Yep, that's pretty much what I said too.
"Corrupt" by its very definition is unlawful. If the corrupt legal officials are following the law, then they are not corrupt at all.
Ah, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word corrupt (since it does imply law breaking). Unjust might have been a better choice.
Even if everything those in power are doing is legal, I don't think that (necessarily) makes opposing them unlawful, even opposing them violently, if their actions are unjust or actively harmful to those under their power. In my opinion Lawful vs. Chaotic isn't about always following the law as written or always opposing it, it's more nuanced than that.
Depends,
It sounds like you are positing a LE legal system. Or a LN at the very least.[LE]
LE is, by default, evil. Therefore, the Paladin can overthrow it without any issues. He may even find it easier (lawful evil tends to have a concept of honor) so he might be able to challenge the head honcho to a duel for leadership. Or he might be able to work within the laws and turn it against them as he overthrows it. There are lots of options other than 'Hassan chop' in this type of situation.
[LN]
This is a bit more of a problem. A neutral system will sometimes sacrifice justice to one to keep the rule of law.
Example:
- There is a law that a Reeve must have a writ from the local Baron before he may search the home of anyone who's not a serf.
- The Reeve suspects a local well respected Knight is behind some recent kidnappings of children, and that the Knight is selling the children to slavers.
- The Reeve has no proof, and can't get a writ from the Baron, because he has no proof.
- The Reeve searches the Knight's home anyway, and finds proof in the form of letters from the slavers.
- The Reeve arrests the Knight.
- The local Justice throws the evidence out at trial, because the Reeve broke the law to get the evidence, which tainted it.
- Reeve is fired, Knight is not punished (although everyone knows what he did, so someone is likely to take some justice out on him in a dark alley).
A Paladin might come into this situation and be the one to attack the Knight and kill him in the name of good. However, that's a slippery slope. And, he might want to overthrow the local law because it's obviously not just (it let the Knight get away with kidnapping and slavery).
That's actually pretty much what happens in the U.S. with regularity. Someone does a search without a warrant and the evidence get's tossed out of court. The laws are set up to protect the greatest number of people the most amount of time, not to get justice 100% of the time. While in this case the Knight got away, it also keeps power abusing Reeves from searching anyone's house they want at any time.
Anyway, long story short, the Paladin had better be absolutely sure the entire system is unjust and that the only way to fix it is to smash it to bits, because if he does smash it to bits, he better be able to build it back up again or it's going to end up being a worse system afterwards.
Yep, that's pretty much what I said too.
"Corrupt" by its very definition is unlawful. If the corrupt legal officials are following the law, then they are not corrupt at all.
Ah, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word corrupt (since it does imply law breaking). Unjust might have been a better choice.
Even if everything those in power are doing is legal, I don't think that (necessarily) makes opposing them unlawful, even opposing them violently, if their actions are unjust or actively harmful to those under their power. In my opinion Lawful vs. Chaotic isn't about always following the law as written or always opposing it, it's more nuanced than that.
It's hard to say, isn't it, without contradicting yourself...
"Unjust" also means "unlawful".
You're mostly right. Being Chaotic is not "always opposing" the law. But being Lawful is "always following the law as written" when the law is just and the lawmakers and enforcers are just too.
When the justice breaks down, either within the laws themselves or within the enforcement of the law, that's where the paladin gains ground on opposing the law rather than following it.
A Reeve, a knight, and a paladin walk into a bar...
A Paladin might come into this situation and be the one to attack the Knight and kill him in the name of good. However, that's a slippery slope. And, he might want to overthrow the local law because it's obviously not just (it let the Knight get away with kidnapping and slavery).
Nope, and nope again.
Killing the knight, or even assaulting him, would be illegal and definitely unlawful, unless this kingdom allows such vigilante justice against an unconvicted noble. Hardly likely.
And labeling search and seizure laws unjust because one criminal got away, when those laws were enacted to protect the innocent is far-fetched at best.
As you said, this kind of thing happens all the time in the U.S. It is expected to happen. And nobody repeals the law, nobody passes new legislation allowing the police to break into our homes without cause, because this law is just, and it protects far more innocent people than the relatively tiny number of criminals who skate on a technicality.
So yeah, you said the paladin may "want" to overthrow the law, but if he acts on that desire without a preponderance of evidence, he is being unlawful.
Suppose he can find multiple numerous cases where known business associates of the local baron are never properly investigated. The baron always refuses to grant warrants when his associates are involved, thus protecting known criminal elements from due process of the law. Now the paladin can act against the corruption in the legal system.
So, a new tangent.
Suppose a paladin grows up in the happy kingdom of Goodland. The king is just, the laws are fair, and everyone is Lawful Good.
Then he goes on a road trip to the neighboring kingdom of Evilland. Here there are horrible laws. Laws that allow murder and rape and theft and other vile acts. But everyone here follows the law to the letter, including the king and all the law officials. Zero corruption. Everything is exactly Lawful Evil.
The paladin sees the common folk suffering under these laws and the abuses of their daily lives. His compassionate heart goes out to them and he wants to end their suffering.
What can he do to save them?
And no, no cheap answer like "pack their bags and relocate them to Goodland - there are laws preventing emmigration out of Evilland and there are legally appointed border patrols will catch and kill them, all according to law, so he cannot even suggest or hint that they leave the country.
So what can the paladin do?
Yep, that's pretty much what I said too.
"Corrupt" by its very definition is unlawful. If the corrupt legal officials are following the law, then they are not corrupt at all.
Ah, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word corrupt (since it does imply law breaking). Unjust might have been a better choice.
Even if everything those in power are doing is legal, I don't think that (necessarily) makes opposing them unlawful, even opposing them violently, if their actions are unjust or actively harmful to those under their power. In my opinion Lawful vs. Chaotic isn't about always following the law as written or always opposing it, it's more nuanced than that.
It's hard to say, isn't it, without contradicting yourself...
"Unjust" also means "unlawful".
You're mostly right. Being Chaotic is not "always opposing" the law. But being Lawful is "always following the law as written" when the law is just and the lawmakers and enforcers are just too.
When the justice breaks down, either within the laws themselves or within the enforcement of the law, that's where the paladin gains ground on opposing the law rather than following it.
I'm sorry I have to jump back in here, and I hate to disagree with a tarrasque, but justice and law are two separate concepts, however often entwined they may be. Justice is really just society's word for people getting what they deserve, and in the above case (knight enslaver) he clearly does not. Someone killing him in a dark alley would indeed be Justice but nonetheless unlawful. There are tons of perfectly unjust laws in the real world and I imagine in a fantasy world as well. A paladin, I would argue, has nonetheless to follow those unjust laws or again he might as well be NG. In a situation where he must follow his conscience or his lord on which side does he err? What situation does that put him in with his god?
Let's examine for instance frontier law. Horse rustlin is punishable by hanging. That hardly seems a balanced equation and is, rightly so, thought now to be an injustice. Perfectly "lawful" though. Bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people in any system of laws or justice. Saying that the law provides justice is discounting the idea of LE or a LE state where injustice, inequity, cruelty and likely enslavement are written into the law.
But then you could always argue that the idea of Law isn't necessarily man-made law but rather a state of being, of discipline and determination, a code, and a Lawful character has no compunction to follow "laws" but rather to follow his own guidelines. Though, in the case of a paladin, I'd also argue that his guidelines are not necessarily arrived upon internally but dictated by a deity. This is the point of view I often take when playing lawful characters, that you simply have a personal code that informs your behavior and is separate from your conscience.
So, a new tangent.
Suppose a paladin grows up in the happy kingdom of Goodland. The king is just, the laws are fair, and everyone is Lawful Good.
Then he goes on a road trip to the neighboring kingdom of Evilland. Here there are horrible laws. Laws that allow murder and rape and theft and other vile acts. But everyone here follows the law to the letter, including the king and all the law officials. Zero corruption. Everything is exactly Lawful Evil.
The paladin sees the common folk suffering under these laws and the abuses of their daily lives. His compassionate heart goes out to them and he wants to end their suffering.
What can he do to save them?
And no, no cheap answer like "pack their bags and relocate them to Goodland - there are laws preventing emmigration out of Evilland and there are legally appointed border patrols will catch and kill them, all according to law, so he cannot even suggest or hint that they leave the country.
So what can the paladin do?
Probably nothing. This is when the rest of the party says "toodle-loo" and has a fun weekend of raping and pillaging before heading back to goodland to fence the goods, using that money to finance a war against evil land in the name of justice. The paladin just cries in a corner.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Except the paladin/thief is not a paladin any more. He broke the law. He stole. Unless somehow he lives in a place where the rightful authorities have enacted laws that say "Go ahead and steal whatever you want from anyone you want; Theft is not against the law". I doubt such a law has been passed (and if so, the other paladin is not the least bit obligated to help this farmer).
So the decision is simple.
The paladin should consider it a valid cause to hunt down the ex-paladin/thief who stole the items. Whether or not he does is another issue - maybe he's on a more important mission.
But there is no conflict here.
