The Light and How to Swing It...

[rentreality]

I still firmly disagree with the fact that a Paladin could willfully commit deeds such as murder, rape, or the like without any consequences -- it's inviting metagaming and throwing regard for the history of the order to the wind. The way I have always heard it, a Paladin cannot commit any evil act (with evil as defined by both your moral compass and the laws of the Church and the Kingdom) in free will without losing their power. This has been true in all the RPGs I've ever played or heard of, not to mention Warcraft lore.

I can see, however, that people desire to play their paladins as being evil. And I know that I won't be able to stop this. My conviction is unswayed by the arguments that have been presented -- none of them address the issue of legitimate authority, which explains not only why some Paladins such as the Scarlets can commit acts that could be considered evil -- given that they not only view it as morally good, but have their view reinforced by the Scarlet leaders, what is to them a legitimate authority. It also possibly explains how Arthas could have purged Stratholme and remained a Paladin: he was a Prince, and thus his own legitimate authority. A playable version of a human Paladin, however, is almost by definition a member of one of the Seven Kingdoms of Humanity: the Kingdoms are the ones who have the Paladin trainers, and it is very difficult to become a Paladin without a trainer.

Thus, in order to become a Paladin in the first place, they would have to respect the legitimate authority of their respective kingdom and that of the Church. Members of the training cadres who displayed chaotic or non-good tendencies would be turned away at best, or executed as heretics at worst. To say otherwise is to invite Mary-Sues who state that they were wandering in the wild when a Naaru swept down from on high and ordained them the Master of the Light, and will strip us of our ability to declare that outrageous.

Compromise in this situation is impossible: I see no reason to agree to one based on what I see as flawed logic.

[Gricca]

Yes, I think a compromise of some kind should be reached. I was always of the thought that the Light comes from the Naaru and they've just now started directly interacting with those who wield their power. If there is no sentience to The Light, and your mind can twist perception around all it wants, then why haven't mages learned to harness it?
Dominating some young person and brainwashing them into thinking they are righteous would be very useful. Especially when fighting undead. Speaking of which, what is every ones opinion on why the Light affects them so strongly? Undead that is.

[Nostra]

A playable version of a human Paladin, however, is almost by definition a member of one of the Seven Kingdoms of Humanity: the Kingdoms are the ones who have the Paladin trainers, and it is very difficult to become a Paladin without a trainer.

Thus, in order to become a Paladin in the first place, they would have to respect the legitimate authority of their respective kingdom and that of the Church. Members of the training cadres who displayed chaotic or non-good tendencies would be turned away at best, or executed as heretics at worst. To say otherwise is to invite Mary-Sues who state that they were wandering in the wild when a Naaru swept down from on high and ordained them the Master of the Light, and will strip us of our ability to declare that outrageous.

I can agree with this!

But this doesn´t mean that there aren´t zealot paladins out there, "legitimate authority" can be claimed by anyone and if paladin A thinks that person B is a blasphemous idiot spreading strife around him and needs to be punished, he takes that "legitimate authority" onto himself ensuring justice is done. Even if person B might just have been a hooker in need of some cash.

From my experience the key of a paladin isn´t his "lawfulness" but his fervent belief in what is right. Of course, "what is right" is relative and changes depending on ones point of view.

I think something we have to accept here is that there are facts supporting both stances, and I doubt we´ll ever get to a conclussion with this debate. Instead I think we should decide how we want it done here, on CotH.

[Einhander]

I think something we have to accept here is that there are facts supporting both stances, and I doubt we´ll ever get to a conclussion with this debate. Instead I think we should decide how we want it done here, on CotH.

I agree with this statement. Perhaps a poll or a GM decision is in order. The line has to be drawn because this entire area is grey. The line needs to be thick, bold and IN CAPS.

[rentreality]

I think something we have to accept here is that there are facts supporting both stances, and I doubt we´ll ever get to a conclussion with this debate. Instead I think we should decide how we want it done here, on CotH.

I agree with this statement. Perhaps a poll or a GM decision is in order. The line has to be drawn because this entire area is grey. The line needs to be thick, bold and IN CAPS.

After a nice long walk in nature, I agree fully.

[Hinbane]

Bah! Alas I wasn't able to be a part of the majority of this debate. Would've liked to respond to a few things.

I think though that such a motion would be called for, but I hope that we can still lobby in defense for either case.

