He lost every paladin in the kingdom the instant he started worshipping Asmodeus. Obeying their King would mean doing the bidding of Evil. They can choose to obey, and they'll instantly lose their paladinhood for placing king over Code.
So, no, there will not be paladins on both sides of the conflict. There cannot BE a paladin who follows a Devil-worshipping king.
Paladin vs paladin conflicts occur when you have different interpretations of Lawful Good butting heads...like the glorious war god of LG and expanding reach, and peaceful kingdom of enlightenment who want nothing to do with being conquered OR going out conquering. In any event, as LG exemplars, they are driven to find a means of mediation other then butchering one another to solve their differences...it's much easier when you KNOW the enemy is totally honorable.
And seriously, trying to get Good people to fight one another is a classic tactic of evil. They should start looking for the forces really behind this.
The Paladin orders of your kingdom are going to rise in open revolt against their king, and will die to the last man before they kneel to him. Their code allows for no less, and remember, they have NO FEAR. They will train the younger son up to be a mighty hero, and lead/follow him to reclaim the throne and the kingdom. That such a rot could infect their own kingdom in the heart of so much outer conflict will sicken them all.
The populace is cowed by fear and brutality into following him. Given other options, people will take them. Nobody wants to get fed to a devil.
===Aelryinth
I think it's much easier having paladins on both sides of a war if alignments don't come in - for example, paladins are a loyal order of the crown in two countries that just go to war for whatever purpose. It could be a simple territorial dispute, which escalated into a war. Now, in both countries the paladins are members of a military nobility invested with power from the throne - they are sworn to protect the roads against brigands, carry out the king's justice when a court is out of reach, oversee the local administrators to curb corruption and wrongdoing, etc. Part of their duty is fighting against enemies of the legal king or queen, thus fighting in the country's wars.
Now, their respective countries go to war, it has been declared properly and both monarchs are the legitimate authority. The situation is too convoluted for there to be a clearly right and wrong party, so the default obligation to the paladins - to the cause of good - doesn't seem to apply. Both orders are bound in service of their respective monarchies. As their countries go to war, they are swept in the conflict. Alignment has little to do with it - it's just politics by other means.
Alternatively, consider something like what happened in China during the Three Kingdoms era. The central authority has fallen into chaos, and several of the larger and stronger warlords have decreed themselves to be successors and are striving to reunite the country. The paladins have been swept under the respective banners, since obviously no one wants the anarchy to continue. Different paladins have different visions about who the best candidate is - and whom they should support.
"Proves he hasn't read the APG."
===Aelryinth
He means Anti-Paladins from the APG hommie.
And awesome idea ^.^
Paladins are not anti-paladins. He's trying to contrive a situation where paladins fight one another over puny mortal politics, and in service to a devil-worshipper, no less.
Not happening.
Now, a KNIGHTLY order, sure. That's how Hellknights start, after all. And Cavaliers of the Cockatrice and Dragon just don't give a damn about peons.
Paladins? Mortal politics aren't going to stop a paladin from doing what is right and honorable, or they become ex-paladins. The code is bigger then kings and queens. If that means a Paladin has to remove themselves for a fight, that's what they'll do. A paladin is completely within his rights not to take up arms against his fellow countrymen, and likely will attempt to operate as mediator, diplomat, and healer, rather then kill those they are also sworn to protect.
GOOD. It's not just an alignment, it's a way of life. Law does NOT trump good for paladins, ever. That's how hellknights think.
==+Aelryinth
The paladins might not always be separate from the state, though. The OP example has clear good/evil sides, which makes it easier for a paladin to orient himself. Sometimes, though, they don't have that luxury: in the case of no clear good/evil sides, their honor (and thus lawful alignment) would dictate that they go to war, as doing otherwise means essentially betraying their country and the lawful authority. Sure, if they can avoid it, they most likely would, and they would try to bring about an end to the conflict as quickly as possible.
On the small scale you could have paladins fighting one another, but usually because one of them is either mistaken or has been deceived. On the large scale, the scenario above is unlikely because in the long term the paladins would quickly work out who's side they were on, and get on team. It would be interesting as paladins that were far from the centres of power may stay loyal to the crown for a while, but would turn one by one as they realise how bad the king truly is.
A paladin serves his code, first and foremost. Loyalty to the state does NOT come before that.
If following the orders of the state violates the code, and killing loyal countrymen and fellow paladins definitely would, then it is the state that has betrayed your code, and you are free to do what you must.
The paladin will always be loyal to the ideal of the state. The state, however, may not be loyal to its ideal. the paladin WILL take the high road, not the grey road, because that's what paladins do.
==Aelryinth
The paladin will always be loyal to the ideal of the state. The state, however, may not be loyal to its ideal. the paladin WILL take the high road, not the grey road, because that's what paladins do.
+1
Paladins taking the highest uncommon denominator and sticking to it can get exasperating for those used to taking the lowest common denominator ;)
==Aelryinth
A paladin serves his code, first and foremost. Loyalty to the state does NOT come before that.
Ok, let me clarify, I did not mean the case of the OP. In that case, there is a clear good and evil (well, more or less clear) side, and following one of the two would conflict with the code. The paladins would support the rebellion of the younger half-brother, no problem.
However, sometimes there are wars where no side has a clear moral ground, and where the paladin is not in a position where he is able to end the war. Yes, there are good and honorable people fighting on the other side he might be called to fight - and perhaps kill. Likewise, there are good and honorable people on their side, that they should protect. Loyalty to the state may not be higher than loyalty to the paladin oath (however it is phrased, by the way), but when the oath does not bear relevance to the topic at hand, the paladin is governed by his or her other loyalties. In such cases, it is imo possible that two paladins clash.
BTW, just because they are paladins in mechanical term doesn't mean they will be considered such in the game, or be aware that they share a bond with other "orders" from different cultures or races. They might simply know of them as courageous and honorable warriors, if they know of them at all.
