So i'm making a chosen one paladin. maybe adding the Feysworn prestige class i don't know yet.
point being i need help making lawful good work.
i usually play almost exclusively neutral good, i like being a good guy and having the freedom to do save the day in whatever way i want.
i have a few questions regarding LG
can one lie if it could save lives?
how does one handle someone who is following laws but abusing them and in general doing bad things.
like how lenient can LG be.
this isnt for anything specific just general questions.
can one lie if it could save lives?
Yes, unless you're on oath. Although it's better if you can just talk around the point. It's not a lie merely to keep the truth to yourself.
how does one handle someone who is following laws but abusing them and in general doing bad things.
Tell them to stop being a dick.
A good thing to keep in mind while playing a LG character (particularly a paladin) is that though you respect legitimate authority and you believe that the law is essential to finding justice and thus can greatly benefit people, you are not the police.
While you believe in the law, acting outside of your station by trying to arrest people for minor offenses is unlawful because you don't actually have the authority to arrest people. If you see someone breaking some law, the best you can do is lecture them about how their actions, though perhaps justifiable in the moment, would lead to societal collapse is everybody acted that way.
The key thing to keep in mind though is that all of your moralizing should be directed at helping people, not at shaming them into doing better. When in doubt, forgive people.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sit down with the GM and have a 5-10 min talk about what he thinks of your questions. What are his take on Paladins and their code. See if you can´t get on the same page with how, both he/she and you, think a Paladin should behave when faced with laws he finds questionable or if a Paladin is allowed to interpret parts of his code.
Doing this, tends to in my experience, make playing a paladin much less of a hassle and a far more rewarding experience.
no gm as of yet, i'm just thinking of a charater.
this also brings up the paladin code, as long as you follow that are you basically ok?
cause i know there are some gods with official codes
|
You cannot figure out how strictly the code will be applied until you talk to your GM.
The Lawful Good alignment in general certainly has room in it to bend or break rules if they are getting in the way of Good, as long as you don't do so lightly or as a first resort.
Paladins may get less leeway depending on your GM's interpretation. Some of them will ping you for any violation of the code no matter how trivial and what your reason for doing so. Others will give you a pass as long as you can explain why you're duing the right thing from a generally LG viewpoint. Some of them will allow the deity-specific codes to overrule the base code in situations where they conflict. Others say the base code takes priority, or that you have to follow both no matter what. Interpretations of what constitutes honourable behavior or "legitimate" authority also vary.
It's worth pointing out though that Lawfulness doesn't refer to a respect for all laws and authority figures, it means you think that rules & authorities are in general a good idea, and generally that you are loyal to a specific authority and set of rules. You might obey other peoples' rules out of respect for the idea of rules, but you certainly don't have to go along with them if they conflict with your own ruling principles.
I am playing a paladin who behaves and rationalizes choices very much like I imagine an undercover police officer does. Paladins aren't stupid. A dead paladin doesn't do anyone any good. I'm not about to throw myself at considerably more powerful creatures just because they are evil. I can bide my time, collect intelligence, exploit weaknesses where I see them. I'm not about to reveal all of my plans and secrets to them just because I value honesty either. They are monsters and the enemy.
My GM's been pretty cool with it so far because, as Weirdo describes above, I've been able to explain how I believe I've done the proper LG thing in the greater sense but I can definitely see where others would have lots of trouble with some of the choices and compromises I've had to make. A paladin's success depend so much on the GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really does come down to GM, since they can run the range from being open and reasonable to being strange people who you end up suspecting derive some kind of intense pleasure or validation out of making the lives of Paladins miserable.
The scale usually seems to run from "intention and practice is what matters" to "strictly legalistic / unable to think in relative terms" to "&$#^%# lawfulstupidjocksthinktheyresogoodtheycansuckit"...
I am playing a paladin who behaves and rationalizes choices very much like I imagine an undercover police officer does.
That's an amazingly bad analogy, since for most of human history, the idea of an undercover policy officer, or a spy, or "sailing under false colors," or other deceptive tactics, were considered the height of dishonor.
Even today, it's a war crime for a soldier to operate out of uniform. A soldier who does so forfeits all protection under the Geneva Conventions and similar treaties; if caught, he can be executed out of hand without even bothering with a trial. In law enforcement, the FBI forbade long-term undercover work from its foundation until the mid 1970s, and most other police departments had similar policies.
A lot of GM's, myself included, would have issues with the concept of paladin as undercover cop. Part of being a good paladin is not putting yourself in a position where you are almost certainly going to be required to act dishonorably. That's not to say that a paladin wouldn't see the value of spies and undercover agents, but that's not work they could honorably do themselves.
Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.
So i'm making a chosen one paladin. maybe adding the Feysworn prestige class i don't know yet.
point being i need help making lawful good work.
i usually play almost exclusively neutral good, i like being a good guy and having the freedom to do save the day in whatever way i want.
i have a few questions regarding LG
can one lie if it could save lives?
how does one handle someone who is following laws but abusing them and in general doing bad things.
like how lenient can LG be.
this isnt for anything specific just general questions.
Lawful Good is basically Clark Kent. Like Neutral Good, you save puppies out of trees and walk old ladies across the street. Where the lawful aspect comes into play is that you're likely to put your trust in nations, organisations, higher authority to define Good for you. In DC comics, Superman is the extreme of Lawful Good, while Oliver Queen is the extreme of Chaotic Good. (I'm not discussing Batman, because insanity distorts the comparison) Wonder Woman is probably the epitome of Neutral Good as she's essentially half way between them.
Unlike Lawful Stupid however, your trust in them is not required to be given blindly. If there is corruption in the Law, you will fight it until the Law once again conforms to being Good.
The first Judge Dredd movie shows the difference between Lawful Stupid (Judge Dredd) and Lawful Good (Judge Hersehey) in their approach to how Dredd handles the case of the citizen hiding in the food dispensing unit. Hershey had she been alone, would have probably let the citizen off with a warning, whereas Dredd sends him off to years of prison. She is however considerably more Lawful than Good though as while she questions Dredd's judgement, she is not active in contesting the result.
Someone has posted a link to a wonderful blog/ essay/ whathaveyou on LG. Basically, the author talked about how "Good" can be immediate or greater -- you will do whatever is for the good of the person in front of you, or you will look beyond that to what is good (eventually) for the most people. And how "Lawful" could be adhering to a single personal or divine code wherever you go or to whatever your present locality's laws happen to be. (But don't quote me on this; I haven't given the subject any thought, and I've probably misremembered and am misrepresenting the doc.)
Obviously, people here have opinions on whether one slant on Lawful is legit or another, or whether they have to be combined. They probably have as firmly entrenched positions on the Good issues. I believe the author was pretty much presenting these dichotomies as issues that have to be settled in discussion with the GM, rather than trying to dictate any one position. But he set the foundation for the discussion in admirably clear terms.
Can anyone here provide the link?
Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.
because with order and law comes restrictions, whereas chaos and freedom let you do whatever suits your fancy
Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.because with order and law comes restrictions, whereas chaos and freedom let you do whatever suits your fancy
Further to that, there's a lot of discussion about how to play "chaotic neutral," because a lot of people use that as a license to play "Disruptive Jerk" instead.
Are there any classes that make you fall if you're too... consistent?
Are there any classes that make you fall if you're too... consistent?
Anti-Paladin perhaps... even the Chaotic Good Desnan archetype.
I am playing a paladin who behaves and rationalizes choices very much like I imagine an undercover police officer does.That's an amazingly bad analogy, since for most of human history, the idea of an undercover policy officer, or a spy, or "sailing under false colors," or other deceptive tactics, were considered the height of dishonor.
Even today, it's a war crime for a soldier to operate out of uniform. A soldier who does so forfeits all protection under the Geneva Conventions and similar treaties; if caught, he can be executed out of hand without even bothering with a trial. In law enforcement, the FBI forbade long-term undercover work from its foundation until the mid 1970s, and most other police departments had similar policies.
A lot of GM's, myself included, would have issues with the concept of paladin as undercover cop. Part of being a good paladin is not putting yourself in a position where you are almost certainly going to be required to act dishonorably. That's not to say that a paladin wouldn't see the value of spies and undercover agents, but that's not work they could honorably do themselves.
Well, that's pretty much my point. I did say I can totally see where others would object and that a paladin's success relies very much on a GM.
Personally, I think that the existence of demons, devils, intelligent non-human/monstrous races, undead, beings of pure evil etc. changes the playing field so far as to make real world analogies all but moot. Is lying to a being of pure evil worse than being truthful and endangering innocent lives with my candor? Is negotiating with an overwhelmingly powerful intelligent undead to work against our common enemy with a mind to returning later when I am more capable of dealing with it acceptable or must I throw myself at it now to be decimated in a single round?
This particular paladin is for the Giantslayer campaign. We have floated the idea of sitting on each others' shoulders with a trench coat but that usually gets discarded pretty quick. So she's not actually undercover anything, it's just the best mindset I can think of to relate how she rationalizes the difference between herself and her opponents so she can adhere to her code. It's been both interesting and challenging, and I know she skirts the lines--that's part of the point of this character if you knew her entire backstory.
