Paladins...

Remove all ads!

For as long as I can remember, I've been playing pallies or reading about them, talking about them or sometimes writing about them... Not only in d&d, but in many systems and games as well as in history (carefully here) and legends...

My impression is that in d&d they are a bit mistaken... In many cases, including close-to-poverty restrictions, worship of war, deep concern for their place in social hierarchy, views on personal glory as the main aim and other elsewhere nonexistent (or disapproved) features. What is the most important is the part of LG alignment regarding secular laws.

I believe the most paladin-like alignment IS LG, but due to other reasons, like Order, justice, honour, honesty, tradition (to a degree)... The strict law obedience issue is somehow alien. First it restricts the Good comportment while paladins are champions of Good and Right (plus Light, Justice and so on) and not of rules and regulations. It is possible to keep the LG alignment, Code rules, strictures and so on, resembling more the most common type of NG in action, but I don't think it's the point.

Plus in D&D paladins are almost turned into policemen, minions of the law, good uncles and generally social attractions of the day, which is far from the original concept...

Anyone agrees or disgrees? Or simply wants to share his/her point?

 

Ah, the Paladin, in the campaign I just completed we ran in to a fallen one and had to kill him, nasty business that. Just to clarify and not to get off topic the reason he had to die was he made a deal with evil deity and her followers and my warrior priest of Tyr didn't like that and decided to deal with him in a manner that only can be described as final.
Anyway, I know what you are say8ing about the alignment thing. Should a Paladin be required to follow a law even if if the law was designed to purposefully repress and/or repress a segment of the population? if the law is "evil" and only benefits a small minority and hurts everyone else? There are profound differences between "law" and "justice" as history can demonstrate countless times. Ideally "law" and "justice" should be the same, protecting the people and seeing justice done to those who try to harm others or society.
Another point: what if the organization a Paladin belongs to is corrupt? Would he be breaking a class restriction if he disobeyed his superiors in said organization. An example, my character was a Lawful/Good Cleric of Tyr (yes, he wasn't a Paladin but was damn close) but because of some things that he chose not to do he became Neutral/Good instead.
Is this the sort of thing you were asking for?

 

It's a bit like you say.

Well, if the society or organisation is corrupt, the pally can become expatriate and switch allegiance. In 3ed it's stated that pallies command revolutions, revolts, rebellions and so on sometimes. I bet it's not really according to any state-law... So he indeeds breaks law sometimes. On the other hand 2ed (I don't know about 3ed here) says the paladin will never knowingly and willingly break the law. Of course we may adhere to natural law concepts and insist that what is against divine laws or nature is not law simply even if properly passed. Incosistencies are many, including the rule of never-lying pally and the special conceal alignment spell. Pallies also work in military intelligence. How is that possible without lying a single time is beyond me. There's also the difference between just&righteous and lawful. The latter is only required in d&d and no other system, legend set, fantasy book and so on. But apart from evil laws there are also stupid laws. If in some country drinking alcohol is prohibited, a foreigner pally won't drink in public not to offend customs, laws and so on, but should he really be obliged not to drink alone or with party members? Or is the pally to fall for things comparable to crossing the street when the red light on? It's completely rubbish in my opinion. It's good that 3ed lifted so many previous limitations, but still I have the feeling that that's not it simply. My attitude is that I am a paladin, I struggle for Good, I serve Order (logos), I fight for Justice and I respond to higher judgement. Justice counts and oppressive abusive regulations as well as rules invented just to regulate things with no deeper purpose are simply below me.

Also d&d rules are very naive sometimes assuming that deities way of reasoning is as limited as that of mortals and operates within same cathegories. An example: there's a wounded paladin riding back to his castle after completing a quest. A boy passes him by crying to him for help and shrinks away. In a short time a body of mounted rogues commonly known as local militia of some noble approach the paladin and ask him if he hasn't seen the fugitive. Try that famous 'With your permission I prefer not to answer' and you're dead as well as the boy is dead in a few minutes after they start searching. But if you tell them to follow opposite direction the boy can escape. Who will tell me a LG deity would make the paladin fall? Not mentioning NG Lathander or Mielikki for example. And what if the paladin IS able to fight the squad? Is it better to kill them all than to deceive them by making them follow a false thread by directly belying them? Rubbish simply.