I can see the arguments against working for Team Evil, no problem. But would paladins really be eager to join the rebellion and throw the country -- currently peaceful, prosperous and secure -- into chaos and civil war, certainly involving the deaths of thousands of innocents?
"Zod is Lawful Evil and a thorough sonofab@~*!. He's arrogant and he's cruel. He openly worships Asmodeus, and has even installed a chapel to the devil-god right inside the palace. He's a chuckling sadist who likes hurting people; he wears black and cultivates a neatly trimmed goatee. Within six months of coming to power, Zod has re-instituted slavery, opened up aggressive persecution against several unpopular minorities (sorcerors, half-orcs, Varisians, whatever), and greatly increased the use of judicial torture."
I'd say that pretty much warrants the shining examples of good and justice taking up arms to support a better candidate. Yes, the civil war will lead to suffering and deaths - but by the looks of it, peace isn't exactly perfect either. The ruler is a worshipper of one of the vilest of dark gods, preaching a perversion of law that hurts good folk and supports the villains that law should be against. He is a heartless tyrant who not only hunts and abuses those that would be his political opponents, but does it for his own enjoyment. He has already put a caste of people beyond any rights or freedoms - all in less than a year.
The king has created an environment against which any character with LG alignment has little choice but to protest. He already made a country inconsistent with the paladins' oaths and alignment - what other laws do they need to be against him? Had he been so aware of their importance, he should have thought about it beforehand, and moderated his actions accordingly.
This reminds me of a saying from one Confucian author "The people are to be valued most, the altars of the grain and the land [traditional symbols of the vitality of the state] next, the ruler least." Even in an ideology that preaches order and deference, there comes a moment where you need to make sure the people in power are worthy of their position.
I can see the arguments against working for Team Evil, no problem. But would paladins really be eager to join the rebellion and throw the country -- currently peaceful, prosperous and secure -- into chaos and civil war, certainly involving the deaths of thousands of innocents?Does it affect your answer if King Zod swears to the paladins that he'll never ask them to take any actions inconsistent with their oaths and alignment? Because he's no fool, and he doesn't want to lose a bunch of his best fighters.
Doug M.
If Zod swears that he will not ask the paladins to take any actions that violate their oath or alignment, he can then ask them for no aid whatsoever against his enemies. Interestingly, a paladin could take no action either for or against Zod. The paladin code clearly states that a paladin must "respect legitimate authority." The code also states that a paladin must "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)"--Meaning that they cannot take arms to overthrow lawful rule or help someone who will use their aid to continue the persecution of good folk. This means that Zod and Kindly's civil war would cause the paladins to sit things out. All paladins who participate in the civil war would fall from grace, regardless of which side they began to fight on.
If Zod swears that he will not ask the paladins to take any actions that violate their oath or alignment, he can then ask them for no aid whatsoever against his enemies. Interestingly, a paladin could take no action either for or against Zod. The paladin code clearly states that a paladin must "respect legitimate authority."
It is debatable what a paladin would consider legitimate authority, though. Just being the son of the previous king might now be enough. Asmodeus is the legitimate authority of its domains by the Hells' own rules - does that mean a paladin who happens to go there must respect its edicts?
|
Thinking about a scenario to get paladins on both sides of a war. Goodness knows TRW is full of conflicts with decent people on both sides; it shouldn't be impossible to do in D&D.
I don't ever recall a "paladins cannot fight other paladins" stricture. As you said, the real world has plenty of examples of wars that weren't necessarily bad-guy vs. good-guy. Shoot, you could do paladin-vs-paladin in the same religious sect if there was a schism over doctrine, per se.
The only time you're going to have Paladin vs Paladin is if you have two good countries fighting over territory, resources, seccession or honor.
I could see a situation where two kingdoms, both good, are having hard times financially. Right on the border, a vein of ore is found. It's not huge, but it could make one kingdom or the other flush financially. Both dispute who owns it since it's on the border. They can't negotiate because both desperately need it. So they end up at war.
If Zod swears that he will not ask the paladins to take any actions that violate their oath or alignment, he can then ask them for no aid whatsoever against his enemies. Interestingly, a paladin could take no action either for or against Zod. The paladin code clearly states that a paladin must "respect legitimate authority." The code also states that a paladin must "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)"--Meaning that they cannot take arms to overthrow lawful rule or help someone who will use their aid to continue the persecution of good folk. This means that Zod and Kindly's civil war would cause the paladins to sit things out. All paladins who participate in the civil war would fall from grace, regardless of which side they began to fight on.
I can see the arguments against working for Team Evil, no problem. But would paladins really be eager to join the rebellion and throw the country -- currently peaceful, prosperous and secure -- into chaos and civil war, certainly involving the deaths of thousands of innocents?Does it affect your answer if King Zod swears to the paladins that he'll never ask them to take any actions inconsistent with their oaths and alignment? Because he's no fool, and he doesn't want to lose a bunch of his best fighters.
Doug M.
Incorrect. All the slaves need help. That alone is reason enough to rise against Zod, and you are assuming the new rulers will be evil. From what I understood of the OP, those opposing Zod would be good. You can't really cite legitimate authority since the paladin may be a citizen of a kingdom, but he ultimately serves his deity and the paladin code. I am sure a lot of bad guys in adventures have "legitimate authority" as they see it.
What do you mean by lawful ruler? Having the lawful alignment and being a king is not a free pass. If you are in lawful, but evil then you are a target since paladins are supposed to oppose evil.Prince Zod might want to execute an order 66(SW reference) against paladins if they are doing to be the main source of his problems.
