The paladin has the typical paladin traits - completely devoted to the war against evil, protects the innocent, never kills a good person, even if it would make his life easier.
However, against what he deems evil, he is utterly ruthless. He'll not even give them a chance to surrender, unless he needs information, in which case he will interrogate them brutally. He has a sense of honour, but if it would help him bring evil to justice, he would use dirty tactics against them. He genuinely enjoys violence, and has psychopathic tendencies - but still would not kill the troll child after slaying its murdering mother, and if the village was in danger from an evil wizard, would not rest until that wizard was brought to justice and the village safe again.
So, could he be a paladin? If not, could I get away with it with a few tweaks, or is the whole concept to morally ambiguous.
If that's the case, what alignment would he have? My big problem is that he does things in the name of good, in the name of helping people, so by that I'd say he was good, but his brutality leans more towards neutral, even though his code doesn't.
I, personally, would not allow it because torture's a big no-no for PCs in my book.
Seeing as you are helping a new dm get started it may not be the best to have a character that ventures into non traditional areas. Seeing as the dm is relying on you for advice you don't want others to percieve that he may be letting you get away with more by playing a character that is a bit out of the norm.
I don't find the character too unreasonable but it could be the starting point for justifying many things that are unpaladinlike
It wouldn't help any new dm to have to sort through alignment issues of an overzealous or perhaps crazy paladin for their first gaming sessions
So, could he be a paladin? If not, could I get away with it with a few tweaks, or is the whole concept to morally ambiguous.
If that's the case, what alignment would he have? My big problem is that he does things in the name of good, in the name of helping people, so by that I'd say he was good, but his brutality leans more towards neutral, even though his code doesn't.
Which god does he follow? If it is a Lawful Good one I would say yes he can act the way he does. He is doing so for the greater good and doing so is within the laws of his order...probably. Demons are allowed to be tortured and those who are sinners will get their just deserts. Eye for an Eye and all that. However torture should be a last resort, for example, a soldier who defected is not spilling the beans, give him one last chance before it gets ugly. Ask your more squeemish teamates to turn around. After you get your information, turn to your teammates and say, "It had to be done."
If you were just "Good"/neutral Good I would say you couldn't be a police like paladin. But thats just my view. Lawful Good Paladin's are protective of the faith more zealously than Neutral Good ones, unless said Paladin is only so because his patron is neutral good. Unaligned Raven Queen Paladins are some of the most zealous paladins when Undead are involved.
Last Example:
Lawful Paladin: You withheld information from me.
Innocent Farmer: I am sorry, sir.
Lawful Paladin: You will come with me to the high priest so he may pass judgement on you.
Neutral Paladin: You withheld information from me.
Innocent Farmer: I am sorry, sir.
Neutral Paladin: You are forgiven.
Last word:
I don't like Alignment at all.
Which god does he follow? If it is a Lawful Good one I would say yes he can act the way he does. He is doing so for the greater good and doing so is within the laws of his order...probably. Demons are allowed to be tortured and those who are sinners will get their just deserts. Eye for an Eye and all that. However torture should be a last resort, for example, a soldier who defected is not spilling the beans, give him one last chance before it gets ugly. Ask your more squeemish teamates to turn around. After you get your information, turn to your teammates and say, "It had to be done."
Wow, that's a ridiculous pile of garbage.
I'd recommend Unaligned (assuming 4e). Honor to the Honorable, Violence to the Violent.
It could work, and work well, and be fun to play and play with.
Good luck.
For my Paladin, he doesn't really have an alignment - he has a religion - Erathis. He does whatever it takes to spread Civilization, Teamwork and Invention, etc. If he has to cut some throats or stomp kittens to do it, that's what needs to be done, even if he doesn't like it. If he has to rescue widows and orphans and sacrifice his own life to save innocents, that's part of it too - the part that makes him feel good. He also has to be careful on how his behavior will reflect on his god. If he makes too many enemies, good or evil, that's fewer converts to Erathis.
In any other edition though, absolutely NO WAY on the rough stuff from Paladins. Using evil against evil IS STILL EVIL and prior to 4e, Paladins are simply NEVER EVIL IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY (unless you're using rules for alternate-alignment Paladins).
