Paladins!

[Seriphyn]

OK, so I'm in some habit of unintentionally opening wasp nests with certain discussions (Miqo'te, White Mages, etc.) :blush:. Nonetheless, I do like discussions that can offer a vibrant debate by the presence of multiple, conflicting points that acknowledge one another! Hopefully this one is less controversial, and that is about the Ul'dahn Paladins, the Sultansworn, and the recently constructed Free Paladins. We see a lot of Free Paladins in roleplay recently (at least I have), and there is an assumption that they are straight-up Lawful Good, just because that's how paladins are defined in other fantasy IPs. While I'm not saying this assumption is outright erroneous, I did want to challenge it with a deeper thought on the matter.

 

If anything, I feel they are closer to the real-life historical paladins of Charlemagne; best of the best royal guards, not crusaders of justices. This is supported by the fact that the French fleur-de-lis is found on PLD AF armour (ironic, considering Ul'dah is Ottoman/Arabic in primary influences). As mentioned below, I feel Lawful Neutral would be the closest fit. I think an analogy would be describing them as straight-up knights; heavily armoured sword and shield warriors in service to a lord. This makes free paladins akin to hedge knights. Heavily armoured sword and shield warriors without a lord to serve.

 

I'll start by posting the handful of posts that have already addressed this topic on the other thread...

 

Seriphyn

I wouldn't mind starting a discussion on Free Paladins, incidentally. So far, a lot of the roleplayers spin it as your standard Dungeons & Dragons goody-two-shoes. Granted, Jenlyns says "A true paladin offers his sword and shield without promise for reward" and other generic Lawful Good stuff...but I wonder if it's viable to say that's just this character's interpretation? For six hundred years, all paladins have been Sultansworn. I bet one could easily argue that history trumps one captain's decision to train outsiders. In which case, paladins are elite royal guards rather than crusaders of justice. To be "prepared to defend the Sultan to the death", they wouldn't be merciful at all like stereotypical LG...and would be rather ruthless.

 

Damnit, I wish I could access the non-CS dialogue from lvl30...I'm sure the NPC that tells you about free paladins mentions something about the 220 (or something) Commandments of the Paladins. Darn.

 

TheLastCandle

Honestly, I'm not up to date on Sultansworn lore, but given what I know of Ul'dah, I wouldn't be surprised if they generally swerve away from the "textbook Lawful Good" Paladin. It also wouldn't surprise me if the implications of that particular tenet (defending the Sultan/Sultana to the death) mean different things to individual Sultansworn. I daresay there is as much room for a typical goody-goody as there is a stone-cold Lawful Neutral hardass who only seeks to preserve order.

 

Sounsyy

I've always viewed the Paladins in a similar way. They're Royal Guards, not the Justice League. Furthermore, they're the Royal Guards of some... not so "Just" royals. Nanamo seems to be the one decent exception to a long line of Ul family dirtbags. Sultan Sisigan wipes out Ul'dah's sister nation of Sil'Dih over water control. We don't really know much about Sultana Sasamo, but she had 80 sins apparently. Doesn't sound like a great character. The Sultansworn also seem to protect the Syndicate on occasion (one of the Syndicate is a Prince?). The Syndicate is formed of the six richest citizens of Ul'dah. And there are several lore references that say they are not all nice people. Lots of corruption. 

 

So, hard to imagine Paladins being champions of Good when they are tasked with the protection of some of Eorzea's worst crooks? Not all are bad, mind you, but a good many. Paladins supposed to have good intentions I guess? Jenlyns at least seems to be naively good. Oh and there's the Monetarists who seemed to have infiltrated the Sultansworn on some level and are using it for their own personal gain? That was a part of the PLD quests.

[Varus]

About the Sultansworn:

 

Standards and attitudes have changed within the Sultansworn because of the loss of Oathkeeper, one of the three legendary swords. It is also possible for those within the ranks to be corrupted and manipulated by higher-powers, as evidenced by the attacks on you and Jenlyn during the story quests by other paladins at the whims of the Syndicate. 

 

In the current age, the Sultansworn are more akin to royal guards of semi-questionable loyalty. Which is a big step above most organizations in Ul'dah, mind you. 

 

You should also note that the Sultansworn probably have extensive training in other fields of combat beside swordsmanship, since there are a few archer and mage Sultansworn NPCs that attack you during the quest line.

 

Another observation is that some Sultansworn do not always wear their traditional white and blue armor, hinting that they are given other, shadier tasks that cannot be accomplished while in uniform.

