-

Dragon

Paladin

-

Best of Dragon, Vol. III

Dragon 51

There is a custom-made T-shirt in my
closet that depicts a Red Dragon, clutching a full stomach and in some distress,
with the caption “Paladins Cause Heartburn.” This phrase has more meaning for
me as a Dungeon Master and as a player
in AD&D™ games than just as a sight
gag. In my three years of gaming, it has
been a rare thing to see a properly characterized Paladin, or even one that’s
done at least reasonably right most of
the time. Unlike other character classes
in AD&D games, the restrictions on the
Paladin class give it a wealth of special
problems in play.

Certainly no one would enjoy being a
character that is so hemmed in by regulations and restrictions that he or she
comes across as humorless, dry and nitpicky about minor details. Paladins can
be friendly, jocular, and basically happy
people (and probably should be), but
there are limits. It’s in the nature of the
game. People who don’t care to play Paladins (or other Lawful Good characters)
as the rules outline them should really
choose another class more suited to
them, and consider the reasons for doing so. Few people respect and like to
game with persons who cheat (and a Paladin who is greedy, refuses to take risks,
lets danger fall on everyone else, and has
twenty-eight types of Holy Swords is definitely cheating). DMs should, can, and
(most of the time) do penalize this sort of
behavior. In my time as a DM I’ve removed three or four Paladinhoods, encouraged two to retirement, and even
removed one Anti-Paladin from his status for committing a good act.
Some of the basic questions about using Paladins as player characters involve what sort of things should be approved of, what should be avoided, and
what kinds of actions constitute evil or
chaotic acts. Perhaps the greatest enemy of Paladins in the game is cultural
relativity. Maybe anthropologists can
study a tribe of cannibals and find their
culinary practices reasonable, at least
for the cannibals, but Paladins of any
religion would have to disapprove. The
killing and eating of human beings or
any other intelligent beings, even orcs, is
not a good act by AD&D standards. It at
least borders on being evil, depending
on the situation.

Please remember, too, that this is a
game, and it postulates the existence of
fundamental absolutes like Good and
Evil, Law and Chaos. There are few “gray
areas.” Smoking or taking hallucinogenic substances, indulging in casual sex,
and going against the grain of society,
regardless of what the person playing
the Paladin thinks of those actions, are in
no way a part of the world of Paladinhood in the game. They shouldn’t be no
matter who is the DM, either. Using hallucinogens destroys the clarity of the
mind and its attachment to reality, leaving the Paladin open to inadvertently
committing an evil or chaotic act, or being unable to deal with an emergency.
Casual sex, of course, is chaotic and to
be avoided (though I’ve known several

Paladins who would give their Holy
Swords to get away with it).
Law implies permanence and few
changes, and it further implies long-term
relationships and love when connected
to good. Law also implies obeying the
rules of society and working within a sys
tem to make things work out for the bet
ter. Paladins can and should break laws
that violate the tenets of Lawful Good,
like slavery and the “right” to torture pri
soners. In basically good societies,
though, Paladins would be expected to
go along with the rules of their church
and state, as long as they don’t conflict
with each other.

There is a small chance that a Paladin
character will be confronted with a situa
tion in which many of the members of his
or her church actually turn away from
being Lawful Good; the Paladin is not
then obligated to follow the rules they
hand down that aren’t lawful or good, but
is still required to be Lawful Good him
self or herself. In all cases like this, the
Paladin’s deity can and should back up
the Paladin’s actions as long as they are
correct, though the deity’s help might
prove to be indirect.

There are lots of other ways in which
Paladins can become ensnared in chaos
or evil. Conceit is one (“Boy, I’m hotter
than a Salamander’s pitchfork now! I’m
really something else!”), and it’s one of
the most common pitfalls. Humility is the

virtue that should be nurtured. Paladins
may be more powerful and more effective than most other members of an adventuring party, but they should have a
sense of their own limitations, and their
place in the Scheme of Things. Related
to this is the tendency seen in a number
of Paladins to become arrogant (“Get
outta my way, peasant! Do you know
who you’re dealing with?”) An excessive
display of either conceit or arrogance is
a transgression and merits severe penalties.
The hunger for power and more material wealth is another of the many deadly
temptations in Paladinhood. There’s nothing wrong with desiring a better sword;
demons and devils, to name just a couple
of types of traditional Paladin adversaries, cannot be hit with non-magical weapons, so acquiring magical ones is important and necessary in the long run.
But having magical weapons for their
own sake, just because one wants to
look as decorated as a Christmas tree in
front of all the local peons, is wrong. It’s
what one intends to do with what one has
or wants that counts.

