What IS Lawful Good?

[two]

Are the following valid interpretations of LG?

My initial impression of Paladin NPCs and also how people roleplay Paladins is that they insist on being goody-goody, i.e. only short term "Must only do GOOD action, must only do LAWFUL actions." This seems much too narrow and highly constrained by genre-demands.

For example, could a Paladin kill another Paladin with a clear conscience? I think so. An extreme example:

1) A NPC paladin 100 miles away is about to do something that, unbenownst to him, will result in the deaths of thousands and be a great set-back to the way of LG. My paladin is sitting in front of two buttons and has five seconds to act. Button 1 kills the NPC paladin, button 2 does nothing. What does my Paladin do? Presses #1, whacks the innocent NPC paladin, and saves the day. Extreme, yes, but both LG and required by circumstance. The DM should NOT pelanize my Paladin, right?

2) Less extreme example: My paladin joins forces with a group of trolls to attack a much more powerful group of Vampires, or some other such uber-evil baddie. After the vampires are quashed and the trolls take a hit, the Paladin is left with: both "evil" threats much reduced in power, and the forces of LG ready to whack them. Which was impossible before the alliance. No penalty for LG behavior?

3) A thieves's guild rules a small city. A LG paladin temple in the city is overwhelmed. My paladin joins a group of rogues, sneaks into he thieves's guild, steals/attacks/does whatever they can before fleeing. Weakened, the theives are attacked later by the Paladin Temple and whipped. Penalty for my paladins' behavior? (sneaking, stealing, killing sleeping opponents, etc.)

The point is, don't long-term LG demands overwhelm short-term LG demands? Meaning, I can kill/steal/cheat/lie/etc. if it's for a CLEAR long-term LG reason?

It seems that the D&D genre is focussed only on narrow-minded, short-term LG behavior. But can't anything, even genocide, be justified under extreme circumstances?

Am I just flat out wrong? Or could you legally, and happily, run a sneaky, stealing, lying, murdering, but clear-minded Paladin that wants LG done in the LONG term, not just SHORT term?

It's equally easy to construct common scenarios whereby a Paladin does the LG thing in the short-term which has terrible long-term LG effects (fails to slaughter an infant that is fated to grow up and kill thousands of innocents, etc.). A DM could rule the Paladin broke his LG code by failing to kill the kid given his knowledge of the future.

Any thoughts?

[Bloodstalker]

Yeah, Paladins are to stuffy to associate with any of the people you just mentioned.

although #2 is interesting....after the vamps are gone, would it be considered a betrayal to whack the trolls?

[THE JAKER]

I think it might depend on the Intelligence and Wisdom scores of the Paladin - If someone was both very intelligent and wise they might be able to do some very devious and sneaky things that would result in the law and the good being upheld - you can imagine a character like some monk who goes undercover in the thieves guild and brings it down. However, there is always the danger of slipping over to the dark side, and also of ego getting in the way of clear decision making, so I would say that a paladin acting on their own without guidance from a spiritual advisor/leader would be in danger of making errors of judgment or would at the very least be looked on with suspicion by the lawful good community.

Note: the actions that you mention sort of sound like stuff the harpers would do, yet they are supposed to be neutral - how would you explain their motivations?

[DraySkullan]

A paladin must work within the laws of society whenever possible. If a paladin must do an unlawful act, even for good reasons, he must make some act of atonement (ususally defined by the DM). Excessive or constant unlawful activity can result in loss of paladin status, sometimes permanently (DM choice). Knowingly committing and evil act for any reason results in loss of paladinhood permanently (usually).

Any other LG character who commits unlawful acts simply runs the risk of an involutary alignment change, at the DM's discretion. A good DM will take into account the circumstances, of course. A paladin of course has to be more strict, that's why they good the good bonuses and abilities.

[two]

Originally posted by DraySkullan:
<STRONG>A paladin must work within the laws of society whenever possible. If a paladin must do an unlawful act, even for good reasons, he must make some act of atonement (ususally defined by the DM). Excessive or constant unlawful activity can result in loss of paladin status, sometimes permanently (DM choice). Knowingly committing and evil act for any reason results in loss of paladinhood permanently (usually).

