@the_spyder the more I read the less I understand you. What exactly is the difference between a 2E LG Paladin and a 4E Paladin in terms of alignment?
Their Codex of the LG is usually the cause of much strife. Since they literally have to follow the codex, and usually also have other obligations, like being part of the government or even be the government, they are always in for a long walk over a way too short pier.
It's rather naive to just asume that the codex has an answer to every problem. I have to look through some stuff, but the codex I rember where mere guidelines, not more then about ten sentences. And I have to agree with RazaDelrom to some degree. How exactly can for example Piergeiron the Paladinson the Lord of Waterkeep (also Paladin), be in a position to ignore the law? The requirement to join the Order Of Radiant Hearts was also based on a noble sponsor of the kindgom of their homeland or someone in the Order choose to support him. You can't ignore the law that supports the temple, can you?
Which references do you use to support your view of things? I don't have a 2E at hand at the moment, surely you can repeat your source?
Am I the only one that doesn't like how this thread turned into debating real life religion?
THIS IS A VIDEO GAME, NOT REAL LIFE!!!
Stop talking about Christianity and go back to talking about alignments in the D&D lore.
The narrow alignment definitions in D&D wouldn't even apply to real life because most humans probably change their behaviour every hour.
The problem is, AD&D is inspired by medieval European history, mythology and folklore. Throw in some classic mythology, some Tolkien and a few other more modern sources. But it starts with medieval European. Which means much of the precedent we can site is going to come from that era. Its a little tough to discuss Paladins in particular without Arthurian, Carolingian and Holy Orders (Templars, Hospitalars, and Teutons) being a part of the discussion.
Now I do, in principle, agree that Christianity should have no place in a magical fantasy discussion. Too many conflicts, and too much potential for causing offence (both from adherents and detractors!). That's why, when I DM in my very historically themed setting, I use Classic Greco-Roman Mythology as the starting point for belief systems and morals. But even so, in talking about things with a medieval European style or atmosphere; you can't avoid the actual medieval inspirations entirely!
BTW, Spyder, just an excellent job making your case. If I remember correctly, you rarely actually play LG yourself? So I'm doubly impressed.
Do you honesty believe we should discuss the KKK in this thread?
And since you are so impressed, please tell us what point that was.
Interesting non-sequitur. I never mentioned the KKK. But if they are relevant to a point, go for it. They may be interesting as an example of lawful-evil that often runs afoul of the legal system.
And I am impressed to be so in agreement with Spyder's explanation/defense of LG alignment, even though he rarely plays it.
@the_spyder the more I read the less I understand you. What exactly is the difference between a 2E LG Paladin and a 4E Paladin in terms of alignment?
Their Codex of the LG is usually the cause of much strife. Since they literally have to follow the codex, and usually also have other obligations, like being part of the government or even be the government, they are always in for a long walk over a way too short pier.
It's rather naive to just asume that the codex has an answer to every problem. I have to look through some stuff, but the codex I rember where mere guidelines, not more then about ten sentences. And I have to agree with RazaDelrom to some degree. How exactly can for example Piergeiron the Paladinson the Lord of Waterkeep (also Paladin), be in a position to ignore the law? The requirement to join the Order Of Radiant Hearts was also based on a noble sponsor of the kindgom of their homeland or someone in the Order choose to support him. You can't ignore the law that supports the temple, can you?
Which references do you use to support your view of things? I don't have a 2E at hand at the moment, surely you can repeat your source?
I don't think anybody's suggesting that Lawful Good characters make a habit of ignoring the law, but earlier there were arguments being made that Paladins are beholden to all laws, even the awful ones or those that could be easily corrupted. I think most of us are just pointing out that Lawful Good as an alignment is not necessarily intrinsically tied to the laws of the land.
"Most paladins serve actual gods, though a few act as champions of a primordial, demon, or devil though in the latter two cases they must commit atrocities such as the sacrifice of sapients in order to retain their powers. All paladins, regardless of whom they serve and how they act, are expected to serve as sworn defenders of the faithful, smiting the unholy."
I took to mean that Paladins in 4E are not required to be Lawful Good. In 2E they are. Therefore there is at least one difference.
Their Codex of the LG is usually the cause of much strife. Since they literally have to follow the codex, and usually also have other obligations, like being part of the government or even be the government, they are always in for a long walk over a way too short pier.
The topic thus far has been surrounding the fact that, although most Lawful organizations do tend towards falling in line with society, this is not a causal relationship. Just because someone is a member of an order, that does not mean that the order requires to be governmental in nature. Paladins are more associated with the church than with the government, at least classically. Has that changed in 4E as well?
It's rather naive to just asume that the codex has an answer to every problem. I have to look through some stuff, but the codex I rember where mere guidelines, not more then about ten sentences. And I have to agree with RazaDelrom to some degree. How exactly can for example Piergeiron the Paladinson the Lord of Waterkeep (also Paladin), be in a position to ignore the law? The requirement to join the Order Of Radiant Hearts was also based on a noble sponsor of the kindgom of their homeland or someone in the Order choose to support him. You can't ignore the law that supports the temple, can you?
Which specific codex are you referring too? There are a lot of them, one for each order out there. Some are more thorough and spelled out than others.
I don't know specifically of Piergeiron the Paladinson of Waterdeep. It is possible, even reasonable, that Paladins orders follow closely with local law. That is not and has never been in question. However, the Paladin is following the edicts of their order, NOT the Law. The fact that those Edicts mirror the law does not mean that they are required to do so. That is the point many have tried to make here. Just because they happen to be parallel, doesn't mean that one CAUSES the other, or that they are required to parallel each other.
I haven't read any of the posts except the first few ones in this thread, that's for tomorrow. However, we were discussing the DnD alignment of Punisher with a friend today (don't ask)... One of us posited that there's a distinction between being highly principled and being of lawful character. It didn't necessarily have to do with the Law of the land as it were, but having a detailed and strict set of rules which one considered first before making a choice.
@the_spyder the more I read the less I understand you. What exactly is the difference between a 2E LG Paladin and a 4E Paladin in terms of alignment?
Their Codex of the LG is usually the cause of much strife. Since they literally have to follow the codex, and usually also have other obligations, like being part of the government or even be the government, they are always in for a long walk over a way too short pier.
