A Paladin's Dilemma

[The Glyphstone]

If the world lacks an objective morality, and mass atrocities are a commonplace and legally acceptable act of war, trying to stop or punish them isn't being a paladin. It's being Don Quixote, and their story will end the same way or worse.

Also, let's do a hard veer away from historical real-life politics please.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's being Don Quixote, and their story will end the same way or worse.

I fail to see the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsNJtTKdUec

[AMFV]

If the world lacks an objective morality, and mass atrocities are a commonplace and legally acceptable act of war, trying to stop or punish them isn't being a paladin. It's being Don Quixote, and their story will end the same way or worse.

If you exist in a world like that, and are a Paladin, then you are Don Quixote. Except you're not a ridiculous one, you're a tragic hero. Any Paladin that exists in that world, should know that his story is not going to end well, but that doesn't matter, because if you are a Paladin you should be willing to die for what you believe.

So if you are a Paladin in a world like that, then you'll likely end your life trying to stop great evil, and maybe succeeding in some small way, that's all you can hope for.

[zinycor]

If you exist in a world like that, and are a Paladin, then you are Don Quixote. Except you're not a ridiculous one, you're a tragic hero. Any Paladin that exists in that world, should know that his story is not going to end well, but that doesn't matter, because if you are a Paladin you should be willing to die for what you believe.

So if you are a Paladin in a world like that, then you'll likely end your life trying to stop great evil, and maybe succeeding in some small way, that's all you can hope for.

Don quixote is a tragic hero, in a comedic way of course.

[AMFV]

I don't like how you are so quick to cast judgement on people based on a forum topic, on a discussion made only to entertain.

If those people are saying that a government that orders war crimes is a legitimate one, then yes, I would be pretty judgey of them. If someone says "I'm playing a chaotic evil character who commits war crimes cause this is a game." Then I wouldn't be so judgmental. The difference is that one situation the person admits that what is being simulated is evil, in the other they don't.

Don quixote is a tragic hero, in a comedic way of course.

I am aware of this. And a Paladin in a world like that would also be a tragic hero. A Paladin in that world would probably be proud to be a tragic hero. While the stories of every single Paladin don't necessarily end in tragedy, a Paladin should be prepared for that. He's one step away from being martyred all his life, from being a casualty in the fight against evil, and he's ready to die, because that may be required of him. Being a tragic hero, having to die for what you believe in, is not a drawback.

[zinycor]

Anyway, going back to helping the op.

when you say that this paladin character isn't necessarily in a D&D book, does he still have magic at his disposal? if so, how does he get access to it?

[Frozen_Feet]

If the world lacks an objective morality, and mass atrocities are a commonplace and legally acceptable act of war, trying to stop or punish them isn't being a paladin. It's being Don Quixote, and their story will end the same way or worse.

Paladins originate from chivalric romance, if the setting is not chivalric romance, then being a paladin is synonymous with being Don Quijote. But so what? Playing Don Quijote is fun.

[Lord]

Anyway, going back to helping the op.

when you say that this paladin character isn't necessarily in a D&D book, does he still have magic at his disposal? if so, how does he get access to it?

Well for one thing, said paladin has a great deal of healing power at his disposal. He has a special talent for it, and spends his off hours healing the sick and injured of commoners. He also has a talent for dispelling curses.

[zinycor]

Well for one thing, said paladin has a great deal of healing power at his disposal. He has a special talent for it, and spends his off hours healing the sick and injured of commoners. He also has a talent for dispelling curses.

Yeah, but, what's the origin of this power? On DnD it comes from THE forces of law and good, which are very particular to DnD, and on a world that has shades of gray and moral questions, such as the pne you seem to be presenting, there simply isn't room for The forces of law and good.

So then, I ask again, what's the origin of this paladin's power?

[Malifice]

What is evil/good only matters if this fictional reality (universe and afterlife etc) of the OPs has objective morality.

If it doesn't have objective morality, and evil/ good are entirely subjective, then the OP's entire argument and question is fundamentally pointless and nonsensical.

Morality only matters in such a case if you want it to, and you get to define what morality is in any event. It's all a moot point.

