Certainly, it all depends on the group, and the GM. If you use the alignment system SOME, you can get away with stuff like that, but in my experiences, and I haven't even run most of them, the GM holds the Paladin in a special place of forced actions, where he COULDN'T allow your CE Psion; not stopping evil is as bad as helping it, and the Paladin is basically an accomplice. He'd HAVE to root out evil, and try to purge it. If he didn't constantly try to persuade the Psion that his is the wrong path, he should lose his god-granted powers.

I certainly won't tell you how to run your games, but I will admit that, to some extent, we will see how certain characters might, or should be conducted as differently. For me, Paladins must enforce their narrow view of LG on everyone around them, because it is the core of their class aspect; they are holy warriors tasked by the Gods of Good (usually, I mean Correllon has pallies, and he isn't LG, for instance) to snuff out evil, and protect the weak from the mighty, especially who are also evil. Thieves are not always picking pockets, nixing things, and being obvious about it, certainly, but a Paladin who is not in a video game where you NEED that one key, to open that one door, and the guy doesn't want to share, so you NEED to steal it is likely to look at the act of theft as wrong, rather than justify it with why, and begin the slippery slope of gray area that he will lose his powers by falling through. My opinion, of course. My other opinion is that I never really liked the Alignment system, in D&D or most games, and if you don't focus too much on it, I can see more of what you said working. I'm just a bit of a stickler, sort of like how you probably won't convince the Druid that burning down the forest is the best course, even if it somehow is. New life will grow there, and a stray bolt of actual lightning COULD do the same thing, and the Druid might not flip his crap, and desperately try to stop the raging conflagration, but when civilization's hand, or something similar, decided it, he's likely to *****. And, I'm done babbling now.

And this has not a lot to do with the OP, so sorry I sort of derailed it all

I think deep down, there is a lot more consensus here than the debate would seem to suggest. It's the details in wording that are being discussed.

Personally, I maintain that such character constellations need to be supported by everyone on the table to avoid frustrating conflicts. It's perfectly okay to have characters that run a risk of clashing with one another in the group, but the game will profit from their players actively seeking to defuse these conflicts before they arise. An example would be the thief's player refraining from provoking the paladin with their antics, and the paladin's player having their character coincidentally preoccupied with something else when the thief feels they must do something bad.

Although D&Ds definition of the paladin and alignment consequences feels pretty outdated and unnecessarily limiting, anyways, and not what should be considered the standard in RPGs. I much prefer something like the Warcraft d20 P&Ps "Scarlet Crusader" ancillary rule where yes the character's alignment is important, but it depends not on actual actions but rather how the characters themselves subconsciously interpret them, opening up the possibility of "whitelisting" evil deeds as long as they are committed in pursuit of a good goal and the character has a conscience suitably twisted by zeal.

Admittedly, it depends on whether you prefer black vs white or shades of grey in your games, though.

I dunno, that seems like it could bring the game to a halt as it turns into a philosphical debate about "does the end justify the deed", "is it evil if done in the name of good" and "what act counts as evil". Mind you that could make for a very intresting and fun eveing, but if you guys like me and Bruce in the group , you could be there a while.

But I agree. "Alignment" is a needlesly restrictive and hideously meta gamemechanic.

Also the reason why I'll play chaotic neutral characters, and never Lawful anything!

I like the alignment mechanic in most games - but absolutely not in Black Crusade. That's like the one place where I can't stand it.

I dunno, that seems like it could bring the game to a halt as it turns into a philosphical debate about "does the end justify the deed", "is it evil if done in the name of good" and "what act counts as evil". Mind you that could make for a very intresting and fun eveing, but if you guys like me and Bruce in the group , you could be there a while.

Oh yes, I could see that. In a lot of cases, such a debate would probably not come up because the characters were already created to "fit in with the group", but where this was not done and where the players actually care for their characters' personality, there is certainly a lot of potential for debate (last week, my Dragon Age P&P templar had a lively discussion with the party's mage). This, too, can enrich a campaign, but it may not be what people had in mind when they signed up for the game.