Any other LG character who commits unlawful acts simply runs the risk of an involutary alignment change, at the DM's discretion. A good DM will take into account the circumstances, of course. A paladin of course has to be more strict, that's why they good the good bonuses and abilities.</STRONG>

This is what I think of as the standard rule; strict LG interpretation. How would you rule, as a DM, on the scenarios I outlined above? Obviously #1 (push button kill paladin) HAS to be legal; one life is worth less than thousands. Right? Even though it's unlawful/ungood to do so... right? Or would you rule the Paladin is simply screwed, he has to push he button for moral reasons, but instantly looses paladin-hood after?

When you say if a Paladin does an unlawful act, he must atone for it... what makes an act unlawful? If your modus operandi is "spread lawfulness across the world" and this can only be achieved through occasional unlawful acts, then aren't occasional unlawful acts "lawful" according to the padadin's code (the long-term principle)?

After all if you are strictly LG, you can't really wade into battle vs. a horde of orcs. What if one of the orcs is a polymorphed human? What if the orcs are charmed, they are not actually evil just under mind control? What if, during your daylight raid on a bandit camp, innocent hostages are killed (that you didn't even know about)? etc. Acting according to super-strict LG is impossible; it requires too much knowledge, I think. There just aren't that many purely evil/chaotic things out there; 99.9% of other situations are a mixed bag.

What about the other scenarios? Is it LG to further LG causes through sneakery, trickery, stealing? If you say no, would you penalize a Paladin that did something sneaky and non-LG and wiped out a Chaotic Evil thieve's guild that could not be attacked in any other way? Meaning, you could further the LG cause hugely, yet be immediately cast out and lose Paladin powers?

[smaug chow]

As a long time DM and fan of the Paladin class, I think I can add a little to the conversation.

Two, the way I always ran my campaign in terms of paladins was to require them to find another solution to the "lesser of two evils" problem. I tried to never put them in "either/or" situations like the kind you mention, but sometimes it does happen. For some of your situations....

Situation number 2 should never happen. Even given the facts, a paladin should never side with evil trolls. He might be a missionary type of paladin and try to convert them instead of killing them, and towards this end he might counsel them to do good deeds like fighting the vampires, but without a true change of alignment on the part of the trolls (which the paladin could detect) he should not directly side with them.

Sutuation numner 3: The paladin again should not ally himself with thieves. He might be able to acquire the services of a mercenary group and give vauge instructions that might be taken "the wrong way" as a way to bend his rules. Now, stealth as a military tactic is fine - the Paladin could work with someone who could deliver him to the sensitive areas within the guild so he can go all choppy-choppy on them, but he would never represent himself as a rogue or lie, cheat or steal to gain entrance.

Your argument is similar to the "ends justifying the means" argument, and that is an argument that paladins don't do. The means matter as much or more than the ends. Otherwise, a paladin of a poor and failing church could be said to be doing the right thing to steal gold. No way.

Now, sometimes a paladin may have to choose a leser of two evils. This should be accompanied by a punishment from his deity (DM) and a quest to make right the wrong just committed.

A paladin considers law and good to be both the ends and the means. Someone willing to commit crimes in order to bring about his version of what is right is not lawful good, but more likely lawful evil. So, to answer your question: No, a player may not legally and happily run a murdering, cheating, stealing paladin.

One of the cool things about not only paladins but other players with very strong convictions is to watch them navigate a grey world while trying to only see black and white. I find it more interesting to contrast Law against Good in a paladin's life. One of my favorite examples follows...

Peter Pureheart the Pungent Paladin is lazing around the church rec room playing Nintendo when the grand poo-bah pops his head in and says "Pete! Snap to, boy! I have a job for you!" Pete suits up and grabs his +9 Pigsticker of Whoop-ass and goes in for his assignment. Turns out a prisoner has escaped, and it's Pete's job to go get him. The man was convicted of murder by this very assembly, the Holy Order of The Knights of the Round Wheel of Swiss Cheese, in accordance with all temple laws and in every way the man received a full and impartial trial. He was sentenced to death and managed to escape the gallows. Peter is charged with finding him and, as a lawful member of the court which tried him, administer his sentence. So, Pete goes out to find the bum. He does, but they guy says "wait! I have proof right here that I didn't do it!" Pete looks at the evidence and sure enough, it is very compelling. What does Pete do?