I disagree, Blake, as did other people. That works for your campaign, and your understanding of a Paladin's Code. But it's not anywhere as simple to my understanding.
This is a hypothetical situation, but I've run several campaigns where the paladin who took Fidelius would have been acting within the law of the land -- either (a) in one world where peasants weren't allow to draw or bear martial weapons, or (b) others in which paladins were given the right to impose Low Justice, which would certainly have covered confiscating powerful magic items for Eminent Domain. In those campaigns, it would have been lawful.
And pledging to defend the peasant family no matter what else, was recompense beyond what the la required, hence a Good act.
Let's try an analogous situation: in a mass battle, a hapless 1st-Level commoner volunteers to stand with the serious 3rd-Level fighters in the front lines. The commander in charge of the combat understands that it's legal for the commoner to so request, but foolhardy, and denies the man the battle station he desires. Ho do you se that as different?
Or, a commoner digging a well finds the Hand of Vecna and wants to keep it. What's a paladin to do in that case?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's funny how a paladin has two alignment axes, but the majority opinion among players is that it's OK for a paladin to ignore one but never ignore the other:
2. Would you allow a paladin to violate legal authority, disregard the laws of the local governor and the kingdom, run around and do whatever he pleases, stealing wealth and possessions from known evil villains, breaking and entering the thieve's guild without a properly issued right/warrant, and make his own laws, as long as he is serving good and helping people and "doing the right thing because it's good"? Most DMs would allow this, despite the fact that it is chaotic. But it would be Chaotic Good, which is still good, and most DMs I've known are often OK with that.
I don't see anywhere in the paladin class descriptiont that says "Paladins must be LG, but while they must always be good, they can choose whether or not to be lawful - sometimes it's OK to be Chaotic as long as Good is served".
Well, as people have noted, there is a difference. Paladins can Smite Evil, but not Smite Chaos. They can Detect Evil, but not Chaos.
A Paladin needs to seek Good, and she needs to do so lawfully. The two axes aren't interchangeable.
In your second example, I can well imagine a Paladin posting official notice that he has arrived in Nottingham and seeks to work towards the establishment of his god's authority and church in this place, and then disregarding laws, stealing from established villains, and so on. It's a properly announced invasion.
[I disagree, Blake, as did other people. That works for your campaign, and your understanding of a Paladin's Code. But it's not anywhere as simple to my understanding.
This is a hypothetical situation, but I've run several campaigns where the paladin who took Fidelius would have been acting within the law of the land -- either (a) in one world where peasants weren't allow to draw or bear martial weapons, or (b) others in which paladins were given the right to impose Low Justice, which would certainly have covered confiscating powerful magic items for Eminent Domain. In those campaigns, it would have been lawful.
Well, fine and good, but no stipulation was made for these alternate laws, and the implication in your wording, or at least the inference I drew, was that the thief being a paladin creates a conflict. If it didn't, then why even mention it?
In case a, the peasant was a lawbreaker. The paladin simply tells the peasant to run along and stop bothering him and he's lucky the first paladin didn't impose a harsher penalty than simple confiscation of the contriband.
In case b, the first paladin was acting within the law. There is no crime here. So the paladin tells the peasant to run along and hope he is lucky enough that the other paladin chooses to return the commandeered property after these troubling times are resolved.
Both of these situations contain (hidden) clauses that invalidate the original question, since the original questin was posed as a challenge to a paladin's code, not a challenge to the DMs to find alternate legal systems to invalidate any ethical quandries.
Without such legal loopholes, I think my original analysis stands.
And yes, while I recognize that other players may see things differently, that only reaffirms my LG persona and condems you all to CG or NG status, at best. My code says so...
Let's try an analogous situation: in a mass battle, a hapless 1st-Level commoner volunteers to stand with the serious 3rd-Level fighters in the front lines. The commander in charge of the combat understands that it's legal for the commoner to so request, but foolhardy, and denies the man the battle station he desires. Ho do you se that as different?
What's the problem?
The commoner had the legal right to volunteer, and the commaner had the legal right to accept or deny the man as a soldier. I don't see any crimes or violations of ethics at all.
We can't all have everything we desire, whether we have a legal right to it or not. I have a legal right to be a millionaire, but I haven't achieved it yet. The commoner has a legal right to volunteer, but he didn't achieve the front-line status he hoped for.
No problem.
Or, a commoner digging a well finds the Hand of Vecna and wants to keep it. What's a paladin to do in that case?
Is the well on his property? Did he have legal right to dig the well? Are there laws in place that make owning such an item illegal? Will there be blindsiding of hidden laws I fail to observe in the simple sentence presented?
Assuming Yes, yes, no, and no in that order, then the peasant has every right to keep that Hand of Vecna. It's his. Taking it would be unlawful. All the paladin can do is stay vigilant, maybe recruit local law inforcement or ordained men from his church to watch over the peasant and wait for him to commit a crime. Until then, the peasant is a law-abiding citizen who happens to legally own a scary item. Your simple scenario does not postulate that any crimes have been committed, and no lawful authority can execute legal action on the assumption that laws will be broken in the future. The best the paladin can hope for is to catch the man in the act of commiting his first crime (the evil sentient hand will take him over and compel evil actions, right) before anyone gets hurt.
Assuming Yes, Yes, yes, and no, then the paladin has every right to seize the contriband and turn it over to the rightful authority in accordance with the law.
Assuming No to the first question, then the Hand belong's to the land-owner and the paladin should help see to it that the proper owner receives the property.
Assuming No the second qusestion, then the Hand was illegally acquired and depending on the laws of the land, may or may not belong to the man. Do the laws simply stipulate fining him for digging illegally but the Hand belongs to him since it was his property? Does illegally obtained property default to the state? I would have to know more of the laws to answer this one.
And finally, if my last question gets a "yes" answer, then you will have to tell me the right thing to do - I have so far been ineffective at guessing the secret laws that may apply to these scenarios...
I disagree, Blake, as did other people. That works for your campaign, and your understanding of a Paladin's Code. But it's not anywhere as simple to my understanding.
This is a hypothetical situation, but I've run several campaigns where the paladin who took Fidelius would have been acting within the law of the land -- either (a) in one world where peasants weren't allow to draw or bear martial weapons, or (b) others in which paladins were given the right to impose Low Justice, which would certainly have covered confiscating powerful magic items for Eminent Domain. In those campaigns, it would have been lawful.
I don't agree or disagree with any of the above (and I can see the thread is going to wander, regardless. ;) ) My own opinion is that, because of debates like have been going on for decades, it's up to the DM what lawful, chaotic, and neutral mean and how as a player I'm to respond and roleplay. I say that not to join the debate, but to sort of sidestep it and look at it as a whole.
Now, for the debaters: why isn't the monk (also Lawful) held to the same standards of behavior? I've heard very little, comparatively, discussion of what is "good" in terms of the paladin's alignment, just the lawful part in both this and in other debates I've heard, or read, even in these boards.
Lawful, not good, is what seems to cause this contention. Which, honestly, has me somewhat sad. And bewildered, every time this comes up, because it's less often the monk, with the class requirement of "being lawful," engenders this sort of debate. On the other hand, the monk may simply be feeling left out. ;) Poor monk. Do we just not care about him as much? :(
|
Let's try a scenario that is a bit more simple.
A paladin finds a peasant being attacked by goblins. While trying to fight off the goblins, the peasant is killed. The paladin manages to kill all the goblins except one. He finds a baby goblin which had crawled into the peasant's basket/cart/pack/etc. Because he didn't know what had happened(and in this case, neither did the peasant) is he evil for killing the goblins, who were only trying to get the baby back?
|
|
SquirrelyOgre makes a great argument. Why isn't the a Lawful Good monk held to the same standards as a paladin?
Is it because the paladin is seen as a holy warrior who is the mortal embodiment of Law and Good? Most likely. Some people do not seem to realize that paladins were not as 'holy' as DnD would have us believe.
It's the 'holy' part that makes people look at Paladins differently. The Golorian setting cleric variat makes a better paladin than a paladin, IMO. Same BAB, no domains, more spells, same d10 hit dice.
I don't see anywhere in the paladin class descriptiont that says "Paladins must be LG, but while they must always be good, they can choose whether or not to be lawful - sometimes it's OK to be Chaotic as long as Good is served".Well, as people have noted, there is a difference. Paladins can Smite Evil, but not Smite Chaos. They can Detect Evil, but not Chaos.
Having an ability or not having it is no bearing on one's behavior. I have a car that can go well over 100 mph, but where I live, that is illegal. The fastest I can legally drive, on the highway, is 75 mph, and everywhere else the legal limit is lower. So while I could drive over 100 mph, I cannot do so legally.
A paladin can smite evil, but he cannot do so legally without just cause. If a paladin walks into a bar, detects evil, then proceeds to smite some guy who really is evil but who is not known to have committed any crimes, then the paladin is a murderer in the eyes of the law.
And having one ability and not another doesn't make the second ability less important. I have the ability to drive a car, but I don't have the ability to diagnose and treat critical medical conditions. I think on the scale of importance, doctors who save countless lives with that second skill possess a more important ability than my ability to drive a car.
