Paladins - Good does not mean Peaceful

[Marsi]

This is very entertaining.

and educational.

if only more forum contentions were like this.

[Rystefn]

The discussion would be assisted by reading closely the replies written thus far. As pointed out many, many times in this thread, the denizens of the planes are limited in their dealings on the Prime Material. Archdevils can't decide to walk through Cormyr on their own, nor can Solars simply show up, unbidden, at the gates of Zhentil Keep.

Actually, they can. They can absolutely walk through any planar gate, just like anyone else can. There is literally nothing stopping them. Even discounting the myriad direct gates, both naturally occurring and deliberately crafted, and the fact that Solars have access to both Wish and Miracle, the City of Doors still connects everywhere to everywhere else. No matter how many times a thing is said on this thread, it takes more than repetition to make it true.

I understand you have a strong partisan bent against the Good alignment, and paladins in particular. However, trying to impose a twisted reading of the setting to render an entire alignment - and class - as limited to "stupid" and pointless endeavors is not just unfair. It's also nonsensical, and goes against a plain reading of the core books.

Your understanding is wholly incorrect. I have exactly one non-good character on this server in the last year. A solid quarter of the characters I've played above level 3 are paladins. My problem isn't with the alignment or the class being stupid. I'm just pointing out that the most common interpretation of paladins is entirely correctly referred to as "lawful stupid" in a lot of places.

It is also, to be frank, an unexciting and uninspired interpretation of the lore. The planar setting has been set up so that, despite the power and divinity of the greater forces in the universe, low-level adventurers and common people can still have a significant effect through their own choices and actions. The fact that "small people," through their exercise of choices and individual morality, can change the world is the foundation of this canon. And that is more compelling than the alternative.

If nothing any character ever does will ever change the status quo, that goes against the grain of D&D and roleplaying in general - the empowerment of players through the choices they make.

So yes, when a paladin and a blackguard fight each other, it is significant who wins. When a people's faith in a region is supplanted by another, it is significant for the powers that be - the deities that live and thrive off of the power of faith. Saying otherwise is just being obtuse.

The entire history of the FR setting begs to differ. Big bashers like the Simbul and Elminster can barely make a difference most of the time. There is no Samwise Gamgee on Abeir-Toril.

[yellowcateyes]

Actually, they can. They can absolutely walk through any planar gate, just like anyone else can. There is literally nothing stopping them. Even discounting the myriad direct gates, both naturally occurring and deliberately crafted, and the fact that Solars have access to both Wish and Miracle, the City of Doors still connects everywhere to everywhere else. No matter how many times a thing is said on this thread, it takes more than repetition to make it true.

You misunderstand what is being said. The presence of outsiders in the Prime Material is of a limited and specific nature. There are a variety of reasons for this, only the least of which is ability to get there. For example, see Fiendish Codex I, page 10:

"As natives of the Abyss, most demons remain prisoners there for eternity. In addition to the innate horros of the Abyss itself, most demons are enslaved and tormented by more powerful demons. The only relief they have is the suffering of others - lesser demons, or rare visitors to the Abyss, whom they can fight or torment."

"Few demons have the ability to plane shift away from the Abyss, and those that do, ironically, have the least reason to venture outside their domains. They are the powers on their layers, ruling other demons. Unless they feel the Abyss' call to bring chaos to another plane, these fiends concentrate on maintaining power against their rivals, not venturing across the cosmos looking for trouble."

The codex then goes into detail into what can bring a demon to the Material Plane. They tend to involve "complex rituals, fiendish artifacts, and living, sapient sacrifices to call demons to their service." Essentially, it's no trivial task to bring a demon to the Prime Material. And those demons for whom planeshifting is more accessible have relatively few reasons to leave the Abyss.

Fiendish Codex II goes into devils. Suffice to say, devils are interested in the Prime Material due to the value of souls they can trick or manipulate into eternal damnation. They have little reason to enter the prime to engage in mass slaughter, seeing as doing so wastes their time - they seek advancement up the hierarchy of hell, and that occurs only through the harvesting of willing souls. And this is done primarily through agents, cultists, and lesser, inconspicuous devils sent to corrupt mortals.

