Defense of Paladins: feedback please?

354 posts / 0 new
Last post


So 4ed doesn’t require a paladin to display knightly virtues?! Interesting! I was wondering about your earlier statement about “knight” being just a job description. So alignment is basically the only restriction left for the paladin and you and your group aren’t using that…

Are you still using the detect evil and holy aura of the paladin then, because these should go as well, when you do away with alignment! The paladin still has his lay on hands, his warhorse and his spells and so on…




The 4e paladin doesn't resemble the 3e paladin much at all (which I consider a good thing).  There are no alignment mechanics in 4e, which means 'Detect Evil' and its ilk are dead.  The only 'alignment restriction' any class has is matching up with the diety (and a lot of folks toss that out).  With 4e, the devs realized that mechanics just get in the way of roleplaying.  No alignment restrictions, no power loss.  Pure RP, as it should be.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
right has nothing to do with good or evil.  That is why it is the law.  It is supposed to be objective.  You still lose your paladin powers.



Rights has nothing do with good or evil? Oh really?

If I detect you as evil, I got the right to kill you. I don't care if that person never did a crime, I'll kill him because evil makes him dangerous. Also I'm too brave to spare his life. *hint: reference*

Paladins are the Cops of D&D. 

If I found the evil guy's stash. Of course I am going to take it, because it's my legal right to confiscate the item before he does evil with it. It's like finding a bad guy's AK-47 and take it away before he shoot people with it. It's the same thing. So there my legal rights. 







right has nothing to do with good or evil.  That is why it is the law.  It is supposed to be objective.  You still lose your paladin powers.



Rights has nothing do with good or evil? Oh really?

If I detect you as evil, I got the right to kill you. I don't care if that person never did a crime, I'll kill him because evil makes him dangerous. Also I'm too brave to spare his life. *hint: reference*

Paladins are the Cops of D&D. 

If I found the evil guy's stash. Of course I am going to take it, because it's my legal right to confiscate the item before he does evil with it. It's like finding a bad guy's AK-47 and take it away before he shoot people with it. It's the same thing. So there my legal rights. 



And the cops have no right (Right here is something that is defined as being a lawfully upheld action) to take anyone's AK-47 unless it is specifically breaking the law to have one.  Should a cop do so they will find themselves on the other side of the law because that was an unlawful seizure.   If we are equating the power a police officer is given by the state as the same as the powers a paladin is given by their god.  Then the state can, should, and will suspend / dismiss that officer for his unlawful acts.

Moral of the story: Your paladin still loses his powers. 
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Rights has nothing do with good or evil? Oh really?

If I detect you as evil, I got the right to kill you. I don't care if that person never did a crime, I'll kill him because evil makes him dangerous. Also I'm too brave to spare his life. *hint: reference*

Paladins are the Cops of D&D. 

If I found the evil guy's stash. Of course I am going to take it, because it's my legal right to confiscate the item before he does evil with it. It's like finding a bad guy's AK-47 and take it away before he shoot people with it. It's the same thing. So there my legal rights.



That’s “Judge dread” like executive power you are dreaming of! Your paladin would get in quite some difficulties if played that way in one of my campaigns….Wink

Panartias, ladies-man and Jack of all trades about his professions:

"Once, I was a fighter -

to conquer the heart of a beautiful lady.

Then I became a thief -

- to steal myself a kiss from her lips.

And finally, I became a mage -

- to enchant her face with a smile."

Do we happen to have a caster who can cast Fire or Acid spells?
right has nothing to do with good or evil.  That is why it is the law.  It is supposed to be objective.  You still lose your paladin powers.



Rights has nothing do with good or evil? Oh really?

If I detect you as evil, I got the right to kill you. I don't care if that person never did a crime, I'll kill him because evil makes him dangerous. Also I'm too brave to spare his life. *hint: reference*

Paladins are the Cops of D&D. 

If I found the evil guy's stash. Of course I am going to take it, because it's my legal right to confiscate the item before he does evil with it. It's like finding a bad guy's AK-47 and take it away before he shoot people with it. It's the same thing. So there my legal rights. 



