http://www.candlekeep.com/library/artic ... ith_ed.htm
They are snippets taken from different questions. I feel, though, that the logic given in the following could be applied here as well.
Hidden: show
In short, I wanted the role of Tyr's clergy better defined before I used them much in play. It's been easy to avoid featuring Tyr overmuch because one can bring in priests of Helm and Torm to accomplish similar needs in adventures, and because I've been able from the outset to sweep the Knights up into neck-deep involvement in local politics, struggles between various power groups, and realm-versus-realm intrigue, without having to focus overmuch on any faith not personally represented by one of the PC Knights.
As I see it, Tyr is a god of justice rather than law, and so his clergy have an ongoing duty to bring about justice, both by working to continually improve the secular laws of various places in the Realms (even when faced by rulers and enforcers who manifestly don't want such "help"), and by bringing justice to bear on individuals whom the law doesn't touch (either because they've been granted immunity to legal punishment, or because the laws as drafted don't apply to their sly activities, even though such activities would clearly be judged "wrong" by their fellow citizens). Criminals have always been 'one step ahead of the law,' and laws are always drafted by those in power to benefit themselves and their usual activities (in other words, to support the status quo in which they are 'on top'). Just as in our real world, the laws in most parts of the Realms give preferential status to royalty or rulers over commoners, nobility over commoners, and citizens over outlanders (foreigners) or slaves or non-humans. For example, if I, Thorog the Orc, march up to a Black Robe in Waterdeep and claim that 'yonder beautiful Waterdhavian woman broke her bargain with me to let me bed her if she first seduced Merchant X to buy my wagon of boar entrails, if I then gave her three-quarters of what he paid, which I've done, only now she spurns me and denies ever agreeing to such terms' I'm going to get treated differently than if I am instead Junstal Manthar, young and handsome Waterdhavian noble, making precisely the same claim.
There will always be laws that are clearly unfair ("unjust," if you will), or that a being from another land (even a Tyrran hailing from another land) will disagree with. (I am reminded of a post currently making the rounds on the Internet that purports to be a supporter's letter to President Bush, that respectfully asks for his guidance in beheading or stoning to death or hand-severing various neighbours, in strict obedience to Leviticus and other Biblical writings, for wearing their hair incorrectly and various other offenses that will strike most modern readers as minor or nonsensical.)
This brings us to the central problem of Tyr's faith: deciding what is "just." What Tyr decides, of course, but unless the god is going to act as an instantly-available technical support line to his every priest and lay worshipper (which he obviously, from published Realmslore, doesn't), inevitably the priests must determine what is just.
I'm sure some priests are personally proud and confident enough to do just that, whereas others will wrestle with the questions of "If this particular town or realm has a legal code that implies Deed X is legitimate or even favoured, am I right in decreeing that Deed X is evil, and I should act against those who do such deeds?"
In other words, I see that there must and will be continual disagreements within the church of Tyr as to how to act. The motivation is that the greatest good is promoted through order, adherence to order, and support of order (the Lawful Good alignment of Tyr himself), but order is not the same as law or even enforcement. That some adherents of Tyr have indulged in force and in trials of beings they deem to have acted unjustly is clear from published Realmslore (the very existence of my term "Grimjaws").
TSR and now WotC have been clearly uncomfortable, down the years, dealing with such religious issues in definitive game terms (novels can explore such issues for specific characters, times, and places, but game rulebooks are necessarily wider in scope and application [and I'm sure it's often been a simple matter of "this planned product will have lower sales than if we instead used this printing time and design costs to do something else, and the something else will potentially anger fewer fans and retailers, too"]), and the result has been a great amount of silence and lack of coverage of such matters. In such products as PRAYERS FROM THE FAITHFUL I've been able to ladle out a few details of doctrine as I "dance around" the vital core topics of what various churches do (and any longtime 1st Edition D&D gamer will remember the hunger expressed for 'hard stuff' so that they could bring clerics to life as something more than "the party's fighter who can heal you if you're nice to him and what he says his god wants").
