The psychology of a paladin is often difficult to fully understand; not because it is complicated, but because it contradicts one of humanity's more rooted beliefs, that sometimes a small evil can bring about great good; that the rough alongside the straight and narrow road can sometimes be better than the road itself. I am not here to argue whether or not this belief is valid, but instead to point out that it is alien to the mind of the true paladin.
It is in this that players find the great challenge of the paladin. The challenge to roleplay a being who would probably not do as we would do, and to remember that the code, the restrictions, the very choices we must make in the role are indeed not weaknesses or limitations, but the very source of a paladin's strength.
Why is it, I ask you, that paladins are welcomed at taverns and villages across the realms? Why are they greeted with open arms and a warm meal at the end of a day’s hard travel? Some might say it is because the people see them as a great asset, lending great assistance in time of need. But mercenary soldiers, traveling wizards, and local temples can do as much, and yet they do not receive the same warmth as the paladin enjoys. Instead, I say it is because the people see and feel that which gives them hope for a better tomorrow. They envision not just a tomorrow of less crime, and fewer monsters, but a tomorrow of peace; a true goodness that somehow they know is beyond their will, patience, or skill to achieve, but not beyond the paladin’s. Few take up this path, but not because they think the path is too difficult, or too costly, but simply because often people see other paths, easier paths, that they believe to be just as valid, just as "good". The paladin sees but one path, and sees not difficult choices, but only a very long road.
The majority of players that I have spoken with say that they do not enjoy playing paladins because they do not like being restricted to a lawful good alignment or to a code of conduct that seems far too ambiguous. Often I am told that paladin players just slow the game down with continuous arguments about moral issues, and inevitably the player either leaves, rolls a new character, or the paladin is abandoned one morning as the party goes along its merry way. These stories remind me that, while the paladin is a base class, unless both the player and the DM are exceptional, the paladin has no place in most campaigns.
This brings me to the next point I wish to write about: what is the proper place of a paladin. A paladin is a permission class. What I mean is that just as you might say, “Hey, does anyone mind if my character is evil?” you should also ask if anyone minds your playing a paladin. Campaigns with evil PCs need to be run a certain way or they won’t last long. This is likewise true for the paladin. If your DM and fellow players are cool with a paladin, then everything should go more smoothly. The next, and perhaps most important thing any paladin PC can do is to sit down with the DM and make sure you both have the same understanding of the paladin code, what is required, what you can put up with, and what kinds of things would make a paladin fall from grace. My own DM doesn’t agree with my theories all the time, and when I run a campaign, my players like to know what I expect from a paladin. Once these two things are settled, a paladin in the game shouldn’t cause much trouble, and can, in some cases, deeply enrich a storyline. All that remains is to take a good look at the code, and understand it.
My interpretation of the Paladin’s Code and its implementation in an average campaign breaks down into the following three topics:
A) The Code
B) Law and Goodness
C) The Legitimacy of Evil
A) The Code
The Code of a paladin is a blanket covering all aspects of a paladin’s life. But with the exception of very rigid knightly orders, such as the Knights of Solamnia, I would think that most paladins have never seen their Code written down, or would care to, for that matter, as its statements would seem obvious. Instead, the paladin’s Code in the Player’s Handbook is not a guide for paladins, but a guide for players.
Willingly committing an evil act--
Paladins are people, it is true, but on them is a heavy burden to be devout and to not fall prey to the same dark solutions that seem easy and effective to the rest of us. And in general, as this is a game, it is not so difficult for a PC to make paladinly decisions as they pop up. Indeed, if they wanted to play a paladin, they will likely welcome opportunities to take the moral high ground. But in the lifetime of every paladin, situations will undoubtedly happen in which the choice between good and evil is not so obvious, and a paladin may even be forced to choose between evils. The question is not what the paladin chooses, or what the ramifications of those choices will be, for in such dark times, victories for good often come at great cost. The question that must be answered is whether or not a paladin can remain a paladin in those times.
The answer comes from remembering that a paladin is called to the defense of righteousness, the defense of that which is good. In these cases, the paladin must defend whatever good remains, by choosing that which damages it the least. It is no longer a choice of good versus evil, but a choice for the survival of good. When the paladin makes the decision that he believes gives goodness the greatest chance of survival, even though surely dark times and sadness will follow, he has lessened the impact of evil, and has held true to his calling. It is when the paladin either cannot bring himself to defend goodness by choosing evil over evil, or when the paladin chooses the greater evil because of personal reasons (the life of a loved one, for example), that the paladin has failed to uphold the Code, and he falls from grace. One of the least known truths about paladins is that though they are the heralds of faith, bearing divine authority in the world, they are not without sin. Surely they carry the same grief, the same pain as the people they protect.
Called to a life of honor--
The Code also speaks of honorable living. A paladin is called to speak no lies. I love this aspect of paladins; not because of its inherent goodness, but because it requires a PC to really get into character, and come up with some great tabletop D&D. I usually don’t like examples, as no example ever hits the entire question, but consider this: A paladin is called to the defense of a child who runs into a room behind him, begging for help. The child’s pursuers turn the corner, and their leader, seeing the paladin, and knowing the paladin cannot lie, says that they are pursuing a pickpocket, and asks which way the child ran. Using his sense motive, the paladin raises an eyebrow and says nothing. The leader, intuiting that the child would have sought refuge with the paladin, demands to know whether the child is in the room. In cold reply, the paladin states that, “I am afraid you will have to go through me to find out.” The paladin could have told the leader that the child had run down the alley to the left, and being told this by a paladin, the pursuers would have moved on. But, if paladins behaved like this, it would not be long before their reputation as trustworthy men and women would be cast down, and goodness as a whole would suffer for it. The paladin’s refusal to lie may cost him his life if the pursuers are strong and many, and the child may still be caught. But perhaps the paladin may give the child time to escape, and two things come to mind for the advancement of good. That child will likely never forget the sacrifice made on her behalf, and may grow in goodness because of it, whether she really was a pickpocket or not. And the pursuers would likely pay the penalty for killing a paladin, removing their evil from the world.
