Wise words from Phil L I think. It does come down to the DM in the end, like most things.
Saern, I see what you mean about Evil creatures trying to put Paladins in a quandary, but I think the DM has a responsibility to the Paladin player to make sure that this happens rarely. D&D is a black and white world, and the Paladin the most black and white of all PCs. It's unfair to force the player to choose between two Evil acts with no Good option, unless they player brought it on themselves.
If the DM creates a situation where following the Paladin's Code will clearly result in great evil, I don't think that's an interesting roleplaying challenge: I think it's the DM saying to the player "I don't like that you want to be a Paladin so I'm going to make sure you can't." It's like making every adventure take place in an anti-magic field so the Wizard becomes a Commoner, or stripping a Sorceror of her inherent magical power. I have a Best of Dragon Magazine from 1989 (I think) that has a great article about roleplaying Paladins in it, and one of the major points in it is this: People want to play Paladins to be heroes, but it can only work if the DM lets them. Following the Code has to result in good the vast majority of the time. You don't put the Monk PC in a situation where they have two choices and both would result in losing their Lawful alignment and thus their Monk status. It isn't fair on the player. I don't understand why people think it's such an awesome roleplaying trick to do this to Paladins.
If I were playing a paladin, and were placed in a situation where I had to do something prohibited by my god (and the code has to be divine, because paladins get magic powers from their faith) to prevent something catastrophically evil, I would have the roleplaying sense to suck it up and accept that I might need an Atonement later on, and hope that my god would be understanding.
I might even pray for guidance or use spells to connect with my deity so the DM has a chance to interact and do something cool, like send a dream in which you're given permission to make your deal with the devil, but only if some fantastic quest is done afterward to regain your powers. That way you go in knowing that you have the opportunity for redemption-- which to me is much better storytelling than just "Oh, yeah, you can loophole your way out of every tough decision."
I agree.
I might even pray for guidance or use spells to connect with my deity so the DM has a chance to interact and do something cool, like send a dream in which you're given permission to make your deal with the devil, but only if some fantastic quest is done afterward to regain your powers. That way you go in knowing that you have the opportunity for redemption-- which to me is much better storytelling than just "Oh, yeah, you can loophole your way out of every tough decision."
In order for a Paladin to regain her powers a atonement is required and that requires the Paladin to be repentant. In this case it would seem that neither the Paladin nor the diety believes that anything was done wrong which would seem to be a required step for repentance.
I seems to be a loophole if a paladin can knowingly break the code enough to lose her powers and later regain her powers later on, all the while having no intention of not repeat the same action.
You're right and Azhrei's wrong because Azhrei sounds like the name of a devil and Zynete sounds like the name of a paladin. That's as good a reason as any.
Again, I don't think that the Code is divine law. As in, no god told the paladins to act this way- they choose to themselves. That doesn't make it any less sacred to them, but it might put it in a different context.
Can I ask then, do you think Paladins are chosen by deities or do people choose to be Paladins? Are they more like Clerics or Favoured Souls? I can easily imagine a LG person desperately wanting to be a Paladin their whole life and never being granted that status by their deity. Or conversely, another LG person who never really thought about it but one day their god appears to them and says "I want more from you, here's my blessing (the powers) and here's the standard I expect you to follow (the Code). Are you able?"
I think the answer to this question determines how much importance you place on the felxibility of following the Code.
Another analogy came to mind- steel. Steel is rigid and strong, but part of that strength comes from a small amount of flexibility. If paladins aren't allowed some form of flexibility, then they are brittle (read: weak). Any wise entity, such as paladins, clerics, and arguably deities, will realize this. Any foe would realize this as well and simply try to put any paladin they meet in a position where they are likely to Fall.
Yes but steel only bends to a point. The Code is not full of things that are morally grey, everything in there is pretty much Evil, especially in D&D terms. So the Code is the point at which the Paladin stops being flexible. Personally I wouldn't be interested in playing a Paladin who is able to justify breaking the Code. If you can justify breaking the Code in a way so as not to Fall, then where's the heroism? I need consequences with my Paladins, that's what makes them Paladins.
EDIT: Forgive the geek reference but did you see that Buffy episode (I think it's the end of season 3) where Giles murders the BBEG while he is helpless? He says something like "if you don't die, a lot of other innocent people will die. Buffy can't kill you when you're helpless because she's a hero. I'm not."
That's what I'm talking about right there. Giles is NG, or maybe even LG, but he is not acting like a Paladin. Buffy is: Even if it means risking greater death later, she is too merciful to kill a helpless foe. That's what I meant earlier when I said following the Code is the Paladin's greatest heroic flaw, not breaking it.
I might even pray for guidance or use spells to connect with my deity so the DM has a chance to interact and do something cool, like send a dream in which you're given permission to make your deal with the devil, but only if some fantastic quest is done afterward to regain your powers. That way you go in knowing that you have the opportunity for redemption-- which to me is much better storytelling than just "Oh, yeah, you can loophole your way out of every tough decision."
In order for a Paladin to regain her powers a atonement is required and that requires the Paladin to be repentant. In this case it would seem that neither the Paladin nor the diety believes that anything was done wrong which would seem to be a required step for repentance.
I seems to be a loophole if a paladin can knowingly break the code enough to lose her powers and later regain her powers later on, all the while having no intention of not repeat the same action.
Yeah... no. Do you honestly think that a person can't be forced into a situation where there is no good option, and they must be forced to choose between two evils? Do you also think that a paladin, having no other options, might not be granted clemency by his deity later?
Look at it from a storytelling perspective: the paladin makes a hard decision, hoping for the best. He loses his powers. He asks for forgiveness from his god, who grants it after a special quest in gratitude for years of service and out of understanding that the paladin is only mortal. And yet, the paladin has the potential to become unrepentant, possibly losing his paladinhood-- maybe even deciding the evil action wasn't evil because the ends justify the means, then becoming resentful of his god for punishing him "unjustly". Wham, you have a believable blackguard if you want.
Entire epics have been written about that same concept.
