I think it heavily depends on the tone and setting of the game and campaign. Most of the GM's I have played with are serious recreationists who did homebrew settings. The laws of the lands and countries were well laid out as were the societies and expected moral values from place to place, which makes running an Paladin appropriate for the setting easier.
That's awesome. A paladin should be working with authorities as much as he can (i.e. whenever they are available as established courts like I said), and having actual laid out a justicial system is nice. A paladin's work is easier if he has a well established court of law to fall back on. In that case it is reasonable to expect that killing assailants is over the top, not because it is necessarily evil, but because it is not lawful.
If the laws do entail execution, it lays down the exact circumstances under which a paladin would be allowed to perform lawful execution, which is even better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the tone in my post: I call out an obvious logical fallacy, and I am genuinely concerned that some resort to them in this discussion. I posted that killing is not always evil as in the rules, and immediately I get the counter that I must think that if it is not explicitly in the rules I do not accept it.
Exept I agree with this statement. A certain amount of killing is part and parcel of the fantasy adventuring experience. Threat to ones life builds excitment and tension. It is a classic part of the storytelling toolbox. As such, it should also mean that certain levels and types of violence are treated as excusable in the worlds that the game represents. I think we very much agree on this concept.
I appreciate your honest reply though, and the sincerity with which you address my perceived tone.
Thank you. I generally acknowledge that I have somewhat anacronistic concepts of the Paladin based on expectations from playing them originally in my youth. As such, many don't mesh cleanly with more modern moral views that have (in my viewpoint) become more prevalent in many gamers today, that the rule of convience is better and more 'logical' than the old type chivalric honor.
I should make clear that I use the world 'idealised' in referance to a Paladins honor code because I recognise that real world knights, even ones considered very honorable in their day, would not and probably realistically could not follow all the tenets of chivalric honor. But Paladins are a creation for a game that allows you to rise above the real (in both powers and moral action) to try to be truly, 'purely' heroic, if that makes sense? So Paladins are supposed to be an ideal. One that in reality is nearly impossible to be. But one that many would like to try to strive for and some may like to try out in a game.
I know I am romanticizing them a great deal but I truly love the concept of the class and what it is supposed to, IMO, represent: The Warrior HERO.
. It has a different standard of living than our world and calls for different morals.
Again I totally agree with this statement, but I still maintain that different groups will disagree on what is honorable, or even good due to the players differences in personal world view and beleif. I have seen it far too often. It is human nature to interpret things through our own experience. It affects how people see good and evil as much as anything and will affect what people will call valid on moral judgements.
Unless it is clearly stated or implied that killing is in all cases evil, I will not accept it. My point throughout has been that no such implication even is found, and worse yet that the opposite implication is found in 'must punish the guilty'. I have posted this numeral times and every opponent has avoided this point.
In a FRPG I agree killing is not evil in all cases. We agree. Where I disagree is that 'must punish the guilty' is equal to 'kill them in all cases'. I don't think punishment in alignment terms is euqated with 'execution' in every case. Can it be execution? Absolutely.
All I am saying is that, depending on the game/style/setting your playing, execution may not be the right answer.
I again think we agree that if the Paladin thinks that the enemy is irredeamable then an execution would and can be warranted. But that execution has to be in a lawful and good fashion. I state that 'honor' (again based roughly on the idealised chivalric code I referance earlier) has slaying a helpless and/or captured foe as dishonorable and an act of cowardice. The concept was that a truly honorable man is brave and unafraid to risk his life in pursuit of right and justice. To vanquish a foe and take them prisoner was a possibilty but to slay a man unable to defen himself out of hand, even a craven, was considered cowardice.
Obviously the knights of old never had to deal with Orcs, goblins, demons and dragons or other creatures that are evil by birth and substance, so dealing with those in game will be 'morally easier' for lack of a better way to say it. But, IMO, a Paladin should not kill a helpless unconscious foe. It is cowardly and dishonorable.
If the enemy has been deemed irredeemable and guilty enough to warrant execution, then he will be. But he should be awake, hail and informed of why he is to die (if that is possible, obviously most monsters and moster like races will make this moot) and then executed in the quickest/most efficient and least torturesome manner available. Paladins are good men, paragons of goodness and justice not JUST lawfulness, as law without compassion and mercy is usually not justice at all. Drawing out suffering and reveling in it are the hallmarks of evil, which has no such compassion or mercy. Being good should be good, even if your foe isn't. To stoop to their level is to stoop to their morals, and Paladins should be better than that.
I think we see Paladins very similarly and disagree only on the extreme levels of their play style. And of course my opinions are assuming the generic book paladin and a classic or stereotypical FR setting.
When you get into setting specifics, religion specifics of the deity served if any and campaign specifics, all of this can and WILL changed.
I would also like to point out that I think that it is the clerics job to preach and convert if appropriate but it is the Paladins job to defend, inspire, lead and when needed, punish.
Priests/Clerics are the support of the community and keepers of the faith. While Paladins can be too to an extent, they are holy WARRIORS, made to go out and confront evil and destroy it where it is warranted. They exist to take ACTION more so than the cleric.
And 'where it is warranted' is open to interpretation and can only be truly resolved, IMO, case by case at table level with your group. It can be discussed, as we are now, to give one a chance to see other viewpoints but in the end the table you play at will probably be all that matters.
In my game, killing an unconscious opponent is an evil act, and would lose you your paladinhood. As far as I am concerned, you should have taken him captive and brought him to the legitimate authorities for trial. Usually that is outside the scope of a PFS Scenario, but if you say you will do that, it is assumed between games that you do that, whatever the result.
Is it honorable to kill bound/unconscious prisoners? I think your acknowledgement that it is unfair is fairly telling, there.
I think it depends on the circumstances. I do not think it is craven or dishonorable for a criminal to be lawfully executed for crimes committed.
