... and there's no-one around to see it, does he change alignment?
More seriously, there is an issue about paladins and falling, and what constitutes an act that would make him 'fall'. So rather than have a thread arguing about the particulars of a given situation, how about a thread that compiles some genuine opinions about whether a paladin should fall or not for a given action.
So can people give their opinions, please ...
On what a paladin can definitely do.
On what a paladin can definitely not do.
On what a paladin might do that can be atoned for.
And on what areas in between are grey areas and should be looked at closely.
This will only end in tears.
I agree, but it will be fun to watch.
|
Well, there is absolutely NO way one gaming group or DM can make a list of absolutes on Alignment issues for all the other groups and DMs out there.
Alignment abstractions and ambiguities are the reason they're so cool in D&D (and why child molesters and gamers without souls don't like Alignment).
But . . . .
For the sake of the OP, here's a few things I'll throw out:
- A Paladin who does anything AGAINST the other PCs gets a lightning bolt from the sky. (actually, this applies to any Class, any alignment)
- A Paladin who commits an act "harming" innocent NPCs.
- A Paladin who omits from an act of "saving" helpless NPCs when there is no "good" reason not to.
- A Paladin who doesn't aknowledge ME as the greatest, wisest, awesomenessest Being in the Multiverse.
- A Paladin who ignores a "just" and "legitimate" Calling from his Deity, Deity's Avatar or other Voice of his Deity.
The easy answer is:
The Paladin CAN: Act according to a Lawful Good behaviour IN ADDITION to the extra restriction imposed by its paladin's code.
The Paladin CAN'T: Deviate from a Lawful Good behaviour or from its paladin's code.
The Paladin CAN be atoned: When the DM place the player in a "you're damned if your do, you're damned if you don't" situation.
The Paladin CAN'T be redeemed: When the DM thinks that the player should have known better.
Most gray areas involve failure to comply to Law, Good or code when accomplishing Law, Good or code.
While this may appear like a smart-a$$ answer, that's pretty much all there is to it. The rest is a matter of interpretation, and I'm going to be very cautious about interpreting terms that are so hotly debated (especially LAW!!!)
I thing the issue mostly rely on the fact that alignments are so hotly debated, and therefore, so are the allowed/disallowed actions of the paladin. Personally, I'd be in favour of extending the code (to reflect what part of the LG characteristics we want out of the paladin) and drop the Lawful requirement of the paladin.
Another part of the issue is that a fallen paladin is an extraordinary RP opportunity, but an awful, awful, awful character concept (mechanically speaking). If there was an official exit other than more-evil-than-evil blackguard concept for a fallen paladin, that would also ease the problem.
'findel
|
|
- A Paladin who goes directly against his code as explained by the GM prior to starting the campaign will fall.
- A Paladin who is forced to make a choice between two evil acts and does not choose a third option will fall. Remember, not making a choice is the third choice.
- A Paladin who unknowingly commits an evil act and shrugs, declaring 'I didn't know', will fall.
- A Paladin who makes a choice only for the DM to tell him it was the wrong choice should make an atonement, but will not fall.
Well, there is absolutely NO way one gaming group or DM can make a list of absolutes on Alignment issues for all the other groups and DMs out there.
+1
I ran a 3.5 campaign from 1st to about 16th level a few years ago. One player ran a paladin. My advice was basically:
1. Good and evil are objective qualities. Personal opinion doesn't change objective qualities.
2. It is never acceptable to perform an evil act, even for a good end.
3. A lack of knowledge about an action's objective qualities or a lack of free choice when performing an action mitigate culpability, but don't render an evil action non-evil.
4. If you're ever in doubt about an action's objective qualities, ask me, and I'll give you a straight answer.
The player's paladin worked fine until the Forces of Evil conspired to lure her into a situation where she had a choice between committing an objectively evil action or else doing nothing and hoping some other group of adventures managed to avert Major Consequences.
The player chose to have his paladin commit the evil action. She fell, and then led the party into the final battle against the Forces of Evil, liberating a relic of Heironeous, saving thousands of people, and being restored to full paladinhood.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
This will only end in tears.I agree, but it will be fun to watch.
Reminds the Paladins to pray to their respective deity in case outside of the fourth wall their players have conspiring GMs
I disagree in that alignment is not meant to be a straightjacket.The Paladin CAN'T: Deviate from a Lawful Good behaviour
Not sure if I get your meaning (do you agree that alignment is meant to be a straitjacket?).
Are you just messing with my mind in a TOZ kind of way, or do you mean to say that a paladin shouldn't fall for a neutral act (as in non-lawful-but-not-chaotic or non-good-but-not-evil way)?
|
|
Are you just messing with my mind in a TOZ kind of way, or do you mean to say that a paladin shouldn't fall for a neutral act (as in non-lawful-but-not-chaotic or non-good-but-not-evil way)?
