The evil of Lawful Good

[Talakeal]

Sure you can say Good and Evil have nothing to do with anything. That does not really help much. Ok, so nothing is really anything?

But in D&D there is good and evil.




Maybe you mussed my point? Paladins are warriors that kill evil, and that is what their abilities do. IF they were meant to do other things....then why in oh 30 years of D&D history have they never been given such abilities to the base class?

So, where do you see ''protection" abilities for a Paladin? Can they use Shield Other as a supernatural ability? Maybe some special divine aid another? Bodyguard abilities? Maybe some ''intercept attack directed at another?" Does the paladin in your official game book have abilities like that?

They do in 4e.

Edit: and to a lesser extent in 5e. They are also healers in every edition.

[Segev]

Sure you can say Good and Evil have nothing to do with anything. That does not really help much. Ok, so nothing is really anything?

But in D&D there is good and evil.

Come now. "Good and Evil have nothing to do with ice cream flavors," doesn't mean, "Good and Evil have nothing to do with anything." Neither does what I said. You're constructing quite the straw man, here. Taking something from a corpse is not inherently good or evil. It CAN be related to them in the right circumstances, but those circumstances tend to be pretty contrived. It also can be related to law and chaos, and will tend to be so far more often, as there's usually a matter of traditions and/or ownership at stake. Ethics, not morals.

If you want to claim taking things from corpses is inherently Evil, you must justify that claim. Scoffing that questioning that claim means I'm questioning the very existence of Good and Evil in D&D is not a particularly convincing bit of rhetoric, and an appallingly bad attempt at logical refutation.

Maybe you mussed my point? Paladins are warriors that kill evil, and that is what their abilities do. IF they were meant to do other things....then why in oh 30 years of D&D history have they never been given such abilities to the base class?

So... they don't have the ability to lay on hands? To remove disease? To bolster people against magical fear?

So, where do you see ''protection" abilities for a Paladin? Can they use Shield Other as a supernatural ability? Maybe some special divine aid another? Bodyguard abilities? Maybe some ''intercept attack directed at another?" Does the paladin in your official game book have abilities like that?

They have shield other on their pretty limited spell list, so, yes, they can use it. Why does it have to be as "a supernatural ability?" Does this mean spells don't count as class features, to you?

May as well say that fighters should kill everybody who poses any sort of obstacle to their goals, because all fighters get are combat class features.

[Mordaedil]

Ever since AD&D have the rules specified that alignment is not a straight-jacket, yet people keep insisting to play alignments as if they were straight jackets on their PC's. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, I suppose.

[FaerieGodfather]

Can I just say how much I love this thread? You've got people on one side arguing that Paladins killing Evil people without other justification will Fall and lose all their Paladin abilities, and people on other side arguing that if Paladins do not kill every Evil person they encounter will Fall and lose all of their Paladin abilities... both quoting RAW...

.. and the only thing they can all agree on is that the alignment rules are fine as-is and that the Paladin class does not need reform.

Was that really a rule? I have no memory of it, and it makes apaldins ludicrously innefectual at preventing actual atrocities.

A lot of the Paladin/alignment rules seem to have been written under the assumption there should never be a Level 2 Paladin in any setting: players create Level 1 Paladins, and any higher-level Paladin was birthed spontaneously from the forehead of their patron deity to serve the cause of justice faithfully until their first actual contact with any hostile force.

I don't remember this particular rule, but it easily could have been in any number of supplements and I've seen a few tables that play that way-- which, at the time, I was wholly certain was because they were making rules up, not following them to the letter.

[Berenger]

Paladins are warriors that kill evil, and that is what their abilities do. IF they were meant to do other things....then why in oh 30 years of D&D history have they never been given such abilities to the base class?

So, where do you see ''protection" abilities for a Paladin? Can they use Shield Other as a supernatural ability? Maybe some special divine aid another? Bodyguard abilities? Maybe some ''intercept attack directed at another?" Does the paladin in your official game book have abilities like that?

Yeah, if Paladins were meant to be supporters, protectors and counselors, in addition to warriors, surely they would have class features to that effect. Something like a requirement for good wisdom and charisma. Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Heal skills. The abilty to heal wounds, disease and fear in others. Cleric spells for social encounters and combat spells like Shield Other...

[Pleh]

.. and the only thing they can all agree on is that the alignment rules are fine as-is and that the Paladin class does not need reform

This is a result of the paladin code being designed to be inflexible, but somewhat customizable to fit a variety of settings.

The Paladin class doesn't necessarily need reform. It mostly just needs its own paragraph on any DM's Session 0 handout. Reforming it is one solution (effective for tables aiming for greater moral complexity), but it's not necessary for the basic elements of D&D (like a dungeon crawl where morals really aren't coming into play).