Just because a paladin can detect and smite evil but not chaos does not mean that evil is more important to him than chaos, or the converse, that good is more important to him than law.
As some on this thread have stated, quite accurately, being chaotic is not a crime. Smiting or arresting someone who is chaotic but who hasn't broken any laws would be abuse of power and unlawful.
So the paladin has the abilities that are the most important to protecting mankind (et. al.) from vile villains and villainous monsters.
None of which has any bearing on his own moral compass, and none of which gives him the lattitude to ignore half of his alignment restrictions whenever he feels that doing so makes it easier to focus on the other half.
A Paladin needs to seek Good, and she needs to do so lawfully. The two axes aren't interchangeable.
I don't think anyone has said they are. I did say that some DMs and some players play paladins as if one is critically important and the other is just a guideline, a mere suggestion to be followed when it's convenient. To me, that's a violation of the dicates of Lawful Good and simplifies the challenge of upholding the paladin's code. I won't call it wrong - nothing is wrong if the group in question is ignoring their gaming style. But it is wrong to me.
In your second example, I can well imagine a Paladin posting official notice that he has arrived in Nottingham and seeks to work towards the establishment of his god's authority and church in this place, and then disregarding laws, stealing from established villains, and so on. It's a properly announced invasion.
I can't. Disregarding laws? Stealing? Deceitfully calling it an invasion to justify lawlessness?
This paladin's alignment falls to CN before he can blink.
There has actually been a fair amount of canon game fluff and tons of non-game fiction that supports the idea of Paladins engaged in revolution. Nothing at my finger tips to throw out, but this lawful always follows whatever random person A says is the law crap is silly. There is such a thing as legitimacy, and I personally think that a paladin can get by following moral and ethical codes. Gods actually exist, you can talk to them, they can tell you the capital letter "Right and Wrong" morals to guide your life by. I don't think it's unreasonable to say you've got the law as laid down by your deity: Don't kill this, don't do that. Respect these institutions. And that you do your best not to rock the boat for earthly authority. Saying you blindly obey every ordinance that every nation sets down is foolish, and I think has been refuted more than once by game designers.
To my mind:
A lawful evil nation that requires every able-bodied man to mate with a succubus twice a day. Not okay.
A lawful neutral nation that has a series of laws set in place that guarantees that more than 50% of the population is forced into indentured service where their only rights are the whims of their "employers". Not okay.
A lawful good nation that permits entitled jackholes to waste the lives of hundreds or thousands of men trusting to god to carry the day, despite one of god's personal champions telling them not to. Not okay.
The way I see it, your duty to the law is to try to uphold earthly authority, but to make darn sure you uphold celestial authority. You try to talk baron stinknuts out of his stupid plan, good job. You still have to do something to curtail his idiocy when he moves forward. The suggestion that his title trumps your duty, a very real and very equal duty, to each and every one of those men being sent to die is just wrong. You aren't an agent of the baron or the country before being an agent to your god. And if he's the god of nobility and tardery, then by all means support plan "ram your face onto an enemy spear for no reason". If he's a god of justice, then I say you have failed to deliver that justice to the fathers sons and brothers who won't be coming home because you were too much of a coward to say: "Not every law passed by mankind carries the authority of LAW. And yes, I'm the one who gets to decide which is which. Bright shining beacon of the divine and all."
Can a paladin make mistakes? Sure. Like personally ensuring the deaths of fighters who trusted him, just so he could say he was upholding the chain of command. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
A Reeve, a knight, and a paladin walk into a bar...
A Paladin might come into this situation and be the one to attack the Knight and kill him in the name of good. However, that's a slippery slope. And, he might want to overthrow the local law because it's obviously not just (it let the Knight get away with kidnapping and slavery).
Nope, and nope again.
Killing the knight, or even assaulting him, would be illegal and definitely unlawful, unless this kingdom allows such vigilante justice against an unconvicted noble. Hardly likely.
And labeling search and seizure laws unjust because one criminal got away, when those laws were enacted to protect the innocent is far-fetched at best.
As you said, this kind of thing happens all the time in the U.S. It is expected to happen. And nobody repeals the law, nobody passes new legislation allowing the police to break into our homes without cause, because this law is just, and it protects far more innocent people than the relatively tiny number of criminals who skate on a technicality.
So yeah, you said the paladin may "want" to overthrow the law, but if he acts on that desire without a preponderance of evidence, he is being unlawful.
Suppose he can find multiple numerous cases where known business associates of the local baron are never properly investigated. The baron always refuses to grant warrants when his associates are involved, thus protecting known criminal elements from due process of the law. Now the paladin can act against the corruption in the legal system.
Yes yes yes, DM_B. Remember though, I'm trying to give an example of a LN realm where the paladin might not be happy with the laws as is. The person I was responding too was making the argument that laws that weren't just were not laws a Paladin had to obey. I just gave an example of where a law prevented justice to show that no, a Paladin does not get a free pass to overthrow a lawful non-good kingdom just because it's not lawful good.
As to the paladin killing the knight, I just meant he could challenge the knight to a duel (if challenges are legal, which they are under most feudal systems), or even just murder him if he wanted in a sense of outrage. Granted, doing the latter would get his powers stripped, but it's a much less disasterous choice than overthrowing the local law.
Probably nothing. This is when the rest of the party says "toodle-loo" and has a fun weekend of raping and pillaging before heading back to goodland to fence the goods, using that money to finance a war against evil land in the name of justice. The paladin just cries in a corner.So, a new tangent.
Suppose a paladin grows up in the happy kingdom of Goodland. The king is just, the laws are fair, and everyone is Lawful Good.
Then he goes on a road trip to the neighboring kingdom of Evilland. Here there are horrible laws. Laws that allow murder and rape and theft and other vile acts. But everyone here follows the law to the letter, including the king and all the law officials. Zero corruption. Everything is exactly Lawful Evil.
The paladin sees the common folk suffering under these laws and the abuses of their daily lives. His compassionate heart goes out to them and he wants to end their suffering.
What can he do to save them?
And no, no cheap answer like "pack their bags and relocate them to Goodland - there are laws preventing emmigration out of Evilland and there are legally appointed border patrols will catch and kill them, all according to law, so he cannot even suggest or hint that they leave the country.
So what can the paladin do?
The Paladin can agitate for Goodland to intervene. He can go questing within Eviland to alleviate the Peasant's suffering. He can set up grain caravans. He can work within the leeway of the law to help the peasantry .
Meanwhile meartace's party, by participating with the less savory elements perpetuates the evil elements of the land through tacit support rather than opposing it.
Not people I'd Adventure with.
A Reeve, a knight, and a paladin walk into a bar...
A Paladin might come into this situation and be the one to attack the Knight and kill him in the name of good. However, that's a slippery slope. And, he might want to overthrow the local law because it's obviously not just (it let the Knight get away with kidnapping and slavery).
Nope, and nope again.
Killing the knight, or even assaulting him, would be illegal and definitely unlawful, unless this kingdom allows such vigilante justice against an unconvicted noble. Hardly likely.
And labeling search and seizure laws unjust because one criminal got away, when those laws were enacted to protect the innocent is far-fetched at best.
As you said, this kind of thing happens all the time in the U.S. It is expected to happen. And nobody repeals the law, nobody passes new legislation allowing the police to break into our homes without cause, because this law is just, and it protects far more innocent people than the relatively tiny number of criminals who skate on a technicality.
So yeah, you said the paladin may "want" to overthrow the law, but if he acts on that desire without a preponderance of evidence, he is being unlawful.
Suppose he can find multiple numerous cases where known business associates of the local baron are never properly investigated. The baron always refuses to grant warrants when his associates are involved, thus protecting known criminal elements from due process of the law. Now the paladin can act against the corruption in the legal system.
Or the Paladin could challenge the knight to a duel, depending on the customs/laws of the land. Trial by combat certainly fits the fantasy mold, no?
I've always held that yes, Paladins are beholden to the Law, but remember that Laws are written by Men, and Men can be greedy, corrupt, petty, or just flat out wrong. There are some things, that no matter what the Law says, are Wrong. So I suppose, in a way, I've always felt that the "Good" axis of the alignment is the driving one. But breaking the law, or opposing Lawful authorities, has to be something you are literraly driven to do.
-edit - posted before I saw mdt's post regarding challenges.
Now get that paladin to play for Rosie O'Donnell's team and not only will she have no connection to her former bits, but she'll actually have a repulsion...
I doubt it. The paladin's pretty asexual to begin with. Anyway, I think the long term plan is to break the curse on him and the druid and then see about wishing or getting a miracle to fix the body back.
The druid's player is sure at any moment that the curse is going to devour them both. He might even be right, since it is degenerative. They got to see another guy with the same thing but further along a while back.
|
I think on the scale of importance, doctors who save countless lives with that second skill possess a more important ability than my ability to drive a car.