If OTOH the OP's paladin lives in a reality whereby morality is absolute and objectively determined (say... by some cosmic force such as the 'Gods'), and that morality broadly lines up with the morality as expressed by most RPG's and commonly held social norms (rape, torture, genocide, murder, slavery, killing other than in self defense or to end suffering, are evil) and (compassion, kindness, self sacrifice for the benefit of others, mercy and altruism) are good, then (and only then) does it becomes a question that needs to be answered.

For mine (from a roleplaying perspective) I dont write 'good' in the alignment section of my character sheet unless I'm intending on playing a Good character (a kind, altruistic, merciful, and nice person, who avoids killing others unless it's the only way to save the lives of innocents and no other option presents itself, abhors harming others needlessly etc). It's my subjective beliefs. If that mirrors objective game reality, so be it.

The opposite is true. If I'm playing a guy who thinks some people deserve death or slavery, is OK with torture to extract important information, and views compassion, altruism and mercy as weaknesses, i'll write 'Evil' on my character sheet.

The problem with our hobby is many of us will write 'good' on that sheet and then go around murdering, torturing, engaging in genocide, necromancy, Demon summoning and all sorts of horrendous crap. The only difference between a good PC and an evil one is the Evil ones randomly murder NPCs for talking funny or ripping them off a copper piece, engage in the most vile of tortures, and make Charles Manson look like a reasoned and merciful chap with insight.

On the 5E forums I've seen mass infanticide and the torture and murder of nuns at the request of a Demon Lord, galactic genocide, mass rape of a mind controlled planets population, child abuse, necromancy, cannibalism, murder, neutron bombing friends and family, and worse all defined as 'good' or something that a 'good' aligned PC can frequently do.

Its always the way with these threads. I do suspect the OP kind of knew this though. Personally I dont have any of these problems at my table; I put my foot down hard when it comes to an alignment debate, and Im more than happy to rub out a Players mistake on his character sheet, and replace whatever he wrote in his alignment section with what the 'Gods' view him as (presuming alignment is objective of course).

[zinycor]

Well it's not like alignment matters on 5e, I believe it only matters for a couple of legendary items, and not many spells interact with alignment either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well it's not like alignment matters on 5e, I believe it only matters for a couple of legendary items, and not many spells interact with alignment either.

That's true mechanically, but the mechanics of alignment have always been the weakest part IMO. Because it turns it into a part of the cost-benefit calculus, rather than being a true characterization tool. It also has severe warping effects on the worldbuilding, but that's a different matter.

[zinycor]

That's true mechanically, but the mechanics of alignment have always been the weakest part IMO. Because it turns it into a part of the cost-benefit calculus, rather than being a true characterization tool. It also has severe warping effects on the worldbuilding, but that's a different matter.

Absolutely, but because of not existing in the mechanics, alignment on 5e is just as important as it is on WoD or star wars, that is to say, something that may or may not help you define your character or NPCs.

[Malifice]

Absolutely, but because of not existing in the mechanics, alignment on 5e is just as important as it is on WoD or star wars, that is to say, something that may or may not help you define your character or NPCs.

In Star Wars alignment is objective. The 'Dark side' is an actual malevolent force that corrupts force users, and by extension all living things.

Most (if not all) versions of that game have Force powers that just are evil due to their very nature, and further oblige the GM to hand out 'dark side points' for evil acts.

If I'm running Star Wars and someone tortures a creature to extract information, they gain a dark side point, no arguments at the table permitted.

The character doing the torturing can justify or rationalize it all they want. As can the player. For all that it matters,

The lore is full of well meaning people turning to evil in just such a way.

[zinycor]

In Star Wars alignment is objective. The 'Dark side' is an actual malevolent force that corrupts force users, and by extension all living things.

Most (if not all) versions of that game have Force powers that just are evil due to their very nature, and further oblige the GM to hand out 'dark side points' for evil acts.

If I'm running Star Wars and someone tortures a creature to extract information, they gain a dark side point, no arguments at the table permitted.