His order - kill the criminal. Well, that fits - thats what paladin's do. Does Pete say "Wow, sorry dude, but this really should have been shown at your trial and POW! hey, isn't that my +9 pigsticker poking out your back?" Thats the lawful thing to do - no doubt. Is it the good thing to do? If Pete believes the man to be innocent, he should disobey his order and either let the man go or attempt to get him a new trial. This is the Good thing to do, but it violates his orders and thus the law.

Paladins have it tough. The thing is, they don't have to be the same, and they can easily have differing goals that may even come into conflict. I had a players paladin dueling another paladin in one campaign - they had differing goals that conflicted. Both were fighting for good and right, but from different viewpoints and for differnet goals. It was a very civilized fight, and when a looser was evident he asked for and received mercy. Things like that can happen.

I've always wanted to run a new age, pacifist, "good buddy" kind of paladin. He would come across almost as a bard because he carries a lute and tries to sing songs with moral tales promoting law and virtue. Upon finding a band of brigands, he would admonish them about their evil deeds and encourage them to repent, and suggest that maybe we can all learn to be good to each other if we play by the rules - the whole Kaptain Kangaroo/Mister Rodgers crap. Of course, nobody would take him seriously so he would wind up having to use the steel reinforcing on that lute to crack some skulls (regretfully, of course.)

There is a very long list of paladin types, especially when you consider the scope of the word "Law." Whose law? Religious law, or secular law? Criminal law or civil law. Does a paladin endanger his holy status by jaywalking? Or exceeding the noise limit? Or by breaking a curfew? Some paladins could be law fanatics and try to follow every litle scrap of law which is valid in any given area he inhabits. Others may act only on their internal laws - the laws of their church or deity. In such a case, adherence to earthly laws is not an issue, so if the paladin feels that a person is evil and needs killing for the good of mankind, he can go ahead with a clear conscience even though that might be murder in the local law system. The ones who carry their internal laws are the dangerous ones - the ones who see certain things as very black and white.

Well, if that wasn't a big ol' book I dunno what is.....

[DraySkullan]

Yep, that was huge, but very accurate. I like to think of paladin's and Jedi being the same. They are powerful, but must walk a very narrow line. Here's what I would do as a DM with your scenarios:
1. Yes, he should choose to kill the other paladin, and no, he shouldnt be penalized. Thousands of innocent lives always outweight 1 life, and the other paladin would agree and volunteer his life if he could.
2. The paladin should never side with any evil creature.I don't think I would immediately strip him, but atonement would definitely be in order. On the other hand, I would have no problem with him letting the vamps and trolls battle it out, then cleaning up the mess. I plays paladins alot, and that would probably be what I would do. The other option, simply wading into the battle and whacking anything evil, while stupid, would be very noble, brave, and LG as well.
3. Sneaking is fine. Attacking evil foes is fine, as long as it's not slitting throats and backstabbing anyway. Stealing is not fine. Once again, atonement would be required in the very least. A paladin would see it as stooping to the level of evil. Or, to use the Jedi analogy, the quick and easy path.

[Yuusuke]

Lawful Good is probably the toughest alignment to play imo. It simply means you do everything by the book, EVERYTHING. Ever heard of the phrase, "The end justifies the means."? Well lawful good people haven't. For them the means justify the means.

Someone who would turn in their own grandmother if she was a criminal. The true embodiment of the motto, "To Protect and Serve." Remember that movie Robocop? At the end when he had to kill one of the CEO's at OCP but he couldn't because it violated one of his directives? Well that's kind of what it's like for a Lawful Good.

Keldorn isn't really a true lawful good imo. They would never steal or kill for the shadow thieves even if it meant it would accomplish a greater good. They would rather bypass all that nonsense and just go after the greater good in their own way.

Spoiler

Take the situation in Watcher's Keep for example. Here's what a Lawful Good person would have done.