Trust me when I say this. There is no more Important ability than the ability to prevent unnecessary death/pain/suffering. The ability to drive a car (a large, heavy, fast-moving potential death-machine to all and sundry) should NOT be taken for granted, no matter how commonplace they are. Those same doctors and nurses could be doing OTHER things, if they were not patching up victims of MVA's.
To extend this; a Paladin is charged by his God (or Pantheon, or Goddess, or Ethos, etc...) to exert his will on the material world, making the place both more Lawful and Good. This means all sorts of things to the Deity being represented, the Paladin himself, and the Society around him. Will Joe Shiny Armor become a bastion of Law and Good against the hordes of monsters/evil creatures that seek to destroy and despoil?
Will he fall in the pursuit of worldly distractions? Things like power, money, sex, and pleasure can tempt even the most devout believer.
Will he be slain in the execution of his God-given duties?
These are the questions I believe make for interesting Paladin playing. The idea that a PC will move into a hostile territory and do NOTHING is a farce of this game. Now, granted, this makes for interesting debate and lively discussion, but remember: This is a Game.
The intention is for the players to have fun, not to develop new codes of morality, or gain insight into the deep truths of the human psyche.
With regards to the example of Goodland:
I feel it is disingenuous to simply wave off the Paladin's declaration of invasion as "deceitful." The original post stated that he did so in good faith, and in as public a forum as possible. This reminds me of Martin Luther, delivering his grievances with the established Church publicly and forcefully, then taking his flock with him.
To actually SUCCEED at such an undertaking, however, the Paladin would expose himself countless times to Falling, whether through guerrilla tactics that border on "preemptive self-defense," simple corruption through the acquisition of power in a counter-culture, or mistakes made in identifying and attacking objectives.
Nothing states a Paladin cannot use deception, guile, stealth, or intrigue to further the causes of Good and Law. Generally, it is considered Unlawful (or even Chaotic) to use tactics as such, but certain precedents are set. In war, there is a whole new set of rules and laws, most of which would not be even impinged by a Paladin's underground resistance. The defense of the civilians, limitations on collateral damage, and fair treatment of prisoners seem to be big on the list of things the Paladin will shine with.
So, as a general plan, the Paladin publicly and openly states "I am now at war with you, and will strive to overthrow your government." -Legal declaration of intent, public identification, and a beginning to open hostilities between 2 parties. Basically, he's challenging the government to a duel.
He then builds a power base (probably through the low class citizens of Evilland) and establishes himself as a good and moral authority. No executions of prisoners, etc.
Likely, he will sway public opinion to his point of view (who likes living in a society where one can be murdered/raped/robbed at will, without recourse to anything but more violence?) and begin to exert more and more political power. Dispossessed nobles, unknown scions, and other potential rulers will vie for a piece of this new pie.
Then, the open war will begin. There will be bloodbaths and plenty of opportunities for failure, but IF he pulls off the nearly impossible, the Paladin has the opportunity to turn Evilland on its head and establish an area of Good and Law, through the judicious application of force.
Now, this is far-fetched, unlikely, and would take a long time to succeed. As a campaign, we're talking from 1-20 and then beyond, with tons of large-scale battles and lots and lots of run-and-hide scenarios. Heck, this sounds like a bloody good time to me, either to DM or play.
Or, Joe Shiny Armor can take one look at the preponderance of Evil in this land, turn around, and return to Goodland, intent on preparing its defenses. A place that rampant with strife will quickly seek to expand its borders, and a full-on military campaign may be exactly whats needed. It just depends on the initiative, guts, and drive of Joe.
-t
Ah, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word corrupt (since it does imply law breaking). Unjust might have been a better choice.
Even if everything those in power are doing is legal, I don't think that (necessarily) makes opposing them unlawful, even opposing them violently, if their actions are unjust or actively harmful to those under their power. In my opinion Lawful vs. Chaotic isn't about always following the law as written or always opposing it, it's more nuanced than that.
It's hard to say, isn't it, without contradicting yourself...
"Unjust" also means "unlawful".
There's no need to be sarcastic, I'll assume you were just trying to make a point with that, but it's misdirected. My point was that lawful (in the sense of following the law of the land) isn't something everyone agrees is 100% equivalent to Lawful (capital L, as in the alignment).
You're mostly right. Being Chaotic is not "always opposing" the law. But being Lawful is "always following the law as written" when the law is just and the lawmakers and enforcers are just too.
I don't think it's a matter of either of us being right or wrong, just a difference in interpretation. My interpretation is that much like Chaos with a capital C, Lawful with capital L isn't about following (or not following) the specific laws and edicts of the society around a character, and more about the ideals the character works towards.
When the justice breaks down, either within the laws themselves or within the enforcement of the law, that's where the paladin gains ground on opposing the law rather than following it.
If the Paladin is free to oppose unjust laws or an unjust social order, and has to decide, based only on his or her own judgment, if it is in fact unjust, how is that any different than the Paladin following their own internal moral code and only honoring outside law where it works towards justice and the greater good? (Which is essentially the position I favor).
The Paladin can agitate for Goodland to intervene. He can go questing within Eviland to alleviate the Peasant's suffering. He can set up grain caravans. He can work within the leeway of the law to help the peasantry .
Meanwhile meartace's party, by participating with the less savory elements perpetuates the evil elements of the land through tacit support rather than opposing it.
Not people I'd Adventure with.
Ooh, setting up grain caravans. That sounds like a heck of an adventure. I'd rather be fighting the evil in one form of another. Meanwhile MY party reappropriates funds from the evil nation to set about its downfall. Sounds more proactive.
Besides I assumed that it was implicit in the supposition that the "easy" way out is somehow not available i.e. trying to help the poor downtrodden mooks of evilland by traditional means. The paladin is welcome to try, by himself, while everyone else in the world seeks a more pragmatic means to the end. Even a NG character could give two squats about the law of Evilland and would set about its destruction, but the paladin, hamstrung by his adherence to a code, would rather see little done of note, or at least not participate meaningfully in the wrath these evil bastards deserve!
EDIT: At this point, I'm vaguely cranky about work, so I apologize if my response comes off as snarky.
Look. I get you don't like Paladins and you don't respect the concept of working within the framework of the law to achieve a goal when you feel there is a more expedient means to achieve it.
But at the same time, the law is ultimately a manifestation of a society. Whether disfunctional or not, it is not the place for a single individual to force his notion of change upon it and I personally reject the notion of rampant 'freedom' usually used to disguise what I see as hubris in deciding the fate of others.
Setting up the downfall of a supposedly 'evil' nation is often liable to bring up just about as much problem as allowing a supposedly evil oppressive rule to continue existing and I say this from personal past experience. Very often, you can't 'FIGHT' the evil. Say what you like about the clinched 'evil wins because good is dumb' stereotype, but the I would also like to point out the 'road to hell is paved with good intentions'
If a Paladin walks into town, helps the poor, feeds the hungry and kicks some reprobate's rear while doing so (in this case, without violating the letter of the state law), inspiring hope and showing that there IS in fact another way, he has lived up to his code AND done good at the same time.
I fail to see how this is in any way inferior towards the top down approach you have proposed, especially given that the 'profit from exploitation' angle seems primarily geared towards reinforcing social trends.
If your GM rewards your play-style, more power to you. If mine rewards setting up grain caravans and enacting change from the ground up, then it is ultimately my own personal choice to work within the confines of the structure, no? Working from a different angle in no way indicates whether one is more pro-active than another.
In your second example, I can well imagine a Paladin posting official notice that he has arrived in Nottingham and seeks to work towards the establishment of his god's authority and church in this place, and then disregarding laws, stealing from established villains, and so on. It's a properly announced invasion.
I can't. Disregarding laws? Stealing? Deceitfully calling it an invasion to justify lawlessness?
This paladin's alignment falls to CN before he can blink.
I disagree. I've seen Robin Hood listed (in Dragon magazine #274, I think?) as Lawful. Yes, he was a lawful outlaw, and no, that is NOT an oxymoron.
Robin Hood established his own law, but then he ALWAYS STRICTLY ADHERED TO IT. Always give a third of the goods you steal to the poor. If someone asks for your help then you by God help him, even if he's a member of the rich nobility, your traditional enemy.
When you create a lawful character, you must ask yourself WHICH law you mean. The law of the land? The law of your god? The law of your church? The law of your kingdom? The law of your shire? The law of your party? It's obviously impossible to follow every sort of law, since different sorts of law conflict with each other.
Is there ANY chance at all that this thread will get back to the OP's topic? I'd rather read stories about heroic paladins rather than philosophical arguments that are gounded in way too many unspoken presuppositions.
I would agree, but I can't think of any more stories like that.
Exactly!
I have never allowed anyone to play a Paladin and play only half his alignment. They can do whatever they want, but if they violate any half of their alignment enough, bamph, powers go bye-bye.
Honestly, this is one of the reasons I rarely see anyone want to play a Paladin. The alignment restrictions are severely limiting on your character. Being both Lawful and Good is very difficult, because eventually those two competing masters come into conflict. Often it may come down to praying to your god for guidance and trying to muddle through the best you can and then getting a cleric of your church to cast an atonement for you.
