Paladins of Cuiraecen (Was Bloodline Influence)

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 02:51, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:
Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-25 18.26:

> It`s a choice --- for the PLAYER not the character. To choose to stray
> from the path is a player decision - to play a paladin or not. To seem
> to struggle with the choice is role-playing, even to give in could be.
> It`s very similar to a player choosing to change class from warrior to
> mage (although in a more spectacular manner)

Yes, and in the case of the warrior-mage, the player gets away with it,
while in the case of the pladin, the player gets punished for his actions by
having his character loose abilities. Just proves my point.

huh? the player gets away with it in both cases. If a player no longer
wishes to play a paladin then they can always switch to warrior, in the
other case (switching to mage - 2e at least, 3e I understand is a
free-for-all) it`s not so easy (under official rules). -- no one forces
a player to choose a paladin, and no one forces the player to choose not
to.

Playing a paladin means being a champion of good. Playing a mage means
using spells as a primary method of achieving goals. While there`s no
rule against playing a mage that never memorizes or casts spells, it`s
not very sensible. (they aren`t acting very mage-like) A DM could argue
that there is no basis for the character having the ability to cast
spells if they never study magic or try to cast them.

Playing a champion of good that doesn`t champion good -- doesn`t entitle
the character to the tools to champion good. Quid pro Quo after all. The
alignment of lawful-good is an essential defining characteristic - to be
a paladin is to be good - not "you have to be good to be a paladin".

/starfox

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:05 AM

> In the much less sea-faring Anuire,
> ???????????????????????????
> "much less" ???? --- are you reading the same source books?
> Khinasi and Brecht, then Anuire, then Rjurik, lastly Vos - and nothing
> for the elves (sob!), or dwarves (they`d sink anyway being made of
> stone).

First, why consider paladins for Nesirie in cultures for which there is no
worship of Nesirie? When Vos, sidhe, and dwarves begin that worship, I`ll
consider their worship in my discussion of their paladins.

Second, the books are full of evidence that the Anuireans are not a great
sea power. Much of the trade in the south is described as being conducted
by Khinasi sailors, and in the Khinasi texts there is no mention of visiting
Anuireans. At least one Khinasi guilder has moved into Anuire. Likewise,
the Tael Firth is sailed by Rjurik seamen, where again its a Rjurik guilder
who has moved into Anuire. On the back of seapower, so prospers trade. The
Brecht and the Rjurik have marine units, not so the Anuireans. The
decriptive material emphisizes the fishing of the Rjurik, Brecht, and
Khinasi, while speaking much more about the bountiful Anuirean agriculture.

I`d also say that the Brecht lead in seafaring peoples, that they would be
most likely to have sea-oriented character classes and PrC`s because every
Brecht realm has a nautical interest, every one has a population on the
coast. The Khinasi with their horse-based pastoralism have much more going
on that has nothing to do with the sea. They may have the ancient sea
tradition of the Masetians, and they may have some very nice technology
(thank you Avani), but they are not as reliant upon the sea as the Brechts
are.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Starfox]

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-25 19.43:

> Playing a champion of good that doesn`t champion good -- doesn`t entitle
> the character to the tools to champion good. Quid pro Quo after all. The
> alignment of lawful-good is an essential defining characteristic - to be
> a paladin is to be good - not "you have to be good to be a paladin".

Yes - but playing a wizard that suddenly turns into a warrior does not
remove yur ability to cast spells - you only choose not to use those
abilities. A palandin actually looses his abilities, which is a limitation.

Again, there is n functional difference between the statements "to be a
paladin is to be good" and "you have to be good to be a paladin" in the game
- merely semantics. In both cases, your choices as a player are restricted -
hence it is a restriction on the character class.

But we are not really listening to each other`s arguments here, so I guess
we can quit this discussion.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[marcum uth mather]

i remember onced i played a palidin. we were questioning a duragar dwarf. he would not answer are questions. i was going to kill him. as soon as i cut his neck i lost my powers. i had took the life of a helpless foe, who was unable to defend himself. anyway what i am trying to say is a palidin is special because he is above and beyond the call of good. he will only fight the good fight. now if we were to allow palidins of othere faths, it would violate the resone for being a palidin. a druidic palidin would not be plosible, as druids are N and can go ether way. CG palidins sould also not be, for the fact they dont have to make the morel dilema decsions. a CG palidin could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his ethose. Palidins must be always aware of the holiness of his actions. anly a LG good could give powers like that. it is only after a few levels that a palidin gets priest spells. this comed with his longevity as a power of good. a chapion of a god of magic could not be a palidin. they to not care about there actions just as long as they are pushing the goals of magic. a LG deity will want morels in there champions, the other gods dont care, or at lest souldn't because of there aliment. to make a long story sort i REALY think palidins sould only be LG. let the other faiths use crusadersfor 2ed, or what ever 3ed kit fits

