A nobleman commits a wrongful murder, and the paladin is the only witness. The paladin knows that the powerful nobleman will go unpunished in the absence of vigilante justice, and may even murder more innocent people.
The king decrees that firstborn children younger than two years old must be killed. Does the paladin allow his son to be killed?
An illusionist is ripped off by a seedy merchant. The illusionist creates a convincing illusion of the sun god to tell the paladin to kill the merchant.
I think I find the paladin of freedom class variant attractive because it would be less constricting in many situations.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofFreedomClassFeatures
Personally, I would say that in the three scenarios you presented, a heroic paladin would fight to prevent any of the firstborn children from being killed, not merely his own (protect the innocent). Even if he thought he was commanded by his god to kill someone out of the blue, he would use his own brain to sort through things before killing anyone (self-responsible). And as far as the nobleman committing murder, the paladin would still make an honest attempt to bring the nobleman to justice (champion of the law), but if that failed, he would continue to persistently oppose that nobleman (defender of the innocent).
Personal Opinion on Alignment in General
That being said, questions like these—and the inability of alignment systems to deal with them in a universally applicable way—are one of the reasons I personally find it better to just leave the Alignment box on the character sheet blank, when possible. This is, as I indicated, a purely personal, subjective opinion. I recognize that a great many find considerable use and utility in Alignment systems and have not encountered the problems I have, and to them, I say, "Cool. Enjoy your game."
In my experience, your best bet is to sit down with your DM before the game begins and work out (with your DM) an exact code, oath, or set of commandments that your paladin must follow.
Be sure to be fairly specific, you don't have to write out a legal contract but vague statements like "I will only fight when necessary" are potential problems (what is "necessary" - self defense, defense of others, defense of properties, overcoming an obstruction, etc...).
When you write the code you might think about the following issues, as they seem to be potential areas of disagreement (I'm sure others can add more).
1.) When is it OK to use lethal force?
2.) When is it OK to disobey the law of the land and defy authority? Are their any acts you can never be compelled to perform? Are their any authority figures above question? If you must in good conscience break a law, do you have to turn yourself in?
3.) To what degree is stealth and deception allowed? Can you sneek up on an enemy? Can you infiltrate an enemy organization? Can you lie or bluff to get information or throw off an evil doer? Can commit lies of omission?
4.) How must you treat prisoners? If an enemy surrenders must you accept them even if you know it is a ruse? Do you have to offer your enemies a chance to surrender and repent? Can prisoners be questioned? What means of questioning are allowed, is intimidation OK? Can you pass judgment on prisoners or must you take them to a higher authority? Can you execute prisoners who committed truly heinous crimes (and what crimes qualify as truelly heinous)?
5.) Can you acquire worldly wealth and power? Must you limit the value of your possessions? If you have unused wealth what do you do with it - tithe it to the church, give it to the poor, pay tribute to the king? In what situations can you accept rewards for your quests? Can accept rewards of position, title, or office? Can you become a king?
6.) To whom or to what do you go if their is a conflict? If you come across a conflict in your oath is their some spiritual adviser or greater moral authority to whom you can turn - your king, your church, your god? Will you receive some inkling (hint hint DM) if you are about to violate your oath?
I would be weary of playing a paladin if your DM is not willing answer questions about what exactly your paladin's code means. Most DMs are reasonable, but some (regardless of their intentions) like to put players in moral quandaries and see no-win moral situations as the proper way to test paladins.
What do you think a paladin might do in the following situations...
Bear in mind, this is merely speculation and opinion, not gospel for what it's worth.
A nobleman commits a wrongful murder, and the paladin is the only witness. The paladin knows that the powerful nobleman will go unpunished in the absence of vigilante justice, and may even murder more innocent people.
He is spiritually invested w/ dynamic Good & Law, so it's not purely vigilantism per se. He has a divine mandate; a higher calling than local justice as it were, and therefor empowered to act in righteous fashion, likely capture or killing of said noble for the capital offense. Such grueling requirements to get into (and maintain) Pal entitle certain karmic leverage. Does that make sense?
Best case scenario: inform town magistrates or constables per local protocol (oblige local Law & custom despite corruption?). This probably goes nowhere (noble is allegedly above law) but Pal is beholden to at least make a show of good faith here IMO. Pal procedes to confrontation, declaration of crimes w/ adequate proof of guilt, coupled w/ Detc. Evil (noble's act is likely going to shift him Evil) for good measure. Ideally, defeated, not slain, brought before ruling body for further examination. Given elevated social status, I think a 3rd party Detc. Evil, Speak w/ Dead (the deceased), or Zone of Truth are meritted.
The king decrees that firstborn children younger than two years old must be killed. Does the paladin allow his son to be killed?
No. Infanticide is about as evil as you can get barring fiendish influence of dyamic and irredeemable Evil. This surely can't be the case being the progency of a Good divine instrument of god 'x', right?
