I'm going to be playing a paladin for the first time...

I'll concede that.
The problem really is that a game with a morality system is asking people to suspend everything they know about morality in real life.

Ok I think my analogy didn't come off quite so well. Orcs will be orcs will be orcs and anyone who comes at us with lethal force will be met with lethal force. OOC I can determine when the DM is going for "just kill it" and I'm not going to make things a pain in the ass. I'm just going to avoid throwing the first stone.

Based purely on session 1 and having no other experiences with this person, he seems the type to steal from the party if ever given night watch duty. He's already pulled the "that's what my character would do" on making an objectively stupid decision. I doubt he's a bad person but I foresee chaotic stupid shenanigans. I'm trying to learn how to respond to those without going lawful stupid.

He ma not be a bad person but he's being a bad player. You'll have to resolve this or have a bad time.

...

every time he does something bad

give him a smile

stare for a moment

maybe two

then flick him on his stupid face

it may take hundreds, maybe thousands

but he'll learn

oh yes

he will learn

Play Oath Of Redemption if 5e.

>Based purely on session 1 and having no other experiences with this person, he seems the type to steal from the party if ever given night watch duty. He's already pulled the "that's what my character would do" on making an objectively stupid decision

OK user

REAL TALK HERE

SIT DOWN WITH YOUR DM AND THE PLAYER (LITERALLY SIT DOWN NEXT TO YOUR FRIENDS BECAUSE I ASSUME THIS IS REAL LIFE AND NOT FAKE INTERNET D&D) AND TELL HIM THAT HIS BEHAVIOR IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO EVERYONE HAVING FUN.

IF HE DOESN'T LEARN, CHOP OFF HIS CHARACTER'S HANDS AND LEAVE HIM AT THE NEXT TOWN.

>Also, as a DM, you should be aware that "dickass thief" is vastly more disruptive than a merciful crusader.

Completely the opposite in my experience. Thieves can get a little annoying but they rarely ever cause the massive arguments you get when a Lawful Stupid busybody starts dictating to players what they can and can't do.

Nothing's preventing Oath of Devotion or Oath of the Ancients from being redeemers. Devotion has "show mercy to your foes." Ancients is all about bringing the good out of people, and its first tenet speaks of "mercy, kindness, and forgiveness."
You don't have to be 100% about redemption or 100% a murderhobo.

1. OP said nothing about telling everyone else what to do. It's possible he/she will just try to persuade them in character. You know - "roleplaying."
2. Stealing from teammates is just about the most disruptive thing you can do. Players are extremely protective of their characters' possessions. Not being able to trust party members combined with a violation of that protectiveness is the best possible recipe for angry IRL players.
3. Besides stealing from party members, there's approximately a 97% chance that the thief will engage in activities that hog the spotlight (going on solo crime sprees, looking for a thieves' guild to join, sneaking off by himself to "scout" and end up just trying to deal with everything by himself, etc.)
If you haven't experienced #2 and #3, you haven't actually had a "dickass thief" in your party.

Only printed material allowed, sadly. No Unearthed Arcana.

If things get out of hand, that'll be the plan. Right now I'm just looking for some way for a paladin and rogue to play nice that isn't terribly forced.

That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. When someone comes to the table with a certain character, that's what they want to play. I don't want to get in the way of people having the opportunity to play their character but at the same time, I don't have the mental athletics to figure out how a paladin can reconcile the hypocrisy.

>I'm just looking for some way for a paladin and rogue to play nice that isn't terribly forced.
That would be trivial. The problem is that the paladin is straying from expectations and the rogue is the type of rogue that can't play nice with anyone, paladin or otherwise.
With any other party, you're asking the right question. With this rogue, the onus is not on you to change.

>When someone comes to the table with a certain character, that's what they want to play. I don't want to get in the way of people having the opportunity to play their character
A noble ideal, but not every character should be brought to the table to begin with. You wouldn't show up to a superheroes game with a supervillain, and you shouldn't show up to a team game like D&D with a non-team-player.

>capture and redeem
Sure hope you're not playing D&D because the rules really aren't going to support your cause.