(I do know a Paladin who cheated on his bowling score once, though. But he did it to teach kids why cheating is bad, m'kay? Both the DM and his god let that one slide.)
I don't think being lawful good requires that I play fair with evildoers (my opinion). It's just like bounty hunters who get people who skipped bail by saying "hey, you won 5,000, come down to claim your prize" and arresting them when they show up.
The only thing I would ask from you as a DM is to make sure that you're clear that you're acting in such a way against evil people because they are evil, and that, if they ask for mercy, you will give it to them. Also, I'd be careful about mindless murder of evil guys, in case your party wants to interrogate someone.
Either way its do-able, moreso in 4e than 3rd.
If you plan to have an alignment though, its typically a good idea to explain how you plan to use it, and see where the DM stands on it. Make it clear up front and make it agreed upon. Otherwise you will have fights later on about it. No one wants to be mid session and watch one player and the DM have an alignment arguement.
Brutality and torture (I'm assuming that's what 'brutal interrogation' actually means) are assuredly evil.
I'd agree that actual torture is evil, but by brutal interrogation I don't mean going quite that far. Using intimidation rather than pain as the primary motivator. Again, I'd say that that's wrong, but if the paladin views this as right under certain circumstances, that creates the grey area in character alignment. But not as far as full blown torture - A) That's no grey area whatsoever and B) I certainly wouldn't be comfortable doing that.
In reply to clearing this with the DM and my fellow players - I certainly would. I just wanted to get a rules opinion first. I recognise some restraint would be needed for the gaming enviroment to remain fun. And this guy would still be lawful and able to show restraint - I've only highlighted the iffy parts.
If it doesn't work, I'll just start the game as a fighter with the background as fallen Paladin - I'm just interested by the amoral defender idea as a character, as uncomfortable as it makes me.
Which god does he follow? If it is a Lawful Good one I would say yes he can act the way he does. He is doing so for the greater good and doing so is within the laws of his order...probably. Demons are allowed to be tortured and those who are sinners will get their just deserts. Eye for an Eye and all that. However torture should be a last resort, for example, a soldier who defected is not spilling the beans, give him one last chance before it gets ugly. Ask your more squeemish teamates to turn around. After you get your information, turn to your teammates and say, "It had to be done."
Wow, that's a ridiculous pile of garbage.
Can I just add that I'm not looking for a moral discussion here? I'm just looking at the rules. Morally, I would say that what this guy does is wrong, but there are a few things I disagree with about some of the good alignments. Alignment and real world morals are two different things. I'm only trying to debate the former.
I normally DM, but I'm teaching one of my players to run a game. Now, I have a character thought up that I really want to play, but paints the rules grey - I'm not sure whether it's a valid paladin characterisation, and the DM shouldn't have to deal with such a hazy matter so early on.
The paladin has the typical paladin traits - completely devoted to the war against evil, protects the innocent, never kills a good person, even if it would make his life easier.
However, against what he deems evil, he is utterly ruthless. He'll not even give them a chance to surrender, unless he needs information, in which case he will interrogate them brutally. He has a sense of honour, but if it would help him bring evil to justice, he would use dirty tactics against them. He genuinely enjoys violence, and has psychopathic tendencies - but still would not kill the troll child after slaying its murdering mother, and if the village was in danger from an evil wizard, would not rest until that wizard was brought to justice and the village safe again.
So, could he be a paladin? If not, could I get away with it with a few tweaks, or is the whole concept to morally ambiguous.
If that's the case, what alignment would he have? My big problem is that he does things in the name of good, in the name of helping people, so by that I'd say he was good, but his brutality leans more towards neutral, even though his code doesn't.
In 3.x? You're not a paladin; I'd try cleric or fighter/cleric (probably more effective anyway).
In 4e, though, the only alignment restriction on paladins is that they be the same aslignment as their god. A paladin of Bane could be perfectly justified in being ruthless in the pursuit of his goals. There are also blackguards (an Essentials subclass of the paladin) of every alignment except lawful good.
In 3.5 this wouldn't work. In addition to being Lawful Good, a Paladin also has a strict Code of Conduct that they must adhere to. That would include acting honorably, even towards an evil enemy. Torture, refusing a legal surrender, undue brutality etc etc, would violate that code of conduct.