 

Well, a lot of paladins get a similar stigma as their diety- and if you examine the main dieties of choice for a LG paladin-

Ilmater: LG, all about suffering, makes an interesting play for a paladin, who traditionally are supposed to be strong and brave, not martyrs.

Helm: LN, all about order, laws, vigilance and protection under law.

Tyr: LG, all about judgment by law, retribution, judication.

Torm: LG, probably the closest to what paladins were originally meant to be- duty, loyalty, obedience, protectors of the good.

Most of these dieties are based on order, and good seems only to follow from order. It's like their first priority is Law, and then by coincidence, good.

Personally, when I DM, I allow any diety to have "Paladins" just by a different name. Chaotic-Good Paladins of Correllon Larethian are known as Templars, Neutral-Good Paladins of Lathander are known as "Archons", etc...

I've always found that any diety should be able to create a champion of their cause, not just LG or LN dieties.

Amon-Ra

 

It's quite right. No, it's perfectly right. Only that the name paladin itself shouldn't be that restricted - it's contrfactual.

Well, maybe this will help you better see through my chatter: I'm LG if the test is order-based (or order+law) and NG or with lawful tendencies if law-only-based. It's just like some test saying 'paladins tend to be lawful but not to excess'...

The trouble with the most popular interpretation of LG is that it is regarded as law-afore-all and then good if coincident. I believe it's more like LN leaning towards good. Or 65% good, 95% lawful. Myself, as I said, I'm 95% good, 67% lawful. I've always seen myself as a paladin, long before I've first heard of d&d. So I'm good and lawful if coincident. Ah, and I've never been that lawful to not drink until 18, not cross the road when the light is red, obey each statute someone invents and each command of a teacher, place supervisor, guard, superior (to an extent) and so on 'just because'. My paladin shares the same attitude. It's not a Lathander-following pally (he has his paladins), but in case of a Lathanderian paladin I doubt the deity would have him fall for those. Helm maybe, Tyr if he moved too far and mistakenly, Torm perhaps... But it's still too much self-authoritarian attitude of d&d rules and those who set them. Especially as compared to other systems, books and legends.

One more thing: is Ilmater really so much concerned with laws? Does he really require statutory secular law minioning from his paladins who are to accept any suffering they are presented with during their quest for the oppressed and needy? What if this course is not lawful in the eyes of some law (leaving Order aside)? As far as I know Ilmater I bet his choice is clear.

[ January 03, 2003, 22:12: Message edited by: chevalier des Trois-Tours ]

 

I think Paladins emphasize the Good aspect over the Lawful aspects. After all, the PHB states that the Paladin may associate and travel with Good characters, but never with Evil ones. From this, we can assume that Chaotic Good is fine with the Paladins, but Lawful Evil is not. I have always interpreted that Law is a tool used by Paladins to be stern, vigilant, and strict, so that they can fight evil better.

And being Lawful does not necessarily mean complying with your country's laws. It means following a certain Code of Conduct, be it of your nation, your family, or just yourself. In most Paladins' cases, they probably obey the laws of a Paladin organization, their God, and their nation. However, the laws of their nation, if changed that they are contrary to the Paladins' beliefs, a Paladin should have a right to disagree and even take up arms against that nation - so long as the cause is Paladin-worthy.

As for Ilmater complying with laws, I'd think he's interested in Law so long as it is good (thus Lawful Good, of course). I like to think he is somewhat comparable with Christ; both would defy the laws of their nation if it led to a greater good. Regardless, Ilmater is Lawful becuse he is following a code of conduct, which simply does not agree with that of a nation that would be, say, persecuting Ilmaterians.