Not complicated. In most settings there are a number of things that are evil beyond reasoning, literally eating children and enslaving villages.
In the midst of that, there is a thief. A guy who learned to live that way because he is in a shitty world with orcs and hags and mindflayers.

Resume your alignment with this :
"Though I disapprove, my friend, I shall not try to stop you. However, if my actions can one day show you the greatness there is in living for others, I will have accomplished a much greater deed than stopping this jewel from having been stolen."
This is how I Paladin, usually people are okay with that.

In my second ever session of D&D (5e), I played a Paladin. We had just discovered that the bad guy was kidnapping people, fitting them with some kind of mind-control collars that turns them into mindless, obedient drones, and then selling them as slaves.

We were in a room with a group of pepole who had the collars on, so they were just kind of staring blankly at nothing. The DM described one of the men as having a peculiar ring on. Upon inspection, it had engravings in a language none of us recognized. The party's thief tries to steal it from the guy, but it won't budge. Then he says that he draws his knife to cut the dude's finger off so he can take the ring. It's at this point that I step in and tell him that I'm not about to let him cut some innocent captive's finger off just so he can steal his ring.

Reading all the gripes Veeky Forums has about Paladins has made me kind of paranoid that I'm ruining the game for everyone else. Was it wrong of me to stop him?

As a side note, the mind-controlled guy turned out to be some kind of super-strong ancient being that probably would of wrecked us when he woke up if the thief had cut his finger off. But we didn't know that at the time.

>Luke 22:36
>“Now, however, He told them, “the one with a purse should take it, and likewise a bag; and the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.

>John 15:13
>Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

Listen to these songs to get hyped.
youtube.com/watch?v=Yv1LukhMaHI
youtube.com/watch?v=_FdnA4SyYzE
youtube.com/watch?v=MM_c_avPlx4

This.
What I did when I was playing that type was, essentially, during a fight I'd order people to lay down their arms and surrender.

Anyone who didn't do that is an enemy combatant and fair game for a good smiting. Anyone who did would be granted mercy.

I have a proposal:

Sit down with him.
Not the player, I mean. The character. Get the whole party in on it and literally stage an intervention. Tell him, in character, that you're a team and you want to help him, but that he has to let you help him.
Basically, diagnose him with kleptomania and have the party assure him that he doesn't need to steal things from them because they're on his side.

Dimes to donuts the player has no idea how to handle that shit except to go along with it.

And if that doesn't work, give up on him in character. Tell him, sadly, that you can no longer trust him... and then vote him off the island with the rest of the party, because they will be sick of him by then. If he had a problem with that, tell him "It's what our characters would do."

Easy enough.

You are the scales of justice. A blade of vengeance can be tempered with mercy. Don't be an idiot when passing judgement, but give more leeway when you know someone can change or was pressed into their misdeeds. Example: a man steals from you to feed his family, so he has done his best to fulfill his duty as a father. Absolve him of his sins and give him coin to support his family. If he steals again, he had an opportunity to change or use the coin to better himself and squandered it. Turn him in.

Give other hostiles a chance to surrender at the start, then give no quarter

Done this once. Pure vampire hunting campaign. Three of them were broody, 'muh family got eaten' types. The Ranger (surprisingly) wasn't, he was basically playing Not-A-Belmont.

My Paladin went full Anderson, and it was glorious.

Ok, I think I'm going to try to go for these things. Plus I've realized I'm dreadfully low on paladin pics.

Also, don't forget that while Paladins live their ideals, they're still people with their own flaws.

I only played a Tiefling Paladin who had serious difficulty with being a Paladin because of the fear of passing incorrect judgement on someone who was more 'misunderstood' than 'evil'

People have failures, and those will usually be magnified when you live for high ideals. Give your character a big flaw or two.

once.
I ONCE played a Tiefling Paladin, etc.
Stupid phone.

Tough call. It depends on how important you thought the ring might be. If you had any reason to suspect it would help you defeat the bad guy, it could be acceptable to cut off an innocent's finger if you also immediately provide medical attention. If you have no such reason, it's just violent theft.

You can only be so conflicted with paladins, though. At least in 5e, their powers come from conviction - they need to believe fully in their ideals, and that pursuing them is the right thing to do, even if they aren't 100% confident about everything.