[Kaghuros]

My personal style is that fervent belief drives the Paladin's powers. I play a Paladin that can at times be neither lawful nor good in his judgments, but cleaves strictly to what he believes needs doing in the world. He's killed innocents because they were Horde or simply seemed to support the Horde, but at his core he KNOWS he's in the right at all times regardless of the justice behind his actions.

[h3avenzrezurect]

My personal style is that fervent belief drives the Paladin's powers. I play a Paladin that can at times be neither lawful nor good in his judgments, but cleaves strictly to what he believes needs doing in the world. He's killed innocents because they were Horde or simply seemed to support the Horde, but at his core he KNOWS he's in the right at all times regardless of the justice behind his actions.

This is Isaac's style as well, he knows that he's right deep down, and no guilt arises from ANY action he takes.

[Hinbane]

I wonder though, that if such a subjective 'swinging' of the Light were true in the Azeroth universe, simply based on what the individual "knew" to be right, wouldn't we see a wider use of its considerable powers? Even the Lich King must believe somehow that he's doing the right thing. Unless of course, he feels guilty about it, which I find no evidence for.

In my mind, the only two possibilities are:

A.) The Light is Objective - And the Light judges who it allows to be wielded by.
B.) The Light is Subjective - And yet, everyone that doesn't wield the Light obviously don't feel they're doing something right. This means that there is a moral base that transcends most everything in terms of culture, race, and background - an Objective Moral base. This would mean that the 'subjective' sense of what is right, is actually an objective moral standard that exists in the Warcraft Universe.

Point to where you see flaws.

[Yunnemaria]

In reaction though, the Light's use, I believe, is not whether you are good or bad. Everyone knows that through canon examples, even Evil has used the Light to its purpose. The point to the ability to have the power to wield Light is the Lawfulness. All paladins point to the requirement of having to follow a legitimate authority.

Without the rules set out by a legitimate authority, the Paladin could not be the protector of the people. Fervent belief and zealotry plays a pretty big part in the aspect of lawfulness, but there is a difference in following the set rules of a kingdom and the church and following the rules of one's own heart and his own belief.

Yes, the Light may still work in their ways. But they would no longer be called Paladins for breaking the rules laid out by their legitimate authority, in regards to the topic of Rentreality -- in murdering or possibly raping any person due to their fervent belief.

It's just not a lawful thing to do, in any eye, whether zealot or not, to rape or murder someone under any circumstances. It also does not protect anyone, which is pretty much the point of a Paladin: a holy protector committed to protecting their people. It is also heretical to attack any person on your same side. It would be alright if it were, say, a Horde who trespasses on the lands of the Humans. But it would be considered heretical and even unethical to attack, murder, or otherwise cause bodily harm to anyone in the same side as you are.

Just my two cents. Sorry if I don't make sense, I'm just voicing out my opinion. x:

[Maxwell]

I guess Paladins can have specific circumstances to disobey laws set down by the state, but in most cases the Paladin would -know- if it's against the law. It depends on their upbringing, if they're brought up to believe the law of the state is final and true, they will follow that law. If they are brought up to believe that these laws are not to be respected, they will invest their beliefs elsewhere. This would affect what they think is right or wrong.

[Yunnemaria]

I guess Paladins can have specific circumstances to disobey laws set down by the state, but in most cases the Paladin would -know- if it's against the law. It depends on their upbringing, if they're brought up to believe the law of the state is final and true, they will follow that law. If they are brought up to believe that these laws are not to be respected, they will invest their beliefs elsewhere. This would affect what they think is right or wrong.

It is never lawful to rape or murder, in any legitimate state. That is the point, though. Whether or not upbringing tells them a certain thing is alright, if the Law clearly states something as wrong, the Paladins should NOT do them. Otherwise they will be deemed heretical.

[Harmonic]

Alright. Here's how I've done it.

Dwarves, Alliance Humans, and Draenei Paladin's -all- worship the light in some form. A majority of them show zealotry and ferverence in the good causes that arise, or even the perceived good that comes from being a Paladin. Eliminating the undead, even the sentient Forsaken is seen as a holy action by the Alliance Paladin's, and is taken out with great zeal. Their belief, and constant submission to the light is what has granted them the power they wield.