In this is one of the greatest advantages of being a paladin. The very fact that people believe your word with no evidence, simply because you are a paladin, and that good people everywhere love you because they can believe you, there are few evil people who would be willing to kill a paladin, as it would call down both the wrath of the people and the wrath of the church. It is, of course, not always to case, but it is worth remembering, whether you play a paladin, or face one. A paladin sees a lie for what it is, a temporary solution that may provide instant reward, but in the fullness of time, yields nothing for the true advancement of good, and likely causes sizeable damage, for lies are a common thing.
B) Law and Goodness
In my years of playing a paladin, I have heard only one truly thoughtful comment that challenges the right of paladins to be, well, paladins. I was once told by an exceptional player that the reason he didn’t like paladins was because, in his mind, a holy warrior would uphold the law, but would place goodness in front of the law. However, in D&D, it is made quite clear that when a paladin must choose between good and law, law takes precedence. I thought on this for a long time, and I finally came to the realization that the paladin, like many things, must be viewed in the context of history, the context of time. Without a temporal and/or historical perspective, and only looking at a single moment in time, it would indeed seem wrong to hold law above goodness. But consider: a lawful good paladin leads a life that many people dream of living, accomplishing many good works, both great and small, and for his part, contributes abundantly to the betterment of his people for the coming ages. When the paladin dies, it falls to younger men and women to likewise choose to lead a life of goodness. Some will succeed, and some will fall to darkness and evil, and so the continued growth of the people will wax and wane with the generations. Likewise, a system of laws can suffer from the same waxing and waning as time goes on, but its changes are often more abrupt, caused by wars and upheavals. In times of peace, change is slow. In general, however, a change grand enough to challenge a government’s legitimacy occurs rarely, and more infrequently than new children are born.
It is within this framework that I see the validity of law above goodness from the paladin’s perspective. For in truth, a good system of laws and government will generally yield good and lawful people, but it is not always the case that a group of good people will create a good system of laws and government. Even if they are successful, it often takes many generations for a legitimate government to settle. Therefore, that in the intent of the paladin to leave a longer lasting impression on the world, and in so doing, more abundantly sow both good and law, upholding a set of laws and protecting a legitimate government could be validly placed as a higher goal than to sacrifice that system for the more temporary good of the few. For truly goodness benefits all, and is sought by all good people, yet it is accomplished on an individual basis, and a continuous influx of new good deeds is necessary for it to thrive. Whereas law, good law is the work of countless good people over many generations, and if maintained, will hold true in constancy, but will falter quickly if not protected and upheld. Therefore, in the view of the paladin, good deeds must be continuous, but when law is threatened, it must be protected before all else, else greater damage may be caused.
This, of course, has nothing to do with evil governments. But I ask you this: Is it better to rob the local bakery in order to give bread to the starving, or to instead look to the future of your people, and work to create a government and laws that will help bring food to all the hungry, though some may suffer in the present? Surely the paladin must seek to help the hungry whenever possible, but when there is truly no food available except through theft, the paladin must consider the future, and the damage his “good” deed will cause to the whole of the people he vowed his life to protect. This is where many players would fail, and the path of the paladin would be theirs no longer, but for a paladin, the choice is not a choice, just another step as they guide their people down the long and rugged path to true peace, the peace, the future, that perhaps by divine intercession in our lives, only the paladin can truly see.
C) The Legitimacy of Evil
For years and years, people have been confused about the words “legitimate evil authority”, and have asked tons of questions about how a paladin is supposed to act when he is surrounded by such a concept. The answer comes in the definition of the “legitimate authority” from the paladin’s perspective. Upholding law is important to a paladin, but it is not an entirely separate concept from goodness. The two principles are inextricably linked in a paladin’s mind. When a paladin looks at a neutral good or a chaotic good person, he sees someone who does good deeds, whose heart is in the right place, but who doesn’t really understand the lasting good that law brings. The paladin believes that good people should work to set up good and strong laws, so that future generations will have a strong foundation for leading a good life. Likewise, good people should seek to change laws, by legitimate methods, if a different arrangement would better further the causes of good.
In a different way, a paladin looks at a lawful neutral person, and sees that somehow the legal system has failed that person, such that it did not provide a solid foundation upon which the lawful neutral person should have grown. Yet all these things aside, a legitimate authority is one that works for the betterment of its people (all its people), and whose laws are conducive to the advancement of good. Before you disagree, consider this: The Player’s Handbook does not put this requirement on paladins so that a city full of devils can point and laugh because the paladin must respect their rights and legitimate legal presence. This requirement is not a hindrance of good, but a means of breaking ignorance. The intent of the requirement is so that paladins are forced to look at cultural and racial differences, and realize that while the laws that guided his upbringing served him well, people of another land, good people, might be better served by a different set of laws; laws that the paladin might not necessarily agree with, but that by his code, he should still defend when among the foreign people, for though they are different, they still advance to causes of goodness. The long and short of this is that in the mind of a paladin, no authority is legitimate unless it advances the causes of goodness, which I think quite clearly eradicates much chance of an evil authority being legitimate in the eyes of a paladin.
To close this essay, I would like to simply write that perhaps the most important thing to remember about a paladin is that if you are complaining about some paladin aspect, saying or thinking that it is a great restriction or weakness, remember that it may not be the paladin class that has the problem, and it might just be some important meaning or interpretation has been overlooked.
In general, the Geneva Conventions and various UN declarations are very much an attempt to define LG behaviour in a complex and often CE world. They are worth a read for anyone trying to make sense of what right behaviour is in a lawless world far removed from our comfy urban lives.
I completely agree that there is no universal behavior for paladins, as each paladin may come up with very unique solutions to problems and situations. However, what I wrote was meant to target the aspects of all solutions that will be similar, such as the advancement of good, and from that, to give a helping hand to paladin players and DMs who might have wanted more insight than the PHB offers. Certainly variety and nuance will exist, especially between paladins from different countries, and that's half the fun. In short, I was deliberately generalizing, so as not to waste time.
Secondly, I hoped it would be obvious that not everyone likes paladins (especially evil people), and even other good people may find them too haughty or self-righteous, etc., but you can make generalizations that fit a good portion of people.
Pretty much, everyone has different ideas about what it means to be a paladin, and this essay wasn't written to try and convince anyone that I'm right, just to give an alternate viewpoint.
