Post/Author/DateTime	Post
anglar 02-03-04, 01:55 AM	After reading most of the thread about what classes Gandalf would be, I got to thinking about a good, IMO, example of what a paladin would act like if you've never played one and wanted an idea. I submit Duncan MacLeod from the Highlander series as an example of what a paladin would act like. He rarely, if ever, killed unless it was necessary. He puts himself in danger constantly for his friends without thought of reward. He is loyal, even to his own detrement, and has an unyielding sense of honor. Throw in the spells and special abilities while taking away the "can only die if his head's taken" and you have a very good example of a paladin. Feel free to agree or disagree. Add others to the list if you want.
Boudewijn Brendergast 02-03-04, 09:34 AM	El Cid in the movie of the same name with Charlton Heston playing the leadrole. Of course in the end he struggles (and fails imo) as he has to chose between loyalty to his wife/family and loyalty to his king.
DM Zoc 02-03-04, 09:39 AM	Originally posted by anglar Throw in the spells and special abilities while taking away the "can only die if his head's taken" and you have a very good example of a paladin. Feel free to agree or disagree. Add others to the list if you want. Actually, you don't need to take away the "can only die if his head's taken" part; just give him the multi-headed +0 Laernean template (LA+2). My example is Mihoshi, from Tenchi Muyo! It's more an example of how paladins use Intelligence as a dump stat.
ninjarabbit 02-03-04, 11:07 AM	My example will be Auron from Final Fantasy X. Spoilers! He overcomes death to keep his promise to watch over Tidus, he is also viewed as the model of what a guardian should be by practically everyone in Spira, andduring the whole game (including flashbacks via spheres) he always acts in a paladin-like way, one example being getting Jedgt to quit drinking after an embarassing attack on the transportation creature.
Gothic_Demon 02-03-04, 11:32 AM	Despite the obvious groans (Yes! I can hear them!) I posit Aragorn a la Peter Jackson/Viggo Mortensen. Honest, brave, strong, a great leader, just and true.
Luminous Crayon 02-03-04, 11:37 AM	I've yet to find a better paladin example than Jared, from the now-cancelled TV show Pretender. He's concerned with doing good, and helps other people in attempt to make their lives better than his own childhood of imprisonment and testing by the Centre. He's clever and gutsy, and invariably tracks down the bad guy and brings him to justice, but with style. Most importantly, he hasn't got a bug up his butt about compulsively following laws, like many players assume that Lawful alignment means you have to do. He constantly steals money from the Centre by hacking into their bank account, and I believe he's stolen a Centre-owned car, tapped phone lines, and other such rogue-like behaviors, unless memory utterly fails me.
Stormweaver 02-03-04, 01:28 PM	Being a paladin isnot supposed to be easy. Most Paladin are inspired from courtly love. Courtly love was always a sad thing and in the end, the knight had to chose between loyalty and love. I thing the best examples of this are King Arthur and Sir Lancelot of the Arthurian legends and Tristan from Tristan & Iseult. Roland and Olivier from The Song of Roland are good example of Paladin in combat. although you might say that Roland was lawfull stupid (and I would agree)
Voran 02-03-04, 02:07 PM	heh. Batman. Seriously, in certain incarnations (he's changed a few times), even in some of his more aggressive periods, he can be seen as a paladin. Granted, he uses the intimidation skill alot. Superman however, is not a paladin. He's still a hero, but he tends to go where his heart leads, rather than a strict personal code of conduct, seems more NG than LG. -that being said, obviously modelling your char after Batman in one of my old games ended up with said character's-player getting pelted with dice by the rest of the group.
CyberCat 02-03-04, 02:28 PM	I think many of the people named are Netural Good.
Bacon and Eggs 02-03-04, 02:29 PM	Is that the Batman of the 60's TV show that you speak of? Because yeah, that would be one-fit-for-all Paladin. Or so I think.
xirr2000 02-03-04, 03:16 PM	Actually I think the first post mentioned the most paladin acting character I can think of, Gandalf. He was not a paladin as a class obviously, but he acted exactly like what I would expect a paladin to behave. Brave, Strong, Wise and Compassionate. Goodness flowed from him and directed his actions at all times.
Luminous Crayon 02-03-04, 04:06 PM	Originally posted by CyberCat I think many of the people named are Netural Good. If you'd name them specifically and tell why, we'd be able to discuss you ideas.
eomer_beoulve 02-03-04, 04:56 PM	Personally, I think a good example of a person overcoming his faults to become a paladin is Cecil Harvey from the classic Final Fantasy 2 (US)/4 (Japan). Cecil went from basically a chaotic neutral fighter to a lawful good paladin towards the latter part of the game. Then again, he's a very limited version of a paladin in the original Super Nintendo (SNES) import of the game but when it was released as a Playstation game, you're shown just how much of a paladin he truly is. I think the god that he followed was Gaia/Gea, the Goddess of the Earth, I think.
Shadowsouled 02-03-04, 05:02 PM	My vote goes to Luke Skywalker. Shows mercy by not killing Vader. Tremendous bravery by going to face the Emperor even though he will surely be defeated. He risked his own life countless times in order to benefit the greater good.
Castor Troy 02-03-04, 05:42 PM	Originally posted by Luminous Crayon If you'd name them specifically and tell why, we'd be able to discuss you ideas. For one, I would classify Jared as classic NG, IMO. He jusst has a lean towards Lawful. He is willing to use "non-legal" means in order to further the general Good of the world. This may only be a difference in our opinions as to what Lawful means, but than I could be classified as one of the players who thinks "Lawful X" means the character will at least follow the letter of the law Cause I'm Castor Troy!
Conaill 02-03-04, 06:02 PM	Originally posted by Voran Batman. Seriously, in certain incarnations (he's changed a few times), even in some of his more aggressive periods, he can be seen as a paladin. Granted, he uses the intimidation skill alot. Superman however, is not a paladin. He's still a hero, but he tends to go where his heart leads, rather than a strict personal code of conduct, seems more NG than LG. Wow! I couldn't disagree more on those two. I've always seen Superman as the ultimate LG Paladin, whereas Batman to me is more the lone avenger, CG vigilante.
keyunp 02-03-04, 06:53 PM	There's been so many versions of Batman and Superman that someone could come up with all the alignments in D&D from the two of them. As far a Jarred being LG or NG, it all depends on how you defend the Lawful component. If lawful is only dealing with the 'Laws' of the land then Jarrend would have to NG. If you believe that Lawful can be following a personal code no matter what, then I could go with Jarred being LG.
DM Zoc 02-04-04, 04:06 PM	Superman is LG; it's a given. Batman varies considerably between incarnations, from CN to LG. Only the Adam West was LG.
Luminous Crayon 02-04-04, 04:42 PM	Originally posted by Castor Troy For one, I would classify Jared as classic NG, IMO. He jusst has a lean towards Lawful. He is willing to use "non-legal" means in order to further the general Good of the world. This may only be a difference in our opinions as to what Lawful means, but than I could be classified as one of the players who thinks "Lawful X" means the character will at least follow the letter of the law Yeah, I can see that conclusion, given your interpretation of Lawful alignment. Personally, I have seperated the Lawful alignment from anything having to do with legality or government, focusing on the other (and, in my opinion, far more important) aspects of the alignment. I call Jared LG not because of his mode of operation, but because of his rather poetic "this is what you did to someone else, so this is what you deserve yourself" attitude toward wrongdoers. It's like eye-for-an-eye, but with added mercy. For example, when he tracks down the army vet who killed one of his fellow soldiers, he tricks him into stepping onto a land mine. The soldier knows that if he moves, the landmine will explode and kill him, and Jared has the time to lecture the paralyzed man on morality. He then shoots him from about 10 feet away (with a gun loaded only with blanks), causing the startled soldier to reflexively jump backwards off of the mine, which explodes (in a harmless shower of jello.) It's definitely a case of actions and consequences, cause and effect, and that's one thing that strikes me as intensely Lawful.