That said, Fiendish Codex II also points out how devils are quick to seize on (preferably risk-less) opportunities to slay the servants of Good-aligned deities, in order to weaken said gods. Surprise surprise.

My problem isn't with the alignment or the class being stupid. I'm just pointing out that the most common interpretation of paladins is entirely correctly referred to as "lawful stupid" in a lot of places.

Slaying evil is neither stupid nor counter-productive for a paladin, when redemption is not an option. It is, in fact, the raison d'être of the class, with its mechanical class feats firmly associated with doing battle with evil creatures.

Stupidity would be trusting a Maskite, hoping for a Banite's clemency, going for a good bargain with a devil, or seeking a Sharran for guidance counseling over a recent loss.

The entire history of the FR setting begs to differ. Big bashers like the Simbul and Elminster can barely make a difference most of the time. There is no Samwise Gamgee on Abeir-Toril.

Your interpretation of FR history begs to differ. Rather, the history of the planes, of deities, and of religions suggest a multitude of powers keenly interested in the choices and faiths of individual mortals.

Faiths and Pantheons, page 6. In an introductory guide to profiling the gods, the book explains how the power ranking of each god depends greatly on the number of worshipers they have. Demigods have thousands or tens of thousands of followers. Greater powers have followers numbering in the millions. In addition, the book details how certain fiends have found ways to garner power from mortal worshipers in the same manner as deities. Bolded and italicized for emphasis.

The Powers value their worshipers. Their primary tool in influencing the prime material are their own faithful, acting as agents in their stead. The death of a god's agent is a setback to that god, no matter how slight. While many deities have no qualms about treating followers as sacrificial pawns, the very term suggests they are being sacrificed for a strategic gain.

[Rystefn]

My interpretation? No, no, it's plain fact. If you're going to disagree with it, you need to throw down an example. Who is this mythical everyman, this low-level adventurer and common person that "through their exercise of choices and individual morality" managed to significantly change the Forgotten Realms? Name one, and I'll concede this entire argument.

[yellowcateyes]

The point made a 'whoosh' noise as it flew overhead.

Each individual person's choice of faith, each adventurer's accomplishments or failures are significant. The gods that shape their universe draw their power from the number of their followers. When that number grows or diminishes, that god's power waxes or wanes. Individual choices comprise that whole - each in a slight, but still significant way. Whether or not these choices make the history books is irrelevant.

The names of the thousands of Tormites who chose to offer up their lives at Tantras are not remembered outside of monuments in that city. But the fact that an empowered Torm slew Bane certainly is.

Either way, I'll humor your attempt to recast this entire conversation around a single minor and, largely irrelevant question. Examples of random adventurers having a big effect on the universe?

A nameless band of level 10-12 adventurers, heeding the advice of a young, oft-ignored seer, saved Waukeen from her captivity in the Abyss and rescued that faith from dissolution.

A level 3 paladin named Jherek Wolf-get slew Iakhovas, an ancient megalodon who was once lover to Umberlee and who, for centuries, gathered magic artifacts, raised armies, and changed the course of history across northwest Faerun.

Those are just examples off the top of my head. FR canon is chock full of examples of low-level people doing big things, from a mercenary captain becoming the champion of the Red Knight during the Time of Troubles, to a poor mother's decision to sell her child leading to the upbringing of Artemis Entreri. You don't need to look very far to see it.

[Yma23]

The decision of one drow not to slay a helpless surface elf child, = Drizzt Do'urden. This character went on to help found Mithirl hall, fought in some turning point battles (check out the books) and so forth.
Elminster also had pretty humble beginnings as I recall - And became pretty 'wow'

I'm not really on top of FR cannon but... just as a fan of afew books, these are ones that pop into my mind right off the cuff.