However, most settings offer a variety of "safety nets" to allow a way out, though - it's not as if the characters have to keep discussing things. They may indeed "agree to disagree", even if they continue to harbour a degree of ill will against one another. For example, in Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, Rogue Trader or Only War, every single character is bound by regulations of the agency they are working for, and which take judicial priority over the characters' own creed-inspired dislike for another member of the party.

I'm sure Brad still remembers that one time when I almost shot the psyker.

Black Crusade is the only game where I could imagine a conflict actually turning deadly - however, it is also the one game where I could perfectly imagine a duel not resulting in death, but the victor taking "ownership" of the defeated, to further humiliate them and increase their own prestige (remember Mass Effect's Aria and her krogan slave?), but simultaneously allow the other player to continue playing this character. It all comes down to how you want something to end!

True. We managed to get out of the "prisoner dillema" fairly quickly when we were playing D&D 4th (the esentials version)

We had a bunch of orc babies in a cave and our paladin (who acts like a puritan witchhunter/40k commisar at times) decides to kill them on account of "suffer not the wicked to live". Not something you should say within earshot of a half orc rogue (played by yours truly) who's standing right behind you. So I tell him" You don't kill kids. I'll kill you if you try." And he responds "would you actualy attack a fellow warrior just to save these evil creatures? Well if you draw steel, then so shall I!" And then our cleric intervenes, once again being our groups voice of reason and calmly points out that I was willing to fight a fellow party member to save lives, while he was willing to fight a party member to kill orc babies. After that our paladin relented and the orc babies were saved.. well saved.. we left them in that cave. I'm pretty sure some other orc found them and took them into their tribe, raising them to come after our party and slay us all... But we didn't kill the orc babies!

After the game we did end up having a little discussion about how Orc are suposedly "Always chaotic evil" and I said: a) that's meta. b) show me where it says that in the monster manual.

So he points to the entry for orcs, and i go" Nonono, thats adult orcs, where are the stats for orc babies?"

To wich he had no reply. (At this point our GM gave us the "don't look at me" look.)

And this in turn led to a 2 hour philosophical debate about "nature vs nurture" and if it is possible to be "born evil"...

D&D 4th is kind of a blight on the genre (as a stoic 3.0/3.5 player who suffers the misery that is Pathfinder due to a lack of alternatives). Not really a good benchmark. As is, sounds to me like that player's just playing a Paladin wrong, in which case the DM needs to give them a good old divine paddlin'.

I dunno, I think the fact that he relented based on the priest's argumentation is a point in his favour. Certainly a fanatical paladin, but it could be attributed to youth or lack of experience, his zeal not yet tempered by experience. Better than the "whiteknight" paladin who is so bound by their alignment that they just end up being a caricature.

All in all, I'd say that little story is actually a good example of (a) how to resolve a potential conflict and (b) just how cool it can be to have such things in your game. I mean, compared to ignoring the orc babies or just taking them with you .. you gotta admit, it was grounds for good roleplaying, and from how it sounds, good roleplaying was had.

I see no issue in the rules or setting for or against a paladin killing orc babies. Both alternatives can be evil and lawful neutral options. Lawful Good, though, it is not, but it can very well be an LN act, depending on the paladin's personal interpretation of just how far he goes to "protect the innocent" and who the "innocent" are, as well as how his faith actually sees orcs. If he does it for no other reason than that they're orcs, though, it's definitely an evil act. If his logic is along the lines of "they will grow into wicked creatures bent on vengeance, if they do not miserably starve because there is nothing left to feed them and we cannot. It would be a mercy to put them to a quick end, rather than condemn them to a slow, agonising death or a lifetime of evil and revenge." then it's very much LN and within the bounds of the paladin code for SOME deities. Others, though, would outright smack you for it, because kids are kids and you should be giving them a chance. 'course, these same deities might smack you for outright leaving them there for someone else to find/to die, instead of taking them to the nearest Ilmateri monastary to be raised properly....