It is likely the Pal would crusade against this monstrous decree w/out hesitation.
An illusionist is ripped off by a seedy merchant. The illusionist creates a convincing illusion of the sun god to tell the paladin to kill the merchant.
Pal would be well w/in his rights to push a Detc. Evil (Pal is now "interracting" w/ said illusion btw [afforded a Will Save]) or Sense Motive given the fairly unlikely/unrealistic event. It isn't every day this happens so he needs to be damn sure, no?
Most gods, even to their earthly agents, don't just appear and say, "Kill this guy" w/out good reason. They typically use seraphs, aspects, whatever. That alone should prompt a Know Religion as to a suitable messenger and plausible delivery, not just a "Do this cuz' I say so" issue, especially from a LG diety. Are they not both just and good?
I think I find the paladin of freedom class variant attractive because it would be less constricting in many situations.
You might want to take a look at Grey Guard (CompScoundrel). Think of a Pal w/ a Hell of a lot more moral flexiblity and freedom afforded during his otherwise "dubious" activities. LG in align, but not one to be trifled with.
If they do any evil at all they fall. On the lawful side, they only fall if they push it enough that they're no longer considered overall lawful.
Paladins hold to follow order, tradition, discipline, and recognized authority as their preferred means to doing good, but if those pathways fail they're ready to do something unorthodox in the service of the good of people.
The LG paladin is:
That knight in shining armour from the fairy tales.
The generic ideal of the Knight of the Round Table.
The honorable hero everybody needs & the villains fear.
The GOOD GUY.
And should you deviate beyond this trope? That's when you fall.
It really doesn't require years upon years & countless billions of words on the subject to play one of these characters. It doesn't.
I'm kinda glad 4e did away with the lawful/chaotic axis (though the new system overall sucks just as much), because lawful/chaotic can actually vary based on location. A lawful good paladin in a lawful evil kingdom might find himself greatly opposed to the evil law, and find it difficult to maintain his lawful side while fighting the forces of evil.
WTB good / neutral / evil alignments only.
Really, you're overthinking it.
The LG paladin is:
That knight in shining armour from the fairy tales.
The generic ideal of the Knight of the Round Table.
The honorable hero everybody needs & the villains fear.
The GOOD GUY.
And should you deviate beyond this trope? That's when you fall.
It really doesn't require years upon years & countless billions of words on the subject to play one of these characters. It doesn't.
Somebody has never played a lawful good character in morally ambiguous scenarios.
Really, you're overthinking it.
The LG paladin is:
That knight in shining armour from the fairy tales.
The generic ideal of the Knight of the Round Table.
The honorable hero everybody needs & the villains fear.
The GOOD GUY.
And should you deviate beyond this trope? That's when you fall.
It really doesn't require years upon years & countless billions of words on the subject to play one of these characters. It doesn't.
This describes the idea held by a subset of DMs of what a lawful good paladin is, and this description only applies when all moral judgments are nicely black and white. Thus my advice for the OP to come to a consensus with their DM on exactly what standards the LG paladin in question would need to follow to avoid losing their LG status, as the DM is the ultimate arbiter on such matters.
Indeed, it doesn't require lengthy treatises on the subject of alignment to play such a character (or even an alignment system at all, but that is another debate), but then again, the differing opinions on exactly what alignment is and what rules govern it has taken up "years upon years" and if not billions, then certainly millions of words.
If you want to kill a bad guy but it's actually "gooder" to the DM to bring him to justice, your DM should just say, "You think it would be better/more in line to bring him in instead of capital punishment." Frequently the opposite might be the case, which is why a good relationship with the DM is important. You want to avoid the "But my character wanted to do the right thing, he shouldn't become evil now!"
Your character should know about the world close to the same way the DM sees things, even if you can't.
In the context of a Holy Warrior (Paladin), his behaviour must coincide with what his god has decreed to be both lawful (in accordance with the rules of his faith) and good (things the god approves of). In the context of a Paladin, LG is not a universally applicable concept - there is no single definition of LG for a holy warrior.
For example, a god dedicated to ensuring that souls pass on to the afterlife when they die would have paladins for whom it might be appropriate to find and kill anyone who has been resurrected (cheating death), thereby sending them on to their appropriate fate in the after life. Or, for a modern example, a Roman Catholic paladin might feel justified in attacking and destroying organizations that promote contraception because that is against the laws of the faith and, in the view or the church, putting peoples' souls at risk.
Paladins (pre 4.0) should behave in accordance with the laws and precepts of their faith, not necessarily the laws and precepts of the society they live in.
Paladins and LG alignment has always been one of the most misused and misunderstood concepts in D&D.
I think it's more "he said, she said" quarrels of alignment. Pal's just exaccerabte the contention moreso and bring tensions closer to home.
In the context of a Holy Warrior (Paladin), his behaviour must coincide with what his god has decreed to be both lawful (in accordance with the rules of his faith) and good (things the god approves of). In the context of a Paladin, LG is not a universally applicable concept - there is no single definition of LG for a holy warrior.