If Zod swears that he will not ask the paladins to take any actions that violate their oath or alignment, he can then ask them for no aid whatsoever against his enemies. Interestingly, a paladin could take no action either for or against Zod. The paladin code clearly states that a paladin must "respect legitimate authority." The code also states that a paladin must "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)"--Meaning that they cannot take arms to overthrow lawful rule or help someone who will use their aid to continue the persecution of good folk. This means that Zod and Kindly's civil war would cause the paladins to sit things out. All paladins who participate in the civil war would fall from grace, regardless of which side they began to fight on.
I can see the arguments against working for Team Evil, no problem. But would paladins really be eager to join the rebellion and throw the country -- currently peaceful, prosperous and secure -- into chaos and civil war, certainly involving the deaths of thousands of innocents?Does it affect your answer if King Zod swears to the paladins that he'll never ask them to take any actions inconsistent with their oaths and alignment? Because he's no fool, and he doesn't want to lose a bunch of his best fighters.
Doug M.
Incorrect. All the slaves need help. That alone is reason enough to rise against Zod, and you are assuming the new rulers will be evil. From what I understood of the OP, those opposing Zod would be good. You can't really cite legitimate authority since the paladin may be a citizen of a kingdom, but he ultimately serves his deity and the paladin code. I am sure a lot of bad guys in adventures have "legitimate authority" as they see it.
What do you mean by lawful ruler? Having the lawful alignment and being a king is not a free pass. If you are in lawful, but evil then you are a target since paladins are supposed to oppose evil.
Prince Zod...
Perhaps you missed the part in the original post where Zod was the legitimate heir to the throne, by law. A paladin, by his code, must respect Zod as a legitimate authority figure, however begrudging that respect may be.
If liberation from oppression was a paladin's duty, it would be in his code. As it stands, slavery is lawful. Opposition of law is a chaotic action, and paladins fall if their actions result in chaotic ends. Chaotic Good is the liberator. The ranger who follows his heart and distrusts authority, the barbarian who believes not in the customs of the land he is in but in the righteousness of his heart. These are the liberators. The paladin is forced to act within the bounds of the laws or become a feat starved fighter. Which is an option, albeit a poor one.
Well, he's the legitimate heir under the kingdom's own rules of succession, he's accepted by a clear majority of the population, and he's brought general peace, prosperity and stability.
# 2 and 3 can be done by any fairly capable tyrants, especially as acceptance (as in, lack of resistance) can be gained by fear as well. Ultimately, it boils down to this: in an ordered system, everyone has rights and responsibilities, even the king - heck, especially the king. Legitimacy isn't just "there", it stems from something, and in most systems it isn't just blood. If nothing else, the king, when crowned, is likely to take or be given an oath of office, signified by his acceptance of the crown and scepter. If the paladins believe that the king has not acted appropriately and his conduct is unfitting, they may well consider him illegitimate. In their eyes, he may well be undermining legitimate authority by the infamy he, as holder of the throne, is gaining.
If Zod swears that he will not ask the paladins to take any actions that violate their oath or alignment, he can then ask them for no aid whatsoever against his enemies. Interestingly, a paladin could take no action either for or against Zod. The paladin code clearly states that a paladin must "respect legitimate authority."It is debatable what a paladin would consider legitimate authority, though. Just being the son of the previous king might now be enough. Asmodeus is the legitimate authority of its domains by the Hells' own rules - does that mean a paladin who happens to go there must respect its edicts?
A paladin in the nine hells would have to give Asmodeus respect. Now, this paladin would smite devils just the same–championing good over evil is part of his code–but he would do so respectfully. Asmodeus is near godhood, and wouldn't give a single paladin enough attention to specifically trap him, but local lords in hell could trap a paladin with bureaucracy. A clever paladin will always give himself an out if he must make deals with lawful evil aligned beings, though, and must never agree to take action that advances the cause of evil over good. It is better to sacrifice his own life than to fall from grace in such a situation. The reward for sacrifice being the intercession of his deity on his behalf of joining his deity in their realm. Better option than becoming an ex-paladin in hell by far.
Well, he's the legitimate heir under the kingdom's own rules of succession, he's accepted by a clear majority of the population, and he's brought general peace, prosperity and stability.# 2 and 3 can be done by any fairly capable tyrants, especially as acceptance (as in, lack of resistance) can be gained by fear as well. Ultimately, it boils down to this: in an ordered system, everyone has rights and responsibilities, even the king - heck, especially the king. Legitimacy isn't just "there", it stems from something, and in most systems it isn't just blood. If nothing else, the king, when crowned, is likely to take or be given an oath of office, signified by his acceptance of the crown and scepter. If the paladins believe that the king has not acted appropriately and his conduct is unfitting, they may well consider him illegitimate. In their eyes, he may well be undermining legitimate authority by the infamy he, as holder of the throne, is gaining.
In an evil land, where the people are oppressed and their leaders corrupt and in the worship of false gods, where might makes right, paladins are welcome to challenge the legitimacy of the authority there by means of righteous combat.
However, this is a peaceful land where the populous accepts a popular sovereign and agrees to the lawful use of slave labor and liberal amounts of torture.
The people don't want to be freed from the tyrant. Why then, would a paladin become an agent of chaos and disorder and throw the kingdom out of whack? Its a good person's job, but its not a paladin's job.
...If Zod swears that he will not ask the paladins to take any actions that violate their oath or alignment, he can then ask them for no aid whatsoever against his enemies. Interestingly, a paladin could take no action either for or against Zod. The paladin code clearly states that a paladin must "respect legitimate authority." The code also states that a paladin must "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)"--Meaning that they cannot take arms to overthrow lawful rule or help someone who will use their aid to continue the persecution of good folk. This means that Zod and Kindly's civil war would cause the paladins to sit things out. All paladins who participate in the civil war would fall from grace, regardless of which side they began to fight on.
I can see the arguments against working for Team Evil, no problem. But would paladins really be eager to join the rebellion and throw the country -- currently peaceful, prosperous and secure -- into chaos and civil war, certainly involving the deaths of thousands of innocents?Does it affect your answer if King Zod swears to the paladins that he'll never ask them to take any actions inconsistent with their oaths and alignment? Because he's no fool, and he doesn't want to lose a bunch of his best fighters.