Refuse to kill The Imprisoned One, because he promised he wouldn't.

Refused to make a deal with it and trick the Knights of Vigil into their deaths, because that would be wrong.

Refused to even make a deal with the Imprisoned One and then go back on his word and tell the Knights of Vigil the truth about how he got out, because even if you're lying to the greatest evil known to man, it's still lying.

Performed the ritual to reseal The Imprisoned One and just sit there and accept the hand that his god dealt him as fate, and die within the seal.

Now, how many people are actually willing to do that?

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Yuusuke ]

[reedimus]

Lawful good. he has to be lawful and good. if he is willing to compromise either then he is neither. that means not pressing the button to kill the other paladin, because that would be unlawful, though arguably good. if he presses the button he reveals himself as NG or CG.

[fable]

I've never liked Gygax's opaque and ridiculous alignments, and I said so twenty years ago. Some alignments are too close to one another. More to the point, nobody in reality (and we're trying to create realities in the fantasy worlds we play) acts completely within a given alignment. I'd suggest that most of us cross Gygax's alignments on a regular basis in reallife and while RPGing, depending upon mood, subject, etc.

Does a cop who takes a bribe once in his life automatically lose his "lawful good" alignment? What about a cop who's on the take regularly, paid to ignore a certain particular gang, but still performs to the best of their ability in all other respects? Is a character lawful good who administers the law, and incites a mass riot against a small group of weak immigrants he genuinely believes to be evil? If the law is bad and the enforcer tries to enforce them with restraint and compassion, but does what he has to do, does that make him or her lawful good, or something else?

Bottom line, for me, is that there's no one solution for everybody to agree upon for any alignment, including lawful good. Each DM has to set parameters that the players will agree to.

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[Curdis]

We've been here before.

The Paladin is granted some pretty extensive and heavy duty powers and is asked to maintain a strict observance (to a god I might add) of a code of conduct and ethics to keep using them.

In BG2 The NPC Paladin is far too easy going. For instance Keladorn actually says that it was O.K. to whack the Cowled Wizard which Edwin demanded slain. It so wasn't, and not only that the quest is achievable without doing so.

My Paladin reasoned thusly :- Been asked to infiltrate an evil theives guild by a notional and questionable (thief) ally. No terminal problem stealing a necklace from an evil temple (although it was definately pushing the envelope). When asked by an evil wizard working for an evil theives guild to kill someone for no sound/firm reason you just say NO!

Edwin got mad - I killed him in self defence.

Finished quest another way.

Tough career as a Paladin, but if you talk the talk you MUST walk the walk. Lapses ARE NOT exceptable. You are granted your powers by a deity. A marginal offence (Stealing a necklace from an evil church) would probably result in a serious rebuke from YOUR GOD and a temporary loss of powers. Killing for Edwin would be the end of you as a Paladin it is an unlawful EVIL act. - Curdis

[two]

If LG characters, particularly Paladins, are so strict as people are indicating, how can they justify actually KILLING something? At least something sentient?

I mean -- if I was a Paladin with a super-strict LG code, before I would allow myself to kill ANYTHING at all I would have be sure:

1) It truly deserved to die. What evidence do I have that bandit#2 actually committed a murder? Maybe it was bandit#1 that killed the peasant and bandit#2 was sick that day. Maybe bandit#2 actually wants out of the bandit group. Maybe bandit#2 is charmed/mind controlled. How can I justify killing ANY bandit until I find these things out? Otherwise, a) my killing might not be lawful, 2) my killing might not be good, 3) I will soon be an ex-paladin.

Etc. How do I know that Gelatinous Cube is not really a polymorphed nymph? Don't I have a moral/ethical/legal obligation to attempt to convert apparant "bad people" (thieves and such) to the LG cause before breaking their heads? AT the very least I better know a LOT about my intended victem, and be nearly 100% certain about their guilt.

After all, death is a pretty severe penalty. If I'm LG I better be absolutely sure about the guilt of the soon-to-be-dead subject. If the "evil" sorcerer has even a 5% chance of listening to reason (or some other avenue, like capturing him alive and imprisoning him, or other less-severe penalities than death) doesn't a Paladin have a DUTY to attempt to convert/talk/learn about people/creatures before they die?