>be Devotion Paladin
>get cursed by a greater basher
>need to gather a few items to facilitate a ritual to rid us of the curse, one of which being the eye of a thief
>we have the gnomish wizard carry a bag of fake gold down a dark alleyway in search of thieves
>wait for them to forcibly take the bag to complete the transaction of thievery
>spring our trap and take them down with a Sleep spell
>want to take them to local law enforcement after we take one of their eyes
>rest of the party just wants to murder them
>argue with the party incharacter until they finally acquiesce and take them to the local guard after we rip out one of the thieves' eyes
Was this an example of Lawful Stupid moralfagging? I get "it's what my character would do" is pretty universally frowned upon, but I could not see my guy allowing that to happen when local law was just a quick walk away.

>don't play in character
>you're only allowed make the most optimal decisions
>always judge people based on what you think they might do instead of what they actually do
>make up chaotic stupid situations in my head to get upset about

I've had other players get mad at me for fleeing a battle, even though we were getting slaughtered and the enemy had reinforcements en route. Even the DM agreed with me that it was a fucking idiotic thing to stay.

Still got shit on for a few sessions because I fled from that fight.

>maiming a man for your own selfish reasons
Shit Paladin, 0/10
The DM is pushing credulity by creating a scenario with only one solution like that, but you're a bad Paladin for not finding another way.

>morality isn't based on the realm of which it originated
>every paladin must be a platemail girlscout

If you believe there is only ever binary morality, then you should never play a paladin.

>beating someone up and tearing out their eye is good guy behavior because we live in edgyworld!
Stupid

Yeah, nah. is right, ripping out a living person's eye, even as penalty for theft, is sorta fucked up for a devotion pally/traditional LG pally if there's no greater good at stake. The whole point of the paladin is not believing in edgy no-win scenarios.

I'd consider that a breach of the Devotion Oath already, and I'd tell the Paladin so.
I'd also warn him that ff he made it worse by allowing the man to be killed, he's going to be running full-tilt toward a fall.
Paladins are, basically without exception, heroes. They do not do awful things in general, and even the Vengeance Paladin would only do it for a good reason.

Now, some of the archetypes like Conquest and Oathbreaker are obviously meant to be antipaladins, which is all well and good, but needs to be approached differently in a story sense, so they're a bit beyond the bounds of this discussion.
I mention it because I know some idiot will chime in with ACKSHUALLY PALADINS CAN BE EVIL if I don't.

>implying i said ripping out eyes was "good guy" behaviour

Paladins are knights of Gods.
Not every god is a hug fairy.
Not every paladin is the same.
The different types of paladin are like those warhammer spacemarine guys. Maybe more like the lanterns.

>either be lawful stupid or don't play a paladin!

The whole point of being a paladin is to fight for justice. Justice is almost never a binary decision.

Here. A paladin test for you, since you're obviously experts.

1st paladin slays an evil orc village to save prisoners.
2nd paladin tries to make a deal to buy the prisoners from the orcs.
3rd paladin challenges the leader for the prisoners freedom.
4th paladin surrenders himself in exchange for the prisoners freedom

Which paladin's method is most correct?

>Paladins are knights of Gods
Factually wrong, opinion discarded.
The default, core rulebook Paladin is a knight of the abstract concept of capital-G Good. They protect, forgive, and save. They are messianic figures who fight first and foremost to protect people who cannot protect themselves, and they kill only to stop an evil that cannot be reasoned with. While many of them work with a church whose ideals they fight match their own, they are not just Clerics with more stab. They are their whole own thing--You're thinking of a Cleric with the War domain.

Just saying "hurr lawful stupid" isn't a magical escape clause for retarded behavior from your weak understanding of what a Paladin is meant to be. While justice is often a complicated business and there are grey areas where a Paladin will need to make tough calls, tearing the eye out of a helpless man to save HIMSELF is not one of them.
That is brutal and selfish behavior that directly violates almost every part of the Tenets of Devotion.
If ANY Good-aligned character in my group did that under the circumstances you described, they would get an alignment shift right away for being monstrous. If there was a Devotion Paladin in the group, they would be falling hard. If the DM doesn't enforce that, he's doing a pretty shit job of being a DM.

