Dwarf Paladins and drinking habits

Very nice questions!
Bit of clarification tho, when you judge a character in Dungeons and Dragons as Lawful or Chaotic, there is some debate, but as a GM I believe it's much simplier when classifying a character as one or the other as whether they follow a strict code of ethics (Lawful) or are more implusive and aren't restrained by any code of behavior but by their emotions. Now both the code of ethics or emotions/impluses can be compassionate and beneficial (good) or indifferent/selfish (neutral) or destructive/malicious (evil). That's easier because Lawful Good/Neutral/Evil characters will not necessarily follow all laws of all lands (they contradict!) or "gods". But certainly you would expect the "god" a character follows would have the same or similar alignment and thus their personal laws would coincide with their entity's.

And this is why Paladins don't tend to make very good politicians. No matter what culture or land he goes into or deals with, he might be obliged to respect others but he cannot compromise his code of ethics and what compassion would have him do without falling. And that makes for very difficult situations where to keep true to his heart/god he has to stand firm and go against even societial laws/customs where they differ with his own personal and divine laws. Politicians tend to have to compromise with their own people, other countries and their laws and customs to some degree. Paladins usually fall when some strict and blind adherence to law overrides compassion. The rule of thumb for Paladins is that it has to obey compassion first, law second. Dark knights, hate first, chaos/impluse 2nd. More difficult that one might believe to always be hateful and not let a single opportunity for evil/harm willingly slip by and vice versa.

 

It's the chaotic conduct that would be disapproved of. He might not leave immediately, but if the conduct continued, his reputation would suffer from their bad behavior. He would not baby sit them, but after enough preaching, would be compelled to show his disapproval more openly...by leaving the group.

 

Which means his group entering into a single drinking contest would not make him fall.

 

"Lawful" in D&D does not mean, and never has meant, "obeys laws".

 

IMO - Here is what I have always understood about alignment in D&D.

Lawful means a character upholds and keeps their word to the exact letter of every word concerning what they say or write and they will do in their actions; they follow laws to every letter of the law, as in the exact detail of what the law defines and allows. Being lawful is adhering to and keeping every detail in what was spoken or written or agreed in ones actions and deeds. The path one takes to arrive at the end result is equally as important as the end result. Being lawful does not tolerate loose observation of laws.

Chaotic means a character upholds and keeps their word to what was specifically intended in what they say or write and they will do in their actions; they follow laws to the spirit of what was intended in every law. Being chaotic is adhering to and keeping intent toward a particular final outcome of what was spoken or written or agreed in ones actions and deeds. Achieving the specific intended end result has ultimate importance; the path to obtaining the end result could be unimportant when compared to obtaining the intended end result. Being chaotic does tolerate loose observation of laws.

****************************************

[EDIT] A good example would be driving or exceeding a posted speed limit. Say for example, the police who enforce the speed limit normally allow traffic to drive 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. I don't think you can assign good or evil to observing and driving the speed limit, except in the case of road rage.

Lawful: Someone who is lawful will exceed the posted speed limit when the flow of traffic dictates it is needed and it is the only way to drive safely. Exceeding the speed limit is how fast everyone else is driving, the police allow it and driving slower than everyone else will cause a car wreck.

Chaotic: Someone who is chaotic will be one of the drivers who cause the flow of traffic to be whatever limit the police will allow beyond the speed limit.

 

That's not what I said. It is all dependant on just how bad the participants acted as a result of their intoxication. He'd either leave or fall if their conduct warranted his disapproval. He associates himself with bad behavior by hanging out with them; and he'll suffer from his associations. This game has no real choice but to make it happen the way it does. And we all know the shortcomings of this game. A real DM would let the paladin hang himself & then require atomement. This game has no real DM, and has pre-set events (programming) which is a poor substitute.

 

I always know exactly what I am doing when drunk...like friday when I went to denny's at 4am after about 15-16 beers. I swear that was planned out.

 

A Paladin does not have to atone for the actions of people he cannot control. Unless his allies went and did something illegal or evil after their drinking contest, the Paladin would have no reason to leave them, although he may express his disaproval. If entering the occasional (legal)drinking contest (without breaking any other laws) is the only "bad" thing his allies are doing, the Paladin, while he may be a little annoyed, wouldn't really have any reason to leave the group over it.

 

Indeed. Turn the question on its head. Similarly a Blackguard would not fall (out of favor) by one of his party members deciding NOT to join in his chaotic drinking spree and orgy... their decision would not make him fall but it would affect his next actions by raising a chance to be just as evil to them, such as forcing them against their will or letting them go temporarily for purpose of greater sadism by lulling them into false sense of security to heighen the horror and shock of suddenly raping them in the night, lest he fall for being too merciful.

 

I don't believe anyone is saying that all Paladins must leave an adventuring party over that kind of event happening one time. Although, one could depending on the deity, maybe St. Cuthbert. I believe what is generally being stated is most Paladins in D&D would prefer not to be in the same room when the event is taking place because they find it very distasteful and discomforting. And, if that kind of behavior is continued on a regular basis by one or more characters in their party, a Paladin would definitely at some interval leave an adverturing party to find some other adventuring party more suitable for him or her to pursue their goals. A Paladin would not want to associate himself or herself for any length of time with one or more drunkards.

 

Well this whole debate started because some (myself included) find it unfair for a paladin to fall because someone other than the paladin engaged in a drinking constest.

 

The game designers have the Paladin class fall for a reason. I believe you, allyx, and rufnredde are both correct concerning the falling of a Paladin in the computer game. I said my final thoughts on the subject of the lawful goodness of Paladins with respect to drunkeness in my previous post.

[EDIT] And, I did not get a reply to the original question in the thread. It's probably not written in black & white on paper anywhere in an official book.

 

Again, your words are not the same as mine. The paladin would be atoning for his failure to dis-associate himself with behavior that brought discredit upon himself and/or the deity he serves. His actions (or more precisely, failure to act), not the actions of his companions.

This is why these things drag on ad infinitum; no one is ever going to convince anyone else that their point of view isn't correct. It's plain that Troika thought this was a correct course of action; but we certainly don't all agree with all the things they've done. But guilt by association is accepted as a means of judgement in society and under the law...the axiom "the hand of one is the hand of all" still applies. I agree the implementation could have been better; but it's what we have.

 

I don't think the Paladin would have to disassociate himself from them at all. (On the other hand, I also don't think a Paladin would fall if he entered the contest, himself) And you're right.....we'll have to agree to disagree.