Post/Author/DateTime

Post

#1 zombiegleemax Aug 08, 2006 11:41:58

What Makes a Paladin Fall? The Code of Conduct ("the Code") for the Paladin has often been touted as being "skeletal," contradictory, too flimsy, too broad, misleading... in short, flawed. This essay will seek to clarify the Paladin's code (as laid out in the Rules as Written or "RAW"). It takes a legalistic approach toward the Code, viewing it as a living document that is altered by a totality of the circumstances, coming to a conclusion based on the criteria set forth under the "Ex-Paladins" section of the System Reference Document (I shall be using the version at: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm). This is not an essay on how a paladin should be role-played, or how the paladin looks at the world. For an excellent essay on this topic, you should read this post, by Falidamari: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=662646. Also, while this essay describes the Lawful Good aspects of the Paladin's behavior, it is in no way intended to be an alignment discussion. For simplicity and convenience, I shall reproduce and parse the Code in such a way as to make referencing the Code easier. Should I reference section A1 of the code, it should be noted I mean the Lawful Good clause. Should I refer to section B2c, I specifically refer to the Use of Poison clause, etc. Code of Conduct A) A paladin [INDENT]1) must be of lawful good alignment and 2) loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.[/INDENT] B) Additionally a paladin's code requires: [INDENT]1) that she respect legitimate authority 2) act with honor [INDENT]a) not lying b) not cheating c) not using poison d) and so forth[/INDENT] 3) help those in need [INDENT]a) provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends[/INDENT] 4) and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.[/INDENT] Additionally, there is one more relevant section that we must look at--the rules for when a paladin loses his powers. Or as I like to call it, the "Ex-Paladin Provision" ("EPP"). Ex-Paladins A) A paladin who: [INDENT]1) ceases to be lawful good, 2) willfully commits an evil act, or 3) grossly violates the code of conduct;[/INDENT] loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. B) She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate. (Multiclassing clause has been left out, as it has no bearing on this discussion.) In order to study what makes a Paladin fall, we must first understand the EPP as it regards to the Code. The EPP is really a conditional test. It states, in short, that if any of the conditions in subsection A occur, the result is that the paladin loses her powers. It is also important to note that there are three conditions for why a paladin might fall. I shall also examine them in turn below. The Alignment Question Some things cannot be codified alignment-wise: eating, for example. Others, such as stopping at a red light, can realistically be considered Lawful or Good. But for purposes of this discussion, I shall assume that there is no such thing as a truly "neutral" action. Things can either be codified into either the Law/Chaos or Good/Evil spectrum of alignment, or they cannot be codified at all. Section A1 of the EPP states specifically that "a paladin who ceases to be lawful good" loses her powers. When does the paladin cease to be lawful good? Is it at the onset of the first chaotic act? (I shall ignore, for now, evil acts, as they will be touched upon more thoroughly in our exploration of section A2 of the EPP.) Is it when the Dungeon Master decides to shift the Paladin's alignment one step towards Chaos? There are really only two options: First Act, or Alignment Shift. I myself am a proponent of the First Act theory, which primarily makes the argument that by strict interpretation of the word "ceases," an individual is no longer acting in a Lawful Good manner once they act in any manner that can be codified as anything but Lawful and/or Good. This strict interpretation of the EPP does not offer a degree of severity in this case as it does with section A3, where it clearly uses the word "grossly." Because this is such a strict reading of the rule, however, I do not believe that the atonement should be costly to a First Act-or. It requires a simple casting of atonement, without needing to cost the caster XP. Some roleplaying penance, such as the recitation of prayers, should be enough to satisfy a cleric’s and paladin's desire for atonement. I would like to stress that First Act theorists do not hold to the idea that a person's alignment shifts on their first act. One, or even several, small acts contrary to your alignment do not make you change alignment. It is only when these acts are done with regularity, or sometimes with great impact, that there is an Alignment Shift. Those who believe in the Alignment Shift theory are more lenient, and perhaps better backed by the letter of RAW. For example, in the SRD under alignment, the RAW specifically states that "few people are completely consistent [in their alignment]." The rules, essentially, are meant to be lenient. (While the wording few gives us First Actors hope, the rest of the statement lies squarely against us.) But, regardless of which theory you hold to, we must still answer the question of "what is Lawful Good?" No better interpretation of this exists than that stated in the SRD, "A lawful good character ["LG"] acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished." In many ways, the SRD's definition of lawful good is similar to the Code. First off, a LG acts as a Good character does. She is disciplined, and cares a lot for justice. The SRD goes on to state that lawful good combines "honor and compassion." (This not being a essay on alignment, we shall leave a deeper discussion of these facets for another time and end this thought with a simple characterization: We'll