Paladins - Not so "good" after all?
Battlehamster
Member Posts: 298
So Paladin's are supposed to be the epitome of righteousness and good, right? If that's the case how is it they can justify the slaying of entire races "because they are evil?" I see a lot of comments that Paladins would never align themselves with evil creatures, ex: Viconia and furthermore may even be compelled to purge them if at all possible. Let's not forget their atypical self-righteousness tends to lead them to arrogance, pride and a form of self-importance (our morality is better than yours mentality) usually associated with evil characters. I think in some cases it could be argued that Paladins are actually an alternative evil.
Ex: A Paladin knows that one evil individual is, with 100% certainty going to kill a large population. However, the Paladin does not have proof he could bring before any court of law, more importantly this individual is a well known political official. There is no chance to gather evidence to bring against this individual and it literally comes down to a split second decision where the Paladin CAN kill this person and save hundreds or thousands of lives. Despite this if they were to kill this individual they would be considered a fallen paladin. I.e. a "True Paladin" would never really be able to do anything about a Lawful Evil character who covered their bases properly?
This is why I like neutral good. Because F**k a court of law evildoer, I have to kill you NOW. Farewell King Henry VIII, England will be a much more stable nation now that you are *hypothetically* gone - But we're totally keeping the church of England. Cake or Death?
Ex: A Paladin knows that one evil individual is, with 100% certainty going to kill a large population. However, the Paladin does not have proof he could bring before any court of law, more importantly this individual is a well known political official. There is no chance to gather evidence to bring against this individual and it literally comes down to a split second decision where the Paladin CAN kill this person and save hundreds or thousands of lives. Despite this if they were to kill this individual they would be considered a fallen paladin. I.e. a "True Paladin" would never really be able to do anything about a Lawful Evil character who covered their bases properly?
This is why I like neutral good. Because F**k a court of law evildoer, I have to kill you NOW. Farewell King Henry VIII, England will be a much more stable nation now that you are *hypothetically* gone - But we're totally keeping the church of England. Cake or Death?
3
Comments
Keep in mind too, a church is also potentially a flawed human institution; a Paladin getting Holy abilities from their deity, must remain true to the deity's standards. NOT the state, court, CHURCH or anything else that might stray from the deity's intents.
Still, a paladin too can follow his heart rather than the law and still be forgiven, it's not like they're all lawful stupid.
In your example a paladin COULD kill them, but it would count as a minor violation and they would fall. However, unlike a Major violation, they can atone for it and undertake a quest on behalf of their faith to restore their abilities, since while they violated the code, they did so because they had no other choice, and for an immediate and clear goal to save a lot of innocent lives, and choosing not to sacrifice their abilities to do so could actually be seen as a major violation causing them to fall anyway except permanently, since they had the means to stop it, but were too hung up on their own powers to make the sacrifice.
Of course that doesn't mean they'll be free of retribution from the local law, and do have to submit themselves to it as long as it's just and fair. If they can't prove their case, then they have to accept their lawful sentence, and if they happen to die as a result they die in service of their beliefs and go to paradise with their god.
When left with absolutely no other choice a paladin can break their vows, but depending on the situation, they could immediately fall. Such as having to work with a known evil being to survive some current crisis with no other way out, they would fall immediately, but if they ended the partnership immediately on being free to do so and went to seek atonement, they could restore their abilities.
Basically the only difference between a Major and Minor violation is intent. A Minor violation can be almost anything as long as the paladin does it to further the cause of good, there's an immediate and clear need, and has no other options available. But it's not a free ride, they still fall....it's just not permanent. And they have to immediately seek atonement the instant they are free to do so or it becomes Major.
A Major violation is anything done that violates the paladin's code without a clear and immediate reason or done so knowingly. This one is permanent.
All I'm saying is, when law and good come into conflict being a Paladin isn't always the most beneficial profession to the greater good. As for blanketing creatures as an evil race...
Larrel
Sarevok - who can be redeemed
Deekin - Member of the "evil Kobold" race
Drizzt & Viconia - Members of the "Evil Drow"
Maybe its just because I think the alignment table needs a new alignment qualifier (creation vs. destruction would make a Lawful Good Creator or a Lawful Good Destroyer big difference between the two imo) but there is an argument to be made that the systematic destruction of something "evil" is not always the best course of action. I'm not saying a Paladin should go and free a demon out of sympathy but wouldn't turning someone of great power and evil like sarevok to at least a course of non-evil be a "good-er" choice than outright killing him? Of course your Paladin vows would disallow you from pursuing such a course as you are associating with an evil. So what you're saying then is one individual = the philosophy of an entire race? Better kill drizzt then, he's drow so clearly evil.
It also had Alexander the Great running over Lovecraftian horrors with a chariot. So there's something for everyone, I guess.
Otherwise, I absolutely agree with the preposterous Paladin rant. One of rightful reasons I don't like them. Stupid goody two-shoes...
Viconia is evil, and serves arguably a Goddess just as bad as Lolth. Actually maybe worse...does Lolth also eat the souls of her worshipers when they die? Can't remember.
Drizzt is mistaken for evil so often, you're meta-gaming for NOT attacking him on sight.
And to be fair Deekin is a typical Kobold, he held the item you needed for ransom to get you to take out his boss, and is hanging around you mostly because you killed off everyone else in the warrens. And figures, hey, lets follow this guy. Sure he does become a better...creature...because of your association, but was quite evil when you first met.
