I know, I know, why here again?
Because I'm curious about something.
Generally speaking, I'm curious about something with the way people fall when deciding which "branch" of alignment to follow when Good and Law come into conflict.
For example: A Paladin has knowledge that a criminal about to be executed is actually innocent, but has neither the time to prove it or the influence to stop it.
Now, a good GM isn't going to put this situation into play, but this isn't about the situation, it's about people's reaction to the situation.
In my experience, most people will say that a paladin in such a situation (break the law to save innocent life or uphold the law and allow innocent life to be lost) will choose Good over Law.
My issue with that position is that generally following the law but choosing the greater Good over legitimate Law is a characteristic of Neutral Good as an alignment, and a truly Lawful Good follower is the type who understands that sometimes not all Good can be done because the Law needs to be upheld.
No matter which way the Paladin in question goes, they'll be due for an atonement quest.
My question is why do people assume that the choice will always be to go the Neutral Good route instead of the Lawful Neutral route? According to descriptions of Lawful Good, upholding the Law is just as important to a person of that mindset, because they understand just how important rules and structure are to society and the greater good as a whole.
tl;dr - If you break the law for the sake of Good, you are Neutral Good, not Lawful Good.
(Question inspired by reading through alignments here:
http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know, I know, why here again?
Because I'm curious about something.Generally speaking, I'm curious about something with the way people fall when deciding which "branch" of alignment to follow when Good and Law come into conflict.
For example: A Paladin has knowledge that a criminal about to be executed is actually innocent, but has neither the time to prove it or the influence to stop it.
Now, a good GM isn't going to put this situation into play, but this isn't about the situation, it's about people's reaction to the situation.In my experience, most people will say that a paladin in such a situation (break the law to save innocent life or uphold the law and allow innocent life to be lost) will choose Good over Law.
My issue with that position is that generally following the law but choosing the greater Good over legitimate Law is a characteristic of Neutral Good as an alignment, and a truly Lawful Good follower is the type who understands that sometimes not all Good can be done because the Law needs to be upheld.No matter which way the Paladin in question goes, they'll be due for an atonement quest.
My question is why do people assume that the choice will always be to go the Neutral Good route instead of the Lawful Neutral route? According to descriptions of Lawful Good, upholding the Law is just as important to a person of that mindset, because they understand just how important rules and structure are to society and the greater good as a whole.(Question inspired by reading through alignments here:
http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html)
The way I've always seen it, the Good part of the alignment gives the Law part of it some added flexibility in scenarios like that. "An unjust law is no law at all" and all that. Add in my (personal) belief that Law is not legal, but more of having a personal code, and that for religious characters divine law trumps the laws of men (It would be rather silly if a Paladin in Cheliax burst into a diabolist cult's ritual to save the orphans they were sacrificing to Mammon, only to go home when it turns out they have a permit to do stuff like that) I would say a paladin rescuing an innocent from a unjust execution would be grounds for commendation, not falling.
Just my two CP, though.
"An unjust law is no law at all"
I see what you're saying, but I wanna bring up a point that you made me think of.
In my question, I'm talking about legitimate laws. Clearly a Paladin has carte blanche to ignore illegitimate law, but is less free to do so otherwise.Using my original example, suppose the law was similar to US law in the use of a judge, jury, and legal representation with two sides arguing, one prosecuting and the other defending. Say this Paladin was able to give his testimony but was rolling poorly that day and the opposition's lawyer was able to defeat his argument.
The system is failing because it is imperfect, but not because it is unjust.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Respecting legitimate authority is not the same thing as obeying said authority when it's in error. One can respect legitimate authority, but still disagree with it.
Assuming a reasonably fair a just trial goes wrong, a Paladin would first exhaust every form of legal recourse available. Trial by combat, appealing to higher authorities, etc. If that fails, the Paladin could chose to preserve innocent life even if it meant going against the local leadership. The Law would be far more damaged by taking the life of an innocent than it would by the Paladin protecting said innocent.
In such a case I'd imagine the Paladin would take all reasonable measures to avoid causing harm during the breakout (nonlethal damage only, etc). Most likely the Paladin would focus on finding the information needed to clear the innocent's name, and getting that proof to the proper authorities.
That said, I think it would also be reasonable for a Paladin to, with utmost reluctance, accept that trying to stop the execution with force would probably cause more harm than good. It would cause too much chaos and put too many innocent lives in danger.
Basically, I think that there's more than one way for a Paladin to try to be both Lawful and Good in this situation. In a dilemma where neither answer is entirely right, a Paladin should be able to pick either one.