Precisely what I meant, apologies for the confusion. I read your statement as straightjacketing him in the Lawful Good alignment. I agree that he will fall for not performing as his code commands, but he is not forced to commit only Lawful and Good acts. Neutral, and even Chaotic acts do not cause him to fall. Only Evil acts do. He may want to atone for Neutral acts, and probably should for Chaotic acts, but at worst he should only receive warnings for questionable acts, not outright loss of powers.
I am amused that 'TOZ kind of way' is a thing around here tho. :)
Are you just messing with my mind in a TOZ kind of way, or do you mean to say that a paladin shouldn't fall for a neutral act (as in non-lawful-but-not-chaotic or non-good-but-not-evil way)?Precisely what I meant, apologies for the confusion. I read your statement as straightjacketing him in the Lawful Good alignment. I agree that he will fall for not performing as his code commands, but he is not forced to commit only Lawful and Good acts. Neutral, and even Chaotic acts do not cause him to fall. Only Evil acts do. He may want to atone for Neutral acts, and probably should for Chaotic acts, but at worst he should only receive warnings for questionable acts, not outright loss of powers.
I am amused that 'TOZ kind of way' is a thing around here tho. :)
Ok, and you know what, you're right. Not always acting in a LG (yet not conflicting with its code) shouldn't make the paladin fall outright.
no hard feelings I hope...
|
The Roll of the Paladin is to venture beyond the Line that no one from the Tribe of the Living may cross and put down that which threatens to cross the line into the World of the Living.
Some whould suggest that Religion is just a narrowing of the View of the Paladin - where asothers would suggest that it is simply in keeping with the Narrowing view of What constitutes acceptable choices.
Lawful Good would never take a life under any circumstances because Good Never Kills and Lawful requires accountability of those who do.
So basically your Roll as LG Paladin is to bring to Justice Crusader Bob because he hunted down and killed Tami the Serial Killer and her Cult. As far as the Paladin is concerned it was his Job to bring Tami and Bob in alive to stand trial and spend the rest of their lives in Prison because they crossed the line into unacceptable land. unfortunatly When Tami summoned up Garui the Demon it fell to you to hunt the bastard down and destroy him because he is the big corruptor that creates Scum like Tami and Bob.
I read in a Dragon Mag a loooong time ago about some suggestions about how a Paladin should act. This was a official TSR editorial, but I don't remember what issue it was.
I believe one of the examples they gave was a Paladin murdering one innocent person to save many. The Paladin would not murder the innocent. Meaning, if he couldn't find another way to stop it, the many will die. The reason for that is, the code a Paladin lives by isn't his own. It's a greater power who has reasoning beyond what we mortals can understand. If he kills the one innocent person, it's still an evil act even if many others would die if he didn't do it. The Paladin doesn't live by the "good of the many out ways the needs of the few" motto. Everyone deserves every bit of effort that the Paladin can put forth. Killing one innocent to save many is still killing 1 innocent, no matter the reason. By not killing the innocent, the Paladin stays pure, but the village of people dies. He should feel terrible for the loss of life, but he will never blame himself... he'd pray for the lost lives and vow vengeance on whoever caused their deaths.
Now... That is very hard core and I hope no DM would put one of his players in that situation.
As a DM, I would rule that, if the Paladin killed the single innocent to save a village, that Paladin would lose some of his powers and need to atone for the murder. I would also hope that the Player would role-play the internal strife of what he felt he had to do.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo
Dabbler, what have you done! You are breaking the space time continuum by bending it back into itself!
aaaahhhhh
*runs out of the topic, scared*
Relax - I created a subspace realm to hold this topic in. It doesn't matter if it collapses. In all seriousness, the other paladin thread was full of assumptions and guesswork, so I reasoned taking those out and getting some clear constructive advice might be more useful for people than playing "he-said she-said" around one example.
Lawful Good would never take a life under any circumstances because Good Never Kills and Lawful requires accountability of those who do.
Are you trying to start a flame war? If good never kills, then everyone should just stop playing good warriors...
|
|
As a DM, I would rule that, if the Paladin killed the single innocent to save a village, that Paladin would lose some of his powers and need to atone for the murder. I would also hope that the Player would role-play the internal strife of what he felt he had to do.
Agreed. The only way for the Paladin to keep his powers is to try to save both. Even if failure is certain. It would not be his fault. It would have been the fault of the one who tried to force him to choose one or the other. People would probably condemn him for not making the choice if he failed to save anyone. But they would be praising him if he managed to save both. That's the life of a paladin.
|
|
Lawful Good would never take a life under any circumstances because Good Never Kills and Lawful requires accountability of those who do.Are you trying to start a flame war? If good never kills, then everyone should just stop playing good warriors...