THO has transmitted to me your own very eloquent summation of this in a thread on Tyr, wherein you swiftly outlined the difference between lawful good and lawful neutral over the matter of the urchin stealing bread. I agree with your conclusion that the clergy of Tyr would see themselves as qualified to make and enact judgement on a person they view as an offender. Otherwise, why BE priests of Tyr?
I also agree with the argument you unfolded from that: evil intent plays a part in determining if a crime has been committed and justice must therefore be served by some sort of action (usually meting out punishment) on the Tyrran's part. The published D&D game, throughout three official editions and several additional iterations, now, has established that paladins don't automatically attack any creature they see whom they know or believe to be evil (in alignment). As you say, evil ACTS are to be punished, not evil natures or evil private inner thoughts never acted upon (if I daydream of making love to a beautiful woman I see in the street who is clearly wearing a wedding ring, have I committed an evil act if I immediately dismiss such thoughts angrily, never voicing or acting on them?).
In that thread, Lashan then brought up the valid point of the legal and social standing of a cleric in a given locale: will a priest be seen as having the RIGHT to "dispense justice"? As a DM running the Realms, I want something official published that tells me if a Tyrran (or any other priest or paladin) would be allowed to act against injustice in, say, the streets of Waterdeep, a tavern in Suzail, or a brothel (excuse me, festhall) somewhere in Sembia. I'd like to be able to read and consult such guidance before I made a PC conflict with priests important in play.
Maglubiyet then eloquently echoed the difference between law and justice and the problems this hands a servant of Tyr, and the hammer of Moradin widened this argument again to ask "Who is right, and who is wrong?"
All of these unsolved arguments (and the part of me that as a DM and designer wants to leave PCs and DMs maximum freedom in play, so "their" Realms doesn't start to too closely mirror real-life and cease to be enjoyable ["Geez! I dare not draw my sword and hack that dragon as he snatches the princess, because he'll sue me! And win!!"]) have led me to feature Tyrrans in the Knights' experience only within the context of senior priests in a large temple of Tyr who spent their days in prayer and in examining the laws of various locales around the Realms with an eye to how these could be improved - - which of course brought about endless debates among these priests about specific changes and desired end results, and over the matter of whether or not the Church of Tyr should try to make laws everywhere more or less identical, or whether local authority and idiosyncrasies ("It is unlawful to marry one's sister after sundown, but not before, or on days when there has been rain") should be respected.
In my judgement, the goal of common good through order would prevent sane and faithful Tyrrans from ever doing anything to openly and publicly work against a ruler (revolt or unrest, the abandonment of order, will hurt many folk and damage much property and social confidence whatever the outcome, and so must be avoided at all costs). Therefore, Tyrran attempts to get laws changed would be either direct to the ruler or the courtier who drafts laws - - or to a magistrate or equivalent to alter not the law, but a specific sentence upon an accused individual (perhaps with a view to establishing a pattern of sentences that will eventually lead to a particular law being ignored and not enforced without actually being dropped from the books, something that happens a lot in real life).
As the hammer of Moradin implied, those Tyrrans who like to actively be judge, jury, and executioner (most paladins, and - - let's face it, human nature being what it is, the sort of persons who do like to 'sit in judgement' on others are those who'll be attracted to the priesthood of Tyr, though entering the church at low ranks and dealing with superiors will teach them self-control, or they'll not advance far) will generally be found in frontier areas, "making" justice with weapons in hand. I see them as vital to promoting and maintaining trade routes and inter-species cooperation across Faerun, because elves, gnomes, halflings, and humans entering an unfamiliar realm can readily see the protection a code enforced by Tyrrans affords them. Outlaws and bandits will always be dangers in the Realms, but they are just that: outside the law.
In frontier areas, as I said earlier in my reply to Kentinal about the fortified manors, "the law" is often whatever you (or the nearest patrolling armsman) can achieve, on the spot, by swinging a sword. But "justice," and the common knowledge across Faerun that folk (the church of Tyr in particular) are striving to make laws adhere to a principle of common justice, are what make folk obey laws even when they don't want to pay taxes, or obey a rude official, or serve a hated king.
