Preparing the Paladin
First things first. Ask your DM how alignment works in her campaign world. This doesn’t mean you need to sit down for deep philosophy. Just get an idea of what her views of good and evil are like. For a game of high adventure, this may be fairly black and white. “Evil things are just plain evil. Good people are good.” And so on. For a game that’s going into more personal roleplaying, the world may have a lot of shades of grey. People may have complex motives that are hard to define with simple good/evil definitions. For a game that’s going to be tactical combat and treasure gathering, the answer may be “Who cares?” That’s fine too.
Now you need to figure out a code for your paladin. The PHB gives ideas, but you should decide exactly what your code will be. This should be a mutual effort between the player and the DM. The DM may have particular ideas about how paladins work in this game world. She may even have specific orders of paladins with specific codes and styles. Remember, first and foremost this is a GAME. And there are other players in it. This is not theology or philosophy; you don’t need to define the perfect code of “good” conduct. You need a playable code for a valiant knight – and one that won’t annoy the heck out of the rest of the party in the process!
For example, take the PHB “may not associate with evil people” bit. Sure, a paladin should not want to have dealings with evil people, but for a DM who wants political intrigue, shades of grey, or moral ambiguities, this will be a nightmare for the paladin, the party and everyone concerned. Don’t make that part of the code!
On the other hand, the code that a paladin “Must try to redeem or defeat evil” and “must not permit evil acts” is fine. This gives everyone options, but still maintains the same general idea.
A paladin who “will never flee from battle” is going to be doomed pretty quickly. What kind of warriors would promote this conduct? And the rest of the party will be darn annoyed about having to either abandon the paladin or stay in a hopeless fight themselves! A paladin who will “never abandon an ally” or “never forsake those in need” is a better choice. The paladin will be the last to run, but if the needs of the party dictate running, she will run. If the only way she can stop a horrible demon is to try desperately to fight it, she’ll try…but if she can better serve those she wants to protect by getting help first, she’ll go get help – and get back fast!
A paladin’s code shouldn’t keep your other party members from using their skills. Your paladin personally not being able to strike an unaware foe or tell a lie is great. But if you won’t let the rogue sneak attack and the bard bluff, you’re causing problems for the whole group. Face it, they aren’t paladins. You are supposed to be an exemplar for them to look up to, not force them to do as you would! The rest of the world is not bound by the same code as you. No, this doesn’t mean you will go burn the pub because the team wanted to, or let them do it. Condoning evil is not the same as adhering to a higher standard of behavior!
One other thing to consider is which of three basic types of paladin you are. These are three rough general styles of belief. I’m sure people can easily come up with more, but I think these are helpful categories.
1) The Code. This paladin believes the code defines how to live life to ensure serving good. The paladin is absolute in following the code, and the code is the first place she turns to answer a tough question or resolve a moral conflict.
2) The Greater Good. This paladin believes her duty lies to do the best good for everyone. When she makes an action, she considers carefully how it will affect people, and what the best outcomes will be. She won’t forsake the code or stoop to an evil act, but she will make the choice that’s right for the greater good.
3) The Right. This paladin lives the code in an almost instinctive manner. She does what is right. Her personal conscience and set of ethics are a clear guide for her. She won’t even consider breaking from that path; its simply who she is.
Why can’t a paladin do a small evil for a greater good?
You see this statement a lot. “Isn’t a paladin who murders to save a hundred lives really doing a greater good?” or a similar variation. If you are going to play a paladin and can’t satisfactorily answer this to yourself, you might run into problems!
The big answer is lack of knowledge. Each action creates a chain of ripples and consequences with unforeseen effects. What appears to be good act in the short term may have long term results that the paladin could never have foreseen. Perhaps by standing by her code and refusing to commit the murder, the paladin will so impress the villain that he changes his mind about his evil deeds. Perhaps a hundred lives will be lost…but the horror and response ensures that an evil of such magnitude will never happen again for a hundred years.
Paladins are not omniscient. Virtually every “Do you pick evil A or evil B” scenario assumes omniscient knowledge of the consequences. People just don’t have that. A paladin truly believes that by doing what is RIGHT, the ultimate outcome will be good…even if that ultimate outcome is long beyond her understanding.
So, maybe innocents will die because you refused to do evil…but its better to die for good than to survive by an act of evil.
Why does a paladin have to follow the rules?
Then you have silly things like “not stabbing someone in the back” or “always keeping your word”. Why is that good. I mean, if beating someone in a fair fight would be good, why should backstab be evil? It might not be. But that’s not the point. Paladins are part of an order Yes, by the rules you can have a lone paladin, but like it or not, that’s not really part of how paladins were defined.). The order has established a code and a reputation that befits that code. To tarnish that code could risk the abilities of all paladins for generations to come!
When the Paladin says “I must have the ancient weapon to defeat the evil. I will return it when its task is done.”, why does anyone believe her enough to trust her with such a valuable relic? Because paladins don’t lie. Why does the group of enemy soldiers throw down their arms without a fight when the paladin demands they do? Because paladins accept an honorable surrender. Why does the enemy king let the paladin enter his court freely to discuss a treaty, when the paladin might take the opportunity to strike him down at any moment? Because paladins don’t strike a foe in cold blood. A reputation gives certain benefits; maintaining them is an important part of being a paladin.
Lawful Stupid
Some people seem to think paladin code = dumb. I sure hope you are not one of them. Do you have to smack every person who shows up on “detect evil”? If your DM is playing a realistic world with grays, of course not. You might watch them. You might be suspicious. You might be very cautious with them. But you don’t need to go to open violence.
Do you have to accept any pathetic sob story a villain tosses out? Of course not. Mercy is good, but a paladin doesn’t have to be gullible, and a paladin does not have to administer mercy senselessly. If the evil wizard says he want to repent, that doesn’t mean you “have to let him go”. Remove his spellbooks. Deliver him to the nearest authorities for proper trial. Make him take a geas to perform good deeds. Tell him his crimes are so terrible and his threat is so great they cannot be overlooked, and that he had best prepare his soul and hope to be redeemed in his next life. All of these are options available.
Watch for falling paladins
Played by a reasonably normal person with a reasonably intelligent DM, there is no reason a paladin should ever fall. Afraid one of the two isn’t normal or reasonable? Read on…
A paladin falling from grace should NEVER surprise the player. Really. If a paladin is going to fall, the player should see it coming and should know perfectly well what she did to cause it. If she doesn’t the DM and player have a difference of opinion on morals, or the DM is doing something wrong. As such, if you are the DM and a player does something that seems drastically wrong for a paladin, its probably time to...
…
Call for a WIS check. (What, you thought I was going to say “strip away powers?”) Really. Have the paladin roll a check. Set a DC of oh, say 5 or so. 10 if you want. If the paladin passes tell her “are you sure about that action?”, or maybe “your conscience is bothering you about this”. Or how about “WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING?!?”. Give the player a second chance, and at the same time make sure you and the player are on the same footing about this. The player may not realize you see something as an unpaladinly act. The character probably should though!
Falling requires conscious decision to do evil. You don’t fall because you picked path A and missed stopping the devil that was down path B. You don’t fall when a person suddenly ambushes and stabs you and you respond with a lethal sword blow, only to later find out the nearsighted idiot mistook you for an orc. You are not omnipotent or omniscient. You aren’t expected to be. If you are faced with two perils at once, you might not be able to stop them both. That’s a terrible part of life, but its not committing evil. As long you do your best, that’s what counts. A paladin who approaches the choice carefully, attempts to help where she can, and displays regret when she cannot help is being played fine.