And alignment rules ARE fine as-is, when they aren't used as a straight jacket. Descriptive, versus prescriptive alignment s the way to go.

[Kraynic]

Yeah, if Paladins were meant to be supporters, protectors and counselors, in addition to warriors, surely they would have class features to that effect. Something like a requirement for good wisdom and charisma. Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Heal skills. The abilty to heal wounds, disease and fear in others. Cleric spells for social encounters and combat spells like Shield Other...

Too bad they generally don't have enough skill ranks to make a well rounded social character. And Shield Other is a long way away if you start from level 1.

Something like this recently came up in a Pathfinder game I play in (running 2nd Darkness). The player there is trying to align with the attitudes of his deity. Iomedae does seem to be more likely to tend towards "kill them all and let the gods sort them out" in her paladins when it comes to evil creatures. On the other hand, I could see a paladin of Erastil being more focused on preserving communities and peaceful (as much as possible) coexistence between communities instead of just wanting to eradicate all "evil". And both of those deities are LG. That paladin has had to atone once due to things he allowed himself to be drawn into by the rest of the group, although we have been fairly considerate of him since then.

To be honest, I think the d&d type paladin would be a lot more interesting if you had to be the alignment of your deity, and had to choose a domain or sphere of influence of that deity that you would represent as your prime motivation for being a paladin. That is just me though.

[Berenger]

Too bad they generally don't have enough skill ranks to make a well rounded social character.

This is obviously true, but hardly a paladin-specific problem. IMO, giving an extra 2 skill points per level across the board and making all untrained-usable skills class skills for everyone does not hurt.

[Segev]

Can I just say how much I love this thread? You've got people on one side arguing that Paladins killing Evil people without other justification will Fall and lose all their Paladin abilities, and people on other side arguing that if Paladins do not kill every Evil person they encounter will Fall and lose all of their Paladin abilities... both quoting RAW...

.. and the only thing they can all agree on is that the alignment rules are fine as-is and that the Paladin class does not need reform.

Actually, I haven't seen anybody make the last claim in this quote in this thread. So saying that "both sides agree" with it is spurious, at best. Moreover, when one side is selectively quoting and cherry-picking the rules, it hardly is "both sides quoting the RAW."

There is nothing inherently wrong with the alignment system nor paladins' place in it; that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. It does mean there's no need to chuck it as worthless. There's significant difference between these positions, and yet, like the guy before who tried to claim that my assertion that Good and Evil have little inherently to do with stripping valuables off of a corpse meant I was saying Good and Evil are meaningless, the attempt to claim that there exists room for improvement in the alignment system means the whole thing is a mess and shouldn't be used in any form is not logically sound. It's a rhetorical trick that sounds good if you can spin enough words around it to keep the logically fallacious leap from being detected, but it isn't actually a logically valid argument.



Paladins are not meant to be trivially easy to play, but Law and Good do not conflict as often as people like to pretend. Neither does "Lawful Good" nor the paladin code require cruelty nor bloodlust. It requires thwarting evil. It requires taking a stand for righteousness. It does not require suicidal stupidity in the name of virtue signalling, and it does not require that all punishments and methods of "thwarting" be fatal, no matter how slight the crime (ethical or moral) being punished. "If they don't kill the goblin who stole bread from a hungry child, they'll fall" is nonsense. Making the goblin give it back and giving it a drubbing is quite sufficient. Arresting or imprisoning it would also be acceptable. Also, paladins should probably be helping that starving child get some more and better food than just that hunk of bread, if it's at all practical.

[patchyman]

Nonsense. Lawful people raised in a tradition that believes either in grave goods or inheritance rights will refrain from looting the dead (though the latter will possibly take goods to try to return them to the heirs). Good and Evil have little to do with matters of unclaimed property.

Lawful societies that believe “to the victor go the spoils” have no problem with looting bodies. In the Iliad, there are numerous examples of taking a dead guy’s stuff and ransoming back to his family.

[redwizard007]

Actually, I haven't seen anybody make the last claim in this quote in this thread. So saying that "both sides agree" with it is spurious, at best. Moreover, when one side is selectively quoting and cherry-picking the rules, it hardly is "both sides quoting the RAW."

There is nothing inherently wrong with the alignment system nor paladins' place in it; that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. It does mean there's no need to chuck it as worthless. There's significant difference between these positions, and yet, like the guy before who tried to claim that my assertion that Good and Evil have little inherently to do with stripping valuables off of a corpse meant I was saying Good and Evil are meaningless, the attempt to claim that there exists room for improvement in the alignment system means the whole thing is a mess and shouldn't be used in any form is not logically sound. It's a rhetorical trick that sounds good if you can spin enough words around it to keep the logically fallacious leap from being detected, but it isn't actually a logically valid argument.