This will in turn make folk across the Realms see the church of Tyr as good and necessary, even if they don't particular like Tyrrans or personally worship Tyr. As Faiths & Avatars says, Tyrrans often become legal advisers, and compile personal books of their reasonings, deeds, and observed legal matters and disputes that they share with the clergy at the temples they visit. I would also see Tyrrans as seeking out senior clergy of Tyr at such temples for advice.
I also see a role for the clergy of Tyr not hitherto hinted at in published Realmslore: the church of Tyr are the foremost force for policing other clergy: in other words, stopping a priest of Cyric or Shar from doing something "unjust" to citizens because such deeds will advance the aims of their churches. In other words, Tyrrans are "police over other priests," or set themselves up as such, something disputed by many other clergies to the point of open spell and physical conflict.
I see a further role for the Church of Tyr, accepted in many places across the Realms: they are the folk who wade into feuds between families, guilds, and power groups and hammer out settlements, by force if need be, to end such disputes. (So folk who want feuds to go on will try to keep them secret, to avoid attracting Tyrran attention.)
I agree with your common-law system assessment of Cormyr, and as hammer of Moradin implied, I think that many Tyrrans will try to enact the simple Hammurabi's Code of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and thereby enforce the wide perception of the Church of Tyr as stern and grim.
As I see it, Tyr is a god of justice rather than law, and so his clergy have an ongoing duty to bring about justice, both by working to continually improve the secular laws of various places in the Realms (even when faced by rulers and enforcers who manifestly don't want such "help"), and by bringing justice to bear on individuals whom the law doesn't touch (either because they've been granted immunity to legal punishment, or because the laws as drafted don't apply to their sly activities, even though such activities would clearly be judged "wrong" by their fellow citizens). Criminals have always been 'one step ahead of the law,' and laws are always drafted by those in power to benefit themselves and their usual activities (in other words, to support the status quo in which they are 'on top'). Just as in our real world, the laws in most parts of the Realms give preferential status to royalty or rulers over commoners, nobility over commoners, and citizens over outlanders (foreigners) or slaves or non-humans. For example, if I, Thorog the Orc, march up to a Black Robe in Waterdeep and claim that 'yonder beautiful Waterdhavian woman broke her bargain with me to let me bed her if she first seduced Merchant X to buy my wagon of boar entrails, if I then gave her three-quarters of what he paid, which I've done, only now she spurns me and denies ever agreeing to such terms' I'm going to get treated differently than if I am instead Junstal Manthar, young and handsome Waterdhavian noble, making precisely the same claim.
There will always be laws that are clearly unfair ("unjust," if you will), or that a being from another land (even a Tyrran hailing from another land) will disagree with. (I am reminded of a post currently making the rounds on the Internet that purports to be a supporter's letter to President Bush, that respectfully asks for his guidance in beheading or stoning to death or hand-severing various neighbours, in strict obedience to Leviticus and other Biblical writings, for wearing their hair incorrectly and various other offenses that will strike most modern readers as minor or nonsensical.)
This brings us to the central problem of Tyr's faith: deciding what is "just." What Tyr decides, of course, but unless the god is going to act as an instantly-available technical support line to his every priest and lay worshipper (which he obviously, from published Realmslore, doesn't), inevitably the priests must determine what is just.
I'm sure some priests are personally proud and confident enough to do just that, whereas others will wrestle with the questions of "If this particular town or realm has a legal code that implies Deed X is legitimate or even favoured, am I right in decreeing that Deed X is evil, and I should act against those who do such deeds?"
In other words, I see that there must and will be continual disagreements within the church of Tyr as to how to act. The motivation is that the greatest good is promoted through order, adherence to order, and support of order (the Lawful Good alignment of Tyr himself), but order is not the same as law or even enforcement. That some adherents of Tyr have indulged in force and in trials of beings they deem to have acted unjustly is clear from published Realmslore (the very existence of my term "Grimjaws").
TSR and now WotC have been clearly uncomfortable, down the years, dealing with such religious issues in definitive game terms (novels can explore such issues for specific characters, times, and places, but game rulebooks are necessarily wider in scope and application [and I'm sure it's often been a simple matter of "this planned product will have lower sales than if we instead used this printing time and design costs to do something else, and the something else will potentially anger fewer fans and retailers, too"]), and the result has been a great amount of silence and lack of coverage of such matters. In such products as PRAYERS FROM THE FAITHFUL I've been able to ladle out a few details of doctrine as I "dance around" the vital core topics of what various churches do (and any longtime 1st Edition D&D gamer will remember the hunger expressed for 'hard stuff' so that they could bring clerics to life as something more than "the party's fighter who can heal you if you're nice to him and what he says his god wants").
THO has transmitted to me your own very eloquent summation of this in a thread on Tyr, wherein you swiftly outlined the difference between lawful good and lawful neutral over the matter of the urchin stealing bread. I agree with your conclusion that the clergy of Tyr would see themselves as qualified to make and enact judgement on a person they view as an offender. Otherwise, why BE priests of Tyr?
I also agree with the argument you unfolded from that: evil intent plays a part in determining if a crime has been committed and justice must therefore be served by some sort of action (usually meting out punishment) on the Tyrran's part. The published D&D game, throughout three official editions and several additional iterations, now, has established that paladins don't automatically attack any creature they see whom they know or believe to be evil (in alignment). As you say, evil ACTS are to be punished, not evil natures or evil private inner thoughts never acted upon (if I daydream of making love to a beautiful woman I see in the street who is clearly wearing a wedding ring, have I committed an evil act if I immediately dismiss such thoughts angrily, never voicing or acting on them?).
In that thread, Lashan then brought up the valid point of the legal and social standing of a cleric in a given locale: will a priest be seen as having the RIGHT to "dispense justice"? As a DM running the Realms, I want something official published that tells me if a Tyrran (or any other priest or paladin) would be allowed to act against injustice in, say, the streets of Waterdeep, a tavern in Suzail, or a brothel (excuse me, festhall) somewhere in Sembia. I'd like to be able to read and consult such guidance before I made a PC conflict with priests important in play.
Maglubiyet then eloquently echoed the difference between law and justice and the problems this hands a servant of Tyr, and the hammer of Moradin widened this argument again to ask "Who is right, and who is wrong?"
All of these unsolved arguments (and the part of me that as a DM and designer wants to leave PCs and DMs maximum freedom in play, so "their" Realms doesn't start to too closely mirror real-life and cease to be enjoyable ["Geez! I dare not draw my sword and hack that dragon as he snatches the princess, because he'll sue me! And win!!"]) have led me to feature Tyrrans in the Knights' experience only within the context of senior priests in a large temple of Tyr who spent their days in prayer and in examining the laws of various locales around the Realms with an eye to how these could be improved - - which of course brought about endless debates among these priests about specific changes and desired end results, and over the matter of whether or not the Church of Tyr should try to make laws everywhere more or less identical, or whether local authority and idiosyncrasies ("It is unlawful to marry one's sister after sundown, but not before, or on days when there has been rain") should be respected.
In my judgement, the goal of common good through order would prevent sane and faithful Tyrrans from ever doing anything to openly and publicly work against a ruler (revolt or unrest, the abandonment of order, will hurt many folk and damage much property and social confidence whatever the outcome, and so must be avoided at all costs). Therefore, Tyrran attempts to get laws changed would be either direct to the ruler or the courtier who drafts laws - - or to a magistrate or equivalent to alter not the law, but a specific sentence upon an accused individual (perhaps with a view to establishing a pattern of sentences that will eventually lead to a particular law being ignored and not enforced without actually being dropped from the books, something that happens a lot in real life).
As the hammer of Moradin implied, those Tyrrans who like to actively be judge, jury, and executioner (most paladins, and - - let's face it, human nature being what it is, the sort of persons who do like to 'sit in judgement' on others are those who'll be attracted to the priesthood of Tyr, though entering the church at low ranks and dealing with superiors will teach them self-control, or they'll not advance far) will generally be found in frontier areas, "making" justice with weapons in hand. I see them as vital to promoting and maintaining trade routes and inter-species cooperation across Faerun, because elves, gnomes, halflings, and humans entering an unfamiliar realm can readily see the protection a code enforced by Tyrrans affords them. Outlaws and bandits will always be dangers in the Realms, but they are just that: outside the law.
In frontier areas, as I said earlier in my reply to Kentinal about the fortified manors, "the law" is often whatever you (or the nearest patrolling armsman) can achieve, on the spot, by swinging a sword. But "justice," and the common knowledge across Faerun that folk (the church of Tyr in particular) are striving to make laws adhere to a principle of common justice, are what make folk obey laws even when they don't want to pay taxes, or obey a rude official, or serve a hated king.
This will in turn make folk across the Realms see the church of Tyr as good and necessary, even if they don't particular like Tyrrans or personally worship Tyr. As Faiths & Avatars says, Tyrrans often become legal advisers, and compile personal books of their reasonings, deeds, and observed legal matters and disputes that they share with the clergy at the temples they visit. I would also see Tyrrans as seeking out senior clergy of Tyr at such temples for advice.
I also see a role for the clergy of Tyr not hitherto hinted at in published Realmslore: the church of Tyr are the foremost force for policing other clergy: in other words, stopping a priest of Cyric or Shar from doing something "unjust" to citizens because such deeds will advance the aims of their churches. In other words, Tyrrans are "police over other priests," or set themselves up as such, something disputed by many other clergies to the point of open spell and physical conflict.
I see a further role for the Church of Tyr, accepted in many places across the Realms: they are the folk who wade into feuds between families, guilds, and power groups and hammer out settlements, by force if need be, to end such disputes. (So folk who want feuds to go on will try to keep them secret, to avoid attracting Tyrran attention.)
I agree with your common-law system assessment of Cormyr, and as hammer of Moradin implied, I think that many Tyrrans will try to enact the simple Hammurabi's Code of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and thereby enforce the wide perception of the Church of Tyr as stern and grim.
Hidden: show
Oooh, a toughie. Some people do indeed see the paladin as a very narrow-focus lifestyle. In some cases, following the 'character' of the deity (if AND ONLY IF the deity's church is portrayed as mirroring a strict, no-nonsense side of the deity), they're correct.
However, I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with having a 'courtly love' romantic as a paladin, so long as the character doesn't stray from the strict precepts of what the CHURCH of Torm orders him to do.
Of course, the hosts of the server hold a lot of power here, as I support your "diversity" point of view largely because rich roleplaying should be the heart and soul of any good D&D campaign, and your paladin should be praying to Torm personally a lot as well as participating in rituals with priests of Torm when they're available - - and if the server hosts want to roleplay the visions and/or explicit directives Torm sends your paladin (in his dreams or directly during prayers), they can use (I'd say misuse, if they did, but then, I'm not running the server) this avenue to dictate to your paladin not to behave as he's doing.
However, if this is the guy's established character, then good roleplaying says that (rather then suddenly becoming an unromantic, non-singing, no-nonsense 'their-idea-of-a-good-model paladin') he renounces his holy service to Torm (ceases to be a paladin), and just serves Torm as a devout fighter - - or even, given that all non-priest, non-paladin characters in the Realms venerate an array of deities (even if only in appeasement), drift towards another deity (Sune, Milil, and so on) who look upon romantic chivalry more kindly.
So it's really up to you, and to the hosts. If you were doing this in MY campaign, I'd be beaming: THIS is what good, colourful, memorable, enjoyable roleplaying is all about. In my home campaigns, I've had kindhearted thieves who couldn't tell lies, irreverent priests who just couldn't follow rules or chant a prayer without working a joke or smartass comment into it, sorceresses who were scared of casting magic - - and lots of other misfits who were trying to fulfill roles that they didn't quite 'fit' (in the opinion of some observers). It all makes for more fun for everyone. It can also, of course, drive the DM nuts if every player wants his or her character to do it...
When Wizards finally gets around to posting my 2004 Spin A Yarn story ("The Night Tymora Sneezed"), you'll get to see a paladin behaving in a rather unconventional - - but true to her faith - - fashion. Heh-heh.
However, I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with having a 'courtly love' romantic as a paladin, so long as the character doesn't stray from the strict precepts of what the CHURCH of Torm orders him to do.