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "marcum uth mather" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:57 PM


> what i am trying to say is a palidin is special because he is above
> and beyond the call of good. he will only fight the good fight. now
> if we were to allow palidins of othere faths, it would violate the
> resone for being a palidin. a druidic palidin would not be plosible,
> as druids are N and can go ether way. CG palidins sould also not
> be, for the fact they dont have to make the morel dilema decsions.
> a CG palidin could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his
> ethose. Palidins must be always aware of the holiness of his actions.

This assumes that only law and goodness are a proper ethos upon which to
build a rigorous code of behavior. A druidic paladin, or a paladin of CG
would have alternate ethical dilemas, alternate codes to uphold. All you
need to create an ethical dilema is a conflict between two desirable things.
Take a druid of Erik, he is both patron and protector of the Rjurik people,
and the forest. So a proper dilema would pit those two things against one
another. Nature vs people is a fine ethical dilema. A CG paladin of
Cuiraécen values fighting tyranny, especially LE tyranny. What happens when
a LG power wants to join forces? The CG paladins are acustomed to working
along. If they join the LG power, are the selling out to the establishment,
joining in a more benevolant, velvet gloved oppression? On the other hand,
they can`t go this mission alone. They need the ally to succeed. So if
they don`t combat this tyrant, they are turning the backs on the oppressed.

> a chapion of a god of magic could not be a palidin. they to not
> care about there actions just as long as they are pushing the goals
> of magic. a LG deity will want morels in there champions, the
> other gods dont care, or at lest souldn`t because of there aliment.

But don`t their alignments have imperitives as well? Just as a good fighter
can shirk the performance of some good act without fear, the paladin of a LG
diety must undertake any action, even at grave risk to himself. In the case
of Haelyn, fear of consequences should not permit exceptions. Duty must be
done. Likewise, doesn`t a LE paladin have an imperitive obligation to
impose a dominance of the strong over the weak. To make order by means of
cruelty? Let`s not just agree to follow my rules, I will slay half the
village and then open negotiations. How about that? Gods` special codes of
behavior may come from their portfolios. Sure I can just be a wizard and
pursue the goals of magic. But why can`t I be a wizardly paladin of Ruornil
and enforce a rigid interpretation of the Five Oaths in the Khinasi lands?
Why can`t I create Al-Habrim, wizard with divine granted feats (I took them
through training at the Temple of Rilni) which allow me to Track, Detect
Necromancy, grant me the Favored Enemy - Oathbreaker. I hunt down the likes
of Quirad al-Dinn and those like him. I may not shirk my duty. It does not
grant me much by way of reward, for most of the treasure captured is profane
in mine eyes.

All you need for a paladin is a code that has to be adhered to strictly. It
doesn`t have to be LG, in fact it doesn`t even have to be an alignment code.
If I can invent a strict code for a character, I can give him special powers
to advance the tenants of the code, and punish the character by withdrawl of
said powers when the code is ignored.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 09:57 PM 9/26/2002 +0200, marcum uth mather wrote:

>a CG palidin could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his ethose.

Chaotic good characters can kill helpless opponents? This is IMO part of
one of the common misconceptions regarding the alignment system. Being
chaotic does not vitiate the goodness (or evil) of one`s alignment any more
than being lawful does. A CG paladin could not have killed the dwarf
prisoner without also losing his abilities.

Killing a helpless foe is an alignment violation under most circumstances
for any good-aligned character. Such an action falls under the good-evil
scale as well as the law-chaos one. In fact, it may not fall under the
law-chaos issue at all. Killing helpless people (even if they are both
evil and former opponents) is an outright evil act. It`s also an unlawful
act when one presupposes a code of conduct in which opponents who ask for
quarter are kept from harm--but there are many societies that have a
decidedly lawful emphasis in which prisoners can have no such
expectation. It is just as "lawful" to assume a defeated foe will be
enslaved, stripped of all his belongings, killed outright, treated very
harshly in some sort of imprisonment, ransomed, humiliated, otherwise
mistreated or some combination thereof. I`d have stripped a CG paladin
from his divine abilities for the same event. It doesn`t matter if the
action violates either the law-chaos or the good-evil axis of alignment for
such a character because an alignment violation to a paladin is an
alignment violation. One or the other is enough.