At any rate, I've got no one to convince my play is legitimate other than my GM and fellow players. My comment wasn't to start debate about my character but to add to the many voices cautioning OP on how much his character will depend on his GM's POV and flexibility.
I am playing a paladin who behaves and rationalizes choices very much like I imagine an undercover police officer does.That's an amazingly bad analogy, since for most of human history, the idea of an undercover policy officer, or a spy, or "sailing under false colors," or other deceptive tactics, were considered the height of dishonor.
Even today, it's a war crime for a soldier to operate out of uniform. A soldier who does so forfeits all protection under the Geneva Conventions and similar treaties; if caught, he can be executed out of hand without even bothering with a trial. In law enforcement, the FBI forbade long-term undercover work from its foundation until the mid 1970s, and most other police departments had similar policies.
A lot of GM's, myself included, would have issues with the concept of paladin as undercover cop. Part of being a good paladin is not putting yourself in a position where you are almost certainly going to be required to act dishonorably. That's not to say that a paladin wouldn't see the value of spies and undercover agents, but that's not work they could honorably do themselves.
Keep in mind that today, undercover cops have bounds and limits. You're still prosecutable for crimes you commit as part of an undercover role, especially murder. That's why most uses of them are as buyers and propositioners rather than as deep cover members of a mob, given what is usually required to become so. Even in the limited role I described, great care has to be taken to have their activities not be seen as entrapment.
Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.because with order and law comes restrictions, whereas chaos and freedom let you do whatever suits your fancy
...Chaos alignment lets you consistently side with law and/or act lawful if you 'fancy'?
I made a checklist and wrote it down here/
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd put it like this.
Neutral good believed in helping people on a personal level, regardless of which way the law speaks on a situation.
Lawful Good attempts to create a system that benefits everyone and protects those that need protecting, they put structures in place that help others and work within them to drive out misuse or abuse as well as destructive forces that might damage that system and attempt to change rather than destroy systems that harm others.
Two decent examples off the top of my head;
1: Characters come across an empire built on slavery that treats its slaves terribly but that also required them to maintain living standards-
CG: Burn it all down, the people of the empire are complicit in slavery and as such deserve no sympathy, break the chains
NG: Help on an individual level without regard for or against the law depending on the situation
LG: Gain influence, enact changes that improve the living standards of the slaves and eventually attempt to devolve them into a freeman working-class, if people aren't willing to make that change (even if it doesn't cost them anything) then the system itself is incorrect and needs to be confronted
2: Bandits are attacking trade caravans, turns out they're basically poor and impoverished farmer types who are being pushed to banditry by the heavy taxation of a particular lord, with some bad apples mixed in who are just cruel and doing it for kicks
CG: Bring down the Lord, assist the peasantry, if the King is just he'll understand it was necessary, if he isn't then he's culpable as well for the situation
NG: Help the villagers as you can, also help the caravans, maybe organize some sort of deal between the caravans and the 'bandits' to help smooth things over behind the backs of the Lords
LG: Bring evidence before the King so the Lord can be removed from his position, request that the reward be used to help the peasantry through the harsh winter to come and look over the area to make sure things go smoother, help set up a patrol system for the roads to avoid further banditry in turn and help the peasants to rebuild their villages stocks and wealth so a healthy profit can be made on all sides without abuse
LG tends to think more long term basically, because they're thinking in terms of the future as well as the now, its a slower, more difficult process than just rocking into town, kicking the evil lord in the teeth and wandering off again leaving a power vacuum.
...Chaos alignment lets you consistently side with law and/or act lawful if you 'fancy'?Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.because with order and law comes restrictions, whereas chaos and freedom let you do whatever suits your fancy
It does actually, depending on your motivation for doing so.
If you are siding with the law or acting lawful as part of a ploy, a disguise, or subterfuge it's totally ok for chaotic. Also if the law or acting lawful benefits you somehow, or you have no reason not to follow the law, then it's ok for a chaotic person, with the understanding that if things changed or if you got into a mood you could break it on a whim.
Like a theft inclined chaotic person goes years without stealing something because they don't see anything of monetary value. They're acting lawful and following the 'don't steal' law, but not because of an alignment change. And the moment they get invited to a fancy dinner, they steal the silverware.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people give LG a lot of guff and it really irks me. A lot of people see LG as being superman-style LG, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I like to think about it this way: Alignment doesn't dictate how you act. Instead, you act in a certain way and then figure out which alignment comes closest to describing that.