Stormweaver 02-05-04, 09:22 AM	Originally posted by Luminous Crayon For example, when he tracks down the army vet who killed one of his fellow soldiers, he tricks him into stepping onto a land mine. The soldier knows that if he moves, the landmine will explode and kill him, and Jared has the time to lecture the paralyzed man on morality. He then shoots him from about 10 feet away (with a gun loaded only with blanks), causing the startled soldier to reflexively jump backwards off of the mine, which explodes (in a harmless shower of jello.) It's definitely a case of actions and consequences, cause and effect, and that's one thing that strikes me as intensely Lawful. This is chaotic act if I ever saw one. Good but Chaotic. Shooting Someone with blank ? Jello Landmine ? Poetic justice? This guy is not LG. Maybe NG or CG. Lawfull don't use poetic justice, its aginst their characters. They bring the guilty to justice. A lawfull will not rob the thief, he will punish him. A lawfull individual beleive in the power of society and organisation to makes things right. He will not take matters in is own hans unless that is the only thing to do.
Thorak 02-05-04, 11:32 AM	Personally, I think both Superman and Luke Skywalker are the absolute worst choices for paladin personality. Sure, they're good, noble, yada yada. But they're far too stereotypical. "Oh look, I'm a panty-waist do-gooder. I'm going to constantly be thrown into turmoil because the women in my life keep getting kidnapped." Superman more so. I mean, here's a character they had to invent something he was vulnerable to. Interesting characters are created by conflict, and conflict is created by weaknesses. Because kryptonite is such a flimsy excuse, they had to make Superman naive. He always gives people the benefit of the doubt, and gets screwed for it. Though I much like the new Smallville Clark Kent. Much more realistic character, and he actually gets angry from time to time. And they're keeping his powers limited and pushing the "don't get found out" bit to the hilt, so they can afford for Clark to have a brain in his head. I posted this in another paladin thread; I submit Sparhawk from David Eddings' Elenium and Tamuli series'. A knight, fights with honor, and pounds the living heck out of anyone who A> impinges on his honour or his family or friends', B> deliberately interferes with his quest (he almost always gives even relative innocents, like a badguy's captain of the guards, a chance to back down before he attacks), or C> he has a long-standing beef with. He's violent as all get out, but a Paladin is violent; otherwise they'd be a cleric. He associates with thieves regularly, but only the 'good', steal-from-the-rich kind, not the murdering nasty ones. And when he does fight, he does so with honour; in the penultimate fight in the first series, he's dueling the BBEG's right hand man, and a long-time enemy. They both take a break mid-fight to catch their breath, and they chat like old friends (they were, waay back), until they slap the helmets back on and go to. Neither takes advantage. Plus, there's something about the moody, brooding, beat-the-living-tar-out-of-evil view of paladins that I find eminently more satisfying than the pansy-shiny-holier-than-thou view too many people subscribe to.
Arakano 02-05-04, 11:44 AM	Well, just one thing: In this last post, and in many other Threads, I´ve read about how Paladins would always try to defend their honour. I totally disagree. In my campaigns, being proud (which comes along with giving so much value to one´s own honour) is a vice for most good faiths (like in our world). So, Paladins should try to be humble. An example for a Paladin? Well, there are few. But I think Jedis go in the right direction. Still, I think Obi-Wan is an better example than Luke.
Koga:The ninja trick 02-05-04, 12:27 PM	How about Captain America as the ultimate paladin? (He even had a sword at one point I think.) Everything CA ever did was either for his country or for the good of the masses, which were more often then not one and the same. CA wasn't law abiding because he liked all the laws, he was realistic, he cared about what his country embodied and was there to see all the soldiers who died for that one word.. freedom. Captain America has shown mercy many of times. Infact it's cause of that mercy Hawkeye is now an Avengers elite when he could've stayed a petty thug.. His best friends are Irion Man and Thor, who are like dwarves at some bar. Thor is way too proud, and Irion Man has a drinking problem, but he respects them for the good they've done, and hopes that they one day evolve beyond thier limitations. Captain America's biggest threat is Red Skull. Who is bassically the embodiment of a Black gaurd. He wants the whole world to be national socialist as he was raised by Hitler himself, and is equal in power to CA. RS has more often wanted CA to join him rather then destroy him. As CA's wit, power, and the fact that he is the "super race" would make him a great addition to the neo-reich. But CA would never stoop to that level, as he is lawful good. There's been a couple of quotes that show how he keeps a strict honor code and how good is his main priority. "Tell me there's a way I won't kill you. ~Captain America when he has his shield to Red Skull's throat." "Thanos, as long as one man stands up to you, you will never win. ~Captain America when confronting Thanos with the infinite gaunlet."
Luminous Crayon 02-05-04, 01:20 PM	Oh, and another example: John Ross, from Terry Brooks' excellent book, Running with the Demon. If you haven't read it, I recommend it highly.
Thorak 02-05-04, 07:05 PM	Originally posted by Luminous Crayon Oh, and another example: John Ross, from Terry Brooks' excellent book, Running with the Demon. If you haven't read it, I recommend it highly. John Ross is an absolutely ideal Paladin, come to think of it. He even gets bonus points for being moody and dark. :smirk: originally posted by ArakanoWell, just one thing: In this last post, and in many other Threads, I´ve read about how Paladins would always try to defend their honour. I totally disagree. In my campaigns, being proud (which comes along with giving so much value to one´s own honour) is a vice for most good faiths (like in our world). So, Paladins should try to be humble. You seem to be lumping 'honour' with 'pride', which is a common error. Honour is when you do something for yourself. Pride is when you do it so other people can see/know. If someone besmirches my honour, and I beat the living tar out of him for it, I have satisfied my obligation to myself to not bow down to the attacks of others. If I make sure he goes down where people can see and take notice, I'm being prideful about my honour. Paladins should be humble, but that doesn't mean they should stand their and let people insult them or their friends. That's being a punching bag, not to mention being too much of a coward to defend your honour. Humility is knowing that, even though you might defeat the guy in combat, that doesn't make you better than him. It's just something you have to do, bound as you are by the rules of honour. While a lot of Knightly characters are overly prideful about their honour, this doesn't mean the two are connected. They're also prideful about their wealth and status. It's not being rich or high ranked that's bad, it's the lack of humility regarding them that is.
Lhiannon Sidhe 02-06-04, 06:37 AM	Originally posted by xirr2000 Actually I think the first post mentioned the most paladin acting character I can think of, Gandalf. He was not a paladin as a class obviously, but he acted exactly like what I would expect a paladin to behave. Brave, Strong, Wise and Compassionate. Goodness flowed from him and directed his actions at all times. Not a paladin as a class, obviously? Why not? Natural Leader, He's pretty good with a sword, certainly has divine favour (He IS a Maiar after all), he even has a Paladin's mount (Shadowfax).
Luminous Crayon 02-06-04, 09:28 AM	Originally posted by Thorak John Ross is an absolutely ideal Paladin, come to think of it. He even gets bonus points for being moody and dark. :smirk: Glad to see that someone else here knows the series. Most Brooks fans never get much farther than Shannara, and miss a lot. I agree, though; one thing I like about threads like this is that they show that there are many different ways to play a paladin, and that not all of them have the same personality. People tend to have no trouble accepting that there are many different ways to play wizards, fighters, rogues, and the rest, but get trapped into the mindset that paladins come out of cookie cutters and are required to all act the same freaking way.