It's rather naive to just asume that the codex has an answer to every problem. I have to look through some stuff, but the codex I rember where mere guidelines, not more then about ten sentences. And I have to agree with RazaDelrom to some degree. How exactly can for example Piergeiron the Paladinson the Lord of Waterkeep (also Paladin), be in a position to ignore the law? The requirement to join the Order Of Radiant Hearts was also based on a noble sponsor of the kindgom of their homeland or someone in the Order choose to support him. You can't ignore the law that supports the temple, can you?
Which references do you use to support your view of things? I don't have a 2E at hand at the moment, surely you can repeat your source?
I don't think anybody's suggesting that Lawful Good characters make a habit of ignoring the law, but earlier there were arguments being made that Paladins are beholden to all laws, even the awful ones or those that could be easily corrupted. I think most of us are just pointing out that Lawful Good as an alignment is not necessarily intrinsically tied to the laws of the land.
Actually there are people here who like to disagree simply because they can, not because they have sources which support their reasoning. What we need to really discuss would be a book of law, a codex and 3 sources of independent information stating what a Paladin does for a days work. Without that we would have a discussion like "the world is flat", "no the world is a cube" Who can say what's real, if you don't feel like disclosing actual facts?
A few posts back the same guys told me that we should not include the knights at all, because no paladins are knights or at least they are not a part of an order. I showed them that it was not the case. They still refused to believe any of it. Now the same people are up for the task, because "they were modelled after their medieval conterparts". So long so good, but the reason why I will not continue this is something else:
That they actually want me to start a discussion here, which is heavily borderlining on racist themes - which would also break the rules of this forum.
I like discussions, I don't like shouting contests and I really don't like people who need to use the suffering of people as means of entertainment "for the sake of a good discussion". I really was looking forward to some people, especially the ones with a lot more insight in the lore then I have, but I can't just ignore some and keep discussing like nothing is amiss.
When I play a lawfull good paladin, I think of him as a knight who took vows to protect the weak and fight against evil & injustice. He is someone who fights against evil without any intrest of personal gain. And he gains his powers from his god/deity and this deity has to reprisent good virtues.
As for lawfull... Think about the classic distinction between natural law and positive law. In the middle ages for example it was belived that natural law was superior than any law set by a man as it had divine orgins, so it had to be superiour and rule over normal earthly laws. imo Paladin follows some sort of divine natural law from his own perspective.
Yet not all lawfull good alligned characters are paladins, so the lawfull good aligment is not solely paladin's domain, but I think the ideals and virtues a paladin follows have to be universal for all lawfull good aligned characters. Paladin just gets his blessing from his god and its the source of his divine might. If he strays from this lawfull good path, he doesn't only face normal punishment (like jail or death), he also loses the favour of his god. this is quite severe punishment compared to normal lawfull good characters.
The basic idea for a paladin is to uphold the justice and protect the weak, thus he could also "break" the law if the law of the land was injust. This distinction is important to me because a paladin is not simply a lawfull character, but also a good aligned character. So every law should serve common good to be valid in the eyes of a paladin.
@the_spyder the more I read the less I understand you. What exactly is the difference between a 2E LG Paladin and a 4E Paladin in terms of alignment?
Their Codex of the LG is usually the cause of much strife. Since they literally have to follow the codex, and usually also have other obligations, like being part of the government or even be the government, they are always in for a long walk over a way too short pier.
It's rather naive to just asume that the codex has an answer to every problem. I have to look through some stuff, but the codex I rember where mere guidelines, not more then about ten sentences. And I have to agree with RazaDelrom to some degree. How exactly can for example Piergeiron the Paladinson the Lord of Waterkeep (also Paladin), be in a position to ignore the law? The requirement to join the Order Of Radiant Hearts was also based on a noble sponsor of the kindgom of their homeland or someone in the Order choose to support him. You can't ignore the law that supports the temple, can you?
Which references do you use to support your view of things? I don't have a 2E at hand at the moment, surely you can repeat your source?
I don't think anybody's suggesting that Lawful Good characters make a habit of ignoring the law, but earlier there were arguments being made that Paladins are beholden to all laws, even the awful ones or those that could be easily corrupted. I think most of us are just pointing out that Lawful Good as an alignment is not necessarily intrinsically tied to the laws of the land.
A few posts back the same guys told me that we should not include the knights at all, because no paladins are knights or at least they are not a part of an order. I showed them that it was not the case. They still refused to believe any of it. Now the same people are up for the task, because "they were modelled after their medieval conterparts". So long so good, but the reason why I will not continue this is something else:
You're taking a bit out of context here. A paladin is not a knight, period. Can a paladin be a knight? Maybe.
IRL, I am an air traffic controller. I am also the husband of my wife. Does one prove the other? No. I was a controller first. And yet strangely, I consider the other more important. If being a controller ever interfered with me being a husband, I would quit my job (well actually, retire, the benefits of being old...)
The point being, some paladins might be knights and vice versa. I am certain for EVERY paladin, those oaths come first. Loyalty and priority would go a Holy Order over a secular one. But are two completely different things. A paladin has absolutely no obligation to an earthly master, unless he chooses to. And that obligation would last only as long as it doesn't contrast with the Holy vows. I think some of this dispute just comes from how we are parsing our terms. If a paladin arrests someone; it would because they are also a knight, or a watchman, or a sheriff or something. Not because they are a paladin.
As others have observed, what started this dispute was a suggestion that a paladin might enforce an evil or immoral law. I think that is the key issue here. A paladin, like any LG, would oppose an evil law, to the fullest extent of their capabilities.
When I play a lawfull good paladin, I think of him as a knight who took vows to protect the weak and fight against evil & injustice. He is someone who fights against evil without any intrest of personal gain. And he gains his powers from his god/deity and this deity has to reprisent good virtues.
As for lawfull... Think about the classic distinction between natural law and positive law. In the middle ages for example it was belived that natural law was superior than any law set by a man as it had divine orgins, so it had to be superiour and rule over normal earthly laws. imo Paladin follows some sort of divine natural law from his own perspective.