A group of bandits attacks and are defeated and mostly killed off. The leader, a spellcaster, is captured alive to be questioned, the group hoping to get information on the location of the evil cult's main lair. After the questioning, the bandit leader is executed for his crimes.
Should the paladin have released the bandit and given him a chance to defend himself...again...? Was it dishonorable or craven to carry out the execution?
For me, the answer is no to both. Indeed, my paladin always insisted on carrying out such executions himself to ensure they were quick and painless. Nevertheless, the man had already earned his death. The fact that it was delayed slightly does not grant him reprieve, nor does it mean the paladin is a coward or dishonorable if he doesn't give him another chance to kill the party.
In those years I had many occasions where I was beset by petty theives, bullying thugs, road bandits or shady and unscrupulous shopkeepers, smugglers, mercenaries of various ethos and species and many other creatures great and small and killing them was not always the just way to deal with them or even a rational way.
Fair enough. I think we are mostly in agreement actually. Though I have to admit I'm rather glad our campaigns were so different. I'm not sure I'd have fun constantly having to cart petty criminals to the magistrate.
I think it heavily depends on the tone and setting of the game and campaign. Most of the GM's I have played with are serious recreationists who did homebrew settings. The laws of the lands and countries were well laid out as were the societies and expected moral values from place to place, which makes running an Paladin appropriate for the setting easier.
Absolutely.
Then again it could very well have been that all of the people your ran into did deserve death. It really depends on the campaign, circumstances and setting of the world.
My paladin was spearheading his nation's war against an evil empire ruled by an immortal half-demon wizard and his goblin/demon armies. ...Yeah, most of what he came across needed killing. :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I was thinking, it came to me that Ned Stark from 'A Game of Thrones' would be a nice example of one possible Paladin.
While he had none of the 'Paladinly' powers of course, he was a man of utmost honor, who actually BELIEVED in what that honor represented, that the rule of law, tempered with mercy and justice was a righteous and morally correct way to live and govern and that one cannot seperate ones responsibilities from their actions.
That moral action, justice, valor and compassion were truly good things and what all men should strive for, though he realised that not all were up to the task.
As example when he had to pass a death sentence on a man, he treated it very gravely and he carried it out himself. He taught his sons the same to illustrate not only what it meant to kill a man but what it meant to hold that responsibilty, that of life and death, in a ruler and that it should never be treated lightly or casually. Death was serious.
I'll refrain from more on him so as not to spoil it for those who have not read the books or watched the show yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I was thinking, it came to me that Ned Stark from 'A Game of Thrones' would be a nice example of one possible Paladin...when he had to pass a death sentence on a man, he treated it very gravely and he carried it out himself. He taught his sons the same to illustrate not only what it meant to kill a man but what it meant to hold that responsibilty, that of life and death, in a ruler and that it should never be treated lightly or casually. Death was serious.
Absolutely. It should be noted, however--for those arguing that killing "helpless" convicts is somehow dishonorable--that when he executed someone, he didn't untie them and give them a sword.
That man didn't even do anything heinous.
In my game, killing an unconscious opponent is an evil act, and would lose you your paladinhood.
I'm still baffled by this train of thought. Are you saying that killing him while he's awake isn't evil, but if he's sleeping, that makes it evil? If anything I'd think it'd be the reverse. At least unconscious he won't feel any pain while you're killing him...
if someone says--I always kill the evil and always protect the innocent--than what do they do when they walk down the slave row of absalom and see kids up for sale as slaves? what about in qadira? or the many other countries which trade slaves? Do they conveniently forget their vow to protect the innocent?
I find this a pretty intriguing scenario for discussion, but it requires a bit more elucidation. Firstly, am I (the paladin) currently on a quest of some importance? Which is to say, am I in the middle of a mission, the failure of which would mean the End of the World?
Or, contrarily, is this more of a sandbox campaign and my current mission not quite so vital?
In the first case, much as it'd pain me, I'd have to pass by the evil of the slavery in order to stop the world from being destroyed.
In the second case, the DM's plot hook will have successfully snagged me, and we'll be spending the next ten sessions undermining and eventually rooting out the slavers in the city. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When dealing with evildoers, a paladin’s decision should always be tempered by the concepts of justice and mercy. He should strive to ensure that in all his deeds, he reflects the ideals that he stands for. Overmatched foes should know that they will be treated fairly and decently if they yield to such a paragon, receiving justice rather than revenge, and understanding before judgment.
In a medieval society, such lofty ideals faced several practical obstacles. In the first place, historical knights did not necessarily possess authority to deliver more than “low justice”: Those guilty of significant crimes such as brigandage or bearing arms against the Crown had the right to be heard in the court of the local lord. A knight who slew his foes while they cried for quarter might soon find the nearest baron demanding that the knight compensate him for any ransom the baron could have demanded as compensation for their crimes. No matter how legitimate the paladin’s cause, the kindred of the fallen foemen might also demand “weregild” from him. Eager to prevent a blood feud, the local ruler might support their claim.
In addition to these frustrations, a paladin might also be bound by his vows. Typical chivalric oaths swore knights to “protect the weak and helpless” and “always give quarter if it is honorably requested”. He isn’t bound to accept a foeman’s surrender if he strongly suspects the foe plans treachery, but he would be bound to accept surrender under ordinary circumstances.
A paladin who doesn’t want to accept his foe’s surrender would be fully in his rights to encourage his foe to resume the fight. “Pick up thy blade, thou craven worm! Thou hast earned a peasant’s death on the iron frame of the baron’s torturer, but I’ll grant thee some little mercy: Face me in honorable combat. If the gods favor thy blade over mine, my party will let thee pass on thy way with no further injury.”
That man didn't even do anything heinous.
By the standards of the 'campaign' (hehe) he abandoned a sworn oath, left his post, was derelict in his duty and guilty of desertion. Any of which are deemed heinous to their society.