I personally tend to play Ilmateri and Lathanderite Paladins, focused very heavily on mercy and redemption, but I can honestly say that with the exception of perhaps Helm, I'm struggling to think of a deity whom both sponsors Paladins and would accept such an action. Helm also sponsors Lawful Evil Clerics, and Paladins of Tyranny (LE Variant Paladin, see Unearthed Arcana).

Top tip for any Paladin player, actually. Read the Book of Exalted Deeds for D&D 3.5. That book is an absolute godsend for teaching people how to play a Good Aligned character; part of it's content even includes the Saint template, how to acquire it and maintain it.

Also, for the love of the gods, Detect Evil is a thing. You get it as an unlimited per day ability, so even if you're playing a Paladin of Torag (See Pathfinder), who encourages the merciless smiting of all things evil, you can quite definitively confirm whether or not the Orc Babies are evil or not

Not to take away from Lynata's point, I love a good morality debate in roleplay. I in fact deliberately had my Cadian Medic question the morality of waging war on the Severan Dominate, because I wanted to provoke those discussions in our RP.

One thing I must stress. A Paladin can still uphold all the morals and tenents of the Lawful & Good alignment axes, and still be a human being who suffers from stress, depression and breakdowns. Similarly, the Death Korps of Krieg don't have to be mindless woobie drones. People have emotions and no matter how hard we try to repress them, they bubble up and harass us. Showing what's under that veneer of duty and conditioning helps make a seemingly cookie cutter character come alive.

I brought that subject up with my group.

We play Pathfinder (which some people dislike for reasons?). Paladin's one of Pharasma.

Opinions are that Paladins are LG, but not Loyal Stupid now. Most of the players and GM played 2nd ed D&D, where the paladin had to obey all laws and help everyone, making a woman in distress in a field with a "private property, do not enter" sign resulting in the Paladin standing on the field's edge, foaming at the mouth, bound to help the innocent..but couldn't break the law and enter illegally on the property.

While lying and such are not actions that are sanctioned or encouraged, a Paladin can see the big picture, and one white lie to get the peasants out of the inn (Elder Joachim needs every man, his barn is on fire!) to fight the wandering necromancer sleeping there without innocents in the way is not a power-shattering move that will make him be your stock LG fighter.

Accusing some girl of witchcraft to make a drumhead trial in the middle of the village to act as distraction..that will be power affecting.

Just as the same time, the market square pickpockets or the local crime syndicate is not of his concern. He's a Paladin, not the Watch. Of course at the same time, if the local Baron is acting all evil and such, he,ll get involve in local matters because again, big picture.

I had Helm specifically in mind when I wrote the above, yeah. That said, non-FR settings might have a lot more merciless "good" deities. Just take a look at planescape...

I dislike Pathfinder because of the massive simplication of the system. D&D is not particularly difficult to understand or learn, and the Forgotten Realms setting is incredibly lore rich and was, prior to the mess of 4th edition, quite well written. Pathfinder has completely skewed what semblance of game balance was in the system it was based off of (I'm looking at you, one for one skill point investment, and nigh abolishment of Class Skills) and pretty effectively undermines party roles, without even touching on the new classes they recently released such as the Slayer, which effectively turns a D&D 7th level minimum prestige class into a base class. Meanwhile, prestige classes got so horribly knocked as to be near pointless to deviate from the Core classes.

What I will grant Pathfinder is that I do like the Gunslinger class, and the modifications to the Fighter class, but beyond that, I more lament the fact that my gaming group refuse to play 3.5 instead.