SmiloDan 02-06-04, 09:43 AM	What about Sturm Brightblade from the Dragonlance novels? He's pretty LG, courtly, respectful, organized, disciplined. I think another pretty good example would be Larry from Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series. Also, what's-his-name from Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel's Dart series. Although he's more of a monk/paladin/cleric. [edit] Or that Knight of the Cross carpenter dude Michael in Jim Butcher's series about the only professional wizard in Chicago. He's a family man, and has a day job in construction, but he also battles the forces of evil with a holy sword given to him by an archangel. The crosspiece is one of the nails used to crucify Christ. It's actually a pretty neat series. As are Hamilton's and Carey's. Hamilton's just assumes there's always been vamps and werewolves, and everyone knows about it. Vamps actually got citizenship 2 or 3 years ago.... In Carey's world, Christ's blood and Magdelene's tears mingled to form Elua in the womb of Mother Earth. 7 angels left heaven and became his loyal companions. He eventually settled in France (Terre d'Ange). 1500 years later is when the story takes place. It's kind of an alternate history, where the French are aasimars and kinky.
Arakano 02-06-04, 10:07 AM	Well, I won´t bow down before your argumentation... ;) :D If someone "hurts" your honour with his VERBAL attacks, than countering with PHYSICAL attack is, IMO, DEFINITELY not an good act. Rather neutral if not evil. Not like a Paladin should act, either way.
Schmendrick 02-06-04, 10:08 AM	First, let me address this: the Lawful alignment doesn't just mean "following your own personal sense of right" or however you define it. Lawful alignment isn't defined internally, any more than any of the other alignments are. Just like Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are not subjective things. Neither does a Lawful alignment mean, however, obeying the letter (or even spirit) of the law, no matter what. Law is better described as Order. For a person of Lawful alignment, there is a proper time and place for everything, whether it is crowning the king, bringing justice to a criminal, scamming the poor, or taking your afternoon tea. When established in a society with laws and such, a Lawful alignment will conform to those laws. Even when only visiting or passing through such a society, a L character is likely to follow their codes. Lawful characters don't disrupt the normal order of things unless it's absolutely called for (and even then tend to do so in fairly inobtrusive ways). Originally posted by Luminous Crayon Glad to see that someone else here knows the series. Most Brooks fans never get much farther than Shannara, and miss a lot. That's because Shannara was horrible. If Brooks has more to offer, please let me know another book I should go to (no sarcasm; if he's really a good author, I want to give him a chance to recover, but he's digging out of a hole, for me, so recommend a really good one, 'k?). Originally posted by Luminous Crayon People tend to have no trouble accepting that there are many different ways to play wizards, fighters, rogues, and the rest, but get trapped into the mindset that paladins come out of cookie cutters and are required to all act the same freaking way. Oh, but they do come out of cookie cutters! Not all the same cutters, of course. :P And the dough is different each time, too. But don't forget that not only are paladins restricted to a single alignment (in one fell swoop cutting your options by 1/9th, or 1/3 -- depending on which class you're comparing to, but 1/3 is the most lenient you're going to get) but they have a code of conduct, as well. Restricting their alignment also cuts down the deity options to a fairly slim selection, by proxy (unless you're playing one of those silly games with a deity for every story Shahrazad told). There's personal differences to be taken into account, of course, and I'm sure that's what you were getting after. Paladins can (and should) vary. But within bounds. Given a single day to observe the subject, anyone ought to be able to identify a Paladin every time (unless they're too busy watching the Rogue who's been disguising herself as one...).
Arakano 02-06-04, 11:14 AM	Well, I think a lawful dwarf travelling trough a lawful hobgoblin society would give a f*** about the laws of said hobgoblins. Why? Because he feels himself bound to the ethics he learned in -and the laws which apply to - his society.
Thorak 02-06-04, 11:15 AM	Originally posted by Arakano Well, I won´t bow down before your argumentation... ;) :D If someone "hurts" your honour with his VERBAL attacks, than countering with PHYSICAL attack is, IMO, DEFINITELY not an good act. Rather neutral if not evil. Not like a Paladin should act, either way. This carries the assumption that "violence" is "evil". Kindly explain, then, how a Paladin can be Lawful Good, when they're quite obviously a character designed around dealing out violence? The paladin shouldn't KILL the poor idiot, but backhanding him across the mouth would be perfectly in character. In fact, if we assume that a Paladin's code of honour is, essentially, that used by medieval knights, then the Paladin would be proving himself both a coward and without honour by NOT smacking the loudmouth. If he lets the guy get away with it, then others will see that he either is admitting the truth of the insult, or is too weak to respond to it. And lashing out verbally would be seen as stooping to the guy's level. A quick, emotionless whallop for the slander gets the matter over and done with. Evil is self-serving action. Violence, while it CAN be self serving, isn't so by definition. Defending one's honour is one of those cases, because the goal is not to improve one's place, but to prevent another from trying to pull you down. Therefore, I see little reason a Paladin cannot respond to verbal violence with physical violence.
Luminous Crayon 02-06-04, 02:45 PM	Originally posted by Schmendrick That's because Shannara was horrible. If Brooks has more to offer, please let me know another book I should go to (no sarcasm; if he's really a good author, I want to give him a chance to recover, but he's digging out of a hole, for me, so recommend a really good one, 'k?). Read Running With the Demon, the one I mentioned above. It's what I recommend to everyone who read Shannara and hated it. A gritty, dark story about a man named John Ross who has come to a small Indiana town to stop a demon from subverting it. Ross has the advantage of power; the demon has the advantage of total anonymity. I can't do it justice in a short description like this, so you'll have to take my word on it. For something totally different than both Running With the Demon and Shannara, there's always Magic Kingdom for Sale-- Sold! It's a little sillier than the rest of Brooks' stuff, and about as different from Running With the Demon as it is possible to get without leaving the entire genre, but it's a fun, lighthearted read about a man who buys a kingdom from a mail-order catalogue, and the problems he encounters when he actually tries to take rulership of it. Of the two, I prefer Running With the Demon, but I thought I'd give you more than one option. (To be fair, Shannara's not all bad. It's just that it takes for-freaking-ever for the pace to pick up and the book to get interesting. Also, the farther you get along in the series, the less it looks like a Tolkien clone; Voyage of the Jerle Shannara was an enjoyable read, if complicated.)