I draw a hard line on what constitutes Good and Lawful. You dont Like My Hard Line DM then you get busted outa the group. If you want to Kill - Choose Mercenary or Evil. Good expells Bad from Civilization. There is probably a reason your PCs wander from city to city in search of a new home.
A Paladin would be a lot like Judge Dredd. Except for the Killing His job would be to identify the bad and throw them from the walls of the city so they can fight and kill out there in the Wastelands with all the other animals.
I read in a Dragon Mag a loooong time ago about some suggestions about how a Paladin should act. This was a official TSR editorial, but I don't remember what issue it was.
I believe one of the examples they gave was a Paladin murdering one innocent person to save many. The Paladin would not murder the innocent. Meaning, if he couldn't find another way to stop it, the many will die. The reason for that is, the code a Paladin lives by isn't his own. It's a greater power who has reasoning beyond what we mortals can understand. If he kills the one innocent person, it's still an evil act even if many others would die if he didn't do it. The Paladin doesn't live by the "good of the many out ways the needs of the few" motto. Everyone deserves every bit of effort that the Paladin can put forth. Killing one innocent to save many is still killing 1 innocent, no matter the reason. By not killing the innocent, the Paladin stays pure, but the village of people dies. He should feel terrible for the loss of life, but he will never blame himself... he'd pray for the lost lives and vow vengeance on whoever caused their deaths.
Now... That is very hard core and I hope no DM would put one of his players in that situation.
As a DM, I would rule that, if the Paladin killed the single innocent to save a village, that Paladin would lose some of his powers and need to atone for the murder. I would also hope that the Player would role-play the internal strife of what he felt he had to do.
That is brutal, but I believe a real Paladin would do what is in his power to save said people not just let them die. He should lose his power but be able to atone for it by making it up to the innocent life he took.
But If I were a DM and a 'Paladin' decided to just let a whole town die because he didn't want to lose his powers, I would make him lose them. I would rule that as irresponsibility. You chose to forsake that amount of people for your own personal pride. Why give these powers if you aren't going to use them?
I draw a hard line on what constitutes Good and Lawful. You dont Like My Hard Line DM then you get busted outa the group. If you want to Kill - Choose Mercenary or Evil. Good expells Bad from Civilization. There is probably a reason your PCs wander from city to city in search of a new home.Lawful Good would never take a life under any circumstances because Good Never Kills and Lawful requires accountability of those who do.Are you trying to start a flame war? If good never kills, then everyone should just stop playing good warriors...
Decides to be evil. >:3
Oh, okay, so If I unleash my swarm of hungry wyverns on the Paladins of your world, they should be A-Okay, right. Because good never kills.
Awesome!
*Wants to play as an evil pc in your world*
Agreed. The only way for the Paladin to keep his powers is to try to save both. Even if failure is certain. It would not be his fault. It would have been the fault of the one who tried to force him to choose one or the other. People would probably condemn him for not making the choice if he failed to save anyone. But they would be praising him if he managed to save both. That's the life of a paladin.
As a DM, I would rule that, if the Paladin killed the single innocent to save a village, that Paladin would lose some of his powers and need to atone for the murder. I would also hope that the Player would role-play the internal strife of what he felt he had to do.
This is the kind of response that makes a lot of sense to me and sum up why paladins get to be awesome and what the price is.
I agree to an extent. If the player makes the comment "I don't wanna kill him because I'll lose my powers.", then I'll take his powers.
If he says, in character, "I will not kill one innocent because he doesn't deserve to die. Instead I will save the village." (or whatever sounds like a good excuse... since I'm not a Paladin, I don't know what a good argument would be) then the village of people dies, I won't take his powers... as long as he role-plays the tragedy of all the lost lives and his eagerness to right the wrong that was done.
Paladins are held to a much higher (and sometimes confusing) standard than any other class. They have to make some tough calls in the name of "Good".
Uck... All these hypothetical situations are really situational. For example the kill one to save many events. Is there something special about the one person? How would killing them save the many? Is there a way to save both? Is there a time constraint? A GM would rule differently in a situation where a Paladin wants to rescue a priestess who's being sacrificed to a Demon in order to appease it and a person who has a cursed negative aura that drains the life force of those around them.
|
|
Which is why it is hard to play a paladin. You have to act as a paladin should, not to keep your powers.
A player choosing his powers will not roleplay the effect of making that choice. A player choosing to save everyone and in the end saving no one will be distraught.
Honestly, you want to see an example of a paladin doing the right thing against all odds, watch Simon after the timeskip in Gurren Lagann.