A paladin is called to the defense of a child who runs into a room behind him, begging for help. The child’s pursuers turn the corner, and their leader, seeing the paladin, and knowing the paladin cannot lie, says that they are pursuing a pickpocket, and asks which way the child ran. Using his sense motive, the paladin raises an eyebrow and says nothing. The leader, intuiting that the child would have sought refuge with the paladin, demands to know whether the child is in the room. In cold reply, the paladin states that, “I am afraid you will have to go through me to find out.” The paladin could have told the leader that the child had run down the alley to the left, and being told this by a paladin, the pursuers would have moved on. But, if paladins behaved like this, it would not be long before their reputation as trustworthy men and women would be cast down, and goodness as a whole would suffer for it. The paladin’s refusal to lie may cost him his life if the pursuers are strong and many, and the child may still be caught. But perhaps the paladin may give the child time to escape, and two things come to mind for the advancement of good. That child will likely never forget the sacrifice made on her behalf, and may grow in goodness because of it, whether she really was a pickpocket or not. And the pursuers would likely pay the penalty for killing a paladin, removing their evil from the world.
If the Child is breaking the law: why would the Paladin help him? That is a Chaotic action, not Lawful. Continue acting that way and you'll lose the Lawful side (first become NG than CG). You are to respect legitimate authority (assuming you are in a legitimate town).
This is the problem with Paladins: no one can agree on ideals. Big problem with DMs.
In this is one of the greatest advantages of being a paladin. The very fact that people believe your word with no evidence, simply because you are a paladin, and that good people everywhere love you because they can believe you, there are few evil people who would be willing to kill a paladin, as it would call down both the wrath of the people and the wrath of the church. It is, of course, not always to case, but it is worth remembering, whether you play a paladin, or face one. A paladin sees a lie for what it is, a temporary solution that may provide instant reward, but in the fullness of time, yields nothing for the true advancement of good, and likely causes sizeable damage, for lies are a common thing.
That depends heavily on DM. Not all DMs make Paladins greatly loved/trusted.
I think one crucial portion of the Paladin psyche was overlooked in your essay. Why do Paladins adventure? Consider this quote from the PHB: "Even a mundane mission is, in the heart of a paladin, a personal test-an opportunity to demonstrate bravery, to develop martial skills, to learn tactics, and to find ways to do good. Still, the paladin really comes into her own when leading a mighty campaign against evil, not when merely looting ruins." I believe that the central quote from this is the phrase "to find ways to do good." This is not some haphazard statement.
Why do most characters adventure? Treasure? Fame? Status? Power? Experience? Money? Revenge? Knowledge? All of these reasons, if you stop and think about it, are innately selfish. (Quick note: Yes, any and in fact all of these reasons can be used for good purposes, but none of them are innately good.) Of all the classes, paladins are the only class universally motivated by the good of other people. Paladins may be self-righteous to a fault, but little grounds can be found for dubbing them selfish.
Consider some of the Paladin's special abilities. Aura of Courage. Why would a paladin need an aura. Wouldn't immunity to fear be enough? No. A paladin is not happy steeling his heart against the darkness. He projects courage and bravery to all those close to him, helping to lift them above the dread of their current circumstances. A paladin would not be a paladin if he was simply immune to fear.
Also, what about Remove Disease? Why does a paladin need that ability? He's already immune to disease. It's not like he needs to worry about the flu-bug. Also, unless you're up against a particularly unusual GM, Remove Disease 5/week just doesn't get used to it's full potential in regards to your party. Why would paladins be able to remove disease so frequently, if not for their own benefit, or tactical advantage? Again, it's because it is their duty to serve the good of others.
Ultimately, the paladin is hard to play because the paladin represents a very unusual adventurer. By serving Law and Good, he brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people at great personal cost. The Paladin may very well die driving back the forces of the Abyss, but he/she was never concerned about himself in the first place. The paladin may ride high on a noble steed while brandishing a holy, god-guided blade against the legions of the dark, or he may serve as a hospitalar for pilgrims, silently healing the faithful for decades. However, one truth remains. The Paladin does it for the good of others. He is not selfish. He is a hero.
So, why is this so difficult to integrate into gaming groups? Simple. We've stopped playing heroes. Most Characters (and in fact, most gamers) are motivated by other rewards. Fame, Fortune, and Fantasy. We desire glory, gold, and land, which we then kindly share with others, as our claim to holiness. We tithed the necessary 10%. We risked our neck at the expense of knowledge, victory, or what have you. Now, check out my new ARMOR!
How heroic, don't you think? The Paladin is out of place, not because of his conflicting and difficult code, but because he is a hero in a game of mercenaries. I agree with everything that you have said concerning the Paladin psyche. It is a calling. They do see a bigger picture than almost anyone else can imagine. I even like your response to the idea of "evil authority." Whereas a Paladin sees law as a way to serve people, and lift them up, Lawful Evil characters only see selfish opportunity. Lawful Evil is as alien to the Paladin's mind as Chaotic Evil, in many respects.
Still, I think that if paladins are ever going to be respected within the bounds of D&D again, their adventuring companions will have to rethink their motives. But then again, if everyone thought like that, Paladins wouldn't stand out so very much...
However, I find that the principles of electricity apply very directly to good and evil. Let me explain. Should ever a strong positive charge exist in the atmosphere, a strong negative charge moves to neutralize it. We call it lightning.
Any paladin of power has likely made a large number of evil enemies who would think nothing of killing a whole village full of people just to get to the paladin. Where strong good exists, strong evil often lurks in its shadow, waiting for an opportunity to strike it down.
This is why people may fear the paladin coming to town, not because they worry about the paladin himself, but the evil that seems to follow in their footsteps.
Personally, I play my Paladin as I would play a Jedi character in Star Wars. I also live by a great deal of those moral codes as well. I have found that it works and just seems to fit.
I enjoyed reading your guide above, and I especially enjoyed the little example you used. While a Paladin cannot lie, it does not mean they must right a person’s beliefs also. Example: I came into a town, intent to hunt down and destroy a fairly powerful vampire lord terrorizing the countryside. As I entered the town, my GM had me roll a Sense Motive and I felt the people were very uneasy about seeing me. Turns out, the town council were all enthralled by the Vampire Lord and the town thought I was his chief enforcer. I never once called myself such, never once did anything less than a Paladin, but also I did not tell them that I was not the chief enforcer. I was able to pass through the town and continue onto the keep of the Vampire Lord.
I did not lie to the people, I just let them go on believing what they wanted to. Who am I to do differently? My GM told me afterwards that if I had made myself known as a Paladin, I would have had to fight through a wave of men, women, and children where were thralls of the Vampire.