And the cops have no right (Right here is something that is defined as being a lawfully upheld action) to take anyone's AK-47 unless it is specifically breaking the law to have one.  Should a cop do so they will find themselves on the other side of the law because that was an unlawful seizure.   If we are equating the power a police officer is given by the state as the same as the powers a paladin is given by their god.  Then the state can, should, and will suspend / dismiss that officer for his unlawful acts.

Moral of the story: Your paladin still loses his powers. 



The cops got the right to take that AK-47 under these situations.

1. The AK-47 is found in a public area. Because that weapon is in a public area, the cops got the right to take it. 

2. The weapon is inside a criminal home.  If you are a wanted criminal, of course we are going to raid your house and take your weapons, drugs, stolen items. That how it works in the real world.

3. If you go into an area that saids no weapons, they got the rights to take it from you. 

Moral of the story: Paladin keeps his powers, because he is doing his job. 

Do we happen to have a caster who can cast Fire or Acid spells?



Oh wait!  *Looks for iconic regenerating monsters*

Panartias, ladies-man and Jack of all trades about his professions:

"Once, I was a fighter -

to conquer the heart of a beautiful lady.

Then I became a thief -

- to steal myself a kiss from her lips.

And finally, I became a mage -

- to enchant her face with a smile."

it really feels like if we get a thread like this every single week.  The reasons for this are obvious and have been repeated over and over.  This subject of discussion has been beaten to death as well, repeatedly.

use the search function !!! lol
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Fire spells, please. I can use the heat to pop my popcorn.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

right has nothing to do with good or evil.  That is why it is the law.  It is supposed to be objective.  You still lose your paladin powers.



Rights has nothing do with good or evil? Oh really?

If I detect you as evil, I got the right to kill you. I don't care if that person never did a crime, I'll kill him because evil makes him dangerous. Also I'm too brave to spare his life. *hint: reference*

Paladins are the Cops of D&D. 

If I found the evil guy's stash. Of course I am going to take it, because it's my legal right to confiscate the item before he does evil with it. It's like finding a bad guy's AK-47 and take it away before he shoot people with it. It's the same thing. So there my legal rights. 



And the cops have no right (Right here is something that is defined as being a lawfully upheld action) to take anyone's AK-47 unless it is specifically breaking the law to have one.  Should a cop do so they will find themselves on the other side of the law because that was an unlawful seizure.   If we are equating the power a police officer is given by the state as the same as the powers a paladin is given by their god.  Then the state can, should, and will suspend / dismiss that officer for his unlawful acts.

Moral of the story: Your paladin still loses his powers. 



The cops got the right to take that AK-47 under these situations.
1. The AK-47 is found in a public area. Because that weapon is in a public area, the cops got the right to take it. 



Untrue and unlawful.  A cop also can't walk up and take your sandwich off your lunch table because it is in public.  Even if you go to the bathroom during lunch.


2. The weapon is inside a criminal home.  If you are a wanted criminal, of course we are going to raid your house and take your weapons, drugs, stolen items. That how it works in the real world.



True in some cases, untrue in others.  You also state, quite clearly, in your post that the person who is the "bad guy" who warrants killing doesn't need to have ever done anything criminal.  Assuming it is a lawful search and seizure thats a different ball of wax and not at all what I'm talking about.  I'm not saying there can't be an instance where they can take your stuff, I'm saying there are a lot of instances where your analogy falls on its face.

3. If you go into an area that saids no weapons, they got the rights to take it from you. 



Yes, if you are actively breaking the law the cops can punish you for actively breaking the law.  This isn't at all the same situation.  Like you said, the people who you can justify taking stuff from still aren't

Moral of the story: Paladin loses his powers, because he is breakin' the law of his god (if you were keeping up God=state in this series of discussions). 

Now, unfortunately you have proven that you are going to stick to your guns and "rules lawyer" (Read here: choosing to read anything however you want regardless of facts) your point of view into whatever you wish it to be.  So... I think welcome to being #2 on my ignore list?
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Fire spells, please. I can use the heat to pop my popcorn.





I can't have popcorn on my new diet. 
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Fire spells, please. I can use the heat to pop my popcorn.


Just don't do it over the corpse. I did that before.

The taste is... not pleasant.
Judge: If he just compare an AK-47 to a sandwich? The paladin keeps his powers, case closed. 

