the paladin's faith - but as you've noted, the Planescape cosmology doesn't do that. Or it can support the player of the paladin in grappling with what his/her faith means - but the traditional D&D paladin rules (and its alignment rules more generally) don't support that, because they put the GM rather than the player in charge of deciding what is or isn't permitted for the paladin.

I think the Planescape setting brings with it an implicit evaluative framework - a type of somewhat nihilistic, even cynical, relativism that upholds individual belief and essentially non-rational conviction as the pre-eminent, perhaps the sole, value. Debating the merits of such an outlook would be in breach of forum rules. I think it has clear affinities to the outlook of a lot of science fiction and pulp fantasy (REH, Lovecraft). But I don't see that it leaves any room for the non-deluded paladin.

 

[pemerton]

Would I let someone play this character? Yes.

Do I consider this character a Paladin? No.

This character drips nihilism as an oozing sore drips puss. Further, not only does he drip nihilism but he perpetuates it.

<snip>

giving in to nihilism...and worse yet, willfully proliferating it...nothing could be more "un-Paladin-like."

My approach would be a bit different. I would be happy for a player to play this PC as a paladin, but not within a traditional D&D framework. For example, this PC is (in my view) not viable within the approach of a GM-policed code that determines whether or not the paladin PC gets to remain a mechanically viable PC.

As you indicate, I would expect the issue of "redemption or fall" to be a major focus of the play of this PC.

As a side-note, Burning Wheel has the "Lost Faith" trait for this sort of character, as well as mechanical support for regaining your faith during play. While faith has been lost, it can't be called upon in the game (which is roughly analogous to losing your divine abilities in D&D). In Burning Wheel this is not such a purge, however, due to features both of its PC build and advancement mechanics, and its approach to resolution and adjudication.

Whereas in D&D, for a paladin to lose his/her abilities is just to take a huge bath and become, effectively, a mechanically unviable character.

 

[Manbearcat]

@pemerton

Yup. Agreed The Burning Wheel implementation would handle this character archetype much more robustly and elegantly than D&D would.

When I ran this sort of character (it was during 3e's initial run), I created a template for him and swapped out the class features until he redeemed himself. I didn't want to punish the PC for willfully playing the archetype, exploring the theme and adding narrative dynamism to the game. That would be a needless disincentive and punishment (for no wrong done). And I certainly didn't want to deal with the headache of a mechanically unviable character.

4e makes this quite easy: Theme + Multi-class Feat + Re=skinned powers or Theme powers swapped for current powers. Done.

 

[nijineko]

the op description could be supported by the 3.x rules as is. the way the original paladin was described, it would not have worked, but in 3.x you have paladins of all four extreme alignments. the code of honor binding any given paladin will be dependent upon the entity or entities granting the powers to the paladin, and what the dm will allow to be such. therefore, it is already supported in theory.

as for the moral and ethical implications, that will depend on what is defined as good and evil, and law and chaos for that matter, in each game universe. the bovd and boed are worthless in deciding on such a matter, and for just about anything to do with good or evil, so it will depend on the dm, who should make known what is defined as moral and ethical in their particular game universe.

in my game universes, just by way of example, there are a number of entities that can grant power to others. a paladin such as described in the op could theoretically exist, depending on which entity they tied them self too. however, the entities in question who would allow or encourage this are not actually sources of ultimate good, and what sources of ultimate good that exist in my game universes would never accept such behavior due to how good is defined in my universes.

moral purity and chastity outside of marriage, though within a faithful marriage they are just as welcome to start a family as any other mortal. such are a few of the rules of ultimate good.

like many others have commented, my groups do not run towards details of a sexual nature. i would not permit such a degree of descriptiveness, and chances are that i would discourage making this the theme of a character. having that as part of the backstory and it being mentioned in passing on occasion as flavor for what happened during downtime might fall under my radar... depending.

 

[Aurondarklord]

Oh dear, I seem to have failed to notice a bunch of stuff in a spoiler tag. I'm an idiot. I apologize, JamesonCourage, I was not intentionally avoiding your question.

Covering those issues first, and the questions you raise with Cedric's lawful alignment, point for point,

1: Does Cedric honor tradition? No, he does not. Evidence appears to show that Cedric does not ascribe any particular value to traditions merely because they are traditions.

2: Does Cedric respect and obey authority? Yes, but not blindly. He respects the authority of the High Lord, prayer is his first activity in the morning, and he takes better care of his holy symbol than he does of himself. He and Father Shikuna appear to have great mutual respect. All we know about the incident with the high priest is that there was a person who tried to alter his God's scripture to suit HIS personal idea of what the religion should be like, presumably to give himself an excuse to cast out Cedric, and the High Lord revoked his powers for attempting to do so. Considering that knowingly vandalizing scripture to reflect your opinions over those of your God constitutes blasphemy, heresy, and probably schism if he'd managed it, I can very easily see a pissed off God revoking powers or even smiting the offender. Whether Cedric was even directly involved in this incident is unclear, and certainly nothing about it reflects on Cedric's attitude towards authority, merely that the High Lord at one point endorsed Cedric's views over those of someone in a position of authority. Another instance of grating writing, but not a bad reflection on Cedric's lawfulness. Cedric is obedient to LEGITIMATE authority, and the biggest and most important authority, and the SOURCE of the legitimacy of all other authority, at least all other spiritual authority, as presented in the fiction, is the High Lord, who Cedric respects and obeys.

3: Is Cedric honorable? Considering this has been the primary subject of our debate, I'm gonna say you've heard my opinions here.

