Paladins

Keith Davies wrote:

> Baird Stafford <baird RemoveThis @newstaff.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course, either (provided the class doesn't specify otherwise) can
>>have deeper purposes and want to appear harmless (relatively) until
>>they can STRIKE! Buw-wah-ha-ha-ha! (And yes, deviousness is *not*, in
>>any of my multiverses, limited to evil characters! Good does not
>>equal stupid!)
>
>
> Paladin's Code of Conduct can preclude that.
>
> RSRD:
> "Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate
> authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison,
> and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help
> for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
> innocents."
>
> Biding your time until The Right Moment To Act, if it means deceiving
> your opponent, may run slam into the 'not lying' part. It's within
> reason to rule against devious behavior on the part of paladins (and
> it's more a lawful thing here than a good thing -- I expect a CG paladin
> ('freedom'?) is entirely allowed to be sneaky).
>
> Personally, I don't do it that way, but I'd check with the DM before I
> assumed it was okay by the Code of Conduct. IMC paladins are only
> required to show honor to those who have not shown themselves to be
> dishonorable... though they are encouraged to do so, and someone who
> *likes* the fact that dishonorable foes let him fight dirty might have
> some problems.
>
> "Wait, he's dishonorable? And I can torture him? WOOHOO! ... uh,
> guys? Guys? What's wrong?"
>
>
> Keith

A Paladin that is looking for that type of loophole isn't going to stay
a Paladin for long in my campaigns.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

Patrick Baldwin <pax.DeleteThis@osmium.mv.net> wrote:
>
> I wonder though, is there a degree of detectable Evil that requires
> immediate action if you're a paladin? If you're hanging out in the
> tavern, waiting for your fellow adventurers to arrive before you set
> off on your latest mission, and you notice a guy in the corner who
> pings Evil like he was an 18th level undead demon cleric.
>
> It seems that, as a paladin, you Must Do Something.

Well, in a case like that there's a good chance the paladin would have a
mandate to do something.

For instance, *all* clerics and holy warriors ('of civilized[1] gods')
in a campaign I ran years ago were *required* to destroy knowing
followers of Baalshamoth. If you were identifiable as a priest of
Baalshamoth a paladin would be required to immediately try to stop him.
Most people who Remember What Happened Last Time would do the same,
regardless of class, but religious types were required to.

This could mean immediately attacking him, it could mean sending someone
for reinforcements while trying to hold him, it could mean running away
until you could come back with reinforcements, it could mean doing
something else entirely -- it didn't require suicidal action.

Admittedly, this is not Tetsubo's situation, where he talked about
someone just 'pinging evil'. It does provide an answer to Patrick's
question about someone or something being so powerfully bad that a
paladin would be required to act immediately.

IOW, it's campaign dependent.

[1] some of them are still pretty savage, but they're at least socially
acceptable. Strictly speaking Baalshamoth wasn't *evil* (elder god,
totally alien and way too dangerous to allow get a foothold; the
last time that happened most of a country was destroyed before they
were able to contain things).


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies.DeleteThis@gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.

Tetsubo wrote:
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>> Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Firelock wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John <imnot....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
>>>>>> How could you define such a person as evil?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
>>>>> person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this person
>>>>> but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know I
>>>>> would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
>>>>> Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My favorite example is the "Wow, I'd like to torture and kill
>>>> these people, but I'm chained to a wall in a dungeon right
>>>> now and can't move." Such a villain effectively can't act at
>>>> all, but they can certainly still be evil.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Walt
>>>
>>>
>>> If they can communicate, they can act. Not directly I
>>> admit. But by influencing others. Hannibal Lechter was able to get a
>>> fellow inmate to suicide through words alone. But if that person never
>>> acts on those evil thoughts in any way, not evil.
>>
>>
>>
>> It still depends on why he does not or cannot act. On intent, in
>> shorter words.
>>
>> If a person doesn't act on evil thoughts, because they recognise them
>> as Evil, that makes that person non-Evil IMO. If they don't act
>> because they are unable to act, Evil. If they don't act but cheer the
>> actors on, Evil.
>>
>> Honestly, why complicate things unnecessarily?
>>
>> Mart
>>
>
> Because life is grey, not black & white. Even in my campaigns.
>

That's what Neutral is for...

