Why Paladins can't be Lawful Good anymore...

[IKerensky]

I started playing D&D some 35 years ago and since then the gaming and our society had deep ly evoluated.

Back in the time they appeared Paladins were Paragon of Justice. They were the very definition of what is good and what is right. Thoses were simpler time, with definite absolute Good was Good, Evil was Evil, we were the Good Guys(tm), Soviets were the Bad Guys. Society as a whole was a lot more racist, sexist but there wasn't perceived as a moral issue.

In a related way to the Golden Era comics, Paladin were never challenged on deep moral issue because they were the basis to determine thoses issues, they never really go wrong, just silly.

Sure, Paladin could lose theirs powers for breaching their code, but it only happen when they become selfish (falling in love and having intercourse out of code by example), greedy (trying to have more than 1 magical sword at a time) or coward (refusing to sacrifice their lives and stay to fight, charge in first).

They were clearly Lawful and Good and there was no question about it.

In our days, everything is perceived as in shade of grey, there is no clear right nor wrong, law could be unlawful. Our heroes are constantly pitted in moral quagmire and confronted with existential crisis about if they are really heroes or not, are they really doing good or not.

In thoses more complexes and complicated times, Paladin have a hard time surviving. They can't just follow the code and battle their foes knowing they will always be on the side of Good. That monster tribe invading the kingdom is not an blind force of evil anymore, it could be families of displaced monsters fleeing a bigger evil. That noble king sending you on mission could have hidden motives and a neferious plan. What was this thief real motives ?

That's because, our society, as a whole have evolved and our hobby had too. We are more concerned, more involved, more refusing of simplistic black and white settings.

For the Paladin's it means that they have choice to make. There will never again be a clearly Lawful AND Good way of doing things in a lot of setting. Sure in a high fantasy, fairy tales, no evil character nor monster playable character, there is still a spot for pure LG Paladins with clear challenge. But for a lot of campaigns the Paladins have to keep balancing between Common Good, Moral Good, Letter of the Law, Honor Code, Decency... It means they keep having to choose between being Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good.

That's why I think paladins have to be allowed a bigger leniency in their Alignement choice and even Alignement deviation to accomodate for the more complexe storytelling of modern roleplaying game.

Sure a Paladin deliberately commiting a selfish unlawaful and evil action would stop being a Paladin and have to attone. But a Paladin should be allowed to wander on the side of LN and NG with only minors penalty and way to go back to LG by ritual daily meditation and attonement. Not by commiting Evil and Chaotic action to get them back to LG.

[Brian Sirith]

Nice post :)

[OnlyOffensive]

Paladins definetely need to be lawful. Since they originate from highly organized military order structure. Also they have duties to the deities, but the good part is obsolete or maybe never made any sense. Even the most compasionate deities perform acts of wrath and "evil" acts if they fit into their vision. And their role is slightly different from clerics, they protect faith, not spread it.

[Hogs Fattman]

Going to have to disagree with this, see any D&D message board, or even dating pre-message board, ask any PnP player about alignment arguments they've had in their various groups. It has always been a hotly debated subject because you can't really boil down people's moral decisions, especially when applied to their version of a fantasy setting, to "is this lawful, good, chaotic, evil or neutral."

I get what you're saying about how the game handles alignment shifts though, and that I agree with. At the same time, I haven't had any problem staying within my alignment sphere without having to resort to picking options wildly outside my alignment. With a paladin specifically, it seems like there are no shortage of "lawful" or "good" choices to pick from, even if they aren't always strictly lawful good. I think part of the issue is they tried to be too specific with the alignment choices. I think a good/evil law/chaos axis is all you really need. We didn't need specific neutral good or chaotic good choices.

I do think they at least put more effort than most games into dialogue, so credit where it is due. Still, as a whole the alignment system causes more headaches than it is worth, and I'm glad future editions have moved away from having it feature so heavily in game mechanics so it is easier to just houserule it out completely.

[IKerensky]

Originally posted by OnlyOffensive:

Paladins definetely need to be lawful. Since they originate from highly organized military order structure. Also they have duties to the deities, but the good part is obsolete or maybe never made any sense. Even the most compasionate deities perform acts of wrath and "evil" acts if they fit into their vision.

That's a good definition for the LN Paladin :)

Now there are lone Paladin, Knight Errand that roam the realms helping thoses in need and fighting evil where he is. Thoses Paladins still submit to a higher power that provide them abilities and follow a code. They would be the NG paladins.

[OnlyOffensive]

Originally posted by IKerensky:

Originally posted by OnlyOffensive:

Paladins definetely need to be lawful. Since they originate from highly organized military order structure. Also they have duties to the deities, but the good part is obsolete or maybe never made any sense. Even the most compasionate deities perform acts of wrath and "evil" acts if they fit into their vision.

That's a good definition for the LN Paladin :)

Now there are lone Paladin, Knight Errand that roam the realms helping thoses in need and fighting evil where he is. Thoses Paladins still submit to a higher power that provide them abilities and follow a code. They would be the NG paladins.

To get paladin "education" you need to be drilled both martially and in the ways of the god you serve. I just don't see how such a character can be anything but lawful. Isnt code suggest that you are lawful by default? You cant choose neutral position when you have to follow it?

[strekalalex84]

I mean, some of what you talk about is the problem with the whole DnD alignment system. It loosely represents a few tendencies, but it's inherently oversimplistic and open to interpretation. In the real world, descriptively speaking, moral conflict is more like a competition between very specific values, not mere "good vs evil".

