Paladins: For Good or for Evil?

[dragon wench]

The thread about paladins in the ToB forum brought something to mind that I have often considered.
I have longed viewed paladins as a sort of D&D version of the self-righteous, narrow-minded, religious fundamentalist. The type of person who sees no shades of grey, and is prepared to kill, on behalf of their deity, anything they perceive as evil. Not just prepared to kill.. but zealous and blinded even. For example.. Keldorn's reaction to Viconia and his desire to see her burned at the stake.

I absolutely can't play paladins, and I rarely have them in my party. I generally think that the fervour with which paladins are bent on wiping out "evil" is actually evil in and of itself. (I most commonly play chaotic good, sometimes chaotic neutral)

Yet, some people I know argue that paladins are also compassionate, and that it is all a matter of perspective. They say that paladins can actually be somewhat flexible in their actions and world view.

Thoughts?

[Rhûn]

I agree with all of your points. Sure paladins can be compassionate.....to people who are strictly lawful and follow the same or other respectable deity. Imagine someone good being blackmailed by someone into doing a crime, refusal meaning his/her family is slaughtered. And the paladin catches her in the act. I'd bet it'd be prison first, ask questions later. Keldorn and Anomen (fighter/cleric, can be LG, so practically a paladin of helm) do little to dissaude your idea of indirectly making evil in their strict and uncompromising way of ridding it.

[Coot]

Slight Spoiler:

All paladins portrayed in the BG-series are indeed narrowminded fanatics. Keldorn wouldn't have been my favorite npc anyway, but his attitude towards Drow is straightforward racism. It's too bad he never gives a reaction to Viconia's (possible) alignment change in ToB. Some form of apology would have been nice.

[the_limey]

While I do agree that many of the "righteous" NPC's in the BG series are fanatical, I'm afraid I must disagree that this is the way a paladin *must* be.

I believe that a true paladin is dedicated not to the rigid dictates of their church. but rather to an ideal; that justice is of paramount importance but should always be tempered by mercy and compassion.

The paladin's zeal with which s/he detroys "evil" is rather more a curse than their "holy duty"- a paladin kills not because it is right but because it is necessary. There are those (even in our own world) who have no respect for law, decency or even morality and who cannot be reasoned with or even redeemed, it is such people or creatures that the paladin seeks to destroy. Yes they perform evil to remove evil but not because the ends justify the means, but to spare others from having to do it- but in so doing the paladin sacrifices a piece of themselves- That, I think, is hat a paladin is about- they suffer so that others need not.

Others may disagree, but this is the core of any Paladin or LG cleric that I play.

Just as an aside, I don't think the epitome of paladinhood in BG2 is Keldorn- it's Mazzy.

[Raven_Song]

Ooh an ethical question with religious slant - your asking for trouble Dragon_Wench

(I know because I was recently involved in a similar debate over Assassin = evil over at CoM - it all got a bit )

I will make a few hopefully uncontroversial comments though (I find myself drifting toward a True Netural outlook on life)

I don't think the epitome of paladinhood in BG2 is Keldorn- it's Mazzy.

I actually made a very similar point in another thread, Mazzy is noble but good without resorting to violence , although she does seem to dislike Viconia because of her race ...

Keldorn wouldn't have been my favorite npc anyway, but his attitude towards Drow is straightforward racism.

I think this is perhaps a good point to remember when dealing with NPC's reactions to Viconia - there does appear to be a cultural affinity toward racism towrad the Drow, which although not acceptable is understandable given the Drow's reputation. I believe even Aerie is rather hostile to Viconia on racial grounds.

Similarly much of the dislike/distrust of Edwin stems from his association with the Red Wizards of Thay.

With Keldorn in particular it seems rather moot to argue that his hatred of Viconia/Edwin is because they are evil, he is afterall relatively tolerant of Korgan who as Chaotic Evil should be the most vile in his eyes.

Keldorn and Anomen (fighter/cleric, can be LG, so practically a paladin of helm) do little to dissaude your idea of indirectly making evil in their strict and uncompromising way of ridding it.

Are they the only ones though? Look at Valygar, he will, like Keldorn, attack both Viconia and Edwin, yet he doesn't seem to provoke the same back-lash. (I'm guilty over ignoring this aspect of his personality... mainly becuse Mazzy likes him)

Is this problem compounded by the fact that Viconia, Edwin and Korgan never really come across as "evil"? Would we be less sympathetic/protective of them if they molested/murdered small children/cute fluffy animals? Viconia and Edwin also benefit from being viewed through rose-tinted glasses by those who ventured with them previously.