First off, Lawful doesn't mean 'follow all laws.' Remember, the lawful in the alignment system is opposed by chaos, not criminality. So a lawful person really just has to lead an ordered lifestyle. Lawful people tend to have lists, plans, and set-in-stone morals. Chaotic people tend to 'go with their gut' and act on emotion and impulse.
Wanna play a LG character? Just play a guy who lives an orderly life and is a good guy, bam, done.
Paladins are a bit trickier, they've got a code to live by. Basically don't kill a helpless/surrendering foe (unless they are lying, sense motive helps here), don't lie cheat, or steal, etc. But just follow their code and lead an orderly lifestyle and sounds like you are done.
I mean, in practice the difference between the "Lawful" and "Chaotic" versions of a given alignment is less a difference in how they go about pursuing Good/Evil/Neutrality and more a difference in how they internally rationalize their actions.
So the easy way to play a Paladin is be good, follow the Paladin code, and just think about how your good actions are of benefit to society in general.
Even "deposing a lawfully chosen monarch" can be a lawful act if you justify it as "tyranny anywhere is a threat to just societies anywhere."
...Chaos alignment lets you consistently side with law and/or act lawful if you 'fancy'?Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.because with order and law comes restrictions, whereas chaos and freedom let you do whatever suits your fancy
It does actually, depending on your motivation for doing so.
If you are siding with the law or acting lawful as part of a ploy, a disguise, or subterfuge it's totally ok for chaotic. Also if the law or acting lawful benefits you somehow, or you have no reason not to follow the law, then it's ok for a chaotic person, with the understanding that if things changed or if you got into a mood you could break it on a whim.
So... if a Chaotic character can be chaotic or lawful as they please depending on their whims and objectives... what's a Neutral character?
|
|
i have a few questions regarding LG
1 can one lie if it could save lives?
2 how does one handle someone who is following laws but abusing them and in general doing bad things.
3 like how lenient can LG be.
Numbers are mine.
1) Lying is against the standard Paladin Code
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The alignment doesn't prevent lying, but the stock paladin code does. Note that just because you can't lie, doesn't mean you are compelled to answer. You could just keep your mouth shut.
If it's about saving lives, the best option is to keep your mouth shut while your ally does the lying. If you must lie, you can, but it's a slippery slope and one that may result in you falling. The issue is the mentality that believes it's okay to ignore the code under certain circumstances. It starts out as a special event, but then that circumstance starts coming up more and more, until breaking the code is second nature, and is always (in your eyes) done for the greater good (even when it isn't). Most bad people in real life honestly believe that they are doing evil things for the greater good or protect others or to save lives, and that's why those evil actions should be considered good.
2) For dealing with law abiding evil? You tolerate them to the letter of the law. You don't have to like them or agree with their methods, but you value Order enough where you'd only attack them if it was sanctioned by the law. You still might use the law to make it difficult on them, but you'd do that within the law.
3) Up to the GM, but you should be your alignment most of the time. You can drift between LN and NG sometimes, but you shouldn't ever drift further than those, unless you wish to risk the GM changing your alignment.
1) Lying is against the standard Paladin Code
1 can one lie if it could save lives?
The alignment doesn't prevent lying, but the stock paladin code does.Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Yeah, but if it costs people's lives, you're failing the "help those in need" clause and will also fall.
It's a classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't trope. So since you're going to need an atonement spell either way, you might as well just eat the lie, because it's easier to atone for a lie (and apologize to the person you lied to) than it is to restore the dead to life.
One of the issues that a lot of people miss is that paladins are expected, both by the rules as well as by the source material, to fall from time to time and to require atonement. (If you look at the Arthurian source material, Galahad was the only one who managed to maintain his purity throughout the cycle -- he was also a very minor character, not much was written about him, and he was something of a dick.)
Choosing to play a paladin should be a choice to create a character that explores moral issues -- which does not mean always doing the right thing, but does (typically) mean returning to the right thing when you've done something wrong.
I'm not sure there are many situations where the only two options are:
- Tell a lie.
- Allow people to die.
I mean, in those cases equivocation is a pretty good alternative path. If the guards ask "do you know where the base for the resistance is located?" you could respond "I can't say that I do" (because you swore an oath not to reveal the location) and not be lying or exposing the location. Might ask for a bluff check there, but you said nothing that's untrue or even misleading, it's just open for misinterpretation.
If the GM is setting up a situation where "lie" or "get folks killed" are literally the only two options, it's almost certainly a deliberate "gotcha" situation set up by the GM to screw over the Paladin, which isn't good form.
|
|
Yeah, but if it costs people's lives, you're failing the "help those in need" clause and will also fall.