It would be better to choose another class, as suggested by others, that would fulfil your particular role better.
In 4th edition it could be accomplished by the proper choice of diety
I normally DM, but I'm teaching one of my players to run a game. Now, I have a character thought up that I really want to play, but paints the rules grey - I'm not sure whether it's a valid paladin characterisation, and the DM shouldn't have to deal with such a hazy matter so early on.
The paladin has the typical paladin traits - completely devoted to the war against evil, protects the innocent, never kills a good person, even if it would make his life easier.
However, against what he deems evil, he is utterly ruthless. He'll not even give them a chance to surrender, unless he needs information, in which case he will interrogate them brutally. He has a sense of honour, but if it would help him bring evil to justice, he would use dirty tactics against them. He genuinely enjoys violence, and has psychopathic tendencies - but still would not kill the troll child after slaying its murdering mother, and if the village was in danger from an evil wizard, would not rest until that wizard was brought to justice and the village safe again.
So, could he be a paladin? If not, could I get away with it with a few tweaks, or is the whole concept to morally ambiguous.
If that's the case, what alignment would he have? My big problem is that he does things in the name of good, in the name of helping people, so by that I'd say he was good, but his brutality leans more towards neutral, even though his code doesn't.
Torture would still be a no-no, but the general concept can be supported in 3E using the Grey Guard Prestige Class. Shadowbane Inquisitor would also work.
Paladins are based on medieval knights and medieval honor was not necessarilly "good" at least not in the modern sense. Honor would require you to be fair, but it certainly does not require you to be kind or compassionate.
In a medieval example...
If you are a Lord and one of your commoners stole a pig from you, you would be honor-bound to execute that person even if you sympathized with his reasons for stealing it.
If another man besmirched the honor of your lady you would be honor-bound to duel that person, possibly to the death. To allow the insult to go unanswered would be extremely dishonorable and your peers would consider you a coward.
The code of Chivalry and its brand of what it means to be good was often at odds with what Christianity deemed good, i.e. turning the other cheek, pacifism, compassion, etc. All of these things are anathema to chivalry and yet knights were considered the exemplars of goodness at the time. Ethics are tricky and its not always so easy to say "this is good" and "this is evil."
I'm starting to go on a tangent here but to summarize I would say that if the setting has a strict definition of what it means to be lawful good, then your Paladin would only work if it fits the setting's definition. However, if the setting is "gritty" and good and evil are relative terms and dependant on which brand of moral compass you're using, then it could certainly work.
Edit: If you're trying to teach a new player to run a game then you should allow him to make the decision on whether he wants to allow it based on the kind of game he wants to run. Don't be a backseat DM.
In 4e, the paladin class is not alignment restricted at all, and mechanics to strip paladins of their class abilities have been explicitly omitted. The only alignment rule concerning paladins is that they must be the same alignment as their deity. However, because there is no "falling" mechanic or other penalty for changing your alignment, and since the gods interfere little, if at all, in mortal affairs if you go by the default flavor, you technically can be a different alignment than your patron deity provided the alignment change happened at anytime after the investment ritual that made you a paladin, including during your backstory and before your first session of play. Now whether your peers agree with your methods and interpretation of your god's tenets is another thing entirely.
Or in short, you can play any alignment paladin of any god. Any repercussions for not living up to your divine duties would be handled in-character between you and the fellow members of your church, assuming they find out.
3e? Ehhh...
The subjective nature of morality, and by extension alignment, makes this nigh impossible to answer definitively (so I'll let everyone else attempt to do that and pop some popcorn
). Ultimately it comes down to a DM decision of how he or she wants to interpret the LG alignment and the paladin's code of conduct. Though I do strongly suggest discussing your alignment concerns with your player as well, to get his side and perhaps come up with a compromise if appropriate, since he is already invested in the character you are considering to disallow.We're playing sibling human paladins. She's a blackguard, I'm an PH1 Paladin (Str/Wis, Ardent Vow). We're working on sorting out an appropriate LFR deity that we can both be in the service of. My character is more about discerning truth, seeking justice, and upholding honor. Her's is more about cult of personality, avenging wrongs, and felling evil.