Doug M.
Incorrect. All the slaves need help. That alone is reason enough to rise against Zod, and you are assuming the new rulers will be evil. From what I understood of the OP, those opposing Zod would be good. You can't really cite legitimate authority since the paladin may be a citizen of a kingdom, but he ultimately serves his deity and the paladin code. I am sure a lot of bad guys in adventures have "legitimate authority" as they see it.
What do you mean by lawful ruler? Having the lawful alignment and being a king is not a free pass. If you are in lawful, but evil then you are a target since paladins are supposed to
He is also evil. It seems we have a contradiction. Most people would agree that if a paladin has to choose between enforcing good or law he must choose good. It also requires helping those in need which leads us to the repressed citizens of the state. A paladin must look towards the greater good when such conflicts arise.
A paladin is very much a DM ran class, which is why we have so many paladin threads, but to handicap the paladin by putting him in a no win situation may be possible by RAW it won't work at a table that wishes for anyone to continue to play a paladin.For the sake of argument we can assume the double-edged sword is allowed to exist. The paladin can atone for facing down an evil leader, just as he atones for traveling with evil characters as needed. There is no doubt that the paladin would refuse to stand aside and watch as the forces of evil fought the forces of good.
You may be playing devil's advocate or you may really want to punish a paladin in such as situation if you were the DM. At the moment I can't really tell.
A paladin in the nine hells would have to give Asmodeus respect. Now, this paladin would smite devils just the same–championing good over evil is part of his code–but he would do so respectfully. Asmodeus is near godhood, and wouldn't give a single paladin enough attention to specifically trap him, but local lords in hell could trap a paladin with bureaucracy. A clever paladin will always give himself an out if he must make deals with lawful evil aligned beings, though, and must never agree to take action that advances the cause of evil over good. It is better to sacrifice his own life than to fall from grace in such a situation. The reward for sacrifice being the intercession of his deity on his behalf of joining his deity in their realm. Better option than becoming an ex-paladin in hell by far.If Zod swears that he will not ask the paladins to take any actions that violate their oath or alignment, he can then ask them for no aid whatsoever against his enemies. Interestingly, a paladin could take no action either for or against Zod. The paladin code clearly states that a paladin must "respect legitimate authority."It is debatable what a paladin would consider legitimate authority, though. Just being the son of the previous king might now be enough. Asmodeus is the legitimate authority of its domains by the Hells' own rules - does that mean a paladin who happens to go there must respect its edicts?
What do you mean give him respect? I am sure that very idea would vary from table to table.
Well, he's the legitimate heir under the kingdom's own rules of succession, he's accepted by a clear majority of the population, and he's brought general peace, prosperity and stability.# 2 and 3 can be done by any fairly capable tyrants, especially as acceptance (as in, lack of resistance) can be gained by fear as well. Ultimately, it boils down to this: in an ordered system, everyone has rights and responsibilities, even the king - heck, especially the king. Legitimacy isn't just "there", it stems from something, and in most systems it isn't just blood. If nothing else, the king, when crowned, is likely to take or be given an oath of office, signified by his acceptance of the crown and scepter. If the paladins believe that the king has not acted appropriately and his conduct is unfitting, they may well consider him illegitimate. In their eyes, he may well be undermining legitimate authority by the infamy he, as holder of the throne, is gaining.In an evil land, where the people are oppressed and their leaders corrupt and in the worship of false gods, where might makes right, paladins are welcome to challenge the legitimacy of the authority there by means of righteous combat.
However, this is a peaceful land where the populous accepts a popular sovereign and agrees to the lawful use of slave labor and liberal amounts of torture.
The people don't want to be freed from the tyrant. Why then, would a paladin become an agent of chaos and disorder and throw the kingdom out of whack? Its a good person's job, but its not a paladin's job.
Just because you agree to something that does not make it good. They could also agree that lying is an acceptable practice, but that does not make it ok. I am not saying a paladin can enforce his beliefs on them, but the paladin does not have to consent to majority rule or opinion.
Anything that a good person would put down because it is wrong a paladin would also have to put down. He can't just ignore it...and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
I think "those" would refer to the prince and his troops, while the "innocents" would refer to slaves and ill-treated.
The paladin can not just say "Well I know the king is evil, and many of the people accept it so I can just sit back and do nothing while these transgressions take place."
All this legitimate, paladin vs paladin discussion reminds me of one saying:
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
Every Paladin is bound to the Lawful Good, to his god and the laws of his god. Even if he's lawfull he will never respect evil laws.
Legitimate, from my point of view means for a Paladin "legitimate in the eyes of my god!"
Of course he will deal with an evil king in respect of his position, at least he's a king, even if he's evil.
However, this is a peaceful land where the populous accepts a popular sovereign and agrees to the lawful use of slave labor and liberal amounts of torture.
The people don't want to be freed from the tyrant. Why then, would a paladin become an agent of chaos and disorder and throw the kingdom out of whack? Its a good person's job, but its not a paladin's job.
Eh, accepts can mean simply "not willing to raise arms against a superior force just yet." As for how popular he is... that is debatable. The slave labor was unlawful just a few months ago - and if the slaves are actually former citizens, the king just removed any rights from part of the populace (probably those unpopular enough or weak enough). If not - as I suppose they would be the enslaved prisoners of the war - he just did it from someone the populace would care about less. It doesn't make it any less evil, just more politically expedient. He advocates the spread of an evil religion (and thus moral system) paladins would likely find repellent on a very intimate level, and has little care for the tools of evil, such as torture.