And Sarevok is wholly evil when you kill him..the first couple times....he started out kind of decent (actually kind of reminds me of Dio Brando now that I think about it, a lot actually) but gets pushed over the edge by an abusive father figure and death of mother figure he cared for and decides to use anyone and everyone to get what he wants, especially when Winski shows up and teaches him about Bhaalspawn and the prophecies and he decides to become a god.
He's kind of like Deekin and Viconia in a way, you can lead them away from evil by showing them a better example...but they are definitely evil when you meet them which would prevent a paladin from ever working with them.
Good as some rigid unbending thing seems to cause as many problems as it solves. Just ask Ned Stark. I'll refrain from commenting further so as not to spoil the surprise to anyone currently reading. In game terms though how could you really be a paladin once you discover you have evil deity blood in you though? Doesn't that kinda shoot the whole Paladin notion in the foot?
As for Sarevok..
[spoiler]Once you kill him several times you have to figure he's a threat you can likely contain. Knowing the strength of his spirit would it be better to let this evil spirit roam free and *maybe* be revived? Or is it better to revive him and keep the evil somewhere, knowing you can manage it?
I do think that the OP falls victim to the "Lawful alignment vs. The Law". One does not equate to the other. A country can have as a part of their laws some very unlawful things. I would no more expect a Paladin to uphold an unjust law or support an unjust government than I would a bunny to poop out candy. A paladin will have a code of conduct absolutely. And that conduct "Might" be concurrent with the current laws of the land but there is no requirement to that effect. It might just as equally be to bring down the oppressors of the common folk and overthrow the cruel dictatorship. For instance, i would not expect any Paladin to lock step with King Joeffrey (Game of Thrones). Most Paladins would say "Law? Shmaw. I follow The code of my order and my Patron!"
Also, there are quite a few flaws in the OP's example. If the Paladin knew that some evil doer was going to kill Thousands (how someone could KNOW the future is beyond me), they wouldn't have to KILL that person, merely do everything in their power to stop the deaths. If said paladin took every step possible to save the greatest amount of people and do the least amount of harm, if further they tried everything up to killing them BEFORE they took the final action, I don't think that Most DM's would make said Paladin fall. The problem is that the situation is very situational and doesn't cover all of the potential actions up too the final act.
Finally, I don't condone a Paladin that goes around simply slaughtering 'Evil' sentient beings for no reason. Walking into Nashkal, a Paladin and party may perchance to encounter Edwin. A simple "Detect Evil" shouldn't reveal evil alignments (that isn't what the spell does) but if it did, you still have no proof that he is actively guilty of anything. Hauling off and splitting his cowl, would be an evil act in itself in my book. It isn't a crime to "Walk around while Evil" in any code I have ever heard of. And should it be, i'd question the order's leanings, not the individual Paladin's.
Same with Viconia. She claims that she is innocent, of what she is accused of anyway. Any Paladin that either (a) sided with the obviously fanatic Flaming Fist or (b) simply decided to 'Kill all Drow and let the Gods sort it out' is in for a LONG hard talking too by his Patron in any world that I DM.
I think that the OP has merely been hanging out with the wrong sorts if they think that EVERYONE agrees with the painting that they post about Paladins. Sure, the path a Paladin walks is supposed to be narrow. But loading the deck such that there are only two choices "Fall or fail to save innocents" isn't a fair or accurate portrayal of any scenario that I have seen. And finally, given only that choice i'd think the paladin would choose to fall and intentionally forfeit his Paladinhood because he failed to find a better choice.
TBH I have the same gripe with Paladins that I do with Druids in that the alignment boundaries are way to rigid to be feasible - even for a fantasy realm. Despite this, you obviously haven't heard of AWE (Adventuring while Evil). Its punishable by death. xD
A paladin of Bahamut, for example, would slay Lord Jierdan Firkraag as soon as he notices that this "Lord" is in fact a red dragon, even in his humanoid form. Red dragons are usually thralls of Tiamat and thus an enemy of Bahamut, thus also an enemy of the paladin.
Also, a paladin has the ability to detect whether an individual is evil. In terms of logic however, evil/good is not a form of behaviour, but a measurement of past deeds. And this is where D&D fails. Everyone shall better start with true neutral alignment and develop to a certain direction, depending on his/her deeds, unless you also account for childhood and/or pre-adventure deeds.
I've had conversations with people who literally believe that any crime is justifiable for a 'greater good' as long as it is THEIR greater good. For everyone else it would be proof they are evil.
As far as role playing goes, paladins are a lot of fun. They're good for over-the-top moralizing, moral dilemma's and things like that. Make them work in a theive's guild and watch them squirm. Punish their zealotry and test them to the limit, then revoke their sanctity and see how they cope.
Where I think a lot of people fall down is that they assume that (a) Paladins are for "order and structure" (which is true) (b) Society is based on "order and structure" (which may or may not be true) therefore (c) Paladins codes MUST be in step with the laws. The plain fact is that they may go about achieving that 'Order and structure' in very (and sometimes diametrically) different ways.
I think that most societies are built on the "intent" to bring structure (it is quite a different thing to say how many succeed in that goal). I'd even go so far as to say that it is almost always predicated on 'The greater good' (at least from someone's point of view). However, the Paladin's guiding principal is and should be the code of his/her order and not necessarily the law of the land. Although most Codes promote order and structure, if you look at any two countries IRL, you will see that most of them have VERY DIFFERENT TAKES on how to achieve that.
Basically it is like the difference in the US between Church and State. Talk about two structures that are both supposed to be all about the same thing but couldn't be more different in reality. All in my humble opinion.