Of course, the hosts of the server hold a lot of power here, as I support your "diversity" point of view largely because rich roleplaying should be the heart and soul of any good D&D campaign, and your paladin should be praying to Torm personally a lot as well as participating in rituals with priests of Torm when they're available - - and if the server hosts want to roleplay the visions and/or explicit directives Torm sends your paladin (in his dreams or directly during prayers), they can use (I'd say misuse, if they did, but then, I'm not running the server) this avenue to dictate to your paladin not to behave as he's doing.
However, if this is the guy's established character, then good roleplaying says that (rather then suddenly becoming an unromantic, non-singing, no-nonsense 'their-idea-of-a-good-model paladin') he renounces his holy service to Torm (ceases to be a paladin), and just serves Torm as a devout fighter - - or even, given that all non-priest, non-paladin characters in the Realms venerate an array of deities (even if only in appeasement), drift towards another deity (Sune, Milil, and so on) who look upon romantic chivalry more kindly.
So it's really up to you, and to the hosts. If you were doing this in MY campaign, I'd be beaming: THIS is what good, colourful, memorable, enjoyable roleplaying is all about. In my home campaigns, I've had kindhearted thieves who couldn't tell lies, irreverent priests who just couldn't follow rules or chant a prayer without working a joke or smartass comment into it, sorceresses who were scared of casting magic - - and lots of other misfits who were trying to fulfill roles that they didn't quite 'fit' (in the opinion of some observers). It all makes for more fun for everyone. It can also, of course, drive the DM nuts if every player wants his or her character to do it...
When Wizards finally gets around to posting my 2004 Spin A Yarn story ("The Night Tymora Sneezed"), you'll get to see a paladin behaving in a rather unconventional - - but true to her faith - - fashion. Heh-heh.
-------------------------------------
Hidden: show
"That he had good ends does not excuse his villainous means." confirms to me your stated preference for clear-cut black-and-white situations and settings, but the Realms has never been about that: the Realms has always been about seeming real and alive by presenting characters who, with rare exceptions, are all "gray" mixtures of folks exhibiting some evil and some good. Just as in real life. That doesn't make them unsuitable heroes; the heroism comes from their choices. If you show me a shining innocent of a paladin, I won't accept him as a hero until he's built up an impressive list of accomplishments, because he hasn't done anything heroic: he's just followed his nature. It's like praising Lassie for being a dog.
Hidden: show
In theory, a paladin born, raised, and temple-trained in a slave-keeping culture (like the Mulhorandi example already mentioned) could keep slaves if the paladin's deity saw nothing wrong in that (if they did, the dream-vision commandments to "do something" about it would be pretty firm). Otherwise, no. The more familiar Faerûnian cultures already presented in print don't equate slavekeeping with enough "this is the just and right way of doing things" for a paladin to stomach it. If a paladin ventures into slave-keeping lands and cities, the individual character of the paladin and the views of his or her deity, divine servitors, and priests the paladin has contact with will determine how the paladin reacts to other individuals keeping slaves. In the already-published CITY OF SPLENDORS prologue, Elaine and I show you a paladin of Waterdeep's reaction to indenture-bondage (slavery by any other name) practised in Luskan.
Hidden: show
The Realms, as I have said so many times before, is NOT our real world, and real-world attitudes and arguments should have no bearing. With that said, obviously the players in our D&D games ARE part of the real world, and have views shaped and informed by that, and so real-world attitudes and arguments DO have bearing. However, they have thus far been expressed perfectly, in-game: argument/debate among the PC adventurers, just as would indeed happen in the Realms IF the characters held varying attitudes; as you say, kudos to the players. The arguments you briefly identified for the paladin and the dwarf seem fine and valid to me - - assuming the paladin’s faith has been sufficiently detailed in-game already, and it’s not just “well, my opinion is that she isn’t old enough, and as a paladin I’m a good guy, and therefore right.” Remember, the faiths of the Realms, even for paladins, are NOT the same as modern Christianity…
However, what is “morally right” in Faerûn depends on various faiths (remember, unlike the monotheistic “worship God” setting most real-world players come from, in the Realms everyone “believes in” multiple gods, worships many at least in terms of appeasement, and only for clerics and paladins devotes themselves to just one deity, something many other people in the Realms deem “zealotry”); the “community standards” argument cited in many Western modern real-world legal cases would be: do whatever you want, it’s no one else’s business - - unless you happen to be flouting the wishes of one of our most powerful families, in which case we’ll find some other pretext for, or way of, stopping it (such as making the jongleur “vanish”).