Malben 02-06-04, 05:13 PM	Originally posted by Thorak This carries the assumption that "violence" is "evil". Kindly explain, then, how a Paladin can be Lawful Good, when they're quite obviously a character designed around dealing out violence? The paladin shouldn't KILL the poor idiot, but backhanding him across the mouth would be perfectly in character. In fact, if we assume that a Paladin's code of honour is, essentially, that used by medieval knights, then the Paladin would be proving himself both a coward and without honour by NOT smacking the loudmouth. If he lets the guy get away with it, then others will see that he either is admitting the truth of the insult, or is too weak to respond to it. And lashing out verbally would be seen as stooping to the guy's level. A quick, emotionless whallop for the slander gets the matter over and done with. Evil is self-serving action. Violence, while it CAN be self serving, isn't so by definition. Defending one's honour is one of those cases, because the goal is not to improve one's place, but to prevent another from trying to pull you down. Therefore, I see little reason a Paladin cannot respond to verbal violence with physical violence. I can't really agree with the basis of your argument. If I'm in a bar, and some guy starts insulting me (maybe he's drunk, or maybe he's an idiot and thinks that it'll impress the women, or whatever), it's not okay for me to hit him, in most circumstances. I might be able to get away with it, depending on the sort of bar, and it might earn me general approbation for silencing an annoying git. But it's not necessarily honorable, and it's not necessarily good. If I am significantly stronger or less drunk than the fellow I get into the fight with, then it might even be worth considering as an evil action for me to hit him, because I'd be physically assaulting someone weaker than myself to "defend my honor." That's hardly in line with a paladin's code of conduct. Now, it's possible that one could argue, "Well, that's nice, but we're talking about DnD, where the setting uses 'medieval' ethics." This doesn't necessarily defeat the argument that "using violence is not evil." Certainly, using violence might prove highly unlawful. To illustrate this point, let's look at the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf. Upon his arrival in the hall of Hrothgar, Beowulf explains that he's come to help out by killing Grendel, who is terrorizing the Danes. Hrothgar accepts the offer happily, and notes that he figures Beowulf has shown up because years and years ago, Beowulf's dad, Ecgtheow, killed a man and owed his lord compensation for the slaying. He didn't have the money, and ended up getting exiled from his own people because they didn't want there to be a war. Ecgtheow went to Hrothgar, who was generous enough to pay the compensation he owed. Ecgtheow swore oaths to Hrothgar in return, promising future repayment. He went home, and died of old age. Then Hrothgar's trouble with Grendel started up. Beowulf heard about it, and he came to Denmark for two reasons, both of them compelling ones in his culture: 1. To get honor. This is the one he's most inclined to talk about, because talking about what you're going to do when you get hold of the enemy, and then delivering on the boast, increases your honor. 2. To pay his father's debt. Arguably, Beowulf is a paladin; I'd certainly call him lawful, and probably also Good since despite his casual (or even gleeful, at times) acceptance of violence as a solution, he doesn't appear ever to have relied on it as a first solution. He also avoids betraying his lord's heirs to become king himself, later on, and does some other stuff that's probably both lawful and good. Since the thread is actually about what a paladin should act like in RP, I'll toss Beowulf in as an option. He seems very paladin-like in his ideals and his means of pursuing them, to me. Anyway, after the conversation with Hrothgar, a guy named Unferth tries to pick a fight with Beowulf. The poet/narrator tells us that Unferth was jealous and didn't want Beowulf to get more honor than him, so Unferth calls up a story about how Beowulf lost badly to another fellow, Breca, in a rowing contest, and says he doesn't think Beowulf will be much good against Grendel. These are "fightin' words," so to speak. If this had been Beowulf's dad, Unferth would possible have gotten killed over this kind of disagreement (in fact, ordinarily a flyting -- that is, a ritual insult contest -- is a precursor to a duel to the death, in this sort of epic literature; see the Norse myth of Loki's flyting with the gods to get an example where the troublemaker gets his mouth sewn shut instead of being killed). But Beowulf, despite the potential dishonor of being insulted this way, does not kill Unferth. Instead, he replies with his own insult, and points out that if he doesn't do any good, at least he'll have died trying to be a brave and proper warrior, unlike Unferth, who is all bark and no bite. Basically, he tells Unferth, "Shut it, buddy. I don't see that you've done a very good job of being a retainer for Hrothgar. The way I see it, you're a coward." By doing this instead of killing Unferth, Beowulf negotiates a socially acceptable end to his conflict with the fellow, without resorting to violence. Since we later find that Beowulf is wildly successful in fulfilling his promises about what'll happen to Grendel, we also get the implication that if he'd decided to fight Unferth instead, he'd have been able to butcher the man without even raising a sweat. Basically, what I'm getting at is that a paladin is allowed to defend himself, and even strike first when he can really make the case that if he doesn't he might not get to strike second -- that's what happens in Beowulf's fight with Grendel, for example. But Unferth was not a physical threat to him or to his companions, so while he could (legally) have called him out for a duel, he actually gained more honor by returning insult for insult instead of allowing the conflict to escalate. This, in most Germanic courtly circles, would have been considered exemplary conduct.
Schmendrick 02-06-04, 06:37 PM	Originally posted by Arakano Well, I think a lawful dwarf travelling trough a lawful hobgoblin society would give a f*** about the laws of said hobgoblins. Why? Because he feels himself bound to the ethics he learned in -and the laws which apply to - his society. Yes. I said they are likely to follow their codes. Again, a Lawful character is governed by order, not legal statutes. Just because you're lawful doesn't mean you're going to submit to some authority (especially one that hates you, or your racial enemy) just because it calls itself an authority, nor does it mean you're going to let someone attack and kill you without defending yourself. Such submission can (and will) happen if you believe yourself to be in the wrong or that you will be properly handled by your captors/attackers -- in other words, if you trust them (or trust your own abilities to turn the situation to your advantage). If the hobgoblin government isn't hostile to the dwarf and the dwarf is patient enough to see that openness (Lawful doesn't mean "Patient" or "Tolerant," after all), then he is going to follow their laws, unless they are abominations, and his judgement of that will depend more on his (and their) positions along the Good/Evil axis than the Law/Chaos axis.
DrakeRunner 02-06-04, 09:28 PM	Thank you Schmendrick! I was about to go ballistic about how everyone thinks Paladins are only Paladins if they have a stick up their butt that can only ride the Legal Railroad.
Arakano 02-07-04, 08:35 AM	Originally posted by Schmendrick Yes. I said they are likely to follow their codes. Again, a Lawful character is governed by order, not legal statutes. Just because you're lawful doesn't mean you're going to submit to some authority (especially one that hates you, or your racial enemy) just because it calls itself an authority, nor does it mean you're going to let someone attack and kill you without defending yourself. Such submission can (and will) happen if you believe yourself to be in the wrong or that you will be properly handled by your captors/attackers -- in other words, if you trust them (or trust your own abilities to turn the situation to your advantage). If the hobgoblin government isn't hostile to the dwarf and the dwarf is patient enough to see that openness (Lawful doesn't mean "Patient" or "Tolerant," after all), then he is going to follow their laws, unless they are abominations, and his judgement of that will depend more on his (and their) positions along the Good/Evil axis than the Law/Chaos axis. Well, I was referring to your statement that lawful people would try to uphold order. In my example, said dwarf would most likely try to damage the hobgoblin nation´s order to his best abilities, therefore reducing the danger of an organized attack against his own country. So, someone lawful can very well try to bring about chaos. ;)
Schmendrick 02-07-04, 04:58 PM	Originally posted by Arakano Well, I was referring to your statement that lawful people would try to uphold order. In my example, said dwarf would most likely try to damage the hobgoblin nation´s order to his best abilities, therefore reducing the danger of an organized attack against his own country. So, someone lawful can very well try to bring about chaos. ;) But they will try to uphold order. But if the hobgoblins in question are enemies, then they will be disrupted. I was just defending the assertion that Lawful characters will tend to follow the law of the land even in very foreign lands. War is an exception. A soldier part of an army laying siege to a city isn't particularly worried that there is a law against littering or that he's trespassing on some peasant's farm, whatever his alignment!
CyberCat 02-07-04, 05:20 PM	Originally posted by Arakano Well, I was referring to your statement that lawful people would try to uphold order. In my example, said dwarf would most likely try to damage the hobgoblin nation´s order to his best abilities, therefore reducing the danger of an organized attack against his own country. So, someone lawful can very well try to bring about chaos. ;) The dwarf would try to change the lawful order for another lawful order. He would try and work in a way that bought a little chaos to the land as possible and once the evil rule was gone make a new one. A chaotic dwarf would go about it differently with the end result being quite different. Lawful beings to not want to sow chaos in their wake. They like order. In the same way that doing evil for a good end isn't acceptable to a good person neither is doing chaotic stuff to bring about order.
