I know how many on this thread have heard me swear Paladin's must be Lawfuil Good. But... I do adventures with lots of time travel to different historical era's. I was going to have my players meet Vlad Dracula at different points in his life. I would never call him a Paladin. But I am really seeing this guy as a Paladin Order of Vengeance. And I am seriously liking the way the character is building.
Anyone have some cool historical or fictional Paladin's that they have been toying with for villains in an adventure.
I personally do not see the purpose of applying a PC class to an NPC. Just write the character you want with the abilities that makes sense.
Also: Like Mellored points out objective quantification of evil is a concept best kept to fantasy games. Real life/history is not so simple.
In Romania, Vlad III is generally considered a national hero, and one of his titles was 'Defender of the Faith'. Paladin would be entirely appropriate for him.
Similarly, Oda Nobunaga (despite being a brutal despot) or even Napoleon Bonaparte (despite being an egomaniac).
Hitler was also a hero to many.
Vlad the Impaler as a paladin, that's brilliant.
Since Aztec warfare involved capturing sacrifices, I could see some of them being considered paladins. I'm sure some of the temperance movement people saw themselves as holy warriors.
To me only LG paladins feel right, but if other people want to play it otherwise, that's their call.
I have no problem with non-LG Paladins, I just do not call them "Paladins", they are Anti-Paladins, Blackguards, Crusaders, Green Knights or what-have-you.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
mellored wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
great cruelty towards the otherside, yes, but not for pleasure.
9-11 happened because people felt their way of life was threatened, not because it was fun to kill yourself.
the US didn't torture people because it was a happy thing. they did it to try and get information, in oder to protect themselvs from another 9-11.
the inquisition tortured to find devil worshipers, not to play.
vikings raided villages for resouces, like sheep and tools. they didn't sail hundreds of miles from their home for pleasure.
ect...
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Dracula/Vlad Teepes as a paladin is fantastic, I love the "Blood Knight" troupe.
Judge Dredd types.
Ulric the Just from Oglaf Comics (not a safe for work website..) is my favourite paladin ever.
Sikelgaita, or more romantic conceptions of her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikelgaita
The Inquisitors of Warhammer 40K are very inspiring in that regard. esp. the Oblationist faction.
To paraphrase their philosophy:
Using the powers of demons and similar evil are utterly damming and those who utilise them must face judgement. Yet using such evil powers is necessary to overcome mankind's enemies, the power of good itself is just too weak. Therefore the righteous must sacrifice themselves and embrace damnation in order for humanity to survive.
More than "The end justifies the means" instead "Using evil is never acceptable, but it needs to be done"
Which sounds like a fantastic basis for a Oathbreaker or Paladin/Warlock to me!
Diffan wrote:
evil is a fantasy concept. but that's fine, because d&d is a fantasy game.
though now i want to play a paladin of pelor who kills people who doesn't convert.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Amazing how a thread becomes what it is not supposed to be. Ask for examples of nonLG Paladin's from history and fiction and you get alot of other Bologna not even related to the topic at hand.
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
CCS wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I'd actually put most of the Assassins AND Templars in the AC series as nonLG paladins.
Bringing the topic back to fantasy heroes that seem to be paladins without fulfilling the "Sir Lancelot" trope: The entire WH40k setting is chokeful of paladins that certainly does not conform to any chivalric ideals.
I would further propose for the sanity of everyone that we drop the subject of real life evil. This is a philosophical question that real life scholars have struggled with for thousands of years. They have not found a universally accepted answer, and nor will we. It is also way off topic for a discussion forum about fantasy games.
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
mellored wrote:
thanson02 wrote:
mellored wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
My point is, you can take basicly any warrior from histroy, then look at them from the other side of the conflict, and you have an evil paladin.
It's not like there's historical spell casting either. So pretty much anyone on a horse.
Geroge Washington could be an evil paladin if your brittish.
A crusader could be an evil paladin, if you where muslium.