Back to the theme of the thread (gasp) All I can say reguarding paladins is this:

1) try to, at least approximatly, play a lawful good character. If you are going around murdering/torturing/raising undead/stealing/lying then, chances are, something is probably going a little bit wrong and you should think carefully.

2) Play a character first, a class second. Your class should effect your character, and vice versa, but I find the best characters are "XXXx who is a XXXX", rather than "A XXXX who's name is XXXX'

3) Make fun, have fun, even if it means bending the concept slightly. A Dm would rather see a Paladin who, for example, tried to make interesting and fun conflict, even if it meant he/she was a lttle brutal, than one that just sat in the cornre wringing their hands helplessly. Likewise, I think many would rather see one who stayed their hand from murdeirng -every- -single- slightly shady person who crossed their path, than one who just killed and bashed people willy nilly.

4) Most of all this.
You can read every source book, memorising it.
You can spend an hour between each emote, each sentence, typing each one out to be a carefully worded and crafted thing of beauty and balence.
You can leave your rl life and try to -live- as a paladin, undering armour, sword, and such training IRL
You can read all the historical sources
You can sit down and have a chat with Greenwood himself.
You can sit at the computer and weep bloody tears of frustration as you beat your chest, wailing 'But what is a perfect Paladin!!!!!!'

In the end? Someone will think you are Doing It Wrong.

So. Relax. Have fun. Try to be generally Lawful Good and Paladiny, be an awsome character, and you'll be fine.

[Rystefn]

In what universe is a party of 10-12th level adventurers low-level? The only honest examples of actual low-level nobodies making any sort of impact at all are insignificant nothing events in the backstories of the actual movers and shakers of the setting. Because there is no Samwise, there is no Frodo, this is a setting where superheroes do things and the little guy is only set dressing. Hell, that third-level paladin is on par with freaking Boromir.

But, really, in the end, what we're talking about here, is that one of us thinks it's cool for paladins for being the genocidal maniacs Gygax insisted they must be, and the other is saying "Dude... maybe killing a bunch of people is more likely to be evil than good, no matter what your intentions might be." You want to talk about cumulative effects, there you go. It's endlessly confusing to me how no one ever holds up The Punisher as an example of a comic book character that would be considered a paladin, but almost no paladin players hesitate even a second before acting exactly like him.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I have absolutely no idea what the LOTR allusions are all about, and I question your validity when you say Boromir is a level 3 paladin.

To be frank, in a world where demons are tangible, monsters are around the corner- the last thing I'd want to call a holy warrior who's going to smite them is the definition of "insanity."

And who gives a crap about what Gygax said, seriously. Why do we hail back to the creators as if they're always relevant. I don't keep Gygax quotes in the back of my mind when I interrogate roleplay.

[Ecstatic]

So quick question, guys:

Why are we citing the opinions of someone who hasn't written D&D setting cannon in two decades? Arelith is at least somewhat FR-based, and Gygax got cut out of setting writing on account of being a crazy old man with loads of very sketchy views. He hasn't touched a FR authorship in my lifetime.

Actually, I know why, but I can't be nice in explaining it.

[The Rambling Midget]

Why are we citing the opinions of someone who hasn't written D&D setting cannon in two decades? Arelith is at least somewhat FR-based, and Gygax got cut out of setting writing on account of being a crazy old man with loads of very sketchy views. He hasn't touched a FR authorship in my lifetime.

I love quoting myself, and this has already been quoted, so I'm going to quote it again, for good measure.

I think that the question which needs to be answered before any discussion can begin is "what is expected of Arelithian Paladins?"

Most classes here have taken some divergent path, if only slightly, from the original intentions of Forgotten Realms lore, so it follows that Arelithian Paladins may follow a somewhat different standard.

It doesn't matter what Gygax thought. What matters is what Paladins are to Arelith, and they sure as heck aren't in line with canon. Not in the same ballpark, not even on the same continent.

[I_Am_King_Midas]

Do you care to expound upon your belief that they aren't in the same continent RM?