A related problem that will be run up
against by nearly all Paladins is the limit
on the number of magical items that may
be owned by them. This rule gets violated all the time. I looked over one person’s character sheet (for a Paladin) and
noted something on the order of twenty

odd magical items. When I asked him
why he had so many when he was only
allowed so few, he replied, “I only use a
few of them. The rest are out on loan.”
No dice. I gave him five minutes or so
to dump all but his “legal” amount of
magic, or else become a normal Fighter.
Things worked out after that. Excess
magic should be given to other Lawful
Good players or donated to the nearest
temple of the Paladin’s religion. Lawful
Good NPC’s may also receive excess
magic, whether they are the Paladin’s
henchmen or not, but the Paladin cannot
go around borrowing things afterwards.
Constant association with Neutral characters is an abused area; sometimes an
entire party, with the exception of the
player bringing a Paladin, may be Neutrally aligned. In cases like this another
character should be substituted for the
Paladin unless there is something really
extreme going on (like a quest to save a
church, High Priest, or holy artifact).
This is part of the breaks of being a Paladin. The company you keep will reflect
on you.

Associating with evil characters in any
way in a friendly manner is EVIL. If a
Paladin character becomes aware that
one of the party members is actually evil
in alignment, then a confrontation is inevitable. The Paladin will be required to
have nothing to do with the evil person or
persons, with the possible exception of

taking the person into custody if an evil
act is committed by that person.
Paladins meet evil persons all the time
in their daily business, even just walking
down the street, but don’t associate with
them. There’s nothing wrong with compiling all the information one can get on
local evil sorts, and on other evil-aligned
player-characters, for future reference
in crimefighting. One can use informants,
direct questioning, and judicious surveillance and spying (though this last endeavor might prove questionable if done
too often).

Note again that a confrontation will be
inevitable for a Paladin and another evil
player. Once a Paladin is aware that evil
exists, he cannot turn his eyes away from
it; that’s not just cowardly, it’s wrong. On
the other hand, a Paladin cannot just
slay every evil person he or she meets.
That’s wrong, too, unless every evil person one meets is trying to kill the Paladin
or someone else. Somehow, in one way
or the other, the ends of evil must be
undone.

Killing is a difficult topic to address
with regard to Paladins. This article does
not deal with the question of whether
killing in real life is evil or not. In an
AD&D game, however, there are many
creatures whose whole existence is evil
and cannot be undone by any means
short of a Wish(and even that may not be
possible). Undead of any sort, evil dragon types, and all demons, devils, and
daemons deserve (from a Paladin’s point
of view) no other fate than utter and absolute destruction. Sparing them is evil.
Sometimes little more can be done than
to send the creature back to its home
plane, in the case of the demons, devils,
and daemons, but if the situation permits
they should be slain by whatever means
are at hand so that no further harm may
be done by them. There is no quarter and
no prisoners are taken.

Other beings, like Beholders and Mind
Flayers, will also fit pretty well into this
category. No amount of polite talk and
reasoning will convince an Intellect Devourer to be a nice guy. The sword is the
only answer. When orcs, trolls, and so
forth are encountered, the same applies.
They are evil, there are deities who make
a living at keeping them evil, and there’s
not much more to say. Perhaps the only
exceptions one could make to killing evil
monsters would be if they surrendered;
the Paladin could then tie them up or
whatever and march them off to the
nearest authorities to stand trial or be
imprisoned.

Not all of the problems Paladin-players
encounter in this area of whether killing
is right or not are the player’s fault.
Sometimes a DM will set up a situation in
which, for example, the Lawful Goods
have slain all the males of a tribe of
Werewolves, and all that’s left are the

females and young, who cower in the
rocks and refuse to fight. Civilization is
hundreds of miles away and no means
exists at the moment to render the captives free of lycanthropy. If released, the
young will grow up and terrorize the
neighborhood again. If they are kept as
captives, the party will be severely hampered and may meet new monsters at
any moment.