Yet not all lawfull good alligned characters are paladins, so the lawfull good aligment is not solely paladin's domain, but I think the ideals and virtues a paladin follows have to be universal for all lawfull good aligned characters. Paladin just gets his blessing from his god and its the source of his divine might. If he strays from this lawfull good path, he doesn't only face normal punishment (like jail or death), he also loses the favour of his god. this is quite severe punishment compared to normal lawfull good characters.
The basic idea for a paladin is to uphold the justice and protect the weak, thus he could also "break" the law if the law of the land was injust. This distinction is important to me because a paladin is not simply a lawfull character, but also a good aligned character. So every law should serve common good to be valid in the eyes of a paladin.
I think you got the basic points. But what is law? The local law would be reviewed not only by the Paladin (she is just in the military arm of the organisation), but by the headtemple and their leaders. If the leaders, for example the Chancellor and the Prelaetes see them as just or in most terms as potentional agreeable, then they will negotiate with the government for the licence to officially do their work in that country. That leads to a temple or a headquater of an order. In exchance for the chance to "do good" they will have to accept the laws, and most likely some terms of agreement/contract. Since they already reviewed possible conflicts they have the option to discuss vital points and find an agreement in said contract. As they are in the business to protect the weak, the provide a wide array of services, from military protection to councel. Other countries might have laws which are not acceptable. They still might send an agent or two to see the actual situation, they might want to try to persuade the government to change some of the most vital parts, but they will not march in without a very good cause and more troops to spare.
The codex is, as I pointed out, nothing but a mere guideline (pretty sure it was about 10 sentences or less). It doesn't have an apendix with "acceptable tax laws" or "allowed skirtsizes". Therefore the Paladin mostly relies on the law of that country, which was already aproved off by the headtemple. To augment my statement: without involving the local law they would not even know how they shouldn't wear their civil clothes.
@Teleron - again I ask, to what codex are you referring such that you are giving specific examples of "ten lines"? That may be the pledge or the oath of a given order, but not necessarily the code of conduct for the entire order (or all orders). Classically "Codex" is a book or manuscript, which could be quite lengthy in nature. but the discussion isn't about syntax etc...
My personal example when talking about "Lawfully" aligned would be Sturm Brightblade. In the DragonLance volumes, he was a Knight of the order of the Rose (I think. Either that or the crown). In any event, this was (in my view) the perfect example of the pinnacle of a Lawful character. His life was 'The Oath' that he swore when he accepted the armor and blade of his father. He was an EXTREMELY moral soldier and was very often the conscience of the group.
Yet, he was not a police office or other agent of the government. He was not even necessarily a very law abiding being. When the law came after the Barbarians with the Crystal staff, he openly opposed them. He was about what was morally 'Right' according to the edict of his order and did not care what 'The Law' said. He fled with his companions to find the truth about what happened to the Gods, in direct violation of local government. And he was not in the business of busting "Evil" heads merely because they were walking around Evil, or because they broke the law. His companion, Tas, was a Kinder Thief and was always breaking the law. He didn't attack, kill or imprison Tas for his infractions.
To be clear, he wasn't a Paladin. There aren't Paladins in Kyrnn. He was a Lawful (good) knight. I often compare him to a Paladin, but he wasn't what I classically consider a Paladin as he wasn't chosen by his Deity (they were all out to lunch when he got his calling). He didn't study under a church's tutelage. He DID follow a code and was totally devoted to that code. Nor am I saying that Paladins need to be Knights, or the other way around. Simply that he is an example of a Lawful character in literature.
@the_spyder the more I read the less I understand you. What exactly is the difference between a 2E LG Paladin and a 4E Paladin in terms of alignment?
Their Codex of the LG is usually the cause of much strife. Since they literally have to follow the codex, and usually also have other obligations, like being part of the government or even be the government, they are always in for a long walk over a way too short pier.
It's rather naive to just asume that the codex has an answer to every problem. I have to look through some stuff, but the codex I rember where mere guidelines, not more then about ten sentences. And I have to agree with RazaDelrom to some degree. How exactly can for example Piergeiron the Paladinson the Lord of Waterkeep (also Paladin), be in a position to ignore the law? The requirement to join the Order Of Radiant Hearts was also based on a noble sponsor of the kindgom of their homeland or someone in the Order choose to support him. You can't ignore the law that supports the temple, can you?
Which references do you use to support your view of things? I don't have a 2E at hand at the moment, surely you can repeat your source?
I don't think anybody's suggesting that Lawful Good characters make a habit of ignoring the law, but earlier there were arguments being made that Paladins are beholden to all laws, even the awful ones or those that could be easily corrupted. I think most of us are just pointing out that Lawful Good as an alignment is not necessarily intrinsically tied to the laws of the land.
A few posts back the same guys told me that we should not include the knights at all, because no paladins are knights or at least they are not a part of an order. I showed them that it was not the case. They still refused to believe any of it. Now the same people are up for the task, because "they were modelled after their medieval conterparts". So long so good, but the reason why I will not continue this is something else:
You're taking a bit out of context here. A paladin is not a knight, period. Can a paladin be a knight? Maybe.
Ever heard of a paradox? Either he can be a knight, or not. I have a few names of Paladins who are Knights with all obligations, even a King if you need one.
"The point being, some paladins might be knights and vice versa. I am certain for EVERY paladin, those oaths come first." What is an oath? Is it an absolute statement or not? If he is a knight then he is a noble with all obligations that come with the title. Breaking the King's oath is as much a death sentence as breaking the oath of the order. Since the laws are already aproved off by the headtemple, why would a Paladin even complain about a law, lest alone not follow it? He was ordered by the headtemple to follow the contract which is based on the laws.
That's like you refusing to control your airspace, because you suddenly decide that your chair is unacceptable. Even though your government, your employer and even your wife might tell you, that doing your job now is more important then waiting for a comfy chair to suddenly apear out of thin air. Didn't you agree to do your job under said conditions before you accepted?
@Teleron - not to speak out of turn, but I "Think" what atcDave was indicating is that a Paladin "Can" be a Knight, but they don't "Have" to be a knight.
As a Paladin, they are absolutely a holy soldier of the 'Church' and that is the difference from what you are (I think) thinking. A Knight might serve the King and the royal court above all else. A Paladin serves the Church above all else, including the King and the realm.