[ January 03, 2003, 22:35: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

Yes, if paladin worthy it's no problem. That's how DMs view this at least. But let us discuss for example the alcohol drinking limit - no one under 18 and crossing the street when red light on. Or anything similar. Nothing to do with justice, nothing about Order and so on... But still lawful or not...

Also I have the impression that any good character has some sort of Code...

[ January 04, 2003, 01:16: Message edited by: chevalier des Trois-Tours ]

 

A Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral character would not run a red light if no one were looking and there were no chance of anyone getting hurt. This is because out of compliance and respect of the rules of the community.

A Lawful Evil character, on the other hand, might run a stop light, if he only obeys the rules of the community only out of fear of punishment. To that person, it's only wrong if you get caught. On the other hand, there simply might be Lawful Evil people who comply with laws because they like order and structure.

I disagree with the idea that any person has some sort of "Code". There might be unwritten morals the person adheres to, but it does not necessarily have to be spelled out. A Lawful Good person (in extreme cases) would obey his own morals, as well as the morals of the people around him (so long as they are not his enemies). A Chaotic Good person (in extreme cases) will stick to his moral compass (his "Code"), but will only obey the morals of the people if they agree with his own morals.

 

Yea, you've convinced me to your point as far as moral Code is concerned.

Although the first paragraph of yours is quite a more complex issue I bet... Assuming that alignment name is sort of cathegory assigned to character's personality, as the rules suggest, it's descriptive mostly. Then there are various interpretations of certain alignments as well as alignment exceptions. For example I did the official test from Wizards of the Coast for myself, not my characters, giving the very true answers, which basing on my judgement were pro-order but not necessarily lawful in terms of statutory secular law. One of those answers was that there are some laws that I just don't put up with. In the result statement I got a notice of alignment exceptions. Like for example a good character with greedy streak or lawful character that can't stand his village elders and so on. Now please excuse a very personal reference - I believe it will help visualise my points better: In my case it's for example like that I drank and drank heavily before I got to 18 and not intended to withstrain from it just because our beloved (ekhm) parliament voted some bill. Knowing that street lights are to regulate moving sequence when the road is busy, I often cross the street when the light is red, the risk none and I'm in a hurry. I don't limit to attacker's means and tools used as it is prescribed by the law of my country when acting in self-defence or defending another person. There's a list of commands and regulations (leave aside if lawful or not, mostly not exactly lawful, but still rules and orders) I chose to in a greater or lesser degree disregard for greater good or better accomplishing the task set or sometimes even because of rational reasons. I believe that without laws society would collapse, but also that state laws change and change often (Order doesn't) Also their connection with morality and Order (logos) is very ellusive. They also have some rationale behind them and some goal to achieve - limiting their use(fullness). The law is nothing sacred, it's more or less close to game rules and should serve Order and morality - not just regulating things - although it's still sad to break it's rules. On the other hand throughout my life I always preserved the laws of my religion, the laws of morality, of conscience, of commonly accepted standards of behaviour, of tradition, including what parents, family, those under my charge or care would expect from me, the greater good and lesser evil, duties and obligations, personal rights of others, my word being more than signed contract and so on. I am concerned with the rights and the good of the others and with honesty, Order (logos) and acting fair, but I have never had the need to comply with others (ie average-levelling oneself) and their preferences. No need to be like others, no need to be accepted (although I prefer to be), no need for the sense of belonging. In every test I get LG or strong LG and once or twice only I got good with lawful tendencies and once or twice NG (all in one same test over a few months distance after thinking it over and so on). Same to real-life persons' opinions of me - a perfect example of paladin, a perfect LG (here roleplayers only) a stuffy oldfashioned man, hollier-than-thou, goody-two-shoes, of anachronic moral Code and so on leaving aside the most hateful . That's the problem with d&d alignment specification. In 3ed it's quite more rational, but still there remain doubts.