Goodness is defined in the 3.5 PHB as defending the life of the innocent. Which is perfectly fine to me. I'd much rather have a paladin looking for people to help and save than someone who stands on a street corner making sure everyone is following the laws of their government. If goodness itself was the only law, and government didn't exist, could a paladin still define himself? I entirely believe so. I don't believe the lawfulness of a paladin comes from how he agrees to obey or enforce government policies, but how he chooses his tasks and keeps his word.
I don't totally agree with chaotic good focusing more on the individual and law focusing more on groups, though. Frankly, I'm not sure what I think about them.
Roleplaying Guidelines for Paladins.
1. Lead by example, not rhetoric.
2. Respect all non-evil beings.
3. Be polite (even to enemies, sometimes).
4. Think of others before yourself.
5. In combat, think nothing of your own safety, but protect others in your party.
6. Don't argue with people in your party who you know don't have your standards. (see point one)
7. Don't be selfish about anything. If there are three healing potions left and four party members, leave yourself out.
8. Give everyone else the benefit of the doubt, but be hard on yourself.
9 Be a loyal friend.
I don't think these are bad guidelines. However:
5. This doesn't mean fight stupidly. Fight intelligently and skillfully, not suicidally.
7. If you are badly injured and others in the party aren't and all the other magical healing is expended, then using a potion for yourself would be OK.
9. Loyal but not blind. If a friend is doing bad things, you should discourage them and try to stop them, lest you end up having to hunt down your former friends at the head of a posse. Likewise, you shouldn't let them drag you down the wrong path. If they won't change, walk away from them. Don't let them use you for their own ends either. If betrayed walk away or seek justice as necessary.
A Paladin loses his powers if he ever willingly commits an evil act. He does not lose his powers if he willingly commits a chaotic act.
As I understand it, good > law. *bow*
A group of adventurers is sitting around discussing what they believe should be done to retrieve the king's lost amulet (recently stolen) from a home within the city. The king has charged them with this and they therefore have the support of the kingdom. They know where the thieves are and they know the entire layout of the house. The home however is the home of a normal and law abiding citizen who does not know that the people she is housing are criminals. The Rogue suggests he break in steal the amulet back, doing so quickly and quietly so as to cause the least blood shed. The Wizard agrees that it has the greatest chance of success, as the Rogue is quite proficient in the stealthy arts. The Fighter disagrees but only to the extent to which he doesn't get a chance to crack some skulls, but believes the plan is solid.
The Paladin knows that the breaking and entering of a perfectly lawful (and most likely goodly) home is wrong, but the Rogue does propose a good point about the lower chance of civilian casualties that may occur, and situations involving hostages would be greatly lessened. But, as many people seem to think, the old "stick-in-the-mud" Paladin objects for "no good reason" but this is perhaps the ONLY good reason. The Paladin flat out refuses the go along with the plan because the kind old lady does not deserve the treatment of having her home wrecked, and furthermore, the Paladin would NEVER condone the action of breaking and entering or stealing, even if for a good cause, because in the end the society and all the lawful and goodly people within would suffer as a consequence.
I myself am often told I am "Too nice for my own good" or "Too honest for my own good" but these critics do not understand the fundamental flaws in their arguments; No one can ever be too nice or too honest, ever, and to even think that such a thing could ever occur seems laughable. The way I see it is that if I speak the honest and open truth, doing kindness without thought of reward more than the warm glow in my stomach, then I am doing HUMANITY a service. Whatever gods people may worship may very well smile upon me for my actions, though I do not believe in gods myself, but it is surely welcome if they do. The point is, for myself and all Paladin players, fostering good and creating a world in which life is not just lived but actually reveled in is worth far more sacrifice than anyone one soul can give, though I will be damned, surely and truly, if I ever let a opportunity for goodness and truth pass me by without taking it with both hands.
For those who follow a road they consider "The way life is" I will say only this: Life is only 'the way it is' because you let it be; everything you do has consequences, and the fate of the world rests on the flip of a moral coin when you let little things slip. Don't let the chance for a greater good pass you by ...
This requirement is not a hindrance of good, but a means of breaking ignorance. The intent of the requirement is so that paladins are forced to look at cultural and racial differences, and realize that while the laws that guided his upbringing served him well, people of another land, good people, might be better served by a different set of laws; laws that the paladin might not necessarily agree with, but that by his code, he should still defend when among the foreign people, for though they are different, they still advance to causes of goodness. The long and short of this is that in the mind of a paladin, no authority is legitimate unless it advances the causes of goodness, which I think quite clearly eradicates much chance of an evil authority being legitimate in the eyes of a paladin.
A very good argument, but summarized by a blurry conclusion. A LE leader is the legitimate authority, at least in the eyes of the government, and perhaps even the population and the neighboring nations. The paladin has to respect that, even if in his own eyes, an evil leader is not a legitimate authority. Failure to respect that would be a Chaotic act. That doesn't mean the paladin shouldn't try to change that legitimate authority.
Damn that was a great campaign...
Also the responses of Majick and JasonOrlandoHawk were valuable.
Thank you for making a concise, direct and well organized post to that end. I can now just point people to this page and they should understand where I'm coming from.
I commend you on an excellent post.
A very good argument, but summarized by a blurry conclusion. A LE leader is the legitimate authority, at least in the eyes of the government, and perhaps even the population and the neighboring nations. The paladin has to respect that, even if in his own eyes, an evil leader is not a legitimate authority. Failure to respect that would be a Chaotic act. That doesn't mean the paladin shouldn't try to change that legitimate authority.
I disagree. For a paladin, a legitimate authority is one that uses Law to promote Goodness. A king who taxes his people into poverty does not have to be obeyed, and a paladin MUST refuse to pay the taxes the king demands, for doing so would weaken Good and promote Evil.
Batman (the Dark Knight) and Robin Hood (who fought in the crusades) are both examples of paladins living under (and fighting against) a Lawful Evil government.
If the Child is breaking the law: why would the Paladin help him? That is a Chaotic action, not Lawful. Continue acting that way and you'll lose the Lawful side (first become NG than CG). You are to respect legitimate authority (assuming you are in a legitimate town).
Who says the paladin has to be committing a chaotic act, just by stopping the pursuers?