I would note that desertion in a time of war is an executable offense in todays military, which I think is a lot more liberal than the strictures the Black Watch live under.
Which brings up another important point. Things that we see as not an issue can be things that people would be executed for in a world where such things are considered inmportant and vital.
Through history (and those value are to a large extent still intact in nearly all militaries across the world) cowardice in the face of fire and desertion brand you the lowest form of scum and usually carry a death sentance if done in time of war or police action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if in that fight the craven worm chooses to attempt murder but is knocked unconscious but not outright killed, the paladin should let him live? That's what some seem to be saying. Should we heal them back to positives and then when they fight again let them live again?
if someone says--I always kill the evil and always protect the innocent--than what do they do when they walk down the slave row of absalom and see kids up for sale as slaves? what about in qadira? or the many other countries which trade slaves? Do they conveniently forget their vow to protect the innocent?I find this a pretty intriguing scenario for discussion, but it requires a bit more elucidation. Firstly, am I (the paladin) currently on a quest of some importance? Which is to say, am I in the middle of a mission, the failure of which would mean the End of the World?
Or, contrarily, is this more of a sandbox campaign and my current mission not quite so vital?
In the first case, much as it'd pain me, I'd have to pass by the evil of the slavery in order to stop the world from being destroyed.
In the second case, the DM's plot hook will have successfully snagged me, and we'll be spending the next ten sessions undermining and eventually rooting out the slavers in the city. :)
And it is exactly these such decisions and situation which can make playing a Paladin so interesting. Paladins have a lot of rules and a lot of strictures. What I really think needs to be added are rules of exeption as well. Maybe not rules but examples.
Things a Paladin (and his Ref) should realise:
I cannot possibly right all the wrongs in the world. I am one warrior and I can only right the wrongs I can feasibly do. Recognizing my limitations is not cowardice but wisdom.
A useless death neither proves me brave or serves my god, my cause, my church or the beings I exist to protect. I should choose my battles with wisdom so as to fight the ones I can make a difference in. If I find an evil I have no hope of countering, I should make all efforts to alert those who might and assist them if at all feasible.
When on a mission or quest, I must keep in mind the ultimate goal I strive for. I should never forget injustices I see that I cannnot immediately attend to, though. If on a mission of grave duty, where exposing my nature to aid some would cause even more danger to even more people or jeapordize my overall mission, I must remember my prime goal, to help the most I can. Once my mission or quest is achieved, I should attend to what I was forced to bypass either personally or by alerting local authority. These decisions are neither easy or quick and should be weighed by the values and tenets of my honor, compassion, morals and deity.
Be gregarious. Strive to contact others such as myself. People of true nature and noble demeanor who may be of aid to you or whom you may aid as well. While one Paladin is a mighty foe, several in concert is a force driven of divine purpose and can take on evils and right wrongs that one alone could not. As well seek out the righteous who walk other paths of skill for the same reason. Find and keep council with the just and valorous to make your all your endouvers bear fruit.
Etc. Things like that.
There are lots of talks about what a Paladin shouldn't be doing. There should be some about what they should and CAN do as well.
And if in that fight the craven worm chooses to attempt murder but is knocked unconscious but not outright killed, the paladin should let him live? That's what some seem to be saying. Should we heal them back to positives and then when they fight again let them live again?
Yes but with specific conditions and explanations. Not 'Yes always. If they are not some beast, demon, devil, etc or some truly evil monster or creature (which I think most of us agree are there to be spanked as classic evil foes in an FRPG) then they should be captured, restrained and taken to the local authorities for trial and punishment. That is lawful justice.
Now in a situation where your not near civilization, or where there is no just, local law then the Paladin may very well have to act as judge, jury and executioner. But in that case the Paladin better be sure of guilt or innocence and do his best to try the criminal fairly and assign just punishement.
And should execution be the sentence, the convicted should be awake, and hail enough to realise what is about to happen and why. Both so that they may have the chance to repent before death and hope for the mercy of the gods and to be brought to full import the result of their actions. Restraints on the convicted in this case are acceptable, as their honor has been determined as non existant or their threat to others has been found to be unalterable and as such they inherently give up the protection provided by honor.
But THEIR lack of honor* should never mean the PALADIN should act dishonorably.
*Definitions of honor can and do vary from campaign to campaign and setting to setting (and even in our world, where the code of bushido is pretty radically different from chivalry in many ways as an example). So that will also always be something that should be hammered out before play to avoid bad suprises.
Which brings me back to the first post I made in answer to the OP.
I would also point out the Ned Stark was the lord and therefore law of the land. Greyjoyce (sp) or another of his vassels or tyrian passing through his land did not take it upon themself.
kaitlyn also did not kill tyrian. and her sister lady aaron had to let tyrian lanister go after his champion won the honor battle.
the starks indeed were a family of paladins.
I would also point out the Ned Stark was the lord and therefore law of the land. Greyjoyce (sp) or another of his vassels or tyrian passing through his land did not take it upon themself.
This brings up an important point, with regards to my own replies in this thread.
Some folks seem to be treating the paladin as one would a real-world historical knight. In this case, he wouldn't have authority in foreign lands, or possibly even his own land. In such a campaign, I can understand the objection to paladins killing whomever they feel needs killing.
In my experience as a player (and it would be the same were one of my players to choose paladin), a paladin of a good god is almost universally accepted as a legitimate authority in civilized lands. The people know the paladin acts in goodness and honor. If the paladin says a man has to die, that's the equivalent of a court passing judgment. Why? Because the paladin is chosen by god. Not as a matter of faith, but a statement of fact.
In the real world, we don't have the luxury of such absolutes, but in a world where a man is literally calling down the power of God, it's easier to assume he knows who is guilty, and who is innocent.
I would also point out the Ned Stark was the lord and therefore law of the land. Greyjoyce (sp) or another of his vassels or tyrian passing through his land did not take it upon themself.This brings up an important point, with regards to my own replies in this thread.