The character doing the torturing can justify or rationalize it all they want. As can the player. For all that it matters,

The lore is full of well meaning people turning to evil in just such a way.

¿? How is that relevant? I only brought star wars as a setting whre you can choose to be whatever alignment you want even though alignment doesn't exist in it. Don't derail the post.

[Malifice]

¿? How is that relevant? I only brought star wars as a setting whre you can choose to be whatever alignment you want even though alignment doesn't exist in it. Don't derail the post.

I'm not 'derailing the post'. I'm refuting your point.

Alignment does exist in Star Wars. It's an actual objective thing and has an actual mechanical effects (falling to the dark side) and actual mechanical rules (dark side points). Many powers are expressly listed as Dark side.

Me (as a Star Wars GM): 'Right fellas, who's intrested in a SWSE campaign? Starting at 1st level, in the Dark times between III and IV. All books are in, house rules are [XXX].

Also; this is going to be a heroic campaign. Heroic characters ONLY, and no [dark side] characters, and if you [fall to the dark side] during the campaign, you lose your character.'

How can you say alignment is not relevant here? I might not be using the DnD terminology for good and evil, but it's the exact same thing as me saying:

Me (as a 5E DM): 'Right fellas, who's interested in a 5E campaign? Starting at 1st level, ToA adventure path in Chult. All books are in, house rules are [XXX].

Also; this is going to be a heroic campaign. Heroic characters ONLY, and no [evilly aligned] characters, and if [your alignment changes to evil] during the campaign, you lose your character.'

[RifleAvenger]

Absolutely, but because of not existing in the mechanics, alignment on 5e is just as important as it is on WoD or star wars, that is to say, something that may or may not help you define your character or NPCs.

Yeah, it only does such unimportant things as:

1. Define the major cosmological conflicts in most base settings.
2. Sets an objective standard for morality and ethics in the base settings.
3. Code various factions and races as heroic or villainous by default.
4. Influence player expectations and actions when playing D&D 5e via the above.

And when I say "base setting," I actually mean "these assumptions are presented as the default and setting agnostic." Including alignment at all leads to certain assumptions and inclinations from players, and it definitely shapes most published D&D settings as well as many homebrew setting made with D&D in mind. Even if you try to run a game with no alignments, its influence on monsters and cultures as presented in the core books means having to both rewrite that stuff as GM and get your players on board with/understanding of those changes.

Setting worldbuilding, lore, and framing matters unless you're doing a whitebox dungeon crawl; alignment colors or even helps shape all of those things in D&D. You bring up WoD/CoD, but I'd wager a core-only Seer of the Throne chronicle is going to look very different from a Free Council focused one even if no one takes Order specific merits (the only mechanical differences between the Orders, most of which are in splatbooks anyways).

[zinycor]

Yeah, it only does such unimportant things as:

1. Define the major cosmological conflicts in most base settings.
2. Sets an objective standard for morality and ethics in the base settings.
3. Code various factions and races as heroic or villainous by default.
4. Influence player expectations and actions when playing D&D 5e via the above.

And when I say "base setting," I actually mean "these assumptions are presented as the default and setting agnostic." Including alignment at all leads to certain assumptions and inclinations from players, and it definitely shapes most published D&D settings as well as many homebrew setting made with D&D in mind. Even if you try to run a game with no alignments, its influence on monsters and cultures as presented in the core books means having to both rewrite that stuff as GM and get your players on board with/understanding of those changes.

Setting worldbuilding, lore, and framing matters unless you're doing a whitebox dungeon crawl; alignment colors or even helps shape all of those things in D&D. You bring up WoD/CoD, but I'd wager a core-only Seer of the Throne chronicle is going to look very different from a Free Council focused one even if no one takes Order specific merits (the only mechanical differences between the Orders, most of which are in splatbooks anyways).

Exactly, unimportant things.

[RifleAvenger]

Exactly, unimportant things.

Oh, I see...

... snide disdain for anyone who treats their PC [or campaign] as something other or more than a plastic playing piece, or a shabby masquerade mask, gets old really fast, and doesn't do your promotion of your stated preference in gaming approaches any favors.