EDIT: Forgive the geek reference but did you see that Buffy episode (I think it's the end of season 3) where Giles murders the BBEG while he is helpless? He says something like "if you don't die, a lot of...
I disagree that the act of killing a helpless enemy is inherently un-paladin like since paladins are required by the code to punish those who harm or threaten innocents (which I assume includes enemies who have been captured). I would admit some cases doing this could violate the "being honorable" part of the code, but not all of them.
Yeah... no. Do you honestly think that a person can't be forced into a situation where there is no good option, and they must be forced to choose between two evils? Do you also think that a paladin, having no other options, might not be granted clemency by his deity later?I might even pray for guidance or use spells to connect with my deity so the DM has a chance to interact and do something cool, like send a dream in which you're given permission to make your deal with the devil, but only if some fantastic quest is done afterward to regain your powers. That way you go in knowing that you have the opportunity for redemption-- which to me is much better storytelling than just "Oh, yeah, you can loophole your way out of every tough decision."
In order for a Paladin to regain her powers a atonement is required and that requires the Paladin to be repentant. In this case it would seem that neither the Paladin nor the diety believes that anything was done wrong which would seem to be a required step for repentance.
I seems to be a loophole if a paladin can knowingly break the code enough to lose her powers and later regain her powers later on, all the while having no intention of not repeat the same action.
Yes. No, I believe the deity wouldn’t have taken away the powers in the first place if he knew the paladin’s decision was the right one.
Look at it from a storytelling perspective: the paladin makes a hard decision, hoping for the best. He loses his powers. He asks for forgiveness from his god, who grants it after a special quest in gratitude for years of service and out of understanding that the paladin is only mortal. And yet, the paladin has the potential to become unrepentant, possibly losing his paladinhood-- maybe even deciding the evil action wasn't evil because the ends justify the means, then becoming resentful of his god for punishing him "unjustly". Wham, you have a believable blackguard if you want.
Entire epics have been written about that same concept.
Yes, this is the case that I like better. I was only objecting to the deity giving the paladin back her powers without the paladin repenting.
I don’t believe a paladin should be punished for choosing between two equally bad choices, even if I disagree with it or I don’t think her deity would approve of it.
Seriously, please read Le Morte d'Arthur, The Idylls of the King, and The Once and Future King before you mischaracterize my prime example, Sir Galahad, any further. Read book three of The Fairie Queene. Read Gawain and the Green Knight, read anything, anything at all that will give you some sense of the literary tradition that comes with the concept of a paladin, a holy warrior who is virtuous not only in theory but in reality. These figures are nothing like the "stereotype" you describe, any more than they are like the paladin-lite, with all of the powers and none of the sacrifice, that has been described herein.
Azhrei's statement above may seem provocative and somewhat dismissive, but I think he's really hit an important nail on the head. Paladins like Arthur are ideally moral, romanticized in their goodness and nobility. Just like they're supposed to be in DnD, because it's idealistic and a form of literature. To compare real "holy warriors" from old religious traditions is just, well... incorrect. "Holy" knights of the crusades / inquisition wouldn't be really idealized by anyone.
It also strikes me here that Paladins may differ quite a lot based on their church affiliation. To have one code for all paladins, it really would need to be quite basic. In the Forgotten Realms Paladin of Kelemvor would be really different (in the laws they adhere, perhaps even what they view as "evil") from a Paladin of Lathander. Those differences might seriously affect the codes by which they swear fealty.
Playing a Paladin wouldn't just be about adhering to a general code, although perhaps a brief general code could apply to most all. They would also be considering the best things for their particular faith and how they might impact their deity, as well as the impact to the religion. That's why it goes beyond simple decisions related to alignment - they're not just considering the legal and moral implications of their actions, they're also considering the tenets of their faith.
A couple of points:
"If I do not take action X, then Evil Y will occur. Action X is normally prohibited by the Code, but the Code is a directive for how to do Good.
That kind of "the ends justify the means" attitude is generally considered Chaotic Good, or Neutral Good at best. If a Paladin has to rationalize actions like that too often, then they seriously risk alignment shift. And that permanently strips them of their powers.
And second, if any of you have any Paladium books, you might want to look through their Alignment section. Their definition of Principled is a very good (no pun intended) way to view how a Paladin should act.
One of the codes of conduct is "Never kill or attack an unarmed foe." That could include helpless as well... So even the BBEG gets a reprieve if s/he tosses their sword away and surrenders. Even if they have a history of escaping and slaughtering the town on their way out.
Knowing this will likely happen again in the future doesn't change the way the Paladin should act. They should accept the surrender, and turn the BBEG over to the authorities. (And if the Paladin isn't foolish, should remain around the prisoner as long as possible.)
But, again, this is my take on Paladins in D&D.
If your DM doesn't agree, more power to you.
I think the interpretation some are looking for here depends on whether you either want to recognize being an ethical person as lawful or simply have a list of simplistic prohibitions that an IQ 9 Paladin could follow. Personally, I believe situational ethics to be the best balance of wisdom, reason, and law and in my campaign the Lawful Good gods do so.
Those of you who think that a simple statement like "don't associate with evil people" is a reasonable code are in my mind the fundamentalists of D&D. That is my Lawful Neutral, because it has neither heart nor wisdom behind it, because it lacks humanity and love. Incidentally, none of the laws of our countries are so carelessly written, nor are they left unsupported by actual cases to indicate to us how we should interpret them, and that the RAW do so is fine by me because I would rather make this call as a DM. I just don't trust WotC to dictate what good means in my campaign.
So although I applaud the attempt in here to feel out what these codes mean, I scoff (again) at some of the narrow mindedness I see from some of the posters. It frankly reminds me of the days I used to participate in theological discussions... which I now avoid like the plague.
It has been fun reading, see you later.
ED: As an afterthought, it occurs to me that prohibiting someone from associating with evil prevents them from ever having a positive influence on evil people, prevents them from swaying such people toward good, and therefore prevents them from actually working truly good deeds, and a truly good deed is bringing someone who is evil into the light.