[The Rambling Midget]

D&D canon has its own singular view of what a class should be, and there isn't a whole ton of wiggle room, especially in the earlier editions, as far as the philosophical interpretation of the confluence of character action and mechanics. Of course, you could have whatever personality you wanted, within reason, but in the old days, a Rogue was a Rogue was a Rogue, and much the same for the other classes.

That's thirty-something years ago, and this is now, when we've all beaten the base classes to death, and are looking for something more. This is also the internet, where it's pretty darn hard to be strict about interpretations. So, we're far more open to those charming liberal interpretations of what our characters should be and do, (again, within reason) because that's what makes the game interesting. With the exception of certain lines which aren't to be crossed - mostly to prevent silliness - the bottom line here seems to be whether or not you can justify your RP. Okay, so your character is this class with this alignment, and did this thing, which maybe doesn't seem entirely in line with what was expected, so the question is asked, and the possible outcomes are "Oh, I understand, now. That makes sense." or "Hmm... That seems a bit too far off course, let's try to push it in another direction." It's all very gentle and based around the idea of community improvement. In other words, we've got a lot of latitude.

The other thing we run into on Arelith is the big, fat, sloppy (usually unnecessary and asinine) alignment debate. Paladins are glued to Lawful Good. You change that, you lose your class levels. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. The reason for the unnecessarily convoluted debate is that everyone has their own interpretation of what Lawful Good means - some based on the ideals of modern society, and others based on the morality of good old fashioned D&D - and everyone thinks their opinion is the right one. Some people think that Lawful means following the local law, and others think it just means following a personal code. Some people think that Good means fighting for "Team Good" toward the destruction of Evil, at any cost, and others think that it means putting the welfare of those under protection before the destruction of Evil, and even showing mercy toward Evil in the hopes of reconciliation. But, I have to say that, in all my time here, I've never seen a decree come down from on high about the definitions of each alignment. Not even Lawful Good, which is the most controversial.

Why is this? Partly because case by case rulings aren't discussed openly. You don't hear about the ones who go too far. The other part, I believe, is that the Devs want to leave this an open playing field for the full spectrum of possible interpretations and only pick out the occasional ones that are detrimental.

We've gone from a very strict "these are the lines, do not cross them" to a more relaxed "this is the nebula, do your best not to drift too far".

The set of Paladins that conform to D&D canon can be contained within the set of Arelith Paladins. The opposite is not true.

I suppose that what I really should have said is that they're not restricted to the same continent. They're free to travel there if they choose, of course.



That went on longer than I thought it would. Enough?

[yellowcateyes]

This is actually the first I've heard someone complain that the base canon is too constrictive.

FR lore is many things - huge yet muddled and vague, drawing from many generations of authors with a "kitchen sink" approach to world building. There are paladins of Mulhorand, paladins of the Triad, and paladins of the hin and dwarven pantheons. Even within paladins under the same deity, you have multiple Orders encompassing varied belief sets. Tyr, for example, has several orders - one emphasizes the "law" part of lawful good, while the other emphasizes the "good."

In other words, D&D canon is pretty varied and all-encompassing. Rather, I've found the conversion to Arelith as having the opposite problem.

You don't want people using every single aspect of the base lore to their advantage since that leads to canonical snowflakes. For example, while Drizzt is a fascinating character for a novel, you don't want plenty of Drizzt PCs in Arelith. By and large, you want drow following the stereotype of chaotic evil backstabbing bastards.

Paladins in particular can get a lot of roleplay value out of drawing from the base lore. One thing that universally unites paladins is adherence to a code of behavior and an ironclad set of principles. Basic FR lore offers a wide variety of paladin codes, differing from Order to Order and deity to deity. Looking up background info enriches and increases your options, rather than reverse.

So no, I disagree that D&D canon has a singular view of the paladin class. Between Kelemvorite paladins who seek to console the dead and ensure that every soul finds their place in the afterlife, to paladins of Horus-Re who emphasize divine retribution on the edge of a khopesh, there's a lot to work with in the basic canon.

