-Warning: essay like post-

--------------------------------- Note: This is *NOT* a topic on Romar, but rather Paladins as a whole. I only used him as an example. Thanks. ---------------------------------

Now, First of all Id like to make it perfectly, painfully clear this is not a complaint. D&D is a complicated game, with complicated classes, restrictions, gods, and complicated implications. This means that there are 100's of different interpretations to any idea. I do nothing but post mine.

I recently played a Paladin of Helm. I came to a interesting situation about 2 weeks ago. By Romar's idea of Helm's laws, a person had to be killed. He was a threat to sanctuary, massively powerfully, and to take him alive would be wrong. But a watchman said not to kill him. When he killed him, he got hit with points to evil and chaotic. Even though the person killed had been blatantly evil and worshiped a enemy of helm. (Trying to avoid spoilers here, feel free to correct me if I spoil)

Now, Im not in any way saying the DM wronged me, he made a good point as to why the shift. Romar killed a man the law wished alive. But it brings up a question. Which is lawful? The laws of God or men? A paladin, when confronted with such a situation, would have to choose. Is following a God's laws above the Laws of a city Chaotic? What about when a Paladin order topples a Evil dictator, which seems very lawful by a gods law, but by this evil dictators laws of crimethink, is quite chaotic.

So, Is it: 1.) Implied in the paladin's commitment to Law is one to truth and justice. If the law of the land is neither truthful nor just, then the paladin is not obliged to obey it. Given that the paladin knows of his justness, he should not be morally required to submit himself to putting the city in danger.

2.) A paladin is required to respect the law and adhere to the local justice system. If he's required to go on trial, he will do so, and if he is convicted, he will accept his punishment, even if he knows that he is innocent.

I am personally inclined to think that 1 is more likely then 2. Mainly because this is how, in most D&D settings, Ive seen them act.

Ive seen this argued fircely about, espessally on EN world. I used to, from the paladin description, agree with the "obey the law, always" idea. But, after looking carefully at the issue, Id have to argue that a Paladins commitment is to his gods law over Mans. Paladin are not policemen, nomatter if many policemen act like paladins.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=153582

It was not for disobeying the local law, but the law tends to do things for reasons that can be cosmically lawful.

Killing evil is not an inherently good action.

I've PM'd other details of the situation to you.

AScottBay It was not for disobeying the local law, but the law tends to do things for reasons that can be cosmically lawful.

Killing evil is not an inherently good action.

I've PM'd other details of the situation to you.

KK, This is not a complaint by any means. As i said, you were in the green. Its more just a continuation of a question of a concept. I have no complaint twords the shift.

One other thing, a suggestion that might make playing a paladin more fun and ethically challenging: seek to understand why someone is evil, and then do what is necessary to correct it - Smite Evil can sometimes be an excessive solution!

AScottBay One other thing, a suggestion that might make playing a paladin more fun and ethically challenging: seek to understand why someone is evil, and then do what is necessary to correct it - Smite Evil can sometimes be an excessive solution!

True. But if a paladin discovers, beyond any doubt that, say, a king is evil, will he smite him?

To be lawful is to follow a strict personal code, one way or another. An assassin refusing to kill women for some personal reason isn't necessarily lawful, but that's definitely a lawful trait. Paladins, too, should follow "their own" (which is really their god's) code. Particularly a Helmite I would not have expected to disobey a city official, unless there was a damn good reason. A Hoarite, on the other hand, assuming he had solid proof of the target's misdeeds, could easily bring about Hoar's justice.

Sometimes, personal codes, whether they be one's own or those of one's god, fit in with the society. Helmites, Tyrran, and Amaunatori, for instance, tend to have faith in local laws. Hoarites are far more inclined to take matters into their own hand. I would have used an example from EfU, but I recently discovered my impression wasn't entirely correct, so meh.

Snoteye has the right of it, I think.

It is why I love Hoar so much. Hoar understands that the law cannot cover every wrongdoing, and in protecting the innocent sometimes the law also protects the guilty. His servants (and therefore Paladins) can act when the law is silent or binds other agents of the law. They can act as the law intended even when the letter of the law or its agents prove fallible, and realize that in a non-perfect world that this is more often than not the case. Those in power can abuse it, thus holding the justice of such gods as Tyr, Amaunator and Helm at bay, but it does not protect them from Hoar or his justice.

Hoaran Paladin = Ultimate Smite Paladin

In my opinion Hoar fits Sanctuary far better than Tyr ever could.

Something that I thought was quite unique of another player was they came back to my paladin with a question of their taint.

My character will often refer to the color of their aura instead of claiming that they are evil or tainted. The color determines how many 'sins' they've got weighing on their soul.

There was a player that accepted that he had done evil deeds in the past and wished to better himself. While my paladin couldn''t openly travel with him on this journey of redemption, he did offer advice on how to correct for past sleights. The player then would bring the character back and ICly ask if the color of their aura had changed. The character was both humble and friendly, and more over the RP of the interaction between the evil person and my paladin was quite satisfying.

It's an difficult line to follow.

As my Sunite (who is irritating, boorish and arrogant) attempts to work out how to deal with those she sees as tainted so this battle and swinging of opinion tracks her own way of coming to conclusions IC. One would expect most gods would have a pretty stringent set of codes and ethics that allow for these questions though Sune (and clearly the laws and edicts of Sune are not really compatible with an environment such as Sanctuary which is why it's so interesting).

She has tried public denouncement (failure), rehabilitation (failure and dangerous) and understanding the process from the individuals point of view (failure, dangerous and ultimately fatal for the individual). The search goes on.

Playing a Paladin of a god that has some very firm beliefs and codes of behaviour does cut down on this soul searching aspect. The dangers my friend of blind faith and one that lends itself to the "zealot" tag that we all hear (and rightly) for some folk.

Valaron probably plays his Sunite Paladin in a very different way from myself. Does he have anything to add?

When I play my Paladins, they tend to insult them, then wander off hoping for retribution so they can smite them...

Okay, joking, I probably play the worst god damned paladins on EFU.