(Yet another) Paladin behaviour question

[Umbran]

These bandits killed good and honorable men for gold. And in service to an evil church. They are filth and scum, deserving of neither an honorable death or burial.

But... (there's always a but)

The paladin must always be honorable in his own actions. He cannot become lax merely because the guilty do not deserve honor. If the paladin's honor lapses, even in the pursuit of scum, then he is no better than that scum. His divine mandate fails if his conduct is ever less than perfection, under any circumstances.

If a paladin's justice is absolute, then so must be the codes that bind his behavior.

 

[Dragonblade]

Sure, if the code of this paladin states that he must always be open and up front in all cases and with all beings then yes he was not following his code.

If his code calls for him to hunt down and exact retribution against those who have wronged his church and its soldiers and doesn't specifically condemn his method of setting up the faux interview, then he is following his code and he did the right thing.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I'm sorry Dragonblade, you are way off base. You are talking about some chaotic good or neutral good character, not a lawful good Paladin.

Always is the lawful part forgotten when convenient. The lawful part of the Paladin is the one who believes in having strict codes of law so that order is maintained.

Why? So that people cannot just kill their neighbors with impunity because they were wronged under the eyes of their god. That is the difference between Lawful Good Paladins and say Neutral or Chaotic good rangers and clerics.

Paladins must satisfy the lawful part of their alignment whether they are knights or some other type of Paladin. There is no getting around it in the case of the Paladin. They are divinely mandated to maintain a sense of lawful order as well crush evil.

They cannot kill who they want anyway they feel like because they are evil. They have to engage in a lawful process of justice.

That is the gyst of the argument. Did the Paladin by using subterfuge and silence spells satisfy the lawful part of his alignment when bringing these men to trial. For me, the disintegration part is more akin to the good part of the Paladin's alignment. The basic question for me being whether or not he satisfied his own churches idea of proper burial rights given to the dead.

There are some definite inconsistencies in the whole scenario.

1. If they slaughtered them in combat, did he think they deserved honorable combat or was he just murdering weaker opponents? If they were guilty, why didn't he just outright execute them? Given the circumstances, this would have been just as viable as fighting them in melee combat.

2. If he did believe they were honorable, why didn't he give them a chance to sue for mercy?

3. If he wanted to enact retribution, why didn't he do it publicly by leaving a pile of bodies or maybe piked heads as a display of the churches retributice act? Why all the subterfuge and the use of disintegration chamber to hide what he did? Why would a paladin have to hide his just act?


Just doesn't make sense to me. It woudln't even be an issue were this some neutral or chaotic good fighter or ranger. This just doesn't seem like the act of a lawful good Paladin.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, if the code of this paladin states that he must always be open and up front in all cases and with all beings then yes he

Exactly. That was my point. You said, "The code of the paladin is not a strait jacket that hamstrings him in his battle with evil." But that's not true, in general. The code can be a straight jacket. If his code says no to a certain act, then he cannot do it, no matter how deserving the target is.

Lots of folks around here seem pretty permissive with paladins - they have gone a little too far with the "lawful good isn't lawful stupid" line of thought. But the fact of the matter is that a paladins should have rules, and have to stick to them, even if those rules seem stupid in a given instance. To a paladin, following the rules needs to be about as important as fighting evil.

Think of a paladin as a modern day cop - there are rules he simply isn't allowed to break in the search for justice. Can he use a little subterfuge for camouflage? Yes. However, like in our world, sometimes evil does get away because of "silly little rules" - the fantasy equivalent of Miranda Rights, or the rules of evidence.

 

[Dragonblade]

You say "Lawful" as if you expect everyone to share your definition of "lawful". As if the tenets of LG as you see them are self-evident. They are not and although the PHB makes a valid attempt at explaining alignments, there are logical and moral inconsistencies that render it a dubious authority at best.

My definition of LG is obviously quite different from yours and is derived from years of studying the mechanics of alignment in the various incarnations of D&D and also through studying human nature in the real world. As far as I'm concerned LG implies self-discipline and may include following a code a of conduct. But that may be a personal code or a divine one, especially in the case of a paladin.

Lawful does not necessarily mean law-abiding, particularly in cases where the laws of the land may conflict with the paladin or his deity's divine law.

The paladin does what is good and right according to a code that your or other secular authorities may not care for, and in fact may be "illegal". But the paladin is not beholden to secular law or authority. Only to the divine law of his god while in pursuit of good.

You seem to assume that paladins are like police officers who must accord evil doers and monsters their "civil rights". They are not. They don't have to bring criminals to the "proper authorities". After all the paladin is the only true proper authority when it comes to executing the divine will of their god. And if the paladins code accords no rights to evil doers or monsters than they have none. In fact the notion of civil rights is curious one arising from the ancient Greeks and appearing on and off throughout history.

But certainly not much in the medieval world nor in a fantasy one where paladins and churches of gods of justice are the only hope of a populace beset by undead, monsters, demons and all manner of dark magic. In such a world the paladins would smite first and ask questions later and the people would love them for it. To accord civil rights to vampires, drow and other foul monsters would be an insane and suicidal gesture.

If the paladins code says that evil should be rooted out and destroyed by blade or by fire whereever it is found, then that is what the paladin will do. There may be a local law against attacking people in town but if the paladin encounters a known villain he is within his right to strike down that foe then and there. The local law of the town is irrelevant. Nor are the townspeople likely to gainsay a paladin's judgement. Likely they would applaud his action in destroying a foul villain in their midst.