While no one is recommending slavish obedience to lore books, they remain useful launching points for character concepts and inspiration for roleplay ideas.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

To provide further commentary, paladins have become an example of our discussion of two things that Arelith has sometimes difficulty portraying.

1) the diversity of Faerun
2) creativity beyond sourcebooks

yellowcateyes talked about the diversity of paladinic orders in Forgotten Realms. And there are plentiful, but a divide quickly arises between those who 'research' (I can't find a better word) and those who don't. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but one certainly requires less time. What this does, is limit diversity. Paladin can be a good example of that. We're all probably guilty of it, but I've never seen a paladin of Horus-Re. Sourcebooks say they're all over Mulhorand.

I have absolutely no idea if the reason we see predominantly non-"ethnic" (I'll be vague to avoid misconstrued antagonism) paladins is because of contemporary bias, or otherwise, but people go to sourcebooks for "what is truth" while Arelith operates in a sphere that doesn't entirely reflect Toril.

The lack of character diversity, while not a bad thing by any means, can create a problem, as seen by the ongoing discussion of this thread - "what is a paladin"? There are unifying aspects, but I think there's a subtle relationship as to what see in Arelith, and what we believe to be universal, or more canon than others.

And I'll disagree with Rambling here, or perhaps take a different approach, and say that the reason why paladins in D&D canon and Arelith canon are incongruous is nothing to do with the setting, the environment, or what have you, but the difference in the playerbase. There's a lot of stuff to know if you want to play a "canon" FR paladin- but we support an environment where it's unnecessary, which has its immense amount of benefits.

I don't know, I don't think I'm making sense anymore. Perhaps the more fundamental philosophy is that you constantly need to be re-interrogating how we look at classes, mechanics, themes, philosophies and so forth, not only to get inspired, be creative and original, but also because there's a lot of hidden stuff in the world of Toril.

anyways, ending with this quote from Greenwood. For all his nonsense, he said this, which I think is key to refuting a lot. If you have a region in Toril that's medieval, a paladin from there will not think the same as a paladin from a region of Toril that's Renaissance.

"...but it should always be remembered that the Realms is NOT an analogy or copy of Earth; what we may see as medieval in some ways, and Renaissance in others, when looking at Faerûn, is inevitably seeing things from our point of view: the Realms may develop in very different ways than the real world did."

[The Rambling Midget]

And I'll disagree with Rambling here, or perhaps take a different approach, and say that the reason why paladins in D&D canon and Arelith canon are incongruous is nothing to do with the setting, the environment, or what have you, but the difference in the playerbase. There's a lot of stuff to know if you want to play a "canon" FR paladin- but we support an environment where it's unnecessary, which has its immense amount of benefits.

The bold does a good job of summing up my post.

[Yma23]

A bit late for the party here. But I just want to echo every. Damn. Thing. that Miget said. That post (the long one) basically summerises my thoughts on most 'how do I rp this' threads on arelith. Beautiful. Beautiful.

As for what else I wanted to say:

“A paladin is an individual of great faith, personal discipline, and rigorous training in a martial order. Moreover, a paladin is an individual who is aware of this grander struggle and, most importantly, elected a particular side of this struggle to champion.” - Yellocateyes

Whilst I mostly agree with this, I would argue that the latter part is not entirely true all the time. Yes, most paladins are probably aware of the struggle between good and evil, but I would say that this does not make them experts on it. Some are just good folk, trying to make a difference in the world, more keen on the evils existant in mortality than immortality. I’ll lead onto this after looking at Rystefn’s quote:

“That's why evil will always win. Because good is dumb.”

Indeed. That’s why when you step out of the Nomad you are immediately confronted with a hellstewn landscape, stewn with demons, each inflicting new and horrible forms of torment on each other, before being dragged off yourself to be horrificaly mutilated and ravaged.

