From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Paladins
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:23:58 GMT

ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

>In article <BtJuuu.CBq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:

>>Exactly. Paladins aren't wandering nice guys. They are servants of their
>>diety. If the person doesn't worship your goddess, and doesn't intend to
>>convert, you should seriously consider whether healing them is permitted
>>by your god. Acccepting healing from a priest of another god is also a
>>bad thing for paladin types. 

>Ah, so what you're saying is that paladins aren't good at all.  They're
>lawful, but they aren't good, because they don't do things out of the
>goodness of their hearts:  they do them because that's what their deity
>wants.

That depends on the individual. He may do good deeds out of the kindness
of his heart. However, he keeps serving his diety first and foremost in
his heart. Loving his fellow man is expressing his love for his god's creation.

>Apparently, the paladins in your world are all Lawful Neutral.  Well, in
>mine, they're Lawful Good, and they do *GOOD* things.  And they are "nice
>guys" and they do good things out of the goodness of their hearts.

The "nice guy" paladin is one possible character out of a wide array. I'm
not saying there aren't nice smurf-attitude paladins and that it isn't
possible to be a paladin with that attitude. I'm just stating that an 
extremely pious paladin has a different view of what is good for people.
He loves his fellow man because they are fellow children of god. 
Does he just throw money at people, or does he teach them how to be better
farmers? Does he show mercy to the wayward, knowing the person will not learn
a lesson and will continue to further endanger their immortal soul?
Paladins are the toughest character class for this reason. They continually
are attempting to serve god and man at the same time.

>BTW, I noticed you never addressed the issue of the thief being controlled
>by another party member.  Maybe you missed it.  Here it is again:

>You said the paladin should have killed the thief on the spot.  What if
>the thief were under the control of the party mage, or some other character
>or even an NPC.  You'd be killing the wrong person, but because you killed
>him then and there, you'd never even know it.  Now, for a LN paladin that
>might be fine and dandy, but a LG paladin would be in a shitload of
>trouble for that one.

I know I never said that. I did say the GM was overreacting by leaps
and bounds. I stated he should take him to the proper authorities for justice.
I did say that if he did slay him there, he would have to most likely confess
for having commited a chaotic act. Letting the thief walk away with the slap
on the wrist that the party gave him and continuing to adventure with this
group would more likely cause him to lose said status than taking the law
into his own hands for a moment.
The LN character is actually the one more likely to take the thief in to
the proper authorities. It's the paladin's good side that is more likely
to lead him to kill this larcenous bandit. If the paladin moves in alignment
at all, it's going to be away from Law not towards it. Killing someone who
steals without a trial is a good act, not a lawful one.  Lawful neutral
characters are very strict about following the letter of the law.

The mindcontrol issue: I think you're reaching.

Axly