Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Worguron 03-19-05, 01:40 AM	A friend of mine and I have been arguing about alignments recently and he won't listen to reason. He refuses to accept the printed and accepted idea of Lawful Good and insists on a completely different Here is the situation I gave as an example: There is a Paladin who serves as the bodyguard of a Lawful Good ruler. This ruler dies and his son ascends to the throne. The Paladin begins serving the new ruler, but after a short amount of time it becomes common knowledge that the new ruler is a worshipper of a Lawful Evil deity and the new ruler changes all the laws to reflect this. What does the Paladin do? My friend's response is that the Paladin follows the laws but he argues, complains, and petitions to get the laws changed. He argues that if the Paladin took up arms against the Law of the country the Paladin would become Chaotic. He refuses to listen to the printed information in the book or any arguments I have given. I am at my wits end with him. HELP!!! (Thanks in advance.)
Chandaroon 03-19-05, 01:49 AM	A LG Paladin is going to follow the laws of his God first. As a Paladin his first duty is to his God. He swore his allegience to his King, the King is dead and his son is evil. It was Hitler's Law in Germany that all the Jews were to be slaughtered. I'm using this as an example of an Evil ruler. If the Laws are Evil Then as a Good person he is not bound by them. Again as a Paladin his first duty is to obey the Laws of his God. At least that's my take. :)
Worguron 03-19-05, 02:04 AM	He refuses to accept the idea that the "Law" in Lawful Good doesn't have anything to do with the law of a government or community. Edit - I may be getting him now. I have explained that to truly define a character's alignment you must compare them to the universal concept of good, evil, law, and chaos and not against the concepts of his or her community. Edit 2 (I don't like double posts) - This may be the deciding factor for him. What does everyone feel Zaknafien from the Forgotten Realms would have as an alignment. Personally, I find that he is Lawful Neutral. Sure, he hates what most Drow stand for, but he follows their laws and doesn't actively fight against them.
Bopple 03-19-05, 02:14 AM	There are people who deny/misunderstand obvious things. From my experiences(not only in RPG, but in RL), such people never allow themselves to be persuaded.
Dartanel 03-19-05, 02:16 AM	A paladin's first duty is to righteousness. All other duties (yes, even to his deity) are subservient. The moment the Paladin was aware of evil in the heart of the heir he would have tried to redeem him. The moment an agent of evil ascended to the throne the Paladin would have left, most likely to find a way to protect the people from this new tyrant and/or restore the honor of the royalty.
D&D player 03-19-05, 02:24 AM	I beleive the Paliden would leave the land, or at least not serve the heir. The Palidin fights for good before law because alot of laws are evil.
was_fired 03-19-05, 03:05 AM	If the character believes he can do more good in his current possition acting as he acts now then he is doing the right thing. Lawful means following some code you establish for yourself. His code binds him to the king regardless of who it is, thus he is still lawful. So as long as both conditions are met he is still playing a lawful good character. His only crime against paladinhood is assosiating with an evil person, provided the person is evil. Even then this is not a violation depending on how you define "assosiate". Most people add a clause for redemption which is lacking in the RAW, and if this is the case then the paladin is fine. The reason we have to define this is because following the RAW this could be read as a paladin fighting evil is assosiating with evil and thus must fall from grace. :D
Greyman 03-19-05, 03:31 AM	There is a Paladin who serves as the bodyguard of a Lawful Good ruler. This ruler dies and his son ascends to the throne. The Paladin begins serving the new ruler, but after a short amount of time it becomes common knowledge that the new ruler is a worshipper of a Lawful Evil deity and the new ruler changes all the laws to reflect this. What does the Paladin do?First, he should start quietly investigating how the old ruler died. Note that the paladin's code demands that you respect legitimate authority, so unless and until there is any evidence that the new ruler attained authortity by anything other than wholy legitimate means, the paladin must continue to respect his authority. He can, however, harbor doubts and suspicions and should make every effort to satisfy them. It is a bodyguard's obligation to ensure he didn't fail his duty after all. However, the code also prohibits continued association with evil, or providing help that furthers the cause of evil or chaos, so the paladin cannot continue serving in the role of body guard to an evil ruler, even if the reign is legitimate. Respectful deference does not equate with utter obedience, and naturally the paladin may, and should, oppose a legitimate evil ruler - just with respectful opposition. Stull, if there is any possibilty of redeming the heir, and break his belief in the evil religion he follows, the paladin should seek to make the attempt.My friend's response is that the Paladin follows the laws but he argues, complains, and petitions to get the laws changed. He argues that if the Paladin took up arms against the Law of the country the Paladin would become Chaotic.His ultimate moral responsibility is to protect the innocent from such evil laws, but if your friend's paladin seeks to combat coruption from within the system, that is wholey in keeping with the paladin's code. He is fully correct to oppose such laws through any legal means available, and is even ethically obliged to make the attempt. He cannot, however, follow any law that contravens his code of morality and ethics. Fermenting a rebelion against a legitimate ruler is chaotic, and should be the last resort, one undertaken only when all else fails. The prefered form of rebellion would be to support the cause of an alternative legitimate candidate for the rulership.