You are not responsible for the actions of others. If the evil cleric has a hostage, you should do what you can to resolve the situation. If the cleric kills the hostage, that’s his action, not yours. Being forced into a horrible situation does not hold you accountable for that situation.
And DMs, please display some good sense. While atonement implies you may need it for actions carried out under compulsion, maintain some semblance of logic and ignore that. Someone taking control of your mind and forcing you to commit an evil act is no more “evil” on your part than someone stealing your sword and using it for evil.
What if you do fall and you really did deserve it? Suffer. (The character, not you). Be righteous about it, insisting you did no wrong. Have a crisis of faith. Become determined to forge on stronger and do good anyway. Do whatever you think the character would do. You’ve got an interesting roleplay opportunity. Go with it. “Oops, I was bad, I’ll get a cleric to cast atonement and we’re done” is a pretty boring experience.
A character who strayed from grace into a dark path, was overcome with despair, was eventually helped by comrades to keep going, committed herself back to the cause of good, heroically entered into battle against a terrible demon, is horribly wounded and makes a desperate strike at the creature and suddenly finds her sword blow hitting with the restored full power of a paladin’s smite evil behind it – that’s a fall and redemption everyone will remember!
Will this help all those falling paladin threads? Nah, not a chance. But maybe it will give some DMs and players something to think about.
Ex: A paladin of Kelemvor would be less concerned with healing the sick and injured (after all, death is natural and not to be feared), nor as afraid to slay evil (death is prevention of further evil, and the evil being can repent in the afterlife, before Kelemvor). A paladin of Lathander would be very concerned with healing the sick, raising up the downtrodden and destroying the undead, etc.
Also, each paladin gets an extra ability (it has no name, but let's call it Evil Sense). If an action would cause the paladin to slip, his Evil Sense tingles. If an act is blatantly evil, the game stops, and I ask the player (not the character) what exactly he's thinking.
Basically, it's like a built in and upgraded Phylactery of Faithfulness that can't be disabled (it isn't magical).
I even go so far and say that a good shades of grey game is "easier" for a paladin then a black and white game, because when there a shades of grey, the paladin can be sure that if someone detects as evil (barring any form of magical deception) is really evil and deserves to be smitten. In a black/white game the paladin can never be sure if the person he detects as evil is a vile demon summoner or just kicked a dog on his way to work.
Of course, some people don't like what I have said above because of the detect->smite play style many people don't like but that is a valid play style supported by nearly every ability the paladin has. The paladin is made for killing evil things, the problem is that many DMs only assume that orcs encountered in a dungeon fall into this category, but not evil commoners in a city. Here the responsibility of the DM begins. If you don't want that play style of have to make this clear right from the beginning and not arbitrary decide which evil can be killed and which not. That also means that you have to watch out who you assign the evil alignment to. I have seen many cases where a paladin problem arises because the DM throws the evil alignment around without first thinking why the persons he makes evil have deserved it and then is astonished by the harsh actions the paladin takes to remove this evil persons because in the DMs mind they have done nothing (because he didn't though about what they have done).
A problem what I have with the above post is that you say that the paladin has always to back down in every issue? Why must the paladin change his code to be together with the "CN" children sacrificing demon summoner, and not the other player change his character? The other players have as much a responsibility to ensure a smooth game as the paladin so instead of modifying the paladin to fit with everyone else, the others must also change their characters so that they can get along with a paladin. And very important, no baiting! When the DM sees a player actively baiting the paladin to make him fall or otherwise messing with him then he has to stop it ASAP.
In a 'grey' situation, not everything is so clear cut. An essentially good person might turn to crime for incorrect but correctible mistakes. An evil person might be trying to forge a peaceful alliance between kingdoms (he's doing it just to improve his business, but it will indirectly end years of fighting and senseless bloodshed). An evil crime overlord might strictly enforce a code of conduct among her underlings that isn't nearly as bad as what any of the ones who might take her place would.
A character who must attack anyone fitting a certain criteria just won't fit believably into a setting like this, and won't be compatible with most of the world.
A problem what I have with the above post is that you say that the paladin has always to back down in every issue? Why must the paladin change his code to be together with the "CN" children sacrificing demon summoner, and not the other player change his character?
Um, I mentioned sneak attacking and bluffing, not sacrificing children and summoning demons! (and if a DM is letting a child sacrificing demon summoner be CN, there are problems with that game far beyond what any paladin could cause). The general idea is that if any given situation is being decided by "what is the paladin allowed to do?", this is inordinately focusing the game on one character. Thus, the paladin's code should not be such that it will frequently be the determining factor in what actions the party can take.
In a 'grey' situation, not everything is so clear cut. An essentially good person might turn to crime for incorrect but correctible mistakes. An evil person might be trying to forge a peaceful alliance between kingdoms (he's doing it just to improve his business, but it will indirectly end years of fighting and senseless bloodshed). An evil crime overlord might strictly enforce a code of conduct among her underlings that isn't nearly as bad as what any of the ones who might take her place would.
That may be but ultimately it doesn't matter to a paladin because of his detect evil ability. No matter if the campaign is B/W or grey, when it detects evil it is evil. In grey campaigns the risk is higher that the DM does screw with the paladin by giving the evil alignment to people who would actually be neutral and then smacks the paladin for overreacting even though he has done exactly what he is supposed to do.
When a good person can do a evil act and stay good then a evil person can do a good act and stay evil. If they act against their alignment too often they change to neutral and then, again after more acts, to the opposite alignment they started from. This is also true for grey campaigns, so the paladin can clearly see that the man caught doing an evil act is not really evil and that the one bringing peace to two warring tribes is in reality the devil in person. Again, the only real problem is that the DM might make "evil" equal to "not nice" which reduces paladins from holy warriors to nannies who are only allowed to scold evil people for the bad things they do. Worse, DMs tend to forget to tell the player this little fact.
Especially in grey games like you describe it the neutral alignment should be much more common even among the people who are "not nice". Evil and good should be reserved for truly extreme individuals. Then you have no problem with paladins. The "what do I do with the evil peasant who's never actually done anything wrong?" never comes up as you can't be evil and have done nothing.
Evil and good should be reserved for truly extreme individuals.
This seems to be the key content. I don't feel that a "grey" world is any more inclined to neutrality that a black/white world. It’s just that in a grey world its more likely for a good person to being doing something wrong or an evil person to be doing something right.
While you may be able to tell the person forging the alliance is evil, that doesn't make it right for you to toast them on sight! Stopping something good because an evil person is responsible is a very extreme act. Evil people can be made to do the work of good, much as good people can be made to do the work of evil.
The greatest victory "good" can have is to convert someone who is evil; much as the greatest victory "evil" can have is to corrupt someone who is good. You mention about how people can change through actions; this is very true and one of the core reasons why a paladin should never "smite on sight." It is NOT a paladin's job to thwart the evil wizard's diabolic plan to give his mother a nice mother's day bouquet. It is NOT acceptable for the paladin to let the otherwise good person steal because the person gives into a moment of weakness and really wants something.
Good/Evil tells you a lot about what you should do; if an evil person is behind something that seems good, you had better find out why they are doing it and if they have ulterior motives that mean you should stop it. But it does not mean you should stop it outright!
The "what do I do with the evil peasant who's never actually done anything wrong?" never comes up as you can't be evil and have done nothing.
Another difference. To my mind, if a person wants to rob and cheat others, and would willingly do so, but DOESN'T because that person is afraid of the consequences, that is an evil person. However, that is a person who is also showing that the law works. The law is scaring him into acting in a non-evil manner. By smiting down such a person, the paladin is defeating the very purpose of the law. A paladin who does not consider the possibility that an evil person can be redeemed is equally going against the basic tenets of good.