[ January 04, 2003, 16:37: Message edited by: chevalier des Trois-Tours ]

 

I agree that the D&D alignment system is at best flawed, but I suppose it's only a guideline, not the end-all and be-all (Except in the case of Outsiders, such as Devils and Slaadi). Alignment shouldn't make your character; acts should. But it's the best we have, and it's a good tool for determining who that Chaos Hammer or +3 Holy Vorpal Longsword affects.

 

Well, c'Jakob, Atreides and Amon-Ra (and anyone who feels competent), you seem to have DMing and PnP practice which I lack... Just out of curiousity: Which alignment would you assign to what I wrote above about myself (and my pally as well cause he is I )? I'd rather ask a live DM, you know (an utmost rarity here in Warsaw/Poland), than tests and books, if you please...

[ January 04, 2003, 22:02: Message edited by: chevalier des Trois-Tours ]

 

I have had a more relaxed view of alignment similar to Amon-Ra. Every deity should have champions fighting for their cause, however sometimes there is conflict amongst them due to differences in moral perspective, alignment and religion.
I do mostly believe in the strength of the Neutral good individual, as no law will restrict him from doing what needs to be done.

 

Personally I view above as an Order-oriented LG paladin, totally devoted to good and good afore all, Order (+justice, honesty and so on) immediately following and social customs third, but believing that any law is to serve Order and justice and not just to regulate things, the latter being a violation of free will and personal rights (freedom) thus against Order and not really good. Law is therefore means of achieving certain goal only and nothing sacred in its own right. Also the argument against crime is justice, not law, so this paladin (call him my character or simply I) will fight injustice not law breach. What's your opinion about this attitude for a paladin?

 

The above sounds like a pretty good description of a Paladin to me. I never liked the idea of a mounted warrior who only obeyed the law even when the law was being used to oppress the population but then what do I know?

 

I believe a Paladin is bound by the religious laws of his deity. If a paladin of Torm enters a city ruled by corrupt officials oppressing the lower classes, he would challenge the officials and confront them with their crimes. Paladins don't have to be policemen, unless they reside in an area that worships their own deity, in which case, the Paladin would see it right to obey the laws of the settlement, so long as they remain the same as that of the deity. If, however, greed slowly invades the workings of the government, he may see the need to reaffirm the tenants asserted by his god. As long as he serves his god, a Paladin should not be out of line. If I may cite the Crusades*.

*You may say that the Crusades were a terrible perversion of the laws set down by each side's respective god. I would agree, and would say that any Paladins participating in the 'holy wars' would have been rightfully disgraced. Anyway, the point is that they thought they were obeying the will of their god, which would have been fine if that were the case.

 

In some cases, Paladins do not actually have a patron deity. Sometimes they simply hold themselves up to an ideal of Lawful Good. That's not to say they're disbelievers; gods such as Tyr, Heironeous, or St. Cuthbert would still be venerated, but Paladins sometimes cling to more of a philosophy rather than a specific god.

In this case, the "philosophy" is the ideal of Lawful Good. In this case, he is upholding his own beliefes, as well as the laws of his society, or at least his Paladin's order. In such a case, Paladins could wage a Holy War to assault lands that they deem evil. These lands might even be a neighboring or a Paladin's own government. Of course, such a case of a Paladin deeming his own nation wrong and then attacking it is very extreme.

 

The above comment got me nailed down to a tee. I personally uphold certain ideals that I believe to be "good" but have no God to scare me into these beliefs. My father is very religious (Roman Catholic) and doesn't trust that anything i do is done for the sake of bettering the world because I have no god to direct my moral beliefs. Needless to say when he said to me (a rough interpretation) "since you do not believe in a god you have no reason to be good, thereby being not-good." I almost hit him in the face. The point is that A Lawful Good character will feel guilty if he has to break a law regardless of the injustice nature of it but if it serves the greater good then he will break it.