Well said. You're getting your marching orders from god 'x', not alignment 'y'. God 'x' has an interpretation of LG, but it's filtered through the prism of their portfolio, dogma, and overall ethos, etc.
For example, a god dedicated to ensuring that souls pass on to the afterlife when they die would have paladins for whom it might be appropriate to find and kill anyone who has been resurrected (cheating death), thereby sending them on to their appropriate fate in the after life.
Many would argue cheating, yes. This surfaced in a recent FR campaign w/ my g/f's PC (cleric of Jergal [fate, death, nihilism]) w/ very complicated views on the afterlife, formality of the dead/ceremonial burial, etc. Excellent RP moments. Law of diety 'x' says, "You screwed me my due, (N)PC 'x' was fated to die and you're breaking that convention." Good might say, time to pay the piper, but I'll try and make it easy on you as best able.
Some say renewal, others outside the normative coil, etc. So many way to examine it.
Or, for a modern example, a Roman Catholic paladin might feel justified in attacking and destroying organizations that promote contraception because that is against the laws of the faith and, in the view or the church, putting peoples' souls at risk.
Whoa...big can of worms there. That's a very interesting slant on a very tricky situation to be sure of. Law is more definitive in the matter, easier to rule on...it's the ethical (Good/Evil) part that gets most ppl. Said organizations aren't as black/white as Law/Chaos lay out. Many ?'s at stake.
Paladins (pre 4.0) should behave in accordance with the laws and precepts of their faith, not necessarily the laws and precepts of the society they live in.
Short version: 9 alignments...there's way more gods than that w/ their "agents".
Long version: god 'x' gives you your many powers & blessings, not the alignments you subscribe to. As such, it is they who are signing your checks as it were, and the respect is due to that entity, not a metaphorical concept. Another reason LG 'x' and LG 'y' can be completely different...and should be (IMO anyway). RPGs like endless variety not cardboard cutouts.
the player playing the paladian when he found out that this department has been in existence as long as the country as been around he is currently dumfounded, and in denial you think he is playing it right?
If you're in doubt as to how to play the alignment, it helps to think of it as "Ethical Good" rather than "Lawful Good." An LG Paladin believes in a black-and-white universe where some things are objectively right and others are objectively wrong, and he isn't big on compromise. The idea that - sometimes - the ends justify the means just doesn't register.
That's what defines the alignment, for me anyway. The LG Paladin isn't just concerned with getting the job done... being Right is as important as being Good.
One thing that's important to understand: being Lawful doesn't necessarily mean that you must always obey the law of the land. You're specifically devoted to the "Law" that is your own God's set of commandments - you answer to a higher authority.
Bingo. Lawful doesn't mean obedience.
One D&D article WotC had pointed out that the Good-Evil alignment is your ends - altruism vs selfishness. Law-Chaos are your means to that ends.
One describes your motives, another describes your behavior.
LG characters should act LG.
IMO, paladins (and other divine characters) should act according to their deity's tenets.
These may conflict with each other or with the party's other goals/actions. In that case the LG paladin must choose or balance "LG", "Deity", "Party". Usually, "LG" and "Deity" should not conflict bc a paladin's (starting) alignment should match his deity. But party goals and actions...
All the "Paladin alignment angst" belong to previous editions. Good riddance.
Somebody has never played a lawful good character in morally ambiguous scenarios.
Sure I have. Lots of them infact. Including my current 3.5 character (lots of ambiguous stuff in that game).
Still doesn't change the fact that most people have been overthinking the basic concept of this class for decades. Not only that, but it's gradually gotten worse....
The code as presented was a set of principles rather than specific strictures, and it was stressed that what mattered the most was that the paladin was striving to live up to the spirit of the ideals rather than the letter of them - moreover, not only might these principles conflict with each other from time to time (which is okay - again, what matters is a good faith effort to stick to the spirit of them) but different paladins (especially through the lens of various faiths) might prioritize them differently and even come into conflict over those differing views.
This is the code as presented then:
--
The Paladin's Virtues are:
An organized approach brings the most good for all.
Laws exist to bring prosperity to those under them.
Unjust laws must be overturned or changed in a reasonable and positive fashion.
People rule; laws help.
Cause the most good through the least harm.
Protect the weak.
Goodness is not a natural state, but must be fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiates from the heart.
Give others your mercy, but keep your wits about you.
--
All the "Paladin alignment angst" belong to previous editions.
Apparrently not seeing as how we've still got paladins, we've still got LG & people still don't know how to play it....
Maybe it's a problem with the people themselves? Maybe they just don't recognize the difference between good/not-good/even evil??