If a renegade warrior from the evil overlord has defected and will show the party the secret way into the evil overlord's hideout because she is tired of the overlord's mistreatment of her people, the paladin who refuses to go along with it - or worse, attacks on sight - is being the worst kind of Lawful Stupid. He is refusing an advantage to help do good for no reason, and is destroying what might be the first step on a path to redemption for the evil warrior. This is why "may not associate with anyone evil" should NOT be a part of a paladin code of conduct.
Detect evil only determines that the person is evil not what they've done. Maybe they deal in petty larceny, scams people out of there money, or have a protection racket going. While not good by any measure, does this mean the person should be killed on sight?
Another difference. To my mind, if a person wants to rob and cheat others, and would willingly do so, but DOESN'T because that person is afraid of the consequences, that is an evil person. However, that is a person who is also showing that the law works. The law is scaring him into acting in a non-evil manner. By smiting down such a person, the paladin is defeating the very purpose of the law. A paladin who does not consider the possibility that an evil person can be redeemed is equally going against the basic tenets of good.
You can of course houserule it, but that is not the way it is supposed to work in D&D and this system can lead to many paladin problems. Evil actions make someone evil, not evil thoughts. Besides, robbing and cheating is not evil. It’s chaotic and nasty but unless there are other conditions which makes them evil they are neutral on the G/E axis. You are again degrading evil to “not nice.”
If a renegade warrior from the evil overlord has defected and will show the party the secret way into the evil overlord's hideout because she is tired of the overlord's mistreatment of her people, the paladin who refuses to go along with it - or worse, attacks on sight - is being the worst kind of Lawful Stupid. He is refusing an advantage to help do good for no reason, and is destroying what might be the first step on a path to redemption for the evil warrior. This is why "may not associate with anyone evil" should NOT be a part of a paladin code of conduct.
Again, why is this renegade warrior evil? When he really cares so much about the people he would most likely be neutral. That is the problem with such fabricated examples. You are putting people into situations which normally wouldn't happen. An evil warrior wouldn't care much if others get mistreated. And if he would and tries to help them he most likely wouldn't be evil.
I repeat it again. The problems most DMs have with paladins come from giving the evil alignment to persons who normally would be neutral.
When someone decides to play a paladin, the first thing they have to decide is which god they follow, then they and I together draw up a code. The thing I try to make clear is that a paladin is more than a bundle of stats . . . a paladin is the archetypal white knight. You are good, noble, and lawful. You will always try to do the 'right' thing, but that hardly means the stupid thing (truly stupid people are unlikely to be permitted to become paladins) A paladin is ultimately the servant of a god and an order. You must live up to the ideas of the order, and you must obey the order. You won't always live up to your ideals, but if you fail too miserably, you don't get to be a paladin anymore. Paladins are probably flat out the hardest class to play correctly. Are you sure you want to play a paladin? If they still want to play a paladin, more power to them. Paladins are great plot-drivers.
The other thing is that I have a standing rule that player character must be at least somewhat compatible. If I have a child-killing CN demon summoner in my game (which I wouldn't allow, but it's a good example) then a paladin in the party is right out. If the paladin is the first character written up, then the demon summoner is just plain out of luck and needs to come up with a more suitable idea.
Remember, you're the DM. If the player can't handle a paladin, then don't let them play one. If a paladin doesn't fit in the party, then don't allow one. No one, least of all your other players, deserve to have Lawful Stupid inflicted on them. On the other hand, no one should have a PC with paladin abilities if they can't manage to understand that RP-wise paladins pose a real challenge.
Derren S. I don't believe you are taking into account the lawful aspects of a paladins alignment. What would you say to a cop that could look at a person and determine that they are evil and every time he sees an evil person on the street he just blows them away. That is not very lawful.
Detect evil only determines that the person is evil not what they've done. Maybe they deal in petty larceny, scams people out of there money, or have a protection racket going. While not good by any measure, does this mean the person should be killed on sight?
What this whole thing tells me is that you make the same mistake like many other people, to think that a crime is automatically evil. But that is wrong. Most evil things are a crime, but not every crime is evil.
Petty larceny? Chaotic, not evil. Scams? Chaotic. Protection racket? Only evil if people get hurt.
To fit in your analogy it should be, "A cop could look at a person and determine if they did a crime (remember, vanquishing evil is a paladin’s job, not a police duty) and every time he sees a criminal on the street, he arrests them. You know, the whole vanquishing thing. Converting someone to good might be "better" (= exalted) but a paladin can't convert any evildoer he finds.
You can of course houserule it, but that is not the way it is supposed to work in D&D and this system can lead to many paladin problems. Evil actions make someone evil, not evil thoughts. Besides, robbing and cheating is not evil. It’s chaotic and nasty but unless there are other conditions which makes them evil they are neutral on the G/E axis. You are again degrading evil to “not nice.”
I suppose what this is really all proving is point #1 - ask what alignment is like in your campaign world.
You can say robbing and cheating is not evil. I can say they are. Just means we are drawing the line at a different place. If either of us could PROVE we were "right" we'd become the most famous philosophers in history.
Most of this attitude is perfectly in keeping with D&D rules. Their definitions can define someone who steals as evil. Some of this attitude breaks from D&D rules - like my comment that a Paladin could should NOT include "will never associate with evil people". The rule is bad, it should be thrown out.
In my book, wanting to commit evil but never doing so because the darn paladins are always watching still makes you evil. In my book, saving the world from the Eldritch evil because you are in the world and don't want to die, and though you've thought really hard you can't come up with a way to get it to just kill everyone else, still leaves you evil.
Again, why is this renegade warrior evil? When he really cares so much about the people he would most likely be neutral. That is the problem with such fabricated examples. You are putting people into situations which normally wouldn't happen. An evil warrior wouldn't care much if others get mistreated. And if he would and tries to help them he most likely wouldn't be evil.
An evil person is not necessarily mindlessly or randomly evil. You can value your own family or social group and still be evil. You can feel a great part of your beloved homeland (or where ever) and for its glory mercilessly slaughter anyone from anywhere else that crosses your path. This makes you EVIL. You have no respect for others beyond the others that matter to you. You are willing to use whatever means necessary to do what you want. The fact that you happen to want to protect a group of people is just a side effect.
Your way of wanting to do things is perfectly valid and acceptable. It’s what I consider a "black and white" campaign--evil is just plain EVIL. It has to be extreme and it can't be good, so it never raises any moral issues. That's a fine way to play, just be sure to tell your DM that's how you are playing.
You get the "Evil" alignment for having no substantive moral qualms about taking Evil means to advance your personal interests. You are willing to bring harm to other sapient beings that pose no threat to you or other just to have things your way. Under many readings of the alignment system there are plenty of folks who are Evil but mostly harmless due to the constraints of the society they depend upon for survival. They are rotten to the core, but too powerless or fearful to act on it.
In the same respect, folks who help one another because they are always seeking a reward or trying to avoid being punished for not doing so aren't Good either. While they ape the Actions of an altruistic person, they are motivated purely by self-interest.
That's the level of detail you get in a "Shades of Grey" campaign that you don't get in a "Black-and-White" campaign - which makes it much more complicated to be a Paladin in that setting - ergo more discussion and cooperation between DM and PC is required to pull it off.
- Marty Lund
like my comment that a Paladin could should NOT include "will never associate with evil people". The rule is bad, it should be thrown out.
Let’s look at the word associate.