What I got from it is that the Paladin would want to stop the people from hurting/killing the child for stealing. That is an extreme punishment in some cases, even if it is a "medieval setting". Instead, he would probably see why the child stole what he did (food/medicine or money for it). He would probably then proceed to give the family some money to live on to assure the child he won't ever have to steal for food again. Then he would turn the child over to the authorities assuming the punishment for stealing an apple or something in that particular town wasn't hand choppage or death.
I disagree. For a paladin, a legitimate authority is one that uses Law to promote Goodness. A king who taxes his people into poverty does not have to be obeyed, and a paladin MUST refuse to pay the taxes the king demands, for doing so would weaken Good and promote Evil.
Batman (the Dark Knight) and Robin Hood (who fought in the crusades) are both examples of paladins living under (and fighting against) a Lawful Evil government.
Except Robin Hood is most definitely Chaotic Good. To me, the best example of a paladin and Lawful Evil government interaction would be V, from V for Vendetta. He was most definitely Lawful Good, and I would call him a Paladin, however he actively worked against and disobeyed the Lawful Evil government he lived under.
One more thing. Robin Hood and Batman are champions of the people, to be sure, but they are not particularly lawful.
Howso? A single evil act causes a loss of his powers, but a paladin need merely maintain an overall Lawful alignment.
My question may sound silly, but here it is: so, with the Paladin sacrificing so much for the greater good, can he/she fall in love? Are there any Paladins who have a significant other? If so, would probably be a Lawful Good, I'd suppose....?
Baldur's Gate 2 has a paladin named Keldorn in it, he is an excellent example of the problems of paladins having significant others.
A non-LG partner would have a very difficult time being with a paladin romantically. A paladin is a paragon of honor, most people aren't. The best paladins could easily accept the failings and foibles of their partner, and forgive the times when they choose what is easy over what is right - but the paladin does not have any of those times. It would be an uneven relationship. Many people can't stand being in a relationship with someone who is downright better than they are.
Other strains on the relationship would be that the paladin is accustomed to blood and death, soul-breaking horrors, true evil is not pretty. So often, a paladin is called away from his loved ones by the demands of his god, order or simple conscience. Knowing there are innocents in need will make any paladin restless. A paladin cannot give his family the commitment they deserve.
It takes a strong soul to stand beside a paladin. This is a man who has seen the face of true evil, and was not afraid to fight it. Something very few others can understand.
However, in D&D, it is made quite clear that when a paladin must choose between good and law, law takes precedence.
Howso? A single evil act causes a loss of his powers, but a paladin need merely maintain an overall Lawful alignment.
The overall impression I got was that law was the most suitable means to advance good, if a choice has to be made between good and law, then law is not working as it should be.
My question may sound silly, but here it is: so, with the Paladin sacrificing so much for the greater good, can he/she fall in love? Are there any Paladins who have a significant other? If so, would probably be a Lawful Good, I'd suppose....?
Due to the difficulties presented above inherent in the Paladin lifestyle, I would suggest that the ideal mate for a Paladin is another Paladin. The only thing more fulfilling than fighting the forces of evil and chaos is doing so alongside your soulmate!
One example code can be found in the book Chivalry by 19th century French historian Leon Gautier.
- Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
- Thou shalt defend the Church.
- Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
- Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
- Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
- Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
- Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
- Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
- Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
- Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
Also the Seven Virtues of Bushido
- Gi – Rectitude
- Yū – Courage
- Jin – Benevolence
- Rei – Respect
- Makoto or Shin– Honesty
- Meiyo – Honor, Glory
- Chū – Loyalty
From the Western Code we come across the line about perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God. Going at the Paladin as a western ideal, then we come to the point where his duties to the law, a temporal figure that is apt to change with each new king, is less important than his duties to God. Also, going by the order of his code, the Knight is first and foremost a defender of the Church, then he's a saviour to the weak, and then he's to love where he was born.
After that he's to be the example in battle, never retreating like a cowardly dog, and then he's a crusader against the Infidels. In a fantasy setting the Infidels wouldn't be anyone of a differing faith, like it was in the Christian Kingdoms of yesteryear, but it would be those who, for God or Gold, would attack anything that he's already been sworn to defend.
Obey the Law and do your Duties to the Government of the Land, except where they would conflict with your Duties to God. Don't lie, and keep your word; this is another place where the Knight/Paladin would be called to be an example to those around him. A great example of why this is important would have been the Christian martyrs, refusing to renounce their faith, thus keeping the promise that they made to God. They were held up, and in a way became a sort of hero-god in their own right, simply because they refused to lie, though they knew that to do otherwise would be death.
Be generous, don't just give your tithe at church but also go out and give another tenth to the poor, and a tenth to the widows, and a tenth to the wounded, and a tenth to anyone who needs it. Give of yourself, much like Christ did before you, until you have nothing left to give, and then, if it be God's will, give more. And lastly, if you're having any doubts about a situation that your in, that isn't covered above, thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
But that's just the Western Christian Knight, and in a great many ways the Paladin differs from him. Firstly, the WCK was generally, if not always, a man. Thus chivalry also included the concept of courtly love, portrayed by Lancelot, a concept that the Paladin of DnD is often portrayed without.
The Seven Virtues of Bushido above also cover many of the same points.
Rectitude, defined as rightness of principle or conduct; moral virtue, is essentially doing what is right, even if it is hard.
Courage, being that you stand your ground, not fleeing from battle, but this might also include the courage to admit when you were wrong and when you failed, as well as the courage to retreat when the battle is lost.
Benevolence, giving to those in need, whether or not they deserve it.
Respect, even if they do things that you might not agree with, they're people too. If you ever expect them to respect you, you must first earn it, even if it means bowing to them while they insult you. Just because you can make them show you respect through force of arms, doesn't make it right to do so.
Honesty, this is pretty self explanatory, don't lie. Though, honesty could be included to not lying in your ways or actions. If you don't plan on killing someone, don't threaten them with death.
Glory, you took up the way of the sword to save lives, so do it. Never be content to rest on your laurels, if you can save but one life, do so. Of course, this doesn't mean you should wittingly take up a task you have no ability to complete. But it also means that just because you're old and infirm, you can't keep serving by helping to train others to tread the same dark paths you did.
Loyalty, to your lord, or your kingdom, or your god, or, if nothing else, your ideals.
But that's just my take on it.