Chaotic may or may not mean a character can break his/er word or the rules
of his society, but it`s just as easy to interpret that a chaotic character
is more likely to weigh the matter and make the moral decision based on
circumstance rather than have an over-riding principle that must be
obeyed. For example, in many modern police situations an adult may have a
child hostage. Often these lovely people hold a knife to the child`s
throat during negotiations with the police. The police will promise such a
criminal just about anything he wants in an effort to prolong the situation
until they get an opportunity to either take the guy out or otherwise
separate him/er from the child. Now, IMO neither a lawful good or chaotic
good character should have any qualms about lying under such
conditions. The moral issue of lying is far outstripped by the need to
prevent a potential child murder. Morally, lies told under duress are not
lies. They are forced actions. Not lying and potentially provoking a
harmful act on an innocent is a more immoral act. A chaotic character
would not hesitate to lie under circumstances, and a lawful one wouldn`t
either. But if the circumstances were less dire a chaotic character just
finds the circumstances needed to lie much sooner than a lawful one does.

I can imagine circumstances in which a good-aligned character could kill a
helpless being. What if there was a situation in which the very existence
of the helpless being was threatening the lives of innocent people? A
creature that spread a deadly disease, for instance, might need to be
destroyed regardless of its intent or whether it is helpless when the
opportunity arises. It could be justifiable to kill someone who convinces
the players/PCs that he will commit evil acts in the future even if he is
currently helpless. In general, however, offing a helpless foe without
significant justification should be considered an evil act.

>Palidins must be always aware of the holiness of his actions. anly a LG
>good could give powers like that.

Lawful good alignment doesn`t have any particular ability to create magical
powers that I`ve ever heard, nor would I personally want to go with such an
interpretation. A paladin should always be aware of the holiness of his
actions, but that doesn`t mean that holiness is both lawful and good.

When it comes to issues of alignment, I`ve been considering going with a
point system. Alignment points would then be awarded at the same time as
XP with the actions of characters during play influencing their overall
score. A character might get 2 "good" points, and 3 "chaos" points and be
described as chaotic good. Later, he could get a few "law" points, making
him lawful good. If nothing else a paladin (or other alignment oriented
class) could have a minimum score required in order to maintain his/er
class abilities. I`m not real happy with the "whamm-o" alignment effects
that occasionally crop up in D&D, and such a system could graduate the
process a bit. A paladin could certainly still fall in the course of a
single adventure if he went out and did things that were as nasty as some
of the stuff presented in issue #300 of Dragon (which was really rather
mild IMO) but a single, relatively minor alignment violation would not--and
I think should not--be the kind of thing that would make a paladin lose his
powers. Using that kind of point system would also help quite a bit in
determining things like the results of a Detect Evil/Good spell. It could
be used as a prereq for prestige classes (like what the paladin ought to
be) and could be an influence on a reputation score system to determine
things like cohorts and followers. I haven`t really fleshed out the
thought entirely, but I`m leaning towards such a system.

Issues of alignment become even more hazy when it comes to
regents. Sometimes one has to make political choices that are at odds with
moral ones, and that`s the kind of thing I see influencing an alignment
system. Will players pick expedience over morality? Can they still
exemplify their goodness or maintain their love of freedom while ruling
over a populace? That`s the kind of thing I`d like to portray in such a
system.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:40 PM

> Chaotic good characters can kill helpless opponents?

I`m glad you raised that issue, I forgot in the midst of all my other
points.

> When it comes to issues of alignment, I`ve been considering going with a
> point system. Alignment points would then be awarded at the same time as
> XP with the actions of characters during play influencing their overall
> score.

Its a good idea to use such a system. It could be used just as a kind of
fame or renown system. But it could also be used the way honor is for
samuri in Rokugan. As you say, powers could be contingent on maintaining a
certain alignment score. In that vein I want to mention Mongoose book The
Quintessential Cleric deals with codes of behavior and transgressions pretty
nicely. They identify minor vows, sacred vows, and mortal vows. The minor
vows are strictly human. The church invented these vows for its own
purposes (so they might be found in the IHH, but not the WIT) and the diety
in questions cares not. Sacred vows are required by the god for proper
veneration. These apply only to clergy and sacred others (paladins, &c).
They include things like wearing special clothes, carrying a visible symbol,
avoidance of certain weapons, requirements to act under specific conditions,
don`t fraternize with members of certain sects, and stuff of that kind. The
book suggests that breaking a sacred vow has consequences, but is easily
redeemed by some special effort. You might lose the ability to memorize new
spells until you have atoned. You might lose granted powers (and paladins
have lots of those), you might be under a -1 penalty cloud until atoned.
Atonement includes ritual penance of some kind, further oaths of obediance,
and either a gift of (they suggest) 300 gp/level or equivalent service.
Service normally requires direct action against an enemy of the faith.

Mortal vows are core beliefs, and violating them is very serious. While
sacred vows allow for atonement, violations of mortal vows often are beyond
atonement. Evil faiths tend to be less forgiving in this regard. The book
gives some nice examples of vows for each alignment.

However, as I mentioned in my last post, portfolio is also a nice place to
get good stuff too. Take running from the enemy. Some faiths could not
care less. And its certainly not an alignment issue. But it may be a
serious issue for Haelyn, Cuiraécen, or Belinik.

I brought up the issue of honor, because I was working on the NIT and Haelyn
worshiping folks in Talinie. But really, any organization could have its
own code. Consider the following.

Instead of using classes and PrC`s to represent this, you can just use
organizations. In Rokugan, if you are a member of the Lion clan, you can
learn Lion feats. Likewise, if you are a hunter of oathbreakers, you can
learn feats to hunt down and combat those who break the Five Oaths. One way
to monitor fitting behavior is a point system. Pick key aspects of
behvaior, especially those which also will influence NPC`s and you have a
combination renown/obediance system. A knight may be honorable because he
wants the respect of his peers. A paladin of Haelyn is honorable because he
wants to serve his god.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 05:57, marcum uth mather wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=955

marcum uth mather wrote:
i remember onced i played a palidin. we were questioning a duragar dwarf.

Questioning, as in polite conversation - or questioning as in
interrogation?

he would not answer are questions. i was going to kill him. as soon as i
cut his neck i lost my powers. i had took the life of a helpless foe, who
was unable to defend himself.

(Assuming interrogation). Had this dwarf done something himself that was
worthy of the punishment of death? Would the paladin`s protected group
be put at significant risk if the dwarf were allowed to go free? Had the
dwarf resisted arrest violently? (assumes crime or evil-doing against
paladins` protected group)

Killing a being for just being a duergar dwarf would be an evil act.
(life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a good guide) Having
apprehended an evil-doer however and having rendered such evil-doer
"helpless" does not preclude the paladin from exercising the full weight
of justice or retribution.

anyway what i am trying to say is a palidin is special because he is
above and beyond the call of good. he will only fight the good fight.
now if we were to allow palidins of othere faths, it would violate the
resone for being a palidin. a druidic palidin would not be plosible, as
druids are N and can go ether way. CG palidins sould also not be, for
the fact they dont have to make the morel dilema decsions. a CG palidin
could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his ethose. Palidins
must be always aware of the holiness of his actions. anly a LG good
could give powers like that. it is only after a few levels that a palidin
gets priest spells. this comed with his longevity as a power of good. a
chapion of a god of magic could not be a palidin. they to not care about
there actions just as long as they are pushing the goals of magic. a LG
deity will want morels in there champions, the other gods dont care, or
at lest souldn`t because of there aliment. to make a long story sort i
REALY think palidins sould only be LG. let the other faiths use crusaders
for 2ed, or what ever 3ed kit fits

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 07:33, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "marcum uth mather" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:57 PM


> what i am trying to say is a palidin is special because he is above
> and beyond the call of good. he will only fight the good fight. now
> if we were to allow palidins of othere faths, it would violate the
> resone for being a palidin. a druidic palidin would not be plosible,
> as druids are N and can go ether way. CG palidins sould also not
> be, for the fact they dont have to make the morel dilema decsions.
> a CG palidin could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his
> ethose. Palidins must be always aware of the holiness of his actions.

This assumes that only law and goodness are a proper ethos upon which to
build a rigorous code of behavior. A druidic paladin, or a paladin of CG
would have alternate ethical dilemas, alternate codes to uphold. All you
need to create an ethical dilema is a conflict between two desirable things.
Take a druid of Erik, he is both patron and protector of the Rjurik people,
and the forest. So a proper dilema would pit those two things against one
another. Nature vs people is a fine ethical dilema.