The Scarlet Crusade are literally insane about their beliefs. "If you are unsure, kill them anyways, for they might be undead", is truly what they believe. If they speak out against a leader, it means they are undead sympathizers, and will face death. MANY PEOPLE STAY WITHIN THE SCARLET CRUSADE OUT OF FEAR. A lot of the Crusaders, also teach the way of the Naaru, but with a very scary way of doing so. Again, "Those who do not follow the light shall be met with death". Oddly enough, all of that put together with their convicitions, beliefs, and extreme zealotry are the reason's they are able to wield the light as a weapon.

Blood Elves followed a similar route as humans for many years. They served in the Cathedral of Light, most of them as priests, and a handful as Paladins. However, when they had their falling out, and were attacked themselves by the Scourge, they took a drastic measure in fighting back. They literally stole one of the Naaru, and -raped- their power from it. This power was not gained through zealotry, or belief, buy by sheer force. Of course, there was the whole reclaiming of the Sunwell, in which the Naaru M'uru was taken forcefully by Kel'Thas. A'dal graced the Bloodelves, giving them the power they needed through a pledge they made to it to aid the Shattered Sun Offensive. Many Bloodelves are haughty, snyde, and outright nasty. However, through the aid of A'dal, and their own personal convictions, they themselves have also become zealots of the light. They battle the undead, and traitors to the light, and that is what motivates them.


A Paladin -can- be evil, however, that is an outward perception placed upon the character. It is -very-, very rare an Alliance Paladin would ever be able to pull this off, considering their systems of belief are drastically different than Bloodelves, or Scarlet Crusader's. (By rare, I mean I hope it never turns up in any Alliance Pally's profile.)



If anyone doubts my information, I retrieved all of it from WoWwiki with the searches "Paladin", "Scarlet Crusade", and "Bloodknight". I hope this adds some insight to all of this.

[Krent]

And what happens when the "Legitimate Authority" is wrong? What happens when the Kingdom orders a paladin to slaughter innocents who might threaten the social hierarchy (Perhaps through radical political ideals) but have done no crime? What happens when the inevitable threads of corruption enter into the commanding powers that hold authority over the Paladin?

Is the only way for a paladin to keep his class status by mindlessly obeying whatever his "Legitimate Authority" orders him to? Or is he to stick true to the "idealized" portrayal of his duties? In the latter case, he would be forced to stick to his own inner construction of morality and rebel against the corrupt establishment that is giving him these types of orders.

But in that situation, by the arguments being presented here, he would lose his ability to wield the light and his Paladin status by acting against the "Legitimate Authority", even though his actions would be righteous and just. And to say that the Silver Hand, the Kingdom of Stormwind, and every individual that holds political command over a paladin will always remain "pure" and "just" is absurd.

To also say that a Paladin character must exclusively be a Lawful Good only type is also not only unrealistic, but in my mind stifling to creativity. Using the threat of the potential Mary Sue does not work because that dame is one tough cookie. No matter what you do, no matter what sort of restrictions you put forth, no matter what type of rigid rule set you set out, someone, somewhere, will figure out how to live out their illogical egocentric role playing narcissistic fantasy of perfection.

The only way to deal with Mrs. Sue is to identify her when she appears and then eliminate her. Limiting a character class to one narrowly defined role with absolutely no room for any creative variation for fear of Mary Sue walking in is hazardous to a good role playing environment. Because not only does it do nothing against Mary Sues from infiltrating the RP storyline, but it outright kills the potential for what could be unique characters who help to add depth to the storyline.

....and as far as the justification for murder, and even rape.....

There have been plenty of instances where the slaughter and torture of innocents has been justified by legitimate states. Every major world power - be they from any country - has committed some form of horrendous atrocity within their existence and still held a firm belief that they were justified in their actions. Some of them still find their past violations as moral conquests made for the greater good of "progress".

Just google "Manifest Destiny" and you'll get a good example of how rape, murder, and the genocide of an entire population could be not only justified, but celebrated. Glorified, even! Such acts are still being committed by the major world powers (please take note how I pluralized that. The US certainly ain't alone in this.) at this very moment and the majority of civilians still consider their states morally just.

So, in conclusion to another really long post that won't sway the debate any, I still believe a Machiavellian approach to Paladins is still the best.

[Harmonic]

I agree with Krent, mostly out of the fact that Alignments are again, an outward perception of what people perceive your character to be. What may be evil to one person, might not be to someone else. Alliance find it perfectly fine to re-slaughter Forsaken, who hate the Alliance for this. Alliance would see Orcs as evil, because of all the war that goes on.

It's a perception.