know Lawful Good when we see it.) Evil Acts Question Section A2 of the EPP goes on to state that "a paladin who willfully commits an evil act" will lose her powers. The issue here is willfully. Why would they specify willfully if evil acts could be covered under section A1? I think this question points to the issue of atonement. Atonement for an evil act is far more severe than that of a careless or accidental act. More importantly, willfully implies that the paladin made a conscious decision: He knew what he was doing, and decided to take that step. What is willful? Webster's defines willful as "done deliberately" or "intentional." Intentional means "done by design." In other words, in order for a Paladin's evil act to be willful, the Paladin must have known both the substance of the act (in other words, what he was going to do), and the nature of the act (in other words, that the act was evil.) If he was unaware of the act's nature, he should not qualify under Section A2 of the EPP. He would, however, qualify under Section A1 if you're a First Act theorist. Willfully committing an evil act would also be a willful violation of the Code. Thus, when attempting to atone, the penalty will be more severe, and should require a more difficult penance on the part of the paladin: In this situation a quest would be likely. Violation of the Code Section A3 of the EPP states "a paladin who grossly violates the code of conduct" loses her powers. Here, there are two words that are of interest: "grossly" and "violates." "Grossly" in this case I will take to have the same sense as this definition, also from Webster's: "OUT-AND-OUT, UTTER c : visible without the aid of a microscope." In other words, a gross violation of the code would be obvious to a reasonable observer. I will parallel the meaning of gross with the legal definition of "gross negligence." Taken from the United States Model Penal Code, section 2.02(2)(d), "a person acts negligently ... when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [harm] ... will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the [Paladin's] failure to perceive it ... involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable [Paladin] would observe in the [Paladin's] situation." In other words, a "gross violation" would occur if the Paladin acted in such a way that another Paladin would be aware that he was violating the Code. Now, that being said, the other question is "what constitutes a Violation?" In short, a violation would be to act contrary to the spirit and letter of the Code. In other words, if you do not act the way that the Code lays out for you to act, you would be violating the Code. A gross violation would therefore be one where any reasonable Paladin can tell that you are acting against the spirit and letter of the Code. Respect Legitimate Authority Section B1 of the Code requires that a Paladin respect legitimate authority. This is one of the more controversial aspects of the Paladin's code. What exactly constitutes authority? What is legitimate? How far must the respect extend? I think that these questions have all been largely answered in Falidamari's thread I mention above. In short, paraphrasing the author, the question of legitimacy and authority is personal to the Paladin. A legitimate authority, for the Paladin, is a Lawful Good authority. For evil, the author argues, cannot be legitimate to the Paladin. That being said, I do not believe that the Paladin would act in a chaotic fashion against a Lawful Evil government. The government is simply a tool; like all tools it can be used for Good or for Evil. In my opinion, a paladin would seek to work from within the system, attempting to instill laws that are better suited towards promoting Good, as opposed to overtly challenging and rebelling against the lawful government. Honor Section B2 of the Code is likewise a tricky situation. What does honor mean? I think we can all more or less agree that "we'll know honor when we see it." However, the SRD does state several examples, a guideline if you will, of what honor means for a paladin. It states, in no uncertain terms, that a Paladin doesn't lie, doesn't cheat, doesn't use poison, and implies that there is more by its use of "and so forth." We can interpret B2a broadly; to mean that a Paladin is always truthful he makes statements. He doesn't attempt to mislead by word or action. That being said, a Paladin doesn't have to announce the truth. There is always a third choice: silence. Silence cannot be held against the Paladin, for an individual who questions a paladin into a situation where "must" lie, knows that an answer of Silence is a refusal to lie. It is, in a way, a yielding to truth, without violation of the Paladin's code. You can also interpret B2a strictly, saying that the code means only spoken lies. Deception by other means is still allowable. After all, what is the use to being completely truthful to an individual who doesn't respect truth? I believe this is contrary to the Paladin's attitude, however, as laid out in Falidamari's post. The prohibition against cheating (B2b) also seems to imply that a paladin does not partake of deception. Cheating is, after all, a way to deceive your opponent into a more disadvantageous position. This one is pretty clear, I feel, in that we all know cheating when we see it. The prohibition against poison again speaks of a mind that seeks to level the playing field. He will not resort to the same "lower" tactics of his opponents. He will face his enemies with his blade and might: nothing more. This is, really, at the core of "honor." You do not misrepresent yourself to be stronger or weaker; you face your enemy, face to face, with all of your strength pitted against all of theirs. This does not mean that if you are more powerful than your opponent you would not fight them. If your opponent wishes to fight, there is often