Paladins aren't always nice

[Porkolt]

what this stupid discussion again

[Pandip]

Everyone who associates with another individual who is remotely evil should be summarily stricken down by a paladin, without mercy, particularly if it can be done as they are walking away after making an attempt to protect the well-being of other individuals who were dangerously close to finding a quick end at the ends of an undead hoard. It is also required that afterwards a paladin show aberrants mercy for the sake of their own life.

[/unwarranted salt]

I do feel there's a very explicit difference between a Lawful Good paladin who is stalwart in his beliefs and adherence to society and a Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, or even Lawful Good zealot who does not uphold the same oaths. And for every bland goody-two-shoes paladin I feel like there is an equal amount of paladins who are being played simply for the sake of having paladin abilities rather than the relevance of the oaths to a character concept, and even more paladins who take the privilege of Detect Evil and the opportunity as an opportunity to run around spouting EEVVVVILLLL with FD on under the misconception that it is good conflict.

Paladins are hugely interpretive. So much, in fact, that I would go so far as to argue that a paladin that didn't push the boundaries of the standard oath in favor of their deity's dogma or some other factor, such as societal beliefs, would be a poor paladin. But that doesn't change the fact that they are very honor-bound and are perhaps the handful of individuals in this setting who are subject to the scrutinizing eye of the divine. Clerics have a ton of leeway and don't necessarily have to represent the good or even lawful side of a LG deity's beliefs, but paladins are upheld to a different level of expectations. They represent the good of their faith. They represent the lawful of their faith. And I would even argue that the lawful hinderance has more to do with their oaths and an association with a civilized lifestyle than necessarily an adherence to established law, because the law can be written by evil beings just as easily as good ones.

I think you're overestimating the importance of alignments to a certain degree. You're acting as if chaos means a discordant, anarchistic lifestyle that has no love for laws and seeks to disrupt them and that anybody under such an alignment wants to destroy society. The law versus chaos spectrum, I feel, is much more interpretive than the good versus evil one, especially to a paladin, whose oaths rely on differentiating between what is, at its core, evil, what is redeemable, and what is simply misguided, misinformed, or misunderstood. Chaos is not what a paladin fights. Chaos is something that a paladin disagrees with; a paladin will likely be at odds with a ranger because of the differing lifestyles and perspectives on life, but that does not necessarily mean that a paladin needs to hunt a ranger without mercy or should even consider such.

I would not bring this up as I have no right to criticize another player's PC, but since you seem to be basing this topic off the disputed actions of your latest paladin PC, I would throw out there that i definitely think Alura is sitting on Lawful Neutral, if not dangerously on the borderline of leaping towards the side of evil. And that, of course, is the issue with paladins on a multiplayer server like this -- one DM is going to have a different perspective than another one, and perhaps a wildly different perspective from the playerbase as well. It's really difficult to deal with the issue of fallen paladins and oaths because of how interpretive one can be with them and I genuinely think that a paladin should be forced to fall only if she has gone leaps and bounds explicitly outside the range of her oaths.

To clarify, I'm mostly giving Thomas a hard time about Alura rather than trying to bitch about my PC's death -- I really don't hold any animosity towards him and I'm usually just yanking his chain. But with all honesty, and for a variety of reasons that I'll probably continue harassing Thomas about privately, I definitely feel like Alura's nearly dived headlong outside of the standard oaths, particularly in the fact that she was inclined to swear an oath not to strike against a clearly evil entity in order to save her own life.

But, it's all up for interpretation, and I certainly don't want to tarnish a PC if everyone is enjoying her presence, and etc. etc. etc., that's all just my two cents.

EDIT: of course, I post this just after everyone decides that the discussion is pointless. score. 8D

[Big Orc Man]

Keep in mind that paladins are holy warriors.

They have armor and weapons for a reason.

That doesn't mean they should massacre anyone with a hint of evil, but that does mean showing  mercy to depraved monsters is pretty much out of the question!

Paladins are not by their code against violence and killing.

[The Boom King]

I've been inspired to roll up another batman paladin. Good job guys.

[Doll Hill]

Paladins, good over lawful. Evil gods do not have paladins, but there are chaotic gods who have paladins. Corellon, and sune to name a few off the top of my head.

[Calixto]

A mulhorandi paladin would own slaves

Forgive me, but this is so blatantly wrong that I don't really know what to say. I mean, slavery is EVIL no matter how you look at it.

[Spiffy Has]

Forgive me, but this is so blatantly wrong that I don't really know what to say. I mean, slavery is EVIL no matter how you look at it.

lol

Slavery in FR depends on the system it involves. Slavery in the Dominion, for example, was strongly LN with property given some manner of recourse if they were mistreated (Barring monster slaves and stargazers, ofc.)

[Porkolt]

what this stupid discussion again

[Luke Danger]

Keep in mind that paladins are holy warriors.

They have armor and weapons for a reason.

That doesn't mean they should massacre anyone with a hint of evil, but that does mean showing  mercy to depraved monsters is pretty much out of the question!