LL

"LL" <Lorenz.Lang.DeleteThis@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gje1r0$gnu$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Tetsubo wrote:
>> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>>> Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Firelock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John <imnot....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
>>>>>>> How could you define such a person as evil?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
>>>>>> person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this
>>>>>> person
>>>>>> but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
>>>>>> Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My favorite example is the "Wow, I'd like to torture and kill
>>>>> these people, but I'm chained to a wall in a dungeon right
>>>>> now and can't move." Such a villain effectively can't act at
>>>>> all, but they can certainly still be evil.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Walt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If they can communicate, they can act. Not directly I
>>>> admit. But by influencing others. Hannibal Lechter was able to get a
>>>> fellow inmate to suicide through words alone. But if that person never
>>>> acts on those evil thoughts in any way, not evil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It still depends on why he does not or cannot act. On intent, in
>>> shorter words.
>>>
>>> If a person doesn't act on evil thoughts, because they recognise them
>>> as Evil, that makes that person non-Evil IMO. If they don't act
>>> because they are unable to act, Evil. If they don't act but cheer the
>>> actors on, Evil.
>>>
>>> Honestly, why complicate things unnecessarily?
>>>
>>> Mart
>>>
>>
>> Because life is grey, not black & white. Even in my campaigns.
>>
>
> That's what Neutral is for...
>
> LL

Yeah but 3.5 alignments are simplistic, and as DM you have license to change
these details. We are playing 4.0 now, and really alignments there seem to
be meaningless, and so I generally ignore them. But in 3.5 I allowed my
alignment system to be relative, and hence paladins could smite other
paladins of different gods (kind of similar to how medieval muslims and
christians both thought they were following the right way and the other was
wrong)

Patrick Baldwin wrote:
> Harold Groot <quester.TakeThisOut@infionline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:25:10 -0500, Tetsubo <tetsubo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>
>
>>> I've always ruled that a paladin can only react to an evil action. Even
>>>if they detect evil on a person, until that person does something evil
>>>they can't do anything other than watch. Evil is about actions, not intent.
>>>Tetsubo
>
>
>
>>A Paladin certainly CAN justifiably react to getting a ping on DETECT
>>EVIL - it's just that there are limits on how MUCH of a reaction there
>>can reasonably be. The Paladin would not be justified in attacking
>>that person or trying to arrest that person out of hand - but simply
>>deciding "I will not go out adventuring with that person" is quite
>>reasonable. You don't have to wait until you catch them in the act of
>>doing something evil to decide you don't want to trust your mission
>>and/or your life to them. It's more than just justified, it's
>>mandatory. It mentions this right in the paladin writeup, under
>>Associates, that "...a paladin will never knowingly associate with
>>evil characters..."
>
>
>
> I wonder though, is there a degree of detectable Evil that
> requires immediate action if you're a paladin? If you're
> hanging out in the tavern, waiting for your fellow adventurers
> to arrive before you set off on your latest mission, and you
> notice a guy in the corner who pings Evil like he was an 18th
> level undead demon cleric.
>
> It seems that, as a paladin, you Must Do Something.
>

At least find out why.

If I would play a Pal I asked the DM about the alignment distribution
in his campaign. If almost everybody is Neutral, even a faint Evil aura
would make me investigate - could be some kind of demon or undead after
all. If there are more Evil "normal" people, this could be impossible.