But precisely because you have 2(TWO) sides of your alignment means that you will at some points need to balance them. At what point must you do good over following the law? Or Vice Versa? And why are you being forced to choose?
2nd point- You can not make historical comparisons to DnD. It's different when your g0d can some down and speak to you in person. Let alone grants you magical powers.
3rd point- If your DM revels in putting you in situations where you must decide between 2 bad choices, just to watch you fall. Go blackguard and kill the party. OR find another DM. Unless you've discussed being a fallen paladin, your DM putting you in no win situations is just being a jerk.
I think from reading some of these highly unreasonable interpretations of Paladin restrictions, I can understand why most people will not touch them. As Set stated, most of these problems go away if your DM is not being a [insert naughty word of choice].
I have played and played with Paladins throughout the years with no problem, unless someone else decided to make life miserable on the Paladin.
But precisely because you have 2(TWO) sides of your alignment means that you will at some points need to balance them. At what point must you do good over following the law? Or Vice Versa? And why are you being forced to choose?2nd point- You can not make historical comparisons to DnD. It's different when your g0d can some down and speak to you in person. Let alone grants you magical powers.
3rd point- If your DM revels in putting you in situations where you must decide between 2 bad choices, just to watch you fall. Go blackguard and kill the party. OR find another DM. Unless you've discussed being a fallen paladin, your DM putting you in no win situations is just being a jerk.
I think from reading some of these highly unreasonable interpretations of Paladin restrictions, I can understand why most people will not touch them. As Set stated, most of these problems go away if your DM is not being a [insert naughty word of choice].
I have played and played with Paladins throughout the years with no problem, unless someone else decided to make life miserable on the Paladin.
Well, I have been accused of being an evil GM, but never a <insert favorite perjorative here>. Not in any seriousness anyway.
I've never had a chance to screw of a Paladin, because, no one ever plays them. Everyone I've had in a game says 'Paladins suck, too many stats need to be good, too hard to RP, not a good fighter, not a good cleric, not worth the effort'.
However, I think all the situations I posted are valid ones that I've had in my game. Just that none of the situations had the complication of having a Pally involved. So the characters were able to creatively solve the situations while staying true to their less restrictive credo's.
But,
I do take exception to that last part. It is not 'making life miserable' for the Pally. If a Pally never ever has a situation where his alignment requirements cause him problems, or cause self-conflict, then your GM is ignoring :
A) A limitation built into the class. You might just as well get rid of verbal and somatic components for spells, that is a pain for the spellcasters and it is making their life miserable. Same with that pesky arcane spell failure for armor.
B) Your Pally (and his player) never have a chance to roleplay out a truly classic bit of drama, the self struggle over conflicting ideals, and how he reconciles that with his god. As someone in the Bard thread said, they just put the bard out, pushed play, and forgot about him. If you ignore this RP opportunity, which it sounds like every single one of your GM's has, then you might as well just put the Pally out and push his 'Smite' button and ignore him. He's just a robot.
|
Is there ANY chance at all that this thread will get back to the OP's topic? I'd rather read stories about heroic paladins rather than philosophical arguments that are gounded in way too many unspoken presuppositions.
Will swing back by to try just that later.
Didn't notice Meatrace's response before until I saw it quoted. Don't know why it isn't showing up...
Well, I have been accused of being an evil GM, but never a <insert favorite perjorative here>. Not in any seriousness anyway.
I've never had a chance to screw of a Paladin, because, no one ever plays them. Everyone I've had in a game says 'Paladins suck, too many stats need to be good, too hard to RP, not a good fighter, not a good cleric, not worth the effort'.
However, I think all the situations I posted are valid ones that I've had in my game. Just that none of the situations had the complication of having a Pally involved. So the characters were able to creatively solve the situations while staying true to their less restrictive credo's.
But,
I do take exception to that last part. It is not 'making life miserable' for the Pally. If a Pally never ever has a situation where his alignment requirements cause him problems, or cause self-conflict, then your GM is ignoring...I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Those comments were not focused at you personally. It was a general statement of opinion of a certain type of DM. Sorry about any confusion there, did not mean to insult you. In fact, I quoted you because of the first part of your statement there. Alignments have 2 axis.
My main problem with Paladins is mostly DMs who ONLY put Paladins in those situations. I could have been clearer I guess on that point. Last time I played a Pally, EACH AND EVERY decision was a moral dilemma. While it does add to to some RP opportunities, it also gets stale fast. It also ignores the rest of the party.
Then again, that DM also had these odd preconceptions of the class that made it impossible to play. Had to be party leader, could only associate with other LG characters (no CG or one offs even). Plus no allowance for "triaging" problems. He HAD to help people as they came to him. So while people were dying of an evil invasion, he had to help till a field because he was "helping the poor and downtrodden". That lasted until I suicided the character in the most ridiculous way.
In essence my problem is people who take the restrictions TOO far. I would not even sniff a pally under, say DM_Blake (for example). No offence, but your pre(mis)conceptions on the class would make it zero fun for me. MDT, despite being an "evil DM" (that title makes me laugh. the best DM I ever played with used to put on Satan horns before each game) you can see the difference between being challenging and bludgeoning someone with those restrictions.
A good DM will use them, yes. An "Evil DM" will use them at the least opportune time for the player.
Is there ANY chance at all that this thread will get back to the OP's topic? I'd rather read stories about heroic paladins rather than philosophical arguments that are gounded in way too many unspoken presuppositions.Will swing back by to try just that later.
Didn't notice Meatrace's response before until I saw it quoted. Don't know why it isn't showing up...
I wouldn't mind seeing this, either. As much as I enjoy a debate, the topic debated ISN'T one that's going to get solved anytime soon...and it is wandering from the original topic.
I don't mind folks discussing what they want to, generally, but it would be nice to get back to the stories.
Hey, DM_Blake, could y'make another thread for the tangental? :)
...Well, I have been accused of being an evil GM, but never a <insert favorite perjorative here>. Not in any seriousness anyway.
I've never had a chance to screw of a Paladin, because, no one ever plays them. Everyone I've had in a game says 'Paladins suck, too many stats need to be good, too hard to RP, not a good fighter, not a good cleric, not worth the effort'.
However, I think all the situations I posted are valid ones that I've had in my game. Just that none of the situations had the complication of having a Pally involved. So the characters were able to creatively solve the situations while staying true to their less restrictive credo's.
But,
I do take exception to that last part. It is not 'making life miserable' for the Pally. If a Pally never ever has a situation where his alignment requirements cause him problems, or cause self-conflict, then your GM is ignoring...I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Those comments were not focused at you personally. It was a general statement of opinion of a certain type of DM. Sorry about any confusion there, did not mean to insult you. In fact, I quoted you because of the first part of your statement there. Alignments have 2 axis.
My main problem with Paladins is mostly DMs who ONLY put Paladins in those situations. I could have been clearer I guess on that point. Last time I played a Pally, EACH AND EVERY decision was a moral dilemma. While it does add to to some RP opportunities, it also gets stale fast. It also ignores the rest of the party.
Then again, that DM also had these odd preconceptions of the class that made it impossible to play. Had to be party leader, could only associate with other LG characters (no CG or one offs even). Plus no allowance for "triaging" problems. He HAD to help people as they came to him. So while people were dying of an evil invasion, he had to help till a field because he was "helping the poor and downtrodden". That lasted until I suicided
LOL,
My apologies too. I didn't mean I take exception to it as an attack on me. I just meant I take exception to it as in I didn't like the idea of GM's ignoring a class restriction or a roleplay opportunity. :) Should have said I object to that in GM's. :)
I hate to disagree with a tarrasque
No, no, it's quite all right. Disagree all you want...
After all, the tarrasque is going to eat whomever it wants, your agreement or disagreement notwithstanding.
When the justice breaks down, either within the laws themselves or within the enforcement of the law, that's where the paladin gains ground on opposing the law rather than following it.If the Paladin is free to oppose unjust laws or an unjust social order, and has to decide, based only on his or her own judgment, if it is in fact unjust, how is that any different than the Paladin following their own internal moral code and only honoring outside law where it works towards justice and the greater good? (Which is essentially the position I favor).
Who ever said "based only on his or her own judgment"?
The paladin better have concrete proof. Nobody runs off and lynches a king, or a duke, count, baron, lord, etc., and nobody runs off and incites rebellion, and nobody supplants the current legal system with one of their own choosing, without losing all hope of claiming to be lawful - unless one has solid concrete evidence that the current system is corrupt and the people being lynched and/or replaced are corrupt and/or evil.
With the proof, it's a just cause for the greater good, estabilishing law and order and removing evil and/or corrupt leaders.
Without any proof, it's treason, murder, and a variety of other crimes - the absolute opposite of Lawfulness and likely also the opposite of goodness.
With just a little proof, or weak proof, or circumstantial proof, the paladin should very well be motivated to investigate further, but to actually take action on so little proof would still be extremely questionable.
|
My main problem with Paladins is mostly DMs who ONLY put Paladins in those situations. I could have been clearer I guess on that point.