I just can't see it. If you honestly play a Paladin LG they way y'all are indicating (extremely strict, cannot do anything non-lawful at all, or non-good), about the most exciting thing your day would consist of is mediation sessions between warring guild factions, and early-age intervention programs for beggers, would-be-catpurses and the like...

I mean a Paladin shouldn't even whack an orc he didn't know personally. I am assuming, of course, that while 99.9% of orcs are nasty and inherently "evil" there are a few exceptions. What if he kills an exception? Can't do it. Must find out. Invite the orc to lunch.

??

[Curdis]

Two,

While the real world is the basis for much of the background to FRPG (including CFRPG), the fantasy element is important. I would expect a Paladin to do all of the things you indicate up to

I just can't see it

and from a lawful good perspective the conciliation approach IS probably more appropriate.

The Fantasy element is where it all comes to actually work - You try to save Irenicus (ie convert him to the cause of goodness and light) he refuses and tries to kill you - you try to kill him, one of you goes down. It has to be hard to be worthwhile.

BG 2 gives a false sense of 'alignment security' because there are effectively no penalties and no 'policing' of abherent behaviours. - Curdis

[Saigo]

Originally posted by DraySkullan:
<STRONG>A paladin must work within the laws of society whenever possible. If a paladin must do an unlawful act, even for good reasons, he must make some act of atonement (ususally defined by the DM). Excessive or constant unlawful activity can result in loss of paladin status, sometimes permanently (DM choice). Knowingly committing and evil act for any reason results in loss of paladinhood permanently (usually).

Any other LG character who commits unlawful acts simply runs the risk of an involutary alignment change, at the DM's discretion. A good DM will take into account the circumstances, of course. A paladin of course has to be more strict, that's why they good the good bonuses and abilities.</STRONG>

This is the answer! Think about the Fourty-seven Ronin. They did what honor demanded in exacting revenge for their Shogun, but they dishonored themselves in the process. They knew they were dishonoring themselves, and the consequences for doing so, before they did it. Faced with the impossibility of dishonor for honor's sake, they did what loyalty demanded, then killed themselves for having sunk so low to do it.

Sometimes the right thing is the hardest thing. Sometimes it's downright impossible. Only Arthurian drama queens wallow in self-pity over the dilema of right and wrong.

Before you even ask, "what if it wasn't his fault? What if somebody tricked him?" Drama queen! He still did something wrong. A true paladin atones for wrongful action.

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Saigo ]

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

I'm writing most of these responses from what I believe to be Paladin ideals.

In terms of the first of the 3 examples put forward by two, the reaction of "kill the NPC paladin for the greater good" is not LG, it's NG or CG. The NPC paladin has done nothing (yet) to justify killing him, and unless your paladin is under orders or has a special dispensation to prevent whatever act the NPC is about to do, he cannot lawfully kill him. Saigo's example of the Forty-Seven Ronin is a good one for this situation; martyrdom for the greater good. Same goes for the "kill the evil-destined kid" scenario.
2nd situation: let the trolls kill the vampires, then kill the trolls. Trolls are evil, vampires are evil; it is a paladin's duty to destroy them both.
Example 3: It would be fine to use a group of thieves to get you into the guild (not thieving yourself, of course) but killing unarmed opponents while they sleep is dishonorable (if sensible).

Quote
What if one of the orcs is a polymorphed human? What if the orcs are charmed, they are not actually evil just under mind control? What if, during your daylight raid on a bandit camp, innocent hostagesare killed (that you didn't even know about)?

Orcs are creatures of evil and should be exterminated on Paladin principle. If an orc is attacking you then you are fully justified in defending yourself. If they are Charmed into doing evil acts, then they are servants of evil, and should be treated as such. You cannot be held accountable for the lives of the hostages; you were unaware of their presence. You'll probably feel pretty bad about it, though.

In response to the bandit scenario, according to church ethos banditry is both unlawful and morally corrupt. The fact that a bandit may be innocent of a particular crime doesn't excuse his being a bandit. Even if they were forced into banditry through poverty, unjust rule, or under a Charm spell. If they want out of being a bandit then the paladin simply lets them go, unless his mission dictates otherwise.