[Constructman]

Exactly, unimportant things.

Given setting info is pretty much the scope of what OP was asking about, this isn't an unimportant thing.

And anyways,

Well it's not like alignment matters on 5e, I believe it only matters for a couple of legendary items, and not many spells interact with alignment either.

If you're talking about 5e specifically, Paladins might not fall due to alignment changes anymore, but can still fall by violating the spirit of their Oath (subclass). A Devotion Paladin shirking their duty and indulging in cowardice, an Ancients Paladin standing aside and letting wickedness flourish, a Vengeance Paladin giving up on their vendetta, etc. The DM can force a Paladin to switch their subclass to Oathbreaker or change their class altogether if the Paladin is ignoring the tenets of their subclass.

[Malifice]

Oh, I see...

Yeah. Thats me done also.

[zinycor]

Given setting info is pretty much the scope of what OP was asking about, this isn't an unimportant thing.

And anyways,



If you're talking about 5e specifically, Paladins might not fall due to alignment changes anymore, but can still fall by violating the spirit of their Oath (subclass). A Devotion Paladin shirking their duty and indulging in cowardice, an Ancients Paladin standing aside and letting wickedness flourish, a Vengeance Paladin giving up on their vendetta, etc. The DM can force a Paladin to switch their subclass to Oathbreaker or change their class altogether if the Paladin is ignoring the tenets of their subclass.

That's true, but the OP isn't asking on 5e, nor any DnD setting, he is asking for a custom setting, for which he still hasn't stated the oath taken by the paladin.

If the oath in question is as clear as those in DnD then the answer is pretty simple as you have stated, but it might not be.

[Constructman]

That's true, but the OP isn't asking on 5e, nor any DnD setting, he is asking for a custom setting, for which he still hasn't stated the oath taken by the paladin.

If the oath in question is as clear as those in DnD then the answer is pretty simple as you have stated, but it might not be.

... so why did you bring up 5e in the first place then?

[zinycor]

... so why did you bring up 5e in the first place then?

To answer malifice post, which might be derailing the post now that I think about it for that I am sorry.

[Talakeal]

I'm not 'derailing the post'. I'm refuting your point.

Alignment does exist in Star Wars. It's an actual objective thing and has an actual mechanical effects (falling to the dark side) and actual mechanical rules (dark side points). Many powers are expressly listed as Dark side.

Me (as a Star Wars GM): 'Right fellas, who's intrested in a SWSE campaign? Starting at 1st level, in the Dark times between III and IV. All books are in, house rules are [XXX].

Also; this is going to be a heroic campaign. Heroic characters ONLY, and no [dark side] characters, and if you [fall to the dark side] during the campaign, you lose your character.'

How can you say alignment is not relevant here? I might not be using the DnD terminology for good and evil, but it's the exact same thing as me saying:

Me (as a 5E DM): 'Right fellas, who's interested in a 5E campaign? Starting at 1st level, ToA adventure path in Chult. All books are in, house rules are [XXX].

Also; this is going to be a heroic campaign. Heroic characters ONLY, and no [evilly aligned] characters, and if [your alignment changes to evil] during the campaign, you lose your character.'

Does this actually work out for you?

To me, this just reads as railroading players who don't share your opinions on morality and what constitutes each alignment.

I know that I personally have a really hard time playing characters who aren't what I consider to be NG irl. The problem for me, of course, is that D&D uses its own standard of morality where certain actions are always good / evil regardless of circumstance or motivation. So, for example, if we get to a circumstance where you take my character away from me because I deem that, for example, working with the Tanarii to stop the Baatezu from taking over the world, simply because using my judgement, as a player, that is the right thing to do, then we are going to have some serious OOC problems.

And again, this isn't just me looking for excuses to be evil. As an example, I once played a paladin who fell for being to merciful to my enemies as I was failing to uphold the "punish those who harm innocents" clause of my code.

[Malifice]

Does this actually work out for you?

To me, this just reads as railroading players who don't share your opinions on morality and what constitutes each alignment.