Some folks seem to be treating the paladin as one would a real-world historical knight. In this case, he wouldn't have authority in foreign lands, or possibly even his own land. In such a campaign, I can understand the objection to paladins killing whomever they feel needs killing.
In my experience as a player (and it would be the same were one of my players to choose paladin), a paladin of a good god is almost universally accepted as a legitimate authority in civilized lands. The people know the paladin acts in goodness and honor. If the paladin says a man has to die, that's the equivalent of a court passing judgment. Why? Because the paladin is chosen by god. Not as a matter of faith, but a statement of fact.
In the real world, we don't have the luxury of such absolutes, but in a world where a man is literally calling down the power of God, it's easier to assume he knows who is guilty, and who is innocent.
and that may be where some of our difference is coming from. Look at my posts. They are legitimate questions. These lands practice slavery--on children even in some of them. Do you honestly think the rulers are LG. Most are LN at best. So for them to give total judgement to a LG paladin is not much more likely than to a LE hobgoblin. They don't want that paladin deciding he knows better than them what can go and executing the slavers (that the rulers have allowed to operate) If a land was LG--then yeah I could see them letting the paladin decide. A land like Absalom? not so much.
once again--think Ned Stark at court. His honor made him a fish out of water when dealing with the intriques of the court.
This brings up an important point, with regards to my own replies in this thread.
Some folks seem to be treating the paladin as one would a real-world historical knight. In this case, he wouldn't have authority in foreign lands, or possibly even his own land. In such a campaign, I can understand the objection to paladins killing whomever they feel needs killing.
Real world knights and chivalry will nearly always be brought into discussions about Paladins because:
1) They are the orignal basis/inspiration, conceptually, of the entire class.
2) They are of broad enough appeal and reknown that a lot of folks can talk about them in a somewhat informed manner.
3) It was the code of Chivalric honor that was used as the basis for the codes that Paladins grew to have today.
As such they are always a valide point to consider. Note I said consider, not take as the absolute thing that a Paladin HAS to be. With so many settings and the evolution of the class itself from where it started, it can be as multivaried as any other class joice. But even with that there are certain concepts that probably will always be associated with the Paladin: Valor, Honor, Fearlessness, Bravery, Justice, Mercy and Compassion to name a few. These concepts come both from their Aligment but also from there class strictures in combination with that.
In my experience as a player (and it would be the same were one of my players to choose paladin), a paladin of a good god is almost universally accepted as a legitimate authority in civilized lands. The people know the paladin acts in goodness and honor. If the paladin says a man has to die, that's the equivalent of a court passing judgment. Why? Because the paladin is chosen by god. Not as a matter of faith, but a statement of fact.
And this right here is an example of what I have been calling out as a campaign/table specific situation.
That very well will be valid at your table. But in my experience, that is the exeption not the rule. If your running in a game with multiple good gods with multiple differnt paladins running around, simply being instilled with power by A god isn't good enough. After all, Clerics and Druids are instilled with power and authority from gods and well, in some examples much greater power and authority.
For instance, rare is the Paladin who can restore life to the dead, but not only can clerics do it some can cause miracles beyond the scope of anything a Paladin can hope to achieve. Yes a Paladin may be able to vanquish a dragon by himself, but can he save an entire city from the ravages of an earthquake? A miraculous cleric can.
In the real world, we don't have the luxury of such absolutes, but in a world where a man is literally calling down the power of God, it's easier to assume he knows who is guilty, and who is innocent.
Again, that vastly depends on the setting of the game. In a great many FRPG's (and Pathfinder is no different) the gods are supremely powerful and vastly wise and knowledgable, but they are as emotionally flawed as the mortals they oversee and pretty much NONE of them are omnscient or omnipotent in the most literal senses of the words.
I am not saying your wrong I am only saying that what is true are your table is very often different at other tables.
In the Forgotten Realms setting, for example, there are HUNDREDS of gods, even some good gods who don't like each other. I am sure that if your Paladin of God X when to a land where God Y (his rival) ruled, they sure would not take YOUR Paladins word as divine law. After all, that is what THEIR Paladin does.
:-)
and that may be where some of our difference is coming from. Look at my posts. They are legitimate questions. These lands practice slavery--on children even in some of them. Do you honestly think the rulers are LG. Most are LN at best. So for them to give total judgement to a LG paladin is not much more likely than to a LE hobgoblin.
I definitely think they're legitimate questions, and fascinating at that.
You make a good point here. But in the case of your LN (I'd argue LE, but we'll go with it,) authorities...that brings up a different question. Do you see a paladin as bound by any authority? I posit that the paladin is only bound by authority he accepts as legitimate, and that an authority which promotes slavery would not qualify. To use an admittedly extreme example, were the paladin to find himself in the Nine Hells, which are fully lawful and have a recognized hierarchy, he'd hardly be expected to follow their rules or respect them. Same for the rulers of the slave city.
Lawful =/= must recognize any established authority
They don't want that paladin deciding he knows better than them what can go and executing the slavers (that the rulers have allowed to operate) If a land was LG--then yeah I could see them letting the paladin decide. A land like Absalom? not so much.