Oh wait. No. We aren’t. (well, it is aristotilous street, but still.) Evil is not ‘always winning.’ And we can tell this because it has not, in fact, won yet. You can certainly argue that it can never be truly defeated, ect. But that’s not the point.

‘Because Good is Dumb’

Because my level 3 paladin does not have the dozens of lore points required to understand the possibility that the evil souls he kills –may- come back as lemurs, he is stupid?

I highly contend this is not so. He will act as his knowledge compels him to. Is he ignorant? Maybe. But ignorance is not the same as stupidity, and this is presuming your argument is correct which, frankly, I don't buy.

Further more: To take the following example - a paladin walking alone, sees a woman being tied down and skinned alive by a group of bandits. Does he shrug his shoulders and go, ‘ho hum. Killing them would just make lemurs. Best leave them be.’ and move on, leaving the woman to a slow, horrific, tortuous death. Or does he do what’s necessary to save the her?

Yes, as Yellowcat eyes has pointed out, Paladins are cosmic servants in a vast war. But moreover, they are good folk who want to protect the innocent and helpless. Not neccesarly just because it will shift the cosmic balance of the universe, not because they mystically have 100000 lore and have read every DnD sourcebook ever, but because they are driven to do Good things. To be heroes, or at least try to be.

Yes, saving one tortured woman probably won’t save the universe. But it will save –her- universe. That’s a sort of heroism too.

[Kashisjonny]

Dont play a paladin but when i am done slapping the crap out of bad guys on kaliyah, i go to hell and smack devils. Everyone wins, gg.

[Razmo_de]

I always thougt the idea was nicer, that conversion from evil to good (or vice-versa), is a significant shift in the balance of things. Stabbing with a sword more likely furthers status quo, though it may change the world near you little more to your worlview. Both because its harder to convert people than stab them. And because it generates more RP in a world like arelith.

So yeah, if your Paladin is making the world a better place (pet kittens and stuff) and convincing people to be nice and helpful to each other, thats some good (and GOOD) RP in my eyes.

I don't know much about Paladins though.

No one ever talks about CG characters, do they?

[Valo65]

I always thougt the idea was nicer, that conversion from evil to good (or vice-versa), is a significant shift in the balance of things. Stabbing with a sword more likely furthers status quo, though it may change the world near you little more to your worlview. Both because its harder to convert people than stab them. And because it generates more RP in a world like arelith.

So yeah, if your Paladin is making the world a better place (pet kittens and stuff) and convincing people to be nice and helpful to each other, thats some good (and GOOD) RP in my eyes.

I don't know much about Paladins though.

No one ever talks about CG characters, do they?

CG characters are often played as angsty, sarcastic wannabe mavericks who like spouting one-liners before killing some villain, both in NWN and D&D in general. They are also the hipsters of fantasy worlds, and it's easily my least favorite alignment.

Ahem.. But that's getting off topic.

Paladins do not overly care about the "balance" of things. The famous Jedi phrase "balance to the Force" is completely irrelevant to the Paladin's mindset, and the druidic definition of the word even more so (as that requires that some degree of evil be allowed).

A paladin would certainly prefer that the world be a better place with lots of kittens to be pet (especially Paladins of Nobanion), and want people to be nice and help each other (especially Paladins of Ilmater and Lathander), but that's just what they want to bring about. How they bring it about is another matter. Wishing people would be nice, and preaching love and acceptance is great.. but keep in mind that while Paladins are often (though not always) idealists, they are not naive (keep in mind the WIS requirements). Paladins are a highly martial class, and those who belong to the paladin orders are raised and EXPECTED to engage in holy warfare against the forces of evil. That's what their god gives them powers for, even Sune and Ilmater.

So yes, petting kittens is all well and fine, but when the vast majority of the realms wants to A: Torture you, B: Eat you, C: Kill you, D: Enthrall you, E: Steal from you, F: Steal your soul, G: Animate your corpse, H: Drain your life force, I: Kill your god, J: Corrupt you, K: Usurp your lord's throne, or L: All of the above, there's more important things to be done (like hitting bad things with sharp metal instruments), and very little time to waste trying to change someone's outlook on life by preaching the values of charity and love.