And that does seem to be an issue. Nobody starts threads about 'Can my LG Wizard do this without his Pseudodragon abandoning him?' or 'If my CN Cleric of Trithereon obeys a law does he have to Atone to get his powers back?'
Every thread seems to be about how to *punish* a player for choosing Paladin. Meanwhile your 'always lawful' Monk can go PrC into Drunken Master and act like a buffoon, and that's just flavorful and your 'can't be lawful' Bard can be a royal herald and messenger (and I think there's a PrC for that somewhere too...), sworn to faithfully relay the king's proclamations just so, and neither of them is going to lose class features for those choices.
The Paladin powers aren't worth the grief. Play a Cleric, who gets far more power from their god and, unlike the Paladin, is far more likely to even *have* a god (and standing in a church, etc.), and you can get away with so much more without the rules practically encouraging the DM to pick on you constantly and try to make you lose class abilities and become a Feat-less Fighter (aka, an NPC Warrior).
It be so much quicker and easier to say, 'Rocks fall. Everybody dies.'
In essence my problem is people who take the restrictions TOO far. I would not even sniff a pally under, say DM_Blake (for example). No offence, but your pre(mis)conceptions on the class would make it zero fun for me. MDT, despite being an "evil DM" (that title makes me laugh. the best DM I ever played with used to put on Satan horns before each game) you can see the difference between being challenging and bludgeoning someone with those restrictions.
Now I'm hurt.
I thought I made it quite evident that I help my paladin players, I clear up misconceptions before they do stuff to let their alignment slip, and when they have only bad chices, their gods are forgiving.
I go out of my way to NOT punish the paladin or his player.
What I didn't make clear is that I don't throw this kind of stuff at paladins all the time, but I do throw some moral challenges at them occasionally or else they might as well have no restrictions built into the class. Restrictions must come up in play to have any meaning, and I don't want the paladin's restrictions to become meaningless.
I have never had a fallen paladin in any group I've run in 35 years, except once, and that player deliberately set out to become a fallen paladin before he rolled his character up.
Further, I've never had any paladin's player say I've treated his paladin unfairly. In fact, if my player and I have a difference of opinion regarding the paladin "code" I generally let him decide how it must go, unless he's being ridiculous.
I've been fairly hard-headed on this thread, so yeah, I get your point. But I've been refuting people who seem to have the notion that a paladin can be as unlawful as he wants as long as he's not being ungood. As liberal as I am with paladins, that's one point I won't bend on. Unlawful behavior is just as inappropriate for a paladin as ungood behavior is. If that statement is untrue, then the paladin class would be restricted to LG, CG, or NG alignments - but they're not given that much latitude in the class description, so I don't give them the freedom to play their paladins as CG or NG at will.
Lawful does not mean you have to follow laws or orders. It means you believe in order over chaos, it means that you follow a specific code, it means you are predictable, it does not mean you are obligated to blindly obey the will of any authority that happens to wander by.
Moreover, you do not fall if you do not behave lawfully. The Beta handbook indicates that a Paladin falls if they willingly commit an evil act, it says nothing about committing "chaotic" acts.
Further, the Paladin's code only requires three things of a Paladin as they relate to the Lawful/Chaotic axis:
1) That you respect (not obey) legitimate (big caveat) authority
2) That you behave honorably (no lies, don't cheat and no poison)
3) That you punish those who harm or threaten innocents
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities, except proficiencies, if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
And that does seem to be an issue. Nobody starts threads about 'Can my LG Wizard do this without his Pseudodragon abandoning him?' or 'If my CN Cleric of Trithereon obeys a law does he have to Atone to get his powers back?'
Every thread seems to be about how to *punish* a player for choosing Paladin. Meanwhile your 'always lawful' Monk can go PrC into Drunken Master and act like a buffoon, and that's just flavorful and your 'can't be lawful' Bard can be a royal herald and messenger (and I think there's a PrC for that somewhere too...), sworn to faithfully relay the king's proclamations just so, and neither of them is going to lose class features for those choices.
The Paladin powers aren't worth the grief. Play a Cleric, who gets far more power from their god and, unlike the Paladin, is far more likely to even *have* a god (and standing in a church, etc.), and you can get away with so much more without the rules practically encouraging the DM to pick on you constantly and try to make you lose class abilities and become a Feat-less Fighter (aka, an NPC Warrior).
It be so much quicker and easier to say, 'Rocks fall. Everybody dies.'
Heh... Mostly since a few very bad situations... I have. Only recently have paladins been worth looking at again.
In essence my problem is people who take the restrictions TOO far. I would not even sniff a pally under, say DM_Blake (for example). No offence, but your pre(mis)conceptions on the class would make it zero fun for me. MDT, despite being an "evil DM" (that title makes me laugh. the best DM I ever played with used to put on Satan horns before each game) you can see the difference between being challenging and bludgeoning someone with those restrictions.Now I'm hurt.
I thought I made it quite evident that I help my paladin players, I clear up misconceptions before they do stuff to let their alignment slip, and when they have only bad chices, their gods are forgiving.
I go out of my way to NOT punish the paladin or his player.
What I didn't make clear is that I don't throw this kind of stuff at paladins all the time, but I do throw some moral challenges at them occasionally or else they might as well have no restrictions built into the class. Restrictions must come up in play to have any meaning, and I don't want the paladin's restrictions to become meaningless.
I have never had a fallen paladin in any group I've run in 35 years, except once, and that player deliberately set out to become a fallen paladin before he rolled his character up.
Further, I've never had any paladin's player say I've treated his paladin unfairly. In fact, if my player and I have a difference of opinion regarding the paladin "code" I generally let him decide how it must go, unless he's being ridiculous.
I've been fairly hard-headed on this thread, so yeah, I get your point. But I've been refuting people who seem to have the notion that a paladin can be as unlawful as he wants as long as he's not being ungood. As liberal as I am with paladins, that's one point I won't bend on. Unlawful behavior is just as inappropriate for a paladin as ungood behavior is. If that statement is untrue, then the paladin class would be restricted to LG, CG, or NG alignments - but they're not given that much...
AH, that hard headedness is what made me think you were a bit unreasonable. I mean yes, you must be lawful. But Lawful in Dnd is not necessarily "Law Abiding". It means following a strict code (like for monks). But there are times when you must balance both axis of alignment and do the greater good.
AH, that hard headedness is what made me think you were a bit unreasonable. I mean yes, you must be lawful. But Lawful in Dnd is not necessarily "Law Abiding". It means following a strict code (like for monks). But there are times when you must balance both axis of alignment and do the greater good.
Sure you must.
Just not at the expense of also doing the greater law.
Or at the very least, if Law must take a back seat, then so be it - but only when it must, and only when there are reasons both good and just for it to do so. Anything else, deliberately downplaying or ignoring Law for the sake of doing Good, is a tragic flaw that will lead to downfall.
Just an observation: The games where the players have at least some freedom to determine how to follow their code are the ones that have the best stories. If the DM steps in to explain how the paladin can't do this or that because it is against their alignment or code or whatever, and the paladin cannot answer "but I think it is better for the greater good" then there is a problem when the paladin loses powers for proceeding. It's the DM's fault.
The most inalienable right of a player should be to pick the *intent* of his character. In my opinion, the DM can paralyze, kill, delude (so that reality seems different than it is), or ambush a character, but the player ALWAYS gets to pick his/her intent. "I'm charmed and have to act like the evil wizard is my friend? Fine. I'm still LG and I get to make sure that harm does not come to innocent beings."
I have an alignment system that more clearly explains that players get to choose intent (it is narrow and clear so that there is no reason a player will ever have alignment changed without understanding why--a bit outside of OP so I won't go into it here). However, as long as you accept the principle that players should be able to choose the intent of their characters, everyone will be happier and you will get better stories and more fun roleplay.
Just an observation: The games where the players have at least some freedom to determine how to follow their code are the ones that have the best stories. If the DM steps in to explain how the paladin can't do this or that because it is against their alignment or code or whatever, and the paladin cannot answer "but I think it is better for the greater good" then there is a problem when the paladin loses powers for proceeding. It's the DM's fault.
The most inalienable right of a player should be to pick the *intent* of his character. In my opinion, the DM can paralyze, kill, delude (so that reality seems different than it is), or ambush a character, but the player ALWAYS gets to pick his/her intent. "I'm charmed and have to act like the evil wizard is my friend? Fine. I'm still LG and I get to make sure that harm does not come to innocent beings."
I have an alignment system that more clearly explains that players get to choose intent (it is narrow and clear so that there is no reason a player will ever have alignment changed without understanding why--a bit outside of OP so I won't go into it here). However, as long as you accept the principle that players should be able to choose the intent of their characters, everyone will be happier and you will get better stories and more fun roleplay.
Everything you say here is wonderful and correct.
There is one other thing to consider though. Some classes, the paladin is the quintessential example, have a good deal of restriction built into that class. A player must define his own intent within those restrictions or he is not playing the class that he signed up to play.