LL

Allen Wessels wrote:

> In article <gjd549$r34$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> A baddie can fantasy all he wants about evil acts. But until he commits
>>those acts, he hasn't *done* anything evil. He can create all the plans
>>he wants. As soon as he begins to act on them however, the Paladins of
>>the world get to stomp him.
>>
>> We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person. And I
>>would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly convict a
>>person for those evil thoughts.
>
>
> Your definition is circular. They're not evil if they don't commit an
> evil act because acting evil is how you define evil.

That isn't circular. If they don't act in an evil manner, they
effectively aren't evil. Even if they *really* want to be bad.

>
> But I can have zombies commit evil acts all day and they're never evil?

Correct. A zombie is an animated corpse. It has no intent, no reason,
no mind. Is an animated chair evil? No. Neither is a skeleton or zombie.
Now the person that ordered the zombie to commit evil acts, he's shown
that he is evil.

>
> Evil is about intent.

Evil is about actions. What you do is more important than what you
think about doing. By your definition I have, at points in my past, been
evil. Even though I never committed a truly evil act. I may have broken
nine of the ten commandments, but I never killed anyone.

I did more than covet my neighbors wife.

>
> - Allen


--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

In article <gjeo1l$3fc$1@news.motzarella.org>,
Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

> Allen Wessels wrote:
>
> > In article <gjd549$r34$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> > Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> A baddie can fantasy all he wants about evil acts. But until he commits
> >>those acts, he hasn't *done* anything evil. He can create all the plans
> >>he wants. As soon as he begins to act on them however, the Paladins of
> >>the world get to stomp him.
> >>
> >> We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person. And I
> >>would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly convict a
> >>person for those evil thoughts.
> >
> >
> > Your definition is circular. They're not evil if they don't commit an
> > evil act because acting evil is how you define evil.
>
> That isn't circular. If they don't act in an evil manner, they
> effectively aren't evil. Even if they *really* want to be bad.

So The Emperor radiating pure malice is less evil than Luke wanting to
take apart Vader because Vader taunted him?

My intuition disagrees.

> > But I can have zombies commit evil acts all day and they're never evil?
>
> Correct. A zombie is an animated corpse. It has no intent, no reason,
> no mind. Is an animated chair evil? No. Neither is a skeleton or zombie.
> Now the person that ordered the zombie to commit evil acts, he's shown
> that he is evil.

Excuse me? You said intent doesn't matter. If attitude doesn't matter,
Zombies are evil.

> > Evil is about intent.
>
> Evil is about actions. What you do is more important than what you
> think about doing. By your definition I have, at points in my past, been
> evil. Even though I never committed a truly evil act. I may have broken
> nine of the ten commandments, but I never killed anyone.

You want it to be about acts because you have contemplated evil acts
before. Good isn't necessarily nice. Seriously onsidering executing an
evil act is evil. Good doesn't compromise it's judgement to make you
feel better about yourself.

And like I said, if it's just about evil acts, then I bring everyone to
apocalypse with the cumulative effects of making them do good in steps
that lead them to the Abyss.

All the while enjoying the benefits of being on the good side, and all
the Celestials have to help me because I'm a "good guy".

- Allen

"Tetsubo" <tetsubo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gjdni2$up3$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Mark Blunden wrote:
>
>> On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John <imnot....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>>
>>> > What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never.
>>> > How could you define such a person as evil?
>>>
>>> It would depend on why the person never acts on his impulses. If the
>>> person thinks, "Wow, I sure would like to torture and kill this person
>>> but I know its wrong" they are probably not Evil, but if its "I know I
>>> would get caught" yeah, probably Evil.
>>> Evil can be pragmatic and realistic.
>>
>>
>> That's about it, yes. Basically, the paladin's Detect Evil is like
>> finding that somebody has a criminal record. It doesn't mean they're
>> doing anything wrong at this moment, but it's sufficient cause to take
>> closer notice of them, and perhaps bar them from certain positions of
>> responsibility. Ultimately, it may lead to them never getting the chance
>> to commit a major wrongdoing. That doesn't make them less evil, but it
>> does protect others from them.
>>
>
> I see that has eliminating the possibility of redemption. And what Paladin
> doesn't want to redeem an evil-doer?