LG doesn't mean the paladin must follow all laws everywhere. Otherwise every evil warlord in the land would simply pass a law making it illegal for paladins to do anything.

Thus it is the paladin who will decide which secular laws he will follow and which he won't. Being LG and a paladin it is simply assumed he will use good judgement in the exercising of such authority. If he didn't he wouldn't be a paladin in the first place and probably wouldn't be LG either.

 

[Dragonblade]

I can't stress this enough. Paladins are not cops and monsters have no rights. There are no rules of evidence or Miranda rights. Detect Evil or spells like Zone of Truth are the only evidence needed. There is no right to be evil.

Paladins are holy warriors who answer to their god. They root out evil and destroy it where it is found.

They don't have to fight "fair" or give their opponents honorable burials. Such notions are absurd. The paladin fights and destroys his opponents without mercy. Using ambushes and sneak attacks where appropriate.

The paladin will use tactics that maximize the casualties of the forces of evil and minimize the casualties of the forces of light.

Evil is never allowed to escape on a "technicality".

 

[Umbran]

Evil is never allowed to escape on a "technicality".

That attitude is Neutral or Chaotic, not Lawful.

Here's the thing - being LG means that both aspects are equally important. He cannot put good above law - instead they must go hand in hand. That means not setting aside the rules just to reach evil. It also means that the paladin tries to use the law specifically to do good.

So, sometimes evil gets away on a technicality. Sometimes, it gets caught by a technicality. Good old Elliot Ness - can't catch Al Capone on all the evil things he does, but instead catches the bad guy on the least evil of all charges: tax evasion.

 

[Dragonblade]

I still don't believe that Lawful necessarily means law abiding. It simply means one who is self-disciplined and follows a code of behavior that guides his actions.

You are right in saying the law and good go hand in hand but where following the law would lead to a victory for evil then good part is lost and you are LN or even LE.

I think the best example of a LG character in literature that I have ever seen is Galad in the Wheel of Time series.

I also believe the Punisher is LG, but thats another debate entirely.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Dragonblade, yes it does. Lawful means law-abiding. Otherwise you would choose a chaotic or neutral good alignment.

Ever read about the Theocracy of the Pale in Greyhawk? A lawful neutral fantasy society. There laws are absolute and their people are expected to follow them.

Ever wonder why in D and D, every fantasy world who has a Lawful Good God of Justice. Lawful means law abiding.


What you described in the following is a Chaotic or Neutral Good person, not lawful good:

The paladin does what is good and right according to a code that your or other secular authorities may not care for, and in fact may be "illegal". But the paladin is not beholden to secular law or authority. Only to the divine law of his god while in pursuit of good.

You seem to assume that paladins are like police officers who must accord evil doers and monsters their "civil rights". They are not. They don't have to bring criminals to the "proper authorities". After all the paladin is the only true proper authority when it comes to executing the divine will of their god. And if the paladins code accords no rights to evil doers or monsters than they have none. In fact the notion of civil rights is curious one arising from the ancient Greeks and appearing on and off throughout history.

Paladins are expected to follow the laws of the land and only oppose them if they are deemed as unjust, and not necessarily good, though they cannot be evil. For example, in the FR, slavery is legal in Calimshan, yet Tyr is worshipped prominently. For most good people, slavery is wrong. Lawful Good Paladins would have to accept laws that allowed slavery to exist as long as the slaves were treated justly by their masters.

Would a Chaotic or Neutral good person have to abide such laws? Probably not. That is the big difference between chaotic and neutral good players, they aren't inclined to be law abiding. They see something wrong, they don't have to worry about legal procedure.

The very fact that you don't believe lawful is self-evident indicates that you have little concept of what lawful means. It very much does mean law abiding.

If you want to argue that what one person considers a just law when compared to another, that is open ended. A lawful person will follow the laws put in place though irregardless of the society, unless he or she is at war with the other society and cares little for respected their laws. A lawful person believes society will crumble without laws and order, and believes the following of laws and use of procedure to carry out those laws is necessary for an orderly society.

The only time a Paladin will break the law is when he or she is fighting an unjust or obviously evil law. Then they are well within their rights. They will not mete out justice in a lawless and disorderly manner. There lawful code is their lawful code whereever they may travel. They will generally follow the laws of any land they are in as long as those laws are just. If the land is lawless, then they will default to their own divine doctrine's laws or their secular cultural laws.

To Sum it up, Lawful does mean law-abiding. I think that is self-evident because of the differing descriptions in the PHB for Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral Good.

 

[Westwind]

The chaotic/lawful question may be a little off-topic here, but I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents. While lawful characters are law-abiding in a general sense (law-abiding LE despots strikes me as needing more description aside from he follows bad laws). I remember reading somewhere (I don't have my books, so forgive me if it's in someplace as common as the PH or DMG) that one of the major axes (pl. of axis, not thing to chop wood with) that the law/chaos alignments work on is concern for the group vs. concern for the individual. That is, you can have tons of laws that preserve personal freedom and choice (like in the classic elven kingdom) but following them makes you CG, not LG in most cases.

Anyone else see law and chaos in this way for their DnD games?