Paladins are not meant to be trivially easy to play, but Law and Good do not conflict as often as people like to pretend. Neither does "Lawful Good" nor the paladin code require cruelty nor bloodlust. It requires thwarting evil. It requires taking a stand for righteousness. It does not require suicidal stupidity in the name of virtue signalling, and it does not require that all punishments and methods of "thwarting" be fatal, no matter how slight the crime (ethical or moral) being punished. "If they don't kill the goblin who stole bread from a hungry child, they'll fall" is nonsense. Making the goblin give it back and giving it a drubbing is quite sufficient. Arresting or imprisoning it would also be acceptable. Also, paladins should probably be helping that starving child get some more and better food than just that hunk of bread, if it's at all practical.

Mostly this.

I would argue that 5e's lack of alignment restrictions has removed the "not trivially easy" portion of your point, but in previous editions, sure.

I have played with a Lawful Stupid paladin before. I killed him, and after a few similar issues with straight jacket alignments, stopped playing with him. For years, my group banned paladins. It's not a fun way for most of us to enjoy the hobby. At the right table maybe, but not at mine.

[Pleh]

I have played with a Lawful Stupid paladin before. I killed him, and after a few similar issues with straight jacket alignments, stopped playing with him. For years, my group banned paladins. It's not a fun way for most of us to enjoy the hobby. At the right table maybe, but not at mine.

I believe I could play an effective paladin in any group (outside a Way of the Wicked or similarly Edge Focused cast of antiheroes). And it really comes down to understanding mercy. In my mind, a Paladin's job is cosmic triage. You're fighting to minimize the evil in the world and to do so with the minimal use of force and trauma.

For example, killing goblins. The first question is if killing them is necessary, which is usually true because goblins usually aren't a problem or can only be dissuaded by lethal force. In that case, the paladin mostly seeks to kill the goblins quickly, to minimize their suffering.

One thing Paladins steer clear of in their best practices is sentencing punishment. Punishment and mercy are antithetical. Paladins should work on a similar principle to Batman, using only the force necessary to end a public threat. Punishment should be left up to the courts.

Ergo, a paladin on a goblin raid just seeks to quickly kill the number of goblins necessary to ensure protection of the commoners nearby. If they stray into tormenting or enslaving the goblins to force reparations back to the community, they've overstepped their bounds.

Such a paladin would have no problem doing the same with members of their own party. Punishing paladins are not fun playmates. Merciful paladins often are.

[Segev]

Lawful societies that believe “to the victor go the spoils” have no problem with looting bodies. In the Iliad, there are numerous examples of taking a dead guy’s stuff and ransoming back to his family.

Right. That's why I was specific about the kind of traditions required for Lawful people to oppose taking stuff from a corpse. Other traditions would be fine with it, or even require it.

Lawfulness doesn't serve, by itself, as a predictor of action, without knowledge of the structure, strictures, codes, or rules by which the Lawful creature operates. You can usually expect more honor and word-keeping, but even there you need to be careful. Lawfulness tells you how much they adhere to an external order, but what that order is might still be in question.

Mostly this.

I would argue that 5e's lack of alignment restrictions has removed the "not trivially easy" portion of your point, but in previous editions, sure.

I have played with a Lawful Stupid paladin before. I killed him, and after a few similar issues with straight jacket alignments, stopped playing with him. For years, my group banned paladins. It's not a fun way for most of us to enjoy the hobby. At the right table maybe, but not at mine.

Eh, paladin codes still are meant to provide at least a taste of RP challenge, but "not meant to be trivially easy" wasn't meant to be mechanical or anything. In truth, any LG character is equally likely to face such dilemmas. So are CG ones. The kind of dilemma you face will vary by alignment, but every alignment can face them. Even CE. "But I don't WANT to kowtow to that guy who's stronger than me!"

[LibraryOgre]

I thought looting the defeated, dead or otherwise, was part and parcel of the same game that made the paladin into a special RPG character class...

My general feeling is that looting the dead is a Not Lawful (not Chaotic, but Not Lawful) act, having less to do with morality and more to do with propriety.

[Talakeal]

I think 5E has gone a long way towards understanding the problem by having three different oaths each with a very different outlook, allowing people to choose the one that best suits their image of a "real" paladin.

[redwizard007]

My general feeling is that looting the dead is a Not Lawful (not Chaotic, but Not Lawful) act, having less to do with morality and more to do with propriety.

While I'm inclined to agree with this, it is quite possible to have a lawful society where
"keep what you kill" is a prime tenant. Probably not a lawful good society, but maybe in a specific caste or subculture.

[Talakeal]

Its weird how vociferously people defend the idea that desecrating the dead is the basest form of villainy when we are discussing necromancy, but have no problem with merely looting the dead.