Quote
Someone willing to commit crimes in order to bring about his version of what is right is not lawful good, but more likely lawful evil.

Unless they're Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. CG simply means you act according to your own morals. The basic ideal of CN is that you do what you feel like at the time, follow your whims.
I'm strictly CN, myself.

In the case of Peter Pureheart the Pungent Paladin he should bring the accused person back and let the Order/church decide whether he gets a re-trial.
Maybe Santa Claus is one of smaug chow's non-violent paladins. He goes around giving out presents to 'good' people. Note particularly the lines in 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town'
"He knows if you've been bad or good (Think Detect Evil)
So be good for goodness sake." Coincidence? I think not!

IMHO, paladins can be just as easily seen to be Lawful Neutral as they can Lawful Good. They're soldiers of the church, bound to follow church morality and church commands without question. If they adhere to their own morals they're NG or CG, if they unthinkingly obey an evil order they're LG.

[two]

OK I can see how one might play a Paladin in strict LG fashion IF the paladin's temple/church's "laws" insisted on the following (or the society's laws):

1) Robbers/bandits should be killed. Those associated with robbers/bandits should be killed.
2) Thieves should be killed.
3) "Evil" races such as orcs, trolls, etc. should be killed no questions asked.
4) Humans that did something "evil" and unlawful should be killed.
5) Collateral damage (innocents die because of my attack on a troll) is not a problem, because of 3) above: trolls MUST be killed.
6) In general, the penalty for behavior not LG is to be killed.

That's fine and well. But what about those LG temples/churches for which "the death penalty" cannot be so generously applied? Or societies for which the penalty for most things (like thieving or stealing) is significantly less than "to be killed?"

I mean, LG does not necessarily imply the sort of LG extremism outlined above. What if the LG laws in your DM's world require a minimal amount of evidence that person X actually DESERVES to die before killing them? Whatever happened to reforming/converting/mending? Shouldn't a Paladin be a missionary of sorts, not simply an avenging angel?

Take the following scenario: a high-level paladin stumbles across a band of human bandits hiding out in a cave (he had heard rumors that bandits lived there). What is the paladin to do? Wade in slaughtering everyone? I mean, how can you justify that? The paladin doesn't know anything about the bandits except that they rob travellers. Is it better to kill 6 low-level humans or let them rob a merchant every once in a while? What if the Paladin gave them money, had them stop their theiving, then sent missionaries to train them/give them jobs? Or at least give them some opportunity to change their ways?

The point is, unless your temple's laws are super-extreme (bandits=evil, bandits=unlawful, =kill without thinking too hard)most Paladins will take a more humane, not to mention more lawful route (good route too, I might add) and think first, extend a hand, and only later whack if (and only if) the "baddies" prove incorrigeable.

At least, that's how it seems to me. It just doesn't seem very LG to go around killing indiscriminantly because of a narrow understanding of your LG mission. Were I a DM, and a Paladin (in the scenario above) just waded in and killed 6 low-level humans, I'm afriad there would be hell to pay.

Or am I wrong? Should a DM just allow that sort of unthinking, LG knee-jerk behavior?

[Curdis]

Oh how we have strayed from anything related to BG2.
@two-Strict LG is not at all how you imagine. In my fantasy world the Lawful Good thing to do is that which brings the maximum amount of good to the maximum number of people. My Paladin used to capture and then pay to have rehabilitated/schooled orcs, goblins, kobolds, you name it. Slaying was definately a last resort.

Your Bandit scenario :- by allowing lawlessness to go unchallanged (they are taking stuff against the will of the lawful owner) the entire system is threatened. A Paladin must challenge the bandits. If the bandits then repent/reform etc. execution may not be required. If they resist with deadly force they become a fine red mist. The dilema for a Paladin can be simplified by the use of the detect evil power. If you aren't sure check, if the crystals turn black give it a whack! - Curdis

[WizardSlayerFanatic]

LG - Meaning a person or persons will not do evil acts within there current laws and help the weak and obey what is abided by it.