Why does that eliminate the possibility of redemption? You can be cautious
about someone based on their detected alignment, whilst still trying to
persuade them to choose a better way. And even better, you've got an
approximate gauge as to whether you're getting through to them - if they
stop 'pinging' your evil-sense, then there's a good chance you've made some
headway.

--
Mark

"John" <imnotbob DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60eba4b9-26df-41ba-ad48-d4a15ed0d079@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
"Shawn" wrote:
> "LL" wrote in message
> > Tetsubo wrote:
>
> >> Because life is grey, not black & white. Even in my campaigns.
>
> > That's what Neutral is for...
>
> Yeah but 3.5 alignments are simplistic,

Feature, not a bug.


I agree, but when I Dmed 3.5 and earlier I sometimes liked to play something
a little more morally complex than that. I remember one night when our
group spent the whole night arguing what to do while they were on the
outskirts of the kobold camp. 1/2 the group wanted to go in and slaughter
them all and take their treasure and the other half said hold on, is that
really a Good act? It helped that one of the players modelled his character
after Socrates.

> and as DM you have license to change these details.

As with anything else in the game.

> We are playing 4.0 now, and really alignments there seem to
> be meaningless, and so I generally ignore them.

From what little I have seen I would tend to agree.

> But in 3.5 I allowed my alignment system to be relative,

Which imo is just asking for trouble.

Well it does create alot of issues with certain spells, planar alignments,
and abilities related to alignment, and I suppose it could imbalance things
in certain ways (my paladin's order sees all monsters and people outside the
order as evil, and so he can smite evil on everyone and everything) but
there are ways to balance that out too. (well if your paladin's order hates
everyone outside themselves, outsiders tend to dislike them too. And will
tend to attack on sight, kick them out of town, or choose to gang up on the
paladin while the other characters might only face one npc/monster each) I
suppose it is creating work for yourself as DM, but that is part of the fun
IMO.

> and hence paladins could smite other
> paladins of different gods

Holy warriors of different gods is a good idea.

>(kind of similar to how medieval muslims and
> christians both thought they were following the right way and the other
> was
> wrong)

You know, both LE and CE think they are "following the right way".
Heck, two LG groups can both think they are Right and the other Wrong,
Good groups will just respond differently to differences than the Evil
groups would.

True.

>>>
>>> I see that has eliminating the possibility of redemption. And
>>> what Paladin doesn't want to redeem an evil-doer?
>> Again, that is *your* interpretation. The rules leave plenty of room
>> for a Paladin who fights Evil without mercy, if the DM is so inclined.
>> Mart
>>
>
> Undoubtedly my interpretation. Who else's would I care about?
>
> A Paladin that kills a person because they detect as Evil would be
> committing murder. Not a good way to keep your paladinhood.
>

Any particular campaign will change the flavor of ethics, mores, etc.

The RAW assume that there is such a thing as 'evil' and 'good' as
definable and detectable forces.

Personally, that is a feature, not a bug. However, if you want shades of
grey adventures, then you may need to adjust 'detect' spells to cover
actions.

I.E. assuming a Paladin in a bar that run across someone who pings as
'evil' because they are LE (RAW) he can use 'he's Evil' as a cause for
action in a 'good v evil' world/campaign.

In a shade of grey campaign, I would rule that detect evil doesn't notice
him, until he begins to arrange for a trip upstairs with one of the
serving girls because he wants to strangle her before leaving town.

Dwargon


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Patrick Baldwin wrote:

> I wonder though, is there a degree of detectable Evil that
> requires immediate action if you're a paladin?

What action? All you've found, 3e RAW, is that the target doesn't
care when innocent people get hurt. If they percieve benefit in hurting
the innocent they're quite likely to do it, but not if it'll be more
trouble than it's worth.