 

About Free Paladins:

 

The closest thing to a real life comparison are probably knight errants, wandering knights that go on adventurers for some reason or another. Free Paladins maintain a code of honor and ethic to themselves rather than to a lord or organization. Stereotypically, this code of honor would be Lawful Good, but it doesn't have to be. There are stories of knight errants seeking bloody revenge, betraying their lord and oaths, etc.

[TheLastCandle]

The "Knight-Errant" archetype was my interpretation of the Free Paladin as well. Yvelont fits into that archetype as well, though without the "Paladin" title and associated abilities. The lore behind the Sultansworn is interesting, but like so much FFXIV lore, really needs more fleshing out. A lot of things are left open to player interpretation. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, because it keeps the door ajar for discussions like these, but it becomes hard to reach a consensus on just how a Paladin is "supposed" to act.

[Sounsyy]

I'mma just throw out there that I've been attacked by more Paladins in story than I've been protected by them. 

 

Solkzagyl seems to be a decent enough person. He used to be the Captain of the Sultansworn until he realized they were being corrupted and their original values tossed aside so he leaves. 

 

I think the Lawful Good traits are there. Jenlyns and Solkzagyl believe they are there at least. But in a place like Ul'dah, you won't live long being Lawful Good...

[TheLastCandle]

I'mma just throw out there that I've been attacked by more Paladins in story than I've been protected by them. 

 

Solkzagyl seems to be a decent enough person. He used to be the Captain of the Sultansworn until he realized they were being corrupted and their original values tossed aside so he leaves. 

 

I think the Lawful Good traits are there. Jenlyns and Solkzagyl believe they are there at least. But in a place like Ul'dah, you won't live long being Lawful Good...

 

That's a popular opinion, but I have seen a couple pull it off rather well. As I've told my players as a DM, there is after all a difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Stupid.

[Tiergan]

I'm okay with people RPing their paladins as Lawful Good types mainly because there's not really a huge wealth of information in game on exactly how the Sultansworn act other than that they protect the Sultanate and were a whole lot better as an organisation back before the Oathkeeper went 'poof'. 

 

Once you take that aspect of them away, all you really have is the way SE presents the two main NPCs (not the ones simply bribed by the Montarists as if we're going with uncorrupted Sultansworn, they'd be more loyal to the Sultana) in the Paladin quest behaved, and both of them pretty much fall in line with the "Lawful Good" code-of-honour type paladins.

 

That said, I saw them as Knight-Errant-types as well and I think there's plenty of flexibility to be a paladin that is not a cut and dry DnD stereotype.

[Varus]

I'mma just throw out there that I've been attacked by more Paladins in story than I've been protected by them. 

 

Lol. Truth.

[C'kayah Polaali]

I'm okay with people RPing their paladins as Lawful Good types

Same here, though I subscribe heavily to the moral relativistic point of view that says you should take character alignments into account within the framework of their society.

 

In other words, you've got Ul'dah, where there is rampant exploitation, slavery, vast wealth disparity, and a general low regard for the value of human life. A Lawful Good Sultansworn, in that context, would feel that all of those Ul'dahn values would be both just and good.

[TheLastCandle]

I'm okay with people RPing their paladins as Lawful Good types

Same here, though I subscribe heavily to the moral relativistic point of view that says you should take character alignments into account within the framework of their society.

 

In other words, you've got Ul'dah, where there is rampant exploitation, slavery, vast wealth disparity, and a general low regard for the value of human life. A Lawful Good Sultansworn, in that context, would feel that all of those Ul'dahn values would be both just and good.

 

I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I find fault in choosing to play a Sultansworn with a more traditionally defined "Lawful Good" outlook. Granted, it would be a challenge to play such a character in Ul'dahn society, but I see that as a fun opportunity myself. If only I weren't being so careful not to slip into my usual alt-itis in FFXIV!

[Seriphyn]

Perhaps the moral character of the Sultansworn paladins reflects the character of whatever Sultan is in power at the time, as alluded in the OP quotes? So, for Sultana Nanamo Ul Namo, who is written to be quite just and good (Let Them Eat Cactus FATE, for example), paladins and free paladins trained under her would be rather lawful good.

 

Compare that to paladins under a cruel Sultan, and then they'd probably be lawful neutral. 

 

All that said, I don't know if I could agree with Lawful Good for Sultansworn paladins by default (rather than varying depending on the leader)...what happens if the paladin is ordered to do an act that violates the stereotypical LG code? They -would- folllow the Sultan's orders, unless they want to surrender the paladin title (ignoring free paladins for now, since they're recent). Therefore LN is closer...