Depends how the situation functions. Typically, words are not enough to save or end lives on their own.
If I, the antagonist, have hostages that I threaten to kill unless the paladins lies about something specific, the paladin isn't required to lie. The issue is that the paladin has no means to verify that his lying will actually result in saving those lives, since ultimately, it is me the antagonist that is choosing to harm the hostages. I'm not harming them because he chose not to lie, I harming them because that is the action I decided to take.
That said, the paladin may choose to risk their code in the off chance that I, the antagonist, am honorable enough to actually let the hostages go if the paladin lies. But that is a risk that the person who is a paladin chooses to take, not that the paladin is required to do via their code or alignment.
This is also the distinction that separates a hero from a more mundane character. The hero would take more risks than a mundane character. The hero will atone more, take more damage, die more, and otherwise live a much more conflicted life. The mundane character leaves the paladin academy and becomes a farmer, or some other low risk occupation. The hero, on the other hand, becomes an adventurer.
So... if a Chaotic character can be chaotic or lawful as they please depending on their whims and objectives... what's a Neutral character?...Chaos alignment lets you consistently side with law and/or act lawful if you 'fancy'?Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.because with order and law comes restrictions, whereas chaos and freedom let you do whatever suits your fancy
It does actually, depending on your motivation for doing so.
If you are siding with the law or acting lawful as part of a ploy, a disguise, or subterfuge it's totally ok for chaotic. Also if the law or acting lawful benefits you somehow, or you have no reason not to follow the law, then it's ok for a chaotic person, with the understanding that if things changed or if you got into a mood you could break it on a whim.
The thing with alignments isn't so much what you do as why you do it. Lawful follows the law because it is the right thing to do. Neutral follows the law because they don't want to get arrested, but might break it if given enough reason to. Chaotic doesn't follow the laws, just sometimes what act in accordance with the laws by accident, or because they're lying.
I'm not sure there are many situations where the only two options are:
- Tell a lie.
- Allow people to die.I mean, in those cases equivocation is a pretty good alternative path. If the guards ask "do you know where the base for the resistance is located?" you could respond "I can't say that I do" (because you swore an oath not to reveal the location) and not be lying or exposing the location. Might ask for a bluff check there, but you said nothing that's untrue or even misleading, it's just open for misinterpretation.
If the GM is setting up a situation where "lie" or "get folks killed" are literally the only two options, it's almost certainly a deliberate "gotcha" situation set up by the GM to screw over the Paladin, which isn't good form.
Kind of had this situation last Tuesday, which has led me, when I´m GMing, to making a rule of thumb about paladins and lying.
The situation was that the party was traveling by ship and had docked in Westcrown, in Cheliax.
During the night the party paladin had pulled guard duty aboard the ship and spots a couple of disheveled halflings (man and woman + very small child) sneak aboard the ship to try and stowaway. The paladin, knowing by word of mouth that the halflings in Cheliax were likely slaves and thus something this particular paladin was particular sympathetic towards, (by backstory and Goddess) let them slip aboard.
At a time close to dawn the paladin spots a guard patrol, that seems to be checking the docks and checking some of the ships there. When the patrol get to the ship that the paladins on, they ask a couple of questions and more importantly ask the paladin if she had seen anything suspicious like runaway slaves trying to stowaway since this is a somewhat common problem.
The paladin replies that she had seen nothing suspicious during the night. The guardsman in charge then askes if he could come aboard to check the ship, which the paladin denies since the captain and the quartermaster is both on land and their are the only ones that could grant that kind access to the ship.
Now the question is, did the paladin lie to the guards and should it have consequences. Now my take one it is, that yes, taken as a whole the paladin did lie to the guards, since she intentionally gave a false or misleading statement to the guards, reinforced by her knowledge of the previous night.
But I will not let her fall because of her lying, because of two things. Firstly her actions fits how she had played her character so far as well as her class, backstory and Goddess. Secondly I believe that even the code should be subject to the individual characters conscience at times, not all the time, but now and again.
So after looking at some of the paladin codes of specific deities I think it might change some things.
Take iomedae and Torag both LG. Both are different types of LG
Torag's code calls out that and i'm summarizing here but it's fine to mislead people as long as your protecting friends and the innocent as long as you are usually truthful and honorable.
Iomedaes code is much more strict.
|
I'm not sure there are many situations where the only two options are:
- Tell a lie.
- Allow people to die.I mean, in those cases equivocation is a pretty good alternative path. If the guards ask "do you know where the base for the resistance is located?" you could respond "I can't say that I do" (because you swore an oath not to reveal the location) and not be lying or exposing the location. Might ask for a bluff check there, but you said nothing that's untrue or even misleading, it's just open for misinterpretation.