As is, lying is inherently against the Paladin Code as a rule in most depictions of the class, and if the civilians wont trust a Paladin's word then they're probably in league with the Necromancer. Nonetheless, one could subdue them nonlethally if force became necessary. If you want to play a Paladin that bends the rules, than that was kind of always the point of classes like the Paladin of Freedom, and the Greyguard, or the Shadowbane Inquisitor.

Sure, focus on the bigger picture, and prioritise, as a Paladin, but if you can't play a Paladin properly (upholding your code and all the other fun things that go hand in hand with it) then in my personal opinion, you have no business playing one at my table personally. With respect to the Code & the Law, a Paladin is beholden to his Code before the Law of the Land, if he is forced to choose between them.

As you can see, I'm one of those annoying as all hell traditionalist GMs on many levels, despite my great encouragement of house rules and variety. I figure if you're going to play a concept, you play it right.

Yeah, my mate played his palladin (homebrew world so we made up our own dieties) as a very zealous and fanatical person.

Alignment be damned: Good was what his god said that it was.* Think he had a 3 step guide: (like the laws of robotics)

1. Protect the faithfull.
2. Protect the innoscent.
3. Slay the wicked.

The way these steps worked it actualy meant protect the faitfull from the innocent. So i guess that would make him a radicalsied paladin?

* and i agree with him on that, Its the way I'd play a palladin to. I hate those goody twoshoes meta-aware buzz lightyear pallies.

Yeah, my mate played his palladin (homebrew world so we made up our own dieties) as a very zealous and fanatical person.

Alignment be damned: Good was what his god said that it was.* Think he had a 3 step guide: (like the laws of robotics)

1. Protect the faithfull.
2. Protect the innoscent.
3. Slay the wicked.

The way these steps worked it actualy meant protect the faitfull from the innocent. So i guess that would make him a radicalsied paladin?

* and i agree with him on that, Its the way I'd play a palladin to. I hate those goody twoshoes meta-aware buzz lightyear pallies.

Yes, in typical zealotry Paladin shows, those who worship his God are a step above the rest (as they know the real Truth and all such this)...that would not make him that much radical, just a "logical conclusion".

When you said Laws of robotics, I actually thought of Robocop's own program.

1-Serve the Public Trust (The Loyal)

2-Protect The innocent (The Good)

3-Uphold the Law (Because he's a cop)

or it could be Fight the undead wherever they are or Protect nature whenever it is threaten or whatever Domain your God rules on, work on that.

And I agree with you, a Paladin is not always a...well, Paladin, sure he's a warrior-monk of a religion...what I mean is, 'pretty sure a Paladin of a CE God doesn't go around helping the widow and orphan and hugging puppies. No, oh no, he's the reason why the widow and orphan are what they are, and after a little **** and murder, he'll ride out of the now burning town tramping a box full of cute puppies that was just lying there. And pass back a few times because puppy blood would look good on his horse's hoofs. If there's a paladin of a trickster or thieving God, would lying, cloak&daggery and thievery result in a paladin to lose his powers, or would such actions be accepted or even encouraged, with a penalty of then losing your powers as you do not act in accordance to your God's liking/methods?

Paladins of Slaughter (CE Variant, Unearthed Arcana) worshipping Cyric are a prime example. Lie to people and pretend to be good, honest folk during the day.

By night, they drag screaming victims off to altars surrounded by purple clad sociopaths to be sacrificed in the name of the Dark Sun.

This is why the variant classes exist after all. So that you can explore another angle of Paladin-ism without creating a "one size fits all" Warrior-Monk. That would probably be the Sohei class (Source unknown), or the Crusader (Tome of Battle), neither of which really feel like Paladins.

Our GM has a rule: "If you go all out evil paladin then you're playing an anti-paladin, and the first person who makes an anti-pasta" joke looses a level!"* So while (in our group) palladins weren't full on murderhobo bloodknights (mr. zealot being the worst it got) we (in theory) could have paladins to trickster gods. we never had one, but i'd dualclass with a rogue/bard to get some new tricks.