Paladins are not by their code against violence and killing.

As an old EfU vet; this.

There are a few types of good; I'll look at two.

First is the good old hugs and love. Everyone has a shot at redemption, and everyone deserves a chance to be talked down. A messiah, if you will.

Then there's the avenger, the one who is no less good but is much more militant. This is where the Paladin generally falls; they are supposed to be the heroic swordarm against evil, those who will stand as a beacon even in the darkest midnight for what is right. They hold high moral principles, but unlike the above 'messiah' (for want of better term), they know that sometimes evil cannot be redeemed in life.

This is not to say that they will go about killing everyone with a slight hint of Evil; absolutely not. In fact, in the case of mild evil-doers most paladins should at least try to give them a chance to submit to the law and hopefully be reformed, and if a situation is not required to be lethal, the Paladin may attempt less lethal methods.

Lets look at an example of a young street tough. Young, a newb to the lifestyle, and probably short on wisdom. A lawful evil Banite would probably go straight to killing when accosted by this tough, claiming they were against the law. A Paladin, however, would not attack outright unless they were attacked. And if they subdue the street tough rather than killing him, the paladin would not outright kill them. The paladin would be more likely to bring them before the local watch so they could be brought to justice.

However, if said street tough attempts to murder an innocent old man, then all bets are off. The Paladin should use full force to prevent the murder once attacks are underway or being attempted. Before any blows are struck, paladins should at least attempt to disarm the situation peacefully and convince the tough to at least submit to the law (who knows, maybe because he was talked down he will be found innocent and he will realize the error of his ways), but if blows are struck the Paladin does not fool around, especially when innocent lives are at stake.

All in all, the paladin should generally be a nice guy/gal, but when innocent lives are in danger or the enemy is here, they should be warriors with a resolve of the strongest steel who are not afraid to kill an enemy. They are specifically the sword of their faith, they must live that.

Generally, Paladins should see Evil as worse than chaos. Chaotic Good forces, at least, you can work with and make uneasy relationships with. A Paladin probably would not outright assist Robin Hood, but they would at least understand where he comes from and recognize that he at least has some sense of morals... though the paladin would probably try to convince him to use less unlawful methods of dealing with the Sherriff of Nottingham. However, they should also guard against chaotic actions and remember that they are also servants of law.

IIRC, when DM's (not on EfU, in pen and paper) started giving pallies law-or-good situations a lot, a revision to the D&D ruleset basically told Paladins this:

"If it is a choice between an action that is Lawful and an action that is Good, the paladin will ALWAYS[/i] choose the option that is Good."

Good is not neccesarily nice, no, but a good paladin is supposed to be a symbol of a goodly life. They should be courteous, honorable, etc. They can have their flaws, as all do, but they must be able to confront their flaws and overcome them in order to serve their faith and goodly causes.

[Letsplayforfun]

Paladins are cool in pnp because they are utterly rare, blessed and precious, much less so in a video game.

There's supposed to be some god having an eye on them, rewarding their faith with luck, blessing, happy coincidences, good karma coming back to them, etc... which doesn't happen IG unless there's a DM or unless they are high lvl enough to represent that.

When in doubt, why not just make a LG warrior or priest (or both)?

[Disco]

A good paladin is sort of an A-hole...

[Calixto]

lol
 
Slavery in FR depends on the system it involves. Slavery in the Dominion, for example, was strongly LN with property given some manner of recourse if they were mistreated (Barring monster slaves and stargazers, ofc.)

It doesn't matter what kind of slavery it is. Slavery represents owning someone against their will, wich is evil. lol. The question should be obvious.
 
Altough a paladin could certainly buy slaves to free them afterwards if he is not able to confront the slaver.

[Knight Of Pentacles]

Slavery isn't evil in Forgotten Realms, lol.  Mulhorand has a large slave caste and is considered a primarily Lawful Good country.

[MistBringsTheDarkness]

It doesn't matter what kind of slavery it is. Slavery represents owning someone against their will, wich is evil. lol. The question should be obvious.
 
Altough a paladin could certainly buy slaves to free them afterwards if he is not able to confront the slaver.

Laws against murder also involved forcing people to do (or not do) things against their will.

The application of behaviour on another entity falls on the lawful-chaotic slider.

[Spiffy Has]

My Paladin recently was actually a slave herself and championed  the enslavement of Half-Orcs, I did not receive a single evil point even when the DMs were present for such discussions.

The Numinous Order is not opposed to the enslavement of Savages (though this is individualized between each PC in question, of course)

Even Mistlocke law is not opposed to slavery, only the enslavement of Humans.

Slavery, as stated by the DMs, is a LAWFUL institution, it isn't inherently EVIL, or GOOD.

The very basis of LAW is to have those who do not adhere to societal norms (like murdering people, stealing from people, etc...) punished AGAINST THEIR WILL. Is this evil? No.

Edited: Not going to speak of RL slavery.

However! This is off topic, and I believe that the productivity of this discussion has exhausted itself.