I dont care. As DM, I'm responsible for the Dark Side or the judgement of Kelemvor and Ao.

If you're not prepared to adjudicate actions as a DM because players wanna whine about it, you shouldnt be DMing.

In my Star Wars games, if you torture, kill (other than in proportionate self defence), rape, cause undue pain and torment or use the Force to directly harm a living creature, you gain a DSP.

In my DnD games (that feature objective alignment) if you do the above your alignment also shifts to evil.

I'm happy to engage in a short discussion about it, but the above rule is clear and unambiguous enough that there doesnt need to be a big discussion, and the DMs word is final (I rarely if ever reverse my decisions on alignment).

If alignment matters for some reason (fall to the dark side and lose your PC), I'll generally warn the Player first. 'That action is evil, this is why, your justification doesnt matter.'

They can choose to do the act (and gain the DSP) or not to. It's up to them.

And I mostly dont care if the players share 'my' views on morality. When they run their games they can feel free to have LG Paladins or Goodly Light side Jedi running around murdering younglings or sand people or Orcs and taking sex slaves or whatever all they want.

I have the same choice they do in my games, and get to vote with my feet.

[Talakeal]

I dont care. As DM, I'm responsible for the Dark Side or the judgement of Kelemvor and Ao.

If you're not prepared to adjudicate actions as a DM because players wanna whine about it, you shouldnt be DMing.

In my Star Wars games, if you torture, kill (other than in proportionate self defence), rape, cause undue pain and torment or use the Force to directly harm a living creature, you gain a DSP.

In my DnD games (that feature objective alignment) if you do the above your alignment also shifts to evil.

I'm happy to engage in a short discussion about it, but the above rule is clear and unambiguous enough that there doesnt need to be a big discussion, and the DMs word is final (I rarely if ever reverse my decisions on alignment).

If alignment matters for some reason (fall to the dark side and lose your PC), I'll generally warn the Player first. 'That action is evil, this is why, your justification doesnt matter.'

They can choose to do the act (and gain the DSP) or not to. It's up to them.

As I said, is this not just an excuse to railroad your players into playing your way or hitting the road?

[OldTrees1]

Does this actually work out for you?

To me, this just reads as railroading players who don't share your opinions on morality and what constitutes each alignment.

I know that I personally have a really hard time playing characters who aren't what I consider to be NG irl. The problem for me, of course, is that D&D uses its own standard of morality where certain actions are always good / evil regardless of circumstance or motivation. So, for example, if we get to a circumstance where you take my character away from me because I deem that, for example, working with the Tanarii to stop the Baatezu from taking over the world, simply because using my judgement, as a player, that is the right thing to do, then we are going to have some serious OOC problems.

And again, this isn't just me looking for excuses to be evil. As an example, I once played a paladin who fell for being to merciful to my enemies as I was failing to uphold the "punish those who harm innocents" clause of my code.

I am not Malifice but I too use alignment in a way relevant to your question.

In my group, when I DM, your character's alignment is determined by the DM's judgement which is based on the moral system the campaign is using and the information the DM has gained about your character through gameplay and talking to the player.

Objective Morality is the theory that the truth value of a statement (about morality) is independent of the person uttering the statement. So if I want Objective Morality as how morality works in the campaign (I do), then I need there to be a single truth value to any statement rather than having 1 truth value per player at the table. This necessitates the DM acting as a final determiner as to what is accurate for the campaign itself (with no comment on what is accurate in the real world).

So if you use Objective Morality then you can run into cases where the Player's judgement about a moral statement is different from how the campaign will use it. So it procs your concern about the DM railroading the players.

However, in practice, the DM does not need to be unilateral about this. If either of your examples came up (and we pretend I didn't agree with you on those examples), then I would pause the game to talk it out with the group. These kinds of initial disagreements happen rarely, are usually important to the story, and are fun for our group. After the group reaches a decision (with the DM acting as a decider in the case where there is no consensus), then we move forward with that as the way the Campaign will rule it. Now the player gets to choose what they will do in this campaign. It is understood that judgements within the Campaign are not applicable to other Campaigns or the real world.