As for the people not wanting to be freed - that is debatable. Some people very much want it. Others are too fearful to rise up. Some have, effectively, been "bribed" (as in, they value the benefits too much) to revolt. And what of the future? The prince came in in a weak position (commonly expected to be disinherited - there are likely rumors he "sped" his father's death) which might be the reason for his relative beneficence. What about in five years, when the opposition is weaker? Paladins are good first, lawful second. If something is a good person's job, there chances are they should be doing something about it. Even those who would prefer to avoid a civil war (and possibly pressure the king politically) won't serve under the despot's banner if such a war does come.
Tryn makes a good point btw. The paladin's code and views determine what he or she views as legitimate. Just because someone is the first child of the old monarch and has a crown on his brow might not be enough for a paladin.
He is also evil. It seems we have a contradiction. Most people would agree that if a paladin has to choose between enforcing good or law he must choose good. It also requires helping those in need which leads us to the repressed citizens of the state. A paladin must look towards the greater good when such conflicts arise.
A paladin is very much a DM ran class, which is why we have so many paladin threads, but to handicap the paladin by putting him in a no win situation may be possible by RAW it won't work at a table that wishes for anyone to continue to play a paladin.
For the sake of argument we can assume the double-edged sword is allowed to exist. The paladin can atone for facing down an evil leader, just as he atones for traveling with evil characters as needed. There is no doubt that the paladin would refuse to stand aside and watch as the forces of evil fought the forces of good.
You may be playing devil's advocate or you may really want to punish a paladin in such as situation if you were the DM. At the moment I can't really tell.
I am looking at the situation from the perspective of having played a paladin in 'no win' situations and walked away victorious.
Lets say you wander to the dark heart of the swamp, wherein you meet a powerful hag. You appraise the witch as an overwhelming challenge, being barely level 2, and having a party of 8 still containing level 1 characters who were almost eaten by the trio of hellhounds you vanquished before, but just barely, finishing at -11 hp. As a paladin, I wanted desperately to smite evil, but the innocents that might have been sacrificed in the process weighed heavily on my conscience. Instead I chose to pick the "respect legitimate authority" part of the code, put on my best cheerful smile, and acknowledged the authority of a creature in the wild with the most power. She had information that would be helpful in our quest, so I told her. "If you know what I am, you know that I cannot tell a lie. I wish to barter with you in exchange for this information. Ask of us a task which my code does not prohibit, and I shall gladly trade you honest work for your valuable information." She wasn't lying about the work she wanted us to do, but she wanted us to kill an equally powerful creature of good alignment, so the "champion good over evil" part of the code got me out of the contract, which hinged on the task being in line with my code.
Falling is easy. If you want to follow your own personal code of ethics, play an inquisitor. If you think you can play a character who would sacrifice his life for his honor, who makes sacrifices for the sake of others, and who must make painful choices to embody purity, honor and goodness tempered by law and discipline, play a paladin.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that as a player I would expect my paladin to fall if he engaged in the civil war on the side of either king. If he could not find a way to avert bloody civil war than he would fail to live up to his code.
Zod isn't using the army to rape and pillage his people. Slavery isn't inherently evil, perhaps the slaves can earn their freedom on their own through nonviolent means within the system. The biggest problem is that bigotry is not against the paladin's code.
If the worst Zod is doing is being racist, the people have it good, considering that they could be unwilling sacrifices to Asmodeus. If he starts sacrificing people to Asmodeus then the paladins have cause for action, but until then they should assume that he is going through a phase and that he will grow out of it when he realizes that devil worship isn't cool just because all of his friends are doing it. If the paladins have a duty to the crown, that duty is to council the king toward righteousness and goodness, not to shove it down his throat at swordpoint. Shoving things down people's throat at swordpoint is more of a lawful evil kind of thing. So maybe Zod is more Lawful Neutral than he is lawful evil. In which case, he should be helped along the right path, not executed because he goes about righteous and valorous combat and peaceful and lawful rule "for the wrong reasons."
However, this is a peaceful land where the populous accepts a popular sovereign and agrees to the lawful use of slave labor and liberal amounts of torture.
The people don't want to be freed from the tyrant. Why then, would a paladin become an agent of chaos and disorder and throw the kingdom out of whack? Its a good person's job, but its not a paladin's job.
Eh, accepts can mean simply "not willing to raise arms against a superior force just yet." As for how popular he is... that is debatable. The slave labor was unlawful just a few months ago - and if the slaves are actually former citizens, the king just removed any rights from part of the populace (probably those unpopular enough or weak enough). If not - as I suppose they would be the enslaved prisoners of the war - he just did it from someone the populace would care about less. It doesn't make it any less evil, just more politically expedient. He advocates the spread of an evil religion (and thus moral system) paladins would likely find repellent on a very intimate level, and has little care for the tools of evil, such as torture.
As for the people not wanting to be freed - that is debatable. Some people very much want it. Others are too fearful to rise up. Some have, effectively, been "bribed" (as in, they value the benefits too much) to revolt. And what of the future? The prince came in in a weak position (commonly expected to be disinherited - there are likely rumors he "sped" his father's death) which might be the reason for his relative beneficence. What about in five years, when the opposition is weaker? Paladins are good first, lawful second. If something is a good person's job, there chances are they should be doing something about it. Even those who would prefer to avoid a civil war (and possibly pressure the king politically) won't serve under the despot's banner if such a war does come.
Tryn makes a good point btw. The paladin's code and views determine what he or she views as legitimate. Just...
Paladins aren't disallowed torture if they believe it is the most straightforward course of action. The code does not prohibit bigots from being paladins either. So the only "evil law" would be slavery, and then it boils down to how evil the slavery is, which only the OP can answer.
So Douglas, how evil is Zod's slavery law?
..and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Single worst part of the paladin code, you never want to be the kind of guy who enforces this because harm can be defined as
actual or potential ill effect or danger
Congratulations! You are now the thought police, and must punish everyone who can do or thinks of doing something to someone who is
not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences
Now that you have defined your personal moral and ethical code as including policing "worshiping the wrong god" and "having the wrong opinion about what should or should not be a law," have fun with falling from grace whenever you role play. Ever. Never bring up this part of the code, it is the worst part of the code and should only be used in dire circumstances.
