Paladin for Moral Relativists

[jdagna]

Iago's recent posts gave me an idea that might make Paladin better suited for moral relativists.

What if you get rid of the concept of orders and give each Paladin his own code?  This personal code reflects the person's own beliefs or laws, and works just like the order's code would, granting animus, causing marks, etc.

Since each character will have a slightly different code, you've got good opportunities for conflicts where someone is going to break a law no matter what they do in certain situations.  The GM won't even need to introduce special situations or develop an internally-conflicting code.  And, since the laws are no longer universal for all Paladins, you lose a lot of the absolutist elements.

You could even have an evil Paladin with laws like "Kill innocents" who actually uses light animus more than dark, thus eliminating the moral value on "light" and "dark".

Anyway... its a thought.  I happen to like the moral absolutist elements!

[iago]

Iago's recent posts gave me an idea that might make Paladin better suited for moral relativists.

What if you get rid of the concept of orders and give each Paladin his own code?  This personal code reflects the person's own beliefs or laws, and works just like the order's code would, granting animus, causing marks, etc.

Since each character will have a slightly different code, you've got good opportunities for conflicts where someone is going to break a law no matter what they do in certain situations.  The GM won't even need to introduce special situations or develop an internally-conflicting code.  And, since the laws are no longer universal for all Paladins, you lose a lot of the absolutist elements.

Spot-on idea in my opinion!  This works particularly well, in my mind, for a superhero oriented game of Paladin.  Not every character fights for Truth, Justice and The American Way, but they're all certainly regarded as heroes.  

This suggests a kind of overarching Higher Law so to speak that amounts to "Be true to yourself and to your code" -- and suggests a universe where Batman and Superman are both Paladins of the Justice League (as it were), but each very clearly has their own code and their own "hard and fast" notions of what is Right and what is Wrong.  

Superman may be more oriented on making the world a better place; Batman more on letting no bad deed go unpunished.

You could even have an evil Paladin with laws like "Kill innocents" who actually uses light animus more than dark, thus eliminating the moral value on "light" and "dark".

Freakish.  I'm not too sure I'd go that far, personally, but I think I've already suggested that by offering a binding Higher Law.  And that certainly does underscore an absolutely relativist stance. ;)

Anyway... its a thought.  I happen to like the moral absolutist elements!

Me, too, which is why I'd still keep Light animus by and large on the side of the heroes (assuming you're not running something so grey you can't tell).

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I would argue that Batman and Superman operate by precisely the same Code. The issue is one of style and application, not of principle. I think that the series Kingdom Come demonstrates this in action better than nearly any other, and it's also why The Dark Knight Returns works (barely) as a story. See the final interaction between the two characters in each story.

I think most people are making the Code way too explicit in terms of specific actions, and also placing inappropriate terms like "never" and "always" in there.

1 (most important). Preserve human innocence and dignity.
2. Fight for justice.
3 (least important). Fight crime.

Neither Batman nor Superman will kill (despite certain revisionist abominations), which I see as part of their shared interpretation of #1.

Best,
Ron

[b_bankhead]

Since each character will have a slightly different code, you've got good opportunities for conflicts where someone is going to break a law no matter what they do in certain situations.  The GM won't even need to introduce special situations or develop an internally-conflicting code.  And, since the laws are no longer universal for all Paladins, you lose a lot of the absolutist elements.

You could even have an evil Paladin with laws like "Kill innocents" who actually uses light animus more than dark, thus eliminating the moral value on "light" and "dark".

Anyway... its a thought.  I happen to like the moral absolutist elements!

   This isn't necessarily the case.  This could be described as a dualist rather than merely relativist position. In dualism there are immanent Good and Evil  forces that are absolute, and of  more less equal potency.  The Evil force could award powers for evil behaviorm just as good could.  And since evil in these universes seems to be easier to do than good ,you have to be REEEEEALY evil to get any notice.

   Zoroastrianism is generally regarded as the classic example of a dualist religion. Christianity denies that it is one ,but historically has functioned like like one.

  Want to have some 'Sith' for your 'Jedi'? I've been reading Trevor Ravenscrofts 'Spear of Destiny' and If you can I would reccomend the Sections on Nazi occultism from Pauwels and Bergier's 'Morning of the Magicians'.  These two books give a chilling picture of what a coherent,self regulating and self sustaining 'black hat' order could be like.

 No moral greys here! The black and whites are as stark as the cinematography of Riefenstahl.

[Rob Donoghue]

I wonder - could you split the difference and have a game where, whether because of vagaries of cosmology or order of knighthood or whatever, you could have Paladins with the same highest laws but differing secondary laws?

-Rob D.

(Weirdly, as I think about this, it would seem a great way to apply Paladin to some of the World of Darkness Settings, for better or for worse)