For example, a god dedicated to ensuring that souls pass on to the afterlife when they die would have paladins for whom it might be appropriate to find and kill anyone who has been resurrected (cheating death), thereby sending them on to their appropriate fate in the after life. Or, for a modern example, a Roman Catholic paladin might feel justified in attacking and destroying organizations that promote contraception because that is against the laws of the faith and, in the view or the church, putting peoples' souls at risk.
For the first (fictional) example, I somewhat agree, but I have reservations - prime among them being (assuming LG), if you're willing to kill anyone who's been resurrected, how long will you remain LG? Are you going to kill a 3 year old girl who's been resurrected so she can do something world-saving in tweny years because your god doesn't believe people should be resurrected?
Just playing Devil's Advocate (I seem to be good at it ...), as I do agree with the concept.
For the second (hypothetical) example - I'm against it. First, the 'attack and destroy' bit, because from there it's just a few steps away from slaughtering innocents (capture of Jerusalem in the first Crusade) and torturing people 'for the good of their souls' (Torquemada and the Inquisition). Secondly, even if 'attack and destroy' is meant figuratively, you're still opting for a combative solution - escalation is going to happen, and going by your example ("the view of the church," primarily) it's not exactly clear if they're even in the right. If other sects who follow the same deity have no problem with the practice, you're also opening up the possibility of sectarian violence, which is never pretty.
Long version: god 'x' gives you your many powers & blessings, not the alignments you subscribe to. As such, it is they who are signing your checks as it were, and the respect is due to that entity, not a metaphorical concept. Another reason LG 'x' and LG 'y' can be completely different...and should be (IMO anyway). RPGs like endless variety not cardboard cutouts.
This is a big YES. Two kingdoms both want the same land, neither is willing to negotiate, so they go to war. Plausible for *any* alignment, and politics making strange bedfellows can even lead to LG and LE allying against a third (possibly Chaotic, possibly Lawful, possibly Neutral) foe.
the player playing the paladian when he found out that this department has been in existence as long as the country as been around he is currently dumfounded, and in denial you think he is playing it right?
I think a fairly intelligent and wise paladin would be aware that there is some kind of 'Secret Service' operating for the kingdom, and that said SS would do things he/she wouldn't. Might not *agree* with the organization, but would accept the necessity, as long as it's kept on a short leash and carefully monitored.
The code as presented was a set of principles rather than specific strictures, and it was stressed that what mattered the most was that the paladin was striving to live up to the spirit of the ideals rather than the letter of them - moreover, not only might these principles conflict with each other from time to time (which is okay - again, what matters is a good faith effort to stick to the spirit of them) but different paladins (especially through the lens of various faiths) might prioritize them differently and even come into conflict over those differing views.
I rather like that code, although it should be mutable - as stated prior, not all deities are the same, and I would expect Tyr (the Norse one from AD&D) would have a bit ... stricter code, perhaps harsher and less merciful. That said, it's an excellent code for generic paladins and knight-like classes that are LG but not necessarily dedicated to a deity.
Maybe it's a problem with the people themselves? Maybe they just don't recognize the difference between good/not-good/even evil??
I think it's more of a Murphy-esque thing - if people can misunderstand it, they will misunderstand it. And while it's not the only reason, I don't think the lightening of 'enemy' creatures ("usually" L/C/N Evil, for example, instead of AD&D's "Chaotic Evil") helped, primarily because it makes it easier for traps to be set up, as before you could generally be certain that a tribe of orcs/goblins/kobolds were Evil and could be exterminated, they now have to tread more carefully for fear of doing an "Evil" act and losing Paladinhood.
Another reason would be the aforementioned Inquisition - is doing something "for the good of your soul" the same thing as a "Good" thing? Do the ends justify the means (and this, I think, is why the Grey Guard was created, from what I know of it)?
as for the scenarios you presented, it depends on how deeply you want to play it, your DM has to give you realistic challenges and you have to make realistic decisions based on your ideas of good and evil. Try getting the book of exalted deeds if you're playing 3.5, since it has a lot of good stuff.
you have to be careful to roleplay a paladin and not try to powergame at all, or else you lose the essence of the class. You must do things right and not worry about what is best for your character; your DM has to give you situations which you're likely to survive. For example; putting an ancient red dragon telling you to serve him or die while you can't hope to survive is not appropriate, and the DM shouldn't trap you using your alignment. Playing NG is helpful for this, since it lets you rogue it up once in a while, as long as you remain strongly good.
I play my pally as NG with very high standards, whereas a LG character would have laws to guide him, I have to make tougher choices. He has an advantage in that he is trusted and assumed to be LG, but he has to deal with corrupt officials and immoral laws just as much as undead or cultists. Make a complex and deep character who will be conflicted all the time, and who has to decide for himself what good truly is, and it will be a lot better than a dungeon crawl.
you have to be careful to roleplay a paladin and not try to powergame at all, or else you lose the essence of the class.
...
Make a complex and deep character who will be conflicted all the time, and who has to decide for himself what good truly is, and it will be a lot better than a dungeon crawl.