Also I feel that "paladin" organizations are a flawed concept, because a paladin in the very true sense of the words meaning is A HEALER. Above all else a paladin exists becuase some power has granted him the power to heal knowing that the paladin would use it to heal. D&D obviously uses that property beautifully, for a paladin that cannot heal is merely a soldier. A true paladin would never slay an entire band of brigades when slaying the leader would be enough to disband them. This ideal paladin would quite reasonably not even slay the leader outright but search for a way to resolve the situation without death. This perfect paladin would also never join together in an organization where anyone can be elevated above anyone else, for he realizes that power will ultimately corrupt the most forthright of men. In a roundabout sort of way I'm saying that paladin organizations in a campaign are flawed because:

1) Only very few true paladins, knights with the power to heal, would even exist, meaning a society could not support an organized force of paladins.

2) In an Order of Knights there are always aspiring knights, squires training to be knights, but since the power to heal comes from a blessing the paladin recieved, it cannot be honed as a skill by someone who had not been blessed. A god simply does not have the time to bless hundreds of knights every year into paladinhood.

3) Since organizations are all evil (neutral at best) an organization of paladins simply doesn't make sense.

4) Paladins do not serve other men, which they would have to do while in an Order, for they serve a holy power.

All in all my meandering around merely points out that D&D assumes that paladins run rampant across the world, but if so why are they always despised merely for wishing to heal and help?

 

A paladin is more lawful than he is good. Order and obeying the code is more important than doing good. Just look at the celestials, it is all about law with a little sprinkle of good to soften it up.

 

With respect to other opinions, we mostly agree that good is more important than law and that divine law (or what he has instead) is more important to a paladin than any other law (all here I suppose). So breaking legal rules, regulations etc that are not good for a good purpose is in fact a higher degree of lawful more than straightforward unlawful. But then, I'll be repeating myself, what about regulations related to law but not to morals and divine rights? And breaking them not for greater good (completely unrelated), but because they are the way as they are. Examples include not preserving sort of rule sets (in my language it's called 'regulamin' -min being close to -ment) you have at your school or university (to these two include homework copying/giving to copy ), job, army, sports centre, club or whatever. Smoking where you're not allowed to, drinking underage, drinking with underaged, crossing red lights on empty roads and anything of this sort that you can imagine, but not in special situations where morality is relevant, while generally being lawful - honesty, rules, customs, divine law, natural law etc. Chaotic anti-law & anti-state motivations and balance orientation are not included.

I'll allow myself to wait for some posts from people before giving my own contribution that I have prepared

Anyone feel free to post your own paladin-related questions here.

Edit: Note we can't objectively measure values, no matter if we believe in the existence of objective good, justice, order, natural law or not. Thus we have to concentrate on motivations (+ individual conscience) and general morality. Carefully with the latter though as it's not simply a statistical figure.

[ January 08, 2003, 18:11: Message edited by: chevalier des Trois-Tours ]

 

This thread reminds me of the paladin quests in BG II. Specifically, the peasant revolt in the Umar hills. The Knights of the Radiant Heart want you to assist the noble in the area to increase their prestige in Amn, but once you actually get there, you realize things are very different.

I chose to support the peasants in that quest, despite the command I was given by the Order. I think that, in it's most basic form, is the essence of being a paladin. It's assessing a situation and deciding what is the greater good; if it contradicts the local law - so be it. And the paladin must accept the repercussions of that decision.

Some of the chivalrous virtue should also hold true:

Defending the weak/impoverished/young

Saving maidens in distress (my personal favorite)

Honor and Glory in Battle - Meaning you never shy away from a challenge, you're the first in the fight and the last to withdraw (if withdrawal is an option for you), and granting mercy to an opponent if they ask.

Faithfulness to your lord (see El Cid) and patron deity.

As for the LG alignment thing. I think that any deity should be able to have a paladin serve him or here. Whether you call the evil ones anti-paladin's or whatever, they should have their own champion. With that said, the paladin's alignment should mirror that of their deity, and the spells available to the paladin should vary according to what the deity holds dear.