Consider how much luck you have debating politics or religion with people, and then multiply that by ten and that's how much difficulty you'll have getting someone to completely change their alignment. (Important note: I'm sure many of you have stories about how you or someone you know managed to redeem some villain, but odds are that's only because they were planning on letting their character be redeemed anyway.)

[Seven Sons of Sin]

One of the curiosities of the Forgotten Realms is the Pact Primeval. Beside it being an obvious clone of Paradise Lost, I'm always intrigued in how a paladin is meant to react to a more cosmic idea of "balance."

The creation of Asmodeus was to restore balance - right? Or was it to give the sentient gods of the Upper Planes time for world-building? Undeniably, Asmodeus did restore some level of "balance" in the heavenly battle of Good vs. Evil.

As it's been reiterated, the paladin (a trained religious warrior/soldier in a devout and very real holy order) has knowledge of consequence and repercussion of cosmic actions and "balance" of forces.

How does a paladin confront the idea of Pact Primeval? It's whole purpose was a balancing act, to counterweigh Demons. The creation of baatezu has obviously become exaggerated to a completely different purpose, but again, here's good deities doing very weird things to maintain a balance of power.

I don't know, perhaps I disagree with Valo. I think I'd buy into the Jedi-philosophy of "balance of the 'Force'" - even though paladins undeniably want victory, the cosmic scale seems very far-reaching. What would happen if good won on a rather cosmic scale? Perhaps that's too unthinkable or implausible, but I think there is some thought put forward into the interaction of the planes, heavenly bodies, and mortals. Upsetting the greater sphere of reality looks scary, even if it meant the elimination or conclusive defeat of 'evil'.

[HinAttack]

I would like to add some to this conversation.

While reading through this thread, I think I am firmly in the camp of historical reference than D&D Lore. I am not saying that is better or worse, just saying that it just 'is' for this particular character.

As a Paladin of Mystra, I play him more with a background of a conglomeration of Knights Templar history/Kingdom of Heaven movie/Arn movie/ and historical sermons from various faiths.

When I made the PC, I developed a series of vows that I try and adhere to during game play. These Vows and the dogma of Mystra are the roots of endless debates with other knights that I enjoy playing this game with.

I can tell you that my PC leans very closely to the neutral side of Lawful Good in his dealings with everyone, and have been in a few lengthy debates with others of his faith due to his actions. But I have never strayed from the vows I took when I developed the PC.

For me, this makes a playable PC. It has a Black and White view on Arelith and I have clear goals in mind. It is an easy PC to role play with, in my mind.

As a number of you have mentioned, the Jedi Philosophy of balancing the force, I, too try and balance the use of the Weave. But I think each Deity and each dogma of that deity varies with the individual playing the paladin.

Would I step over burning babies to protect the weave? You bet. Would I allow evil to triumph over good? mmm possibly, are they acting responsibly with the weave?

I have since moved on from paladin and embraced other classes simply because events I have witnessed and role play I have been privileged to be part of have shaped my PC to its current path. And I can tell you, the die hard paladins I play with will always raise up and question my philosophy with 'Lawful Good.'

I still believe the paladin is defined by the Goddess he worships and the vows he takes. But hey, I could be wrong, I have had my alignment shifted towards evil and have lost around 3,000xp for my actions as a paladin. Am I wrong? Honestly, I do not know.

I still believe that the thing that makes paladins and the role play here on arelith is your ability to set up a background like the vows I took and then simply to interact with others to shape not only your PC, but those around it.

[Valo65]

Just saying.. a paladin who steps over burning babies to protect something specifically related to his God is less a paladin and more a divine champion. There is a huge difference between them.

What you describe seems, in my opinion, to be more of a divine champion than a paladin.

Not that he's a bad character (though I have to question the morals of someone who would allow evil to win and babies to burn in the name of his magic), but you might consider the Divine Champion approach.