>taking RAW as gospel, not to be tampered with in any way

Opinion discarded.

>Paladins are knights of Gods.
Only beginning and ending with 4th edition. In every other edition they're knights of virtue.
>Not every god is a hug fairy.
No longer relevant.
>Not every paladin is the same.
True. But every paladin lives by a code, and the "default" code (the one called "Devotion" in 5e) would probably frown upon self-serving mutilation. It certainly seems to violate (or toe a very dangerous line) the tenets of "show mercy to your foes" and "treat others with fairness," and possibly "[do good] while causing the least amount of harm."
There are different types of paladins, but you specifically said you were Oath of Devotion. Not that this stops an individual paladin from committing any sort of action, but I have to wonder whether your character truly believes in the Tenets of Devotion.

>>>either be lawful stupid or don't play a paladin!
Nobody ever said that. Strawmanning isn't going to win you any arguments.

>The whole point of being a paladin is to fight for justice. Justice is almost never a binary decision.
No, but there are things that seem to flagrantly violate justice. All the methods you listed are possible under the Tenets - I'm not an idiot and understand the point of the list. But it falls flat since there's no "5. kidnap and torture orcs until the remaining orcs agree to a prisoner exchange."
Some methods are acceptable. Some aren't. The explicit point made by is that the particular method you chose seems to conflict with the oath your paladin supposedly swore.
Note that nobody's telling you how to play your character - we're just frowning upon the character's actions. And I suppose, by extension, your interpretation of the oath if you claim they were acceptable within its framework.

>discussing the story role of a class
>hurr y u rules lawyer durr
Get out of my fuckin house kid

once again

>implying i said ripping out eyes was good guy behaviour

I said morality is based on the realm of which it originated. Unless you're actually dense enough to think "morality is the same EVERYWHERE. in EVERY system."

DnD didn't invent paladins, nor should every paladin in every system be forced to play by the DnD rules. You're looking at the green lanterns and saying the other colors don't exist.

>factually wrong
factually correct*
subjectively wrong.

As a DM, I wouldn't force an alignment shift necessarily. I think that characters with a "good" mindset can judge that their need is more important and that the greater good sometimes requires sacrifice, and if that sacrifice comes from a scumbag then all the better.
That said, I would 100% rule that a paladin violated his oath. 5e does not by default have rules for fallen paladins, but if you take the "power derived from belief in your oath" shtick seriously (which you should), I wouldn't let that sort of behavior fly without at least a sign that the paladins powers might be wavering, since clearly his faith isn't very strong.

>it's okay that I violate the Tenets of Devotion and act like a sociopathic serial killer because I decided that heroic morality is not an important part of being a Paladin
Literally
just play a Fighter
Why are you like this

>taking RAW as gospel
Fluff isn't rules. You can change fluff, but if you claim to adhere to it (">be Devotion Paladin") then don't be surprised if people call you out on seemingly-contradictory behavior.

>morality is based on the realm of which it originated
Not sure what the means. Are you saying something like "what's Lawful Good in Forgotten Realms is not necessarily what's Lawful Good in Greyhawk"?

>nor should every paladin in every system be forced to play by the DnD rules.
This debate is literally about a DnD paladin, user.

I disagree.
The whole point of a Good alignment is that it's inherently heroic and generally selfless. Neutral characters are still capable of being 'good people'--they're the practical ones that believe an ultimate good may require sacrifices and compromises.
That's the thing.

Dunno if OP is still here, but Imma post what paladin pictures I have.

I disagree with your interpretation of Good characters as 100% Good all the time. But this is a separate issue to the one at hand and one I'm not necessarily interested in discussing right now. It's enough for me that we both agree mutilating criminals isn't an Oath of Devotion thing to do.

...

Oh no no, I don't mean that they're 100% messianic--I consider that kind of super-morality a Paladin thing or a specific character feature.
I meant in the context of what we were already discussing--that a Neutral character could justify taking the eye from a man with the reason that "hey he's not innocent and we need to get through this to do more good long-term"
In my opinion, a Good character would almost never be able to see that action as justifiable--it's just a cruel and awful thing to do to someone, even for a good cause.