Is ridding the world of evil necessarily a good action initself? From one perspective yes, from another is not simply imposing one set of values and beliefs, believed to be superior and correct, above another... Taking a religious example from our history the Crusades were undertaken under the banner of "good".

Determining good and evil involves value judgements, which themselves are open to interpretation and change e.g. women are inferior to men, homosexuality is abnormal. Some social groups still consider this morally true or "good" and so model their lives upon them, others will view these statements as biggotted and repressive and these cultures as "evil."

a paladin kills not because it is right but because it is necessary.

Not always... This quote was shown to me in the said Com debate,

"The greatest symbol of that truth was Cyric's throne itself. The Prince of Lies had built the hulking, grotesque chair from the bones of men and women who died mistakenly believing themselves saints - a worshiper of Chauntea who slit his wrists thinking his blood would make the crops grow faster; a druid devoted to Eldath who drowned everyone who wandered near a certain secluded pool because they upset the peace of the place; a knight of Torm who tortured anyone he caught in even the most insignificant lie..."

OK its getting late and I've just fried my brain...

[Philos]

Paladins

Hi Dragon Wench,

Just to set my frame of reference, I tend to play Neutral Good characters both in PnP and CRPG D&D the most , so I suppose that reflects my general outlook. In BG2 the first character I rolled up (and just yesterday completed SoA with!!) was however a Paladin. My thoughts were how wonderfullly ironic that a Bhaal spawn would become a Paladin.

I do think perspective is the key to Paladins. When I play a Paladin I see the character as setting a higher standard for THEMSELF to follow. Following a strict code would necessitate their being LG. In turn they should be setting a good example for others to follow but not demanding it of them. Doing the right thing, helping those is distress (regardless of alignment), and eliminating evil (in terms of actions done to others) is what I strive to do. To me the definition of eliminating evil (certainly a prime function of a Paladin) should be working to undo an evil "act" that has been done or to prevent a evil action from occuring. It may involve eliminating an evil person if no other course seems available, but it does not necessary require that. I believe that there are many ways to "combat" evil and does not always involve a sword. A knight in our own history was "ideally" supposed to be the protector of the weak. Many times that role was to simply speak up for those that couldn't. I try to weave that ideal into my role playing of Paladins. Paladins might be under some limitations in certain situations, but I really think they do see shades of gray and can act with a lot of latitude (for example, assuming a false identity might be thought of by some as wrong for a Paladin, I don't) in most circumstances. The ones most confining would be those involving situations like a quest where innocent lives are at stake (I think a Paladin would be feel compelled to accept such a quest to rescue them if at all possible) or perhaps a direct threat to their own church or organization. I agree with you completely that killing just because something is of "evil" alignment is an evil act in itself. Any Paladin I play would not do that.

I think perhaps it is very easy and maybe even common for D&D'ers to equate a Paladin with self righteous fundamentalists and play them as such. I do not mean that as any criticism, just that it is an easy connection. And in any D&D world there would certainly be some Paladins that would take that course as people are fallible and many can get into "ditches" by swaying too far to one extreme or the other, just part of human nature. Perhaps Keldorn was in such a ditch, but also consider that later when faced with killing (Angrim?) for the affair with his wife, he did realize that all was not black and white. He saw his own faults, forgave his wife, asked her forgivenes for his sins, showed compassion, and mercy and therefore grew as a character. I would be tempted if I had programmed the game to have that response to Viconia be different if the quest with his wife was completed.

For me it is more of a challenge to play a Paladin as feeling a "high" calling and as such striving to be noble and virtuous to ALL. That makes the role-playing all the tougher (and more fun) when faced with the dilemma that sometimes I may be helping someone that might prefer to stick a dagger in my back in other circumstances. There were a number of times in BG that I was tempted to just trash an NPC (Xzar comes to mind) that I was certain was up to no good but didn't because I wanted to stay in character.

Sorry this is so long, but it is a good question.

[Coot]

[QUOTE=the_limey]Just as an aside, I don't think the epitome of paladinhood in BG2 is Keldorn- it's Mazzy.[/QUOTE]I couldn't agree more. And the fact that Mazzy cannot become a paladin because she's a Halfling (meaning, non-human) says it all.