What they want is immaterial. A paladin isn't bound by that. He isn't bound to respect any and all governments, simply because they managed to take power.
once again--think Ned Stark at court. His honor made him a fish out of water when dealing with the intriques of the court
I don't disagree with this statement, though I'm unsure how it pertains to the discussion.
absalom=N
andoran=ng--good place for paladin
brevoy=cn--struggling nobles against each other--would not allow paladins to take justice in own hands probably
cheliax=LE--ok no explanation necessary
druma=LN---other than prophecies of Kalistra--other religions grudging tolerance
5 king mts=LN--only certain gods paladins would be respected
Galt=cn
Isger=LN-in name--but really under cheliax thumb--paladins? cheliax?
lastwall=LG---great place for paladin
Linonr kings=CN--the kings recognize only themselves
Mendev=Lg---good for paladins
Osirion=LN--???
qadira=N==slave trade--maybe yes if you are sarenrae
taldor=N---definitly no sarenrae paladins
rahadoum=LN---no religions allowed
River kingdoms=CN
Varisia=N=3 major city states--if one sponsors you--the other two probably will not
as you can see--there are a few countries which may recognize a travelling paladin as the "law" but most won't
the rulers of those countries just are not LG
But even with that there are certain concepts that probably will always be associated with the Paladin: Valor, Honor, Fearlessness, Bravery, Justice, Mercy and Compassion to name a few. These concepts come both from their Aligment but also from there class strictures in combination with that.
I agree absolutely. It's the reason why I wanted to play a paladin to begin with.
And this right here is an example of what I have been calling out as a campaign/table specific situation.
The paladin is one of the most campaign-specific classes there is. I also mentioned very early on that the DM and player need to hash out what being a paladin means before play, to exist harmoniously. But it hasn't stopped us all from debating our particular takes on the class. :)
If your running in a game with multiple good gods with multiple differnt paladins running around, simply being instilled with power by A god isn't good enough. After all, Clerics and Druids are instilled with power and authority from gods and well, in some examples much greater power and authority.
The relationship between paladins and clerics is a discussion all on its own. :D
You make a good point here. But in the case of your LN (I'd argue LE, but we'll go with it,) authorities...that brings up a different question. Do you see a paladin as bound by any authority? I posit that the paladin is only bound by authority he accepts as legitimate, and that an authority which promotes slavery would not qualify. To use an admittedly extreme example, were the paladin to find himself in the Nine Hells, which are fully lawful and have a recognized hierarchy, he'd hardly be expected to follow their rules or respect them. Same for the rulers of the slave city.
Lawful =/= must recognize any established authority
They don't want that paladin deciding he knows better than them what can go and executing the slavers (that the rulers have allowed to operate) If a land was LG--then yeah I could see them letting the paladin decide. A land like Absalom? not so much.What they want is immaterial. A paladin isn't bound by that. He isn't bound to respect any and all governments, simply because they managed to take power.
I do agree. My question isn't so much if the paladin is bound by say absalom laws. I think the paladin can make that decision. But if you say you protect all innocents. and absalom is abusing innocents, what do you do? buy the slaves and free them? start a covert war against them? start an OVERT war against the slavers?--which would bring the law down on you.
or do you turn your head and pretend you dont see the slavery? if you do the last, my question is "where is the zeal that was there when you insisted on slitting the throat of the tied up prisoner because he MAY harm innoncents in the future? did it conveniently disappear?
is law or good more important? Do you obey the laws which may allow innocents to suffer--ie would allow the slavery but also require you to bring prisoner in instead of behead? Or do you mix and match as convenient?
I would want to see consistency in the paladins code. Not just what was convenient at each time.
My character?---If Iomedae paladin, would probably try to free the slaves---first by buying if he could. Then by clandestine means--at least the children.
If Torag Paladin---My concern is dwarves. I would free dwarven slaves.
but I would be consistent. If it meant death--so be it. Torag paladins dont have to give mercy--BUT they are not allowed to turn their head when dwarves are persecuted either. I would free dwarven slaves at any cost. Not stupidly--but I would work towards it. I would not just ignore them because it was convenient.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my biggest problem with a lot of these posts is that they assume that a Paladin has to act by the Code of Chivalry and define the class and character as such. In a world where you can have Paladins for the desert or from the arctic lands such a assumption seems wrong.
For instance my Paladin (who started all this) is a Tian who is looking hunts evil that he may cleanse the world and himself. He is actually going to be a Paladin/Monk (crazy I know) but started with Paladin. This character is not, in any way a European Knight. He does not know the code of chivalry and his honor is based Bushido and Shinto which seeks purification and perfection. Not killing a foe is a kind of dishonor in his mind and should be reserved for cowards and for those that were tricked or mislead into their actions.
I have also played a Paladin who drank all the time because he could stand to see and the evil around him. He always did his best but was in a city of villainy and law above good. He let a lot a thieves go and even adventured with a torturer. He worked hard to mitigate damage and minimize suffering by whatever means he could. He lost his powers once when he went to far but got them back after a lengthy quest for understanding.
These are ideas that do not jibe with the Knight. Leave the knight to the Cavalier. The Paladin is a force for Good not a Knight. He does not need to be shiny to do his job. Ned is not a Paladin he was a Knight (and a damn good one).
And finally, the Paladin's class feature is very specific: "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act." This is what defines when they loose there powers. They have more rules on them then that but it is only evil that shall strip them of all their powers. And even if you can argue that killing the unconscious foe is not honorable, it is certainly not evil (unless you KNOW their is more to the situation).
then that paladins diety better remain consistent.
If that paladin can punish a slaver in a lawless land and execute him when he is helpless
but then reaches a land like absalom and ignores the situation?---either the paladin or the diety is a coward IE I only follow my code when it is convenient.
and it was paladins bringing up the fact that they had a legal (not god given) right to act as judge, jury executioner. I pointed out that their god may say they do--but that doesn't translate into the ruler saying it.