As a substitute am I hearing that a good paladin should put evil people to the sword, eschew them? What good is this?
One of the codes of conduct is "Never kill or attack an unarmed foe." That could include helpless as well... So even the BBEG gets a reprieve if s/he tosses their sword away and surrenders. Even if they have a history of escaping and slaughtering the town on their way out.
If that is principled to you then your 1st principle is "obey the law at all costs."
My prime principle is act always out of love and never out of hate or anger. My secondary principles are protect the weak and innocent, uphold the law (where it is just), ..., obey the law, never kill an unarmed foe....
My paladin, weeping, considers her secondary principles through the lens of the prime principle, and executes the unarmed, begging BBEG (who slaughtered a whole village last time she spared him) as mercifully as possible. Her tears fall into the pool of blow flowing around her feet.
Her god is pleased.
If that is principled to you then your 1st principle is "obey the law at all costs."
Actually... No.
I am guessing you don't have a Paladium book handy, and your assumptions ended up faulty.
But let me help you out:
Principled characters will ...
1. Always keep his word.
2. Avoid lies.
3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe.
4. Never harm an innocent.
5. Never torture for any reason.
6. Never kill for pleasure.
7. Always help others.
8. Work well in a group.
9. Respect authority, law, self-discipline and honor.
10. Never betrays a friend.
11. Never break the law unless conditions are desperate. This means
no breaking and entry, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults, etc.
Can you honestly tell me that a Paladin shouldn't strive to follow these principles?
Believe it or not, I actually agree with a lot of you here. I really, really like the story plot (note- that doesn't mean I seek to use it a lot, I just like the concept) where the paladin, having violated his Code, Falls for a bit and then is redeemed via atonement or something else. I would probably interpret paladins in this way.
But it's not the only interpretation.
The PHB is pretty slack with its Code. Basically, you have to be a chivalric knight. Nothing more. Anything further is up to the DM and player(s) in question.
EDIT- And as an afterthought, here are some clarifications. Although I admit it was the result, my intent wasn't to present an "ends justify the means" attitude for paladins (although some may adopt this style) so much as to show how they could analyze their Code and be somewhat flexible with it without doubting it.
Additionally, I don't think paladins should be super flexible. Steel isn't, but it does have some. Paladins should have some. That's all.
To tell the truth, I'm not even sure what we're debating anymore. Probably means that it's time to wrap this up.
Oh, and I really like that list, Disenchanter (although, no, I have no Palladium stuff).
One of the codes of conduct is "Never kill or attack an unarmed foe." That could include helpless as well... So even the BBEG gets a reprieve if s/he tosses their sword away and surrenders. Even if they have a history of escaping and slaughtering the town on their way out.If that is principled to you then your 1st principle is "obey the law at all costs."
My prime principle is act always out of love and never out of hate or anger. My secondary principles are protect the weak and innocent, uphold the law (where it is just), ..., obey the law, never kill an unarmed foe....
My paladin, weeping, considers her secondary principles through the lens of the prime principle, and executes the unarmed, begging BBEG (who slaughtered a whole village last time she spared him) as mercifully as possible. Her tears fall into the pool of blow flowing around her feet.
Her god is pleased.
THAT I can go for, though I'd probably have the god demand some kind of quest as an act of contrition *without any loss of powers*. My reasoning would be that the paladin has now broken his code once, albeit with justification, and it will be easier to justify a second time.
That scenario is so much better than "He's evil, but unarmed. Eh, I'll kill him anyway because it's the right thing to do."
A good paladin (i.e. well-played) should actually have MORE moral dilemmas than most.
All right, here's an actual situation to talk about. Say a paladin, or order thereof, is confronted with a situation in which their Code prevents them from acting directly (because it's damn-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't). Assuming your typical Hieronean-style paladin, can they call for aid from allies, such as LG/LN monks and/or LG/LN/NG clerics, and explicitely ask them to perform an action that they, as paladins, cannot? I think the answer would be yes in most cases, so long as the action isn't a violation of their ally's morals and ethics as well. This would also differ by the deity of the paladins (paladins of Pelor will have less trouble with this than paladins of St. Cuthbert, most likely).
If that is principled to you then your 1st principle is "obey the law at all costs."Actually... No.
I am guessing you don't have a Paladium book handy, and your assumptions ended up faulty.
But let me help you out:
Principled characters will ...
1. Always keep his word.
2. Avoid lies.
3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe.
4. Never harm an innocent.
5. Never torture for any reason.
6. Never kill for pleasure.
7. Always help others.
8. Work well in a group.
9. Respect authority, law, self-discipline and honor.
10. Never betrays a friend.
11. Never break the law unless conditions are desperate. This means
no breaking and entry, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults, etc.Can you honestly tell me that a Paladin shouldn't strive to follow these principles?
Your post is so abjectly weak I am hesitant to even respond, but I suppose someone has to point this out to you. Principled does not mean that one follows a list of principles from your f$&+tard splat-book.
Try a dictionary. A principled person is one who abides by moral principles. These need not be any particular principles. You can be a principled Buddhist just as easily as a principled Christian.
May I now point out how morally weak your principles are by pointing out that NONE of the principles you have listed say anything about protecting the innocent. YOUR principles allow your Paladin to turn his back on people who need his help.
Oh, but he keeps his word. Pat yourself on the back Mr. Paladin.
THAT CODE, my friend, is Lawful Neutral, because your Paladin has no actual loyalty to anyone other than his friends and the law. I repeat, he has no codified responsibility for protecting people outside of his group of friends. Now, if it said "4. Neither harm nor allow an innocent to be harmed, through action or inaction" that would be Lawful Good.
Throw your splat-book out and take an ethics course.
Oh, and one more thing, if you tell someone in here that their assumptions end up faulty, I suggest you identify those assumptions and show how they are faulty, because many of us are educated and expect our critics to do so.
Believe it or not, I actually agree with a lot of you here. I really, really like the story plot (note- that doesn't mean I seek to use it a lot, I just like the concept) where the paladin, having violated his Code, Falls for a bit and then is redeemed via atonement or something else. I would probably interpret paladins in this way.