However, what is “morally right” in Faerûn depends on various faiths (remember, unlike the monotheistic “worship God” setting most real-world players come from, in the Realms everyone “believes in” multiple gods, worships many at least in terms of appeasement, and only for clerics and paladins devotes themselves to just one deity, something many other people in the Realms deem “zealotry”); the “community standards” argument cited in many Western modern real-world legal cases would be: do whatever you want, it’s no one else’s business - - unless you happen to be flouting the wishes of one of our most powerful families, in which case we’ll find some other pretext for, or way of, stopping it (such as making the jongleur “vanish”).
Hidden: show
As for the ordainment of a paladin of Tyr, there are two elements here: the “Trueing” (the official ceremony or ritual in which a paladin is “sanctified” to “ride forth as an arm of Tyr,” dispensing justice, fighting injustice, and generally being a paladin in the name of the god, able to call upon and even command the support of His church), and the “Testing” that leads up to this ceremony: the Great Task that anyone desiring to become a paladin must successfully complete in order to be granted paladinhood.
I would suggest that a PC paladin begin play by having to carry out this Task with the aid of a “band of companions” (the rest of the PCs) so as to force him or her to become part of a team rather than being the loner he/she has hitherto been, and that this Task be some sort of dangerous adventuring mission in Cormyr, perhaps recovering a holy relic stolen from a temple of Tyr by someone wealthy and powerful in Cormyr (a senior courtier, a noble, or a wealthy and powerful merchant in one of the three cities; in other words, a major and tricky task). If the PC fails, there may be severe social consequences for all of the PCs in Cormyr, but the Church of Tyr understands that daring and danger holds forth the possibility of failure, and will merely assign another Task. HOW the PC paladin carries out the task is of utmost importance: he/she must try their utmost not to break any laws, and not to create any injustice by their deeds and words or through what they failed to say or do. Simple for me to outline, but can be VERY hard for a player to guide their character through, without missteps, in the hands of a good DM.
I would suggest that a PC paladin begin play by having to carry out this Task with the aid of a “band of companions” (the rest of the PCs) so as to force him or her to become part of a team rather than being the loner he/she has hitherto been, and that this Task be some sort of dangerous adventuring mission in Cormyr, perhaps recovering a holy relic stolen from a temple of Tyr by someone wealthy and powerful in Cormyr (a senior courtier, a noble, or a wealthy and powerful merchant in one of the three cities; in other words, a major and tricky task). If the PC fails, there may be severe social consequences for all of the PCs in Cormyr, but the Church of Tyr understands that daring and danger holds forth the possibility of failure, and will merely assign another Task. HOW the PC paladin carries out the task is of utmost importance: he/she must try their utmost not to break any laws, and not to create any injustice by their deeds and words or through what they failed to say or do. Simple for me to outline, but can be VERY hard for a player to guide their character through, without missteps, in the hands of a good DM.
Hidden: show
Tyr is the god of justice: that is, the even-handed application of laws, rules, and codes (the three things being differentiated by the sorts of penalties imposed for breaking them) within a society. In a polytheistic setting such as the Realms, it is important to "stand back" from real-life Judeo-Christian views of "absolute good" and "one correct way to behave and all others are shades of sin or human failing or succumbing to temptation," and think of things as intelligent beings OF THE REALMS do.
That is: paladins of Tyr who are part of the government of Waterdeep see the continuance of a cosmopolitan, tolerant, prosperous port city as good in itself, and see their role as twofold: continually seeing that the laws/rules are the "best" possible to keep Waterdeep thriving and a "good" place to live (that is, a place people WANT to reside in, and see themselves benefitting by doing so, to the point of being loyal to Waterdeep and willing to obey its rules and pay its taxes), and seeing that those laws are administered fairly and impartially.