A peaceful country with a charismatic ruler does not count as dire circumstances.
Actually, unless you make the claim torture is a non-evil act, paladins certainly are disallowed to use or support it. That it might be "straightforward" doesn't really matter - good isn't always easy, and in fact often involves taking the more inconvenient path. Just because the victim may be an enemy (or evil) doesn't mean EVERYTHING done to them is ok for a good character.
Bigotry of some sort is possible, but acting on it to the extend that you cause another harm just out of spite is non-good. Not allowing one's son or daughter to marry a Varisian or half-orc is generally ok for a LG character; rounding up the local thugs when there was a robbery so you can check if they know anything can be more or less acceptable. But if a halfling merchant got robbed and beaten and his cart overturned just because some local toughs decided to crack down on the "thieving, usurous bastards," a LG character doesn't turn a blind eye, paladin or no.
Sure, if you lawyer it enough the paladin code can mess you up at every turn. Putting your blinders on and walking through atrocities with the "not my business, sorry" is even worse in my book, though. If the letter goes against the spirit, go with the spirit - and if you aren't sure, check with the nearest cleric of your faith.
Actually, unless you make the claim torture is a non-evil act, paladins certainly are disallowed to use or support it. That it might be "straightforward" doesn't really matter - good isn't always easy, and in fact often involves taking the more inconvenient path. Just because the victim may be an enemy (or evil) doesn't mean EVERYTHING done to them is ok for a good character.
Bigotry of some sort is possible, but acting on it to the extend that you cause another harm just out of spite is non-good. Not allowing one's son or daughter to marry a Varisian or half-orc is generally ok for a LG character; rounding up the local thugs when there was a robbery so you can check if they know anything can be more or less acceptable. But if a halfling merchant got robbed and beaten and his cart overturned just because some local toughs decided to crack down on the "thieving, usurous bastards," a LG character doesn't turn a blind eye, paladin or no.
Sure, if you lawyer it enough the paladin code can mess you up at every turn. Putting your blinders on and walking through atrocities with the "not my business, sorry" is even worse in my book, though. If the letter goes against the spirit, go with the spirit - and if you aren't sure, check with the nearest cleric of your faith.
+1
I am looking at the situation from the perspective of having played a paladin in 'no win' situations and walked away victorious.
1. There is no such thing as walking away from a no-win situation and being victorious. It goes against the very definition of no-win.
2. Allowing evil to prosper and take advantage of people is in no way a victory for any paladin that I have seen at any table, even the badly played ones that just want to kill everything.
Lets say you wander to the dark heart of the swamp, wherein you meet a powerful hag. You appraise the witch as an overwhelming challenge, being barely level 2, and having a party of 8 still containing level 1 characters who were almost eaten by the trio of hellhounds you vanquished before, but just barely, finishing at -11 hp. As a paladin, I wanted desperately to smite evil, but the innocents that might have been sacrificed in the process weighed heavily on my conscience. Instead I chose to pick the "respect legitimate authority" part of the code, put on my best cheerful smile, and acknowledged the authority of a creature in the wild with the most power. She had information that would be helpful in our quest, so I told her. "If you know what I am, you know that I cannot tell a lie. I wish to barter with you in exchange for this information. Ask of us a task which my code does not prohibit, and I shall gladly trade you honest work for your valuable information." She wasn't lying about the work she wanted us to do, but she wanted us to kill an equally powerful creature of good alignment, so the "champion good over evil" part of the code got me out of the contract, which hinged on the task being in line with my code.
Who are the innocents in this story? Do you mean your party?
Are you trying to kill her just because she is a hag? If so I don't think that is right. Hags don't possess the evil subtype, and having an evil alignment is not enough to warrant being attacked. A person can be evil, but be to much of a coward to act on his thoughts in much the same manner as a good person can be more of the stay at home type, instead of adventuring.Why is her authority legitimate, and it seems a large part of the story is missing also. How did you find out she had information about your question? There are other questions, but my main point is I can't really see how you telling me an incomplete story is helping anything.
Falling is easy. If you want to follow your own personal code of ethics, play an inquisitor. If you think you can play a character who would sacrifice his life for his honor, who makes sacrifices for the sake of others, and who must make painful choices to embody purity, honor and goodness tempered by law and discipline, play a paladin.I suppose what I am trying to say is that as a player I would expect my paladin to fall if he engaged in the civil war on the side of either king. If he could not find a way to avert bloody civil war than he would fail to live up to his code.
I would expect for your player to fall if he chose law over good. You can commit a chaotic act, but not an evil one as an example with most DM's and it might get a blind eye, if it is occasional that is. The one evil act would most likely turn you into a warrior though, just as ignoring evil would. To do nothing is also against a paladin's code since he is required to help innocents in need.
So between the two of us doing nothing or taking either side will cause the paladin to lose his powers. At least if he king is overthrown he can regain his powers, assuming he loses them. If he does nothing that creates a never-ending situation so he never gets them back most likely.
Zod isn't using the army to rape and pillage his people. Slavery isn't inherently evil, perhaps the slaves can earn their freedom on their own through nonviolent means within the system. The biggest problem is that bigotry is not against the paladin's code.
Slavery could be considered a form of harm. Allowing innocents to be harmed is against the paladin code. Even if you want to argue that the idea of slavery is not harm the actions that it takes to enforce it are a part of it and they cause harm. No matter how you cut it slavery is bring harm, physical to some, and mental to others. If you want to say the slaves like it then it is not slavery, but volunteering, however since the OP has called them out as slaves we definitely know it is not volunteering.
If the worst Zod is doing is being racist, the people have it good, considering that they could be unwilling sacrifices to Asmodeus.