I don't disagree with most of what you said, but these really bother me. Don't powergame or you lose the essence of the class? That's like saying a Magic-User who's "only interested in knowledge" should never learn attack spells, because those don't help him learn. It's ... mediocre advice in a RP-heavy game, and absolutely foolish in a game that has an emphasis on combat. So what's the Paladin's selling point? His great personality?
And the second bit - complex and deep character who is conflicted all the time? Gods forbid a Paladin actually believe he's doing right! He's got the backing of a deity who's supposed to tell him if he's screwing up, he shouldn't be (loathe though I am to use the term) "emo." Honestly, that's what that sentence means to me - make your paladin an emo kid. I hope I'm reading too much into what you're saying, though.
As for whether any given character properly RP-ed is better than a dungeon crawl? Hell, some people just plain enjoy being Faceless Mook with a Sword #137 and hacking away in a dungeon. Granted, those people won't have paladin RP issues, but blanket statements are probably the leading cause of arguments, especially over alignment.
First: is your DM going to ream you if you pick wrong?
A good DM would never introduce a problem he thinks will inevitably force you to pick between 2 incorrect choices. It's not even subtle: he would literally be forcing you to act in one way because he thinks that's how you should act. Other wise you instantly become "Redgar fighter-without-bonus-feats".
If you're worried about the in-game implications then you need to know exactly what your DM expects of you. As mentioned above, it really helps if you have a fairly straightforward written code you can turn to the states what you're supposed to do, and what's most important. Depending on your deity it can vary some, but have it in writing so you have a code you can clearly adhere to.
Second: Is your DM actually trying to allow you to be a human being?
This one would be the mark of a much better DM, and the problem wouldn't be to see how a paladin ought to react: it'd be set up to be a direct challenge to see which way you go between 2 points of your code. Do you uphold law or do you protect the innocent? It's about what you think instead of what he thinks you should. The idea isn't to punish you when you inevitably make an error in judgement, it's to allow you to make your character have more depth than "super super goody goody".
You get to pick. As long as you've made that choice based on your belief of what is right you picked the right option. The problem with paladins is that everyone expects them to be so 2 dimensional that it's appaullingly dull. Things like this might let people know who you really are, what you think of your code, and what your idea of 'good' and 'law' really are.
Second, bear in mind that everyone loves to hate Paladins, except for people who play them (and even some of them do). Paladins restrict the behavior of other party members which causes a natural tension within the group. Nobody likes to be told "No, you can't do that because it's against my alignment." No matter how much you like playing a Paladin, it's the one class you shouldn't play unless the other players are on board.
Otherwise, I absolutely guarantee a difficult gaming experience. If even one of the players is the kind who will say "Stuff the Paladin, I'll commit evil acts right in front of him and dare him to do something," then one of you will have to go. Period. If you DM forces you into a position where any choice you make is either evil or chaotic, then your DM is a Paladin Hater (either consciously or subconciously) and you should just play something else.
Third, Lawful Good is not Stupid (nor is CE, or CN). A paladin will not commit an evil act. Nor will a Paladin go on a suicide mission unless some good will come of it. Hold off the Balor to give the party time to regroup and come back later. Sure. Charge the Balor simply because it's there? No.
In your first example, the Paladin should ask: "Can I bring him to justice using the laws of this land? No? Then am I powerful enough to bring him to justice on my own? No? Then I have no choice but to tolerate his behavior and bring him to justice once I have either changed the political structure or I become powerful enough to take him myself. If doing so means I am no longer welcome in the Kingdom, then so be it. I serve a greater good."
The second example is simple. No paladin would obey such a law, and all would sell their lives trying to stop or mitigate it. And spare me the "But the king is good and knows one of the kids will be Vecna x 10." If your DM is giving you those kinds of scenarios then he not only hates paladins, but he hates you as well.
The third example I actually kind of like. Tricking Paladins to violate their vows should be something that is attempted on every Paladin. It is the mainstay of lower planar evil. Every player of a Paladin should expect it, and be on the look out for it. Fall for it once, you must atone. Fall for it twice, and you and your god will have a serious problem. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Once again, Paladins are not stupid. There are too many magics in most DnD campaigns for a Paladin to take the sudden appearance of his god at face value. "Sure thing, Thor, Right after I make absolutely sure that this isn't some illusion."
The long and the short of it is that CCS is mostly right. It's not that hard to play a Paladin. Do what is right, respect the law. When those things collide, then do the best you can. If the DM is putting you in situations where you have to think about what the right thing to do is, even if it's not obvious, then you have a good DM. If no decision you make is enough to satisfy the Paladin's code, then the DM is deliberately trying to make you fall from grace. Find another game, or play a different character.
MrJake
I’m new to the game and thinking about playing a paladin. But I’m having a hard time understanding the lawful good alignment and how a paladin might act during atypical circumstances, especially situations when lawful and good may conflict to some degree. What do you think a paladin might do in the following situations:
The following statement is not me being rude, it's just me emphasizing the only conclusive answer possible:
Only your DM can tell you how he expects your paladin to act in any hypothetical scenario.