Me: Thank you. Thank you. I couldn't let this man have his powers taken away for doing what he believes in. There many paladins who lost their powes, because of poor DM's judgement. 
It's my job to show them that the paladin's actions are good and justified. 



 
Avoid court if you think that's how that's gonna go down.  That's all I've got to say on that subject...

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Paladins are not cops sorry.  Laws are made by rulers.  Unless said rulers give the paladins legal authority, violations of the law are still...illegal, even if the laws are unjust.
Paladins are not cops sorry.  Laws are made by rulers.  Unless said rulers give the paladins legal authority, violations of the law are still...illegal, even if the laws are unjust.



*opens up his 3.5e playerbook*

It's say here that the paladin's code requires him to respect legitimate authority. 
That means the ruler must have right to rule and make those laws. 
If the ruler action is unjust or he is evil, the paladin don't have to respect his authority.

The ruler could place a sign or a law that say No paladins in the city. Unless there a legit reason for doing that, the paladin don't have to respect it.

The paladin is lawful good, he ain't lawful stupid. 
In short, he doesn't need to respect laws that are harmful to the innocents. 
That means Protecting And Serving The Innocents > Laws. 




Negative ghostrider.  Rulers do not need to be just.  Might may not make right, but it certainly does often make legal.  Because rulers do not need to be just, their laws do not need to be just.

if you violate the law, you are no longer Lawful Good, and you can kiss those sweet pally powers good bye.  Thanks for playing though.
if you violate the law, you are no longer Lawful Good, and you can kiss those sweet pally powers good bye.  Thanks for playing though.



By that logic.....

I'm walking in the city after curfew. I'm now Chaotic Good, because I broke the curfew law. 
Yay, I feel like a rebel now. 





As comical as Crow has been, he is amply demonstrating why the 3e paladin was a pile of crap ... because on such a subjective matter, everybody thinks they're right and can't be convinced otherwise (even though I don't believe Crow even believes the drivel he's spouting).

I threw the 3e paladin out of the game completely, and that was the best decision I could possibly have made.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Well, he *IS* right in pointing out that (contrary to what Crzyhawk seems to be asserting) legal != Lawful, and 3E material about paladins repeatedly made that point - for that matter, it was being made in 2E materials as well.
Well, he *IS* right in pointing out that (contrary to what Crzyhawk seems to be asserting) legal != Lawful, and 3E material about paladins repeatedly made that point - for that matter, it was being made in 2E materials as well.



What Cryzhawk is saying that if a paladin breaks a law, he lose his powers and get his alignment changed. 

I'm trying to explain that the paladin don't need to follow those laws because his authority is greater then that ruler. 

The evil ruler can make up all the rules he want, but the paladin's aurthority overrules his laws. 

You are right, paladins are not cops. They are the sheriff of D&D. 

Me: So Mr.Guards, you think your midnight curfew have greater aurthority over my divine mission which is to protect and serve the innocents. 

Guards: Aaaahh, yes?

Me: WRONG!!! Smite evil!

if you violate the law, you are no longer Lawful Good, and you can kiss those sweet pally powers good bye.  Thanks for playing though.



By that logic.....

I'm walking in the city after curfew. I'm now Chaotic Good, because I broke the curfew law. 
Yay, I feel like a rebel now.



Yep.  And that's the way I'd do a rules lawyer if they tried to out lawyer me too.  As Salla points out, it's why Paladin alignment restrictions are utter crap.  It's too subjective.  Even under the best of circumstances, a player and DM can disagree, and the player can end up disappointed with a fighter that isn't what he wanted.
Well, he *IS* right in pointing out that (contrary to what Crzyhawk seems to be asserting) legal != Lawful, and 3E material about paladins repeatedly made that point - for that matter, it was being made in 2E materials as well.



What Cryzhawk is saying that if a paladin breaks a law, he lose his powers and get his alignment changed. 

I'm trying to explain that the paladin don't need to follow those laws because his authority is greater then that ruler. 

The evil ruler can make up all the rules he want, but the paladin's aurthority overrules his laws. 

You are right, paladins are not cops. They are the sheriff of D&D. 

Me: So Mr.Guards, you think your midnight curfew have greater aurthority over my divine mission which is to protect and serve the innocents. 

Guards: Aaaahh, yes?

Me: WRONG!!! Smite evil!