@Teleron - not to speak out of turn, but I "Think" what atcDave was indicating is that a Paladin "Can" be a Knight, but they don't "Have" to be a knight.
As a Paladin, they are absolutely a holy soldier of the 'Church' and that is the difference from what you are (I think) thinking. A Knight might serve the King and the royal court above all else. A Paladin serves the Church above all else, including the King and the realm.
As far as I know "DragonLance" is a fantasy novel series, unconnected with the forgotten realms but inspired by an AD&D game from the 80s. If you want to use a reference I would advice for something out of the forgotten realms series and their writers. Ever read R. A. Salvatore?
I do enjoy a good read, but since it's a fantasy and not a history novel, they can change the setting to everything they want. If you instead prefer to discuss the medivial times, you should include timeline and country.
No I think you've got that mashed up all wrong. It is hard to find good examples, because there is nothing quite like the Holy Orders in the modern world. The example I used of career and marriage really only equates if one set of responsibilities conflicts with another, not if I arbitrarily decide to break one obligation. The only way that might happen IRL would be if my employer was going to force me to relocate where my wife didn't want go. Then I might have to choose; and because I take responsibilities to my wife far more seriously, I would leave my job in that case. The vows of a paladin vs the vows of a knight are fully as separate as my obligations to my employer vs my wife. In a good state, a paladin might be able to serve both masters. But if the state and laws are corrupt and evil, that would be impossible. The paladin, and his church and order, would not serve the state, and likely be militantly at odds with it. That doesn't mean the two can't ever co-exist; there might be a tradition of the order being present that makes it difficult for the state to outlaw it; the state might be too weak to banish an order or church it is at odds with. The order might be too popular to just be done away with. And likewise, a Holy LG order might be too weak itself to take much more than small local actions against a state it disapproves of.
The point in all of this is just that they remain completely separate entities. Just as the medieval Holy Orders served Pope and Church, NOT King and Country; a LG order of Paladins is not a state entity. They may alternately have good, or very bad relations with the state; just as Templars, Hospitalars, and Teutons all did. And there is no better example than that, its what the AD&D paladin was inspired by.
My reference wasn't intended to be 'Strictly' Faerun, but as an example in the literature of a Lawful character that was clear and well written. I see no relevance to what WoTC realm he inhabits for the purpose of the discussion.
Ever heard of a paradox? Either he can be a knight, or not.
Stop being so needlessly pedantic. The answer of "maybe" was provided to the question. The definition of the word reads as a possibility, a probability. It's a valid answer, because a Paladin can be a Knight under certain circumstances. If they can live up to the conditions, the answer is yes. If they cannot, the answer is no. The answer provided allows for, and even alludes to this.
If he is a knight then he is a noble with all obligations that come with the title. Breaking the King's oath is as much a death sentence as breaking the oath of the order.
Both may carry a penalty of death, but they are not as equally deplorable for a Paladin. The oath to their order, or more importantly their deity, is paramount to them. An oath to a King would become obsolete the moment it came into direct conflict with their divine oath. They are a Paladin first, and a Knight second.
A Knight who pledges their allegiance with such whimsy, such falsehood, would never attain divine favor, and thus never become a Paladin.
A Paladin who swears an oath to a King, to become a Knight, limits their ability to carry out their divine pledge should that King pass a contrasting law. The moment those oaths clash the Paladin risks losing their divine favor, at which time they fall, which is absolutely fundamentally their overriding reason for being.
I am unsure as to what there is a debate over at this time. The Paladin and the Knight are independent of one another, yet they can, under certain conditions, co-exist. LG is not restricted to those of a divine calling. LG are not beholden to the intrinsic nature of law. I fail to see where there is roam for discourse, nor why it would be necessary if there were. There is a degree of leeway therein for different approaches.
Ever heard of a paradox? Either he can be a knight, or not.
Stop being so needlessly pedantic. The answer of "maybe" was provided to the question. The definition of the word reads as a possibility, a probability. It's a valid answer, because a Paladin can be a Knight under certain circumstances. If they can live up to the conditions, the answer is yes. If they cannot, the answer is no. The answer provided allows for, and even alludes to this.
If he is a knight then he is a noble with all obligations that come with the title. Breaking the King's oath is as much a death sentence as breaking the oath of the order.
Both may carry a penalty of death, but they are not as equally deplorable for a Paladin. The oath to their order, or more importantly their deity, is paramount to them. An oath to a King would become obsolete the moment it came into direct conflict with their divine oath. They are a Paladin first, and a Knight second.
A Knight who pledges their allegiance with such whimsy, such falsehood, would never attain divine favor, and thus never become a Paladin.
A Paladin who swears an oath to a King, to become a Knight, limits their ability to carry out their divine pledge should that King pass a contrasting law. The moment those oaths clash the Paladin risks losing their divine favor, at which time they fall, which is absolutely fundamentally their overriding reason for being.
I am unsure as to what there is a debate over at this time. The Paladin and the Knight are independent of one another, yet they can, under certain conditions, co-exist. LG is not restricted to those of a divine calling. LG are not beholden to the intrinsic nature of law. I fail to see where there is roam for discourse, nor why it would be necessary if there were. There is a degree of leeway therein for different approaches.
@RnRClown Are you just telling me that the question "can a paladin be also a knight?" requires anything else then a yes or no? Someone surely can verify why he committed himself to a yes, or a no, but the maybe is nothing more then dodging the question altogether. And for the record, I just pointed out that he should commit himself to the answer. If you watch my question above closely, is "can a paladin be also a knight" the same as "a paladin is a knight"? In my eyes I already included the maybe, so it might pay off to pay a little attention instead of painting others as pedantic. If I were you, now would be the perfect time to name you something else. Now for the learning effect: Do you believe a paladin can never be a knight? (hooray, another yes or no question)
And here was the third yes or no question: It an oath an absolute statement, or not? You just told me it is. Did I ask what an oath is?
For the whimsical question of yours: I already pointed out why a paladin can manage to stay in faith and be a knight (or even not be a knight but still honor the laws). Let's translate the positions:
Government in homeland: USA Government of foreign land: England
Employer: Air Traffic Control Inc. (Headtemple) Codex: Personified existance called Wife (just for a very placative arguement)
Pretext: The laws in the USA are different then they are in England. Still there is enough common ground that the employer, after reviewing the vital parts of the laws, decided that he can employ a new joint venture. Now he asks the employee "The people in England are in dire need of an ATC, are you willing to take up the job? We already reviewed the contract, it is solid as you can see here" The employee reviews said contract with his wife and sees: Yes the vital parts are acceptable, the term of the contract are benefitial and the people need the help.
ATC accepts the job and ventures forth to England. The work is well paid and is essential the same as he did in his homeland. Everthing fits but then the conflict arises: The food is not to his liking. That part wasn't in the contract.
Now the big question: Will he then use a chair to beat the prime minister of England to a pulp, just because the food in not what he imagined?
What I want to make clear with this question: The employee knows what he is getting into, and if he accepts the call, he has no reason to suddenly change his mind over trivial things. Once a mayor change does apply, I'm sure that not only he will see it, but also his wife and also his own Employer.
So would you please stop calling fire when there is no fire? Thank you.
My reference wasn't intended to be 'Strictly' Faerun, but as an example in the literature of a Lawful character that was clear and well written. I see no relevance to what WoTC realm he inhabits for the purpose of the discussion.
Well in that case I would recommend to read The Song of Fire and Ice by George R. R. Martin. They are a lot more detailed then the TV series and you can actually see what the think and why they do the things they do. Your reasoning closely resembles the reasoning and believes of one character in the Stark family.
What most people don't know is that the theme of the Song of Fire and Ice was losely based on a historical base: The Wars of the Roses between Lancaster and York (1455–85) and a few other great events in history (Hadrians Wall for example)
There's too many variables for a simple yes or no answer to be adequate to answer the question. I cannot simply say "yes", a paladin can be a knight, when there are clearly circumstances when they could not (like an evil government or cause they would have to swear fealty to. Or even just obligations that would be too time consuming and distracting from their primary duties to their church). And I obviously can't say "no" when I can imagine situations where it might work. I think "maybe" is the most acceptable answer.
The problem with your rather colorful scenario of a job transfer to England is of course, that it is not a good example of LG behavior. If an agreement is reached with all interested parties, it would be LG to honor it. If the agreement is later found to be unacceptable for some reason, it should be ended in the most reasonable way possible. Of course another problem with your example is it isn't really about any conflict of interest, simply a dislike of the situation. That's why I suggested an involuntary transfer to a location unacceptable to my wife as an example. It puts the demands of one obligation at odds with the other obligation. In that conflict, I would choose the "higher" obligation (wife) and sever ties with the other (assuming no compromise can be reached). Which again, goes back to the initial point, for a paladin or LG cleric, obligations/oaths/vows to their church will always be primary over other obligations that may arise. This started over the question of enforcing an evil law (how far we have strayed!). And it all comes back to me saying a paladin or LG cleric simply would not honor or enforce an evil law. I also think they would be cautious about all secular entanglements (members of the medieval Holy Orders were pointedly not allowed any entanglements outside their order. No knighthoods, no marriages. But fantasy settings have clear precedents for many exceptions), and would not pledge themselves to secular authority without reasonable assurance they could honor their first duty.
@Teleron - while I appreciate your suggested reading material, I would be more interested in your insights into the topic at hand.
With that having been said, I don't think you are quite grabbing the concepts being discussed. While it is fascinating to speculate on if a Paladin could or should be a knight, and under what circumstances, the more relevant topic (based on the thread) is that of the (subjectively) somewhat skewed perception that "Lawful Alignment" (specifically Lawful Good) is in any way associated with the variable and highly subjective judicial system of any given country. Any thoughts on that specifically?
@nano - is that particularly Lawful good of you? Are there any Laws that support that action? Is the legal system Just on that point? Or are you merely Chaotic Evil, throwing the laws to the wind, in making that suggestion? LOL
@the_spyder As a Lawful person I fully expect Mathsorcerer to honor his written agreement and as an Evil Good person I'll take the required steps to use that to my advantage spread the wealth to those who need it most, of course.
Actually there are people here who like to disagree simply because they can, not because they have sources which support their reasoning.
@RazaDelrom, you wore me out, I couldn't get through your posts any longer. I'm glad the_spyder and atcDave had the stamina to keep up the debate. Having said that, I just couldn't let this post of yours go by.
While it is fascinating to speculate on if a Paladin could or should be a knight, and under what circumstances, the more relevant topic (based on the thread) is that of the (subjectively) somewhat skewed perception that "Lawful Alignment" (specifically Lawful Good) is in any way associated with the variable and highly subjective judicial system of any given country. Any thoughts on that specifically?
While I agree that real life examples have caused this thread to derail a bit, unfortunately I think it's easiest for people to think critically about alignment when comparing to real life. Any country with a multi-party government has lawful people who disagree about what the law should be. That alone should tell you that "lawful" as a personality trait and the laws of a particular country have little bearing on one another. If the US goes to war on a country because they disagree with its laws, that doesn't make the US an unlawful country. Imagine if our soldiers were deployed to Afghanistan and immediately the women changed into "appropriate attire" and began serving the men and speaking only when spoken to. Of course not, they are lawful to the laws of the country they serve, not the country they are in.
One other thing I thought was sideline relevant to this conversation - a very fun DnD personality quiz that tells you what alignment you would be (among other things). It's very in-depth and I find a lot of the questions help to clarify the DnD PoV on these alignment questions.
If anyone was wondering, I always come up as Chaotic Good mage, sometimes elven, sometimes human. Highest stats are always Int, Con, and Cha, never, ever, Wis, which is most likely why I get caught up in forum battles.
nsgre pnershyyl ernqvat guebhtu nyy gur svir cntrf V pbzr gb n engure fbore pbapyhfvba. Gurer vf ab zbirzrag, ab nterrzrag, ab abguvat ohg, nf fbzrbar ryfr nyernql nql chg vg: n fubhgvat pbagrfg. Juvyr nebhaq guerr bs gurz chg ng yrnfg fbzr rssbeg vagb vg, nyy gung erznva ner gebyyf. Naq V unir gur unoovg gb abg srrq gurz nalzber. Ybbxf yvxr lbh jvyy fnir gur 10 TC
@the_spyder Too bad. My position totally agrees with the viewpoint of the song of fire and ice. If you have the time, I think you really should read at least the first book.