[oggeboy]

can't it be that beeing LG means that you recognise the laws made up by society as beeing of good intent despite them beeing moraly wrong? NG is more about doing the right thing even if it breaks the laws and has more to do with morals and ethics. in real life anyway (if you aren't like me and consider d&d being the real world )

not to say that paladins don't have morals and ethics but they have it in forms of codes of honor and stuff and they don't question them in the same way as other good people might do, this can be linked to political parties where members buy the whole concept while "normal" people more or less choose the things that seems right.

this is my interpretation, and i'm studying to be a teacher in social sience so i should know and anybody that doesn't agree with me is wrong

[smaug chow]

There is a fair amount of grey area even in the "Lawful Good" alignment niche. I agree that the alignment system is often cumbersome and inelegant, but its made worse by trying to constrict it to very narrow definitions. Even paladins have shades.

I know I'll catch flak for this.....

A paladin is both lawful and good and is a direct tool of his deity. He is chosen by the deity - not the other way around. He gets chosen by having a "pure" heart or whatever, and this is defined by the deity. The paladin's code is defined by the individual deity who chose him. Not all LG deities are alike, so why should all LG paladins be alike?

A paladin can range from more lawful than good to more good than lawful, as long as both are prominent character traits. Must a paladin be rigid? Not if his god isn't rigid.

I have 3 LG deities in my campaign. One is the god of honor and battle, of valor and might. His paladins tend to be the broomstick-up-the-wazoo type - rigid and inflexible, often resorting to the sword as the final word on any subject. They go into the field to fight evil. Another is a goddess of truth and justice, of fair play and honest voctory. Her paladins tend to be more casual and friendly. They like to contend in athletic events and tests of skill. They are champions of right and virtue, but they are more missionary and tend to go out into the field to serve as an example, to prmote good deeds and to discourage bad. The third is a protector of the weak, and her paladins tend to be fairly pacifistic, though they rise to battle to save the innocent. They are caring healers, rehabilitators and leaders of broken people and communities. They go into the field to shelter the weak against evil.

These are generalizations of the kinds of paladins spawned by these deities, but you can see how a deity's sphere of influence is projected upon his/her servants.

Someone was talking about sword swinging paladins and how they can ever be considered "good." Well, consider the law structure and the definition of killing. We tend to see in our world that killing of almost any kind is evil. We have to disassociate ourselves frm that idea in the fnatasy world. Well -kinda. A paladin working on that principle is absolutley valid. It is more common for a paladin to be a vanquisher of evil, thus evil people/creatures deserve to die. More conscientious paladins (leaning more towards good than law) will be more laikely to consider the extenuating circumstances. More rigid (more lawful than good) paladins will see any taint of evil as a full condemnation. To any given paladin/deity, killing may not be an evil act by definition. Killing "evil" might be perfectly fine and not evil in the least, and that paladin may be posessed onf a strong enough determination that he/she gets to decide what evil is. Thus, you can have a nearly rampaging paladin, slaughtering anything with the slightest taint of evil, who is a shining star in his god's eyes. Other paladins may see killing as evil in every instance, no matter the situation. These might lay down their lives in non-violent resistance to a violent foe who they know will overwhelm them, and they can expect their god to welcome them to heaven with open arms.

Not all punishments need to be fatal. Most paladins should be trying to get their opponents to surrender first. The rigid ones would do less of this. A paladin does not have to be a killer, and this depends on the ethos of the deity. Some deities will have the "with me or against me" mentality which boils down to "I'm right so anyting other than close adherence to my word is wrong and thus evil." Reference the Whitecloaks in the Jordan books. They are not kind men - they seek power over the masses to force them to conform to a rigid set of laws which ostensibly are "good." They see inner conflict of society as their primary foe - spies, dissenters, rebels, etc. While this is a valid paladin archetype, it is an extreme one and not the only one.

Some campaigns are hack-and-slash and all conflicts are resolved when the loser's head leaves his body. Thats a narrow vision and a shallow environment. BG2 kinda has to go that route due to it's limited scope and abilities as a computer game, but the DnD world it approximates is far more complex.

Had to get a BG reference in before somebody clips this thread.....

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: smaug chow ]