(Yet another) Paladin behaviour question

[Umbran]

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.

I don't dispute that is a possibility. He can follow a personal code. My argument is the same. Whether the laws are those of the nation or culture the paladin comes from, or whether they come from within, there are still rules he must follow. If he's got a personal code of behavior, he's got to stick to it. No setting it aside for convenience.

And also no setting it up purely for convenience, either. There's a great temptation to make up the paladin's personality, and then create a personal code that will never actually get in the way. That is cheating, like giving up strawberrries for Lent when you're allergic to them anyway. If it takes no actual discipline to follow the code, then the code doesn't really exist.

 

[DDK]

I haven't read through the entire thread so if my comments are repeats, please forgive me.

Firstly, I have to say, "Wow!" I thought it was an excellent plan and was obviously well roleplayed. I wish my players would engage in the game at that level, sigh.

Secondly, the alignment issue is a difficult one, as always. On the one hand, it seems that he was more than fair. Most players wouldn't bother with such niggling details as guilt or innocence. He went to great effort to establish their guilt and meted out justice in a one-on-one combat. On the surface that looks fine; I would have no alignment issues with that. However, if one of them begged for mercy and tried to plead his case and the paladin ignored the cries for mercy and slaughtered him... well, then I would view that as evil.

Since it doesn't sound like any of that was the case, I think the guy deserves kudos for coming up with a brialliant plan that was well executed (pun intended). It also sounds like everyone had fun in the session, so double points to him for engaging in the game at a greater level than simply, "What's there? I hack it!"

 

[Mort]

I will also say that IMHO the paladin did a fine job and the paladin’s player did a fine job with what was presented. As Fourecks (Terry Pratchett reference I take it?) mentioned the only problem would be if any of the villains asked for mercy and or tried to surrender –which was not stated.

On another note – people must remember that lawful does not (and cannot) mean respecting EVERY law one comes across. Someone is lawful if they follow a set of laws set up by a particular group or society (how big that group has to be is subject to debate but, I for one, do not agree that a personal code is necessarily lawful). In this case the paladin seemed to be following the laws set by his church – he did not need to be following the laws set by the group he was with.
Some people think that paladins have to be social relativists – this is bunk; just because you are lawful does not mean your group's laws can’t be more right than theirs.

 

[Dr. NRG]

Slightly off topic, but referring police in general (and LAPD in particular) as a good example of lawful good is just howlingly funny. At best, they're lawful. At worst, see the example below.

The bulk of the Tijuana police force was just arrested recently for being in the employ of a drug cartel. They accepted bribes to return seized drugs back to the cartel, and even provided protection against rival gangsters.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but couldn't resist commenting on someone's "police" example.

More on topic, Westwind, in your campaign, can the Paladin go "under cover" to investigate crimes? Could he pretend to be a member of a thieves guild? How about a neutral church?

Also, were the mercenaries he murdered evil? He had an easy method to find out with his innate abilities. I imagine this would likely be a relevant factor in whether he should be allowed to slay them out of hand.

NRG