Taking your post entirely literally, a fighter might choose to play CE, slaughtering mothers and eating their children, as long as that's how he defines his intent. But can a paladin do that? Of course not. You want to do that, then play a Blackguard instead.
But if you want to play a paladin, then at least some of your actions are dictated or limited, by the restrictions of the class.
Or at the very least, if Law must take a back seat, then so be it - but only when it must, and only when there are reasons both good and just for it to do so. Anything else, deliberately downplaying or ignoring Law for the sake of doing Good, is a tragic flaw that will lead to downfall.
That about wraps this discussion up right there. Thank you all for coming!
Now if we could only make the class worth such debates... That's another thread.
Taking your post entirely literally, a fighter might choose to play CE, slaughtering mothers and eating their children, as long as that's how he defines his intent. But can a paladin do that? Of course not.
Paladin of Slaughter: Unearthed Arcana, pg. 53
Besides that, I just want to say again that I think you're putting too much emphasis on this law thing. Here's what I mean:
If you visit a kingdom where the law says A, but your personal beliefs or home nation defines it as the opposite (B), then which law do you follow? If you choose A; you're agreeing to follow these foreign people's codes, but betraying your own. Which in my opinion is shaky ground for a paladin. If you choose B; you're standing by the laws that you have upheld your entire life and indeed, agreed to uphold in the first place by becoming a paladin. And you seem to be telling me that this is an act of a non-paladin. That makes no sense to me.
To couch it somewhat more starkly: You come from a standard fantasy european nation. You believe in limited civil rights (fantasy, after all) and more or less moral/prosocial behavior. Your nation doesn't allow fighting in the streets, maybe gambling is limited, you've got no slaves. It's written up as LG.
Now you arrive in another nation, and it's LE. According to their laws, it's legal to eat human flesh; and indeed people are picked out of pits at restaurants similar to how you might snag a lobster out of the tank at your favorite seafood place. Murder is not uncommon, and provided that the victim was no one important it is only punished with a fine. Assaulting women isn't a crime at all, and all attractive females of any race know that they must be able to fend off unwanted violent suitors or have a constant armed guard. These are violations of your Good/Evil axis, and they are established as being just fine under the laws of the land. How do you ding the paladin? He sees an innocent girl attacked or a helpless man having his limbs carved off to feed a rich family of cannibals; does he support the law that says this is okay or does he go with his customary laws and personal morality?
What if it's less extreme, at least on the surface. Say you worship a god that hates undead (I'm thinking Pelor, not familiar with Golarion's pantheon) and you need to visit a nation or city-state where undead are an accepted facet of the community. I think it's fair to say you can't start murdering undead left and right that are protected by the law of the city sure, but then if you consider things; don't you do that all the time in crypts and dungeons? Kill undead that were existing relatively peacefully until you disturbed them? How many undead have to gather before their desires to not be destroyed by rampaging paladins can be called law? 800? 8,000? What if the mortal population of this undead utopia are clearly disenfranchised and abused, but the law is slanted to allow it? Do you uphold the "law of the land" or do what's RIGHT? When a man begs you to protect his daughter because she was the cost of defaulting on a contract with a vampire; do you just hand her over when the city watch asks for her because to hide her would break fugitive slave (or cattle) laws? Do you also turn in the father for theft? Do you just stand and watch when the bloodsucking monster drains her dry in front of her father and dumps her corpse in the nearest bin to rise later?
Lawful alignment indicates a preference towards working within structured environments and adhering to a strict personal code of behavior. The laws that a paladin needs to follow are laid out in their paladin's code, and that code varies from individual. Sort out the code ahead of time, make sure it fits with the alignment, and let the code determine things. If you say that you will protect the weak, always speak truth, grant your aid to those in need, destroy evil where you find it, and submit to the will of superior clergy of your deity; then your paladin's code puts more emphasis on being good than being lawful, with the exception of listening to your superiors in the church. If for some reason you say that you will strictly adhere to the laws and customs of nation X, then only in that case would your paladinhood be in danger for violating some random stricture about walking through a cornfield or refusing to follow a poor battle plan.
In fact, by the definitions of lawful I'm seeing here, Paladins are literally unplayable. You know there's laws against trespassing, murder, grand theft magic item, looting, graverobbing, destruction of public property, disturbing the peace, kidnapping, assault, false imprisonment, public endangerment, trafficking in stolen goods, failure to pay import taxes, etc. Pretty much everything an average adventuring party does is illegal in one way or another. Just because you don't like that an evil wizard is experimenting with monster creation doesn't mean you can storm his tower, destroy or steal his things, murder or abduct him... But there you go, doing it anyway as part of just about any party of PCs. Unless you have a law-enforcement title or are following your patron's divine law rather than that of the place you reside, you can't do this stuff.
Why would you place more emphasis on codified sets of behavior that other people made up for themselves than on your own personal code? How could you even get through a day doing this? When some dragon is eating people and you race out to meet it, are you going to be stymied by its explanation that dragons got together and decided that by draconic law it's okay to devour up to 100 people a year per dragon, provided that they're in season and at least young adult age category? Just because I carve some rules into a set of stone tablets and claim that they're the best and highest law we all have to follow doesn't mean that it's true. If my laws include a stricture that all first born babies be thrown off a cliff, no paladin is going to be okay with it; and no matter how long that law has stood and how many people support it and live by it, no paladin should be.
Alright! Ultraposting, ftw.
GigantaDM_B type post
Ok, I think you're misunderstanding what is being discussed, not by all, but by me (and I think DM_Blake at least).
Your example of the daughter and cattle laws is easy. Lawful Evil is still Lawful Evil, and evil get's smashed. Laws that make evil lawful are not just, and therefore the Paladin doesn't have to follow them.
Here's a better example of what I've been talking about.
Paladin comes from Gloriana, the home of the brave and just. It's king is just, it's populace is, for the most part good. It has, mostly, fair and just laws upheld by, again mostly, just and fair people.
Paladin travels to Necronia, a neighboring kingdom. Necronia is the home of brave and honorable people. Necronia is a kingdom where undead are allowed to stay peacably so long as they do not break any laws. The laws are balanced to protect both the living and dead. Vampires may feed from willing living people, but may not kill them. Living people may become vampires if they so choose, and the vampire agrees, provided they file proof (to protect the living from being coerced, and the undead from being prosecuted for murder). Raising undead is legal, so long as the necromancer doing so is held responsible for their use. Quite a bit of Necronia's industry is built on the backs of it's undead. Stone quaries, mines, heavy labor, all done by undead.
Now, in D&D terms, Gloriana is a LG country, and Necronia is a LN country. So long as undead follow the laws, they can't just be killed. Same with living people.
Scenario 1
Our Paladin goes into Necronia, and comes accross a bunch of skeletons in the forest with axes, who are cutting down trees. He get's out his +4 Mace of Smiting and smashes them all to dust.
The owner of the skeletons has him arrested for destroying his work force, who was set by the controlling necromancer to clearing a section of forest for a new construction site. The necromancer sues the Paladin in court for the cost of 16 new skeletons to raise.
The court confiscates his +4 Mace of Smiting, sells it, and splits the proceeds between the land owner and the necromancer. The Paladin is given a warning about destroying private property, and release with a stern warning about obeying the law.
Scenario 2
Our Paladin goes into Necronia, and sees a vampire feeding on a woman in the back booth at a tavern. He whips out his +4 Mace of Smiting and attacks the vampire.
The vampire was obeying the law, feeding but not killing. The young woman was willing, indeed she was in the process of petitioning to become a vampire herself. Neither had broken the laws of Necronia, neither had harmed anyone else. The Paladin broke the local laws, and, probably his own credo of not attacking those who have done no wrong. He'll probably end up going to jail for assault, if not being hanged for murder (if he managed to kill the vampire). And no one will give him the least bit of sympathy in Necronia. He broke the law and murdered a citizen of good standing in the community (who just happened to be undead).
GigantaDM_B type post
Ok, I think you're misunderstanding what is being discussed, not by all, but by me (and I think DM_Blake at least).
Your example of the daughter and cattle laws is easy. Lawful Evil is still Lawful Evil, and evil get's smashed. Laws that make evil lawful are not just, and therefore the Paladin doesn't have to follow them.
Here's a better example of what I've been talking about.
Paladin comes from Gloriana, the home of the brave and just. It's king is just, it's populace is, for the most part good. It has, mostly, fair and just laws upheld by, again mostly, just and fair people.
Paladin travels to Necronia, a neighboring kingdom. Necronia is the home of brave and honorable people. Necronia is a kingdom where undead are allowed to stay peacably so long as they do not break any laws. The laws are balanced to protect both the living and dead. Vampires may feed from willing living people, but may not kill them. Living people may become vampires if they so choose, and the vampire agrees, provided they file proof (to protect the living from being coerced, and the undead from being prosecuted for murder). Raising undead is legal, so long as the necromancer doing so is held responsible for their use. Quite a bit of Necronia's industry is built on the backs of it's undead. Stone quaries, mines, heavy labor, all done by undead.