 

Ofc, this is using the incredibly restrictive D&D alignment system which is absolute nonsense, since you can't capture the wide range of human emotions and ideas that  single person has in one of nine labels.

[Tiergan]

I do agree that Sultansworn would probably be more Lawful Neutral than the typical idea of Lawful Good just because of the way Ul'dah is.

 

But I can also see them veering towards more Lawful Good just because of the kind of person the current Sultana is.  It makes sense that the leader would influence his/her royal guard.

 

For what it's worth, Tiergan's training to be a free paladin, but he'd probably be classified as either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

[Jomoru]

I think people need to stop using The D&D alignment chart for anything outside D&D. They are 9 cosmological truths in the D&D metasetting, you can litterally go to a place that IS chaotic evil or Lawful Good or what have you.

 

 

What is clear is that in setting the Sultansworn are like well Knights. There is a chivalric code but like most moral codes it can be hard to live up to and people who generally follow it can still fall from time to time.

[LiadansWhisper]

I think people need to stop using The D&D alignment chart for anything outside D&D. They are 9 cosmological truths in the D&D metasetting, you can litterally go to a place that IS chaotic evil or Lawful Good or what have you.

 

 

What is clear is that in setting the Sultansworn are like well Knights. There is a chivalric code but like most moral codes it can be hard to live up to and people who generally follow it can still fall from time to time.

 

I like Alignments.  They help me figure out my character's moral code.

[Jomoru]

Not really use of Alignments is more a hinderance than anything else, because unlike D&D Eorzea doesn't have morality as a physical law.  In D&D one can say out right certain things are good certain things are lawful but without those bases alignments become arbitrary arguments.

 

 

 

 

Instead you can make a much more simple basis. "My character values this" What does it mean to value justice? Does it mean you need to do horrible things to horrible people? What does it mean to value justice and Mercy? What does it mean to value nations or Eorzea or race or family. These things make a code. These things make a character and they are far more useful than saying something like "lawful Good"

[LiadansWhisper]

Not really use of Alignments is more a hinderance than anything else, because unlike D&D Eorzea doesn't have morality as a physical law.  In D&D one can say out right certain things are good certain things are lawful but without those bases alignments become arbitrary arguments.

 

 

 

 

Instead you can make a much more simple basis. "My character values this" What does it mean to value justice? Does it mean you need to do horrible things to horrible people? What does it mean to value justice and Mercy? What does it mean to value nations or Eorzea or race or family. These things make a code. These things make a character and they are far more useful than saying something like "lawful Good"

 

Well, you're completely entitled to your opinion, it's just one I don't share.  While I agree that Lawful Good is a really difficult (possibly impossible) Alignment to play in this setting, there are plenty of other Alignments that can provide a nice starting point from which to fully flesh-out your character.

 

Remember, Alignments are just a lodestone that points you in a particular direction.  They aren't shackles that bind you in place.  

 

Edited to Add: More related to the topic, I do think that it would be helpful if people stopped equating the D&D (and, to an extent, World of Warcraft) Paladin with the Paladins in FFXIV. Because they're not the same at all. In D&D and in WoW, they are directly chosen by a deity/the Light to be a champion of good and yadda yadda (unless you're a Blood Elf, BUT WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT BLOOD KNIGHTS OK?). In this game, it's more of a training and mindset thing. They aren't "Holy Warriors of Divine Power." At least, not as far as I can tell, anyway.

[TheLastCandle]

Not really use of Alignments is more a hinderance than anything else, because unlike D&D Eorzea doesn't have morality as a physical law.  In D&D one can say out right certain things are good certain things are lawful but without those bases alignments become arbitrary arguments.

 

 

 

 

Instead you can make a much more simple basis. "My character values this" What does it mean to value justice? Does it mean you need to do horrible things to horrible people? What does it mean to value justice and Mercy? What does it mean to value nations or Eorzea or race or family. These things make a code. These things make a character and they are far more useful than saying something like "lawful Good"

 

Well, you're completely entitled to your opinion, it's just one I don't share.  While I agree that Lawful Good is a really difficult (possibly impossible) Alignment to play in this setting, there are plenty of other Alignments that can provide a nice starting point from which to fully flesh-out your character.

 

Remember, Alignments are just a lodestone that points you in a particular direction.  They aren't shackles that bind you in place.  