I guess I see too many--I follow this code---oh but now it is inconventient to have that code so I ignore it.
above example---bushido--one of the seven main tenents--is HONOR. so if something is dishonorable?
world war II--according to some paladins--america should have kept bombing japan with nukes until everyone was dead. Mercy and compassion do not come into play if there is a chance the enemy may at some time recover.
some brought up dirty harry. In how many movies did dirty harry knock the bad guy out, handcuff him--and then shoot him? In all of them the bad guy was still an "active" threat.
this would be closer to the charles bronson movies where he shoots the muggers in the back as they run.
or clint eastwood in unforgiven, where they shoot the guy while he is in the outhouse. kind of a grayish--shooting helpless people. Definitly not what people point to as a shining paragon of virtue.
are your final goals good?--probably. was your path?--not so much
so paladins are closer to the jaded--the end results justify the means type characters for some----rather than the paragons of virtue who seek to set an example by their actions
|
|
above example---bushido--one of the seven main tenents--is HONOR. so if something is dishonorable?
so paladins are closer to the jaded--the end results justify the means type characters for some----rather than the paragons of virtue who seek to set an example by their actions
The point is your code of honor may not match everyone else'. As I understand it, the Bushido version on honor is maintaining status and respect and reputation. Also, Bushido does not view sparing your enemies life as honorable. Benevolence is also part of the Bushido code but does not mean mercy for the enemy but for the helpless.
I also DO think Paladin's can be played as jaded or dirty characters. In fact, I think you should have a dirty paladin. In Galorian, or other fantasy settings, not even the gods are paragons. They have flaws and war. Perfection is to static. It is the struggle to do whats right that is the Beauty of the Paladin.
But if you say you protect all innocents. and absalom is abusing innocents, what do you do? buy the slaves and free them? start a covert war against them? start an OVERT war against the slavers?--which would bring the law down on you.
The "bring the law down on you" doesn't concern me, since "the law" in this case would be (from my view) illegitimate. But the first part is interesting. Let me see if I've got this right. The paladin's player has a foe tied up and intends to kill him thusly. The DM suggests that this might not be a good act, and the player argues that it is, because he must protect all innocents, including those the foe might kill in the future?
I definitely agree with you regarding consistency. Regardless of how the player and DM define the paladin's obligations, you cannot merely set them aside when they become bothersome. That'd be a quick road to failing your god and losing your favored status with him/her.
I think my biggest problem with a lot of these posts is that they assume that a Paladin has to act by the Code of Chivalry and define the class and character as such. In a world where you can have Paladins for the desert or from the arctic lands such a assumption seems wrong.
Not even the code of chivalry, in fact, but a usually flawed understanding of it. :p
I agree with you that a paladin need not be the classic Knight in Shining Armor, though it's understandable that a lot of players and DMs view it as such. It was based on Arthurian legend, after all. :)
But as written in D&D, it absolutely doesn't need to follow that theme. It all comes down to the DM and player being on the same page.
I also DO think Paladin's can be played as jaded or dirty characters. In fact, I think you should have a dirty paladin. In Galorian, or other fantasy settings, not even the gods are paragons. They have flaws and war. Perfection is to static. It is the struggle to do whats right as that is the Beauty of the Paladin.
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I can definitely see a drunken paladin such as you mentioned earlier. It is in fact a neat take on the archtype, and reminds me in a way of Jon Coffee in The Green Mile, how he was always in pain from all the evil he could sense all around him. Your pally drank to try and aleviate some of that misery, which is a unique and interesting character concept.
But a "dirty" paladin? I think you've crossed the line into some other archtype at that point. Paladins exemplify goodness. The flavor of that goodness may vary from campaign to campaign, but once you cross into "dirty" you're dealing with another beast, imo.
|
|
I think my biggest problem with a lot of these posts is that they assume that a Paladin has to act by the Code of Chivalry and define the class and character as such. In a world where you can have Paladins for the desert or from the arctic lands such a assumption seems wrong.Not even the code of chivalry, in fact, but a usually flawed understanding of it. :p
I agree with you that a paladin need not be the classic Knight in Shining Armor, though it's understandable that a lot of players and DMs view it as such. It was based on Arthurian legend, after all. :)
But as written in D&D, it absolutely doesn't need to follow that theme. It all comes down to the DM and player being on the same page.
I also DO think Paladin's can be played as jaded or dirty characters. In fact, I think you should have a dirty paladin. In Galorian, or other fantasy settings, not even the gods are paragons. They have flaws and war. Perfection is to static. It is the struggle to do whats right as that is the Beauty of the Paladin.I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I can definitely see a drunken paladin such as you mentioned earlier. It is in fact a neat take on the archtype, and reminds me in a way of Jon Coffee in The Green Mile, how he was always in pain from all the evil he could sense all around him. Your pally drank to try and aleviate some of that misery, which is a unique and interesting character concept.
But a "dirty" paladin? I think you've crossed the line into some other archtype at that point. Paladins exemplify goodness. The flavor of that goodness may vary from campaign to campaign, but once you cross into "dirty" you're dealing with another beast, imo.
Dirty may not be the right word. I use it when talking with friends. What I mean is that they aren't shiny. They are not perfect or flawless they are dedicated people doing the best they can.
Because the Paladin is required to put being Good above and before being Lawful.
The question is NOT does the Paladin have the lawful right to slaughter an unconcious person at his feet.
The question is: is slaughtering a helpless person at your feet a Good act, a Neutral act, or an Evil act?....
I respectfully think that is a bit of a mis-characterization. Someone who was just trying to kill me isn't just a helpless person.
I'd say the question is not "is slaughtering a helpless person at your feet a Good act, a Neutral act, or an Evil act?" is question is "is slaughtering a helpless enemy at your feet an Evil act?"
And the type of church that would arm and empower a crusading knight to meet the enemies of good with relentless fury has pretty much decided where they stand on the appropriateness of violence.
I think it is far too restrictive to say that finishing a downed enemy is an evil act, if plunging your sword in her chest in the first place wasn't. If this person was an innocent victim of circumstance, the Paladin shouldn't have been using lethal force, if this was a legitimate enemy, it should be treated as such....
.... from the first swing in earnest to the moment he is praying over the corpse in the hopes of redeeming her soul.
I think it is far too restrictive to say that finishing a downed enemy is an evil act, if plunging your sword in her chest in the first place wasn't. If this person was an innocent victim of circumstance, the Paladin shouldn't have been using lethal force, if this was a legitimate enemy, it should be treated as such....