Thorak 02-07-04, 09:07 PM	Malben; I understand entirely what you're getting at. I even agree, for what it's worth, if we're talking about modern-day. The problem is, in earlier society there wasn't such a strict setup of legal codes to deal with personal issues. You couldn't charge someone for saying things that weren't true (slander or libel, depending on the situation), hitting you (assault usually meant with a weapon or a full-out brawl), etc. You could sue them, but that was entirely different; in some situations, it was an entirely different court. We've adapted the legal system in our modern day to enforce a great deal of 'honourable' behaviour, with the threat of legal proceedings and charges to back them up. If the legal system is much looser, as it was in the medieval period, or (it is assumed) in the D&D worlds, then it is restricted to 'serious' crimes. You'd get charged for rape, but not sexual harassment or assault. Etc. Any lesser issues are up to the individual to deal with, and in quite a few medieval cases I've looked at, you'd see Farmer John charging Brewer Michael with assault for chasing him down and beating him senseless, and the case is dismissed when it's revealed that John was in Michael's house when the assault and chase began, most likely trying to steal something. In our day, John might still get jail time for break and enter, but it's probably going to be less than Michael gets for the aggravated assault. The difference being, then chasing the guy down was what people were expected to do. Today, we're expected to leave it to the agents of the law. Paladins are, in one sense, the epitome of order and such in D&D. As such, they'd be perfectly aware of this "protect thine rights, lest others walk all over you" view of legality. And would act accordingly. As a side note; I've had a guy try to start a fight with me in a bar. The details aren't important, but he walked away and left me alone. Without me resorting to violence. However, I was perfectly ready and willing to step up to the plate if he HAD chosen to be violent, even though I would have been thrown out of there for it. I also wouldn't act the way I say a paladin should act. However, I'm not living in the paladin's world, where not acting at all would be seen as an admission that the insult is valid, and throwing an insult back would be seen as reducing himself to the insulter's level. In the Beowulf example, Beowulf's the son of an exile, very very low on the social rank scale. He can freely engage in the insult contest A> because it's an accepted system in his society and B> it's not lowering himself to do so; Unferth is at least the same rank as Beowulf, if not higher.
SmiloDan 02-08-04, 09:39 AM	I think that Mountie guy from Due South was also very paladiny.
Malben 02-08-04, 10:34 AM	Originally posted by Thorak Any lesser issues are up to the individual to deal with, and in quite a few medieval cases I've looked at, you'd see Farmer John charging Brewer Michael with assault for chasing him down and beating him senseless, and the case is dismissed when it's revealed that John was in Michael's house when the assault and chase began, most likely trying to steal something. In our day, John might still get jail time for break and enter, but it's probably going to be less than Michael gets for the aggravated assault. The difference being, then chasing the guy down was what people were expected to do. Today, we're expected to leave it to the agents of the law. Again, we seem to be agreeing in large part, and disagreeing in detail -- I've seen cases like this, too, and the major difference between then and now was how law enforcement actually worked. The bit about Farmer John and Brewer Michael (at least in Norse/Germanic law without the influence of Latin codes) would depend almost entirely on whether Michael raised a hue and cry -- if he did, then he was following the proper procedure for apprehending a felon, because he raised a din upon finding John someplace where he wasn't supposed to be, and then immediately set out to take the perpetrator prisoner and bring him before the local judiciary. If he didn't raise the hue and cry, it'd possibly be the assumption of the court that he was planning to do worse than just beat John around the face and neck once he caught him -- maybe he didn't want to assault John, and he was actually planning to kill him. In such a case, he'd very often have to pay compensation for his actions. Though of course John would probably be hanged, because theft was a much more serious crime in a time when most people were far closer to the subsistence level. Paladins are, in one sense, the epitome of order and such in D&D. As such, they'd be perfectly aware of this "protect thine rights, lest others walk all over you" view of legality. And would act accordingly. As a side note; I've had a guy try to start a fight with me in a bar. The details aren't important, but he walked away and left me alone. Without me resorting to violence. I've never had it happen in a bar. Seen a couple, usually from as far away as I could get once I figured out what was coming. But like you, I've had people try to start fights. And like you, I've had them end without it coming to violence. Most people don't really really wanna fight unless you take the first swing, anyway. However, I was perfectly ready and willing to step up to the plate if he HAD chosen to be violent, even though I would have been thrown out of there for it. I also wouldn't act the way I say a paladin should act. However, I'm not living in the paladin's world, where not acting at all would be seen as an admission that the insult is valid, and throwing an insult back would be seen as reducing himself to the insulter's level. In the Beowulf example, Beowulf's the son of an exile, very very low on the social rank scale. He can freely engage in the insult contest A> because it's an accepted system in his society and B> it's not lowering himself to do so; Unferth is at least the same rank as Beowulf, if not higher. Here we're disagreeing about whether a paladin's culture would see a lack of reaction to an insult as admitting it's valid. This is, I think, the real basis of our disagreement -- I don't think it's even remotely safe for us to make an assumption that a "in a paladin's world, X is always true." Or even that X is mostly true. An argument that a paladin would choose violence or the threat of it to silence an insult is, I think, difficult to make, especially when you go with an idea (your statement, not mine) that "not acting at all would be seen as an admission that the insult is valid, and throwing an insult back would be seen as reducing himself to the insulter's level." If merely using words to address that sort of concern is lowering yourself to the level of some lesser creature . . . . I should think that actually getting into a brawl with him would be worse. As for your assessment of Beowulf as being extremely low in social rank . . . .:uh-huh: Beowulf is the nephew of a king, and stands second in line to inherit a throne, dude. He's also extremely well dressed, and he keeps a band of favored companions who are also extremely well dressed -- as nearly everybody who sees them at Heorot points out. And while he may be the son of an exile, he's the son of an exile who got back on his feet (rare enough on its own), and then managed to gain enough status to get a princess as his wife -- Hrethel, King Hygelac's father and Beowulf's maternal grandfather, thought Ecgtheow was such a great guy that he deserved to marry his only daughter. This is, in itself, an enormous expenditure of resources on Ecgtheow. Ordinarily, you want to keep your only daughter for a dynastic marriage outside the kingdom. He's also widely famed for his prowess in battle -- despite Unferth's claims, Hrothgar is perfectly well able to recognize him by name, and it's known in the Danish court that Beowulf is quite a warrior and as such is ordinarily kept close at home by his lord. Unferth is, by contrast, a known murderer of his kinsmen, which is extremely dishonorable -- Beowulf is a real b*stard to bring it up in public, because it underscores how widespread the man's shame has become. Worse, Unferth is open to charges of cowardice and weakness because of the Grendel situation. What we see in the Beowulf example is a situation where some snivelling wretch opens his mouth at a bad time to insult the knight in shining armor who's offered to save the kingdom, and subsequently gets a set of return insults which are both factually accurate and extremely shameful.
Thorak 02-08-04, 01:16 PM	And yet again, I get shown why I should keep my yap shut about things I'm not well-versed in. I submit to Malben's obviously much better knowledge of the Beowulf saga, it's a little out of my field and while I've read it, it's been quite a while and my memory's foggy. As for the legal aspects; I was referring to cases I've seen in British courts between 1150 and 1400. So we're really talking about two entirely different legal systems if you're talking about the Germanic system of hue-and-cry. I'm also fairly well versed in the Germanic systems too though, so I understand what you're talking about when you raise the point. It also serves to better illustrate my underlying point; legality is based on society. In an early Germanic culture, you'd be exonerated for chasing down and grabbing a guy as long as you got a mob to help you. In later medieval English law, you would be exonerated if you could show you had a perfectly good reason to do so. And in modern law, you're pretty much screwed regardless of your reasons; even self-defence isn't a factor once you give chase. Each of these was 'right' at the time, and it's not based on anything specific, but the culture it's imbedded in. I for one choose to see the D&D worlds as fairly close to late medieval Europe when it comes down to the general rules of society; violence being an acceptable solution to a problem, etc. Part of it's the budding historian saying that, to represent a culture with the same kinds of technology and government you also need to share the other aspects like law and societal trends, and part is just the fact that since the game essentially revolves around violence (how many pages are devoted to combat rules and damaging spells?), I feel it's shortsighted to assume that the culture around these characters would share modern sensibilities to violent acts. Or else we'd see demonstrations throughout the streets of Faerun about how Dragons are an endangered species, and adventurers need to stop killing them before they're extinct, and massive debates about stopping racial prejudices (mostly centered around the age-old dwarf-elf issues), etc. This is why I see no issue with a paladin being inherently violent; certainly he shouldn't be needlessly violent, but if a situation calls for violence, then he certainly can react with it. Especially since paladins are, in essence, a violent group. If they were intended to be pacifistic, fight-only-if-absolutely-necessary types, they wouldn't be as good at combat as they are.