DM:  no, your smite evil fails.  You feel your holy powers leave you as you violate the law, and know you have broken your code.




Fixed that for you.
Well, he *IS* right in pointing out that (contrary to what Crzyhawk seems to be asserting) legal != Lawful, and 3E material about paladins repeatedly made that point - for that matter, it was being made in 2E materials as well.



I was mostly a 2e player before I started playing 4e.  I'm allowed to bust out my anecdotal experiences ;)  I dabbled only a little with 3.0, and never 3.5.
Well, he *IS* right in pointing out that (contrary to what Crzyhawk seems to be asserting) legal != Lawful, and 3E material about paladins repeatedly made that point - for that matter, it was being made in 2E materials as well.



What Cryzhawk is saying that if a paladin breaks a law, he lose his powers and get his alignment changed. 

I'm trying to explain that the paladin don't need to follow those laws because his authority is greater then that ruler. 

The evil ruler can make up all the rules he want, but the paladin's aurthority overrules his laws. 

You are right, paladins are not cops. They are the sheriff of D&D. 

Me: So Mr.Guards, you think your midnight curfew have greater aurthority over my divine mission which is to protect and serve the innocents. 

Guards: Aaaahh, yes?

Me: WRONG!!! Smite evil!

DM: You deal holy damage to the guard. 

Me: Nice. I knew he was evil, because only a evil doer would interfer with the divine mission of the paladin. Now it's time to save the princess. 




Fixed that for you.



I forgot to add that part in. 

DM's word is law.  You don't get to change that.
> What Cryzhawk is saying that if a paladin breaks a law, he lose his powers
> and get his alignment changed.

That isn't true...

> I'm trying to explain that the paladin don't need to follow those laws
> because his authority is greater then that ruler.

...but neither is that.


Particularly eccentric settings notwithstanding, paladins don't have inherent authority beyond that of everyone else.

Speaking 3E-wise (although this applies just as much to 1E or 2E - BECMI had a different thing going), a LG character (including a paladin) respects legal codes to the extent that they establish an orderly society for the common good. Unjust or capricious laws don't do that. Laws that trample on the principle of the common good don't do that.

Quentin's Monograph, a sidebar discussing the paladin's code in one of the old-E books, stated this principle as, "People rule; laws help."

On the other hand, flouting laws just because you can goes against the principle of an orderly society. Breaking a given law here or there might be justified for the sake of preventing a greater harm to the social order and/or common good, but just as the laws shouldn't be capricious in nature or application, neither should the paladin.
Yeah, the whole paladin code-power loss thing is probably the worst idea that ever percolated through any game designer's cerebellum.  This thread proves it.

Heck, while we're talking anecdotes, I had a paladin get his powers yanked for *not* performing a Smite On Sight.  It's just too subjective to be a rule.  It's gone now, and it needs to stay gone.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Yeah, the whole paladin code-power loss thing is probably the worst idea that ever percolated through any game designer's cerebellum.  This thread proves it.



  To be fair, I doubt they had any inkling of the absurd lengths to which the idea (much like alignment generally) would be taken when they wrote it down.

Yeah, the whole paladin code-power loss thing is probably the worst idea that ever percolated through any game designer's cerebellum.  This thread proves it.



  To be fair, I doubt they had any inkling of the absurd lengths to which the idea (much like alignment generally) would be taken when they wrote it down.




Part of me wants to respond to that with 'how could they not?'  Then I remember they said things like 'the half-orc has a net ability penalty because melee combat', then I look at the druid, bang my head against the desk, and move on.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
DM's word is law.  You don't get to change that.



I read in a thread somewhere that paladins and DM fiat won't mix well. 

I guess it's time to find a new DM that won't make my paladin impossible to play. 
Come to think of it, I never meet a DM fiat at Con.

Alignment is a big mystery to me in general. I don't really understand those who shun it completely from their games, mostly because I don't understand how they would do that. When my current group started they made the group decision that they were all going to be bastards, or as they put it simply 'Evil'

So I put the land, NPC's and options infront of them and they do what would suit their character personalities, which means ;they do what ever they can to benefit themselves the most. They have killed harmless NPC's simply because they didn't like them, they have stolen, and even eaten people. (one of them is a bugbear) So yeah it's pretty easy to say their allignment could be classified as evil. I don't really put labels on it though, which is why the whole constant Allignment debate befuddles me.