With clerics and paladins (and maybe monks) you can really do what you want once you homebrew your religion.

Example: Paladin of the Sacred Flame. They aren't arsonists, but don't expect them to help put out a forrest fire.

I've Always viewed paladins as a cross between a fighter and a cleric.

* actual quote.

I have come to the conclusion that Commissar is a troublesome class. I wouldn't ban it in a game but it requires more from the player than the other classes do.

Simply the fact that the commissar has so much power if used like in the fluff AND the commissar is also weighed down with many responsibilities. The player needs to understand both sides of this. Also, it is not the only class with these problems.

If a penal trooper or sarge wants to do some black market deals to get better gear for himself/squad or something the GM can handle this and it can suit the character. It may (should) cause problems if he isn't careful but this can be a plot hook for the GM. If a commissar does something like that and gets caught the only options are immediate *blam* from the rest of the commissariat or a one way trip to a penal legion where he is expected to get him self killed alongside the penal troopers. And that is an important bit, the commissars are supposed to be fanatical. They don't just stand in the back and send other to death like NKVD. They have been brainwashed since childhood to truly believe in what they preach and those who fail to become fearless fanatics are often executed in the Schola Progenum or sent to penal legions. (Note that according to the latest fluff, the "final exam" for a commissar may be the order to execute their best friend. Simply to prove that they can be as cruel and harsh as needed in battle.)

Similarly to commissars, priests and enginseers need to be played in a special way. The Rogue trader may pick up "the weird" tech-priest who is borderline heretek but the average enginseer should be played as someone who nearly has a stroke if they notice the troopers "improving" their gear.

In may way yes. But if you look In the imperial guards uplifting primer, which every good imperial guardsmen or women should have, you have a treasure trove of different punishments. In one game, a guardsmen ( a player) fired on his superior officer ( anther player) I had the officer flogged , and the guardsmen, after a small show court in-front of the regiment, that had only one out come, but enough so the Regiment did not come and shot me , or shank me in the shower. Then I stripped him of all his equipment, gave him a stick and told him to charge an enemy Heavy bolter position. You just need to get creative with your punishments dear boy.

Also Ciaphas cain was not brainwashed!

Also Ciaphas cain was not brainwashed!

Those novels conflict with a lot of what is said about Commissars elsewhere, including their training.

Choose the version of Commissar your group likes most! But choose wisely.

Ciaphas Cain I look at like pulp fiction of the 40k

Also Ciaphas cain was not brainwashed!

Those novels conflict with a lot of what is said about Commissars elsewhere, including their training.

Choose the version of Commissar your group likes most! But choose wisely.

I think that can be said for alot of GW novels, and codexs , everything conflicts with everything, and everyone has there own little view on things. Still! it's a very entertaining novel, and a good Non standard commissar to play.

Ciaphas Cain is a s close as we'll get to Blackadder in the 41st millenium.

I think that can be said for alot of GW novels, and codexs , everything conflicts with everything, and everyone has there own little view on things.

Yep, as per the writers, there is no such thing as a 100% true and reliable source on the setting - it's left to us to cherrypick what we want to run with, including our own ideas! Ultimately, the only thing I could recommend here is to make sure that everyone in the group you're playing with is on the same page. As long as you share a common ground in your understanding of the setting, it's all good - it is your game, after all!

My own opinion of the novel(s) or this type of Commissar is rather low, but that is largely due to an inherent bias against deviations from what was there before. In the end, it all comes down to personal preferences. At the very least we all have some material to fuel our preferred interpretation of the setting, so it's not all bad.

Ciaphas Cain is a s close as we'll get to Blackadder in the 41st millenium.

Hahah, good comparison! I didn't consider it until now, but it's a perfect fit.