MaxDog 03-19-05, 08:28 AM	Ahh, the classic dilemma of the Paladin: does he follow the dictates of his oath of service to an evil ruler and thus take the first step towards LN or worse; or does he break his oath to fight for good and thus nudge himself closer to the freedom of NG or perhaps throw off the shackles of servitude altogether and become CG? Remember, alignment isn't a straitjacket -- the player can choose whatever action he wants. A Lawful character CAN lie once in a while, an Evil one CAN help a little old lady across the street (for free even). But it is up to the DM to determine how all these actions aggregate into an alignment. Putting characters into situations where they have to make tough choices is a key element to in encouraging good role-playing. In this case, it sounds as if the player wants to stay with his leige. Perhaps he thinks he can effect change from the inside. In this case, he has put Law before Good. He is not yet LN (rarely should a single action radically change one's alignment). If he stays, put more choices before him -- have his lord command him to arrest a villager who refused to pay an exhorbatant tax. Once a rebellion begins in earnest, command him to round up an entire village suspected of harboring rebels. With each choice the Paladin must decide Law or Good?
robertliguori 03-19-05, 09:11 AM	Ah, one of those types. Have the paladin take a good long look at the laws still on the books. Arrest the king for violating them.
Nuntius128 03-19-05, 10:05 AM	Man... I was almost afraid there for a second. Most Paladin alignment threads last at least 3 pages. But, yes, Paladins aren't bound to Evil Laws, so the Paladin doesn't have to follow the rule of the Evil ruler.
SammasterT 03-19-05, 11:01 AM	Just to add my voice; paladins are devoted to the common good and believe that good laws and an orderly society best foster this end. When laws become to cumbersome, unintelligable to the common man, and/or inhumane, a paladin is honour bound to oppose them.
Callista 03-20-05, 07:09 AM	Simple solution for the Paladin--he steps down as bodyguard. Then he's no longer directly under the authority of the evil King. After that, it's only the laws of the land that he has to contend with. He obeys the ones that are non-Evil, disobeys the ones that are Evil, and if things get bad enough, he will attempt to find someone else (preferably with royal blood) to take the throne. He will, however, attempt to avoid violence: War is inherently chaotic, and if things can be accomplished without it, it is best avoided. Most kings, if unpopular enough, can be forced out of the throne--it is the nobles which give them power; and when the nobles turn against the king, the Paladin's job is done. If he can have someone else take the reins of power, while keeping the King a King in name, that's fine as well. A good Paladin will find ways to prevent evil without widespread chaos... but if chaos the only thing that will prevent evil, most paladins will go for the chaos, trying to keep things as orderly as possible. All in all, it sounds like a good idea for a Diplomacy-oriented adventure.
dknight100 03-20-05, 07:47 AM	You guys should check out the alternate alignment system listed in the book of (what ever it was for divine characters, you know, from Malhavoc Press). Instead of taking 9 alignments, it presents a scale based on Law - Chaos, Good - Evil. So that it is infact possible to be a less lawful LG character than the complete never breaks a law or does anything mildly wrong stereotype, without have long arguements with your dm and every other player in your group.
Clawhound 03-21-05, 12:40 PM	I'm coming in a bit late, but IMHO- The paladin would resign his position public, and publicly, state his reasons for resigning. Not only that, he would set out, publicly, and for the record, why he has decided to raise arms against the sitting king. Think of this as a lawful good declaration of war. Lawful does not make you a subservient robot. --Edit--- Lawful does not just mean "by the law", it also includes tradition, rights of caste, religious taboos, oaths sworn, and obligations owed. All lawful societies have ways of dealing with such problems. For instance, as already pointed out, the paladin can resign. What of unjust laws? Why are they unjust? Usually, they are unjust because they cause harm to others, trample on existing rights, or usurp rights which do not belong to the lawmakers. That is to say, some laws are greater than manmade law. (See the US Declaration of Independence for a good example of this logic.) Likewise, the paladin has sworn oaths, presumably before a god. To whom does he owe his greater oath, to the king or to a god? Finally, the paladin can go to a spiritual advisor and ask for advice. This is what advisors are for. If the DM screws you for following the advice, you've got a cruel GM.
smaugchow 03-21-05, 04:03 PM	There is some gray area, depending on the form and speed of the changeover. Every paladin is conflicted in his alignment - Lawful and Good can easily come into conflict and the paladin must choose one or the other. Repeated and systematic choice of one over the other would indicate a dangerous alignment shift, but simply chosing between L and G shouldn't be a big deal. I'm thinking of Bowen from Dragonheart. He tried to teach the prince, to lead him to reightousness, but failed and ultimately had to turn against his once-loved charge/ruler.
Gedrin 03-22-05, 01:48 AM	Perhaps a paladin might believe that legitimate authority is derived from moral conviction and without such a moral conviction no authority can be legitimate? Perhaps a paladin would believe that a king has a duty to his people, to protect them and watch over their best interests and it is for the fulfillment of this duty that a king is granted power and authority? If a paladin were to believe these things, and find himself serving a ruler who placed his own desires ahead of his duty and moral obligations to his kingdom... Such a paladin might well come to the conclusion that the new king had turned his back on his duty and was not a legitimate authority figure.