Main Entry: associate
Pronunciation: &-'sO-shE-"At, -sE-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at•ed; -at•ing
Etymology: Middle English associat associated, from Latin associatus, past participle of associare to unite, from ad- + sociare to join, from socius companion -- more at SOCIAL
transitive senses
1 : to join as a partner, friend, or companion
2 obsolete : to keep company with : ATTEND
3 : to join or connect together : COMBINE
4 : to bring together or into relationship in any of various intangible ways (as in memory or imagination)
intransitive senses
1 : to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions
2 : to combine or join with other parts : UNITE
As a long time player of Paladins, I can tell you that I would never do any of those bolded things with an evil aligned person/creature.
If I make a mistake because a creature's alignment was magically made to look evil, then so be it I'll accept what happens. I don't detect thump anyhow. (Well on occasion I might ;) )
As a long time player of Paladins, I can tell you that I would never do any of those bolded things with an evil aligned person/creature.
So, would your paladin...
A) As in the example above, allow a minion of the villain to show you the secret path into her fortress?
...Thereby joining an evil character as a (companion or partner)?
B) Sit down to negotiate a diplomatic deal with the evil ruler to stop a war (and potentially show said ruler that advantages of good and cooperation?
...Thereby acting in cooperation with (joining) an evil character as a (companion or partner)?
C) What about discovering that someone who was once good, and a close friend, has turned to evil. You stop and imprison her, but continue to visit and try to convince her of the error of her ways, refusing to renounce your friendship despite her deeds?
This is certainly associating with an evil character! And to me, this is utterly in keeping with a paladin. A truly good person won't abandon their friends just because the friend has been led astray. Honoring such friendships even in adversity, and offering forgiveness and a chance to be redeemed are high virtues of good, in my opinion.
Regardless of morality, both A and B are perfectly valid and normal options for plot elements for good adventurers. Since "cannot associate with evil characters" makes such plots impossible, its a good indication its a bad part of the CoC!
I don't detect thump anyhow. (Well on occasion I might ;) )
Well, ya know...everybodys gotta thump first and ask questions later at least once in their life!
Association implies more than traveling together. Being aware of evil and remaining silent is, at the very least, un-paladin-ish.
Consider:
Paladin: So did you find out where the BBEG's base is?
Rogue: Yeah. I overheard someone talking about it in a bar, so I followed him home and tortured the information out of him.
Paladin: Well, I wasn't there when you did it, so whatever.
Here, associating with evil also means actually condoning evil. Sitting at the same bar table with an evil warlord to negotiate a treaty wouldn't count under my understanding of "the code."
As to the whole detect-then-smite thing, that's not how a paladin would work in my campaign. (Your campaign can have whatever kind of paladins you want. More power to you.) I know a seven year old girl, who has a cousin who acts in what we could loosely call an 'evil' manner. He's involved in gangs, and assaulted another teenager with a knife after his girlfriend left him for the other teenager. The little girl has a good relationship with her cousin, and was genuinely upset when he was not invited to her First Communion. (Catholic ceremony-thingy.) I could simply not imagine having to tell her her cousin was now dead because he registered as Evil to a passing paladin. I would have no problem chucking him in jail until he grows up and isn't a threat to society, but I would never call killing him on sight in cold blood a lawful-good activity.
I like Obi-wan's approach: "You don't want to sell me deathsticks. You want to go home and rethink your life."
When the Paladin says “I must have the ancient weapon to defeat the evil. I will return it when its task is done.”, why does anyone believe her enough to trust her with such a valuable relic? Because paladins don’t lie. Why does the group of enemy soldiers throw down their arms without a fight when the paladin demands they do? Because paladins accept an honorable surrender. Why does the enemy king let the paladin enter his court freely to discuss a treaty, when the paladin might take the opportunity to strike him down at any moment? Because paladins don’t strike a foe in cold blood. A reputation gives certain benefits; maintaining them is an important part of being a paladin.
It occurs to me that this advice equally applies to playing a Jedi in Star Wars or a Sheriff in the Old West or... well, basically any group well-known to have a code of conduct.
I believe one of the things that fuels a "detect/smite" for of playing is a misinterpretation of Detect Evil. If I was using my computer, I would copy the SRD, but Detect Evil only detects objects or creatures with an aura of evil, for example, a cleric of an evil god, or a black guard. Detect evil will not sense the thief that steals stuff, unless he possesses a few levels in cleric, or for some reason has an evil aura. In a similar fashion, detect magic will not detect spell casters, but rather the presence of magic (i.e., it will not detect a sorcerer, but it will detect any magical ongoing effects, including items or spells being cast.)
Ah, sorry, but that's entirely incorrect. According to the RAW, evil non-auraed mortals have a weak evil aura--anything under 10 HD is Faint. The Aura ability that some classes get shifts them to a much stronger list--1 is faint, 2-4 is moderate, etc, same as an evil outsider.
Furthermore, the aura overrides their nominal alignment; a true neutral cleric of Pelor still has a Good aura despite being personally neutral. If it were possible for him to be lawful neutral, theoretically speaking, he would have a weak aura of law (as a normal human of that alignment) and a powerful aura of good (like a good outsider).
Also, Bhairavi mentioned that stupid people are unlikely to reach paladinhood, and I want to applaud that good point. You can pretty much assume Paladins have been through their church's version of Seminary, so even if the player is unclear on what actions are evil, a paladin never would be. This is their stock-in-trade, after all!
Another 'gray' situation was mentioned in the Diskworld book 'Mort'. The evil duke kills the king and princess (a thoroughly evil deed), but goes on to unite the kingdom and brings peace and prosperity. Is that evil? What about a paladin prince who wants to do the right thing as much as anyone, but also still wants to support his father, despite the fact he is drifting towards being an evil and tyrannical ruler?
The best code of conduct I can think of for a paladin is to try to do the right thing AS IT LOOKS AT THE TIME, and make sure he has a good and noble reason for a 'gray' act he is going to commit. It's hard to expect any more.
Stormnight's post reminds me of a FR character, Arvin (main char. in the House of Serpents trilogy). He was forced to join the thief's guild, forced to make magical items used for evil, forced by a psionic compulsion to commit murder. Is he evil?
No, probably not. Joining the guild isn't in itself evil, nor is making magic items. Cooperating with evil people and by so doing allowing others to suffer is mildly evil. Murder is generally evil, but the question here is whether you committed the act or not. If your actions were being controlled by another, probably not. If you were just being egged into doing it, you share more of the blame.
Another 'gray' situation was mentioned in the Diskworld book 'Mort'. The evil duke kills the king and princess (a thoroughly evil deed), but goes on to unite the kingdom and brings peace and prosperity. Is that evil?
The killing is evil, the peace and prosperity isn't. The real problem in that book is whether allowing the evil duke to get away with his plans is evil, assuming both that you can stop him, and that you have perfect knowledge of the consequences either way. Omniscience allows a lot of arguments that wouldn't apply to a paladin.
What about a paladin prince who wants to do the right thing as much as anyone, but also still wants to support his father, despite the fact he is drifting towards being an evil and tyrannical ruler?
Lawful, but this course of action will eventually become evil, depending on how far the father goes.
I can keep on providing confident sounding answers all day, some of which, doubtless, others would disagree with. The main problem with any kind of good/evil mechanic in a roleplaying game is that you and the DM have to agree. The problem comes when the paladin's player has a different understanding of a moral issue to the DM.
It should also be noted that, depending on your approach, paladins should either never fall without the player being clear that it is about to happen, or have easy access to atonement. Either you run a world in which falling from grace is difficult, but tempting, or one where falling from grace is easy, but reversible. If, as a DM, you see grace as an impossible ideal, then you really shouldn't be allowing paladins in your game, because you aren't supporting them in the way you run your gameworld.
H
Why does a paladin have to follow the rules?