Just because they are evil doesn't mean people from all over run away from them at the mere sight (well sometimes...) They do what ever they can that helps them the most, and surprisingly more often than not, this involves taking out other threats. They're even revered as heroes in some places for taking out armies of an opposing city or ridding a settlement of a ruthless bandit (mainly because the bandit stabbed them in the back first) but the fact remains, they play their characters how they built them; Greedy, Selfish, etc. But it's still not black and white, it never is.

Even when inventing Villains, I could never classify any of my own villains as 'evil' because they all have a motive one way or another that defines their choices, and from their point of view they are doing what needs to be done, but if forced to label them on the allignment scale, I could still do it.

I don't know, maybe I'm not making any sense, the problem is I don't understand the allignment debate because I see allignment as a non issue, I don't use it as a leash and maybe that's where the dislike for it comes form is the restrictive part.

I hear ya. Especially on the 'how?' part.

The world may be going along just fine without alignment... the DM is describing a town, the streets, the smells, the sounds when a player suddenly realizes he's low on cash.

What to do when you're low on cash? Murder the next passerby and yoink their stuff, non-aligned guy. Steal the neither-holy-nor-unholy sword of meh from somewhere and you are ready to roll, my friend. But you may as well write 'Good' somewhere on your character... because you got more stuffs and you got more golds... and more stuffs and more golds = GOOD.. G to the O to the O to the D!

Innocent
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
DM's word is law.  You don't get to change that.



I read in a thread somewhere that paladins and DM fiat won't mix well. 

I guess it's time to find a new DM that won't make my paladin impossible to play. 
Come to think of it, I never meet a DM fiat at Con.


true
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Yeah, the whole paladin code-power loss thing is probably the worst idea that ever percolated through any game designer's cerebellum.  This thread proves it.



  To be fair, I doubt they had any inkling of the absurd lengths to which the idea (much like alignment generally) would be taken when they wrote it down.




Part of me wants to respond to that with 'how could they not?'  Then I remember they said things like 'the half-orc has a net ability penalty because melee combat', then I look at the druid, bang my head against the desk, and move on.

Or best idea ever, since the concept took a pen-paper-dice game and elevated it to a philosophical, metaphysical debate. Especially since the game is supposed to be based on the idea that you make choices for a character and those choices have consequences.

What if one of those Paladins of Nerull were to start doing 'good guy' stuff? You don't think that would change the character at all? It's the same thing in reverse. Except it's pretty easy for a character to do foul deeds when he can get away with it and good deeds are generally the hard way.

I suddenly feel inspired to give all the good characters in my world XP bonuses.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Paladins are not cops sorry.  Laws are made by rulers.  Unless said rulers give the paladins legal authority, violations of the law are still...illegal, even if the laws are unjust.



*opens up his 3.5e playerbook*

It's say here that the paladin's code requires him to respect legitimate authority. 
That means the ruler must have right to rule and make those laws. 
If the ruler action is unjust or he is evil, the paladin don't have to respect his authority.

The ruler could place a sign or a law that say No paladins in the city. Unless there a legit reason for doing that, the paladin don't have to respect it.

The paladin is lawful good, he ain't lawful stupid. 
In short, he doesn't need to respect laws that are harmful to the innocents. 
That means Protecting And Serving The Innocents > Laws. 





While this is correct... the Paladin should exhaust other avenues to find a peacable agreement with the local ruler if possible. It is possible that the good ruler doesn't realize the intended consequences of one of his laws. Perhaps the local baron has overstepped his bounds; maybe the king's authority can trump the baron if the baron won't listen to reason. The Paladin would serve the higher authority, in this case. Or maybe the local ruler is indeed merely abusing his authority to the detriment of the people who he is ruling. Would this not make his authority illegitimate? The Paladin would be wise to consult his church for such a weighty matter.

Maybe the paladin sees the sign that says "No Paladins in the City" and instead of reading it to mean "No Paladins ALLOWED in the City" merely takes it to mean "There are CURRENTLY no Paladins in the City"... which is a clear invitation. But I digress.