If I were to incorporate Ciaphas Cain into my interpretation of the setting, I would probably sort-of grimdark it by revealing that he's a fraud like the famous (for Germans) Captain of Koepenick, probably by Cain picking up a dead Commissar's uniform in an attempt to flee a warzone - but then getting caught up in his own act and being forced to continue playing this role as best as he can so as to save his own hide. Just an idea, of course.

If you look just at Ciaphas himsef it's not very obvious, but once you add in Jurgen (AKA Pariah Baldrick) it gets very obvious.

I also wonder if Jurgen actually smells bad, or if thats just the paraiah effect messing with Cain's perception of Jurgen.

I like your idea. There is some fan debate as to wether Cain is for real or not. (Fraud, inquisitorial propaganda, AL , etc...)

(hyjackin the thread here for a second )

From 40k fiction, who's your favorite Commissar character?

I'm not out of it yet, but based on cool sounding name alone I'll go with Detlev Niemand* from the 40k novel "Fire Caste". What keeps me from liking him is the fact that he is a (actual) ghost and he'd make Abbadon the despoiler look like a better human being.

* Niemand: "No one", in Dutch.

Well honestly when it comes to a problem player, especially one who is actively worsening the game for all involved the only solution is an OOC talk. Get everyone on the same page, about expectations and tone. You can play a commissar, you can play a commissar whose a jerk, you can even play one who is a jerk to the PCs. But if it's annoying the players OOC then it's got to be nixed. Don't just kill him off, and then say roll a new non commissar character, that's kind of prickly, and likely to lead to resentment in a player who likely non malicious(if he was malicious then just get rid of the player).

Commissars are one of those characters where the player needs a little more RP knowledge to generally play. Or rather, needs to be a little more thoughtful. Not just of how a Commissar might be expected to behave, but of how a disciplinarian character like that can negatively affect the others as players and not just characters. You can play a Kharn rip off that hates the pysker and degenerate members of the party, a character driven almost entirely by blood lust, who has no compulsions over betrayal and murder and still never actually come to blows. Because you have a meta game agreement that there will be no PVP except of a very low stakes consensual nature. So the characters are always about to come to blows, the Commissar is always reaching for his bolter. But that's it, it's just dramatic in character posturing. In that way they are a lot like like Paladins, a fun but potentially disruptive class. Which we seen to have gone off on so I too will add my 2 cents.

As usual it depends on setting and tone. In some settings a Paladin might be expected to eradicate a human barbarian village, let alone an orc one. In others they might use lethal force as a very last resort. Some some have very simple open to interpretation codes ones like Robocop, some have incredibly complicated restricted ones like Robocop 2. Perhaps even more important is what the players want to do, if the players want a very mild do gooder type game or a gritty amoral murder hobo one. Neither is better, but you better all be on the same page.

About Cain, I will say that I greatly enjoy the novels and recommend them to anyone who has a passing interest in the setting. Because the stories in themselves fun light reading, and doesn't assume you're well versed in the setting. It'll explain almost every important faction or idea that is raised within the story itself. It's a book I could give to someone totally ignorant of the setting and have them say "That was cool, the setting is pretty interesting." Now Lynata is right in that there are some obvious contradictions with previously established lore.

But to me the occasional continuity error is more than made up for by someone being able to actually catch the spirit of the setting in a fun interesting way. A way that makes the setting feel more real, while also being fun. I feel similarly when it comes to stuff like the Space Marine game. Occasional mechanical quirk aside, that's the spirit I think of when I think of high level DW play/movie marines. A bunch of heroic dudes beating up tons of mooks, and giving short manly speeches starting with "BAHTLE BRUTHAS!" But that's me, I like the setting partially because it's consistent, and consistently inconsistent.

The arbiter books are okay, but they seem to act like all the lawmen on this massive planet are arbiters. Which is ridiculous and does actually slightly annoy me. But I just pretend this planet is an exception to the rule just like Port Wander. In fact the planet has a complicated struggle of power involving the navy sorta being in control but not really, so it's only a small stretch.