Then you have silly things like “not stabbing someone in the back” or “always keeping your word”. Why is that good. I mean, if beating someone in a fair fight would be good, why should backstab be evil? It might not be. But that’s not the point. Paladins are part of an order Yes, by the rules you can have a lone paladin, but like it or not, that’s not really part of how paladins were defined.). The order has established a code and a reputation that befits that code. To tarnish that code could risk the abilities of all paladins for generations to come!
When the Paladin says “I must have the ancient weapon to defeat the evil. I will return it when its task is done.”, why does anyone believe her enough to trust her with such a valuable relic? Because paladins don’t lie. Why does the group of enemy soldiers throw down their arms without a fight when the paladin demands they do? Because paladins accept an honorable surrender. Why does the enemy king let the paladin enter his court freely to discuss a treaty, when the paladin might take the opportunity to strike him down at any moment? Because paladins don’t strike a foe in cold blood. A reputation gives certain benefits; maintaining them is an important part of being a paladin.
This is indeed completely correct. About the first portion, though, Paladin's do not back-stab, however that can be sneaky. Here's a scenario. The evil lord is camped in the middle of his army of 1000 soldiers, all willing to die for him. Do you:
A) Announce your presence to the Lord and his men then charge down toward him?
B) Sneak through the rear of the camp and slit his throat in his sleep?
C) Sneak through the camp at night and surprise him in his tent?
If you selected A, the perhaps your deity can sit you down for a talk when you get through the gate, because it will happen rather quickly.
If you selected B, then please reroll a Rogue.
If you selected C, well... You made the right call.
I've done that. On the alternative, I have also led a "Return of the King"-style charge of 1000 paladins into an army of about 10000 various evil beasties. Some things just bring a tear to the eye!
It is NOT a paladin's job to thwart the evil wizard's diabolic plan to give his mother a nice mother's day bouquet.
Unless, of course, a traditional bouquet in the wizard's homeland is delivered in the hollowed-out skull of a newborn.
Generalizations about the "greater good" are nice, but the devil's in the details.
If a renegade warrior from the evil overlord has defected and will show the party the secret way into the evil overlord's hideout because she is tired of the overlord's mistreatment of her people, the paladin who refuses to go along with it - or worse, attacks on sight - is being the worst kind of Lawful Stupid. He is refusing an advantage to help do good for no reason, and is destroying what might be the first step on a path to redemption for the evil warrior. This is why "may not associate with anyone evil" should NOT be a part of a paladin code of conduct.
Well, yeah, that makes sense… until you consider that the renegade warrior has not only worked for this evil overlord, but betrayed the overlord's trust to his most dangerous enemies, and is quite likely planning to use the paladin as cheap muscle (since, after all, fighting evil is it's own reward) then become the new evil overlord and commence mistreating someone else's people for a change.
Remember: violently opposing evil is not, by itself, good. Good comes from peace, cooperation, and compassion.
You can say robbing and cheating is not evil. I can say they are. Just means we are drawing the line at a different place. If either of us could PROVE we were "right" we'd become the most famous philosophers in history.
Well, in D&D bandits are Neutral, so I think we can say that in the D&D core rules definitions of alignment, beating people up to steal their stuff is not Evil.
Well, usually this tactic will work in the case of extremes. You enter a temple, there is a cleric inside, he detects as evil (you go through the whole 3 rounds of detection to make sure it actually is him and not an invisible devil or demon behind him throwing you off by making the 60ft cone have evil in it with only 1 visible person in the room) and low and behold his aura is so strong it hurts to behold. Then yes, a smiting is probably in order, no questions asked. The Paladin will not usually risk losing his powers in this case.
However, let’s take a lesser example. The Paladin walking down the street in a town, detects evil on a town guard. The town guard is evil and so gets detected as such. He's evil because he abuses his power as a guard and does evil things. The Paladin immediately kills said guard for being evil. Well, about 3 days of court later, the Paladin is thrown in Jail for Murder because he has broken the LAW. If later it was found out in a proper investigation that the guard did bad things like blackmail people, accept bribes to look the other way on crimes, or walk down another alley so that he won't see a murder happen... (Perhaps help in some murders to ensure his evil alignment). The Paladin will not be released, what he did is still wrong. He should-of informed someone of his suspicions, done a full-background search, discovered why the guard is evil, and then enforced the law on said guard. Usually the law for people who actually do evil things is hanging/beheading or life-imprisonment (since evil things are usually horrible, like murder or summoning demons)
Killing someone in broad daylight (or moonlight for that matter) is usually against the law, and it probably should violate the Paladin's code if the person has not been proven of doing anything wrong. Detecting evil on a person usually means that person does evil things, but it's not rock solid proof that the person deserves a swift death. A wizard who summons undead to be his household servants who get him the newspaper he left in the other room (as per the summon undead spells so they don't stick around long enough for visitors to see) is evil because he performs evil acts (casting an evil spell).
If a paladin who kills this wizard will probably fall from grace (or at least need to atone), as what that wizard really needs is a stern talking to about what is right and what is wrong.
Paladins are meant to be bold, fearless warriors against evil. They may not perform or condone evil. They also cannot break the law which means no murdering people in town who happen to be evil without at getting permission from the proper authorities. Instead of just killing evil they detect, what they should try to do is find out what that particular evil is doing to garner the alignment. Perhaps the guy really is a cult leader, and by finding this out rather than just killing him outright with no questions asked, you can not only stop the cult leader, but the whole cult.
However, since the paladin detected evil when he walked into the bar, singled out the only evil guy there who happened to be taking a break from cult-leading and wanted a drink. Immediately drew his sword, started a bar-brawl, and killed the guy, he will never know. Evil isn't actually defeated in this case, it's just slightly annoyed.
The Paladin is meant to DEFEAT evil. Defeating does not equate killing (first-off). It means stopping the evil from succeeding. Killing the cult-leader is wonderful, but if you didn't stop the cult you haven't defeated the evil. For not being vigilant enough to pursue a proper investigation, the cult will probably go into hiding, and you won't find it easily anymore.
A Paladin who detect/smites, is not a paladin, he's a guy who calls himself a paladin but he isn't one. A paladin is VIGILANT, he's always ready, he doesn't give up. He knows evil spreads from person to person like a disease and that it's ultimate goal is to corrupt more people, summon demons, or just be evil. Detect/Smite works in extreme cases only, in other cases, there is usually a reason the butcher of the town is evil. Perhaps he is a murderer, or perhaps the meat isn't all it seems, or whatever, either way you won't find out by just killing him (which would again probably break the town-law without solid physical proof that the butcher has done something bad).
Thanks for Listening, I apologise for being so long-winded. Describing this is hard and takes more than one analogy!
Really, you make the Paladin code so much simpler, and the idea of actually discussing the way morality works in-game between DM and players is something I had in mind, too.
The thread's "moment of excellence" was when you gave examples of defeating a villain without killing him (With that evil wizard for an example), and when you mention the roleplaying potential of falling from grace. Quite inspiring, and I will most likely put a situation like that in my campaign, at least for an NPC
You can say robbing and cheating is not evil. I can say they are. Just means we are drawing the line at a different place. If either of us could PROVE we were "right" we'd become the most famous philosophers in history.
What about Robin Hood? He robbed from the rich and gave to the poor.
Probably not a paladin, I know, but at the very least he was good.
Simple examples are reductio ad absurdum, explanations and further examples get omnislashed; before you know it, we go from: "... until you consider that the renegade warrior has yadda yadda fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord hail hail hail hail hail eris eris eris eris eris..." to: "... until you consider that the kitten in question was actually Mephistocrates! Level 16 NE Gnome Illusionist/Expert, who was yadda yadda fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord hail hail hail hail hail eris eris eris eris eris..."