Malben 02-08-04, 06:40 PM	Thorak, I think we're mostly seeing eye to eye here, especially with regards to the idea that what's considered honorable/right/wrong is a cultural thing. I don't really agree with you that a paladin would be able to smack people around for insulting him, though. At least, not outside of certain socially-acceptable channels (probably a formal duel, if we're going to go the route of calling all paladins knights, and hence noblemen). If a duel isn't possible because of differences of rank, it leaves a couple of possibilities open to us. One of them is that the knight ignores the loudmouth. This is a distinct possibility, and one which I personally favor -- if we look at period romances like the work of Chretien de Troyes, or even at the alliterative Morte D'Arthur, there are some characters who probably answer to conventional ideas of paladinhood (notably Lancelot and Galahad, and probably Percival). They're notable in part because they don't make a habit of doing things that might involve a fight with a commoner, what with it being dishonorable to mix with the common folk in personal combat and all that. It would appear that knights are perfectly well allowed to ride down a couple dozen peasants in actual warfare, but in questions of honor that sort of thing isn't so clear-cut. I don't think a paladin, for a variety of reasons, is likely to respond to most insults with immediate force. I think a duel is a distinct possibility if he (or she, in the case of DnD) is faced with such a conflict against a peer. Neither do I really think it likely that a commoner is going to insult a paladin, if we're dealing with a High Middle Ages setting. Regardless, though, I'd expect that if a paladin did resort to violence, in whatever setting, it would generally only happen in cases where such violence would be evenly-matched enough to prove meaningful, and optimally it would happen within the paladin's social class. I'd also more or less expect to see ritualized violence rather than informal mayhem -- that is, I'd be expecting the paladin to invite his detractor to a duel rather than break a bottle on the edge of the bar and try to stab someone, so to speak.
Thorak 02-09-04, 08:21 AM	I only really intended the smacking around as a possible example of the fact that paladins are, at heart, critters based on violence. I never meant to imply that any paladin ever, when insulted, should whack the guy. The one case I used, where he was insulted by some aristocratic fop who's lower-ranked than he is to begin with, is if anything merciful. If he challenged the fop to a duel, first he'd be lowering himself to the fop's level, and even besides that, he'd kill they guy in the duel. A quick backhand repays the fop for the insult, almost certainly keeps the fop from tossing out another, lets everyone know the Paladin won't stand by and let people insult him without repercussions, and the fop gets away with a sore jaw. Sure, it's perfecly possible to play a pacifistic, fight-only-when-no-other-course-exists kind of paladin (I actually had a concept of a pacifistic wrestling paladin wielding a Helm of Opposite Alignment, wrestling and then converting the evil hordes one-by-one, until my DM thought about it for a second heartbeat and realized what would happen after the first few combats. But he never, ever killed anyone if he could absolutely avoid it.) I just don't like the apparently common view that ALL paladins have to avoid violence. Certainly it should be restrained and used only when called for, but I don't believe my situation as presented above is in any way dishonorable or evil. If anything, gleefully challenging the fop to a duel so you can kill him is 'more' evil than a quick backhand to shut him up.
Arakano 02-09-04, 10:49 AM	Well, Malben and Thorak, I think you are doing great at this debate. :) Just to add a few things: 1) In german law, you are allowed to charge and capture someone who just commited a crime. For example, if someone steals your watch, and you have to wrestle him down to hold him until the police arrives, you acted totally correct. 2) In medieval Saxony (northern Germany), you not only got charged for rape, but also for sexual harassment. The punishments in such cases were even regulated and put down in the famous "Sachsenspiegel" (literally: Mirror of the Saxons). If someone touched the breast of a woman (against her will ;) ), for example, he had to pay 45 cows...
Arakano 02-09-04, 10:54 AM	dopple post... :rolleyes:
DrakeRunner 02-09-04, 12:01 PM	I thought more on the subject, and I guess we can only chalk this up under "Paladins are not exactly the same and will react to different circumstances differently".
Malben 02-09-04, 12:50 PM	Originally posted by Thorak If anything, gleefully challenging the fop to a duel so you can kill him is 'more' evil than a quick backhand to shut him up. You don't have to kill someone in a duel, most of the time. You and your opponent are allowed to yield, after all. I suppose what I'm pointing at, here, is the idea that a casual backhand is . . . actually pretty disorderly/unlawful conduct. But at this point, we're probably about to get the debate into the realms of sheer pedantry. I agree with you that yes, paladins are mostly violent people, and that by and large, they consider violence an entirely viable solution to a conflict. To Arakano: Cool stuff. I didn't know about that aspect of modern German law. That is modern, right? Very interesting -- not totally surprising, in some ways, since Germany and the Scandinavian countries seem to have held onto a lot of old tidbits from medieval law, but still very interesting. And I was not familiar with the Sachsenspiegel or with those specific provisions against sexual harassment. Those really do surprise me -- especially the fine associated with groping a woman. 45 cows is . . . wow. I'd have to do a lot of research, but my suspicion is that 45 cows would be nearly equal to a wergild settlement, for some classes of man.
Thorak 02-09-04, 03:48 PM	nitpick Touching a woman's breast without her permission would be sexual assault, not sexual harassment. /nitpick But point made; most of my studies of Germanic and Saxon law relate to earlier law codes, which didn't include such things as 'crimes'. Even so, if my example is tarnished, my point is still true; what is right and wrong depends on one's culture. For instance; it should be noted that you could, essentially, get away with any non-felony under Germanic laws as long as you were rich enough to pay up. Sure, you'd be hated, but if you had a couple thousand cows to spare, you could run around fondling every woman in the village if you wanted to. Obviously, our modern system is somewhat different. Also, interestingly, it's only in the last 50 years that the world has seen such a massive amount of legal suits being placed, percentage wise compared to the population, since the Middle Ages. When they'd regularly sue their neighbour over a disputed chicken, or whether property lines were 1 foot this way or that. It was widely recognized in the 19th and early 20th century that the Middle Ages were loony that way, I find it distinctly depressing that we've gone even further. "Waa! I spilled hot coffee on myself! 20 years ago I'd have been called an idiot, but now I can sue McDonald's for millions!"
Leap 02-10-04, 08:16 AM	Probably Gandalf is a good example of what most of us would like to think of as a paladin (brave, honest, generous, charismatic, good with a sword, aura of protection, mount (shadowfax)) but he lacks the institutionalised nature of a paladin. Pallies, being lawful, are bound strictly to a code of behaviour that overrules their own desires and biases…..Good old Gandalf is probably what a paladin would be if he could be NG, but a LG bod requires a far stricter adherence to and explicit set of directions. You need a Professional who does not let his own opinions / desires / biases get in the way of how he goes about sacrificing for the benefit of others. To me the best example I can think of is Teal’c from Stargate (who is very lawful compared to the other members of SG1). It’s the high degree of discipline that makes the difference I think – paladins should be highly disciplined and Gandalf is not this (Saruman is more disciplined than Gandalf, and berates him for having too much of a liking for “hobbit weed”).
