Paladins

Damn! Where's Bertram when you need him? MG - do YOU have anything to do with this?

Giddy-up!

 

:sweatdrop

 

Hello,

People seem to bring a lot of baggage to considering the Paladin, whether from other RPG sources or fictional ones. But addressing this question looking strictly at the Paladin as provided in the PHB yields, I think, the opposite answer from the consensus here, and yields it with little ambiguity.

The Paladin is described as intolerant of evil acts by their companions, and in general as well. But they are also explicitly described as “willing to work with a variety of people quite different from themselves.â€

The things that may render a Paladin an “ex-Paladin†are clearly intended to be very extreme. There are three: change of alignment (a huge occurrence), willful commission of an evil act (again, a very extreme scenario), and gross violation of the code of conduct. NOT every minor infraction of the code.

The example given is exceedingly trivial by these standards; if some groups apply harsher standards as house rules, that is fine. But being the target of any spell resulting in the loss of Paladin status by the core rules? Absolutely not. That has no affect on alignment, is not an evil act, and is likely not even forbidden by the code. It is certainly not a sufficient level of infraction to risk the status of a Paladin.

Part of the role of a Paladin is actually fairly frequent negotiations with evil forces for a variety of reasons. They oppose evil; they don’t commit to slaughtering every evil being. If someone, including an evil priest, is minding their own business, there may not be a pressing problem. Evil is not permitted to flourish, but eliminating it outright is hardly the goal.

Why would a Paladin receive a beneficial spell from an evil source? Why not? It is the evil caster’s mistake to help a Paladin, not an achievement in soiling the Paladin.

Cheers

 

Agreed.

And as for code violations: a seemingly small violation committed wilfully and/or arbitrarily is far more troubling than say, having to bend a rule out of the necessity of circumstances to achieve some greater good.

Not adhereing to one's code causes a loss of personal identity, and is a sure path to desruction. Such persons eventually find they have no code except to themselves; the very definition of chaotic evil. They do whatever they like and can get away with until dealt with by a stronger force, be it good or evil of any ethos.

For the paladin, it's all about priorities. Which evil folks are the most threatening to the Paladin's protectorate? Eventually...inevitably...there will be conflict with every evil being as the more threatening (problem) ones are dealt with. Some negotiations end peacefully enough, with the evil ones ceasing their evil deeds. But how often does this happen? When it does not, the sword must be employed.

 

Straight from the 3.5 SRD:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Having read that, it seems to me that an upstanding righteous lawful person as a Paladin is not any kind of common politician and, likewise, as a negotiator would frequently tend to come across as self-righteous, very closed minded and unwilling to participate in group ideas and actions of diversity [too much chaos for a paladin]. A paladin would seem to always be the one who would decline and say no to those who are not like himself or herself in discipline of thought and deed. Finally, actions committed by a paladin would not involve chaotic or less than good actions.

 

This is the entire book on Paladin negotiations...

"Convert, or die!"

 

Paladins should be crucified immediately.

 

Sorry, did not mean to revive an old thread! As sometimes happens, it came up while I was searching, and I forgot that, so happily replied to a long dead question. But as long as I have…

I stand by what I think is a pretty clear position based appropriately on the core rules. The new comments are, to me, perfectly valid ideas for campaigns, but very definitely not representative of the core rules. The notion of conversion, for example, is very clearly stated as being outside of the Paladin’s requirements. They are free to be religiously tolerant (or not- that is a matter for the player to decide). They are not religious zealots. Likewise, the notion of Paladins as unwillingly to work with those different from themselves is a popular notion, but is specifically contradicted in the rules.
Finally, benefiting from a spell (whether in the form of a blessing, or any other divine or arcane magic) is not only not a non-good act, it is barely an act at all on the part of the Paladin. It certainly does not imply taking the part of any deity, any more than it would if a party Cleric of another god healed a Paladin. There is not good and evil divine energy, in this sense, there is just divine energy. Receiving magical benefits that help a cause are the same benefits regardless of the source.
If an evil priest foolishly gives a Paladin a +3 sword, should they turn it down because of the source? Of course not. Nothing in the Paladin rules suggest that a spell is any different. The evil priest is not advancing their cause, so the question is why are they doing it, not the Paladin.

I’m just saying that a lot of the ideas brought up here are common campaign flavor applied to Paladins, but are not part of the core rules governing them. I think the idea of a Paladin losing their status as a result of someone casting Bless is much stricter than the rules require. At any rate, since the Paladin can not be an ally of the evil priest, it is not possible for them to benefit from a Bless spell or like magic. Their status is not so fragile that they need to worry about it one way or the other, though.

Cheers

 

Thats a good point, in the dnd multiverse there are absolutes in good and evil, law and chaos. If an evil person made a +3 sword thats all it would be - it doesn't pick up a taint of evil otherwise it would a +3 unholy sword. Altho on the other side of that if a paladin or anyone he associates with drinks large amouts of beer brewed by a chaotic evil person then he will fall :biggergri

thinking about it I think hextor would be pissed off at the cleric that tryed to cast the spell and would probabley make the cleric fall or not grant him the power to cast it, as acts of kindness to an enemy (and from hextors POV thats almost every one) aren't really the evil thing to do - unless you're going by the good ol' saying "keep you enemies closer" and the cleric casting bless is a deliberate act of sabotage.