Basically, I think that there's more than one way for a Paladin to try to be both Lawful and Good in this situation. In a dilemma where neither answer is entirely right, a Paladin should be able to pick either one.
I entirely agree with this. A lawful good character will try to act within the law until that law fails them. Then they have a choice as to whether breaking the prisoner out would do more harm or good.
A Chaotic Good character would be more likely to break the prisoner out before the trial (and prove their innocence after they're out of harm's way).
A Neutral Good character could go either way.
A character's alignment doesn't represent what they must do, just what they feel inclined to do. A LG character would want to save an innocent prisoner, and would want to act within the law. There may be times when they cannot accomplish both at once. They'll be unhappy about this, but unhappiness doesn't mean "Fall".
first of all the fall of the Paladin depends on the god and I doubt many gods would rather loose a powerful servant on the material plane than quibble over small print when they were clearly doing their best to uphold their code. I think if a Paladin fell over that situation that would be the GM being a dick.
Furthering the God logic thing, as someone else has already said, at the end of the day the Paladin is working for a deity, not a local government, so in cases such as these I think looking to what their god would prefer would be the right course of action, a Paladin of Sarenrea should be more inclined to save the innocent than uphold a law which is doing harm. A paladin of Abadar might be the other way around.
I never bought too hard into the "Paladins follow a god" idea.
Sure, some deities have portfolios that align very well with a Paladin's code, but the idea of the Lawful Good champion of the Chaotic Good deity just doesn't make any sense.
That's what Clerics are for, after all. :)
I've never really brought Paladins not worshiping a god. Given that their powers are divine and come from a god.
Furthermore aren't they only allowed to be one step away from their gods alignment? As in can't be worshippers of Chaotic good gods.
Touché. Substitute Chaotic Good with Lawful Neutral (ie: the god who couldn't care a whit about Goodness).
Makes even less sense than my incorrect example. ;)
As for Divinity, Oracles, Druids, Rangers, etc. all don't need to actively worship a god/ess in order to have access to divine powers.
Isn't Paladins needing a deity only in PFS though? The core rulebook has no need for them to worship anyone in particular, and my group often plays them as powered by Goodness alone.
|
Touché. Substitute Chaotic Good with Lawful Neutral (ie: the god who couldn't care a whit about Goodness).
Makes even less sense than my incorrect example. ;)
As for Divinity, Oracles, Druids, Rangers, etc. all don't need to actively worship a god/ess in order to have access to divine powers.
A Paladin worshiping a LN deity would do so because of the Good said LN deity can do, and empower them to do.
Oracles not needing a deity is their whole thing.
Druids and Rangers are powered by nature.
Touché. Substitute Chaotic Good with Lawful Neutral (ie: the god who couldn't care a whit about Goodness).
Makes even less sense than my incorrect example. ;)
As for Divinity, Oracles, Druids, Rangers, etc. all don't need to actively worship a god/ess in order to have access to divine powers.
Well no it makes fine sense, that character just happens to be more sympathetic to people than his patron deity, he absolutely isn't opposed to Good, where as a Chaotic Good deity is opposed to the rule of law.
You're just favoring the importance of good to a Paladin making sense over the importance of law, for no apparent reason.
so again in cases such as these refer back to what you think your god would want you to do.
Sarenrea protect the innocent.
Abadar uphold the law.
Druids and rangers do nature magic and Oracle lore explains that some source of magic blesses them with divine power at birth more often than not, so why would they worship something? An oracle cannot fall, a paladin can, a fall represents that they are displeasing their god. Just like a druid can fall if they cease to revere nature or stop being neutral as nature is.
Anything that can fall is beholden unto something, that is basic logic.
I'm pretty sure each the church of each god that can have paladins even has their own specific code, the code of Iomedea won't be the same as Sarenrea.
The laws are just, even if imperfect. Breaking them to save what everyone believes to be a criminal would only weaken the system and encourage others to bypass the law. How many innocents will die to rescue this one? How many criminals will this breakout inspire?
I don't think attacking a just system is staple LG paladin behavior. Indeed seems like a great path to doing all the worst things for all the best reasons.
Absolutely a Paladin is beholden unto something - their code. Their own internal sense of morality is so strong and righteous that if they fail themselves, it will affect them adversely.
This being mechanically distinct from a Cleric's duty to their God and religion which is handed to them from on high and can be significantly more fickle (depending on the GM).
Point in fact, a Paladin with a deity can disobey that deity and not lose their powers if their disobedience didn't break their code. A Cleric who disobeys their deity will face consequences regardless of personal code.
Absolutely a Paladin is beholden unto something - their code. Their own internal sense of morality is so strong and righteous that if they fail themselves, it will affect them adversely.
This being mechanically distinct from a Cleric's duty to their God and religion which is handed to them from on high and can be significantly more fickle (depending on the GM).
Point in fact, a Paladin with a deity can disobey that deity and not lose their powers if their disobedience didn't break their code. A Cleric who disobeys their deity will face consequences regardless of personal code.
So what their fall represents some kind of internal block because they feel guilty for braking their own code? And then they have to cast atonement, to atone to their own subconscious I presume? Now that sounds like pop psychology, they have divine power, fueled by gods, they're directly opposed to those things that directly oppose good deities (evil outsiders). Just because a code isn't the same as what would be expected of your average Worshiper doesn't mean they aren't connected to a god in some way.
They are mechanically distinct from a Cleric in a great many ways a Paladin is a tool in a gods Arsenal, A Cleric is another.
Its like comparing Joan of Arc to John the Baptist
Clerics are their to cure the lame and work miracles and gather a flock and combat evil magical forces. Paladins are their to protect the weak and smite the guilty. In the heat of battle a Paladin can't be expected to recall the exact answer from their holy text, because in the time it takes to do so people die.
If a Cleric decides to wield his magic to defy their deity that's different.
A Paladin of Sarenrea saving an innocent man from hanging is quite different from a Cleric of Pharasma creating some zombies. So yeah the way the punishments are worked and the servants are judged will be different.
Now a Paladin of Sarenrea watching an innocent man die, thats a problem, especially since she is the Godess of redemption and doesn't agree with the death penalty at all let alone arbitrarily upholding it in spite of loss of innocent life.
Adabar on the other hand follows more utilitarian logic, the Law must be protected if we make the exception for the one it weakens the law similar to the logic described by a Goblin priest. (its also the slippery slope fallacy)
Furthermore with reference to your disobeying a god not a code, a Paladin's code is not the same as what a deity would expect from your average Joe worshiper.
A warrior who follows Iomadea can't be expected to stick to the same code as a Paladin of Iomadea because one of them is a magical superpowered servant, the other is a commoner trained to hold a sword in front of them.
This idea that everysingle paladin would have the same code when they don't have the same god is crap frankly. Even if their power doesn't come from a god, which I find nonsensical (given they have spells specifically named divine favor), they still almost invariably have faith. Even between followers of gods of the same alignment For instance Torag vs Iomadea there will be different reactions to different circumstances.
Expecting a paladin who worships Sarenrea and a Paladin who worships Abadar to fall for the same reaction to a problem of Law vs Good is blinkered and a brilliant example of the alignment system being treated as a linear set of shackles that limit players, rather than AT MOST some guidelines meant to enrich the game, and as a minimum, some rules for what spells certain clerics can and can't cast.
Honestly when your treatment of all lawful good must react the same way to the same problem you no longer have characters you have an algorithm and you're better off discarding the alignment system as its doing more harm than good.
[T]hey have divine power, fueled by gods...
We won't see eye to eye on this because of this statement. You insist Paladins get their power from patron deities, but while that may be true for specific game settings (Golarion, for instance), it's not true about the class itself.
Forgotten Realms, for instance, has examples of Paladins who take deities as patrons of their cause and Paladins who eschew gods entirely.Some settings may not even have gods and the divine power provided to Clerics and such is actually provided in a different way, from other powers.
Etc.
[T]hey have divine power, fueled by gods...We won't see eye to eye on this because of this statement. You insist Paladins get their power from patron deities, but while that may be true for specific game settings (Golarion, for instance), it's not true about the class itself.
Forgotten Realms, for instance, has examples of Paladins who take deities as patrons of their cause and Paladins who eschew gods entirely.
Some settings may not even have gods and the divine power provided to Clerics and such is actually provided in a different way, from other powers.
Etc.
Well then allow me to refine the parameters.
Any paladin that follows a god (the vast majority) who finds an instance of Law vs Good is best referring back to the rules of their god.
If they don't then you're better off asking on a character to character bases in instances where a Paladin has to choose law or good. Not on a class bases but on a character bases.
Also in such situations it seems ludicrous to me that a Paladin would fall.
I wouldn't assume the Paladin breaks the law to free the guy. There are a lot of other options.
- Use limited influence to stall for time, or limited time to try raising public protest against the injustice. It might not work, but an earnest attempt was made.
- Accept present limitations, but work to correct the problem that caused the issue, sparing others in the future the same fate.
- Pursue posthumous justice for the falsely condemned.
- Deal with matters where they are better able to help.
- Assure the condemned that you will provide their family with any possible assistance, providing the condemned with some comfort before their death.
Paladins can't save everybody, and aren't obligated to try.