Genghis Kahn is evil, if your chineese.
mellored wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
mellored wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
A paladin dedicated to a god of battle could also be CN. Not war, but battle. Fighting for the sake of fighting and conflict. That's the kind of god whose portfolio is going to be NE, CE, CN, and TN. Someone like Oddyseus could very easily be described as a CN paladin of Athena. He's portrayed more as a fighter in the story, but if you were to jazz him up a bit? He uses guile and trickery to supplement his very real martial prowess. He's also notable for being a REALLY BAD classical Greek hero. He lies, he cheats, he steals, and he sneaks around. All of those were considered negative traits to the Greeks. He was also protrayed as fit and healthy, but unattractive. The Greek ideal was actually closer to ye olde paladunce, though a bit less emphasis on the good of all and sundry, etc.
I really see nothing Paladin like in Odysseus for any alignment. Although I find you description of him near perfect. I might make him a Valor Bard.
arnwolf666 wrote:
For a great example of non LG paladins, check out the Children of the Light in the Wheel of Time series. They're an ostensibly good organization that uses their goodness as a cudgel to abuse their power. In particular, Galad, one of their leaders, demonstrates preciesly how law and goodness can come into conflict, and at times, you have to choose one over the other.
Other fictional paladins could be Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, Lord Soth, from Dragonlance, Darth Vader.
RCanine wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Yeah, uh, no, Mandy, ain't no goddamn paladin, nice try, folks.
Such as it is, the oath of vengeance inspires us to think just taking an oath of vengeance makes you a paladin. It wouldn't matter who you are, what your abilities are, and what you do for a living has nothing to do with it. It is dissociative in the extreme from what a paladin is traditionally, but Inigo took an oath of vengeance, and he carried it out. There is no denying he was extraordinarily fair with Roberts, or that he put his quest for vengeance ahead of everything else in his life to the point where he didn't really care what he was doing for work. I'd say he was neutral evil.
Has anyone mentioned the templars from the Dragon Age games? They are an excellent example of a paladin order that emcompasses all alignments and thereby actually manages to be interesting from a storytelling point of view, as opposed to a gang of Sir Yawnsalot clones.
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Saladin vs. King Richard-the Lion Hearted. Two paladins at odds.
Orethalion wrote:
A resounding no. I mean, I just asked some people, Inigo, a paladin, well, now we've heard everything. Thanks for the incredulous chuckle.
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
So, Inigo, a Battlemaster Fighter with a tailored Background?
Brock_Landers wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Pragmatic Morality
Evil = any intelligent creature you are supposed to kill for XP, because that's what the DM put it there for.
Good = any intelligent creature who will, directly or indirectly, help you kill evil creatures without expecting to be paid.
BoldItalic wrote:
...and Matt Damon, is Robin...
RCanine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
RCanine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
RCanine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
kalil wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Good call. The history of Saladin and King Richard is a great tale.
Gwaithador wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Well, use real life. Is using Drone technology to target terrorist leaders good, even it means potential collateral damage to innocent civiians in the area? Consider a recent Drone strike that killed key Al Qaeda operatives, but cost the lives of two hostages: one American and one Italian citizen. Black or White? Or Grey? I'm sure we'd have a serious debate on this issue.
In terms of gaming, I think that's been a "weakness" of published adventures. It's very black and white. Sure, there's some good villian development in terms of their personal motivation but that only goes so far. Dragon Queen? Princes of the Apocalypse? Pretty much black and white. While that's certainly fun stuff in its own way, it would be interesting if there was a future story in which the differences between the protagonists and antagonists were shades of gray. Like, opposing Paladins of different religions, both of neutral alignment, etc. Or if even, as the OP is doing, using Vlad the Impaler as a neutral paladin. I think there's a lot of potential in a story like that.
mellored wrote:
intently wrote:
moonbeast wrote:
mellored wrote:
People are people. I don't see why we cannot have flawed and varied Paladins as well. Some are going to be good, some bad. Some are going to stand for something, others will fall for anything.