> If you're hanging out in the tavern, waiting for your fellow
> adventurers to arrive before you set off on your latest mission,
> and you notice a guy in the corner who pings Evil like he was an
> 18th level undead demon cleric.

I presume the current mission plans are worthy of attention.

> It seems that, as a paladin, you Must Do Something.

Why? Paladin's protect the *innocent*. Until Mr. Evil there does
something a little more darsardly than down a few ales at the local, he's
innocent too. Don't hang out with him, don't take orders from him, and
don't work with anyone who does.
Let Mr. Evil there know you've got your eye on him. If someone Good's
being led astray, set them strait. If there's a secret cult forming,
expose it at some point. Do Something Right Now (tm)? Not really.

Depends on the DM of course. Many would punish your Paladin for
leaving something like that alone, and wouldn't have put it there unless
you were expected to deal with it immediately. <shrug>

--
tussock

U'm iuel p jyx yn chycyipwlaf kyd blvlr ebyg ghpw kyd'rl sdbbp slw.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:21:01 +0000 (UTC), Patrick Baldwin
<pax.RemoveThis@osmium.mv.net> wrote:

>Harold Groot <quester.RemoveThis@infionline.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:25:10 -0500, Tetsubo <tetsubo.RemoveThis@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>> I've always ruled that a paladin can only react to an evil action. Even
>>>if they detect evil on a person, until that person does something evil
>>>they can't do anything other than watch. Evil is about actions, not intent.
>>>Tetsubo
>
>
>>A Paladin certainly CAN justifiably react to getting a ping on DETECT
>>EVIL - it's just that there are limits on how MUCH of a reaction there
>>can reasonably be. The Paladin would not be justified in attacking
>>that person or trying to arrest that person out of hand - but simply
>>deciding "I will not go out adventuring with that person" is quite
>>reasonable. You don't have to wait until you catch them in the act of
>>doing something evil to decide you don't want to trust your mission
>>and/or your life to them. It's more than just justified, it's
>>mandatory. It mentions this right in the paladin writeup, under
>>Associates, that "...a paladin will never knowingly associate with
>>evil characters..."


> I wonder though, is there a degree of detectable Evil that
> requires immediate action if you're a paladin? If you're
> hanging out in the tavern, waiting for your fellow adventurers
> to arrive before you set off on your latest mission, and you
> notice a guy in the corner who pings Evil like he was an 18th
> level undead demon cleric.
>
> It seems that, as a paladin, you Must Do Something.
>~P.


"Must Do Something" can include putting that person under surveillance
(including using a TRUE SEEING spell to see if he really IS a demon),
notifying other people who have law enforcement responsibilities,
getting a COMMUNE spell cast so more information can be gathered, etc.

The "Rules of Engagement" will tend to vary depending on where you
are. In a City, Local Laws might require having evidence before
making an arrest and might prohibit simply attacking the evil-pinging
person - but it's quite possible that a city could have laws that say
"Because Redemption for such beings is impossible, Demons, Devils and
any other creatures with the Evil Subtype are to be killed on sight."

Out beyond the areas where law enforcement exists a paladin might well
have a lot more latitude in how they react. If there are no laws from
civil authorities, the RoE of the Paladins Order might say that "Evil
with a Capital-E" shall be destroyed without mercy. (Areas without
civil authority are also generally areas where there are unlikely to
be innocent people endangered by the fight, or wholesale destruction
of property belonging to taxpaying citizens).

It is a rare campaign that goes into detail about a legal system for
an area and how that would affect spell use. If spells existed here
and now our modern 21st century legal system in the USA would almost
certainly have laws restricting the use of DETECT THOUGHTS without a
court order, for example. It would likely be treated the same as a
wiretap (which was unfortunately abused during the current
administration - I'm hoping the incoming administration will go back
to the old way of doing such things. But I digress....). But would a
fantasy/medieval society have the same restrictions? From what I've
observed, most players don't think so. (Or perhaps it's just "It's
not much fun to play that way, so we don't play that way.")