Only your DM can tell you how he expects your paladin to act in any hypothetical scenario.
Quoted for truth.
I’m new to the game and thinking about playing a paladin. But I’m having a hard time understanding the lawful good alignment and how a paladin might act during atypical circumstances, especially situations when lawful and good may conflict to some degree. What do you think a paladin might do in the following situations:
A nobleman commits a wrongful murder, and the paladin is the only witness. The paladin knows that the powerful nobleman will go unpunished in the absence of vigilante justice, and may even murder more innocent people.
Publicly denounce him and challenge him to a duel. Trial by combat is pretty common in medieval fantasy settings, and allows the paladin in this case to see justice done while staying within the law. Of course, going on an extended adventure far away afterwards would probably be wise - -
The king decrees that firstborn children younger than two years old must be killed. Does the paladin allow his son to be killed?
Your code as a paladin requiresr you to save as many innocent children as you can, regardless of the decree. You will have to decide with your DM if that same code requires to submit to the King's "justice" afterwards.
An illusionist is ripped off by a seedy merchant. The illusionist creates a convincing illusion of the sun god to tell the paladin to kill the merchant.
I don't think any paladin worthy of the name would fail to recognize his diety. The divine aura of a Lawful Good god, even in a vision, is unmistakable, especially to someone who channels that energy on a daily basis; I doubt very much the ability of an illusionist to fake that aura. Of course, I'm kinda Old School about that stuff; home rules apply!
I find it interesting that when someone mentions playing a Paladin, especially the classic LG knight in shining armor variety, they seem to picture the absolute worst-case, damned if you do, damned if you don't, no-win scenarios. Is this something your DM is likely to do to you? Does this happen to a lot of players? People play paladins to do great and heroic deeds, not experiment with situational ethics.
If you play a fighter, one would expect the DM to give you opportunities to show off your combat prowness, right? And there would be little point to playing a rogue if you never get to sneak around, open a lock, or pick the occasional pocket. So why deny the paladin the chance to shine at what she does best? Seems kinda passive-aggressive to me. So, DMs: if you don't want a paladin in your game, tell your players. Don't set them up in no-win scenarios, or knowingly mix a LG Paladin with a Chaotic Stupid Rogue, unless of course you and your players enjoy that kind of conflict.
It's all good fun, until someone gets smote - -
Only your DM can tell you how he expects your paladin to act in any hypothetical scenario.
While this is in a way true, this is also why being a paladin is so much BS in most campaigns. If your DM expects you to do 1 thing only or he takes away all your class features it's just as, if not worse, than all the other forms of railroading DMs can do to the party as a whole.
Hell, at that point he may as well play your character for you outside combat and just let you roll the dice.
A good DM should only impose the penalties of failing your paladin code if you show a trend of consistently breaking ethical conduct. If you goof up once or twice, you're human. Allowing your DM to wholly dictate your behavior is unacceptable regardless of how hairbrained and poorly written the alignment requirements of the class are.
The second part is the Good bit; which is essentially about putting others needs before your own - hence humility is often held up as "good", whilst altruism to the point of martyrdome is also part and parcel of the deal. Good isnt about staying safe, its about putting yourself in harms way to stop that harm reaching others.
Act from these principles and you wont go far wrong in Paladinity :D
Lawful good characters aren't robots - they're just people who are trying to do their best to live by a strict code (lawful) and help others (good).
A nobleman commits a wrongful murder, and the paladin is the only witness. The paladin knows that the powerful nobleman will go unpunished in the absence of vigilante justice, and may even murder more innocent people.
The Paladin concept is largely based upon a fuedal system, whereing the Paladin is himself considered a Nobleman, he is from an order of Paladins, ordained by the church and government and therefore carries a great deal of authority in matters of the law.
This is reflected in his Lawful allignment, the Paladin upholds the Law, and in concept is often charged to do so by the King and Church.
This means that the Paladin has the authority to have the Nobleman brought to justice. Most will take the word of a Paladin as being an reliable and trustworthy witness. He can have the authority to denounce and accuse the Lord openly. He could even have the authority to simply arrest the noble.
Of course the DM's world can differ greatly from this, and not all DMs are the same in this respect. Of course ideally they would adjust the requirments of the Paladin to match their game world. But conceptually this is how a Paladin opperates, as somebody with the divine, legal authority to take action. Remember that your Paladin could be backed by a very large order of Paladins, the temples of his Gods, the King even, not to mention his God.
For example, a Paladin stays at a small town. The local folk are likely to bring cases before the Paladin to settle legal disputes for them, and to judge criminals (detect evil being very useful here) this is of course if that town lacks an appropriate judge.