4: Is Cedric reliable? Cedric will always be there when you need him, regardless of how exhausted he is or how he feels, he will come when duty calls, the story about the dying old man and him delivering a baby right after paints him as Captain Reliable, and his personal habits seem to be run like clockwork. I view it as almost objectively proven that Cedric is reliable.

So my personal lawful behavior tally is 8/9

Does Cedric have any of the listed down sides of a lawful alignment? No, you're right, he's not demonstrated a single one on that list. He's 0/4. But all of those say that lawful characters CAN have those traits, not that they MUST. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest, or the developers intentions, that a paladin must have the NEGATIVE potential aspects of lawfulness, if anything those traits tend to be part and parcel of lawful neutral and lawful evil characters. Does Cedric consciously promote lawful behavior? I don't know, the fiction does not specifically address his attitudes on the subject, but the RAW only says the a paladin must BE lawful, not that he must consciously promote lawful behavior, so this is irrelevant in my opinion. Cedric may have a live and let live attitude towards order and chaos, he himself is lawful, but he's content to let chaotic people be chaotic if it works for them. This merely suggests he's not so arrogant as to believe that what works for him is THE ONE TRUE PATH for everyone. The alignment of the High Lord is never definitively stated, if Cedric is a lawful good paladin in service to a neutral good deity, something very possible under the RAW and possibly suggested to be the case here (since Bob the celestial horse comes from Elysium, this might imply the High Lord reigns there and is thus neutral good), such an attitude would make perfect sense.

Now, point for point on Cedric's chaotic behaviors checklist:

1: Does Cedric follow his conscience. Yes. But I would have a great deal of trouble thinking of a paladin who doesn't. Conscience seems like a necessary element of the class's mentality to me.

2: Does Cedric resent being told what to do? No. Cedric follows the tenets of his faith without issue, and lives in service to the High Lord. He resents being told he's wrong by a naive kid who doesn't actually understand the rules he's trying to enforce, that's a different circumstance and does not show Cedric as resentful of being told what to do IN GENERAL.

3: Does Cedric favor new ideas over tradition? I grant that Cedric does not seem to ascribe any particular value to tradition because it's tradition, but neither is he shown to ascribe any greater value to new ideas because they're new. I do not believe the fiction has shown whether Cedric has this quality or not.

4: Does Cedric value his personal freedom? Cedric lives in voluntary servitude to a deity and a code, this suggests a willing abdication of personal freedom, so no.

5: Does Cedric value adaptability and flexibility? He lives by a code, there is an inherent degree of inflexibility in this premise. Cedric just seems to know exactly how much room he has to interpret this code, and pushes it that far and no further. Cedric is never shown complaining about the code being overly rigid, only about others misinterpreting the code as more rigid than it really is. So I would say this question has not been answered based on the fiction presented.

Final tally from my perspective? 1/7 chaotic behaviors demonstrated.

From the negative stuff...I don't see Cedric as reckless, I see him as dedicated. A reckless person charges into battle without stopping to think about whether it's a good idea or he might get himself killed. Cedric charges into battle after giving considerable thought to his reasons for doing so, and entirely aware he'll likely die. That's not reckless, that's fighting the good fight and being willing to sacrifice himself. I also don't see Cedric as resenting his church in general, he just resents a few isolated idiots within said church.

Now, the alignment descriptions...I see no objective evidence within the fiction written that Cedric actually believes any of the stuff from neutral good or chaotic good besides the parts that simply relate to GOOD. I think we haven't really seen Cedric in the kinds of order vs chaos situations that would illuminate how he feels about such things, without having to "read between the lines" to find what you want to find. As for the description of lawful good, the only problem you had with it was that you don't believe Cedric behaves as good people are expected or required to. I think he does, he just has a different idea of what those expectations and requirements are than some of the people around him, particularly Magnus. However, since the High Lord and the presented mortal religious authority, Father Shikuna, seem to agree with Cedric's version of the expectations and requirements, Cedric is in the clear, and thus matches the description of lawful good just fine.

Now, onto the newer points in your more recent post...

In the real world US military, and most modern first world military organizations, soldiers commit to service for a given period of time, and may not resign within this period. Even officers, who in most cases may resign, may not do so in the middle of operations or for the purpose of avoiding having to obey an order they don't like. And yet, the US is a democracy, the rules of our military are developed by social contract between the government and the governed, and this is inherently not tyranny. It's not as simple as "if you can't resign at will, the government must be tyrannical". I honestly don't know if that comment skirts too far over the line into political discussion, if I'm out of line I'll happily fix it.

The atonement spell says it removes the burden of evil acts "or misdeeds", misdeeds in this case, by being presented as something other than "evil acts" being a blanket description suggested to cover whatever violations of a code of conduct could apply to a given class, including paladins inherently under that umbrella even though the code of conduct is not specifically discussed.

And no, in this case I draw a clear distinction between the messenger and the message. Cedric immediately jumped to obey the orders the messenger was sent to convey, he just reacted adversely to the messenger on a personal level.

Answer me this, how respectful of authority does a paladin have to be? If you don't accept the idea that a paladin can get away with minor intentional violations of the code without falling, must a paladin demonstrate absolute deference to every legitimate authority figure he encounters? Would a paladin who made a wisecrack about the king to the other members of his adventuring party immediately fall just for a trivial joke? That seems like an extraordinarily disproportionate punishment.

Pemerton, not to be rude but...it seems to me that to reach the conclusion that a basic D&D class is inherently unplayable and disallowed by the rules in a basic D&D setting requires jumping through so many intellectual hoops that you can't seriously believe it was the designers intention. Perhaps if your notion of what a paladin is requires being so divorced from the RAW, you should seriously consider if you and I, or for that matter you and the designers, are discussing the same class concept here, especially when we're talking in the context of what would be allowed under the RAW.