If the GM is setting up a situation where "lie" or "get folks killed" are literally the only two options, it's almost certainly a deliberate "gotcha" situation set up by the GM to screw over the Paladin, which isn't good form.
Kind of had this situation last Tuesday, which has led me, when I´m GMing, to making a rule of thumb about paladins and lying.
The situation was that the party was traveling by ship and had docked in Westcrown, in Cheliax.
During the night the party paladin had pulled guard duty aboard the ship and spots a couple of disheveled halflings (man and woman + very small child) sneak aboard the ship to try and stowaway. The paladin, knowing by word of mouth that the halflings in Cheliax were likely slaves and thus something this particular paladin was particular sympathetic towards, (by backstory and Goddess) let them slip aboard.
At a time close to dawn the paladin spots a guard patrol, that seems to be checking the docks and checking some of the ships there. When the patrol get to the ship that the paladins on, they ask a couple of questions and more importantly ask the paladin if she had seen anything suspicious like runaway slaves trying to stowaway since this is a somewhat common problem.
The paladin replies that she had seen nothing suspicious during the night. The guardsman in charge then askes if he could come aboard to check the ship, which the paladin denies since the captain and the quartermaster is both on land and...
Based on what I remember of the lore, goddesses with paladins are essentially sponsoring Andoran (more or less directly), which has passed the law banning slavery that applies globally, so the paladin in question would be enforcing a law put forth by the authority likely directly acknowledged by his goddess, rather than be assisting in the enforcement of laws of a country that is outright damned. There should be little to suggest that the paladin should fall.
A personal rule of thumb, as I see it, is that the paladin should probably tend to err on the side of good if the deity is NG, if forced to do so, and to err on the side of law if the deity is LN. LG should have a focus on justice.
The thing with alignments isn't so much what you do as why you do it. Lawful follows the law because it is the right thing to do. Neutral follows the law because they don't want to get arrested, but might break it if given enough reason to. Chaotic doesn't follow the laws, just sometimes what act in accordance with the laws by accident, or because they're lying.So... if a Chaotic character can be chaotic or lawful as they please depending on their whims and objectives... what's a Neutral character?...Chaos alignment lets you consistently side with law and/or act lawful if you 'fancy'?Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.because with order and law comes restrictions, whereas chaos and freedom let you do whatever suits your fancy
It does actually, depending on your motivation for doing so.
If you are siding with the law or acting lawful as part of a ploy, a disguise, or subterfuge it's totally ok for chaotic. Also if the law or acting lawful benefits you somehow, or you have no reason not to follow the law, then it's ok for a chaotic person, with the understanding that if things changed or if you got into a mood you could break it on a whim.
Lawful Evil follows the law because it's the right thing to do? But Chaotic Good doesn't follow chaos because it's the right thing to do?
If a Chaotic character continually acts lawfully and a GM tells them they're moving towards Neutral, they can object because...?
If a Chaotic character embraces a rigid social structure that they don't really believe in because it's good for them, they're still being chaotic and not neutral? If they worship a Chaotic god, it's not a problem that they're peddling law and order?
|
The paladin code of Sarenrae says nothing about truthfulness:
-I will protect my allies with my life. They are my light and my strength, as I am their light and their strength. We rise together.
-I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying. If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.
-I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that which I need to survive.
-The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.
-I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
-I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith, and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be bought for all the stars in the sky.
-I will show the less fortunate the light of the Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade, shining with the light of truth.
Each day is another step toward perfection. I will not turn back into the dark.
|
|
I'm not sure there are many situations where the only two options are:
- Tell a lie.
- Allow people to die.
Not many, but it's probably better to know ahead of time how your GM expects a paladin to respond to them.
I mean, in those cases equivocation is a pretty good alternative path. If the guards ask "do you know where the base for the resistance is located?" you could respond "I can't say that I do" (because you swore an oath not to reveal the location) and not be lying or exposing the location. Might ask for a bluff check there, but you said nothing that's untrue or even misleading, it's just open for misinterpretation.
And some GMs will ping you for deliberately misleading someone because it's not in the spirit of honesty, and obeying the letter of the law rather than the spirit is the kind of thing a LE person would do.
I have been in way too many paladin argument threads.
So i'm making a chosen one paladin. maybe adding the Feysworn prestige class i don't know yet.
point being i need help making lawful good work.
i usually play almost exclusively neutral good, i like being a good guy and having the freedom to do save the day in whatever way i want.
i have a few questions regarding LG
can one lie if it could save lives?
how does one handle someone who is following laws but abusing them and in general doing bad things.
like how lenient can LG be.
this isnt for anything specific just general questions.