 

(1) I can, at least, semi-agree with this. Paladins requiring conversion would apply to paladins of some beliefs or some mythoi, but not paladins of all beliefs and all mythoi. The number of or the percentage of paladins in the total D&D universe, by belief system or by mythoi, that require paladins perform mandatory conversions is unknown. (We agree on conversions.)
(2) Are paladins religious zealots? Paladins are lawful characters and are never even partially nor sometimes chaotic. For example, a paladin would never apologize for any part of anything they believe, do or perform concerning their beliefs or mythoi to any person or any group under any circumstances. A paladin would never tell someone or some group they are sorry if they offended people by their beliefs. Now, if you said you made a new class of paladin that is a Chaotic Good Paladin character class, I could accept paladins of that character class being "religious-tolerant" and living a life of and promoting religious tolerance. (We disagree on religious tolerance.)

According to the rules, "a paladin will never knowingly associate [theirself] with evil characters". This is all inclusive, with no exceptions, and even the idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend does not apply when it comes to LG Paladins and evil characters.
associate means "to agree and enter into union or to unite; to keep company - a friend, companion, or ally; a companion, comrade, confederate, accomplice, compatriot, or ally"
(3) If any evil character were to offer a LG Paladin a +3 sword, is it a bribe or is it an offer of camaraderie? What is the intention, the purpose or reason? I am not aware of any good reason a LG Paladin would accept a gift, even in the form of a spell or a weapon from an evil character. That is, unless you said it was a paladin who is a Chaotic Good Paladin. Specifically, it is not the gift or the offer of a gift and what the gift allows or brings, it is the evil character being evil that makes the offer an offense. A LG Paladin should decline and refuse all offers of any form of help from evil characters.
(4) Here are two situations.
(4a) A neutral or a good character wants a particular evil character eliminated and offers a +3 sword to a LG Paladin knowing the paladin disdains the same evil character. The paladin would accept the gift of the magic sword.
(4b) An evil character wants a particular other evil character eliminated and offers a +3 sword to a LG Paladin knowing the paladin disdains the same other evil character. The paladin should not accept the gift of the magic sword. This is entirely because the character making the offer is evil. A LG Paladin should never want, not seek nor ask for any help or assistance from any evil characters.
(5) To a Lawful character, the means as a path to arrive or achieve is just as important as obtaining the end result - every step and process enroute, as well as the end result, is equally important. To a Chaotic character, obtaining the end result is ultimately important and taking an atypical path or an out-of-bounds path can be acceptable and justified if the end result is great enough. (We disagree on "help".)

 

This thread reminds me of something from Stephen King:
"Sometimes, dead is better..."

:xeyes:

Nevertheless-

All the sanctimonious moaning about tolerance is for those who have bought into the idea that new is better. Play it that way if you like, and have fun. Paladins defend the good against the evil of the multi-verse, and that's it; regardless of what the newest drivel published to swindel you out of your cash says. Paladins must confront evil, or they have no use for the powers bestowed upon them; and their is no purpose in their existence in the first place. They confront it, not bargain, or tolerate, or co-exist, or avoid, or make peace with, or anything else.

And then they destroy it.
:dead:

 

I can't fully agree with you on the religious tolerance, but I do respect that you have your opinion. One question, does your paladin's religious intolerance also apply to other LG gods? In a world with a large pantheon of gods, with one LG god in at least every good race's pantheon, as well as many good gods in each of those pantheons, I can't believe that anyone would be intolerant of all other followers and their gods unless that person were evil. In which case they look for the detruction of the other gods usually. Take my paladin's campaign in the Forgotten Realms. His god Tyr is allied with Torm and Ilmater. If I were intolerant of other gods how would that work when my god works closely as a triumverate with these other gods, one of whom iirc is not LG? And he also fights alongside other good gods against the evil gods. Tolerance does not mean you have to believe exactly what they do, just that you respect that they believe what they do and hopefully they respect that you believe wholly in your god.

4b. No way! My paladin ould never even knowingly consider it or talk with an evil NPC.
4a. I think I would say I agree and my paladin would be ok to accept the gift in this example and it would not hurt his standing. I think my particular Paladin would have to have more info or cause first. Since I would not know the gifter is NG unless through reputation or actions, I would have to know that this mission is not just a simple assasination to eliminate a rival of his or something similar. Since my Paladin's god is the god of justice, he would want to have some manner of proof or reason to go after this man. Basically I would need just cause. Also I would try and capture and bring this person to justice first through the proper authorities and legal system and not just kill him without a trial. If he fights against apprehension and dies then so be it, and my god must have judged him as guilty. But in the end if my paladin accepted the gift he would not bcome fallen, as long as he followed his god's code all the way to the end and of course didn't knowingly associate with or aid evil.

Sorry to keep this thread alive but thought it was a very good read and I had to just add in another 2cp.

-R

 

IMO - By my example of 4b, I never gave an example of what the circumstances would or could be for the conversation to take place. I never said the paladin would know the character is evil before the conversation started. I was making just one point and only one point. He would say no. The evil character may be disguised and may be attempting to trick the paladin. Before the paladin would accept a gift at the end of a conversation with someone who he does not know, I would expect the paladin would detect evil on the character making the offer if the paladin did not know character. Sure, if a paladin knew the guy was evil from the start, he would dismiss even talking with the evil character. Again, my single point was a paladin would say no and decline the offer. Plus, I did not mention the paladin would want to bring the evil character who made the offer to justice and that could mean killing the evil character on the spot. While the paladin class is not about being a sheriff or marshall, a paladin would make a good aligned sheriff or marshall.

IMO - As far as religious tolerance is concerned, paladins are not politically correct, do not mence words - does not hide the meaning of spoken words. A lot of people in a good society, generally, would tend to take paladins the wrong way, unless the majority of people in a society were lawful good.

I have made my points and am done with discussing this further, here, in this thread.

 

:no: :no: :no: