So if this is a Paladin, then they are different, historically, even if this edition doesn't say it explicitly, it's still D&D and still a Paladin, right?
Honestly, no. This edition doesn't explicitly hold "paladins" to a specific standard, nor does it imply they should be, other than following the tenets of their oath. There are many oaths possible and while many tenets proscribe good and/or lawful behaviour not all of them do - and the ones that do require living up to these ideals, not maintaining a specific alignment. Don't expect previous editions to tell you how this one works.
This is not strictly true. Paladins swear oaths in 5e and are presumably expected to hold to their oaths. Perhaps not to LG, but nevertheless to their oaths. Other classes can swear any oaths they wish with no class related consequences for breaking them.
I mean...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Just because "Lawful" has the word "Law" in it doesn't mean it is held to the laws of the land.
Take Hobgoblins, for example. They are aligned as Lawful, but that does not mean that they will respect the Laws of warfare, or the Laws of any land they enter. They respect their own laws, and their own rules, and that is how they remain Lawful. A Hobgoblin killing someone in a town for a slight on their honour doesn't suddenly make them chaotic because of the setting.
so who is Lawful? Two face. Yep, that's right. Harvey Dent is the Lawful character of the 3, because he follows one rule, no matter what - you live, you die, all on the flip of a coin. It doesn't matter how badly he wants you dead, if that coin comes up heads, you live. That's what Lawful means, not "Goody two-shoes", but "Harvey two-face".
You would assume a Paladin, much as a person in real life, grew up in a location that has laws. So that Paladin would follow those laws while in that kingdom. If the Paladin took an oath that required him to break those laws, then he is breaking his/her LAWFUL alignment. YES, Lawful does mean that because it has the work Law in it. There's a reason the word is written that way. Words, by definition, have meaning! Lawful means, following the laws. Not your own version of the laws. So that would create a DRAMATIC CONFLICT with the Paladin who has that oath - "I have to stop those 'bad' people from taking those trees down, but I can't just go kill them or those protecting them." To kill those people to protect the trees to uphold his oath is both unlawful and EVIL (taking life). In your explanation, those people cutting the trees down may have their subjective view that cutting trees down is good and part of THEIR oath. Now what? So the Paladin could take other actions to stop the tree cutters, ones that fall within the law, but not breaking the law or killing them. If a Paladin finds themselves in another land, similarly to a diplomat or an ambassador or even a tourist in another country, you better go find out the laws there which may be different than in your land or you may very well end up in their jail or beheaded or starting a conflict between nations, even. A Paladin would at least attempt to follow the laws of the other kingdom while there. That may mean following laws that he doesn't normally have to follow, but so be it. And if those laws are in direct conflict with the laws of HIS land (say for instance that nation allows a father to kill his daughter if she shames the family, but your nation considers that evil and illegal) the Paladin would be in a bit of a quandary, right? He may have to allow that act to happen - another moment of DRAMA. If the player can come up with a real reason why the Paladin wouldn't follow that law, but still be considered lawful, then, ok. Otherwise, it's time to repent or even lose your paladinhood. And, sometimes, a Paladin may be willing to put his paladinhood on the line to save someone's life. At least he could repent for that and the penance may be really simple since he was saving a life by his transgression.
Now, consider hobgoblins...if they are not Paladins, then their treatment of what following the law (being lawful) means may not be a strict. They follow their laws at all times no matter who's land they are in. This is more of a Barbarian way of looking at things. My people have these laws and this is how we live. There is a bit of a difference between how Paladins follow laws and every one else. The knight in shinning armor holds him/herself to a higher standard. Hobgoblins may, however, honor the laws in a land where they are guests. As an example, one native American tribe in another's land would probably adhere to the laws their hosts have and would certainly be held to account for them.
I agree with you on Harvey Dent and the coin as an example of adhering to something, but not law. His RULE is not a LAW. He follows his rule, his oath. Keeping your word and promise, while it is an indicator of being a lawful person, is not being lawful in itself. The law, by nature, is a societal thing, not individual. Remember, Chaotic people believe the power is within the individual and Lawful people believe it rests in the group. So laws are societal, not individual. You can make a rule and you a can make a promise, but those rules and promises can definitely break the law. When Harvey gets tails and kills someone, it is unlawful and, more than likely, evil. What Batman is doing is Neutral and verging on N/E, though he does it "for the benefit of society". If you have such fluidity in AL as 100% subjectivity, you have a very loose foundations, which eventually causes a structure to crumble. Strong societies are not founded on such things because there is always a way someone can justify what they did and then nobody knows if what they or anyone else does is good, bad, allowed, forbidden - CHAOS.
Moral of that story is: Be careful of the promises you make!!!
Why do you apply to arbitrarily different definitions of "lawful" depending on if the lawful person is a paladin or a hobgoblin? Also, characters like Superman or Steve Rogers are typically described as Lawful Good, yet they break the laws quite often. Why? Because their morals and their code and the way they felt that the rules should be clashed with how the actual laws of the land were.
I believe I addressed why there was a difference in applying the law. A Paladin is held, or holds themselves, to a higher standard. They must follow the laws and not do evil acts (old school; I guess now you can). Hobgoblins are not Paladins unless they are of that class. So Hobgoblins and others that are not Paladins, even a L/G fighter or the renowned Lawfulness of dwarfs, doesn't mean they don't find reasons based on their moral codes to break the law. Is that understandable? They are apples and oranges. Both fruits, yet different on how they apply being a fruit. Superman and Captain America do break laws, but they are also not Paladins. They are seen as something similar, though. To be sure, Paladins break laws, but must repent (although most DMs don't really require it or RP it). When the Sekovia Accords were signed, making it law, Cap didn't adhere to it because he didn't agree with it. That was an unlawful act and he was put on "the list" for that. Superman breaks some laws, but that even garners him some negative reactions - look, he broke the law!!!, but he saved all of those people, so, we'll overlook it. In these cases, society is choosing to mitigate the punishment and overlook his transgressions, but they were still unlawful and the people recognize it as such!!! .... because the law is the law and words, by definition, have meaning.
Again, why the arbitrary distinction between LG Paladins and LG anything else? There is literally nothing in the game that supports such an interpretation. "Having meaning" is also not what defines a law.
Well, if you are just looking at D&D as 5E, maybe so. But I have been playing since 1980, so Basic D&D. When AD&D came out, it had classes, which included...wait for it...the Paladin. It stated that the Paladin was expected to be held to a higher standard. Hobgoblins and dwarfs are not generally punished for breaking their AL, but Paladins were. You lost your Paladin abilities until you repented your transgression of the law. Now some DMs may have been somewhat lenient and not required it for lesser transgressions (spitting on the sidewalk or riding your horse on the wrong side of the lane), but thievery or randomly assaulting people, well.... If a Hobgoblin assaults someone, they don't cease being a Hobgoblin, nor does a dwarf cease to be a dwarf. See the difference? Paladin becomes fighter if transgresses. No more Lay on Hands, no more spells, no more protection from evil 10' rad (used to be a standard ability), no more detect evil...nada. So if this is a Paladin, then they are different, historically, even if this edition doesn't say it explicitly, it's still D&D and still a Paladin, right?
Well of course we are. This is a D&D 5E forum, is it not? And the question OP is asking is for a game of 5E, is it not? What you, I or anyone else did in the 1980s is completely irrelevant to the actual question at hand. Why even bring it up? It doesn't have anything to do with anything even remotely connected to this topic.
Just because "Lawful" has the word "Law" in it doesn't mean it is held to the laws of the land.
Take Hobgoblins, for example. They are aligned as Lawful, but that does not mean that they will respect the Laws of warfare, or the Laws of any land they enter. They respect their own laws, and their own rules, and that is how they remain Lawful. A Hobgoblin killing someone in a town for a slight on their honour doesn't suddenly make them chaotic because of the setting.
so who is Lawful? Two face. Yep, that's right. Harvey Dent is the Lawful character of the 3, because he follows one rule, no matter what - you live, you die, all on the flip of a coin. It doesn't matter how badly he wants you dead, if that coin comes up heads, you live. That's what Lawful means, not "Goody two-shoes", but "Harvey two-face".
You would assume a Paladin, much as a person in real life, grew up in a location that has laws. So that Paladin would follow those laws while in that kingdom. If the Paladin took an oath that required him to break those laws, then he is breaking his/her LAWFUL alignment. YES, Lawful does mean that because it has the work Law in it. There's a reason the word is written that way. Words, by definition, have meaning! Lawful means, following the laws. Not your own version of the laws. So that would create a DRAMATIC CONFLICT with the Paladin who has that oath - "I have to stop those 'bad' people from taking those trees down, but I can't just go kill them or those protecting them." To kill those people to protect the trees to uphold his oath is both unlawful and EVIL (taking life). In your explanation, those people cutting the trees down may have their subjective view that cutting trees down is good and part of THEIR oath. Now what? So the Paladin could take other actions to stop the tree cutters, ones that fall within the law, but not breaking the law or killing them. If a Paladin finds themselves in another land, similarly to a diplomat or an ambassador or even a tourist in another country, you better go find out the laws there which may be different than in your land or you may very well end up in their jail or beheaded or starting a conflict between nations, even. A Paladin would at least attempt to follow the laws of the other kingdom while there. That may mean following laws that he doesn't normally have to follow, but so be it. And if those laws are in direct conflict with the laws of HIS land (say for instance that nation allows a father to kill his daughter if she shames the family, but your nation considers that evil and illegal) the Paladin would be in a bit of a quandary, right? He may have to allow that act to happen - another moment of DRAMA. If the player can come up with a real reason why the Paladin wouldn't follow that law, but still be considered lawful, then, ok. Otherwise, it's time to repent or even lose your paladinhood. And, sometimes, a Paladin may be willing to put his paladinhood on the line to save someone's life. At least he could repent for that and the penance may be really simple since he was saving a life by his transgression.
Now, consider hobgoblins...if they are not Paladins, then their treatment of what following the law (being lawful) means may not be a strict. They follow their laws at all times no matter who's land they are in. This is more of a Barbarian way of looking at things. My people have these laws and this is how we live. There is a bit of a difference between how Paladins follow laws and every one else. The knight in shinning armor holds him/herself to a higher standard. Hobgoblins may, however, honor the laws in a land where they are guests. As an example, one native American tribe in another's land would probably adhere to the laws their hosts have and would certainly be held to account for them.
I agree with you on Harvey Dent and the coin as an example of adhering to something, but not law. His RULE is not a LAW. He follows his rule, his oath. Keeping your word and promise, while it is an indicator of being a lawful person, is not being lawful in itself. The law, by nature, is a societal thing, not individual. Remember, Chaotic people believe the power is within the individual and Lawful people believe it rests in the group. So laws are societal, not individual. You can make a rule and you a can make a promise, but those rules and promises can definitely break the law. When Harvey gets tails and kills someone, it is unlawful and, more than likely, evil. What Batman is doing is Neutral and verging on N/E, though he does it "for the benefit of society". If you have such fluidity in AL as 100% subjectivity, you have a very loose foundations, which eventually causes a structure to crumble. Strong societies are not founded on such things because there is always a way someone can justify what they did and then nobody knows if what they or anyone else does is good, bad, allowed, forbidden - CHAOS.
Moral of that story is: Be careful of the promises you make!!!
Why do you apply to arbitrarily different definitions of "lawful" depending on if the lawful person is a paladin or a hobgoblin? Also, characters like Superman or Steve Rogers are typically described as Lawful Good, yet they break the laws quite often. Why? Because their morals and their code and the way they felt that the rules should be clashed with how the actual laws of the land were.
I believe I addressed why there was a difference in applying the law. A Paladin is held, or holds themselves, to a higher standard. They must follow the laws and not do evil acts (old school; I guess now you can). Hobgoblins are not Paladins unless they are of that class. So Hobgoblins and others that are not Paladins, even a L/G fighter or the renowned Lawfulness of dwarfs, doesn't mean they don't find reasons based on their moral codes to break the law. Is that understandable? They are apples and oranges. Both fruits, yet different on how they apply being a fruit. Superman and Captain America do break laws, but they are also not Paladins. They are seen as something similar, though. To be sure, Paladins break laws, but must repent (although most DMs don't really require it or RP it). When the Sekovia Accords were signed, making it law, Cap didn't adhere to it because he didn't agree with it. That was an unlawful act and he was put on "the list" for that. Superman breaks some laws, but that even garners him some negative reactions - look, he broke the law!!!, but he saved all of those people, so, we'll overlook it. In these cases, society is choosing to mitigate the punishment and overlook his transgressions, but they were still unlawful and the people recognize it as such!!! .... because the law is the law and words, by definition, have meaning.
Again, why the arbitrary distinction between LG Paladins and LG anything else? There is literally nothing in the game that supports such an interpretation. "Having meaning" is also not what defines a law.
Well, if you are just looking at D&D as 5E, maybe so. But I have been playing since 1980, so Basic D&D. When AD&D came out, it had classes, which included...wait for it...the Paladin. It stated that the Paladin was expected to be held to a higher standard. Hobgoblins and dwarfs are not generally punished for breaking their AL, but Paladins were. You lost your Paladin abilities until you repented your transgression of the law. Now some DMs may have been somewhat lenient and not required it for lesser transgressions (spitting on the sidewalk or riding your horse on the wrong side of the lane), but thievery or randomly assaulting people, well.... If a Hobgoblin assaults someone, they don't cease being a Hobgoblin, nor does a dwarf cease to be a dwarf. See the difference? Paladin becomes fighter if transgresses. No more Lay on Hands, no more spells, no more protection from evil 10' rad (used to be a standard ability), no more detect evil...nada. So if this is a Paladin, then they are different, historically, even if this edition doesn't say it explicitly, it's still D&D and still a Paladin, right?
Well of course we are. This is a D&D 5E forum, is it not? And the question OP is asking is for a game of 5E, is it not? What you, I or anyone else did in the 1980s is completely irrelevant to the actual question at hand. Why even bring it up? It doesn't have anything to do with anything even remotely connected to this topic.
Fair enough. For me it becomes an issue of verisimilitude in that I have run the same campaign world/setting since the 80's, but just upgrade it to the newer editions. So I have a hard time saying, "OK, now Paladins can be whatever alignment they want based on their oath instead." I still haven't completely reconciled that except that maybe I can portray the non L/G Paladins as some other class. But, again, as I've said in other posts, these are changes I would do for my setting. I wouldn't expect to impose it on the 5E system as a whole because this is how I feel about it. OK, time to log off. Thanks for the exchange!!! Very cool!
One last thing about Paladins, AL and oaths.... Maybe 5E isn't AL specific for the Paladin, but he oaths are still focused on bringing order and vanquishing evil, as it says in the Paladin class description a couple of times. The oaths are focused towards this goal and breaking an oath (rather than breaking the alignment-kind of the same thing though), has its consequences:
BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
They are, but those oaths vary wildly between the sub classes. Which going back to the OP is a missing bit of critical context because what would be considered breaking the Oath of the Ancients or breaking the Oath of the Crown could be very different criteria.
Oath of the Crown for example has Law as one of its tenants, Ancients explicitly cares more about good than any concerns of law or chaos. So breaking an unjust law might be a moral consideration for a Crown paladin, but for an Ancients paladin, there would be no conflict of interest.
They are, but those oaths vary wildly between the sub classes.
Ayup.
I mean, we have this one:
TENETS OF CONQUEST
A paladin who takes this oath has the tenets of conquest seared on the upper arm.
Douse the Flame of Hope. It is not enough to merely defeat an enemy in battle. Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies’ will to fight is shattered forever. A blade can end a life. Fear can end an empire.
Rule with an Iron Fist. Once you have conquered, tolerate no dissent. Your word is law. Those who obey it shall be favored. Those who defy it shall be punished as an example to all who might follow.
Strength Above All. You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.
And then we have this one:
TENETS OF REDEMPTION
The tenets of the Oath of Redemption hold a paladin to a high standard of peace and justice.
Peace. Violence is a weapon of last resort. Diplomacy and understanding are the paths to long-lasting peace.
Innocence. All people begin life in an innocent state, and it is their environment or the influence of dark forces that drives them to evil. By setting the proper example, and working to heal the wounds of a deeply flawed world, you can set anyone on a righteous path.
Patience. Change takes time. Those who have walked the path of the wicked must be given reminders to keep them honest and true. Once you have planted the seed of righteousness in a creature, you must work day after day to allow that seed to survive and flourish.
Wisdom. Your heart and mind must stay clear, for eventually you will be forced to admit defeat. While every creature can be redeemed, some are so far along the path of evil that you have no choice but to end their lives for the greater good. Any such action must be carefully weighed and the consequences fully understood, but once you have made the decision, follow through with it knowing your path is just.
LG as an alignment requirement was a much bigger restriction on the class as a whole than 5E's oaths are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Devotion to me kind of feels like the classic lawful good paladin oath, where as the others have freedom to explore different approaches, which for me at least is more interesting than applying the same approach to every paladin.
Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.
Honesty: Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage: Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion: Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with Wisdom.
Honor: Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty: Be responsible for your Actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.
I have seen the character of Eugeus and all he wants is his daughter to have the best life possible which is not wrong so. . . eugeus is not doing anything wrong, just taking it to unrealistic extremes so I think it would go against his alignment.
I mean...
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well of course we are. This is a D&D 5E forum, is it not? And the question OP is asking is for a game of 5E, is it not? What you, I or anyone else did in the 1980s is completely irrelevant to the actual question at hand. Why even bring it up? It doesn't have anything to do with anything even remotely connected to this topic.
Fair enough. For me it becomes an issue of verisimilitude in that I have run the same campaign world/setting since the 80's, but just upgrade it to the newer editions. So I have a hard time saying, "OK, now Paladins can be whatever alignment they want based on their oath instead." I still haven't completely reconciled that except that maybe I can portray the non L/G Paladins as some other class. But, again, as I've said in other posts, these are changes I would do for my setting. I wouldn't expect to impose it on the 5E system as a whole because this is how I feel about it. OK, time to log off. Thanks for the exchange!!! Very cool!
Pallutus
One last thing about Paladins, AL and oaths.... Maybe 5E isn't AL specific for the Paladin, but he oaths are still focused on bringing order and vanquishing evil, as it says in the Paladin class description a couple of times. The oaths are focused towards this goal and breaking an oath (rather than breaking the alignment-kind of the same thing though), has its consequences:
BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
-quote from the 5E PHB
Pallutus
They are, but those oaths vary wildly between the sub classes. Which going back to the OP is a missing bit of critical context because what would be considered breaking the Oath of the Ancients or breaking the Oath of the Crown could be very different criteria.
Oath of the Crown for example has Law as one of its tenants, Ancients explicitly cares more about good than any concerns of law or chaos. So breaking an unjust law might be a moral consideration for a Crown paladin, but for an Ancients paladin, there would be no conflict of interest.
Ayup.
I mean, we have this one:
And then we have this one:
LG as an alignment requirement was a much bigger restriction on the class as a whole than 5E's oaths are.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Devotion to me kind of feels like the classic lawful good paladin oath, where as the others have freedom to explore different approaches, which for me at least is more interesting than applying the same approach to every paladin.
Tenets of Devotion
Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.
I have seen the character of Eugeus and all he wants is his daughter to have the best life possible which is not wrong so. . . eugeus is not doing anything wrong, just taking it to unrealistic extremes so I think it would go against his alignment.
The Sorcerer as always
Sylar Forever
Look, this ended a Looooong time ago...
I was too late
lol