If you've ever heard of it - NPCs by Drew Hayes has a paladin who was a former henchman, skilled at deception. Rather than lie he tells partial truths that work very well. For example - there is an attack on a goblin settlement that he helps defend, after which they give him a suit of armor. He tells the story as "I acquired the armor after a goblin camp raid." He isn't traditionally LG, but has to abide by rules of his god and the typical Paladin's code. His background and personality allow him to look for loopholes, though. You could roleplay it as someone who was chosen to be a paladin, but is always at odds with the code, trying to find the best way to act and resolve situations. You don't have to like the law to follow it. Unless your GM is really harsh, they'll usually tell you if an act is against your code or would cause you to fall. You can play with toeing that line, pushing at the boundary, which is a lot more fun than RPing "Lawful stupid".
|
|
The situation was that the party was traveling by ship and had docked in Westcrown, in Cheliax.
During the night the party paladin had pulled guard duty aboard the ship and spots a couple of disheveled halflings (man and woman + very small child) sneak aboard the ship to try and stowaway. The paladin, knowing by word of mouth that the halflings in Cheliax were likely slaves and thus something this particular paladin was particular sympathetic towards, (by backstory and Goddess) let them slip aboard.
At a time close to dawn the paladin spots a guard patrol, that seems to be checking the docks and checking some of the ships there. When the patrol get to the ship that the paladins on, they ask a couple of questions and more importantly ask the paladin if she had seen anything suspicious like runaway slaves trying to stowaway since this is a somewhat common problem.
The paladin replies that she had seen nothing suspicious during the night.
So you don't have to make the paladin fall because of this, but you should warn the paladin player that lying is against their code and that this sort of thing "could" result in a need for atonement.
And for clarity, the issue here is that the paladin lied, not in regard what the paladin lied about. The paladin didn't need to answer the question, they could have evaded it and could have chosen not the answer. A person is not required to answer every question asked.
For example, the guards ask if the paladin has seen anything suspicious, like run-away slaves.
Instead of answering, the paladin could inquire about the run away slaves. Not the specific ones, but in regard to how common slaves run away and why the guards would suspect them here. Not an interogation, just honest questions about the legal system as it relates to local law and the concept of slavery. Guards have a time-table, and while they like people that have legitimate questions about the law and seem eager to follow the law, they usually lack time to spend answering or asking lots of questions.
Another choice for response would be silence. Especially if accompanied by a helmet which made eyecontact difficult, you could just stay silent until the guards left you alone. For this to work, though, you can't be talking and then silent, you have to just be always silent. Might not always work, but it is an option. Could attempt non-verbal communication via diplomacy, just to express that you were either unable or unwilling to respond verbally. Although this may make you stick out in the guard's memory, it doesn't requiring lying and could be used to convey that you were guarding the ship and unwilling to let them check it. And if you won't talk and won't allow them past, it would be reasonable for them to assume that you also wouldn't allow runaway slaves to board.
The situation was that the party was traveling by ship and had docked in Westcrown, in Cheliax.
During the night the party paladin had pulled guard duty aboard the ship and spots a couple of disheveled halflings (man and woman + very small child) sneak aboard the ship to try and stowaway. The paladin, knowing by word of mouth that the halflings in Cheliax were likely slaves and thus something this particular paladin was particular sympathetic towards, (by backstory and Goddess) let them slip aboard.
At a time close to dawn the paladin spots a guard patrol, that seems to be checking the docks and checking some of the ships there. When the patrol get to the ship that the paladins on, they ask a couple of questions and more importantly ask the paladin if she had seen anything suspicious like runaway slaves trying to stowaway since this is a somewhat common problem.
The paladin replies that she had seen nothing suspicious during the night.So you don't have to make the paladin fall because of this, but you should warn the paladin player that lying is against their code and that this sort of thing "could" result in a need for atonement.
And for clarity, the issue here is that the paladin lied, not in regard what the paladin lied about. The paladin didn't need to answer the question, they could have evaded it and could have chosen not the answer. A person is not required to answer every question asked.
For example, the guards ask if the paladin has seen anything suspicious, like run-away slaves.
Instead of answering, the paladin could inquire about the run away slaves. Not the specific ones, but in regard to how common slaves run away and why the guards would suspect them here. Not an interogation, just honest questions about the legal system as it relates to local law and the concept of slavery. Guards have a time-table, and while they like people that have legitimate questions about the law and seem eager to follow the law, they usually lack time to spend answering or...