DrakeRunner 02-10-04, 11:42 AM	No, Leap, I'd say they were both Lawful Good. Just because one has a vice or two doesn't mean they aren't Lawful. Gandalf lived his life by his code and stuck to it except for rare circumstances.
Leap 02-10-04, 11:57 AM	Why would that invalidate Gandalf being NG though – neutrals still have some code of conduct, they just don’t live their life by “The Law” as lawfuls do………..neutral has space for personal opinion/bias/desire/interpretation, being as it is halfway between Law and Chaos. If you look at Oriental Adventures you see an excellent example of Lawfulness; little if any space for personal bias or interpretation….everything codified strictly….and that is what a Paladin should be like; whereas Gandalf was for more, well, human than that (smoked “weed”, drank ale, laughed, joked, was easily persuaded by children’s sad faces). He had standards but was not a rigid embodiment of a code in the way a Samurai or a Paladin would be.
Schmendrick 02-10-04, 12:46 PM	Originally posted by Leap Why would that invalidate Gandalf being NG though – neutrals still have some code of conduct, they just don’t live their life by “The Law” as lawfuls do………..neutral has space for personal opinion/bias/desire/interpretation, being as it is halfway between Law and Chaos. If you look at Oriental Adventures you see an excellent example of Lawfulness; little if any space for personal bias or interpretation….everything codified strictly….and that is what a Paladin should be like; whereas Gandalf was for more, well, human than that (smoked “weed”, drank ale, laughed, joked, was easily persuaded by children’s sad faces). He had standards but was not a rigid embodiment of a code in the way a Samurai or a Paladin would be. Lawful does not mean you have no personal opinion/bias/desire/interpretation. Lawful means you strive for order. Not every Lawful Good character has a Paladin or Samurai's code of conduct; a CoC goes far beyond the Lawful alignment (and even it leaves space for personal traits). A CoC requires a Lawful character, but it the relationship doesn't work the other way around.
Rotipher 02-10-04, 01:48 PM	A good archetypal example of paladinish behavior can be found on just about any cop show: the "By The Book" partner. That's the one who believes in the System -- not necessarily that it's infalible, just that it's better to work within the System to serve the public than to break the rules -- and is the first to take risks to protect innocents. The "Maverick" partner who'd rather break the rules to ensure a bust is a good example of a NON-Lawful hero. My favorite example of cop-as-paladin behavior? On the old show "The Commish", the main character is searching for a kidnapped toddler. He knows the child has a metabolic disorder and will die if he can't find him ASAP. While searching the house of a suspect under a "plain sight" warrant, he spots something in a not-quite-shut drawer that *might* be a vital clue; however, he has no legal authority to search *inside* the drawer, so he hesitates. For about three seconds. Then, recalling that a little boy's life is at stake, he *flings* the drawer open -- knowingly violating the terms of his "eyes-only" warrant, thus rendering whatever's inside useless as evidence -- and seizes the clue at once. Getting a conviction on the kidnapper or adhering to the strict terms of the warrant are ultimately less important than saving the child's life; in effect, the needs of Good have trumped the dictates of Law ... which, for paladins, is as it should be. :-) Note that while the Commish could theoretically have *lied* about where he'd found the clue, thus getting it admitted to evidence after all, he did not do so. Once the boy was safe, Lawful behavior again became a priority, and he didn't stretch the bounds of legality any further. Other evidence let them bust the kidnapper later in the episode ... but even if the (tainted) clue in the drawer had been their *only* link, and the criminal had to be acquitted, it would still have been worth it to bring the boy home safely.
Bacon and Eggs 02-10-04, 01:55 PM	okay then ... Constable Benton Fraser(Paul Gross) on the TV series Due South. I would make Diefenbaker a Paladin too.
ChaoticGod 02-10-04, 02:22 PM	I'm with Smilodan and B&E. The Canadian Mountie from Due South was in my view an excellent paladin. But I'm bias, I loved that show. (sniff) Benton Fraiser was Polite, Considerate, Fearless, Fair, Just, Caring and once even impersonated a used car salesman without the slightest deception! He was the man.
Leap 02-11-04, 05:50 AM	Schmendrick – Lawful does not mean you have no personal opinion/bias/desire/interpretation. Lawful means you strive for order. Not every Lawful Good character has a Paladin or Samurai's code of conduct; a CoC goes far beyond the Lawful alignment (and even it leaves space for personal traits). A CoC requires a Lawful character, but it the relationship doesn't work the other way around. But as Oriental Adventures says, the society in that book is the very epitome of a Lawful Society; one where personal preference is of little if any consequence in the face of the strictures of society. Of course it does not mean that you do not have these things (opinion etc) if you are a Lawful character, but it does mean they are subsumed beneath a code of strictures. There is very little space for “personal interpretation” and catering to personal feelings in Lawfulness – think archetypal professional attitude. That is why Teal’c makes such a good example of a Paladin. To digress a little: A lawful person, for example, would stay married to their other half even if the love that brought them together had died, because they had vowed that it was forever and that vow is more important than their feelings. - A lawful good person would do this in the name of “the greater good”; trying to make the world better for others by sacrificing their right to a happy home in order to give the world stability. - A lawful evil person would do this for “political” reasons; for the power that “being a model of stability” brought them - in fact they would probably have married for that reason to begin with. A neutral person would be committed to the person they love and even work to rebuild a faltering love, but if that love was irretrievably gone would split and seek to rebuild a life with someone else. A chaotic person would not commit to begin with but would flit from person to person as the fancy took them. - A chaotic good person would do this in order to bring greater good to others; not letting a relationship tie them down but instead leave them free to act on impulse in helping others (sacrificing their chance of a happy home so that no commitments would get in the way). - A chaotic evil person would do this to get as much fun or power as they could; using people with the minimal complications. Perhaps it is just my perspective, but I see Gandalf as more Neutral than Lawful and although would make an excellent NG Paladin should such exist……..is not really a LG type. Although that said I suppose I am relying more on Gandalf the Grey, whereas Gandalf the White may well be more LG / Paladiny given his more “I have been sent back until my task is completed” and “Saruman as he should have been” approach………. Ooops, digressed a lot :)
Thorak 02-11-04, 08:00 AM	Originally posted by Leap whereas Gandalf was for more, well, human than that (smoked “weed”, drank ale, laughed, joked, was easily persuaded by children’s sad faces) nitpick pipeweed, in LOTR, refers to their equivalent of tobacco. Not marijuana. Tolkien was known to enjoy his pipe, but noone's ever found even a tiny bit of evidence he used wacky tabaccy in it. /nitpick As for the rest, how is laughing, joking, and being a sucker for cute innocent kids not "lawful good" or "paladiny"? Even drinking ale isn't an issue; if we're talking about a roughly medieval state of technology, safe drinking water is hard to find, and practically impossible in a city. Ale is much safer. And, back then, ale was distinctly weaker, since it was brewed as a thirst quencher and not a drunkenness inducer, it was typically 1-2% alchohol, if that. Wine, too, wasn't nearly as strong as today. And even if it was, getting drunk isn't unlawful by itself, though doing unlawful things WHILE drunk would be a violation of a paladin's CoC.