But it's not the only interpretation.
The PHB is pretty slack with its Code. Basically, you have to be a chivalric knight. Nothing more. Anything further is up to the DM and player(s) in question.
EDIT- And as an afterthought, here are some clarifications. Although I admit it was the result, my intent wasn't to present an "ends justify the means" attitude for paladins (although some may adopt this style) so much as to show how they could analyze their Code and be somewhat flexible with it without doubting it.
Additionally, I don't think paladins should be super flexible. Steel isn't, but it does have some. Paladins should have some. That's all.
To tell the truth, I'm not even sure what we're debating anymore. Probably means that it's time to wrap this up.
Oh, and I really like that list, Disenchanter (although, no, I have no Palladium stuff).
Don't buy it.
I am DMing in a University in China. I have a 20 year old Chinese girl playing the coolest Paladin I have ever seen. She doesn't have splatbooks. She never kills anyone she doesn't have to. She doesn't cheat, she doesn't talk trash, she's humble and serious.
Last night she spent 15 minutes game time healing guards that our Elf punctured while liberating some Olman slaves. So far she has healed orcs, goblins, countless wounded humans, a bat and a stirge, and except for the goblins, she's preached the ears off of all of them, and she just didn't have time to preach to the goblins because she didn't have time--had to save some kiddies. When our party walks through a city she heals anyone she can find who is sick or injured.
I never worried her about a crappy PHB code. I told her what, in my opinion, it means to be lawful good and explained to her what her god (Pelor) was about, then handed her the Dragon #346 core beliefs article. She understands the kind of principles Pelor would expect, but I know she would ditch Pelor in a heartbeat if his rules suggested she let villagers die.
She obeys the law, doesn't lie and doesn't steal, but she sure would if it meant feeding some hungry children and saving some nuns. Sure, she would regret it. She would explain to the kiddies that stealing is wrong, and go atone.
Sadly, law doesn't always work, and that is why being lawful good can sometimes be a b~%%!. As I have always said, in D&D alignment, the good or the evil is always more important than the word in front of it.
Assuming your typical Hieronean-style paladin, can they call for aid from allies, such as LG/LN monks and/or LG/LN/NG clerics, and explicitely ask them to perform an action that they, as paladins, cannot?
My take on it would be "no, they cannot."
But that stems from my personal belief of honor and leadership. And that can be summed up by the phrase "never ask anyone to do something you are unwilling to do yourself."
I do not feel that a Paladin could ask another to do something that they do not feel they can do.
Of course, YMMV.
May I now point out how morally weak your principles are by pointing out that NONE of the principles you have listed say anything about protecting the innocent.
Throw your splat-book out and take an ethics course.
...
Try again.
4. Never harm an innocent.
7. Always help others.
Oh, and you should know - that list isn't from splat books.
But thanks for playing.
One of the codes of conduct is "Never kill or attack an unarmed foe." That could include helpless as well... So even the BBEG gets a reprieve if s/he tosses their sword away and surrenders. Even if they have a history of escaping and slaughtering the town on their way out.
Knowing this will likely happen again in the future doesn't change the way the Paladin should act. They should accept the surrender, and turn the BBEG over to the authorities. (And if the Paladin isn't foolish, should remain around the prisoner as long as possible.)
I disagree that the standard paladin should be forced to grant a reprieve to the BBEG since the final portion of the paladin's code is to punish those who harm and threaten innocents. It can be taken too far, but I think paladins can commit actions like this without violating their code in most cases.
Unless paladin's in Paladium books use that list for the Paladin code in which case it would break the code.
Your post is so abjectly weak I am hesitant to even respond, but I suppose someone has to point this out to you. Principled does not mean that one follows a list of principles from your f%!@tard splat-book.
Try a dictionary. A principled person is one who abides by moral principles. These need not be any particular principles. You can be a principled Buddhist just as easily as a principled Christian.
May I now point out how morally weak your principles are by pointing out that NONE of the principles you have listed say anything about protecting the innocent. YOUR principles allow your Paladin to turn his back on people who need his help.
Oh, but he keeps his word. Pat yourself on the back Mr. Paladin.
THAT CODE, my friend, is Lawful Neutral, because your Paladin has no actual loyalty to anyone other than his friends and the law. I repeat, he has no codified responsibility for protecting people outside of his group of friends. Now, if it said "4. Neither harm nor allow an innocent to be harmed, through action or inaction" that would be Lawful Good.
Throw your splat-book out and take an ethics course.
Oh, and one more thing, if you tell someone in here that their assumptions end up faulty, I suggest you identify those assumptions and show how they are faulty, because many of us are educated and expect our critics to do so.
For someone who claims to be ethically well-educated and whose "prime motivation is to always act out of love, never out of hate or anger" the above post seems agressive and unnecessarily cruel in tone.
As you said, many of us are educated, some (like me) specialized in ethics. It may not be apparent to you because we don't draw attention to it by claiming to have a deeper understanding than the other people in the discussion.
How can a Paladin be a situational ethicist? The entire meaning of the class is that they are a person who belives certain things are always the right thing to do. Of course, play it how you want - Saern may well be right that the PHB requires a Paladin only to be a chivalrous knight. Personally I take the associating with evil thing, which is what this discussion was about, to mean do not be friends with, or collude or make plots with, beings you know to be evil. Of course you can befriend them with the intention of converting them. Or maybe not; maybe the job of converting evil beings is the Cleric's, and the Paladin is meant to slay them when they can't or won't change thier ways. People seem to forget that the prime purpose of a Paladin is to be a warrior. His god wants him to kill bad guys, they equip him for it.
In the STAP conundrum brought up in the OP I would say the best way to do it would be to follow the Buffy example earlier and have the other PCs make the deal without the Paladin's knowledge. I don't imagine the Paladin saying "sorry, my Code says I can't speak to that guy" I imagine them having a much more personal reaction, ie. "he's a Demon lord, I don't trust him, and nothing anybody can say will change that because he's a Demon lord. He's pure evil."