A CG paladin of
Cuiraécen values fighting tyranny, especially LE tyranny. What happens when
a LG power wants to join forces? The CG paladins are acustomed to working
along. If they join the LG power, are the selling out to the establishment,
joining in a more benevolant, velvet gloved oppression? On the other hand,
they can`t go this mission alone. They need the ally to succeed. So if
they don`t combat this tyrant, they are turning the backs on the oppressed.

I know what you are trying to say is that dilemmas exist for any extreme
alignment. In this example there`s no real dilemma for the paladin of C
- at least not yet - unless it`s a choice between benevolent velvet
gloved oppression and full out evil tyranny, in which case he must find
a way to play them against one another so the people are not oppressed
either way. Overall however a paladin`s first priority is to good.


> a chapion of a god of magic could not be a palidin. they to not
> care about there actions just as long as they are pushing the goals
> of magic. a LG deity will want morels in there champions, the
> other gods dont care, or at lest souldn`t because of there aliment.

But don`t their alignments have imperitives as well? Just as a good fighter
can shirk the performance of some good act without fear, the paladin of a LG
diety must undertake any action, even at grave risk to himself. In the case
of Haelyn, fear of consequences should not permit exceptions. Duty must be
done. Likewise, doesn`t a LE paladin have an imperitive obligation to
impose a dominance of the strong over the weak. To make order by means of
cruelty? Let`s not just agree to follow my rules, I will slay half the
village and then open negotiations. How about that? Gods` special codes of
behavior may come from their portfolios. Sure I can just be a wizard and
pursue the goals of magic. But why can`t I be a wizardly paladin of Ruornil
and enforce a rigid interpretation of the Five Oaths in the Khinasi lands?
Why can`t I create Al-Habrim, wizard with divine granted feats (I took them
through training at the Temple of Rilni) which allow me to Track, Detect
Necromancy, grant me the Favored Enemy - Oathbreaker. I hunt down the likes
of Quirad al-Dinn and those like him. I may not shirk my duty. It does not
grant me much by way of reward, for most of the treasure captured is profane
in mine eyes.

All you need for a paladin is a code that has to be adhered to strictly. It
doesn`t have to be LG, in fact it doesn`t even have to be an alignment code.
If I can invent a strict code for a character, I can give him special powers
to advance the tenants of the code, and punish the character by withdrawl of
said powers when the code is ignored.

Well said. I particularly like your point about the imperatives of the
paladin class.

It is difficult however to draw upon other such generalized followers of
codes to form many `character classes`. The paladin is a well known late
medieval figure. The samurai is perhaps yet another example. There are
many singular examples, but few generic ones. In some settings such
examples may occur - the Rilni `paladin` is a good example of such a
possibility. I certainly wouldn`t support making one such
`elite-warrior-priest` without a strong reason however. (for example, in
standard BR, I wouldn`t support such a paladin of Rilni - the regulation
of such oaths seems to be more the duty of the wizard class themselves)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 09:40, Gary wrote:

At 09:57 PM 9/26/2002 +0200, marcum uth mather wrote:

>a CG palidin could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his ethose.

Chaotic good characters can kill helpless opponents? This is IMO part of
one of the common misconceptions regarding the alignment system. Being
chaotic does not vitiate the goodness (or evil) of one`s alignment any more
than being lawful does. A CG paladin could not have killed the dwarf
prisoner without also losing his abilities.

Killing a helpless foe is an alignment violation under most circumstances
for any good-aligned character. Such an action falls under the good-evil
scale as well as the law-chaos one. In fact, it may not fall under the
law-chaos issue at all.



Killing helpless people (even if they are both
evil and former opponents) is an outright evil act.

Whoa! This is taking rather extreme `right-to-life` view that is not
held by LG paladins. A CG paladin maybe, but even then it`s a rather
dicey statement. But I see below that you come to a more balanced view.

It`s also an unlawful act when one presupposes a code of conduct in which
opponents who ask for quarter are kept from harm--but there are many societies
that have a decidedly lawful emphasis in which prisoners can have no such
expectation. It is just as "lawful" to assume a defeated foe will be
enslaved, stripped of all his belongings, killed outright, treated very
harshly in some sort of imprisonment, ransomed, humiliated, otherwise
mistreated or some combination thereof.

Yes.

I`d have stripped a CG paladin from his divine abilities for the same event.

Yes, a CG paladin has a much harder time of it - a point that many
people ignore.

It doesn`t matter if the
action violates either the law-chaos or the good-evil axis of alignment for
such a character because an alignment violation to a paladin is an
alignment violation. One or the other is enough.