All in all, great post, the only thing I really disagree with you on is what causes a Paladin to fall. I agree, in a gray world (like the Forgotten Realms, which is what I DM) Neutral actions are acceptable (if not preferable), but I don't believe that a Paladin can only fall for committing evil acts - consistently committing neutral actions (on the good/evil axis) can cause an alignment shift, and an alignment shift for a Paladin = ___________??? (Methinks you know what goes in the blank). That’s pretty much the reason I stand against it being "OK" for a Pally to Smite on Sight anything just because "DEY IZ EBIL!" Vaalingrade Ashland says it best here.
Paladins are probably flat out the hardest class to play correctly.
Strange, all the talk on these forums about the paladin and how tough it is too play (correctly being open to interpretation). I find them the easiest class. Why? Because they are the ultimate heroes. Maybe the difficulty people have with paladins is not with the game mechanics, but with their own moral and ethical outlook?
To be fair, D&D is escapism. Who wants to follow laws & be nice, we have to do that all the time on real life. Playing D&D allows some of us to do things we would not normally do in every day life.
I suppose I can honestly say I have been there. In my youth playing the hero wasn't what I wanted to do. My first high level character was so evil that in today’s environment our gaming group would have been kicked out of school and referred to psychiatric help. Now, that character is the ultimate evil god in my homebrewed world.
I suppose my point is that hopefully people evolve in their style of game play, just as they evolve in life and in so doing understand a little more what the paladin represents.
Paladins are great plot-drivers.
Yes they are!
Strange, all the talk on these forums about the paladin and how tough it is too play (correctly being open to interpretation). I find them the easiest class. Why? Because they are the ultimate heroes. Maybe the difficulty people have with paladins is not with the game mechanics, but with their own moral and ethical outlook?
I agree with the above. I have found chaotic people have a very difficult time playing lawful and vice versa. The same goes for good and evil players.
I have played a Paladin to 22nd level over the course of 5 years. During that time, I made some mistakes but nothing which jeopardized my Paladinhood.
Of course, that was 1st ed without all these new rules which state exactly how a Paladin should behave. :D This debate has always existed and it will never end.
I appreciate the author's understanding and knowledge on the subject. Very well done.
I'm playing a (Dragonlance) Knight of the Crown in an on-and-off campaign that has been going a few years by now. Knights of Krynn in that setting are roughly analogous to what Paladins are in Core. Although he was from Krynn originally, he has been transported to the Realms through a Portal accident... yeah, I know, very original. Back on topic: He's, of course, LG. But he also has a code of conduct that requires him to first and foremost be obedient to his rightful superiors. The Knights have a "list of loyalty" that decides whom I have to be obedient towards. Now if I act on my alignment (regardless how it is understood), I run a risk of violating my explicitly stated code of conduct - if the "rightful" superior abuses his power, that is. The vice versa can also be construed. So there is one thing (at least potentially) built into this character class that is, perhaps, the staple of Paladinhood everywhere:
Paladins are meant to fall at some point.
If you have a Paladin in your group, that is probably because you're interested in morality and heroism, and the relation of the two. So to shed light on what is and what isn't right, the Paladin has to enter a crisis of faith at some point or other. Trust me, it makes for the best stories! Just like Stormknight said, "fall and redemption" is such a powerful theme that you'll enjoy it thoroughly - much more than just being able to add your level to melee damage once or twice a day. All the great Paladins in myth were either perfect and boring and died young (Roland, Galahad), or they entered into at least one crisis that brought out the best in them (Parcival, the biblical King David) or at least made for a much more interesting story (Tristan, Lancelot). Falling is half the fun!
A paladin has to stay the ideal to serve as the ideal.
Pardon me while I make a spell for you StormKnight, I shall call it, Summon Cookie Storm VII.
Another problem with the paladin is that people play them Detect and Smite style as if they were in a supremely Black and White setting when, aside from the odd homebrew, those settings don't exist in 3E. If Fogotten Realms is shades of gray, then certainly Eberron and Greyhawk are. Even most of the older settings like Dragonlance and Dark Sun can be pretty gray (and let's not even get started on what happens to Lawful Stupid characters in Planescape). This is because worlds with gray morality are not only more realistic, but way more interesting in the long run. There are those who would disagree, but the fact remains that truly black and white settings have long since fallen out of favor with WotC (and most players for that matter). Generally speaking, unless your DM says a world has clear black and white morality, it doesn't. Acting like it does will only get you into trouble.
If you follow the rules carrying an item that has picked up a aura of evil will not cause Detect Evil to misread you as evil.
Short of a spell being cast on a person that directly affects divination spells the only way I know of to get a false reading is to get infected by an Abyssal Parasite.
So here's a quick practical test if "I wanna play a Paladin" is on the table:
Both the player and the GM should each name three example paladins from literature, comics, movies, or television. If the person can at least come up with 3 potential examples, you can have a fruitful discussion about all those paladin details mentioned by the OP. And the more examples you can come up with, the more fruitful the discussion is likely to be. That discussion will likely address many of the points above as well.
But if 3 examples is too many, then there probably isn't enough basis to play a pally in that campaign.
What this whole thing tells me is that you make the same mistake like many other people, to think that a crime is automatically evil. But that is wrong. Most evil things are a crime, but not every crime is evil.
Petty larceny? Chaotic, not evil. Scams? Chaotic. Protection racket? Only evil if people get hurt.
And people don't get hurt in scams? You're scamming people out of their hard earned money. Perhaps if you're taking from the rich, it's not an evil act, but cheating people who need the money is certainly evil.
In keeping with the original tone and point of the thread, I'll try to avoid touting what alignment means what and which actions are or aren't evil. Instead, I'll offer my response to many people who put up situations in which the paladin has the option of committing a minor evil to effect a great good:
Good is not always practical, and, though it may be hard to believe, being good all the time is tough.
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment
that is directly from the SRD, first line of the first paragraph under alignment. To me, this means that alignment is both an amalgam of actions and view of the world, and characters that perfectly fit into these alignments become rather bland to my taste. Evil people can do good things for the wrong reasons, as was noted earlier in the thread. And as far as the game states, a villain posing as a hero to gain the peoples trust may end up becoming good in the process. This seems entirely silly, as he may still be lawful evil, manipulating the system to his own ends (which is exactly lawful evil).
Really I guess the big question comes down to determining what actions are what alignment. If a mercenary will accept any job for money kills a marauding dragon, is that just as good as a paladin who hears about the dragon, kills it and accepts the reward? Is the villain doing 'good deeds' when he saves the town so he can use it's people for demon summoning later? Is it evil for the paladin to sell his soul to the devil to save the kingdom?
As for individual paladins of different gods, I think that only goes to priority. If the god appreciates saving innocents above destroying evil, then the paladin might have to let the villain go to save the innocent unless he has a reliable way to save the innocent and stop the villain.
As for Xyklon's crown, that could be it's magical property, Undead don't radiate evil as strong as evil clerics, so he might have commissioned that to make himself seem stronger and possibly stun silly low level clerics/paladins.
The Order of the Stick comic doesn't use the Rules as Written very well.
If you follow the rules carrying an item that has picked up a aura of evil will not cause Detect Evil to misread you as evil.
Short of a spell being cast on a person that directly affects divination spells the only way I know of to get a false reading is to get infected by an Abyssal Parasite.
That depends on how precise the DM rules Detect Evil is, as well as the nature of an evil aura. If the most a Paladin can get from Detect evil is "you sense a moderate evil aura coming from that man over there" then yes, an evil item a non-evil was holding could make that person seem evil. If an aura registers more like a point source though, then such mistakes are impossible.