Making a deal like that without one of the PCs knowing is hard, sure, but aren't the PCs meant to be 18th level or something by this stage? The players should be capable of more than "kick in the door and take their stuff" play by then.
I disagree that the standard paladin should be forced to grant a reprieve to the BBEG since the final portion of the paladin's code is to punish those who harm and threaten innocents.
And you are welcome to disagree.
But there are a couple things further, to my side of the discusion.
First, at least a decade ago, killing or attacking an unarmed / helpless / surrendered foe was widely considered a cowardly, dishonorable, weak, and in some cultures sinful act. That isn't what I would attribute to a Paladin.
Of course, if the local authority has issued a death sentence on the BBEG... The Paladin would be within his / her rights to kill it.
But, if the BBEG was disarmed and surrendering, I still don't feel the Paladin should commit the killing blow. It is all part of the "tightrope walk" of following a code that is meant to be ideal.
Second, unless you wish the Paladin to be arrogant, or at least not be humble, no Paladin should think of themselves as an executioner. Sure, killing is involved in the "job," but it shouldn't be considered the main requirement.
How could evil repent if all you (as a Paladin) ever do is kill it?
Again, back to the tightrope.
Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I am certainly not suggesting that a Paladin should be "ruined" by simply falling of the path once. To err is human(oid). But the Paladin should be constantly striving to maintain the Code at all times. And should never sway from it lightly, or often.
I disagree that the standard paladin should be forced to grant a reprieve to the BBEG since the final portion of the paladin's code is to punish those who harm and threaten innocents.And you are welcome to disagree.
But there are a couple things further, to my side of the discusion.
First, at least a decade ago, killing or attacking an unarmed / helpless / surrendered foe was widely considered a cowardly, dishonorable, weak, and in some cultures sinful act. That isn't what I would attribute to a Paladin.
Of course, if the local authority has issued a death sentence on the BBEG... The Paladin would be within his / her rights to kill it.
But, if the BBEG was disarmed and surrendering, I still don't feel the Paladin should commit the killing blow. It is all part of the "tightrope walk" of following a code that is meant to be ideal.Second, unless you wish the Paladin to be arrogant, or at least not be humble, no Paladin should think of themselves as an executioner. Sure, killing is involved in the "job," but it shouldn't be considered the main requirement.
How could evil repent if all you (as a Paladin) ever do is kill it?
Again, back to the tightrope.
And I believe the "punish" portion of the code makes execution a requirement of their job. Of course punishment can be other things than death, but for some villians it may be required.
Also while I don't think a paladin should strike down a surrendering enemy, but accepting the surrender is not a requirement.
This is what I imagine when the irredeemable villain throws down sword at the paladin’s feet.
"Stop! I surrender! Just don't kill me!"
"Stop your groveling and pick up your blade. I will not make a promise I cannot keep. Your murder of many innocents has led my order to sentence you to death and it is my duty to carry it out."
"No, I can change!”
“I have no doubt that was considered during sentencing, so pick up your blade and fight. Honor stops me from killing you right now, but it does not change you sentence nor will it stay my blade forever.”
It is not a happy paladin duty, but I don’t believe passing it to another is a viable option.
Look, I just can't believe my ears when people say a Paladin should let a village die because he or she is sworn to not kill an unarmed opponent. I can find no reason to be tolerant of such .... And by the way I was never cruel to anyone, just honest.
There is a problem with giving someone a list of codes where they can contradict each other that is plain to some of the posters in here, but not others: a core principle is needed, and for literary Paladins (esp. Le Morte D'Arthur's Galahad) this was compassion, specifically the compassion of their savior, Jesus Christ. The meaning of GOOD in LAWFUL GOOD is that a person is compassionate. GOOD is needed to keep LAWFUL from being dangerous. LAW is not GOOD, otherwise the alignment would only have one word.
So, for my games, compassion is also the prime code for a Paladin, and it is always right, and it always supersedes all other codes. This is the only way to solve contradictions in codes and be righteous. Nevertheless, a Paladin may have to use his or her careful judgment to determine to whom she or he shows compassion, because times may come when the Paladin can't be compassionate to everyone. And sometimes compassion means cutting off someone's head.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
When examining medieval literature, chivalry can be classified into three basic but overlapping areas:
1. Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians: this contains virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. This also brings with it the idea of being willing to give one’s life for another’s; whether he would be giving his life for a poor man or his lord.
2. Duties to God: this would contain being faithful to God, protecting the innocent, being faithful to the church, being the champion of good against evil, being generous and obeying God above the feudal lord.
3. Duties to women: this is probably the most familiar aspect of chivalry. This would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies. Most especially in this category is a general gentleness and graciousness to all women.These three areas obviously overlap quite frequently in chivalry, and are often indistinguishable.
Different weight given to different areas produced different strands of chivalry:
1. warrior chivalry, in which a knight's chief duty is to his lord, as exemplified by Sir Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle
2. religious chivalry, in which a knight's chief duty is to protect the innocent and serve God, as exemplified by Sir Galahad or Sir Percival in the Grail legends.
3. courtly love chivalry, in which a knight's chief duty is to his own lady, and after her, all ladies, as exemplified by Sir Lancelot in his love for Queen Guinevere or Sir Tristan in his for IseultOne particular similarity between all three of these categories is honor. Honor is the foundational and guiding principle of chivalry. Thus, for the knight, honor would be one of the guides of action.
I teach Mallory and Chaucer's Knight's Tale once a year. Paladins don't let villagers die because they are afraid their god will strip them of their powers for executing a BBEG. And Mallory's Le Morte D'Arthur is all about showing how the Paladins solved the moral dilemma's created by the codes.
This isn't my assumption, it's the archetype of Paladinhood. This is the literature from which 3.5 Ed. D&D rather poorly derives its models.
The codes you are using are supplied by ill-informed splatbook writers.
Instead of going through the effort of quoting the SRD, maybe you should spend that time trying to comprehend what is being typed in this thread.