>follow the rules of DnD
>when not playing DnD

I
didn't
rip
out
anyone's
fucking
eye

nor did I say it was good.
I said morality is based on where it originated from.

You are fucking thick.

>not sure what the means
obviously

>this debate is literally about a DnD paladin
This is a debate about paladins as a concept. DnD paladins aren't every paladin.
Not every paladin is Clark Kent.
OP did not specify DnD, just paladins.

Here's the paladin test again, since you didn't actually make a decision:

1st paladin slays an evil orc village to save prisoners.
2nd paladin tries to make a deal to buy the prisoners from the orcs.
3rd paladin challenges the leader for the prisoners freedom.
4th paladin surrenders himself in exchange for the prisoners freedom

Which paladin's method is most correct?

I have a different view of alignment than you do, I think. I think intent and belief matter as well as actions. The same action can thus be either good or evil (or whatever) depending on the intent behind it - i.e. violence for self-gain is evil, violence for the Greater Good is sometimes acceptable. The nature of the curse being lifted by mutilating a random passerby and the importance of that particular paladin to world affairs all matter.
That said, the fact that the thief could have easily been a desperate first-time offender shows this paladin, at best, has incredibly bad judgment; at worst, he doesn't really care about his own oath. This is why I care in the first place.

>OP did not specify DnD, just paladins.
I invite you to actually read the post that started this particular chain of posts: This discussion is explicitly about the actions of a DnD paladin. It may have expanded in scope beyond the original situation but "muh DnD didn't invent paladins!" is an irrelevant discussion.
And fuck you, I already said the answer was "any of the above."

>I'm an Oath of Devotion Paladin
>It's not D&D guise ;^ )

You
are
being
a
thick
retard

Literally everyone but you is pointing out how awful your reasoning and how backward your interpretation of this is, and your whole argument boils down to "My interpretation is just too nuanced and complex! I am the best!"

You're a moron.

>any
Objectively wrong.

One fell swoop and all of your credibility goes down the drain. Maybe you should just stick to playing bards or something.

>only one system has paladins based on "devotion"

your green is showing. Expand your crosshairs sometime.

Since you clearly understand paladins so well, pray tell which answer is correct? I mean, I've already failed, so you have no reason not to tell me what the answer was, if only to show me the error of my ways.

Are you really going to pretend that you didn't directly reference 5e D&D here?
You're going to do this childish shit where you dodge the issue at hand--after addressing concerned based on the Tenets of Devotion from the D&D core rulebook--as if we're supposed to forget that?

How childish are you?

Your bait isn't even convincing anymore. Nobody can be this obtuse without doing it on purpose.

I'm assuming you're the one that said "DnD didn't invent paladins"? In that case, you're the one showing how ignorant you are, because DnD was almost certainly the first game to use the word "paladin" to refer to "warriors with holy powers." Until then the world referred more-or-less exclusively to the twelve peers of Charlemagne.

I don't think it's the original eyepluckanon anymore.

I don't even care anymore
I'm giving up on it

I never once referenced the tenets.
^- this was my first post in this thread. seems like you're assuming I'm someone else.

I stand by what I said

Stupid, edgy bullshit.

Then you missed the point of the debate you were inserting yourself into, and you're still being obtuse and avoiding any question you don't want to answer.

Their conviction can be to incredibly vague concepts however. Things such as justice, goodness and fairness can have a lot of different interpretations and mitigating circumstances even if the paladin is convicted to achieving a desired outcome of goodness/fairness/justice.

Also worth noting that a lot of the times paladins will start off as lower level characters, and that this can be a cool opportunity to have a paladin who does sometimes struggle with his convictions or codes. Becoming an ideal champion rather than simply starting as one can be a fun character arc.

>capture and redeem
Anyone listing odds on how long until the DM makes a succubus character?

>morality is subjective
>"ugh, fucking edgelords."
opinion discarded.

My entire point was that morality isn't binary, and neither are paladins, since they're a class objectively based on upholding moral wellbeing in a fucked up world. There isn't a single system with a monopoly on what it means to be a paladin.