For my opinion: Since at least one of you is not even able to decide between a yes and a no, we should help him out.
Please point out any mistakes my reasoning made, and show me a reference for it so I can begin to understand where my explanation was inadequate.
Hm.. I got LN elf wizard/sorcerer. My stats are about average going by the graphs except for a terrible dex roll. That's pretty terrible for powergaming, huh?
When I did this a long time ago I think I got the CG good elf mage that you did, @Time4Tiddy. It's funny how I moved almost all the way across the chart.
@Teleron – I’ve read Song of Ice and fire. Which character exactly do you see as Lawful good? And how/why is that relevant to me mentioning Sturm Brightblade?
As for “mistakes in ... reasoning”
Discussions thus far are surrounding Lawful Good characters in general, and to a lesser degree 2E Paladins (specifically because they are required to be Lawful Good), and how they interact with Local laws. Therefore entering in a block of text about 4E Paladins that aren’t required to be lawful good would seem to be less than relevant.
You attempt to discuss ‘The Codex’ several times as if it is a single, finite, unique and well known specific document instead of the more common definition of set of rules that can be as varied as the number of organizations that exist. You further introduce, and then attempt to counter the argument that ‘The Codex’ answers every problem. This hasn’t been posited, it isn’t in contention, nor is it relevant to the discussion. The level of complexity and/or completeness of a codex simply isn’t relevant to if/how a Lawful character is beholden to the government and laws. What is relevant is how that codex reads, how it relates to any potential governmental agency and how the player/character interacts with the codex.
You then give an example of how one lawful institution ‘might’ handle a conflict between their code of conduct and the law, thus proving that they can be different, yet fail to acknowledge that they ARE different, or that different organizations might handle things differently. This alone would counter your entire position.
You indicate that one poster made a paradoxical statement, not understanding that his statement made perfect sense and is not subject to a simple yes or no. Further, your ‘Example’ did not address the issue at all, that of what might happen if a Lawful were to encounter a conflict between ‘The law’ and their own code of conduct.
You have made several comments attempting to direct me to alternate examples when I am fine with the one I use. If you have a counter example, please post it so we can discuss. I am not however, required to get your approval on the examples that I do use.
Finally, your post claims as a point of fact, something that is in contention; that the Paladin works for or has some obligation to the government. You can’t claim as fact something that which is being debated. This is an example of a fallacy called ‘Begging the question’.
Comments
Their Codex of the LG is usually the cause of much strife. Since they literally have to follow the codex, and usually also have other obligations, like being part of the government or even be the government, they are always in for a long walk over a way too short pier.
It's rather naive to just asume that the codex has an answer to every problem. I have to look through some stuff, but the codex I rember where mere guidelines, not more then about ten sentences. And I have to agree with RazaDelrom to some degree. How exactly can for example Piergeiron the Paladinson the Lord of Waterkeep (also Paladin), be in a position to ignore the law? The requirement to join the Order Of Radiant Hearts was also based on a noble sponsor of the kindgom of their homeland or someone in the Order choose to support him. You can't ignore the law that supports the temple, can you?
Which references do you use to support your view of things? I don't have a 2E at hand at the moment, surely you can repeat your source?
And I am impressed to be so in agreement with Spyder's explanation/defense of LG alignment, even though he rarely plays it.
I don't know specifically of Piergeiron the Paladinson of Waterdeep. It is possible, even reasonable, that Paladins orders follow closely with local law. That is not and has never been in question. However, the Paladin is following the edicts of their order, NOT the Law. The fact that those Edicts mirror the law does not mean that they are required to do so. That is the point many have tried to make here. Just because they happen to be parallel, doesn't mean that one CAUSES the other, or that they are required to parallel each other.
I thought this could go here.
A few posts back the same guys told me that we should not include the knights at all, because no paladins are knights or at least they are not a part of an order. I showed them that it was not the case. They still refused to believe any of it.
Now the same people are up for the task, because "they were modelled after their medieval conterparts". So long so good, but the reason why I will not continue this is something else:
That they actually want me to start a discussion here, which is heavily borderlining on racist themes - which would also break the rules of this forum.
I like discussions, I don't like shouting contests and I really don't like people who need to use the suffering of people as means of entertainment "for the sake of a good discussion". I really was looking forward to some people, especially the ones with a lot more insight in the lore then I have, but I can't just ignore some and keep discussing like nothing is amiss.
When I play a lawfull good paladin, I think of him as a knight who took vows to protect the weak and fight against evil & injustice. He is someone who fights against evil without any intrest of personal gain. And he gains his powers from his god/deity and this deity has to reprisent good virtues.
As for lawfull... Think about the classic distinction between natural law and positive law. In the middle ages for example it was belived that natural law was superior than any law set by a man as it had divine orgins, so it had to be superiour and rule over normal earthly laws. imo Paladin follows some sort of divine natural law from his own perspective.
Yet not all lawfull good alligned characters are paladins, so the lawfull good aligment is not solely paladin's domain, but I think the ideals and virtues a paladin follows have to be universal for all lawfull good aligned characters. Paladin just gets his blessing from his god and its the source of his divine might. If he strays from this lawfull good path, he doesn't only face normal punishment (like jail or death), he also loses the favour of his god. this is quite severe punishment compared to normal lawfull good characters.
The basic idea for a paladin is to uphold the justice and protect the weak, thus he could also "break" the law if the law of the land was injust. This distinction is important to me because a paladin is not simply a lawfull character, but also a good aligned character. So every law should serve common good to be valid in the eyes of a paladin.
IRL, I am an air traffic controller. I am also the husband of my wife. Does one prove the other? No. I was a controller first. And yet strangely, I consider the other more important. If being a controller ever interfered with me being a husband, I would quit my job (well actually, retire, the benefits of being old...)
The point being, some paladins might be knights and vice versa. I am certain for EVERY paladin, those oaths come first. Loyalty and priority would go a Holy Order over a secular one.
But are two completely different things. A paladin has absolutely no obligation to an earthly master, unless he chooses to. And that obligation would last only as long as it doesn't contrast with the Holy vows.