And since you specifically asked to have your assumptions pointed out:
Look, I just can't believe my ears when people say a Paladin should let a village die because he or she is sworn to not kill an unarmed opponent. I can find no reason to be tolerant of such ....
Do us all the favor of tracking down where anyone stated that sacrificing a village was an acceptable action for a Paladin to take under any circumstances.
Once you have corrected that assumption, I am sure there are several others you should spend your time correcting.
One of the codes of conduct is "Never kill or attack an unarmed foe." That could include helpless as well... So even the BBEG gets a reprieve if s/he tosses their sword away and surrenders. Even if they have a history of escaping and slaughtering the town on their way out.
I never said sacrifice. Read what I write.
By the way... do paladin's lose their powers adventuring with evil characters? The only reference in the code I could find about it is "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)". Associates says that paladins are not willing to adventure with evil characters, but neither it nor the ex-paladin section mentions any penalty if they do adventure with evil characters.
As you said, many of us are educated, some (like me) specialized in ethics. It may not be apparent to you because we don't draw attention to it by claiming to have a deeper understanding than the other people in the discussion.
I didn't make such a claim, I suggested that disenchanter enroll in an ethics course because I am a jackass and that's how a jackass tells someone they need to look a little more deeply when they make ethical arguments.
I do not have a deep understanding of ethics nor am I schooled in ethics-- I study literature. It is nevertheless apparent that some people in here have a deeper understanding than others and you need not tell me you have been so schooled, my remarks were not directed toward you.
IMHO...the paladin's code is open for interpretation because it applies to ALL paladins. The question whereby all this discussion comes from is:
Do all paladins follow the exact same code or are they different because the worship different god? (ie do paladins of Pelor, Heironeous, and St-Cuthbert all have the exact same code)?
I'm not certain, but my gut instinct says no. Hence Kurelaid's arguments make perfect sense for a Paladin of the christian god, not D&D gods. If all paladins followed the same god, then the game deseigners could easily have expressly spelled out the code in detail...which is why its open to interpretation.
Imho, every DM makes that call for his or her game...there is no real right or wrong answer.
Be safe all.
IMHO...the paladin's code is open for interpretation because it applies to ALL paladins. The question whereby all this discussion comes from is:
Do all paladins follow the exact same code or are they different because the worship different god? (ie do paladins of Pelor, Heironeous, and St-Cuthbert all have the exact same code)?
I'm not certain, but my gut instinct says no. Hence Kurelaid's arguments make perfect sense for a Paladin of the christian god, not D&D gods. If all paladins followed the same god, then the game deseigners could easily have expressly spelled out the code in detail...which is why its open to interpretation.
Imho, every DM makes that call for his or her game...there is no real right or wrong answer.Be safe all.
Totally agree with you. I suggest respective paladins read the excellent articles about their Gods as provided in Dungeon (RIP) or the less detailed descriptions in their campaign books. Even better, write up your own god.
I still and always will insist that all Paladins need a guiding principle which will allow them to resolve conflicts in their respective codes. This, after all, is something that all Paladins have in literature and history. Even here in China, they had such men about 1800 years ago.
And certainly, if someone is Lawful Good, protecting the weak and innocent, as it is not intrinsically Christian, is a good candidate, and it is the common characteristic of all literary Paladin codes. Even here in China, they had such men about 1800 years ago. Sikh men were (are?) required to swear an oath to protect the weak and innocent. The list goes on.
But let's worry about D&D. For example:
[Pelor] is unabashed in his belief in the cause of good and is indifferent to the squabbles between law and chaos--as long as good prevails.
Cited from Dungeon #346, p.22
Thus Pelor would want his Paladins to be good, and this clearly supersedes lawfulness.
WotC has been a little neglectful about clearly defining Paladin's codes, but we're not so lazy (and unimaginative) that we can't come up with our own, right?
Check out the articles in Dragon if you haven't seen them. All the setting books have information about the Gods, I don't see why DMs and players can't negotiate reasonable codes that are fun to roleplay.
Sorry if I stepped on people's toes, but I really think some people were losing sight of what it means to be good in D&D. I thinking that letting innocents die because a code is more important than compassion is not lawful good. That's my closing remark.
Peace
Ed: forgive my redundancy in Para 3 and 4, I was patching it up in preview and then just hit submit.
Totally agree with you. I suggest respective paladins read the excellent articles about their Gods as provided in Dungeon (RIP) or the less detailed descriptions in their campaign books. Even better, write up your own god.
I still and always will insist that all Paladins need a guiding principle which will allow them to resolve conflicts in their respective codes. This, after all, is something that all Paladins have in literature and history. Even here in China, they had such men about 1800 years ago.
And certainly, if someone is Lawful Good, protecting the weak and innocent, as it is not intrinsically Christian, is a good candidate, and it is the common characteristic of all literary Paladin codes. Even here in China, they had such men about 1800 years ago. Sikh men were (are?) required to swear an oath to protect the weak and innocent. The list goes on.
But let's worry about D&D. For example:
[Pelor] is unabashed in his belief in the cause of good and is indifferent to the squabbles between law and chaos--as long as good prevails.Cited from Dungeon #346, p.22
Thus Pelor would want his Paladins to be good, and this clearly supersedes lawfulness....
Exactly right...Pelor is more concerned with the "good" aspec...whereas St-Cuthbert is mor concerned with the "Lawful" aspect...therefore the paladins of these 2 gods would react very differently to the example of slaying a BBEG with a history of harming innocents in his/her escapes if they were to surrender....that's why the PHB does not directly tell you what a paladin would do in this situation.
This is all imho of course....hence each Dm will rule the actions of said paladins and wether or not they lose their gods favor.I know it really isn't what you asked Saern, but I feel the question cannot be answered for all situations. Hope that helps.
Be safe all.
Cool. I haven't read the current issue yet. I'm waiting for someone to bring it over to me.
St. Cuthbert holds law above good: then it would certainly be harder for a Paladin of St. Cuthbert to negotiate contradictions in his code, whatever that would be.
What would be really constructive and useful now for DMs would be to write up some codes that are firmly grounded in the canonical god descriptions of respective campaigns.