Again, this depends on the setting. It is a good idea to discuss with the DM the limits of your Paladin's authority andadapt your character appropriately. In more civilized cities and lands, the Paladin has little to no authority because he would be redundant, there is a local guard, courthouses, lawyers, laws, constibles etc and no room for individuals dispensing personal justice.
So what is appropriate really is that your paladin would go through the proper chanels. Depending on the situation there are other options available that should be tried first. Accusing the Noble to the courts, failing that petition his fellow nobles and King to take action against him. Despite nobles being somewhat above the law, there are courts and other nobles who are in turn above them. Appealing to the people (after all if enough people denounce the noble then the law has no choice but to act)
Only after other options fail should the Paladin take matters into his own hands, and of course this is all after the fact, while witnessing the crime the Paladin in either situation should be able to take emmediate action to stop the evildoer.
The king decrees that firstborn children younger than two years old must be killed. Does the paladin allow his son to be killed?
The Good part of lawful good needs to be noted, an evil law like this would be opposed by a Paladin. Law as an allignment doesn't just mean the legal systems, but the concept of lawful, murdering infants is immoral, evil and not morally lawful, certainly not the moral laws and codes of his deity.
An illusionist is ripped off by a seedy merchant. The illusionist creates a convincing illusion of the sun god to tell the paladin to kill the merchant.
This would be the Paladin being tricked (if it was convincing enough for him to beleive it was a vision from his actual diety) However the Paladin would loose his powers for doing this evil deed, even though he was tricked. The Paladin looses his allignment for breeching his Paladin code even if forced (charmed, dominated, tricked etc)
However, because it was not willingly evil it would be significantly easier for the Paladin to atone for this. (it is also why there is an atonement spell) I justify the Paladin loosing his powers because this is somewhat neglectful on his part to just accept any vision he sees at face value and to follow it without question and there is many ways of checking the validity of the vision without opposing his deity.
I would expect the Paladin to at least attempt Detect Evil on the merchant
I think I find the paladin of freedom class variant attractive because it would be less constricting in many situations.
I don't think the Paladin class is restricted much and needs no varients. Most issues with the Paladin class comes when the DM has an unreasonable definition of Lawful Good, or has vague or erratic allignments on the villains and NPCs.
Examples being NPCs with Evil allignments who should be neutral or LN, they haven't actually done anything evil and shouldn't be killed, but still ping the Paladin's evil detector. Conversely the Evil creatures who despite their evil deeds aren't actually evil in the DM's eyes.
example, the Evil merchant who is evil because he overcharges or deals in fenced goods on occasion (probably should be neutral)
another example is the Evil cultests who worship an evil deity and are summoning evil demons, but they haven't actually done anything evil (like human sacrifices) and the Paladin is wrong for smiting them simply for their allignments and religion. This DM is being silly.
For example, a Paladin stays at a small town. The local folk are likely to bring cases before the Paladin to settle legal disputes for them, and to judge criminals (detect evil being very useful here) this is of course if that town lacks an appropriate judge.
Just clicked here that Paladins are very much like Heralds of Valdemar (or the other way around, more likely):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velgarth#Heralds
Edit:
I don't think the Paladin class is restricted much and needs no varients.
I agree that the Paladin isn't particularly restricted, but variants make sense, insomuch it seems lunatic to expect *only* the Lawful Good alignment to have a particular breed of Holy Warrior, which the Paladin very much is. I can understand the Chaotics not having one, but the LE spectrum seems a similarly perfect choice, and NE/NG both don't seem particularly incompatible with the majority of the Paladinic duties. That said, yes, the Paladin doesn't "need" variants, but it makes sense to have them.
... Also, generally speaking, the answer is no. Young, for the majority, are (or should be considered) Neutral. In a war with a humanoid race, I could understand if a Paladin put the village to the sword and flame, but were I DM, I would require an Atonement before any further progress could be made.
Just asking cause the DM i was with recently just pulled this on me and ended up razing/killing the villagers and the PCs that were in the village, with no offer of mercy. His argument was that they were following the law of a higher authority despite me and another player telling him that was BS and paladins don't act that way. Is there an actual guide to this in the books or anything?
I’m new to the game and thinking about playing a paladin. But I’m having a hard time understanding the lawful good alignment and how a paladin might act during atypical circumstances, especially situations when lawful and good may conflict to some degree. What do you think a paladin might do in the following situations: ...
You have to remember that "lawful good" doesn't mean Lawful + Good. It is not a combination of two philosphy, but a full philosophy in its own.
The lawful good alignment has, amongst its "goals", the search and creation of good laws, laws enforcing the general welfare.
The paladin is not Lawful Neutral, he does not follow blindly the law. The laws, the hierarchy, etc, are tools in the hands of good, a mean, not an end.
The three situations you exposed are, in theroy, very easliy "solved": a lawful good character won't do anything evil because the law says it must be done. He would rather fight against the evil law. In your examples, against the nobles issuing this knid of orders.