@Ravensong: Don't Korgan and Edwin come across as evil? Why not? In every part of dialogue they either try to persuade you to do nasty things or talk about nasty things they did in their past. Viccy is another matter because she has the potential to change (as does another evil npc we all know and love).

[Raven_Song]

I

couldn't agree more. And the fact that Mazzy cannot become a paladin because she's a Halfling (meaning, non-human) says it all.

She can under the new edition rules...

Don't Korgan and Edwin come across as evil? Why not

No not really, I believe that while they both have negative characteristics none of the evil NPC's ever come across as being truly evil. If I remember correctly in a dialogue about the murderer little halfling-child, Korgan expresses his disgust at child-killers. Were he truly evil would he really care?

In every part of dialogue they either try to persuade you to do nasty things or talk about nasty things they did in their past.

But while they talk of doing nasty things when do they actually do them?
I think that this is perhaps one of the limitations of the game, in that it never really allows for a truly evil path.

[Coot]

Ravensong: I agree with you about the evil path-impossibilities.
However, the fact that Korgan opposes the child-killing only proves that are limits to his amount of evilness. Nobody is, of course, totally evil. I'm sure there are things even Caligula, Hitler or Bin Laden wouldn't do.
Korgan is pretty nasty though. Just listen to his stories. He's one insane dwarf.
And Edwin, Korgan and Viconia try to convince you to do evil stuff and they are, for instance, quite happy when you choose to side with Body.

[Philos]

Good Points Regarding Mazzy

I really like her character and she exemplifies a lot of how I tend to play Paladins. A cliche that I never particularly cared for is the one that equated "lawful good" as "awful good", especially concerning paladins. I think good role playing of LG is a fun challenge and like Mazzy, makes for a very interesting character.

[Raven_Song]

the fact that Korgan opposes the child-killing only proves that are limits to his amount of evilness

True ... my thinking behind this comment was that as a Chaotic Evil character he should be representative of the most vile characteristics and tendancies. For me Korgan never manages to achieve this and certainly like Viconia shows the potential for redemption through his dialogues with Mazzy.

Nobody is, of course, totally evil. I'm sure there are things even Caligula, Hitler or Bin Laden wouldn't do.

I'm not sure that this can be proved either way ... Is a paedophile who was repeatedly and cruelly abused children anything less than evil because he is kind to animals and old ladies? Does it depend on the "evilness" of the act?
(I don't have answers I'm just thinking out loud )

And Edwin, Korgan and Viconia try to convince you to do evil stuff and they are, for instance, quite happy when you choose to side with Body.

I guess it depends on what you deem "evil stuff" - I don't recall exactly what they advocate perhaps you could remind me.

I dont think that siding with Bodhi is necessarily more evil than siding with the Shadow Thieves, both guilds are particularly unpleasant. However Bodhi is often seen as the evil option because "good" characters won't work with her, although I always saw this a result of her being undead as it is generally the more religious characters who object.

[Coot]

[QUOTE=Raven_Song]For me Korgan never manages to achieve this and certainly like Viconia shows the potential for redemption through his dialogues with Mazzy.[/QUOTE]That's true, but you could argue that a)that doesn't make Korgan less evil, it just gives him more depth and b)it actually makes him, IMHO, more evil since he's apparently able to distingish good and evil and therefore able to make choices.
In that way I always figured Bodhi and and company were not as bad as the shadow thieves because they're not human, they're vampires, predators by nature and not by choice.

I'm gonna have to continue this later. My daughter needs a diaper change. I kid you not.

[qanatoli]

Paladins

Interesting subject - I think it illustrates rather well some of the problems with alignments in the 2nd edition AD&D Rules.

I have occasionly played a paladin myself, and I've usually taken the "Mazzy" approach - and I do agree that the Order of the Radiant Heart as portrayed in BGII appears to be more Lawfull than Good.

If I recall there was a suggestion for a "Paladin's Code" in the old 2nd edition Dungeon Masters Guide. One of the paragraph said something like this: "If the law of the country is unjust, then the law must be changed". This seems to have been forgotten by many people I've played with. I'd say that there is an element of it in BGII, namely in the quest relating to Keldorns family trouble. The "good" solution here places justice above the law, as it involves convincing Keldorn to forgive his wife - despite of the fact, that the law merits her being punished.