I am not sure anyone is entirely good or evil. Even Mother Teresa in her heart of hearts could have had dark thoughts. It's more about what kind of person you are and whether you act on your good or bad thoughts.
I see paladins in the same light. All of them may mean well, but only some will actually carry through, others will stumble, and some still, will completely fall. What does necessarily follow, is that once they fall they are no longer preceived as paladins. Until perhaps they accept what they have become.
I am kind of ranting here I realise.
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Just because people like him or think him a hero does not mean he is not evil. You can be popular and well liked and be evil to the core, you can even make the trains run on time. I think some people are thinking that popular and likeable means they are good.
SirAntoine wrote:
@OP: Has anyone mentioned Darth Vader yet? If not, I feel like that's a significant oversight.
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Paladin has bagage, both good and bad. It is a recognizable term in the D&D landscaspe, so I can see that being part of way they chose to use that name for the class. It could easily just be called Oathbound or some such, but it doesn't have the feeling that the word paladin has.
arnwolf666 wrote:
mellored wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Just my 2 cents about the subject:
People keep talking about how good and evil don’t exist because they cannot figure out if X action is good or evil. While there are some cases in which correct judgment is hard, I would like to make 3 points about this:
- Either that happens because of lack of knowledge about the subject (not knowing intentions, internal conscience, and so on) or it happens because people ignore that some actions are indifferent – in D&D terms, Neutral. In fact, people often forget that you can classify someone as Neutral along that axis. Many real-world people would be neutral, but not all of them. Well, not even the majority.
- That has nothing to do with good and evil being non-existent. There are actions that are hard to judge, but there are many who do not. Human conscience isn’t perfect because humanity isn’t perfect, but that doesn't mean that good and evil don’t exist. Just because you can’t figure out the morality, that doesn’t mean there’s no answer. Saying that is like saying triple integrals don’t exist because you can’t solve one of them. Heck, even if many limits don’t exist, that doesn’t mean that limits themselves don’t exist. That is still valid for as many difficult-to-judge possibilities there can be. I’m pretty sure people will think of examples who would put in check even the biggest disbeliever in good-evil.
- I won’t talk about A Song of Ice and Fire examples because I didn’t read the books or watch the series, but I plan to do it soon, so no spoilers to me. However, as far as my experience goes, authors can create a “gray story” by making most of the characters neutral or outright evil. The lack of good characters seems to disorientate people a little bit, and I’ve seen this tactic used a lot lately. In addition, naturally difficult-to-judge situations only help the author in this case. Still, the lack of good characters doesn’t mean that good doesn’t exist.
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
You know, talking about morraly grey characters I can't help but consider Thomas Covenant (th Unbeliever) one of the most greyish hero's out there. Proably closer to a cleric/mage though, since I can't remember him doing much physical fighting.
MechaPilot wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
mellored wrote:
I would say taking any life is an Evil act. However, it being the right thing to do at the time is entirely different. Just because someone has done terrible actions or may deserve what is coming to them, does not suddenly make killing someone a good act.
Evil for a good cause is still evil.
Istbor wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I can't imagine measuring good and evil because somebody provides me resources. It's very simplistic to suggest good and evil is a matter of the provision of material resources. By that measure, those who maintained the institution of slavery were "good." Because slavery made some people who would otherwise have less, have lots. That's absurd and contorts ethics into something unrecognizable. It's equally troubling to define Hitler or an equally murderous lout as "good" just because he provided material wealth for some and a sustainable existence for others (at the expense of murdering millions in concentration camps). It is not relative or a matter of perspective. The same goes for the slaughter of millions of native Americans through European, and eventuall,y American imperial expansion, etc.