Actually, that`s not entirely true according to directions given for
alignment violations by paladins. The lawful aspect is meant to be
secondary to the good aspect - with lighter penalties for non-lawful
acts than for evil acts.


Chaotic may or may not mean a character can break his/er word or the rules
of his society, but it`s just as easy to interpret that a chaotic character
is more likely to weigh the matter and make the moral decision based on
circumstance rather than have an over-riding principle that must be
obeyed. For example, in many modern police situations an adult may have a
child hostage. Often these lovely people hold a knife to the child`s
throat during negotiations with the police. The police will promise such a
criminal just about anything he wants in an effort to prolong the situation
until they get an opportunity to either take the guy out or otherwise
separate him/er from the child. Now, IMO neither a lawful good or chaotic
good character should have any qualms about lying under such
conditions. The moral issue of lying is far outstripped by the need to
prevent a potential child murder. Morally, lies told under duress are not
lies. They are forced actions. Not lying and potentially provoking a
harmful act on an innocent is a more immoral act.

Exactly, a good point.

A chaotic character
would not hesitate to lie under circumstances, and a lawful one wouldn`t
either. But if the circumstances were less dire a chaotic character just
finds the circumstances needed to lie much sooner than a lawful one does.

The relationship between truth-telling and law/chaos is not quite so
easy to generalize as that. It`s as tricky as the distinction between
morals and ethics. A lawful character is more likely to be ethical
rather than strictly moral. (I`m assuming both are good here) e.g.
Consider a very small child that a character finds crying. The child is
crying because another child told them that there was no Santa Claus.
Morally it`s wrong to lie, but if the society adopts this fiction, it`s
the responsibility of the adult population to maintain it (ethically
correct to lie).


I can imagine circumstances in which a good-aligned character could kill a
helpless being. What if there was a situation in which the very existence
of the helpless being was threatening the lives of innocent people? A
creature that spread a deadly disease, for instance, might need to be
destroyed regardless of its intent or whether it is helpless when the
opportunity arises. It could be justifiable to kill someone who convinces
the players/PCs that he will commit evil acts in the future even if he is
currently helpless. In general, however, offing a helpless foe without
significant justification should be considered an evil act.

Whew! (paladins of Haelyn are also responsible for Justice which can
mean taking responsibility for offing those that are deserving of that
fate - while theirs is a granted legal right, it applies to LG paladins
everywhere - but is NOT an imperative for CG paladins, although that
does not mean that they may not do so)


>Palidins must be always aware of the holiness of his actions. anly a LG
>good could give powers like that.

Lawful good alignment doesn`t have any particular ability to create magical
powers that I`ve ever heard, nor would I personally want to go with such an
interpretation. A paladin should always be aware of the holiness of his
actions, but that doesn`t mean that holiness is both lawful and good.

When it comes to issues of alignment, I`ve been considering going with a
point system. Alignment points would then be awarded at the same time as
XP with the actions of characters during play influencing their overall
score. A character might get 2 "good" points, and 3 "chaos" points and be
described as chaotic good. Later, he could get a few "law" points, making
him lawful good. If nothing else a paladin (or other alignment oriented
class) could have a minimum score required in order to maintain his/er
class abilities. I`m not real happy with the "whamm-o" alignment effects
that occasionally crop up in D&D, and such a system could graduate the
process a bit. A paladin could certainly still fall in the course of a
single adventure if he went out and did things that were as nasty as some
of the stuff presented in issue #300 of Dragon (which was really rather
mild IMO) but a single, relatively minor alignment violation would not--and
I think should not--be the kind of thing that would make a paladin lose his
powers. Using that kind of point system would also help quite a bit in
determining things like the results of a Detect Evil/Good spell. It could
be used as a prereq for prestige classes (like what the paladin ought to
be) and could be an influence on a reputation score system to determine
things like cohorts and followers. I haven`t really fleshed out the
thought entirely, but I`m leaning towards such a system.

Yeah, DMs are supposed to do this by feel and intuition - a pretty
subjective exercise in my experience. Work on it.


Issues of alignment become even more hazy when it comes to
regents. Sometimes one has to make political choices that are at odds with
moral ones, and that`s the kind of thing I see influencing an alignment
system. Will players pick expedience over morality? Can they still
exemplify their goodness or maintain their love of freedom while ruling
over a populace? That`s the kind of thing I`d like to portray in such a
system.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.