Also the Seven Virtues of Bushido
While I follow most of both codes in real life, there are a few things I must contest. These assume a certain (read: easy) background. If a paladin was born in an evil nation, is he honour-bound to love it? What about my paladin who was born and raised in the Abyss and only came to the material plane in his early 30s?
Feudal duties assumed feudal system, and the divine right of kings - so cannot a paladin exist in a democracy? I would also claim a paladin is obligated to fight against an unjust ruler, rather than submit on the basis that he is a ruler. Perhaps that is covered by "if they not be contrary to the laws of God."
Does not recoiling mean no option of retreat? I don't think paladins would waste lives so cavalierly (pun not intended).
I have vaguer doubts about making war without mercy, since I believe mercy is much of what sets a paladin apart from common soldiers. It would take a very narrow definition of Infidel to justify this.
Give largesse to everyone, well I would say those who would misuse what they are given are not entitled to it. If someone would do harm with your help, don't help them.
I think these are all examples where the last tenet overrules the others, but I think the code would need clarifying on the subject.
I think Robin Hood id definitely CG (if I remember correctly, either the 1E or 2E PHB referenced this directly). Batman is probably NG (except in The Dark Knight Returns, where he's probably moving to, if not already, CG), since he has no particular beef with the government but he works outside the law. V in the movie is pretty ambiguous, I think, but he's probably not LG. In the comics, he's definitely chaotic, I would even argue that he's CN since he seems to be opposed to the very notion of authority more than anything else.
Some examples of LG folks resisting authority that come to mind are: Mahatma Gandhi, Superman when Lex Luthor was president, the Federalists among the American revolutionaries, Morpheus (from the Matrix), Hawaiian Queen Lili'uokalani, some of the Scottish nobles in Braveheart (not all of them were Good), and, uh, whatever the main guy's name is in Equilibrium.
They can resist an evil government or authority, but they still respect order and law in general. By and large, they also work out in the open as opposed to using subterfuge.
Baldur's Gate 2 has a paladin named Keldorn in it, he is an excellent example of the problems of paladins having significant others.
A non-LG partner would have a very difficult time being with a paladin romantically. A paladin is a paragon of honor, most people aren't. The best paladins could easily accept the failings and foibles of their partner, and forgive the times when they choose what is easy over what is right - but the paladin does not have any of those times. It would be an uneven relationship. Many people can't stand being in a relationship with someone who is downright better than they are.
Other strains on the relationship would be that the paladin is accustomed to blood and death, soul-breaking horrors, true evil is not pretty. So often, a paladin is called away from his loved ones by the demands of his god, order or simple conscience. Knowing there are innocents in need will make any paladin restless. A paladin cannot give his family the commitment they deserve.
It takes a strong soul to stand beside a paladin. This is a man who has seen the face of true evil, and was not afraid to fight it. Something very few others can understand.
That may not keep a paladin from being ATTRACTIVE, though. On the one hand, you have someone who is honest, decent, faithful, and true, and who will literally walk straight into the jaws of death itself for a good enough cause. On the other hand, you have someone who doesn't consider his life or time to be his own property, but rather that of the innocent and the oppressed, NOT his romantic partner. That's an easy person to crush on, I imagine, but a hard one to actually love.
If the Child is breaking the law: why would the Paladin help him? That is a Chaotic action, not Lawful.
The original said "A paladin is called to the defense of a child who runs into a room behind him, begging for help. The child’s pursuers turn the corner, and their leader, seeing the paladin, and knowing the paladin cannot lie, says that they are pursuing a pickpocket, and asks which way the child ran."
Note - there's no insistence that the child IS a pickpocket - only that the leader of the posse, knowing the paladin cannot lie, says that they are pursuing a pickpocket - even a half-way intelligent paladin would have been trained to recognise the difference between clearly stated and implied utterances (what Grice (1975) called 'conversational implicatures') - The Paladin could, nay must legitimately seek proof beyond reasonable doubt (or equivalent in the game world) that the child has, indeed, broken the law before acting and then said Paladin would not hand over a child to a lynch-mob of vigilantes but rather would seek to hand over the child to the appropriate authorities (only insofar as the authorities had an appropriate (demi-)human rights record. If not, then, the Paladin's own sense of Good and Law (his own code, not the law of the land) would preclude the Paladin from handing the child over to anyone (e.g. If the Paladin is adventuring in areas controlled by Zhentil Keep and the Zhents demand the child - NO CHANCE IN A MILLION THAT THE PALADIN IS GOING TO HAND THE CHILD OVER) The argument here centres around the fact that the Lawful Good alignment of the paladin is a personal code and interpretation which may, indeed, will clash with the laws of the land or the interpretation of what is 'right' in different areas. You don't like it? Tell it to the Paladin wielding the stern look and the 2-handed weapon.
My question may sound silly, but here it is: so, with the Paladin sacrificing so much for the greater good, can he/she fall in love? Are there any Paladins who have a significant other? If so, would probably be a Lawful Good, I'd suppose....?
The only thing I'd add to what has been previously mentioned is that it might also be dangerous for someone to be so closely connected to a paladin. And knowing this, how can a paladin fairly subject this person to those dangers for his/her selfish wants. That's why superheroes where disguises.
But I don't know that a paladin could conceal his identity; that seems somewhat dishonest. Nor do I think that a paladin could partake in a secret relationship.
As bad as I think the movies were - Spiderman and Episode II & III demonstrated the dangers of pursuing an intimate personal relationship...
The way I see it, a paladin is never going to be a Robin Hood figure, overtly fighting a lawful authority he sees as unjust. However, whenever he sees a chance for latitude in his interpretation of the law, he will tend towards good. In the example from the article of the child hiding from persecutors, the paladin might decide that she wouldn't get lawful treatment from the pursuers and would therefore be complicit in hiding her (by not revealing her presence) and then seek justice by other means.
An alternative situation might be that corrupt or overzealous theocrats set up an inquisition and the paladin has been required to bring in potential sinners for 'questioning'. Although he finds the inquisition deeply distasteful he has to follow the orders from his church. His inclinations towards good, however, might result in him being negligent in tying their bonds. And should he discover that the theocrats themselves are not obeying the letter of the law, then he will be extra zealous in bringing them to their own form of justice. In fact, he might have to dig deep to find such evidence.