I think some of this dispute just comes from how we are parsing our terms. If a paladin arrests someone; it would because they are also a knight, or a watchman, or a sheriff or something. Not because they are a paladin.
As others have observed, what started this dispute was a suggestion that a paladin might enforce an evil or immoral law. I think that is the key issue here. A paladin, like any LG, would oppose an evil law, to the fullest extent of their capabilities.
Other countries might have laws which are not acceptable. They still might send an agent or two to see the actual situation, they might want to try to persuade the government to change some of the most vital parts, but they will not march in without a very good cause and more troops to spare.
The codex is, as I pointed out, nothing but a mere guideline (pretty sure it was about 10 sentences or less). It doesn't have an apendix with "acceptable tax laws" or "allowed skirtsizes". Therefore the Paladin mostly relies on the law of that country, which was already aproved off by the headtemple. To augment my statement: without involving the local law they would not even know how they shouldn't wear their civil clothes.
My personal example when talking about "Lawfully" aligned would be Sturm Brightblade. In the DragonLance volumes, he was a Knight of the order of the Rose (I think. Either that or the crown). In any event, this was (in my view) the perfect example of the pinnacle of a Lawful character. His life was 'The Oath' that he swore when he accepted the armor and blade of his father. He was an EXTREMELY moral soldier and was very often the conscience of the group.
Yet, he was not a police office or other agent of the government. He was not even necessarily a very law abiding being. When the law came after the Barbarians with the Crystal staff, he openly opposed them. He was about what was morally 'Right' according to the edict of his order and did not care what 'The Law' said. He fled with his companions to find the truth about what happened to the Gods, in direct violation of local government. And he was not in the business of busting "Evil" heads merely because they were walking around Evil, or because they broke the law. His companion, Tas, was a Kinder Thief and was always breaking the law. He didn't attack, kill or imprison Tas for his infractions.
To be clear, he wasn't a Paladin. There aren't Paladins in Kyrnn. He was a Lawful (good) knight. I often compare him to a Paladin, but he wasn't what I classically consider a Paladin as he wasn't chosen by his Deity (they were all out to lunch when he got his calling). He didn't study under a church's tutelage. He DID follow a code and was totally devoted to that code. Nor am I saying that Paladins need to be Knights, or the other way around. Simply that he is an example of a Lawful character in literature.
"The point being, some paladins might be knights and vice versa. I am certain for EVERY paladin, those oaths come first."
What is an oath? Is it an absolute statement or not?
If he is a knight then he is a noble with all obligations that come with the title. Breaking the King's oath is as much a death sentence as breaking the oath of the order.
Since the laws are already aproved off by the headtemple, why would a Paladin even complain about a law, lest alone not follow it? He was ordered by the headtemple to follow the contract which is based on the laws.
That's like you refusing to control your airspace, because you suddenly decide that your chair is unacceptable. Even though your government, your employer and even your wife might tell you, that doing your job now is more important then waiting for a comfy chair to suddenly apear out of thin air. Didn't you agree to do your job under said conditions before you accepted?
As a Paladin, they are absolutely a holy soldier of the 'Church' and that is the difference from what you are (I think) thinking. A Knight might serve the King and the royal court above all else. A Paladin serves the Church above all else, including the King and the realm.
I do enjoy a good read, but since it's a fantasy and not a history novel, they can change the setting to everything they want. If you instead prefer to discuss the medivial times, you should include timeline and country.
The example I used of career and marriage really only equates if one set of responsibilities conflicts with another, not if I arbitrarily decide to break one obligation. The only way that might happen IRL would be if my employer was going to force me to relocate where my wife didn't want go. Then I might have to choose; and because I take responsibilities to my wife far more seriously, I would leave my job in that case.
The vows of a paladin vs the vows of a knight are fully as separate as my obligations to my employer vs my wife. In a good state, a paladin might be able to serve both masters. But if the state and laws are corrupt and evil, that would be impossible. The paladin, and his church and order, would not serve the state, and likely be militantly at odds with it. That doesn't mean the two can't ever co-exist; there might be a tradition of the order being present that makes it difficult for the state to outlaw it; the state might be too weak to banish an order or church it is at odds with. The order might be too popular to just be done away with. And likewise, a Holy LG order might be too weak itself to take much more than small local actions against a state it disapproves of.
The point in all of this is just that they remain completely separate entities. Just as the medieval Holy Orders served Pope and Church, NOT King and Country; a LG order of Paladins is not a state entity. They may alternately have good, or very bad relations with the state; just as Templars, Hospitalars, and Teutons all did. And there is no better example than that, its what the AD&D paladin was inspired by.
Many people have died for such oaths, knowingly, and willingly, to their last breath. If that is not an absolute statement, I do not know what is. Both may carry a penalty of death, but they are not as equally deplorable for a Paladin. The oath to their order, or more importantly their deity, is paramount to them. An oath to a King would become obsolete the moment it came into direct conflict with their divine oath. They are a Paladin first, and a Knight second.
A Knight who pledges their allegiance with such whimsy, such falsehood, would never attain divine favor, and thus never become a Paladin.
A Paladin who swears an oath to a King, to become a Knight, limits their ability to carry out their divine pledge should that King pass a contrasting law. The moment those oaths clash the Paladin risks losing their divine favor, at which time they fall, which is absolutely fundamentally their overriding reason for being.
I am unsure as to what there is a debate over at this time. The Paladin and the Knight are independent of one another, yet they can, under certain conditions, co-exist. LG is not restricted to those of a divine calling. LG are not beholden to the intrinsic nature of law. I fail to see where there is roam for discourse, nor why it would be necessary if there were. There is a degree of leeway therein for different approaches.
Are you just telling me that the question "can a paladin be also a knight?" requires anything else then a yes or no? Someone surely can verify why he committed himself to a yes, or a no, but the maybe is nothing more then dodging the question altogether. And for the record, I just pointed out that he should commit himself to the answer.
If you watch my question above closely, is "can a paladin be also a knight" the same as "a paladin is a knight"? In my eyes I already included the maybe, so it might pay off to pay a little attention instead of painting others as pedantic. If I were you, now would be the perfect time to name you something else.
Now for the learning effect: Do you believe a paladin can never be a knight? (hooray, another yes or no question)
And here was the third yes or no question: It an oath an absolute statement, or not? You just told me it is. Did I ask what an oath is?