Paladins are not defined by their god. Their actions and mindset are colored by their god, but not defined by it. They are defined by their oaths and their mission.

[yellowcateyes]

I lean towards Valo's argument here. A paladin is Lawful Good, no matter which deity he serves. His alignment colors the interpretation of his dogma. A warrior that steps on burning babies and stands by as evil flourishes, all in the name of faith, isn't a paladin. He's a zealot, a divine champion, or possibly even a Blackguard. See also: Blackguard of Helm.

Paladins do not step on burning babies. They do not torture people. They do not perform evil acts or let evil triumph by inaction. If you want a holy warrior that is more morally grey, Divine Champion exists. If you want a holy warrior willing to perform atrocities for the sake of their own view of the 'greater good', Blackguard exists.

Edit Reminder: A paladin is both Lawful and Good. Fashioning a set of vows and a code that you adhere to at all times settles the Lawful aspect of your character. But you cannot forget the Good aspect.

[Hunter548]

@Seven

Asmodeus, roughly, was created to fight demons and give the Gods time to build worlds and create things. The Pact Primeval came much later, and outlines him taking Baator as his domain, the various rules regarding infernal pacts and devil conduct, the punishment of people who deserve it, and gaining divine energy/power via torturing them. Asmodeus' current position/goals are a perversion of his original purpose and the one given to him in the Pact Primeval, and while well within the letter of the Pact, not what the Gods intended. (See also, his being physically thrown from Heaven back into Baator when told to explain this).

Jedi Balance-of-the-Force isn't what it sounds like, either. The Jedi (And this is canonical, according to Lucas) view "Balance" in the force as the complete destruction of users of the dark side, rather than an equal number of dark side and light side users, because the dark side of the force is viewed as a perversion/unnatural.

Celestia/Various LG powers don't want a balance of the various forces of the multiverse, because that is neither lawful nor good. They want evil and chaos to be destroyed, because it is entirely anathemic to their existence. Whether or not an equal balance of evil and good in the Multiverse would be more beneficial than all good is irrelevant to them; If they were able to compromise like that, they wouldn't be literal Law and Good (as physical forces of the multiverse) given physical shape.

[Valo65]

The "Pact Primeval," which from what I understand is a pact between the gods and Asmodeus, seems to be something that few if any people would be aware of to any degree. Perhaps its existence could be something an Infernal Warlock spent his time researching after seeing obscure references in his cult library, but I honestly don't see your average paladin (unless he has a HUGE emphasis on exorcism) spending his time reading up on ancient pacts that date back to the beginning of time, simply because I see no reason why the gods or Asmodeus would allow transparency in this.

It's certainly a very interesting piece of lore, and I could see certain infernalists using its implications on the cosmos to gain power, but I fail to see why it is something that paladins have to rationalize considering how rare (I believe) the knowledge of its existence is.

I just read this:
"The Pact Primeval was a powerful document signed by Asmodeus and the gods of law to basically assign Asmodeus the position of cosmic jail warden. The gods were tired of having to deal with wicked souls personally, so Asmodeus (a former angel who, with his minions were designed to defeat the primordial chaos of the universe---read: demons---and in the course of fighting with them, began to take on their evil characteristics) volunteered to be the one to deal with evil souls.

This deal involved Asmodeus being given domain over the Nine Hells, since the gods didn't want him splattering the blood of wicked souls all over their polished marble floors in the Heavens. Asmodeus moved in, and began his duties, but the gods realized that he was not only actively corrupting and entrapping souls to ensure their damnation, but was siphoning power off the souls of the wicked mortals he was capturing.

The gods were aghast, but apparently, they didn't read the fine print. (Source: Fiendish Codex 2)

The Pact itself is written on three copies, if I'm not mistaken; one in the Heavens, one in Mechanus, and one in the Nine Hells. Each copy is an artifact of overwhelming good, overwhelming law and overwhelming evil."