Note , too, that they prefer to act for the "common good", not for their own personal interest. He won't just save his son. He will save everyone.
Laws may be "bad". Kings and nobles may be wrong. No one is above the law, but the law must be a right one, a law enforcing justice.
In my opinion, it is more "paladin like" to rebel against the authority than to obey wrong orders.
Of course, there are many interpretation of what lawful good is - many consider the Lawful aspect as dominant, and I have seen many "lawful good" who were only "good" in label, and would have been better beign Lawful neutral, or even evil.
So, if you were playing with me, all I would say is that a Paladin never obeys blindly to laws or orders. I would even consider it a requirement for a paladin.
Village with a good church in it and other paladins. So I assume it's a good or neutral village. It was also filled with humans.
Just asking cause the DM i was with recently just pulled this on me and ended up razing/killing the villagers and the PCs that were in the village, with no offer of mercy. His argument was that they were following the law of a higher authority despite me and another player telling him that was BS and paladins don't act that way. Is there an actual guide to this in the books or anything?
A guide? I don't think so, unless there's something in the Book of Exalted Deeds. However, by any sane measure, those who attacked the village are not Paladins, and any sane deity who had followers do that should punish them explicitly for it, especially if it was in his/her name. That is not a Good act, and even if the deity in question did have a damned GOOD reason for doing it, no real paladin would do it.
There are two very important things that happen in all of these conflicts.
First: is your DM going to ream you if you pick wrong?
A good DM would never introduce a problem he thinks will inevitably force you to pick between 2 incorrect choices. It's not even subtle: he would literally be forcing you to act in one way because he thinks that's how you should act. Other wise you instantly become "Redgar fighter-without-bonus-feats".
In any situation like this, when a choice between two undesirable options is presented, there should always be a third option. This third option will be the correct choice that lets you get out of the situation with your conscience and paladinhood intact. The good DM that uses the 'sadistic choice' should always provide clues or hints that this third option is available, if the player doesn't seem to be able to figure it out.
The DM who actively railroads or torpedoes a player's attempt to find this third option, forcing him to pick one of the two undesirable choices, is probably a paladin hater or a killer DM overall.
Do you despise the Paladin? Do you despise the goody-two-shoes who play them even more? Do you put them in impossible situations where they are forced to violate their ethical restrictions? Do you force real world morality on them in order to force them to recognize the one great truth...that there is NO GOOD IN THE WORLD???!!!!
Is your soul so twisted that the idea of a shining beacon of goodness and hope burns you with the touch of its light? Do their good nights mock the darkness of your soul? Is the urge to bring them down to your level irresistable?
Then you, sir or ma'am, are a paladin hater! You should join Paladin Haters of the World to show your solidarity with all those who despise goodness and oppose those who seek to make a better (if imaginary) world.
Just send us you firstborn, male or female, and you too can be part of the growing movement to remove paladins from the DnD universe, without ever having the balls to actually ban them from your game.
Just dial 1-800-VECNA to receive your introductory package. Or visit our website at XXXXXXXXX.XXXX
Village with a good church in it and other paladins. So I assume it's a good or neutral village. It was also filled with humans.
Just asking cause the DM i was with recently just pulled this on me and ended up razing/killing the villagers and the PCs that were in the village, with no offer of mercy. His argument was that they were following the law of a higher authority despite me and another player telling him that was BS and paladins don't act that way. Is there an actual guide to this in the books or anything?
Paladins in 3.5 are pretty universal in concept, the PHB states that two different Paladins from different races and religions would see each other as comrads, A Paladin would NOT kill fellow Paladins, innocent life, good alligned people etc even if commanded too. To quote the book "All paladins, regardless of background, recognize in each other an eternal bond that trancends culture, race and even religion. Any two Paladins, even from opposite sides of the world, consider themselves comrads."
As for the other parts of this, the book also states:
"A Paladin who cease to be lawful good, who willfully commits an Evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct looses all paladin spells and abilities..."
A Paladin's code of Conduct states:
"...looses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits and evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor..help those in need..and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Killing a town of good or neutral people is doing several things:
-Evil Acts
-Murder is unlawful
-Harms innocents
-Slaughtering common, defenseless villagers, with no mercy, is not Honorable.
Additionally a Paladin only has to follow legitimate authority, he should disregard commands that are evil, as an evil law is not legitimate in his eyes. So a Paladin is not a mindless follower of his deity. Indeed there is no requirement that a Paladin follows a particular deity at all, only that he is devoted to rightiousness. A Paladin may choose to follow a deity, but that deity would have to be righteous as well. Simply put a Paladin would not follow a deity that would order him to do evil acts.
If a Paladin was given such an order dirrectly from his god, then the right course of action is not a: Obey nor b:disobey but rather I would go with option c: Denounce the Paladin god as being evil, in fact it would be the Paladin`s righteous duty to do so, and to further take action to defend the village from the other servants of his evil former god.