I would say they might have it better, but better is not by any means necessarily good.
If he starts sacrificing people to Asmodeus then the paladins have cause for action, but until then they should assume that he is going through a phase and that he will grow out of it when he realizes that devil worship isn't cool just because all of his friends are doing it.
So people just go threw evil phases and then start being nice. Whether you look at this from a simulation or gamist stand point I don't see that ever happening.
If the paladins have a duty to the crown, that duty is to council the king toward righteousness and goodness, not to shove it down his throat at swordpoint. Shoving things down people's throat at swordpoint is more of a lawful evil kind of thing. So maybe Zod is more Lawful Neutral than he is lawful evil. In which case, he should be helped along the right path, not executed because he goes about righteous and valorous combat and peaceful and lawful rule "for the wrong reasons."
The paladins have a duty to their deity and the concepts of good and {rightful} law. The king while high is not most high, and he only has the paladin's backing for as long as he is good. The paladin is helping people which his code commands him to do. The OP said he is LE, not LN. I am sure he can come up with more points to get that across. In any event even if he was LN with evil tendencies the paladin should still be helping the people if he can. Right now with Prince Kindly backing him is a great opportunity to make things good for everyone(not the new King of course) again.
I do agree that diplomacy should be tried first since a paladin should try to preserve life, but in the end he must do right by the code, and it is not about him doing things for the wrong reasons along. It is also about the methods.PS:
He's a chuckling sadist who likes hurting people;
Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.
I am sure that kills the neutral argument.
Paladins aren't disallowed torture if they believe it is the most straightforward course of action. The code does not prohibit bigots from being paladins either.
Torture is seen as evil in the game. I think pathfinder needs a book similar to exalted deeds which list in detail what is not good to do.
|
Paladins aren't disallowed torture if they believe it is the most straightforward course of action. The code does not prohibit bigots from being paladins either.Torture is seen as evil in the game. I think pathfinder needs a book similar to exalted deeds which list in detail what is not good to do.
Please no.
"So, poison is evil... but ... here are Ravages! They're just like poison, but kosher and 100% Paladin approved."
Hmm... I consider 'evil' in my games to be a willful action (or lack thereof) that brings harm to innocent persons.
Mind you, this means acting with such an intent in mind, which solves two of the common paladin traps of a) unforseen consequences that may occur and b) having no option that can avoid or minimize the damage done. Because this is a moral and ethical issue, it becomes an issue between the paladin and his or her god (or, the player and his or her gm), which should be worked out either ooc or via 'meditative roleplaying' of some sort.
In addition, the 'greater Good' takes precedence over short-term loss and gain. Not in the 'well, I know what's best in the long run' sense (which really, would take a team of highly skilled diviners working nonstop, what with variable futures and all), but in a 'I have a big G on my character sheet' sense.
So, an evil king would need to be overthrown, and a paladin working towards such a goal would still be obligated to live up to his code. So, work to create as peaceful a solution as he can manage. Perhaps attempt, through whatever means, to have the revolutionary brother challenge the king to a joust or duel with the kingdom on the line.
In order to build support for the revolution, smaller-scale good like attempting to free the slaves of the nearby plantation or stopping the brutality of the local militia would be a good start. Not a full-scale war, unless the evil King decides to formally root out all the opposing forces with his royal army. Which, by that point, the revolutionaries would have likely garnered enough support to at the least make a stand. This is not a willful act of war, but standing to defend the choice of defending innocents.
At least, that's about how I rule paladin's code choices; good before law, Big G as an ends, little g as a means, and so on.
Good paladins would only fight against one another under these circumstances if a misunderstanding were to occur, as their code is to Good, then to their king (whom they would only serve if he fit the first bill).
Knights in sevice of the king are not paladins; they are cavaliers. Knights in service of the church, a theocracy, or the like; also cavaliers.
Knights in the direct service of a Good god? Paladin.
Paladins aren't disallowed torture if they believe it is the most straightforward course of action. The code does not prohibit bigots from being paladins either.Torture is seen as evil in the game. I think pathfinder needs a book similar to exalted deeds which list in detail what is not good to do.Please no.
"So, poison is evil... but ... here are Ravages! They're just like poison, but kosher and 100% Paladin approved."
Yeah... second that. Poison is not inherently evil to me, though it is often used for such. No point in creating 'alignment friendly' versions of a neutral product.
Torture, on the other hand, I think falls under the category of 'willful cause of undue harm,' and involves a level of sadism that I don't think can be considered good (remember, little g for the means, big G for the ends).
Slavery is objectively considered evil, due to the lack of rights given to the enslaved. Not all slaves are mistreated, and some eventually come to enjoy their situation as such, but these are closer to indefinitely indentured servants than what are normally thought of as slaves. A paladin will not support slavery itself, but would not likely have a problem with indentured servitude or the like. Any slaves who wish to remain with their current master should be free to do so as servants, though they would now be recieving pay of some form, or at least have the right to leave if they choose.
Wow... two long posts in a row this early in the morning... I need to go get coffee so I can shut up >.>
We had an anarcho-communistic elven paladin character that had to fight another paladin who was a loyal servant of the local ruler. They had different ideas of what constituted "legitimate authority" as well as who's responsibility certain events was; primarily, a worker's strike had been met with deadly violence from the town guards, resulting in three dead, among them a friend of the elven paladin. He saw it as ultimately the mayor's fault, and since he saw the rulership as illegitimate to begin with, that was the "final drop". The mayor's paladin saw it as the local police's fault, as well as the strikers who'd broken the law.
I think there's two possible ways to read the "must respect legitimate authority" line. Either, it's "legitimate" as "the one who by law has the power", or it's "the one who falls within the bounds that the paladin or paladin order sees as legitimate authority". I'm firmly for the second interpretation, as the first one leads to a paladin not being able to fight an evil king, or a devil in hell, or whatever.