It's a very, very fun concept, and balances well.
I personally would have accepted this character, albeit with a minor clarification on under what circumstances they would go further. Of course it depends on the player, if it's their first time playing, I'd say shelve it for another time.
Now, as a newbie DM (I am too but still XD) I wouldn't recommend giving them this sort of thing straight out of the frying pan. Let 'em sizzle on something more...traditional first.
Given what you have all said, I'm going to keep the character concept for a later game and go for something a little less difficult to run. Thanks, you've been helpful.
I see Good and Evil (note that I'm talking about Good and Evil, the concepts of morality, and not good and bad, the concepts of what benefits your cause vs. what hinders your cause, something that sometimes contradicts Good and Evil), or rather, dealing with Good and Evil, in a sort of Karmic sense. Not so much that there's a universal mechanic that guarantees that Good will be rewarded and Evil will be punished (this is my own definition of Karma, and as such, it is loosely tied to, yet very different from, the Karma of Eastern Philosophy), but that seeking Justice, or Karma, is to seek the fulfillment of the rewarding of Good, and at the same time to seek the fulfillment of the punishment of evil; Injustice, or a lack of Karma, on the other hand, can range from things like punishing Good and Evil alike indiscriminately to inversing that which is given to Good vs. Evil (i.e., punishing Good and rewarding Evil).
The above paragraph, in short, means that I think Karma is synonymous with Justice, and to have Justice enacted is, in and of itself, a Good thing. Granted, whether or not an action is just is far from the whole picture; there are many other things that influence whether or not an action is Good. There is, for example, the matter of Intent, which is a whole other argument, even though an Evil Intent can even make Karmic fulfillment an evil act in some situations.
An example of what I'm saying: Imagine, if you will, a person dedicated to Karmic fulfillment. This person would actively try to reward those who are Good, and to punish those who are Evil. Specifically regarding evil, a person who punishes an Evil person out of a desire for Karmic fulfillment is doing good, even if the method used is generally disagreeable. However, if a person were to harm an Evil person for personal enjoyment, rather than to seek Karmic fulfillment, then the act of harming the Evil person is itself Evil.
Therefore, if you were to torture an Evil person as an act of Karmic Fulfillment, and so long as you enjoy the fact that you are fulfilling Karma but not the fact that you are torturing someone, you would still be doing a Good thing, even though the method is disagreeable.
The type of paladin you have described is, at it's core, an overly zealous follower of whatever deity he/she worships. This premise could be put into effect with any alighnment as long as it adheres to the philosophy the character abides by. Not only would I allow this sort of paladin, I would be very interested in how the player would role-play him and run him in combat. He/She is likely to cause tension in the group, and in the community they serve through adventuring. To me, this sounds like St. Cuthbert, the quintessential ideal of Justice. Thank you for your post, it has been enlightening!
Ok, now you've just made me fall in love with the concept all over again! Darn you!
I've actually been thinking, that I discuss a sort of sacrificial lion type character with the DM, who I play for a few sessions before (assuming I don't really get into playing him/her) he or she dies, and I get to play my more complex paladin, but the DM has the experience to run him.
I normally DM, but I'm teaching one of my players to run a game. Now, I have a character thought up that I really want to play, but paints the rules grey - I'm not sure whether it's a valid paladin characterisation, and the DM shouldn't have to deal with such a hazy matter so early on.
The paladin has the typical paladin traits - completely devoted to the war against evil, protects the innocent, never kills a good person, even if it would make his life easier.
However, against what he deems evil, he is utterly ruthless. He'll not even give them a chance to surrender, unless he needs information, in which case he will interrogate them brutally. He has a sense of honour, but if it would help him bring evil to justice, he would use dirty tactics against them. He genuinely enjoys violence, and has psychopathic tendencies - but still would not kill the troll child after slaying its murdering mother, and if the village was in danger from an evil wizard, would not rest until that wizard was brought to justice and the village safe again.
So, could he be a paladin? If not, could I get away with it with a few tweaks, or is the whole concept to morally ambiguous.