But all of th discussion concerning moral relativism, the meaning or existence of good and evil, is not applicable in most fantasy settings. In most fantasy settings of the D&D game, the concepts of good, evil, law, chaos and neutrality are definable. There's ever other planes of existence for the final resting spots of those souls sporting those qualities. In the game context, in which gods of various alignments grant their followers actual divine power, good and evil is clearly defined. In game worlds, paladins are a type of servant to these gods. And their alignments are reflected in the oath they swear and the gods they serve. If you're using a historical fantasy setting which incorporates gods, alignment and divine powers, you can define the alignments of the personas within your setting from whatever context you see fit, sacrificing "historical accuracy" for the purpose of story.
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This thread got a lot less interesting once it stopped being about evil cats.
Orethalion wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
mellored wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Good and evil are just points of view. They are always subjective.
Istbor wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
I have no idea what the last four pages are on about, I stopped at page one, so forgive me if this is a dead horse beaten!
firstly,
I have endured the early years when only LG humans could be paladins, and it is tripe. a paladin can be any religious fanatic, or maybe even just a fanatical vigilante ( Batman, Punisher, Daredevil, Robin Hood). But to this day, one of our groups main DMs insists on this archetype, mostly becuase we play 2E. So I rarely have played a Paladin in his campaign(s), or as someone has pointed out elsewhere, I just play a dwarf fighter in full armor, who employs honorable battle tactics and allows his opponents to yield. Ironically, i AM currently playing a Paladin of Athena (2E campaign, greco-roman panthos) and have opted to use picemeal armor, a scutum and long spear, and a drusus. modelled after Pericles of Athens...needless to say I am constantly reprimanded for my 'non-paladin-like' behaviour, as i try to explain that I am devouted to wisdom and battle, and helping the downtrodden in my community, not to helping fair maidens and slaying dragons. But I digress
As far as good and evil goes, I refer to my favorite quote on the topic
' "Evil is relative, you cannot touch it or taste it, you cannot cut it with your sword, or place a sign upon it. Evil depends upon where you are standing pointing your indicting finger" -Croaker, The Black Company' (by Glen Cook)
lastly,
Diffan wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
There are many paladins worth believing in.
Orethalion wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
kalil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
There is a great "Persian" axiom, or what-have-you:
"Justice is not the law, and law is not justice."
kalil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
"...uh-oh..." *in the voice of Rainman/Dustin Hoffman*
I think this thread should be locked now, it is drifting into the arena of the unwell.
mellored wrote:
"...shut it down, shut it down, now!" *as said by Rick Ducommun in Diehard*
Orethalion wrote:
Oh alignment charged threads, you slay me. 
Brock_Landers wrote:
insert vain attempt to bring things back on track:
In this narrative, the Oath of Devotion can easilly be for patriotism, devotion to a people.
With any amount of creativity, you can make a reasonable attempt to put many devoted and strong warriors as Paladins in history and fiction:
Shaka Zulu, Paladin (Devotion)/Barbarian, Outlander
Captain Kidd, dexterity based Paladin (Devotion), Pirate, well Privateer. A very disciplined and moral individual (for his time) who got defamed in a rediculous way.
Geronimo, Paladin (Ancients or Vengeance)/Barbarian (Totem), Outlander
Orethalion wrote:
Another thread that has become what it wasn't supposed to be. So much for a thread of creative NPCs and PCs.
Istbor wrote:
If I set up a game of Jenga and then eye it suspiciously in front of some people, I don't get to feign surprise when there are wooden blocks all over my floor.
Executions are not murder because executions are conducted by governments? I don't agree with that. I don't care whether one thinks the government is "legitmate" or "illegitimate" that performs the execution. What a clever hypocrisy!
Diffan wrote:
moonbeast wrote:
...yeah, the shut thing...
arnwolf666 wrote:
mellored wrote:
There is no definition of evil that is not man made. This discussion is pointless when all it's boiling down to is "I think this" "I think you're wrong".
Orethalion wrote:
Yeah, embarrassing and creepy,
...what does a guy have to do to get a thread locked...
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.