However, much could have been easier had the 2nd edition rules been clearer when it comes to good/evil vs. law/chaos. The only meaningful intrepetation I've ever been able to make, is that the first one is usually more important than the second. The good/evil scale represents the general attitude towards society, whereas the law/chaos scale is more of the means to reach that end. The exception is Lawfull/Chaotic Neutral characters, to whom the relations to authority are more important than the effects that relation has. In other words, a LN person will carry out the law, no matter how unjust it is, and can be a great tool in the hands of an evil (but legitimate) master.

The problem that I have come across, is that many players (and I've GM'ed a lot) just do not seperate the scales - to them a Lawfull Good character is not someone who believes that just laws are the best way to secure the greater good, but rather someone who has his minds set on high ideals, and looks down on those with lesser standards. In my oppinion such a character is LN, rather than LG.

Regarding the character interaction in BGII I must agree that part of the reason that som good characters come of "racist", is that the evil ones aren't evil. Take Viconia. Her alignment is evil, and her attitude is arrogant and violent, but there is no really evil actions in her past (that we hear off). Yes she has participated in human sacrifices (but humans put her on the stake without knowing her history), but she would have been killed had she done otherwise, and as she was just following the rules and traditions of her society a lawful neutral character could have done the same. She has killed farmers after fleeing the underdark, but they certainly had it comming (probably more than a lot of the orcs slain by Keldorn, if you know what I mean). There is no doubt that this lack of "real" evil make the critical good caracters stand out as prejudiced.

Finally, comparing the alignemnt system to the real world is, in my oppinion, meaningless. Part of the very concept of the D&D world(s) is that good and evil are absolute, and ideals that are identifiablke and tangible - reality is a lot more complex. But it does become a an issue in the game, mainly because some of the characters defined by their alignment as evil don't really act the part.

qanatoli

[fable]

Finally, comparing the alignemnt system to the real world is, in my oppinion, meaningless. Part of the very concept of the D&D world(s) is that good and evil are absolute, and ideals that are identifiablke and tangible - reality is a lot more complex. But it does become a an issue in the game, mainly because some of the characters defined by their alignment as evil don't really act the part.

Absolutely. I've never bought into Gygax's evil/good and lawful/chaotic dichotomies, and in my opinion introducing them into the early D&D manuals was a mistake. Had there been no simple polarized distinctions, characters would have been judged by their words and/or actions, with their "alignments" becoming apparent in so far as DMs and players were capable of demonstrating this. If they couldn't, I don't believe the extremes provided an adequate substitute, but that's definitely just me.

Paladins were simply grafted onto the D&D world from a set of chivalric ideals that infilitrated knighthood around the 14th century ACE, come to fruition over the next 150 years, and died out as knights lost their formidable power in combat.

One excellent work on the subject is Maurice Keen's Chivalry, available from Yale Press, and well worth it for its annotated, thorough research and articulateness. Keen leads off noting the sources of notions of chivalry (which subsequently fed into our ideas of paladinship). The Libre del Ordre de Cavayleria of Ramon Lull, for example, is described at length, ending with the ideals of knighthood:

"He will be a man courteous and nobly spoken, well clad, one who holds open house within the limits of his means. Loyalty and truth, hardiness, largesse and humility will be the principal qualities that we ought to expect in him: courtesy, loyalty, hardiness, largesse, franchise."

Lull himself was a likely catalyst for the whole paladin mythos, being a wealthy, philandering nobleman of some attainment who Got Religion. He developed an elaborate, mystical concept of the universe (which would have gotten him burnt at the stake three hundred years, later, but was eminently OK with the RCC of the period), and decided that his mission in life should be to personally convert every follower of Islam to Christianity. He saw knighthood from the perspective of what it was, and tried to make it into something else, again.

Another influential author of the subject of chivalry was Geoffrey de Charny. His battlefield knighthood credentials place him at the right hand of the French monarchs. He was a member of the knightly and new Order of the Star, created by the French in opposition to Edward III's Order of the Garter, and was appointed bearer of the French king's famed royal standard, the Oriflamme of St. Denis. He died guarding it at the battle of Poitiers in 1356--talk about romantic.