This code is pretty silly and assumes to much player knowledge and giving characters knowledge they dont have.
take the association with non good or evil characters; just how is the paladin supposed to know the alignments of those around him and do give me that detect evil malarky cause there are about a bazillion ways around that. Seriously, having paladins and a guy in your party who is on his character sheet lawful evil, but radiates non detection can lead to some real nice roleplaying. So, if a paladin associates with an evil guy, but doesnt know the guy is evil and has never witness any evil from the guy, and has seen a lot of "good" come from the guys actions, well, does he loose his paladin status, seems silly to me. All the books talk about a balance of good and evil and how one needs the other and then there is the idea that how are the good guys supposed to save the bad guys from themselves if they cant go out in the real world (ie in the game) and demonstrate the advantages of good.
Not all paladins in my game have the same strictures; these strictures are developed from religion, culture, and history. So, would two paladins ever fight? on the surface it would seem that no; they are both lawful good, but if they are from different countries/cultures following different dieties and follow different rules then mortal confict is bound to happen; watch the movie Hearts and Armor sometime; if you countries go to war; well, what are you going to do as a paladin. I dont say that paladins cannot associate with evil; especially if the paladin has a cleric of his faith in the party, but really, what evil guy would want to associate with a paladin; having that aura on them all the time; the inner peace, the strength, the confidence of a paladin should drive a evil guy nuts.
so what I am really saying here is that paladins require a lot of depth and pre game interaction and work between the player and the gm and should not be a static stick in the mud. A paladin needs a rich culture and ruleset that he understands so that his character can develop and maybe a set of stories that give examples of correct action in certain problem situations.
That said; think about alignments a second; some suggest that LG means never harm an innocent (this always requires definition), never lie, never murder, take prisoners and treat them well, dont cheat, dont steal. Now these are just things for any lawful good alignment; Paladins are supposed to be the epitome of LG; they need to not only be these things but more so; more over the top; icons of law and goodness; heck it radiates from them; paladins are more than just lawful good; they are holy; the fist of their diety; if evil is what is going around; well the paladin is what retribution is coming around. So that brings us to honor; wow, I always have to script this out for my players so that we are all on the same page here because I have found that nobody seems to agree on what is honorable and what honor is and some peeps have some pretty far out ideas on it. Some people haul out the "death before dishonor" well, sounds good, but what does in mean in game terms; sure, sometimes paladins have to sacrifice themselves for others, but a lot of times it just is silly and unnecessary for good gaming, hehe I remember one conversaton between a paladin and a higher level priest in my game:
uhm, those are three ancient magic wielding black dragons; were in a swamp; they have lots of followers around them; now...I am not afraid; and if you wanna fight them I am right there with you, but you know that this is going to get the rest of the party killed, like I said; I am not afraid, but i think we should tactically withdraw; now if you wanna charge; I will go first; I am with you; it will be glorius, but we will fail in our mission if we get killed; so how do you wanna handle it.
So, was that honorable or dishonorable; these type of situations are what makes a paladin interesting.
So, assuming PHB deities, you've got the more forgiving, (more) lax paladins of Pelor, and the stricter, stern, almost vengeful paladins of St. Cuthbert; those of Hieroneous would likely try to strike a balance.
But what about paladins of Wee Jas? What in the world would a paladin of such a deity be like? She is certainly quite far removed from the typical paladin archetype, and yet can sponsor LG divine characters.
Ehlonna is also an intriguing persona for paladins. Paladins of the forest? Protectors of far and remote places, of the pristine and pure?
Yondalla and Garl don't seem to get many paladins amongst the ranks of their faithful, although they could, but Moradin certainly seems to have a goodly number of dwarven paladins. I'd have to say that dwarven mentality seems to place Law over Good quite often, so they may be like less retribution-oriented Cuthbertarians (is that the right word?). Perhaps Moradin's paladins would have even more conflict because loyalty to their clan and mortal authority is so much stronger amongst dwarves than any other race.
Thoughts?
Had a paladin of Yondalla in my game once, was great; the character was always handing out food; inviting everything to dinner; lunch; breakfast; was very charismatic and fun while spreading faith and good cheer.
I meant this to be short but once again the complexity of the topic caused me to ramble... sorry in advance for yet another lengthy post.
To the people who want to put compassion above the Code, I feel kind of like we are on the same page but are misunderstanding each other. I don't see it as The Code=Law and compassion=Good. The Code is compassionate, it IS good. Only on very very rare occasions would following the Code be non-good in D&D terms, and only then because the DM set it up to be a conflict, eg. kill the innocent or let 10 innocents die. Which as I said before I think is unfair of the DM.
I always thought that to a LG person Law and Good are almost the same thing, and strict moral codes are what it's all about. Just like to a CG person freedom and Good are almost the same. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see how there can be a conflict between Law and Good within a Paladin. A Paladin believes in Lawful Good. A person who thinks that strict codes of honour conflict with Goodness shouldn't be a Paladin. And any Paladin of any deity should be able to follow the generic Paladin's Code without being cruel, heartless or evil. It's full of nice things!
But if a PC wants to ignore parts of the Code to do questionable things because their deity "cares more about Good than Law" then that PC simply shouldn't be allowed to be a Paladin, IMHO. I stand by the analogy that a Paladin who thinks the Code is flexible is like a Druid who wants to chop down a forest to make a big wooden fence to protect another forest.
Showing mercy to a defeated foe is not the same thing as letting them go free. When the terrible BBEG with the history of slaying thousands of innocents drops his sword and says "please don't kill me" shouldn't a Paladin, ANY Paladin of any God, arrest him? Of course if there's no other choice and you are 100% certain he cannot be redeemed or neutralized you might have to kill him, but there's nearly always a choice, and I can't imagine any LG person, let alone a Paladin, saying to a surrendering enemy: "Sorry mate, you might escape one day and kill more people, my Code won't allow that *STAB*. I think that's Lawful Neutral behaviour. And saying "B+$+%#~s to the rules, you'll just get away and kill again *STAB*" is Chaotic Good.