 

This. And people tend to forget that, even in D&D, a character's alignment can and often does change with his/her experiences. It's just a convenient two-word phrase that can (often fairly accurately) describe your character's ethos.

[FreelanceWizard]

Remember, Alignments are just a lodestone that points you in a particular direction.  They aren't shackles that bind you in place.  

 

I totally agree with this. Putting aside their purpose in the Objective Good and Evil worlds of typical D&D settings, alignments are, IMO, just a good starting point for describing a character's morality, whether they're D&D alignments or the more realistic (to me, anyway) Palladium ones. They're a convenient shorthand to say, "In general, my character approaches situations like this;" they definitely don't capture all the nuance of a character.

[Illira]

Remember, Alignments are just a lodestone that points you in a particular direction.  They aren't shackles that bind you in place.  

 

I totally agree with this. Putting aside their purpose in the Objective Good and Evil worlds of typical D&D settings, alignments are, IMO, just a good starting point for describing a character's morality, whether they're D&D alignments or the more realistic (to me, anyway) Palladium ones. They're a convenient shorthand to say, "In general, my character approaches situations like this;" they definitely don't capture all the nuance of a character.

 

 And people tend to forget that, even in D&D, a character's alignment can and often does change with his/her experiences. It's just a convenient two-word phrase that can (often fairly accurately) describe your character's ethos.

 

All of the above are excellent points concerning the nature of the D&D alignments. Its important not to think of them in completely black/white terms. When I'm assigning a character an alignment, which I usually do (as it can be a helpful lodestone when designing a character), I always find it help to internally assign a secondary alignment; that a character tends towards in order to help create inherent dichotomy within the character.

 

An example of this being my main. I categorize her as a Lawful Good character. Even if many may have a hard time seeing her as such, as a result of her secondary alignment of Lawful Evil. To be clear, I don't actually consider her the latter. She simply that she fluctuates between those two alignments, bypassing neutral on the scale. An outsider looking in on her, may even consider her evil. And while I do not believe that she is anywhere near that point yet, I am aware that it could happen. 

 

That description means something to me, as she develops as a character, and helps to guide when she makes crucial decisions. I think, where is she on the scale? And for a character like her who is sometimes rides that very thin line, its a guide. A tool. Thats it. Its a set of basic tenants that a character follows in everyday situations. This has really excellent in depth analyses of alignments, if there is someone that hasn't run into that the site before.

 

What it isn't is a description of your character. It doesn't encompass why they are the way they are, their core being. Nor does it completely describe the full range of behavior and outlooks that an alignment can have.

[Jomoru]

Not really use of Alignments is more a hinderance than anything else, because unlike D&D Eorzea doesn't have morality as a physical law.  In D&D one can say out right certain things are good certain things are lawful but without those bases alignments become arbitrary arguments.

 

 

 

 

Instead you can make a much more simple basis. "My character values this" What does it mean to value justice? Does it mean you need to do horrible things to horrible people? What does it mean to value justice and Mercy? What does it mean to value nations or Eorzea or race or family. These things make a code. These things make a character and they are far more useful than saying something like "lawful Good"

 

Well, you're completely entitled to your opinion, it's just one I don't share.  While I agree that Lawful Good is a really difficult (possibly impossible) Alignment to play in this setting, there are plenty of other Alignments that can provide a nice starting point from which to fully flesh-out your character.

 

Remember, Alignments are just a lodestone that points you in a particular direction.  They aren't shackles that bind you in place.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited to Add: More related to the topic, I do think that it would be helpful if people stopped equating the D&D (and, to an extent, World of Warcraft) Paladin with the Paladins in FFXIV.  Because they're not the same at all.  In D&D and in WoW, they are directly chosen by a deity/the Light to be a champion of good and yadda yadda (unless you're a Blood Elf, BUT WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT BLOOD KNIGHTS OK?).  In this game, it's more of a training and mindset thing.  They aren't "Holy Warriors of Divine Power."  At least, not as far as I can tell, anyway.

 

 

Lawful Good is no more difficult to play in this game than any other alignment because as I said they are all equally impossible. Alignment is built around the idea of certainty. Good is good. Evil is Evil. Chaos is Chaos. Law is Law. As one cannot measure objective truth in Eorzea its worthless. What is good? What is evil? These are hard questions that humankind has wrestled with for centuries and Gary Gygax didn't come up with a miracle solution in 1976.

 

Conversely there are thousands of concepts that don't fit into the Alignment paradigm, concepts that readily exist in real life and in Eorzea. 