Yes... Protecting and Serving the Innocents does trump the law... you can tell by the suggested penalties for doing non-lawful acts vs. the stiff penalties for doing evil acts.

A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
While this is correct... the Paladin should exhaust other avenues to find a peacable agreement with the local ruler if possible. It is possible that the good ruler doesn't realize the intended consequences of one of his laws. Perhaps the local baron has overstepped his bounds; maybe the king's authority can trump the baron if the baron won't listen to reason. The Paladin would serve the higher authority, in this case. Or maybe the local ruler is indeed merely abusing his authority to the detriment of the people who he is ruling. Would this not make his authority illegitimate? The Paladin would be wise to consult his church for such a weighty matter.

Maybe the paladin sees the sign that says "No Paladins in the City" and instead of reading it to mean "No Paladins ALLOWED in the City" merely takes it to mean "There are CURRENTLY no Paladins in the City"... which is a clear invitation. But I digress.

Yes... Protecting and Serving the Innocents does trump the law... you can tell by the suggested penalties for doing non-lawful acts vs. the stiff penalties for doing evil acts.




Thank you, I am glad somebody understands that not every law is important and that the paladin have to follow them because he is lawful stupid. 

Here another situation to continue to suppor this.

Good Guard: Halt! Do you know it's pass city's curfew?
Paladin: *bows* I am *insert name* The Paladin. A person needs my help. I'll be heading off.
Good Guard: No problem Mr.Paladin, have a good night. 


Neutral Guard: Halt! What you doing pass city's curfew?
Paladin: *bows* I am *insert name* The Paladin. A person needs my help. I'll be heading off.
Neutral Guard: I don't care who you are. The streets are off limits during the night.
Paladin: *rolls diplomacy* Sir, your citizen is endanger. At least let me show you the way. 
Neutral Guard: Alright I'll come with you, but don't try anything funny. If this report is false then it's the slammers for you. 

Evil Guard: Halt! 20gp, or I'm sending you to jail for being out pass curfew.
Paladin: *detects evil* I am *insert name* The Paladin. I already sense that you are foul and greedy. I have no time to deal with you, but what you can do is bring your friends to deal with me. 
I could waste my smite on one of them and you will be alive to loot of my dead body. Sounds good?
Evil Guard: *runs off*


Crow, your paladin contact with the Evil Guard seems--extreme.

I may be a bit crazy, but if I detected evil from a guard--I wouldn't try to smite him and his friends.  I'd try to redeem them.  Show them that there is good in the world, despite whatever circumstances have turned them from the path of righteousness have told them.  

What you just described from your paladin seems chaotic--even chaotic evil.  "If you do not meet my specifications of morality, I'll kill you where you stand."  Perhaps I am a bit too pacifistic, but I simply don't see paladins as individuals who openly seek confrontation.  Especially not with guards (regardless of their morality).
Crow, your paladin contact with the Evil Guard seems--extreme.

I may be a bit crazy, but if I detected evil from a guard--I wouldn't try to smite him and his friends.  I'd try to redeem them.  Show them that there is good in the world, despite whatever circumstances have turned them from the path of righteousness have told them.



I told him that I can kill him were he stands if he tries to stop me and he have a better chance of surviving if he bring his buddies to team up on me. So I was being Lawful by being honorable. 

Just encountering that paladin could of lead him to path of righteousness. Not many evil guys walk away from a paladin. After that night, he could be thinking," What was so important that he willing to risk his life for? Why?". 

I was also being good, by showing him mercy. I give him a chance to back down, he took it. 

Redeeming is the greatest reward that the paladin could achieve. If he can turn a group of greedy power hungery orcs into good by showing them love and friendship, then he is representing the best of the paladins. 



Crow, I mean no offense towards you in any way, but I would never want you to play a paladin in any campaign I DM.  We have radically different views of what a paladin is.  I don't see them as people who show mercy by not acting like psychopaths, but show mercy by not executing their enemies and o ther such things.
Crow, I mean no offense towards you in any way, but I would never want you to play a paladin in any campaign I DM.  We have radically different views of what a paladin is.  I don't see them as people who show mercy by not acting like psychopaths, but show mercy by not executing their enemies and o ther such things.



He's just trying to be cute with his ability to "justify" (at least in his mind) doing what he wants and generally being a hassle.