For the whimsical question of yours: I already pointed out why a paladin can manage to stay in faith and be a knight (or even not be a knight but still honor the laws). Let's translate the positions:
Government in homeland: USA
Government of foreign land: England
Employer: Air Traffic Control Inc. (Headtemple)
Codex: Personified existance called Wife (just for a very placative arguement)
Pretext: The laws in the USA are different then they are in England. Still there is enough common ground that the employer, after reviewing the vital parts of the laws, decided that he can employ a new joint venture. Now he asks the employee "The people in England are in dire need of an ATC, are you willing to take up the job? We already reviewed the contract, it is solid as you can see here"
The employee reviews said contract with his wife and sees: Yes the vital parts are acceptable, the term of the contract are benefitial and the people need the help.
ATC accepts the job and ventures forth to England. The work is well paid and is essential the same as he did in his homeland. Everthing fits but then the conflict arises: The food is not to his liking. That part wasn't in the contract.
Now the big question: Will he then use a chair to beat the prime minister of England to a pulp, just because the food in not what he imagined?
What I want to make clear with this question: The employee knows what he is getting into, and if he accepts the call, he has no reason to suddenly change his mind over trivial things. Once a mayor change does apply, I'm sure that not only he will see it, but also his wife and also his own Employer.
So would you please stop calling fire when there is no fire? Thank you.
Your reasoning closely resembles the reasoning and believes of one character in the Stark family.
What most people don't know is that the theme of the Song of Fire and Ice was losely based on a historical base: The Wars of the Roses between Lancaster and York (1455–85) and a few other great events in history (Hadrians Wall for example)
The problem with your rather colorful scenario of a job transfer to England is of course, that it is not a good example of LG behavior. If an agreement is reached with all interested parties, it would be LG to honor it. If the agreement is later found to be unacceptable for some reason, it should be ended in the most reasonable way possible. Of course another problem with your example is it isn't really about any conflict of interest, simply a dislike of the situation. That's why I suggested an involuntary transfer to a location unacceptable to my wife as an example. It puts the demands of one obligation at odds with the other obligation. In that conflict, I would choose the "higher" obligation (wife) and sever ties with the other (assuming no compromise can be reached).
Which again, goes back to the initial point, for a paladin or LG cleric, obligations/oaths/vows to their church will always be primary over other obligations that may arise.
This started over the question of enforcing an evil law (how far we have strayed!). And it all comes back to me saying a paladin or LG cleric simply would not honor or enforce an evil law. I also think they would be cautious about all secular entanglements (members of the medieval Holy Orders were pointedly not allowed any entanglements outside their order. No knighthoods, no marriages. But fantasy settings have clear precedents for many exceptions), and would not pledge themselves to secular authority without reasonable assurance they could honor their first duty.
With that having been said, I don't think you are quite grabbing the concepts being discussed. While it is fascinating to speculate on if a Paladin could or should be a knight, and under what circumstances, the more relevant topic (based on the thread) is that of the (subjectively) somewhat skewed perception that "Lawful Alignment" (specifically Lawful Good) is in any way associated with the variable and highly subjective judicial system of any given country. Any thoughts on that specifically?
http://www.easydamus.com/character.html
If anyone was wondering, I always come up as Chaotic Good mage, sometimes elven, sometimes human. Highest stats are always Int, Con, and Cha, never, ever, Wis, which is most likely why I get caught up in forum battles.
nsgre pnershyyl ernqvat guebhtu nyy gur svir cntrf V pbzr gb n engure fbore pbapyhfvba. Gurer vf ab zbirzrag, ab nterrzrag, ab abguvat ohg, nf fbzrbar ryfr nyernql nql chg vg: n fubhgvat pbagrfg. Juvyr nebhaq guerr bs gurz chg ng yrnfg fbzr rssbeg vagb vg, nyy gung erznva ner gebyyf. Naq V unir gur unoovg gb abg srrq gurz nalzber. Ybbxf yvxr lbh jvyy fnir gur 10 TC
@the_spyder
Too bad. My position totally agrees with the viewpoint of the song of fire and ice. If you have the time, I think you really should read at least the first book.
For my opinion:
Since at least one of you is not even able to decide between a yes and a no, we should help him out.
Please point out any mistakes my reasoning made, and show me a reference for it so I can begin to understand where my explanation was inadequate.
When I did this a long time ago I think I got the CG good elf mage that you did, @Time4Tiddy. It's funny how I moved almost all the way across the chart.
As for “mistakes in ... reasoning”
Discussions thus far are surrounding Lawful Good characters in general, and to a lesser degree 2E Paladins (specifically because they are required to be Lawful Good), and how they interact with Local laws. Therefore entering in a block of text about 4E Paladins that aren’t required to be lawful good would seem to be less than relevant.
You attempt to discuss ‘The Codex’ several times as if it is a single, finite, unique and well known specific document instead of the more common definition of set of rules that can be as varied as the number of organizations that exist. You further introduce, and then attempt to counter the argument that ‘The Codex’ answers every problem. This hasn’t been posited, it isn’t in contention, nor is it relevant to the discussion. The level of complexity and/or completeness of a codex simply isn’t relevant to if/how a Lawful character is beholden to the government and laws. What is relevant is how that codex reads, how it relates to any potential governmental agency and how the player/character interacts with the codex.
You then give an example of how one lawful institution ‘might’ handle a conflict between their code of conduct and the law, thus proving that they can be different, yet fail to acknowledge that they ARE different, or that different organizations might handle things differently. This alone would counter your entire position.
You indicate that one poster made a paradoxical statement, not understanding that his statement made perfect sense and is not subject to a simple yes or no. Further, your ‘Example’ did not address the issue at all, that of what might happen if a Lawful were to encounter a conflict between ‘The law’ and their own code of conduct.
You have made several comments attempting to direct me to alternate examples when I am fine with the one I use. If you have a counter example, please post it so we can discuss. I am not however, required to get your approval on the examples that I do use.
Finally, your post claims as a point of fact, something that is in contention; that the Paladin works for or has some obligation to the government. You can’t claim as fact something that which is being debated. This is an example of a fallacy called ‘Begging the question’.