So since we use the second one, paladin characters get their views on "legitimate authority" stated when they are created.
Additional data points:-- Zod isn't enforcing the worship of Asmodeus on anyone (though he's certainly not going to discourage it).
He openly worship an evil god, so no paladin will ever work with him
-- Zod's word is good. He'll stick to deals and keep his promises.
-- He knows that the paladins are an important support to the kingdom, so he's willing to bend pretty far backwards to keep them on side -- no missions that violate their alignment, and the like. There are plenty of jobs that the paladins can do without serving evil ends, from patrolling the demon-haunted forest to diplomatic missions (the kingdom needs a new trade treaty). Zod's pitch will be, basically, "Obey the King, but serve the kingdom."
Only the "obey the king" part is a violation of their oath, because in this case it means "obey the evil"
-- The slavery is a combination of local debt slavery and importation of slaves from a nearby kingdom where it's legal. The kingdom is somewhat underpopulated thanks to constant wars and monsters, so there's a labor shortage. Zod thinks that slavery will help correct this. (Strictly speaking, he's right, though there will be some fairly hefty side effects.) The persecution of minorities is, unfortunately, pretty popular.
Slavery is evil, regardless of the reason. Taking someones freedom against his will is an evil act.
-- Support: a clear majority of the populace are at least content with Zod's rule, and a significant minority -- not all of them evil -- vigorously support him because they believe the kingdom needs a strong ruler to protect it from its many foes.
Exchange "Zod" with the name of a german dictator... sounds familiar?
Yes, this was an evil rulership, even if the most germans are content with it.So sorry, but this wouldn't work. At least not in with the way I think of Paladins.
Slavery is evil, regardless of the reason. Taking someones freedom against his will is an evil act.
So a paladin that imprisons a bad guy insta-falls?
Slavery is evil, regardless of the reason. Taking someones freedom against his will is an evil act.So a paladin that imprisons a bad guy insta-falls?
You're a good damn lawyer :P
"Taking someones freedom against his will to put him into slavery is an evil act. "better?^^
Slavery is evil, regardless of the reason. Taking someones freedom against his will is an evil act.So a paladin that imprisons a bad guy insta-falls?You're a good damn lawyer :P
"Taking someones freedom against his will to put him into slavery is an evil act. "
better?^^
That kinda goes into circular argument territory. "Slavery is evil because taking someone's freedom to put him into slavery is an evil act".
What about an evildoer sentenced to labor for some time? It's slavery, and used to great extent to punish young criminals in TRW without exposing them to prisons (which would likely just harden them into more dangerous criminals).
Also, your "will" is kind of a hard thing to argue since it assumes that the existence of a free will is a well-accepted and undebated fact, which it isn't. Exactly what constitutes slavery depends greatly on whom you ask. "Wage slavery" is a great example of this.
I'm not advocating slavery, I'm just saying that it, like many other things, is a gray area (albeit a dark shade of gray, that is) just like imprisonment, capital punishments (which paladins often seem to like) and any other sort of penalty a person could get.
To be clear, I would not put PC paladins in this situation. If I put this into my campaign, it would be a tragic situation that the PCs happened to wander into -- and one they would have no obligation to get involved in.As wraithstrike correctly pointed out, a paladin is "DM defined". Or rather, playing a paladin requires an additional level of tacit agreement between DM and player -- the player commits to trying to role-play this special and somewhat difficult character class, and the DM commits to not screwing him over with insoluble ethical or moral conundra. "The ONLY way to stop Demogorgon is to KILL THIS CHILD" -- ugh, no.
But for PCs to watch NPC paladins wrestling with a painful dilemma? Sure.
Doug M.
Ah, in such a situation, the personality of the paladins would play a big role. Zod may be a sadist but hes not committing heinous acts. I would expect two camps of paladins. Camp one would be those willing to fall temporarily to aid their lord or choice–Zod or Kindly respectively–in battle likely the younger, more impulsive paladins. Camp two would be traditionalists who treat their code in a very lawyerly manner. The fist camp would train king kindly or bolster the forces of Zod, and the second would advocate for peace and for the people using their position. It would make for some dramatic role playing, arguments between two schools of thought amidst the possibility of a brewing civil war. You could probably take some inspiration from this thread and other paladin discussion threads to get ideas for the personalities of the paladins involved, depending on how many NPCs you need.
WOW I really enjoy threads like this. The ethical debates of the paladin's code is what keeps me interested in this hobby. My hat's off to you all! Now, jumping right into the debate: my interpretation of the paladin's code is that they are hard universalists when it comes to ethics. They believe there is a universal moral code for everyone. I see them following Immanuel Kant's theories closely.
The essence of the paladin's moral code then is this: If your action is seen as a contradiction or irrationality when applied to everyone, you should not do it. Furthermore, paladins would see each rational being (anyone with an Intelligence above 3) as an independent being, or an "end" as Kant called them. It is only when rational beings try to use others as a means to an end (a stepping stone, treating women like objects, etc.) that the balance is upset. Paladins are there to step in when that happens.
Using these grounds, paladins would oppose slavery but not hard labor or imprisonment. Slaves are treated as objects according to the code. A prisoner is still a man and still afforded certain rights. He cannot be bought and sold as property.
Paladins oppose devils not just for alignment purposes, but also because devils see all mortal men as merely fodder. They give them power in order to damn their souls.
The important part for most Paladins when dealing with slavery, even debt slavery, is that the people are being treated with respect and fairness. The little g in this case would be to badger the slave trade and force the king to enact laws on the treatment (physical and mental abuse, etc) of slaves. Where the paladins are given the hooks to free any slaves from masters or debts of owners who are abusing the situation.
Very rarely is slavery as benign as regular trade employment because of the position of authority create is ripe for abuse. However similar abuses occur in non-slave labor (hence modern labor laws). A starting point for the big long term G is paladins stepping in and making sure slaves are treated like people and not livestock.