De Charny wrote three texts on chivalry. They focus on the entire structure of knighhood as a class and an attainment. Keen notes one essential distinction between Charny and Lull:

"Charny is indeed concerned with the tinernal world, as we have seen, but the indices of chivalrous achievement that he suggests are external acts and the repute that has attached to them. In this way his book offers a kind of identikit picture which will assist us in recognizing one who has achieved great things in chivalry by the pattern of his experience and its range, without having to probe for subjective reactions which are unverifiable. He will be a man who has been at jousts and tournaments and at war in other lands beside his own, who has served his lord in arms and has crossed the sea in quest of adventures and fame."

Between the two--Lull on the innate qualities, de Charny on the external actions--we have a pretty good measure of what became the concept of knighthood at its height in the early Renaissance of the 15th century, and the paladin-like qualities in modern D&D and AD&D. We can see both sides, Lull and de Charny, in Keldorn, who is first found questing and battling evil, and who later bores everybody with his moral sententiousness. By contrast, Anomen knows how to fight and wishes to quest, but he lacks the Lullesque, inner qualities of the paladin when you first him.

[Pellinore]

Paladins are the epitome of all that is good and right in the world. In my mind a paladin is wise, just and charismatic. A paladin should never place the law over what is right and just. Keldorn is an old and jaded paladin who is in need of retirement. In comic books you have Captain America and in literature you have Galahad, both posessing the qualities of a true paladin. I have always played my paladins as good primarily and lawful secondary for they will place the good over law any day.

[Coot]

[QUOTE=Pellinore]I have always played my paladins as good primarily and lawful secondary for they will place the good over law any day.[/QUOTE]What if there comes a moment when a paladin doesn't agree with the law then? Does he make up his own mind about what is good and evil? Wouldn't that make him a vigilante?

[krunchyfrogg]

[QUOTE=Coot]Slight Spoiler:

All paladins portrayed in the BG-series are indeed narrowminded fanatics. Keldorn wouldn't have been my favorite npc anyway, but his attitude towards Drow is straightforward racism. It's too bad he never gives a reaction to Viconia's (possible) alignment change in ToB. Some form of apology would have been nice.[/QUOTE]
In a Paladin's mind, Neutral is just one step away from Evil. She's still not "good."

[QUOTE=Coot]I couldn't agree more. And the fact that Mazzy cannot become a paladin because she's a Halfling (meaning, non-human) says it all. [/quote]Mazzy can't become a Paladin because it would have been unbalancing in 2nd edition rules, not because Paladin's are racist.[QUOTE=Pellinore]Paladins are the epitome of all that is good and right in the world. In my mind a paladin is wise, just and charismatic. A paladin should never place the law over what is right and just. Keldorn is an old and jaded paladin who is in need of retirement. In comic books you have Captain America and in literature you have Galahad, both posessing the qualities of a true paladin. I have always played my paladins as good primarily and lawful secondary for they will place the good over law any day.[/QUOTE]Yay! I couldn't agree more.[QUOTE=Coot]What if there comes a moment when a paladin doesn't agree with the law then? Does he make up his own mind about what is good and evil? Wouldn't that make him a vigilante?[/QUOTE]Depends on what that law is. If the Paladin doesn't agree with it because it's something like slavery, or it's illegal to ride a horse through a town at a gallop, but the Paladin is doing it to save a life, then it's alright to break that law. If the Paladin dislikes a law because it's inconvienient then it's not a good idea to go breaking it.

[Coot]

[QUOTE=krunchyfrogg]Depends on what that law is. If the Paladin doesn't agree with it because it's something like slavery, or it's illegal to ride a horse through a town at a gallop, but the Paladin is doing it to save a life, then it's alright to break that law. If the Paladin dislikes a law because it's inconvienient then it's not a good idea to go breaking it.[/QUOTE] But who's to say when it's all right to break the law and when not? In the case of your examples it all seems obvious, but what if it's less clear? If he breaks the law and gallops through the streets to save a life he may discover too late that you're not allowed to gallop around in that street because there's always childeren playing around. And in his haste, he runs over - and kills - some kids. Who can decide whether or not a law may or may not be broken?

[krunchyfrogg]

I know there are times when it will be less clear, like you said. But I think it's okay to "break the speed limit" while shouting for all to stand clear because you're chasing after some monster who has kidnapped the princess, ect..

BTW, check out this thread (it's from a non cRPG forum) about an "interesting" Paladin.

[Pellinore]

Well, this is why paladins must have a minimum wisdom of 13. So they have the ability to know when a law is unjust.