Now, in D&D terms, Gloriana is a LG country, and Necronia is a LN country. So long as undead follow the laws, they can't just be killed. Same with living people.
Scenario 1
Our Paladin goes into Necronia, and comes accross a bunch of skeletons in the forest with axes, who are cutting down trees. He get's out his +4 Mace of Smiting and smashes them all to dust.The owner of the skeletons has him arrested for destroying his work force, who was set by the controlling necromancer to clearing a section of forest for a new construction site. The necromancer sues the Paladin in court for the cost of 16 new...
Just dropped back in on this thread, interesting example, but I'd say Necronia was LE. In any event all those chaotic (and evil) undead obeying laws that prevent them from doing what comes naturally to them (i.e. killing the living)... not too likely. Stick to evil people having their place in a LN society (i.e. torturers, executioners, lawyers etc.) and I'd say your example would work better :D
If you visit a kingdom where the law says A, but your personal beliefs or home nation defines it as the opposite
(emphasis mine)
Home nation has nothing to do with it at all. You cannot now, nor ever have been able to, anwhere in the world, at any time in history, visit a foreign nation and break their laws and claim "Well, this is how we do things back home" as any kind of defense.
If I go to China, and see a convicted criminal being flogged in the public square, and I'm stupid enough to try to interfere and stop the flogging, chances are I'll only end up in jail, or getting flogged right next to that guy. Claiming "we don't condone corporal punishment back home" will not get me a not-guilty verdict from the Chinese judge.
Nor should it in D&D.
I just want to say again that I think you're putting too much emphasis on this law thing. Here's what I mean:
To couch it somewhat more starkly: You come from a standard fantasy european nation. It's written up as LG.
Now you arrive in another nation, and it's LE. [bad stuff happens]
I've been saying all along that the paladin is obligated to follow just laws by good men who have the legal authority to make such laws. Break any of those guidelines (unjust laws, corrupt or evil lawmakers, or lawmakers with no legal authority to make laws) and most bets are off.
In fact, by the definitions of lawful I'm seeing here, Paladins are literally unplayable. You know there's laws against trespassing, murder, grand theft magic item, looting, graverobbing, destruction of public property, disturbing the peace, kidnapping, assault, false imprisonment, public endangerment, trafficking in stolen goods, failure to pay import taxes, etc. Pretty much everything an average adventuring party does is illegal in one way or another. Just because you don't like that an evil wizard is experimenting with monster creation doesn't mean you can storm his tower, destroy or steal his things, murder or abduct him... But there you go, doing it anyway as part of just about any party of PCs. Unless you have a law-enforcement title or are following your patron's divine law rather than that of the place you reside, you can't do this stuff.
Now this is interesting. I agree with almost everything you say here. If that evil wizard is conducting his experiments in town where these laws are in place, then yes, you're right. Charging in and committing all these crimes should get the whole adventuring party thrown in prison.
If that tower is out in a far away wilderness, outside any kingdom's borders, then it is not governed by laws. Now the adventurers, paladin or otherwise, have only their own moral compass to guide them (and 10 of 11 core classes can ignore that moral compass whenever they want without losing class abilities).
Now if that tower is inside a kingdom's boundaries, but not in civilized or patrolled lands (where laws are enforced), then we get a bit of a gray area. The adventurers can enforce their own moral compass but may be subject to the kingdom's laws for doing so - only the paladin has a crisis to resolve here.
I've played in games where adventurers returning to town had to declare everything they found and pay taxes on it. They could legally claim spoils of war, low justice, and confiscation of property of known or demonstrable criminals. Etc. Made for an interesting campaign where PCs actually had to show some respect for the laws of the campaign world rather than just making their own martial law wherever they go.
Ok, I think you're misunderstanding what is being discussed, not by all, but by me (and I think DM_Blake at least).Your example of the daughter and cattle laws is easy. Lawful Evil is still Lawful Evil, and evil get's smashed. Laws that make evil lawful are not just, and therefore the Paladin doesn't have to follow them.
No, I think you're misunderstanding me. Although I could be wrong! ;)
I'm saying that you have to give precedence to Law or Good. Actually, I'm saying you have to give precedence to the law or Good. In other words, I don't believe that a code of conduct has any bearing on a paladin unless it's his OWN code of conduct. You refute DM_B up there by saying that a paladin doesn't have to follow evil laws. You are giving priority to Good over the law. Doesn't necessarily mean you're giving priority to Good over Law(ful), just the opposite.
You cannot now, nor ever have been able to, anwhere in the world, at any time in history, visit a foreign nation and break their laws and claim "Well, this is how we do things back home" as any kind of defense.
Ah, but that's the problem. I'm not TRYING to justify anything to the foreigners. I'm trying to do right by my deity or whatever cosmic mumbo jumbo gives me paladiny-ness. My whole point is that what those foreign devils think doesn't matter, it's your paladin code and ONLY your code that has merit when it comes to keeping or losing your position.
If that tower is out in a far away wilderness, outside any kingdom's borders, then it is not governed by laws.
This is something I take issue with and I touched on it before briefly in the undead stuff. Who gets to decide when the desires of the population are law and when they aren't? The evil wizard doesn't want to die, and in fact loudly proclaims that it's against the law to kill him should anyone ask. Does the fact that he's alone make it alright to murder him? What if he's got a few apprentices, some servants, maybe a bound outsider or two; even those monsters he's been making. Do they not get a vote because they look funny? Do they need to elect someone mayor before they can call, "we'd prefer not to be smote in the face today" a law?
Beyond that, are you telling me that paladins can do whatever they want as long as they're not in civilized lands? Rape some goblins, torture a dryad or two? Or do they have to maintain the same behavior everywhere they go, no matter what laws have or have not been enacted, because they have a code of conduct that is iron-clad?
I don't particularly feel the need to push a campaign into this direction but that's because it's unnecessary. Paladins are bound by their code, not the ephemeral trappings of mercurial terrestrial law. It happens that the majority of paladins have a code that includes being "responsible citizens" in one way or another, but it's not a requirement for the class.
I have not read the entirety of this thread, sorry if these got posted earlier, but it seems that everyone is focusing very much on their takes on these paragraphs, but not the paragraphs themselves.
PFRPG's Definitions:
"Law" (From "Law Versus Chaos")
authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness
can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to
tradition, judgmental, 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.
"Obedience to authority" seems to be the three words that are the controversy of this paragraph.
"Lawful Good"
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 insinuates that a Lawful Good character goes about promoting "Good" is a "Lawful" manner.
Paladin "Code of Conduct"
alignment and loses all class abilities, except proficiencies,
if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she
respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying,
not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those
in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or
chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
innocents.
It seems to me that a major part of the discussion going on are when "respect legitimate authority" and "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" clash.
A Paladin comes across a group of slavers, in a country where slavery is legal, who have prisoners that they are going to sell into slavery. In my opinion it is more a violation of a Paladin's Code of Conduct to let the situation be than to allow the prisoner's to be sold as slaves. The Paladin has to make a choice, and which choice would Iomedae want the Paladin to make?
I suppose that I will also come back to the question of "Does Lawful mean that every law must be obeyed?"
No. The law must also fit in with the remaining portion of the character's alignment. A law that states everyone must pet and love kittens won't be followed by a Lawful Evil character, just as a law that states everyone must eat innocent babies for breakfast will not be followed by Lawful Good characters.
I have not read the entirety of this thread, sorry if these got posted earlier, but it seems that everyone is focusing very much on their takes on these paragraphs, but not the paragraphs themselves.
PFRPG's Definitions:
"Law" (From "Law Versus Chaos")
** spoiler omitted **"Obedience to authority" seems to be the three words that are the controversy of this paragraph.
"Lawful Good"
** spoiler omitted **This insinuates that a Lawful Good character goes about promoting "Good" is a "Lawful" manner.
Paladin "Code of Conduct"
** spoiler omitted **It seems to me that a major part of the discussion going on are when "respect legitimate authority" and "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" clash.
A Paladin comes across a group of slavers, in a country where slavery is legal, who...
This is exactly why the DM has to be mature enough to allow the player to choose the intent of his character. One player might decide that respecting legitimate authority is overall going to result in greater good for all of the folks in question. Another player might decide that the legitimate authority is harming the greater good. Yet another might not know, and needs to find out what the heck is going on before passing judgment on a particular event.
Now, if you read the LG alignment, and come across a person who is raping and claims he intends to murder a woman on the street, his paladin is approaching insanity if the player says he needs to take a wait-and-see attitude. Worry about the extremes later, though, and let your player try to make his character accomplish the goals as Lawful and Good. The player doesn't have to be correct; his/her character just has to *intend* to do the right (i.e., LG) thing.
Like I said before, I have houseruled alignments, but I still don't think it is particularly difficult for players to try to do LG RAW. No need for DMs to step in as long as the player is clearly trying to be LG (even if in your opinion failing in good faith).
The player doesn't have to be correct; his/her character just has to *intend* to do the right (i.e., LG) thing.
The Jedi *cough* I mean... Paladin council would like to have a word with you about this "potentium heresy".