You have so much more wiggle-room, here. All the Paladin saw was a family of disheveled halflings come on board. Did the paladin question them to find out if they were slaves or merely homeless/beggars? If the Paladin does not KNOW for sure, then there is no lie. "To my knowledge no slaves have stowed away on this ship." would not be a lie. It is a half-truth, and a hell of an omission, but it is not a lie. If the Paladin says "Slaves stowed away here last night." That would be an assumption, not a truthful statement. Think of law, outside the direct tenants of a paladin's chosen faith, like a lawyer would, and focus on doing what is Good first.
Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.
Because inevitably Lawful Good threads become.. "Is This A New Way To Make My Player's Paladin Self-Destruct?" threads.
If the Paladin class had not been incorporated into Pathfinder, the motivation for posting the bulk of these threads would not exist.
There's also the wiggle room available in-
"There's absolutely nothing suspicious about a slave running away; it's more or less what's expected of slaves, given the opportunity."
or
"They're not slaves anymore after they've run away, now are they."
There's nothing more lawful than pedantry, after all.
There's also the wiggle room available in-
"There's absolutely nothing suspicious about a slave running away; it's more or less what's expected of slaves, given the opportunity."
or
"They're not slaves anymore after they've run away, now are they."
There's nothing more lawful than pedantry, after all.
Good points. Virtuous lawyers use all the loopholes the system has to offer, same as the unethical ones. It's not the knowledge of said loopholes, but how you use them that matters. A lawful good paladin would find a way to make it work. A chaotic good Warpriest would yell "eff it" and do whatever the hell they wanted, rules be damned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of good stuff here. Lawful Characters tend to prefer and think about long term solutions. Immediately overthrowing a dictatorship causes a lot of chaos, which could lead to rampaging in the streets, and a lot of aggression. You could do it, but it's the wrong way to save the people. Therefore, you need to slowly influence and gain control, and shift the sway as orderly as possible.
That's the number one reason Chaotic Good doesn't like Lawful Good. Too far sighted.
Oh! And Paladins are like the overachievers. Those smart students who always get 100% grades? That's basically what Paladins are. They need to be flawless paragons to lead crusades without question, and always do things the right way. That's why it's so strict.
So after looking at some of the paladin codes of specific deities I think it might change some things.
Take iomedae and Torag both LG. Both are different types of LG
Torag's code calls out that and i'm summarizing here but it's fine to mislead people as long as your protecting friends and the innocent as long as you are usually truthful and honorable.
Iomedaes code is much more strict.
Talk to your GM when you get one, but remember that LG for a paladin means you adhere to the teachings/paladin code of your chosen deity, or a specific personal code if you have no deity, ABOVE all else. The laws of some petty king bear no weight compared to the direction of your God. If your diety outright forbids lying, you have plenty of other options. Don't lie by being silent. Don't lie by telling a partial truth. Don't lie by being a complete idiot from time to time and completely changing the subject (Cheliax example - "Have you seen any suspicious behavior, like slaves stowing away?" Answer "Have you seen the morning sunrise over the ocean? Isn't the light of the Dawnflower something to behold. Her beauty is most high.") Play it like the most annoying preachy paladin in the world when you don't want to answer a question, and the asker may get so frustrated they just walk away.
Oh! And Paladins are like the overachievers. Those smart students who always get 100% grades? That's basically what Paladins are. They need to be flawless paragons to lead crusades without question, and always do things the right way. That's why it's so strict.
The danger comes from thinking that because a Paladin must act within certain limits, they're always going to have the same cliche character and monotonous roleplaying. There's a massive amount of room to create a unique - or at least non-cliche - Paladin character; the rules state nothing other than certain limitations on their actions. The whole baggage of stereotype Paladin personalities is mostly just constructed out of tropes being confused for requirements.
|
|
Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.
I could start one, if you really want. As for the reason, it's really the one class that has a fixed alignment and has specific penalties when they leave that alignment. If more classes required a fixed alignment, this would come up more with other alignments.
I think if more GMs allowed anti-paladins, you'd end up with long debates about what a Chaotic Evil anti-paladin could do without needing to atone.
Why is that Lawful Good is the only alignment that has prompts discussions like this? Nobody argues about how best to play Chaotic Good.I could start one, if you really want. As for the reason, it's really the one class that has a fixed alignment and has specific penalties when they leave that alignment. If more classes required a fixed alignment, this would come up more with other alignments.
I think if more GMs allowed anti-paladins, you'd end up with long debates about what a Chaotic Evil anti-paladin could do without needing to atone.
Oh, like how skipping kicking that one puppy because you were tired means you lose all your unholy powers?