Killing the captives could well be the
only alternative the Paladin is left with,
yet if done the DM might say it was evil
and remove the player’s alignment and
status as a Paladin. A touchy situation,
right? The DM should keep well in mind
how he or she would react if placed in the
same situation in the game, essentially
trapped with no way out. It isn’t fair, and
the players will know it and resent it. If
captives must be slain, it should be done
quickly, without torture, and with the assurance that there was no way to avoid it.
If a Paladin does have prisoners and
they can be disposed of by turning them
over to other authorities, and this won’t
unreasonably endanger innocent people, then killing them out of hand could
rate as an ungood act. The DM is the final
arbiter of such matters.

As far as using poison, killing innocent
people or beasts, or torturing goes, any
of that spells doom for Paladinhood. If a
radically evil act is committed by a Paladin, I roll percentile dice for the deity’s
reaction, giving a 5% chance that in addition to removing Paladinhood, the god
kills the ex-Paladin as well. One Paladin
has gone out this way while I was a DM,
after butchering some Wereboars who
were having a campout with the party.
He vanished in a bolt of lightning. So
much for that,
In dealing with Neutrals, it would be
better for the Paladin to focus on using
ways other than killing to accomplish
goals. One Paladin in our group encountered a Dryad who tried to charm some
of the players right after the group had
rescued her from being ravished by a
bunch of nasty, unwashed orcs. The Paladin punched the Dryad in the nose and
she fled.

While the group (and myself, who was
the DM) was shocked by this, in retrospect it might have been a little strong
but it was right. She had her life and a
bloody nose to show for attempting to
kidnap party members. By Lawful Good
standards she could have done a lot
worse. Though I had the Paladin chastised for this, I think now I shouldn’t have
and should have let it stand (perhaps I
should have congratulated him; he had a
Vorpal Sword and might have used it, but
that response would have been too
strong and not good). Of course, when
confronted by a band of wild bandits or
buccaneers (all Neutral) you can’t just
punch them in the nose and settle things.

Again, the sword might be a reasonable
answer.

As for what Paladins do believe in and
practice, they like friendships, law and
order, charity, sharing personal dedication to high goals and standards, chains
of command, obedience to orders, honesty and truth, and taking joy in being
alive. Paladins want to find more allies of
Lawful Good alignment and establish
assurances of mutual aid in case of
danger to one or the other. Permanence,
tradition, and predictability are pursued.
If you feel the need of a role model in
figuring out what else Paladins might
approve of, think of John Wayne (making some appropriate substitutions in
taking him out of the Old West), or read
Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul
Anderson. This book could have formed
much of the basis for putting Paladins
into the AD&D game; Holger Carlsen
(Giants in the Earth, Dragon #49) is a
Paladin if he is anything. Other examples, like King Arthur or Sir Lancelot,
might help as well.

Finally, the DM can make use of several methods to bring Paladin characters
into line with their alignment, if such
nudging is needed. Reduction or withholding of experience points from an adventure, being unable to use Lawful
Good-aligned swords without some difficulties (like back-talk from the weapon
if it is intelligent), negative reactions
from the Paladin’s horse, henchmen, or
hirelings, or direct warnings from the Paladin’s deity can prove helpful if the Paladin contemplates an evil or chaotic act.
The DM should bear in mind the difficulties involved in being a Paladin, and
should make an effort to not make things
worse for the player by setting him or her
up for defeat in some sort of morality
trap. Remember that being good isn’t being stupid, either, and Paladin’s should
not be made to take on more than they
can bear. “Banzai” attacks without hope
of accomplishing anything (like attacking a Type VI demon with a pocketknife)
are ridiculous. Low-level Paladins should
get challenging, low-level monsters to
fight; retreating from tougher monsters
is smart and good, if the player plans to
come back and smash the villains when
he/she gets tougher later on.

I’ve had a lot of misgivings in my gaming experience about having Paladins in
the game at all, but in general a well
played Paladin is about the best character that the AD&D rules have to offer. It is
also the hardest to play, and it takes a lot
of dedication to play it well. The guy
whose Paladin punched the Dryad in the
nose played the best Paladin I ever saw;
though he would “toe the line” adjacent
to Chaos or Neutrality from time to time,
his Paladin was basically a good one.
And that is perhaps the highest compliment a Paladin can get.