So yes, it can result in a situation where the Player and the Campaign disagree on what is the right thing to do. However any kind of fall would take multiple of some mixture of those situations and situations where the Player chose and agreed on the thing that lead towards a fall. (Avoiding single action falls is a common policy for handling the risk of disagreement when using objective morality) So in practice it is not railroading the players despite there being a theoretical risk.

I do tend to differ with the example campaign Malifice was talking about on what happens after a fall. However I think the above description of "Objective Morality in practice in an RPG" will still be applicable.

[Talakeal]

I am not Malifice but I too use alignment in a way relevant to your question.

In my group, when I DM, your character's alignment is determined by the DM's judgement which is based on the moral system the campaign is using and the information the DM has gained about your character through gameplay and talking to the player.

Objective Morality is the theory that the truth value of a statement (about morality) is independent of the person uttering the statement. So if I want Objective Morality as how morality works in the campaign (I do), then I need there to be a single truth value to any statement rather than having 1 truth value per player at the table. This necessitates the DM acting as a final determiner as to what is accurate for the campaign itself (with no comment on what is accurate in the real world).

So if you use Objective Morality then you can run into cases where the Player's judgement about a moral statement is different from how the campaign will use it. So it procs your concern about the DM railroading the players.

However, in practice, the DM does not need to be unilateral about this. If either of your examples came up (and we pretend I didn't agree with you on those examples), then I would pause the game to talk it out with the group. These kinds of initial disagreements happen rarely, are usually important to the story, and are fun for our group. After the group reaches a decision (with the DM acting as a decider in the case where there is no consensus), then we move forward with that as the way the Campaign will rule it. Now the player gets to choose what they will do in this campaign. It is understood that judgements within the Campaign are not applicable to other Campaigns or the real world.

So yes, it can result in a situation where the Player and the Campaign disagree on what is the right thing to do. However any kind of fall would take multiple of some mixture of those situations and situations where the Player chose and agreed on the thing that lead towards a fall. (Avoiding single action falls is a common policy for handling the risk of disagreement when using objective morality) So in practice it is not railroading the players despite there being a theoretical risk.

I do tend to differ with the example campaign Malifice was talking about on what happens after a fall. However I think the above description of Objective Morality in practice in an RPG will still be applicable.

It only becomes railroading when you add the caveat that players lose control of PCs become evil.

In this case you are literally taking away all choice from the players. If they disagree with you on a moral issue their choices are: Ignore their own judgement and do what the DM tells them OR go with their instinct, become an NPC, and from that point on have their PC do what the DM tells them.

[Malifice]

As I said, is this not just an excuse to railroad your players into playing your way or hitting the road?

No, it only matters in 'heroic' games where evil characters are not allowed. As my example above demonstrates I only run such games by group consent in the first place.

Remember, each example was described as a pitch for a new campaign. If there is no consensus, the game doesnt get ran in the first place.

Im not opposed to evil campaigns on principle. I just find that the overwhelming majority of players I meet are immature socially awkward sci-fi fanboys who'll happily condone the most atrocious acts of genocide and murder as being 'good' acts.

When they get the opportunity to actually play an evil PC they simply start randomly murdering NPCs (and PCs alike) and revel in causing conflict at the table and alignment conflicts (which are annoying because they invariably create a situation where the characters can no longer function together).

A textbook example is the OP's example. If those two were PCs, there is no way a LG person would continue to associate willingly with the rapist and murderer unless they literally had no other choice, and it would be the source of unwanted conflict in what is essentially a team game.

Alignment issues only happen at a table because of the DM. Like every single problem at a table, it is always down to the DM.

Make a ruling and abide by it. Be firm but fair, and hold the intrests of the game as a whole (fun, teamwork, entertainment, challenging, co-operative, exciting) as your primary goal. Players learn to trust your judgements, and figure out that you wont be pushed over or bullied, and the game works much better.

You (as DM) arent policing aligments simply because you're a tyrant with nothing better to do. You're doing it to minimise (or eliminate) a lot of the jerk behaviour and alignment conflicts that come from so called 'evil' PCs and 'evil' acts.