I agree to an extent. If the player makes the comment "I don't wanna kill him because I'll lose my powers.", then I'll take his powers.
If he says, in character, "I will not kill one innocent because he doesn't deserve to die. Instead I will save the village." (or whatever sounds like a good excuse... since I'm not a Paladin, I don't know what a good argument would be) then the village of people dies, I won't take his powers... as long as he role-plays the tragedy of all the lost lives and his eagerness to right the wrong that was done.
Paladins are held to a much higher (and sometimes confusing) standard than any other class. They have to make some tough calls in the name of "Good".
Yeah I could agree with that, but that Paladin better start atoning for letting the village he swore an oath to protect or he's going to start losing his powers.
Yup.
It was just a hypothetical situation to reflect the rigidness of a Paladin's beliefs.
Kill no innocent... no matter what.
It was just an example. Take what you will from it.
Hey!
Check it out!
Nobody's arguing!
lol
- A Paladin who does anything AGAINST the other PCs gets a lightning bolt from the sky. (actually, this applies to any Class, any alignment)
What if the other PC kills a peasant because he feels like it? The Paladin shouldn't retaliate?
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
There, that should muddy it up a bit more. I think most of your paladin codes are more strict than the simple definitions of Good and Law.
Killing an innocent to save many might be considered a Good thing, due to the outcome, but it surely isn't lawful.
Killing a criminal who is actively trying to atone for his crime is lawful, but it certainly isn't good.
A lawful good view on killing might be something along the lines of "Killing is sometimes necessary for defense of the innocent and for the good of society. It is also a dreadful burden, one that I must bear so that others will not have to."
For reference, you can check out this as a reference for how a Lawful Good person might understand war.
The "Law" aspect is easy... It's a code of conduct.
If the Paladin's code of conduct dictates "take no innocent life", then it is very lawful (and good) to not kill the single person to save the rest.
It's the "Good" aspect of the alignment that is very much open to interpretation.
That's not even Lawful.
Killing a criminal who is actively trying to atone for his crime is lawful, but it certainly isn't good.
Depends on the system. I pictured Javert from Les Mis in a Lawful Neutral/Evil kind of role. But if it makes you feel better, you can substitute killing for punishment (even if that includes killing)
Mr. Fishy disagrees with everyone for the sake of the flame war that is not happening. BURN THREAD BURN.
Paladins walk a hard line thats kind of the point.
Back to the paladin to do list
Destroy unredeemable evil [demons/devils/undead]
Protect/respect all life [there are exceptions]
Oppose evil
Act with honor[open to interpretation]
Even in the code of the paladin there is room for interpretation.
Sorry, I was talking to someone when I was trying to post and I apparently lost my ability to comprehend the English language...
Killing and innocent to save many might be "Good" in your book, but certainly not to everyone. If the Paladin's code says something that makes it ok to kill the innocent, then it's lawful... though I'm not so sure about "good".
As for the "Killing a Criminal" example, that may or may not be Lawful depending on the Paladin's code and the law of the land.
WE GOTTA SLAY THIS ONE BEFORE IT GETS OUTTA HAND!!
*Decapitates thread*
Uh-oh.
*Falls in the Woods*
Javert from Les Mis Evil? Yes
He was hunting a convict that had became a fugitive. Changed his name, lied about his past on a government background check. The man was not total off base.
Kind of like chasing a jay walker six blocks to give him a ticket. WAAAAY over the top.
I did NOT fall in the woods with that wyvern!
Ahh, its good and muddy now. Chalk one up for Chaos.
Mr. Fishy's client [CP] did not have combat with that wyvern.
I just want to throw it out there ... the Gods are always watching. ;)
I hope no one points out how it's been brought back to life on negative energy. That would be such blasphemy!
Actually, this tread started in rather civilized ways before people attempted to sabotage it intentionally... And seem to have succeeded unfortunately.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
There, that should muddy it up a bit more. I think most of your paladin codes are more strict than the simple definitions of Good and Law.
Killing an innocent to save many might be considered a Good thing, due to the outcome, but it surely isn't lawful.
Killing an innocent, no matter why, is never good, however under some circumstances it could be justified as serving the greater good.
Killing a criminal who is actively trying to atone for his crime is lawful, but it certainly isn't good.
It's actually only lawful in the sense that it may be acting in accordance with local laws.
A lawful good view on killing might be something along the lines of "Killing is sometimes necessary for defense of the innocent and for the good of society. It is also a dreadful burden, one that I must bear so that others will not have to."
That is something like what I would imagine a paladin to say.
I think that the element of personal sacrifice comes in here a lot. A paladin should be prepared to put himself on the line for others. If he starts thinking about himself and his powers, he's already lost.