[Psyren]

Its weird how vociferously people defend the idea that desecrating the dead is the basest form of villainy when we are discussing necromancy, but have no problem with merely looting the dead.

I find it interesting that you would equate a person's items to their bodies or souls. (Not saying there aren't cultures that have done this of course, but in most D&D settings it seems to be a more fringe attitude/more.)

[LibraryOgre]

While I'm inclined to agree with this, it is quite possible to have a lawful society where
"keep what you kill" is a prime tenant. Probably not a lawful good society, but maybe in a specific caste or subculture.

Perhaps, but my own view of law and chaos makes it a harder sell; it may be a more of the society, but it conflicts with OPP, which is really the basis, IMO, of the Law/Chaos divide.

Its weird how vociferously people defend the idea that desecrating the dead is the basest form of villainy when we are discussing necromancy, but have no problem with merely looting the dead.

Personally, I also view simple necromancy as being Chaotic, not evil per se (greater necromancies... most created undead beyond zombies and skeletons are different, since they usually create evil creatures).

[Max_Killjoy]

Perhaps, but my own view of law and chaos makes it a harder sell; it may be a more of the society, but it conflicts with OPP, which is really the basis, IMO, of the Law/Chaos divide.



Personally, I also view simple necromancy as being Chaotic, not evil per se (greater necromancies... most created undead beyond zombies and skeletons are different, since they usually create evil creatures).

I think I need to ask what OPP stands for in this context... as there is a certain song...

[Talakeal]

I find it interesting that you would equate a person's items to their bodies or souls. (Not saying there aren't cultures that have done this of course, but in most D&D settings it seems to be a more fringe attitude/more.)

Souls are a different matter, but I see little difference between disrespecting a dead body and a dead person's belongings.

[Segev]

Souls are a different matter, but I see little difference between disrespecting a dead body and a dead person's belongings.

I mean, there are entire ethical debates one can have over whether a person's dead body deserves any special consideration at all, beyond what it means to those who mourn them.

In D&D and other fictional settings, this debate changes, but doesn't necessarily end. Obviously, in D&D, keeping a dead body intact for easier/cheaper resurrection-type magics is a thing to consider. As are concerns over animation.

[patchyman]

Its weird how vociferously people defend the idea that desecrating the dead is the basest form of villainy when we are discussing necromancy, but have no problem with merely looting the dead.

Are any of them the same people, or is this a case of different people on the Internet believe different things?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Its weird how vociferously people defend the idea that desecrating the dead is the basest form of villainy when we are discussing necromancy, but have no problem with merely looting the dead.

You don't see how looting the dead of earthly possessions is different from subjecting their eternal souls to unspeakable torment? Odd.

[LibraryOgre]

I think I need to ask what OPP stands for in this context... as there is a certain song...

Other People's Property, of course. ;-)

[Tvtyrant]

My basic feeling is that the party member should have stopped the game, asked whether the group was going to treat looting as chaotic, evil or neutral and then once there was a consensus had their person act accordingly. The obligation is always on the player to act harmoniously with the group, here their alignment was disruptive jerk.

[Talakeal]

You don't see how looting the dead of earthly possessions is different from subjecting their eternal souls to unspeakable torment? Odd.

I do. Fortunately that is not an issue with undead in D&D.

Are any of them the same people, or is this a case of different people on the Internet believe different things?

I am sure it is mostly different people; but if the OP had mentioned raising a body instead of looting it I guarantee there would be an entire chorus of posters defending the paladin's actions.

[Tvtyrant]

I do. Fortunately that is not an issue with undead in D&D.



I am sure it is mostly different people; but if the OP had mentioned raising a body instead of looting it I guarantee there would be an entire chorus of posters defending the paladin's actions.

The difference being that everyone knows your undead servant was you disrespecting a dead person. Looting the dead is wrong once then forgotten, looting a zombie is visibly wrong forever.

Like if it had been the Paladin's brother no one would have looted it for money except in a true crises. This showing that looting a corpse is wrong due to disrespect, the issue becomes whether people know you disrespected them. Looting is immediately invisible, so other people don't know you are a bad person after it happens. The zombie marks you to the public where ever you go.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I do. Fortunately that is not an issue with undead in D&D.

It is. Animation is evil because it's powered by using the person's soul. Why do you think spells like Raise Dead don't work on people that have been turned into undead creatures?

[Tvtyrant]

It is. Animation is evil because it's powered by using the person's soul. Why do you think spells like Raise Dead don't work on people that have been turned into undead creatures?

Their soul being taken is nowhere in the rules. In 4E undead are just animus in a body (or just animus floating around), 3.5 they are essentially negative energy elementals, etc. The body being currently in use is why you can't return an undead to life.