(Unless you chose not to concentrate on that power for more than 1 round, and made sure to catch only the target creature in your cone. Miko could have done that, I suppose, but she's usually not that sloppy)
You can say robbing and cheating is not evil. I can say they are. Just means we are drawing the line at a different place. If either of us could PROVE we were "right" we'd become the most famous philosophers in history.
Technically, you don't have to be a philosopher to settle what Good and Evil are in a DnD sense, and unfortunately, going by the PHB, the other guy is right.
"Good characters protect evil life; evil characters debase and destroy innocent life. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
While you can quibble about an act of stealing "hurting" people in an abstract way, the rest of the section clearly implies that "hurting" others refers to physical, emotional, and mental harm, not social vagaries such as "financial" or "political" harm.
However, you are also right that in a shades-of-grey campaign, the Paladin's job is much harder because the DM will probably NOT be going by this definition. Ergo, the description of the Paladin in the same book will also need revising.
...And here I go, lurking for weeks without posting until I break silence with a post debating alignment. I feel... dirty.
It’s worth mentioning that paladins fall, not for single unlawful acts, but for evil acts. If we take the PHB literally, one could argue that a paladin is compelled by their vows to destroy evil without hesitation, even if the laws of the land forbid it. “Laws can be corrupted”, says the paladin, “but I will not!”
The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.
This is straight from the PHB p103, and it bears repeating: “monsters and villains” are what is described as evil. If a city commoner (or whatever example you want to pull from this thread) registers as evil to a paladin, there is a serious reason why, and it’s not for stealing pie. Derren was right on in saying most “detect-and-smite” issues arise out of DMs assigning an evil alignment to NPCs that should be neutral. There are no “innocent” evil characters.
On the other hand, BoED gives a laundry list of exalted deeds, none of which is violent, and include mercy, forgiveness, and redeeming evil. Which brings us full circle, back to the Gandhi interpretation of "paragon of good and law". So, if you want to debate about how a paladin is supposed to be played, realize that "detect-and-smite", "vow of peace", and every variation between are all within the broad scope of D&D. It’s up to us as players and GMs simply to all get onto the same page, and get on with the fun.
No player should get to determine the morality of the entire party. Period. You shouldn't need to be told why.
This is the most insightful comment to come from this thread. You know what they say about bringing politics in religion into your game… A paladin does both. Play at your own risk.
Villain: a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.
Monster: a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc. –dictionary.com
(Unless you chose not to concentrate on that power for more than 1 round, and made sure to catch only the target creature in your cone. Miko could have done that, I suppose, but she's usually not that sloppy)
Really? Since when?
Back to the definition of spells though. OOTS has a perfect example, as Detect spells find auras, not specifics. Specific objects take longer to find, and who honestly waits to see which body part is the evil one?
The other problem is that Good and Evil are not the true point of a Paladin. A paladin is a warrior who follows her god and the religion based around said god. A paladin does not do what is right, or what is wrong, but what is righteous. Here is a semi-paladinic example which sadly is from real life:
A girl's school is in Pakistan and sets on fire. The firemen start trying to rescue the girls within, but the religious police stop them, as women are not allowed to be outside without their full ceremonial dress. The three rescued girls were forced to go back into the burning building and put on their proper clothes. All of the girls died. If the religious police were paladins, they would not lose their power as they were following their code. Sad, but true.
Although this is somewhat of an extreme, it gets a point across. Good and Evil are one thing, but are not entirely relevant. What actually makes a paladin so hard to play is that the paladin was not clearly defined by the PHB. It left open ends so that one might make up their own code. This is a problem, as now there is this question of what is in that code. This interpretation however allows for the Paladin of Tyranny class, which is an LE paladin. It makes no sense unless you think of it this way.
I will probably have no effect at all on how any of you think, but I posted my mind anyway.
I will note that Derren S. is a complete idiot on this subject. He said that there was no reason an evil minion would go renegade from an Evil Army because of harsh living conditions. How many reasons can you think of? how about:
Food sucks
Pay sucks
Punishment for small mistakes
Punishment for being near the Evil Overlord while he is in a bad mood
Punishment for looking at the Evil Overlord funny
Punishment because the Evil Overlord needed to make an example of someone
Punishment for entertainment of the Evil Overlord
And more!
The CN child-sacrificing demon summoner was another clue. He said a bunch of other stupid things but I'd have to go look them up. I also note he stopped posting here because he realized he was beat by intelligent reason.
A general sweep can just show an evil presence, it could be an item like that, an invisible demon behind you, or anything like that.
Focus in on the evil, pinpoint the source. The issue here is not even with Smite on Sight, but with laziness and negligence in duty.
I'll offer that many of the problems with paladins stem from the player and GM having different understandings of what a paladin is. In fact, based on my own experience, it seems to be even more divisive than that - someone either "gets" paladins, or they don't. And if you have two people sitting on opposite sides of that divide, it really isn't possible to resolve it.
So here's a quick practical test if "I wanna play a Paladin" is on the table:
Both the player and the GM should each name three example paladins from literature, comics, movies, or television. If the person can at least come up with 3 potential examples, you can have a fruitful discussion about all those paladin details mentioned by the OP. And the more examples you can come up with, the more fruitful the discussion is likely to be. That discussion will likely address many of the points above as well.
But if 3 examples is too many, then there probably isn't enough basis to play a pally in that campaign.
Paksenarrion,
Galahad,
Holger Carlson,
Xyon from Xyon's e-books,
The Thirty from Legend (34 examples already...)
Sans divine powers...
Druss the Legend,
Benton Frasier (mountie from Due South),
Olivier de Bretagne (Cadfael),
Balian (Kingdom of Heaven),
One who lies too much to be a paladin but is a clear example of Lawful Good is Seeley Booth from Bones.
Focus in on the evil, pinpoint the source. The issue here is not even with Smite on Sight, but with laziness and negligence in duty.
Detect Evil only tells you what square the aura is in, at best. Miko would have no way to differentiate a good person holding an evil artifact from an evil person.
First, while most don’t think of it, Jesus did smite, while not lethally, check your bibles for the incident at the temple with the money lenders. Mother Teresa also stood up in front of the American forum and told them that she would pray for a country that thought that killing babies is okay, while not physically smiting, a painful cut to peoples' egos. Call it smiting by words. Ghandi just figured more could be done by not smiting. Sometimes more can be done by not doing, than by doing.
Second, what constitutes good and evil in D&D is up to the DM and the player, that’s half the fun, defining what is good and evil in the world you create. If you can’t define good and evil yourself, you have no business defining it for others.
Third, just a suggestion, but if you ever have a smite on sight jerk paladin, try doing what my first DM did to me.
Me: The merchant is evil! I smite him and confiscate his possessions in the name of Heironeous.
DM: A man in armor runs up to you with a band of comrades, “Stop, by the power of the church of Heironeous, I place you under arrest fiend.”
Me: But I am a paladin of Heironeous, you can’t arrest me! Besides he was evil!
DM: “Artune, dispel the illusion magic around this man’s symbol and armor.” Your symbol changes from Heironeous to Nerull, and your armor fades from silver to black, and the white smite flame around your sword changes to black.
Me: What the heck!?
[b]DM: [/B]“You fell from glory thanks to your indiscriminate killing of law abiding citizens, to promote your skillful killings, Nerull has given you power without your knowledge. Allowing you to continue you reign of terror in this city.
Me: aw crap… I’m in deep **** aren’t I?
DM: Yes, Yes you are.