That was my point the entire time and the only real point I've been arguing, aside from constantly saying that I'm not an eyeplucker while being blamed for such.

Your point is: "paladins can't do morally questionable things because paladin."
My point is: "paladins aren't that simple because morality isn't simple."

If you disagree, that's your own business. At least give the paladin method question some thought.

This guy knows what's up.

Then you completely missed my/our point. It wasn't that "paladins can't do questionable things," it was literally and specifically that 5e D&D Oath of Devotion paladins would violate their oath if they plucked out a thief's eye to undo a curse on themselves.
It was never meant to be a wider discussion. You made it into one, except me and the other user thought you were the original user defending their actions, which is why we missed what you were actually presenting.

I have given the question thought. The answer wildly depends on circumstances any way I slice it. If you keep refusing to tell me what you think the answer is you're just being obscure for obscurity's sake.

>redemption
>paladin
Just kill the bad guys.

Help those you can within reason, but do not endanger others with your own hubris.
You can not save those who do not wish to be saved, but you can extend the offer.

>"paladins would violate their oath if they plucked out a thief's eye to undo a curse"
To put this eyepluck saga to rest:

>Rip his eye out
>Rip my eye out
>I give him my eye
>Heal both our wounds
>Bring him to authorities

Good luck, user.

What said.
You're basically a SWAT cop or similar. You tell people to hit the floor and surrender, or you shoot them. You're almost always in a situation too dangerous to take chances, so anyone who doesn't surrender is in for a smiting basically.

If it's a creature that's objectively evil like a demon or something, you obviously swing for the fences from go. Other than that, knocking people out or taking them prisoner whenever possible is a good way.

Try speaking to your DM on the side and asking him if you can arrange for a liason of local law enforcement or similar to accompany when you're out to do some justice--or to pronounce a legal writ that puts a proper death sentence on the enemy in advance. "Trial by jury" is not, after all, a medieval concept.

but that doesn't stop it from being an awful, evil thing to do
it just makes you a retard who has an unrealistic ability to take self-harm lightly because you, as a player, are in control.
"Oh I'll just TEAR OUT MY OWN EYE" is not some shit to be treated flippantly. You wouldn't do that shit, and neither would I. That's also why it's horrific to do it to someone else.

Oh, one more thing

At some point you're going to find magic items like a portable hole or similar, chances are.
You are well within your rights to build a jail cell in there so you can transport prisoners, and I highly recommend it.

>but you wouldn't do it in real life so i'm right
>momentarily hurting an evil person is evil
>paladins are never self sacrificing

Just keep backpedaling with those goalposts.

>Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Check.
>Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Check.
>Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Check.
>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.
Check.
>Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.
Check.

I feel like "defenseless, defeated foe" counts as "the weak" when your friends want to maim them... not to mention the bit about showing mercy.
Fairness, too. It's not honorable to maim a defeated person, at all. If you're going to hurt or kill someone who is defeated it ought to be, y'know, a lawful punishment.

>A thief is evil

Leaving a bag of gold in an alley is sure to attract all sorts of desperate men. Offering a convicted thief a pardon in exchange for his eye would be more suitable.

>"capture and redeem" over a "cleave and smite"
Those aren't exclusive.
Paladins are expected to kill converts before they have a chance to backslide.

>Error: You must wait 8 minutes 46 seconds before posting an image reply.
>Veeky Forums Pass users have lower cooldowns. [Learn More]
Wew.

Whoops... wrong nits make lice post.

Too bad Gygaxian morality is dumb and is rightfully adapted to modern societal expectations.

OP back, after not expecting this thread to still be alive.

On the subject of redemption stuff, I never intended to go fully, or even mostly, pacifist. Give the option to surrender, but NPCs never take it. Besides, I have a fairly good inkling we're going to be fighting mostly dinosaurs.

Thankfully, I trust this DM. He wouldn't.

Lawful Good is not Lawful Nice.

I actually played a Paladin like a Florentine/ Machiavellian Politician.

We had a thief in the Party who went from hating the paladin to idolizing him for being able to part a fool and their gold legally.

He ended up keeping the thief on his pay-roll to do the dirty-work, while the thief got the blessing of the Order.