.... from the first swing in earnest to the moment he is praying over the corpse in the hopes of redeeming her soul.
Well-said.
At this point in the conversation, I'm coming to the conclusion that I actually agree with most of the folks participating in the discussion regarding paladin authority, duty, and flavor. There are differences of experience as far as the kinds of campaigns we've played in, but the underlying concepts are roughly the same.
I do still strongly disagree that killing a bound enemy is somehow more evil than killing them unbound. I'm of the opinion that the moral value is placed on the killing itself, not the status of the subject being killed.
And on a similar note, I also disagree that carrying out an execution of a bound prisoner is somehow dishonorable.
Creeping up on someone sleeping in the middle of the night and sticking a knife in them? Absolutely dishonorable.
Executing a bound prisoner without first freeing him and giving him a weapon? Not dishonorable in the slightest.
Also, let me say I appreciate how civil this conversation has been, from all involved. I've participated in a lot of pally threads (I can't help it, they suck me in like a bee to honey,) and a lot of them tend to go bad pretty quickly. :(
I agree with you that a paladin need not be the classic Knight in Shining Armor, though it's understandable that a lot of players and DMs view it as such. It was based on Arthurian legend, after all. :)
edit: derp, wrong tag
|
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.Does this bind a Paladin to spare enemies whose alignment doesn't happen to be evil?
I am playing my first society Paladin and when I went to finish off a enemy my GM/Venture Captain told me I would loose my powers if I did because they where helpless and not evil. As my character is low level (and all the bad guys are as well), unless I am fighting a cleric or monster I can't tell if they are evil or not.
My character is a Oath of Vengeance Paladin but I want to know for all Paladins:
If a enemy combatant is helpless and not evil do I have a duty as a Paladin to spare/give to guards this person? What about in a lawless city where the person will go free?
I am not sure that killing any native helpless sentient might not be evil act - regardless of alignment of target
My lawful character usually gets orders on disposition of combatants from leaders and indeed occasionally we have had proper trials before punishment - investing a point in profession (judge) might help that - thou since mine is lawful neutral the whole executing for crimes is not as much of a problem. Also, giving the target the choice between being tied up in the woods and nibbled by animals or a clean kill - might not be hard.
If killing a helpless is evil act - is cutting off a hand or foot as punishment also evil?
I definitely agree with you regarding consistency.Intelligent consistency, yes. That is part of being Lawful :) However, there is also the understanding that no two individual situations are completely identical.
Even if you are attacked by something that detects as evil. In one case, that is just something evil that is deserving of punishment, in the other, it is an innocent that is possessed by a fiend. Granted, if you have no way of knowing that, it would not be an evil act to kill that innocent.
so I will ask you the question skyth?
the paladin player states the reason he kills helpless prisoners is because his code is "I must protect innocents" and he says that includes future innocents the person may threaten
what do you think of his actions upon seeing children being sold as slaves in absalom? does his code require him to do something? or is it ok to ignore his code then?
what if he was the leader of his nations patrol and after a skirmish with one dead on each side--he and the other sides paladin leader both detect evil and the two evil people are in his platoon? What if the other paladin insists on killing those two evil--since he lost a member of his platoon? does the paladin fight the other paladin to protect the two evils? does law or good prevail? and would you base it on actions he had taken and a code he had declared in the past?
I agree with you that a paladin need not be the classic Knight in Shining Armor, though it's understandable that a lot of players and DMs view it as such. It was based on Arthurian legend, after all. :)Arthurian legend?
I was referring to the D&D paladin, which I believe was largely inspired by Sir Galahad. I had no knowledge of the entymology of the word 'paladin' until your link, which is awesome.
I think I have some new legends to acquaint myself with. :)
I've seen people post that a few times but it's really hard to find evidence either way. Best I've managed to find is the AD&D 2ed "Charlemagne's Paladins Campaign Sourcebook" but that could just be purely coincidental.
EDIT: And then I go and find something 30 secs later explaining where it comes from.
"Paladins had aspects of Charlemagne's Knights, the Knights of King Arthur, etc..."
Mix of a bunch of stuff it seems.
EDIT: And then I go and find something 30 secs later explaining where it comes from.
"Paladins had aspects of Charlemagne's Knights, the Knights of King Arthur, etc..."
Mix of a bunch of stuff it seems.
Yeah. I'll see how long the Class description is in my AD&D PH and if I can post some of it up in the coming days. I think Paladins were first published in one of the very early dragon magazines but am not 100% on that by far. But I know my first exerience with the class was reading it in the AD&D Players Handbook.
And if you think paladins have restrictions now you should have seen them then. They could own a maximum of 10 magic items total and what item types those could be were very specific. They had to donate all but 10% (I think it was 10%) of their gold/common wealth to the church, keeping only enough to live on, etc.
But it had a nice bit of information in the class description and in the books notes about source material and inspiration for the class.
I think the real argument here is between interpretations of the Paladin class. On one side there are traditionalists who treat the class as it was intended to be an icon or paragon of chivalry, law, and good. The Paladin was above the petty concerns of gods and they didn't even need to worship one. Dishonorable behavior was strictly forbidden, and dishonorable included fighting unfairly or treating defeated opponents poorly. On the other side you have the new movement trying to turn the paladin into a simple holy warrior. No strict code binds him other than his beliefs in his god and since gods are often fickle in many cases this allows the paladin a wide range of acceptable action. Certainly nothing more restrictive than his own alignment binds him, dishonorable methods aren't banned and might even be preferred under the right god.
I don't see the two sides agreeing ever... there is a fundamental difference in world view even if the two sides might be able to meet in the middle over certain actions.