This only worked because me and the DM where good friends and he could do this without me walking out. Once again, I thank you shadow for such a wonderful post.
Oh, and Charidin, The crusades and the inquisition both where carried out in God’s name, completely against what Christians stand for, but that doesn’t mean that God supported them just because they say they did it in God’s name. In D&D Good and Evil are tangible forces and the Gods having a heftier hand in the world, including the demons. It is possible for such cults as you mentioned in the D&D world to be powered by any Gods, good or evil without their knowledge. Just because you say you do something for Pelor doesn’t mean he endorses it.
What if you do fall and you really did deserve it? Suffer. (The character, not you). Be righteous about it, insisting you did no wrong. Have a crisis of faith. Become determined to forge on stronger and do good anyway. Do whatever you think the character would do. You’ve got an interesting roleplay opportunity. Go with it. “Oops, I was bad, I’ll get a cleric to cast atonement and we’re done” is a pretty boring experience.
A character who strayed from grace into a dark path, was overcome with despair, was eventually helped by comrades to keep going, committed herself back to the cause of good, heroically entered into battle against a terrible demon, is horribly wounded and makes a desperate strike at the creature and suddenly finds her sword blow hitting with the restored full power of a paladin’s smite evil behind it – that’s a fall and redemption everyone will remember!
OR make a blackguard out of him ^^
The three rescued girls were forced to go back into the burning building and put on their proper clothes. All of the girls died. If the religious police were paladins,
...they would have immediately lost all their powers. Unless they're the LE paladins from Unearthed Arcana, which is a lot more likely.
What about Robin Hood? He robbed from the rich and gave to the poor.
Probably not a paladin, I know, but at the very least he was good.
As most people could tell you, Robin Hood is the classic CG character.
In fact, I would argue that SK's "The Right" path is more CG than LG. Being Lawful means following a certain pattern; "doing what is right" implies the opposite, that you will do whatever action seems to be "most good" at any one time. This approach isn't necessarily worse than following a Code- Robin Hood was certainly a very Good character- but Good and Lawful are not the same.
Take the example of the Paladin meeting to negotiate with the evil warlord. Under the Code, he can't just stab the warlord because that would break the rules of a parlay. But it's certainly the most good thing to do. Any CG character would do it in a heartbeat! But a Paladin can't, and I think that's important.
That said, I really like the idea of the variant paladins from UA. Want to be a paladin, but prefer the "Right" path over the "Code" one? Fine, be a Paladin of Freedom! You're just as good, but you can stab the warlord instead of talking with him. You won't get the same reputation for honesty, but you'll still be able to do a lot of good in the world- maybe more than the normal Paladin.
You had me agreeing with you in large part till you started to come down on the side of paladin must always do what is right 100% of the item...
If you actually believed this, then every single paladin you have ever played has been one with a built in vow of poverty and vow of non-violence with none of the benefits.
Evil in D&D includes harming others. This means that if you truly believed paladins must always "err on the side of good" that they could never harm another being ever.
You are absolutely right about not being omniscient, and absolutely right that the standard for judging a character's choices should be what he/she could reasonably know at the time.
That said you are taking the "lesson" of absolute examples and trying to generalize it to all circumstances. A paladin makes a choice to do harm every time an orc raiding party comes up to the town. He gives the orc party a chance to prove its hostility (let them approach the town, if they do so in peace, then let them be), but once they show themselves to be engaged in obvious evil behavior it is beholden unto the paladin to stop them by whatever happens to be the best method for the job.
If all paladins were equipped with gigantic "Calm Emotions" spell batteries which lasted all day, then that's all paladins would ever do: magically calm people down and let the law sort things out.
But paladins are people too. They don't always have the best, or even the right, tools for the job. So they make do with what they have, and what they usually have is a sword, moxy, and the force of Good on their side.
People forget that the paladin is a soldier in the war against Great Evil (this doesn't mean orcs or goblins or local thugs or even local mob bosses); Great Evils are the kind which if not stopped will cause large-scale damage to society. Great Evils, almost without fail, will not cease to engage in evil behavior without use of force. It is a reasonable to assume that a Demon who has gone around slaughtering people, regardless of the level of resistance put up, will not stop until he is stopped. Sure if a paladin happens to wield the great demon stopper 9000 which pacifies demons for convenient exportation to the nearest hell dimension, then that is what he should probably use, but most people just don't roll around with demon stopper 9000s.
A paladin who dies because he is "hoping" that good will prevail all the time is acting contrarily to your so-called omniscient assertion anyway. Either the paladin should act rationally (based on what he knows or can reasonably assume from his senses) or he should act like a naive little child and hope and pray for good to overcome.
Paladins are built for war. They don't come with all martial and armor proficiencies because the force of Good in the multiverse assumes that paladins will go around talking down kidnappers, tracking down thieves, and/or engaging peace talks. The force of Good assumes that the paladin will go hunting down devils loose on the primes, stopping necromancers from defiling the great cathedral of Y, or banish the succubus who has been corrupting the government from the kingdom.
Furthermore: the force of Good, while calling for the altruistic behavior of all paladins, does NOT devalue the lives of paladins. Good values all life, and that includes the lives of paladins.
A paladin who chooses to die rather than stop a great catastrophe is not doing the world any favors. Not only does the paladin cease doing any good in this world, but a lot of lives were lost in the process. This is the same as the paladin who gives up food so that he can help others eat (the paladin becomes so weak who couldn't protect others should trouble arise). And the same as the paladin who gives up sleep for 3 days so he can maintain watch the whole time (after the first day or so he will be so tired he couldn't adequately protect anybody if trouble did happen).
The paladin must always remember that he is equipped to fight off evils that other people are not. Throwing away his life on the hope that things will work out is naive non-sense. In fact I would posit that it is Evil, to harm yourself when doing so causes no benefit to others. Respecting all life requires that you respect yourself. A paladin who doesn't value his own life, at least to a fundamental extent (human rights: as it relates to dignity of sentients & basic needs: as it relates to respect for life) is not doing Good, and is helping no one including himself.
When placed in silly examples where the paladin has to choose between killing his family or letting a demon loose on the world the paladin basically has to hope that good prevails because no one can really expect the character to be able to make a well-reasoned moral decision, especially if no options of escape or otherwise altering the situation exist. But one should not think for a second that that type of behavior is appropriate for a paladin in every day life/adventuring. A paladin's duty is to seek out and oppose evil as long and as often as he can. Its unreasonable to ever assume that this means a paladin is just going to throw his life away because: he might have to steal to get what he needs to stop a succubus from slaying the prince or that he might have engage in, or at the very least condone, intimidation/extortion to get a powerful cursed artifact away from an innocent.
It pretty much goes without saying that a paladin should try less harmful methods before opting to use those harsher methods, but a paladin who chooses to not use those harsh methods is showing a disdain for life by letting something horrible happen when he otherwise had the power to stop it. The paladin code says a paladin shouldn't willfully engage in an Evil act. This doesn't say the paladin can never do anything which is even tangentially associated with Evil. The paladin could never do anything other than breathe if that were the case. A paladin should atone for his actions later, including making restitution to those he stole from, but he shouldn't just throw up his hands and hope things turn out for the best. That is completely, 180 out from the whole purpose of the paladin class.
The paladin defends against those whom your average person cannot defend themselves against. Being uniquely qualified to defend others it is the paladin's duty to do whatever it takes to help and defend others. A paladin who is required to commit a serious crime (spiritual or legal) will turn himself in to face legal charges and undergo atonement and a quest if necessary to make things right. But he should not ever just do nothing.
MTF
.....
H
what does H stand for, as your screen name doesn't even have an 'h' in it.