 

Finally Alignment makes you think less about your character.  When one makes a character and says "he's Chaotic Good" it doesn't give you answers about what your character is really like as a person, it causes you to skip deep introspection which is great for shallow characters(and shallow characters do make sense) but should all your characters lack a rich inner life?

[TheLastCandle]

Not to be dismssive, Jomoru, but I don't think anyone has disagreed that alignments alone don't describe or dictate 100% of every nuance of any given character. The horse has been beaten; let it rest in peace.

 

I'd like to hear from people who actually do roleplay Free Paladins or Sultansworn. Not necessarily on character alignments, but how does your character interpret his/her given role? To what lengths would they go to fulfill said role?

[Jomoru]

Not really use of Alignments is more a hinderance than anything else, because unlike D&D Eorzea doesn't have morality as a physical law.  In D&D one can say out right certain things are good certain things are lawful but without those bases alignments become arbitrary arguments.

 

 

 

 

Instead you can make a much more simple basis. "My character values this" What does it mean to value justice? Does it mean you need to do horrible things to horrible people? What does it mean to value justice and Mercy? What does it mean to value nations or Eorzea or race or family. These things make a code. These things make a character and they are far more useful than saying something like "lawful Good"

 

Well, you're completely entitled to your opinion, it's just one I don't share.  While I agree that Lawful Good is a really difficult (possibly impossible) Alignment to play in this setting, there are plenty of other Alignments that can provide a nice starting point from which to fully flesh-out your character.

 

Remember, Alignments are just a lodestone that points you in a particular direction.  They aren't shackles that bind you in place.  

 

This. And people tend to forget that, even in D&D, a character's alignment can and often does change with his/her experiences. It's just a convenient two-word phrase that can (often fairly accurately) describe your character's ethos.

 

 

No, its a cosmological mark because the universe does really divide people into 9 vague categories and while yes it can change its not particularly helpful when describing people outside it because people in Eorzea or the Real world or Star wars AREN"T put into 9 large groups.

[LiadansWhisper]

 

 

No, its a cosmological mark because the universe does really divide people into 9 vague categories and while yes it can change its not particularly helpful when describing people outside it because people in Eorzea or the Real world or Star wars AREN"T put into 9 large groups.

 

I really feel like you're looking at this in an incredibly black-and-white fashion.  I understand that you view Alignments in that light, but I don't - and apparently there are others who think the way I do.  In the end, if Alignments don't work for you, then don't use them!  But I find them very helpful and enjoy using them.

[Seriphyn]

 

 

Edited to Add: More related to the topic, I do think that it would be helpful if people stopped equating the D&D (and, to an extent, World of Warcraft) Paladin with the Paladins in FFXIV.  Because they're not the same at all.  In D&D and in WoW, they are directly chosen by a deity/the Light to be a champion of good and yadda yadda (unless you're a Blood Elf, BUT WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT BLOOD KNIGHTS OK?).  In this game, it's more of a training and mindset thing.  They aren't "Holy Warriors of Divine Power."  At least, not as far as I can tell, anyway.

 

Yeah...although, admittedly, having access to conjurer spells and an ability called 'Hallowed Ground' probably doesn't do that perception much good.

[LiadansWhisper]

 

 

Edited to Add: More related to the topic, I do think that it would be helpful if people stopped equating the D&D (and, to an extent, World of Warcraft) Paladin with the Paladins in FFXIV.  Because they're not the same at all.  In D&D and in WoW, they are directly chosen by a deity/the Light to be a champion of good and yadda yadda (unless you're a Blood Elf, BUT WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT BLOOD KNIGHTS OK?).  In this game, it's more of a training and mindset thing.  They aren't "Holy Warriors of Divine Power."  At least, not as far as I can tell, anyway.

 

Yeah...although, admittedly, having access to conjurer spells and an ability called 'Hallowed Ground' probably doesn't do that perception much good.

 

Conjury isn't a holy discipline, however.  It's just using the aether in nature to mend wounds and inflict damage.  So a Paladin could have some rudimentary instruction in Conjury - as it's something you can learn - and be using that or some such.

 

...I have no explanation for Hallowed Ground, tho!  

[Ildur]

Hallowed Grounds and Spirits Within kind of hint at some kind of spiritual or holy power. However, they are just names and there's nothing in lore linking Paladins to the divine or holy in any direct way. The skill names might just be fancy labels, in-universe, because they are really flashy moves.