The kind of morality system in a game like POE 2 or Tides of Numernera does a slightly better job of representing morality as a spectrum of specific tendencies, possibly overlapping. Still not perfect, but at least it's more specifically descriptive of personality types and values - honesty vs. oppurtunism, rational vs emotional, pure altruism vs. mutual self-interest, pragmatism vs. idealism, etc. These are the sorts of things that define moral tendencies and perspectives.

Another angle we can take is to say that faction systems represent alignment better than alignment does. The classic precedent for this in DnD is the Planescape setting. Being a member of The Harmonium or The Mercykillers is a lot more specific than being lawful neutral. Factions give players more specific, fleshed out moral conflicts that are relative to a given world or setting.

That is a lot more like how moral perspective and alignment works in reality - people have loyalties to specific groups with specific philosophies.

Some people define "the good" iike a luddite - they value the natural order of things and see technology and mass society as evil. Other people define "the good" as personal virtue, ala Artistoltean virtue ethics. Some people define "the good" in terms of self-sacrifice. Some societies are "warrior societies" where "the good" is about strength and honor. Some people believe in pragmatism or have a "greatest good for the greatest number" philosophy. Others disagree with this and believe that rules should be followed even if it doesn't produce the greatest good for the greatest number - the greatest good is the principle of the good itself. And so on.

These are the things that define cultural moralities and personal ethical philosophies. Good/Evil/Law/Chaos can't describe this well.

I can't help but think like this - in terms of specific ethical philosophies - after loosely studying ethical philosophy from The Greeks to today.

[[TGC] MadGod]

The term "Paladin" stems from the latin "palatinus", which basically means "belonging to the imperial palace". In "dnd god" context, we could safely assume that all gods have one sort of "Paladins" or the other, regardless how they are called.

When I learned that meaning (many a year ago *old people coughing sound*), we houseruled that there could be paladins of all non-evil deities as the "sword arm" of the church, adjusting the "smite" and other classfeatures in a way that they best worked against the "enemies of the faith.".

Evil deities got "anti-paladins" of our own making until the games introduced their own take of those..:)

Yes, that meant some neutral "Paladins" got "smite good" since the major rival of the deity in question was a good deity. :) You cannot imagine the whining. But it worked well and did not break the inherent system.

The alignment issue was tricky and is tricky. Basically we did the same thing as the current
cleric system now, with one exception. We ruled that the Paladin has to be "strictly" the alignment of the deity when he is created and may only deviate in alignments as a cleric could.

Yes, that means a LN paladin could actually turn LE/True Neutral without losing their power. Which is not illogical, considering the cold lawfulness of a LN who "has seen things" could swing into a "if you are a deviant, you die" mood without giving up the tenants of their deity.

Alas, the paper system is limited to LG and for good reason (at least with the current ruleset of PF). What they should do is allow a Paladin to go to a cleric and trigger an "atonement" quest, paying for the spell ("atonement") and then triggering an encounter that will not give XP and which the paladin has to overcome himself. Well, that is how I would have done it..problem solved within the legal constraints of the system as it is now.

[Hobocop]

This is why the best representation of paladins in these kinds of games to date is D&D 5e, where they adhere to specific tenents of an oath instead of an oversimplified alignment moniker.

[J4n1]

Personally, i think instead of generic lawfull good, paladins should have a very clearly written down code to follow.
It might be a generic code of conduct, demanding honesty, accepting surrender, never drinking alcohol between 5am and 5:45am (for reasons), showing respect to just authority.
Or it might be more specific if the paladin follows a specific god.

That could sidestep the eventual (and often ineivtable) "is genocide good?", arguments.

[TrowGundam]

Ya the DnD 5e Paladin is more my style personally. I prefer a Lawful Evil Paladin myself, sadly I can't really do that in Pathfinder. Even Antipaladin (exact opposite of a paladin, so Chaotic Evil) isn't really my style.

[[TGC] MadGod]

Originally posted by Hobocop:

This is why the best representation of paladins in these kinds of games to date is D&D 5e, where they adhere to specific tenents of an oath instead of an oversimplified alignment moniker.

Yeah. They kinda stole our house rules from the 80s. Those thieves..:)

[Zenexras of Blackwick]

Disagree. Base Paladins should be LG. But I feel like the archetypes should kind of be like POE where Paladins are shown as mercenary companies. I think it would make archetypes more interesting because as they are I'm just wondering why you would every pick them over the base.

[[TGC] MadGod]

Originally posted by Zenexras of Blackwick:

Disagree. Base Paladins should be LG. But I feel like the archetypes should kind of be like POE where Paladins are shown as mercenary companies. I think it would make archetypes more interesting because as they are I'm just wondering why you would every pick them over the base.

So only good deities should have special, powerful mortal warriors for their cause?

[Zenexras of Blackwick]

Originally posted by TGC MadGod:

Originally posted by Zenexras of Blackwick:

Disagree. Base Paladins should be LG. But I feel like the archetypes should kind of be like POE where Paladins are shown as mercenary companies. I think it would make archetypes more interesting because as they are I'm just wondering why you would every pick them over the base.

So only good deities should have special, powerful mortal warriors for their cause?

Huh?

[[TGC] MadGod]

Originally posted by Zenexras of Blackwick:

Disagree. Base Paladins should be LG.

That limits the deities who can have "paladins" to LG, LN, CG, NG.

Even if we consider druids the "paladins" of neutral nature deities (not really, for the sake of argument), all other deities get "shafted" by not being "able" to create "Paladins", read "champions of their faith/alignment with special powers" amongst their mortal followers...apart from clerics. The other deities get those as well.

I think that is the main complaint many have about Paladins and their strict adherence to LG.