This is something that must be decided upon by the DM and the players
in each campaign. As long as the rules of the campaign are clear,
players can be held responsible for the actions of their characters.
If the campaign allows "If it pings as evil I kill it" that's one
thing. If the campaign doesn't allow it, that's another. There is no
single answer that will be correct for all campaigns. We can try to
establish a consensus here about how the majority of campaigns deal
with these issues, but that will not make the outlier campaigns wrong,
merely different.

Baird Stafford <baird RemoveThis @newstaff.com> wrote:
>
> I have two series that I suggest for anyone who wants to play or DM a
> paladin. The first is David Weber's series that begins with THE WAR
> GOD'S OWN and ends with WINDRIDER'S OATH;

I'm not familiar with this one.

> the second is the David
> Eddings series with the precious gems in the titles (the Elenium, maybe?

_The Elenium_, sequel was _The Tamuli_

> I've a cat on my lap at present who will object, vocally, to any
> effort to get up and root through the library...). Different
> approaches to paladinhood, but they also illustrate different
> approaches to the moral judgements that paladins must face, by the
> nature of their vocation, and different ways to deal with them.

Hmm. I remember when I read _The Elenium_ for the first time (yeah, it
was a while ago) thinking that the church knights were supposed to be
paladins. I don't know how well that fits though, to be honest.

The Pandions -- the focal order of the series, really -- are way too
pragmatic about things to fit the D&D paladin mold. They deceive, they
have a reputation (carefully cultivated) of torture, they get their
powers from a goddess other than their purported patron....

I'm not saying I don't like them, either from a character or play
perspective, just that despite being a knightly order that not only has
a religious association but has spellcasting ability, they don't quite
fit the character class as described. If nothing else, it is awfully
hard to offend on moral grounds. Also, apart from some spellcasting,
they don't seem to have any of the other paladin abilities.

Rules-wise, they're probably best modeled as fighters. The spellcasters
among them may have levels as Adepts (their exhibited spells don't
really fit any D&D class; the mechanism is closest to Cleric, but the
spells actually seem closer to the Wizard list... though being a plot
device rather than a playable gaming element makes it a lot harder).


Now, me, I wouldn't particularly mind saying 'paladins are like that'.
They are *not* what the book says, but they have good flavor to them
that suits how I view them. After all, 'lawful good', IMC, doesn't have
to mean 'nice'.

> And the other lesson, the one for DMs, is the effort the authors went to
> to create the Orders involved, and the worlds in which they function.
> They did not pick the concept of "paladin" off the shelf and try for
> "one size fits all."

Yep.

You might also look at the story _Talion_ by Michael Stackpole. The
main character (Nolan) is quite close to paladin behavior, though he
does associate with characters who could be considered 'evil'. The
Justices are more about Law vs. Chaos than Good vs. Evil, though (and I
have no problem reorienting paladins that way).

There's also Deed of Paksennarion (they're called paladins, exhibit many
of the powers assigned to paladins in D&D -- including the magic horse).


_Paladins_ (and _Paladins II: Knight Moves_) by Joel Rosenberg. Who
presents a rather interesting alternate version of Earth, and the White
Swords and Red Swords have huge potential. The paladins (I forget if
that's there title in-story or not) are knights entrusted with White
Swords and Red Swords, and are of the highest moral calibre.

The White Swords contain the souls of saints and innocents, freely given
to empower the swords. One sword is called 'The Goatboy', because no
one actually knows the origin of the soul, just that he had been a
goatherd. The wielders of these swords *cannot* be evil -- the swords
don't allow it.

The Red Swords, on the other hand, contain any other soul, and are *not*
so well-disposed toward the soul of their wielder. One is called
'Khan', and there are hints that this sword was empowered by the soul of
someone called 'Ghengis'.... The wielder *must* be uncorruptible, lest
the sword control *him*.

I *like* this setting.


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies RemoveThis @kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies RemoveThis @gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.