Or to take a step closer in detail: the laws have to be continually adjusted and refined so as to serve the populace (not just its most wealthy and powerful) as best they can, and if there are instances where treating citizens differently from each other is desirable for making Waterdeep better, that's fine IF THE LAWS ARE WRITTEN OR REWRITTEN to allow that difference of treatment, or leeway. In other words, "absolute" or "blind" justice is bad and not to be championed, but a continually-evolving, ever-more flexible/farsighted (of consequences down the road) system of laws and their administration is what paladins of Tyr (and others in civic government, and those who run guilds) should be busy doing. This is why Texter and Piergeiron both support having "shady" lords like Mirt involved in government, and in having agents who covertly and continually investigate the City Guard and City Watch, to mitigate against human nature and slow or stifle corruption. They KNOW corruption will happen, and that some Watch officers will be lazy, stupid, and play favourites from time to time; it's their business as those in charge to try to arrange the Watch policies and procedures and training, and the structure of civic justice, to work against that. It's desirable to understand criminals and watch their plots, rather than always wade in, the moment wrongdoing is detected or suspected, because Waterdeep benefits in the long run by those in government knowing what's going on, how the city "works," and to be as tolerant as possible. The laws treat nobles differently than other citizens, and that's part of Waterdeep's history, not something to be automatically struck down without thinking. Yet nobles who misuse their wealth or high station must be resisted . . . it's all a huge balancing act, with ever-changing obstacles and "sweet spots" where the balance will be right.
Or to put it far more simply, a paladin of Tyr wants laws to be applied properly. If the law contains discrimination in the law, that's okay - - unless the paladin sees bad consequences to this discrimination. Then it is the HOLY DUTY of the paladin to try to get the law changed, refined/augmented, or struck down. Laws are seen as imperfect, and always capable of improvement, NEVER something to be blindly applied.
That is: paladins of Tyr who are part of the government of Waterdeep see the continuance of a cosmopolitan, tolerant, prosperous port city as good in itself, and see their role as twofold: continually seeing that the laws/rules are the "best" possible to keep Waterdeep thriving and a "good" place to live (that is, a place people WANT to reside in, and see themselves benefitting by doing so, to the point of being loyal to Waterdeep and willing to obey its rules and pay its taxes), and seeing that those laws are administered fairly and impartially.
Or to take a step closer in detail: the laws have to be continually adjusted and refined so as to serve the populace (not just its most wealthy and powerful) as best they can, and if there are instances where treating citizens differently from each other is desirable for making Waterdeep better, that's fine IF THE LAWS ARE WRITTEN OR REWRITTEN to allow that difference of treatment, or leeway. In other words, "absolute" or "blind" justice is bad and not to be championed, but a continually-evolving, ever-more flexible/farsighted (of consequences down the road) system of laws and their administration is what paladins of Tyr (and others in civic government, and those who run guilds) should be busy doing. This is why Texter and Piergeiron both support having "shady" lords like Mirt involved in government, and in having agents who covertly and continually investigate the City Guard and City Watch, to mitigate against human nature and slow or stifle corruption. They KNOW corruption will happen, and that some Watch officers will be lazy, stupid, and play favourites from time to time; it's their business as those in charge to try to arrange the Watch policies and procedures and training, and the structure of civic justice, to work against that. It's desirable to understand criminals and watch their plots, rather than always wade in, the moment wrongdoing is detected or suspected, because Waterdeep benefits in the long run by those in government knowing what's going on, how the city "works," and to be as tolerant as possible. The laws treat nobles differently than other citizens, and that's part of Waterdeep's history, not something to be automatically struck down without thinking. Yet nobles who misuse their wealth or high station must be resisted . . . it's all a huge balancing act, with ever-changing obstacles and "sweet spots" where the balance will be right.
Or to put it far more simply, a paladin of Tyr wants laws to be applied properly. If the law contains discrimination in the law, that's okay - - unless the paladin sees bad consequences to this discrimination. Then it is the HOLY DUTY of the paladin to try to get the law changed, refined/augmented, or struck down. Laws are seen as imperfect, and always capable of improvement, NEVER something to be blindly applied.