Batman (the Dark Knight) and Robin Hood (who fought in the crusades) are both examples of paladins living under (and fighting against) a Lawful Evil government.
Robin Hood is nowhere near being LG, let alone achieving the state of being a Paladin. He lies cheats and steals at every opportunity to forward his (good) cause.
Batman is a great example of a Paladin fighting widespread corruption within the bounds of his Paladinhood. Of course... he also has multiple personality disorder, so that's to be taken with a grain of salt :D But the central personality is certainly a Paladin.
If a paladin was born in an evil nation, is he honour-bound to love it? What about my paladin who was born and raised in the Abyss and only came to the material plane in his early 30s?
Absolutely. If we're assuming this is being used as the code of conduct, then paladin would be bound to love her home country. If, in this case, her home country was the Abyss, all the more reason for her to strive to see demons put to the sword and law and goodness brought to the boundless chaos and evil of the Abyss. Nothing hurts us more than those who love us most, right? LOL
I can just imagine an Abyssal Heritor paladin. Talk about conflict of interest! And don't forget the succubus paladin!
Now, in response to some people questioning whether Law should come before Good, it is generally accepted that the paladin is like the great Arthurian Knights, the archetypical followers of the ideals of chivalry/bushido etc., right?
Not really. The paladin is often associated with certain of the Arthurian knights, but she isn't essentially a knight, let alone a samurai; that's why D&D has expanded to cash out those roles as different base classes.
Legitimate authority is intentionally vague. Different paladins will have different notions of what constitutes legitimacy - to one paladin it will be recognition by the proper set of deities, while another looks for noble blood and title, and a third argues that supreme executive authority is derived from the masses. Think about that when making up your paladin characters: their outlook could be inspired by figures as diverse as Joan of Arc, Matsu Tsuko and Eugene V. Debs.
The question on courtly love is a good one. Once again, I'm going to have to unask it; the answer depends on the paladin. Some will consider chastity to be an essential part of their way of life (though I suppose that doesn't rule out love altogether). A few will fear to expose their loved ones to the dangers of their lifestyle, perhaps even going to the extreme of having a secret identity! More likely, I think, is to treat with the problem in a human-oid way, and to muddle through things case by case. Being attracted to evil-doers poses an interesting situation - will the paladin be degraded by association, or will her love carry redemption with it? Again, preconceived notions are damaging to the experience, except when they're the notions of the characters.
I hope this helps!
That may not keep a paladin from being ATTRACTIVE, though. On the one hand, you have someone who is honest, decent, faithful, and true, and who will literally walk straight into the jaws of death itself for a good enough cause. On the other hand, you have someone who doesn't consider his life or time to be his own property, but rather that of the innocent and the oppressed, NOT his romantic partner. That's an easy person to crush on, I imagine, but a hard one to actually love.
Agreed, completely. What I was referring to was the difficulties in a genuine relationship involving a paladin. High Charisma so common among paladins makes that even more so through sheer presence and personality. I also have a little theory about Aura of Courage - being in the same room as a paladin is enough to inspire people, and that could easily lead to groupies. ;)
Absolutely. If we're assuming this is being used as the code of conduct, then paladin would be bound to love her home country. If, in this case, her home country was the Abyss, all the more reason for her to strive to see demons put to the sword and law and goodness brought to the boundless chaos and evil of the Abyss. Nothing hurts us more than those who love us most, right? LOL
I can just imagine an Abyssal Heritor paladin. Talk about conflict of interest! And don't forget the succubus paladin!
Interesting viewpoint. My paladin simply adopted a nation when he stayed on the Prime. I like your idea that loving something often means trying to change it for the better, my point is why does simply being born there make a land more worthy of love?
Interesting viewpoint. My paladin simply adopted a nation when he stayed on the Prime. I like your idea that loving something often means trying to change it for the better, my point is why does simply being born there make a land more worthy of love?
It's patriotism and ethnocentrism, two more or less universal concepts. In America, unfortunately, we've become divided on these two ideas. A large portion of Americans are now fiercely patriotic and want nothing more than to defend and better this country. However, another large portion of Americans no longer have faith in the laws and governing officials. As a result, we have the more basic instinct of defending one's dwelling, rather than one's country.
Also, America being a melting pot has further clouded these concepts. Ask anyone "Where is your family from?" and the person is likely to go on about what his ancestors’’ nationalities were. I regularly call myself German because I'm a bit over half German (mom's pure German, father's an 8th German). My aunt answers certain questions with, "because I'm Lebanese," etc.
Look at the European countries, especially England. You'll see people who are all about standing up for Queen and Country. They have a strong sense of patriotism. That is the norm, not the American baseline neutrality on the Law/Chaos axis.
I agree that the basic assumption that paladins aren't fun is based on the fact that it feels restricting and undefined. Who wants to play a character where every important decision has an obvious 'good' action to answer it?
As for the classic 'lesser of two evils' argument, I feel that every paladin should always fight nail, teeth, and limb for the completely good answer no one has thought of. For example, look to Spiderman when Mary Jane and a bus full of people are both being dropped off both sides of the bridge. True, Spidey went with the lesser evil choice first (the bus) but he risked everything to make sure he got Mary Jane safely too.
Good can be defined by the universal 'what is good' ideas. Everyone seems to have stated them already at some point or another here so I'll skip ahead.
Lawful is another ambiguous area because they never specified whose law he's following. I personally feel that he would follow the laws of whatever patron he follows, but this could lead to a crusade type story where he deems everyone guilty of breaking his laws. Beware of this, and remind players that laws expect impartial judgment and soft punishments.
On the other hand, he could be forced to follow local law. This is trickier, because imagine a world ran by a madman or alien culture. He would find following the law a chaotic mess and possibly would be expected to commit evil acts just to follow the law. I think this is more evidence that a paladin would follow his own laws, but you can decide.
Consider this: try playing a paladin, and whenever your turn comes around or a thought enters your (or your characters) mind, scan it quickly for any hint of uneasiness or doubts that it is anything but LG and you will find that acting LG isn't really that hard. If you're playing him correctly, you'll know whenever you're making the right decisions because you'll never have any doubts that you did the absolute best that you could have possibly done.
Also, I would like to say that V is most definitely not LG. A lot of what he does is just for revenge, which isn't a very good cause. Plus, he murders people brutally and mercilessly. He even murders someone after she tries to repent. That is not what I call a good alignment.