little that can be done. What it does mean is that you will not purposefully confuse your foe into believing you more powerful or less powerful, to cause him some disadvantage. Many believe that this tactic is stupid, that it is less tactically advantageous. I don't disagree, but to them I have a simple response: You are not a paladin. To the paladin, this mentality makes sense due to their idea of honor. Even if an opponent dishonors himself, the paladin will not dishonor herself. Helping those in need The final section of the Code says that a paladin will help those in need. This statement must, of course, be tempered by reason. In his essay, Filadamari alludes to several reasons as to how the paladin is mechanically expected to assist those in need. (Remove disease is the best example he gives. Several questions still remain, however: What exactly constitutes help? Who is in need? How far is the paladin expected to go? I can only offer the briefest outline for these questions, and I encourage each DM to consider these questions themselves before considering the question of Paladinhood for an NPC or PC. What constitutes “help” is, perhaps, the simplest concept of all. Help is any aid that the Paladin can give: either monetary, direct magical or physical intervention, or assistance in some other fashion (a favor called in to a noble, lending of supplies or weapons, etc.) Even the smallest help will suffice. Sometimes, even inaction is the best help that a paladin can give. And, certainly, would not constitute a gross violation, unless the situation calls for direct intervention. Remember that it says help those in need: not do everything for them. If the paladin truly believes that it is in the individual's best interest to accomplish a given task alone, and has a reasonable belief that the individual can complete the task alone, then the Paladin is within his rights to let the individual accomplish the task alone. He doesn't have to do more, though he very well might. Who the paladin should help is simple: anyone who asks for help who will not use the help for evil or chaotic purposes. Sometimes, an individual needn't even ask for help, although a paladin is under no obligation to presume to see need everywhere he goes. He doesn't have to assume that people who don't ask for his help need his help. In fact, he would be quite justified in believing that those who don't ask for his help are in a roundabout way refusing it. Should he offer help, and be refused, he is under no obligation to force it down an unwilling person's throat. OF course, he shouldn't be punished, at least by means of the EPP, for offering help where it is needed but not wanted. How far is the paladin expected to go? As I said earlier, even the smallest help should be enough to suffice the Code. If the need is dire, the Paladin should rise to the occasion and respond accordingly. His help needn't necessarily solve the problem, but it should go at least some step towards helping to solve the problem. Once a paladin commits himself to helping, he must help, at least a little bit. (That being said, I doubt you'll ever run into a lazy paladin.) Punish those who harm innocents Section B4 of the Code is truly the Paladin's call to action. This is the part of the Code that gives the Paladin his bite: his justification for using his sword to slay the evil of the world. He is called to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Note the emphasis on the word punish. Punish does not necessarily mean "to kill," though in some circumstances it does. Sometimes, the best punishment is incarceration. Is a paladin required to arrest any and all enemies he comes into contact with? The simplest answer is no. Killing of those who deserve punishment is not against the Code. Killing wantonly, however, even those of an Evil persuasion, bespeaks a mind disrespectful of life. Such an attitude, if cavalier, can be considered Evil, or if unchecked, Chaotic. Remember the first tenet of the Paladin: he must act Lawful Good. And part of acting lawful good, as discussed, is honor, tempered by compassion. A Paladin should at least always believe, in his heart, that an evil individual can be redeemed. After all, redemption has been found by even the lowliest and most despicable of fiends. The paladin should not kill, if only to act as an example to those that would: that there is a better way. But the paladin is not beyond killing, and often times killing is the swiftest and most punishing of all punishments. A religious paladin, after all, believes that an evil soul will swiftly meet his judgment in whatever lower plane the soul goes to; whereas a more pragmatic paladin will simply be satisfied that the evil-doer can no longer take pleasure from harming further innocents. After the Fall: What happens next? Once a paladin has fallen, for whatever of the three reasons, he can regain his powers by means of the atonement spell. In order to atone, a paladin must be Lawful Good. Moreover, he should be presumed to be in penance for what he did. A first time offender, unless in willful or negligent violation of the Code, should be given light penance. Esentially, the loss of the paladin's powers should be a slap in the wrist. A visit to a decently high level cleric (9th for atonement) should be enough to set him on the right path. A more deliberate violation would cost the cleric more in the way of resources, and should therefore require more of the Paladin. A geased quest would not be out of line for such a character. The quest would serve to prove that the Paladin is truly remorseful for what he did, and seeks to make amends with his deity or beliefs. I hope that my words will shed some light on further discussions of the Paladin's fall. They are by no means the end of the debate, and as you can see there are still questions left open, both for the DM to explore and others to debate.