I think the real argument here is between interpretations of the Paladin class. On one side there are traditionalists who treat the class as it was intended to be an icon or paragon of chivalry, law, and good. The Paladin was above the petty concerns of gods and they didn't even need to worship one. Dishonorable behavior was strictly forbidden, and dishonorable included fighting unfairly or treating defeated opponents poorly. On the other side you have the new movement trying to turn the paladin into a simple holy warrior. No strict code binds him other than his beliefs in his god and since gods are often fickle in many cases this allows the paladin a wide range of acceptable action. Certainly nothing more restrictive than his own alignment binds him, dishonorable methods aren't banned and might even be preferred under the right god.
I don't see the two sides agreeing ever... there is a fundamental difference in world view even if the two sides might be able to meet in the middle over certain actions.
You forgot #3: A mixed version of #1 and 2.
On one side who treat the class as it was intended to be an icon or paragon of law and good. The Paladin was above the petty concerns of gods and they didn't even need to worship one. Certainly nothing more restrictive than his own code binds him, certain "dishonorable" methods aren't banned and might even be preferred under the code.These "not dishonorable but assumed to be" include Coup de Grace, attacking sleeping evil foes, Attacking during a surprise attack, using stealth, etc.
We follow the Code as RAW.
Chivarly treats women as dirt. Romanticized Chivarly is what I think you are referring to when you say the word.
The reason Knights didn't kill women because they were too weak to defend themselves (couldn't own anything either), but D&D doesn't follow that rule. Women aren't defenseless and infact there are ionic PC members in PF that arenm't weaklings.
The PF Barb Ionic couldn't exist during Chivarly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of Paladins. If they ever knowingly perform an act that is Chaotic in nature, they must seek a high level (7th or above) cleric of Lawful Good alignment, confess their sin and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a Paladin knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he or she loses the status of Paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost, and no deed or magic can restore the character to Paladinhood; he or she is everafter a fighter.
Yup, they were hard core in the old days.
Additionally they had even more strictures:
1) They could never retain more than 10 magic items. Those items could only be:
Armor, 1 (Suit)
Shield, 1
weapons, 4 (a group of one type of magic ammunition equals one weapon)
any other magic item, 4
2) They could not retain wealth. They had to give everything they made away to non players. They were allowed to keep enough to pay their modest bills, keep their hirelings paid and pay for a small castle and it's upkeep.
3) 10% of the wealth they made had to be tithed to Lawful Good NPC clerics. The rest was given away to the needy as 2.
4) Paladins could ONLY have lawful good people in their service. They could travel with good aventurers but could only be with a non evil neutral on one campaign and ONLY if the expedition furthered the cause of lawful good.
5) Whenever possible they had to form alliances or enter into service of lawful good clerics and fighters, NPC or player.
Paladins have it easy today. They don't even have to walk through snow, uphill any way or do it barefoot over broken glass. :-)
As one thing I'd like to point out, as of August 16th, the rules for PFS do change a bit. Effective on that date, you do not bear the burden of alignment infractions for actions necessary to complete faction or the module's overall goal. Basically, as of 8/16 the Nuremberg Defense becomes valid.
Now, that's not to say you can't go around butchering people wantonly or anything, but if your mission was to kill the person.. good or evil, you can collect their head. Your patron bears the weight of the alignment infraction.
The paladin's code is a harsh one to live up to. If its an evil foe and they have surrendered, then just cutting them down is very morally questionable. It may not necessary entail them losing their divine gifts straight away but it would result in some sort of severe warning from an emissary of the respective deity. If its an all out combat and the paladin drops a dodgy opponent to negs but there are other opponents and the encounter doesn't look anywhere near completed, then breaking out the first aid kit and surgical tools to stabilize that opponent is purely suicidal. On the other hand, if they choose to do so, then they should be rewarded in a roleplaying fashion. Or if the paladin pursues a route of redemption for the wicked who have been defeated.As previously stated, good aligned means taking personal risks with little or none personal gain for someone else unrelated to you. Such acts eventually manifest in some sort of role-playing fashion like say "A warm glow washes over you, as reassuring and approving of the dawn's light." (assuming its a paladin of sarenrae, different faiths would have varied effects). An acknowledgement that the extraplanar goodly powers respect and admire the ultimate act of honor and chivalry: believing in individuals and respecting the preservation of their lives (despite them trying to kill you 2 seconds ago) at the potentially very high risk to yourself. An attitude and sub-code of conduct morally superior to the ultra-pragmatic paladin who says:" I never accept surrender so the foes never surrendered."
In my game, killing an unconscious opponent is an evil act, and would lose you your paladinhood. As far as I am concerned, you should have taken him captive and brought him to the legitimate authorities for trial. Usually that is outside the scope of a PFS Scenario, but if you say you will do that, it is assumed between games that you do that, whatever the result.
Wouldn't that be dishonourable, not evil?
So say a good thief or ninja, sneaks into the evil hobgoblin general's tent and cuts his throat. That is evil?
Bring them back for punishment? You are pushing good as if it were lawful pal, sorry.
|
|
I think the real argument here is between interpretations of the Paladin class. On one side there are traditionalists who treat the class as it was intended to be an icon or paragon of chivalry, law, and good. The Paladin was above the petty concerns of gods and they didn't even need to worship one. Dishonorable behavior was strictly forbidden, and dishonorable included fighting unfairly or treating defeated opponents poorly. On the other side you have the new movement trying to turn the paladin into a simple holy warrior. No strict code binds him other than his beliefs in his god and since gods are often fickle in many cases this allows the paladin a wide range of acceptable action. Certainly nothing more restrictive than his own alignment binds him, dishonorable methods aren't banned and might even be preferred under the right god.
I don't see the two sides agreeing ever... there is a fundamental difference in world view even if the two sides might be able to meet in the middle over certain actions.
I partially agree with you. I think there are two sides that won't agree. However I think the other side believes that a Paladin is just a class (like every other class) that can be played in different ways and with different beliefs. They are not paragons but people who strive for good and justice over their own desires.