The overall impression I got was that law was the most suitable means to advance good, if a choice has to be made between good and law, then law is not working as it should be.
Agreed. Personally, I find that MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail gives a pretty good synopsis of a potential LG perspective of Law, and particularly the illegitimacy of unjust laws.
I'd quote it, but I really don't want go through the effort of eliding the references to RL religions or theologians.
If a paladin was born in an evil nation, is he honour-bound to love it? What about my paladin who was born and raised in the Abyss and only came to the material plane in his early 30s?
You'd have to come up with some pretty impressive back story as to why a character, living for 30 years in such evil an environment could develop a psyche so different from his daily encountered kinsmen.
Such a character most probably will have had interaction with a paladin or similar to move him enough to "open his eyes" to the "truth". As such, this character would also act with love for the country, for the people, to act in bringing it around through acts which opened his eyes, in hopes that it opens the eyes of those he touched. There are things in honour and love that goes without needing rules to define or punishment to enforce. If the paladin's father is a drunkard to beats his mother every other day, the paladin would protect the mother and try to change his father's ways, because he loves him. Trying to put rules into it is like trying enforce the demonstration of the probability graph. You cannot do much to it, and will it not always prove true. All there is, is a base line that will match close enough at most times.
However, I still find it Drizzt-y, and I still don't fully buy his self development of something so different, with the exception of his father. As am I aware of how the development of his father's psyche (not revealed as I know, but I've not read every book yet!), I have nothing to comment on that, save that it'd better be a good one.
Some here have compared Paladins to knights and others have argued that knights are inherently different. If I remember my old 1st ed. Paladin entry correctly, it directly compared Paladins to some of the most devout and stalwart knightly orders (I believe the Templars were specifically the order mentioned). In my mind at least, this makes the comparison to knights completely legitimate. A Paladin is, in essence, a knight with even higher ideals and standards to which he/she must adhere. It also seems to me that if we want to have a more Asian oriented Paladin then a comparison to a Samurai is also quite valid.
I'm sure that there is more in my mind on this subject, but it is getting late and I need to sleep. Thus I shall leave you with this, the Boy Scout Oath and Law as another example of a code to which an order of Paladin's might prescribe:
Law
A Scout (or Paladin in this case) is:
Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean,
and Reverent.
Oath
On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to both God and country, to obey the Scout (or appropriate Paladin order) Law, to help other people at all times, and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
There are literally hundreds of different and appropriate codes from different and organizations to use as models for different Paladin orders. Using them will help give variety to the Paladins in your game as well as give a bit of real world feel.
I myself have come under the weight of my peers when playing a Paladin. The code is strict in many senses and more than a few do not understand, nay, even comprehend the idea of "short term gain, long term loss" that Paladins everywhere try to achieve.
A group of adventurers is sitting around discussing what they believe should be done to retrieve the king's lost amulet (recently stolen) from a home within the city. The king has charged them with this and they therefore have the support of the kingdom. They know where the thieves are and they know the entire layout of the house. The home however is the home of a normal and law abiding citizen who does not know that the people she is housing are criminals. The Rogue suggests he break in steal the amulet back, doing so quickly and quietly so as to cause the least blood shed. The Wizard agrees that it has the greatest chance of success, as the Rogue is quite proficient in the stealthy arts. The Fighter disagrees but only to the extent to which he doesn't get a chance to crack some skulls, but believes the plan is solid.
The Paladin knows that the breaking and entering of a perfectly lawful (and most likely goodly) home is wrong, but the Rogue does propose a good point about the lower chance of civilian casualties that may occur, and situations involving hostages would be greatly lessened. But, as many people seem to think, the old "stick-in-the-mud" Paladin objects for "no good reason" but this is perhaps the ONLY good reason. The Paladin flat out refuses the go along with the plan because the kind old lady does not deserve the treatment of having her home wrecked, and furthermore, the Paladin would NEVER condone the action of breaking and entering or stealing, even if for a good cause, because in the end the society and all the lawful and goodly people within would suffer as a consequence.
I myself am often told I am "Too nice for my own good" or "Too honest for my own good" but these critics do not understand the fundamental flaws in their arguments; No one can ever be too nice or too honest, ever, and to even think that such a thing could ever occur seems laughable. The way I see it is that if I speak the honest and open truth, doing kindness without thought of reward more than the warm glow in my stomach, then I am doing HUMANITY a service. Whatever gods people may worship may very well smile upon me for my actions, though I do not believe in gods myself, but it is surely welcome if they do. The point is, for myself and all Paladin players, fostering good and creating a world in which life is not just lived but actually reveled in is worth far more sacrifice than anyone one soul can give, though I will be damned, surely and truly, if I ever let a opportunity for goodness and truth pass me by without taking it with both hands.
For those who follow a road they consider "The way life is" I will say only this: Life is only 'the way it is' because you let it be; everything you do has consequences, and the fate of the world rests on the flip of a moral coin when you let little things slip. Don't let the chance for a greater good pass you by ...
I feel that there is alway another solution. Perhaps they could devise a plan where one of the characters disguised him/herself as a salesman and ask for the lady of the house. If no one answers the door and they know someone is there the Paladin has good reason to get a mandate from the king allowing lawful entry. In the mean time, the rest of the party could watch to make sure no one leaves the house. If the mandate for entry is given, then the rogue can enter. Or since this is a King they just go and say "Hey! We found it, but we need lawful entry to a womans house." I'm sure the king would agree given that the report is coming from the paladin. I just seems that when you develop more detail into the story there is a way, and the Paladin can retain his status w/o questionable activity.
"Well what if the paladin is in a LE society?"
Why in HELL would the paladin be wandering around that kind of area? Paladins would attempt at all times to avoid being peaceably in such a society.
Now if a government is corrupt, where the lawmakers are greedy but in concept the laws are just, the paladin needs to obey the law. Not because he agrees with it, but because he has to know the limits of his own power. He cant (or usually cant,) fix a corrupt government or fight it and expect to live. Not only would he probably lose to the standing forces of the government, but he would misrepresent his own kingdom. He could start a war like that easily, and that would cause far more harm than good.
One more thing. Robin Hood and Batman are champions of the people, to be sure, but they are not particularly lawful.
As a matter of fact, I believe that the PHB specifically lists Robin Hood as an example of a Chaotic Good Character.