KitsuneSoup 02-11-04, 08:26 AM	Originally posted by Thorak The one case I used, where he was insulted by some aristocratic fop who's lower-ranked than he is to begin with, is if anything merciful. If he challenged the fop to a duel, first he'd be lowering himself to the fop's level, and even besides that, he'd kill they guy in the duel. A quick backhand repays the fop for the insult, almost certainly keeps the fop from tossing out another, lets everyone know the Paladin won't stand by and let people insult him without repercussions, and the fop gets away with a sore jaw. I've been readed some of these arguments, and it seems like most people play paladins as an island in a sea of madness in their worlds. Using the flavour text of the paladin, it has to be noted that paladins should be respected and treated more fairly than other people, as well. This helps contribute to his alignment more than hurt it, and helps him stick to his ethics. For example, at ten minute intervals, a fighter and paladin walk down a street. There is a *ahem* lady of the night standing right along their way. Roxanne will proposition the fighter, tempting his morals. When the paladin comes by (and if he's well- known, which he odds are he is if by armor if not name), she's more likely to say something polite, beg for minor money, or simply wonder why she can't get a nice guy like that. It's true that this would break down in a court environment, where the courtiers and fops would indeed make fun of or throw scandalous rumors about our paladin. Fop: I saw Sir Charles talking to Roxanne today. Dandy: Reallllyyy... wonder what he was doing with her, eh? Fop: Well, he had her hands on her, and his eyes were closed in some kind of ecstacy! Dandy and Fop: Ooooo... the courtiers must hear of this! When the paladin hears of this, he should be good-natured and honorable enough to realize that when you're a Paragon Of Virtue (tm), little men are going to poke fun at you. Even stepping up to deny the rumors would be beneath him. Of course... Fop: I saw Sir Charles talking to Roxanne today. Dandy: Reallllyyy... wonder what he was doing with her, eh? Fop: Well, he had her hands on her, and his eyes were closed in some kind of ecstacy! And... oh, here he comes... Dandy: Hello, Sir Charles! *sly grin* Fop: Yes, hello, Sir Charles! Tell us, were you out and about today? *snicker* Sir Charles: Why, yes. Roxanne was suffering from some strange disease and I was able to drive it away through prayer. Dandy and Fop: *downhearted* Oh. Sir Charles: Actually, the blisters rather resembled what's on your nose... Especially if the kingdom respects paladins or desires their service, the courtisans know better than to poke open fun at some of them. KitsuneSoup [EDIT: Not that in all campaigns should Roxanne commit wholely evil acts by plying her trade; in mine, I've got the kind-hearted Roxanne who becomes a paladin. Not to get side-tracked, just pointed out the example. -- KS]
Leap 02-11-04, 08:54 AM	Thorak – pipeweed, in LOTR, refers to their equivalent of tobacco. Not marijuana. Tolkien was known to enjoy his pipe, but noone's ever found even a tiny bit of evidence he used wacky tabaccy in it. Apart from the fact he wrote about fiery demons and glowing elves…..prime candidate for a wacky pipe ;) [jk] I realise that Tolkien was a pipe smoker and that the weed refers to tobacco, it was more a fact of Gandalf liking the pleasures of the world and real life (ale, jokes, weed, friendship, playfulness) compared to the far more disciplined (and ultimately world-hating) Saruman….. Lawful to me is about those straight faced sticklers who forget the simple joys of life….just like those other exemplars of Lawful alignment, the Samurai and the Monk. One thing I really like about LOTR is showing the way the uptight (Saruman, Denethor) are corrupted, but the world is saved by the pipe smoking ale drinking (to moderation) jokers who value home, family, love and friendship (Frodo, Sam, Gimli and Aragorn). The battle of LOTR (IMHO) is between those who promote the fires of hearth and those who promote the fires of industry. [b] if we're talking about a roughly medieval state of technology, safe drinking water is hard to find, and practically impossible in a city. Ale is much safer. And, back then, ale was distinctly weaker, since it was brewed as a thirst quencher and not a drunkenness inducer, it was typically 1-2% alchohol, if that. [b] You mean “small beer” (have tasted real small beer and it is just about the most delicious, unintoxicating, refreshing drink ever, so yes I agree)? I am not trying to raise a point about intoxication though, but one about pleasure, or rather simple pleasures in general…. Lawful to me is too straight laced for such simple pleasures, hence my placing G the Grey as NG not LG. :)
pres_man 02-11-04, 10:28 AM	I am currently playing a female dwarf paladin. Every weapon and armor are of masterworkmanship, she is a walking billboard of the quality of dwarven work. She also strongly respects the customs of her people. So she drinks and she smokes, but both are done in moderation for she never knows when she will be needed to smite some skulls. Then again I am making her kind of the diplomate of the party, so she would view it as rude not to drink with others.
Thorak 02-11-04, 02:41 PM	Kitsunesoup, regarding the example you posted, I wholeheartedly agree that a paladin shouldn't be running around beating on dandies for gossiping behind his back. He should be stalwart and let the rumours die on their own, since his innate honour shows anyone who matters how there's no way the rumours are true. My point about 'insults' was more the Dandy or Fop calling him out publicly, calling him an idiot, a murderer, a thief, etc. An insult made with malicious intent in a public place to the general population; an accusation of an untruth about the paladin's character leveled directly at the paladin himself. I probably didn't make that clear enough though. Idle gossip is a part of court life, but an obnoxious twit calling the paladin's honour and devotion into question should be sat down. Hard. And if the insult is one that refers to criminal acts, the twit should then be dragged to a magistrate to provide evidence, or admit he was committing slander.
KitsuneSoup 02-11-04, 09:47 PM	Originally posted by Thorak Kitsunesoup, regarding the example you posted, I wholeheartedly agree that a paladin shouldn't be running around beating on dandies for gossiping behind his back. He should be stalwart and let the rumours die on their own, since his innate honour shows anyone who matters how there's no way the rumours are true. My point about 'insults' was more the Dandy or Fop calling him out publicly, calling him an idiot, a murderer, a thief, etc. An insult made with malicious intent in a public place to the general population; an accusation of an untruth about the paladin's character leveled directly at the paladin himself. I probably didn't make that clear enough though. Idle gossip is a part of court life, but an obnoxious twit calling the paladin's honour and devotion into question should be sat down. Hard. And if the insult is one that refers to criminal acts, the twit should then be dragged to a magistrate to provide evidence, or admit he was committing slander. That's true, but another important part of being a paladin should be having dignity and righteousness. The paladin knows he's in the right in his actions; if he wasn't, the gods themselves would should their displeasure. He doesn't need to react with anything other than calm patience and slowly ignore Fop and Dandy. Acting like a holy diginified person proves that you are. It's much like what happened to Napoleon and Tallyrand. Towards the end of his war, Napoleon knew that Tallyrand was conspiring against him, but could not prove it. He gathered his high-ranking courtisans into a sitting room and began talking of treason. Tallyrand ignored him. Napoleon began to yell about treason. Tallyrand calmly regarded the mantlepiece. Napoleon finally began to scream obscenities to Tallyrand directly, accusing him and his wife of treason. Tallyrand paid no mind. Napoleon finally stormed out of the room, while Tallyrand left calmly and slowly. Everyone knew that Napoleon was the loser of this contest, and quickly the word spread. A paladin should regard the Fop and Dandy in much the same manner. If they persist in their insults and name-calling of such a pristine person, all they do is boost the paladin's good name and make themselves look like fools. KitsuneSoup
Thorak 02-12-04, 06:59 AM	Alternatively, Kitsunesoup, if we take a case where said paladin has been consorting with unwholesome types, like the 'lady of the night' you mentioned, if some aristocratic twit publicly accuses him of 'mixing business with pleasure', he's going to have to respond. It's the kind of thing that's eminently believable, and it can be awful hard to tell the difference between a full paladin and one who's fallen from minor infractions to his CoC. Barring something like Detect Good, which I doubt most people in the court would have/resort to. Sure, if the insult's outlandish, ignore it. If you're well-enough respected that the guy looks like a fool, ignore it. But if you're been ticking people off because you're cracking down and exposing courtly corruptions, and the accusations have a germ of truth at their centre, something needs to be said. Especially if you're not in a position of power. I'm not arguing that it's always a necessity for every paladin. Merely that the option is a valid one, and in no way breaches a Paladin's CoC. Too many people play Paladins as prissy holier-than-thou pacifists, and that's a stereotype that annoys me.