If that's the case, what alignment would he have? My big problem is that he does things in the name of good, in the name of helping people, so by that I'd say he was good, but his brutality leans more towards neutral, even though his code doesn't.
Hmm, no, that's not a paladin in my book. I envision a PC like that to be a slayer, fighter, warlord or other martial class who happens to be fanatically devoted to his specific faith.
T
I normally DM, but I'm teaching one of my players to run a game....
If this is a character you'll be playing in a new DM's game as you coach and encourage the new DM, you might be better off playing:
- a more low-key, flexible, and constructive character,
- one with a lot of DM-friendly hooks to help secure him into the DM's game world and plot lines, and
- one that provides the DM with something to work with on making the game world and plot lines more PC-friendly.
To that end, a new DM might better appreciate working with either:
- a more plain-vanilla LG Paladin who is willing to undertake quests for the sake of doing the right thing, but one who is pragmatic, tolerant, and realistic enough to weigh his decisions carefully in a recognizably human way (in other words, one who isn't going to hack the heads off of friendly Neutral Good PC's just because they didn't genuflect the right way when entering a Holy Village): a Paladin who can, whenever needed, step into the role of a patient, responsible, respectful, and thoughtful leader
- or, a sort of future version of the character you described, who had in his back-story taken his fanaticism a step too far and is now atoning for his extremism, and who can, whenever needed, step into the role of an humbled mentor and teacher who can provide a Voice of Reason when the other PCs get a bit too rowdy for the DM to manage
These sorts of characters can be good for helping a self-conscious and uncertain new DM control the spotlight.
These types of characters would also allow you to step in occasionally to prompt things in a constructive direction when the new DM shows signs of being uncertain of what to do next (for example, to help steer things back onto what seems like the DM's intended track when a party of over-enthusiastic PCs attempt to take an unexpected journey off the DM's Yellow Brick Road)
After the new DM is more confident and secure in what he is doing and is better prepared to handle challenging characters, you can spring less compromising and subdued PCs on him to work with.
What I mean is that, as an experienced DM stepping into the role of a player for a new DM's game, it can be hard to give up the spotlight as the heart of the game, but that will be exactly what you want to do, and a dramatic, difficult, brooding, anti-social, and uncompromising hero can only attract and hold that spotlight at the expense of the new DM's first uncertain steps into managing the game.
However, if I misunderstood the original post, and this is a character being played in a game run by an experienced DM while you take a break from DMing, then I guess anything that experienced DM allows can go.
Just settle on something mechanically easy for you to manage, no special or vague rules needed, and use your RP skills to help solve DM difficulties.
T
You know, thinking more about this, if you are seriously interested in teaching a player how to run the game, you need to come up with the least needful-of-attention PC you can, and operate as a sideline coach for your student. Don't try for the spotlight here until you're sure the new DM can run the show without your help.
Just settle on something mechanically easy for you to manage, no special or vague rules needed, and use your RP skills to help solve DM difficulties.
T
I tried, but I couldn't possibly have said it better myself!
However, unless I misunderstood the original post, I think the question is whether it is an appropriate character for an experienced DM to spring on a relatively new and inexperienced DM while acting in a mentor role.
I'm kind of reminded at this point of all the YouTube videos of guys who put extremely powerful guns in the hands of women and children, talk them into shooting them, and then stand there with the camera and laugh when the recoil knocks people off their feet or otherwise injures them. That sort of thing is not cool: if you really want to start someone out right on a new hobby, start them out with something mild, and then give them bigger challenges as they master the beginner's stuff and gain confidence.
It can work, but I wouldn't want to try it without being prepared to manage a very delicate balancing act with a lot of communication, and a willingness to sacrifice the character concept at any time if that is what is needed to help the new DM.
But, perhaps I misunderstood the original post, and the DM in that game is actually experienced enough for the sort of character that is typically a disruptive influence in a group....
This is from 3.5 forgotten realms.
In any edition other than 4e, nothing any of us says is relevant. It's totally up to the DM to decide what actions or motives for acting can cost your character his paladin abilities.
If I was playing with a first time DM, I'd save that character for later. Let him get comfortable with the mechanics of the game from that side of the screen and with storytelling in black and white, and then ease in some gray.