I used to not even use alignments, but we've been playing a campaign with it and it's going well. Seriously, the Good PCs in my group (who are all NG) almost never kill human beings unless they can help it, no matter how evil they are. I can't comprehend a Paladin being OK with it.
Besides, there wouldn't be any awakening ancient Lich Lords etc for the PCs to fight if previous generations of good guys killed evil-doers who were at their mercy instead of imprisoning them in mountain sides ;)
Seriously, the Good PCs in my group (who are all NG) almost never kill human beings unless they can help it, no matter how evil they are. I can't comprehend a Paladin being OK with it.
Oops, came back too late to edit. What I meant to say was they almost never kill helpless enemies unless they can help it.
I think a lot of the debate here stems from the fact that we would all make terrible Paladins. We live in a morally flexible world, and our 21st century ethics just can't compete with the Paladin's ethos. The closest people I can think of that might be Paladins in this day and age?
Terrorists.
They know they are right; their God tells them so.
Why do I need to die? Because you're evil.
What about those innocent bystanders you blew up? Evil, they were corrupt and needed to be expunged. I'll be rewarded in heaven.
Where they fall short to our Paladin friend is failure to attempt conversion, but basically Paladins are terrorists for good. When they wipe out all evil, where do you think they are going to go? That's right, to the neutral people. Jaywalker? Stop your evil lawbreaking ways or you're next to meet the underworld! After all the neutral people are gone, it's time to weed out those who aren't quite "good" enough.
From our perspective, that makes a Paladin evil, but we're applying our own moral ambiguity to someone else's value set. The Paladin doesn't deal with evil, ever, for any reason. Can you even imagine a Paladin even bothering to ask their God, "Oh hey, is it ok if I make a deal with these demons for a while?" Pfft, ESPECIALLY if that deity has Paladin levels themselves.
The Paladin knows what is right, and knows how to act, and they know how they act is the only correct way. Why? God told them so. If they are even remotely unsure, they ASK someone, because you know what? Refusal to be humbled is a sin too!
But if a PC wants to ignore parts of the Code to do questionable things because their deity "cares more about Good than Law" then that PC simply shouldn't be allowed to be a Paladin, IMHO. I stand by the analogy that a Paladin who thinks the Code is flexible is like a Druid who wants to chop down a forest to make a big wooden fence to protect another forest.
I am looking really closely at what you say and I think I agree.
I think that a Paladin should bend the code when his doing so is beyond question. Bending it to do questionable things would mean doing it for unrighteous reasons, would it not? I'm not suggesting that Paladins of Pelor bend the law to do questionable things(ed). I'm talking about killing a dangerous enemy with a history of escape, who although he feigns helplessness, has proven in the past that he is NEVER helpless though he is unarmed. That's how he killed innocents during his last escape. The Paladin is trying to prevent the killing of innocents by making the same mistake again. Now, let us imagine we are in this position in game. I hope my Paladin tries to find a way to prevent the escape using new measures, learning from his or her last escape. But if that can't be done, then I expect a compassionate Paladin to understand the life of the innocents who MIGHT be killed are more important than the BBEG who has already left a trail of blood and WILL kill more.
And hey, in this game, when a BBEG is unarmed, it doesn't mean squat. In my campaign an unarmed NPC killed a PC a few months ago.
I'm going to suggest this again: are we forgetting that the RAW says that being lawful CAN result in inflexibility and judgmental characters. It doesn't say that lawful people ARE inflexible. Inflexible laws must be very carefully crafted in order to also be compassionate, and the codes I've seen are neither. Look, we know that being good requires compassion. And it seems impossible to have a Paladin's code that does not acknowledge compassion because then they can't be good. At the same time the rules do not say that being lawful does not mean you must be flexible. Sooo.
On the other hand, I really like the comparison with terrorists from mwbeeler. I have played a Paladin like that myself, but it was a long time ago and it was acceptable to walk into a village of goblins and kill them all, except the children, because they were all evil. My Paladin had a sword that detected evil. The sword decided who he would and would not kill. I think that is, for Crusade Paladins, historically accurate, except for the sword. Neither Galahad nor Percival were like that in Mallory, and I am not the first to mention that they are models for our D&D Paladins, who are also the religious variety.
That said, again, I bow down to this by Valegrim:
Not all paladins in my game have the same strictures; these strictures are developed from religion, culture, and history. So, would two paladins ever fight? on the surface it would seem that no; they are both lawful good, but if they are from different countries/cultures following different dieties and follow different rules then mortal confict is bound to happen; watch the movie Hearts and Armor sometime; if you countries go to war; well, what are you going to do as a paladin. I dont say that paladins cannot associate with evil; especially if the paladin has a cleric of his faith in the party, but really, what evil guy would want to associate with a paladin; having that aura on them all the time; the inner peace, the strength, the confidence of a paladin should drive a evil guy nuts.
Law does in no way equate good; neither does Chaos nor nuetrality; it is completely separate; there are good laws and evil laws; law is only the rule set followed with no morality judgement. In the book of Exalted Deeds; there is a section on how and why each of the alignments NG,CG,LG are the most good and provides reasoning and is interesting. Law can be totalitarian and stifling yet still be good or for the greater good; no freedom; no freewill and can even be unenlightened; Choas can be mob rules, everyone for themselves; freedom without restriction; basically one above many as law as the many over the few; Nuetrality strikes a balance between the two. So, ask yourself, what makes a LG Paladin more good than a CG Ranger; both have the blessings of their dieties, both can adventually gain enough devotion to cast spells, both are very good at destroying their dieties enemies; the paladin has a specific ruleset to govern his actions; the ranger has the freedom to act when and if necessary without a by your leave. Both are forces of good with different skills and mindsets, only the paladin is insane ie absolutely devoted to an ideal and set of rules; often, when these rules get severely tested and this mindset is stretched; paladins fail and loose their status; if they become disenchanted enough with failed ethics; then you usually end up with Blackguard or some other anti paladin. Try to avoid thinking of any particular alignment as ultimate good or evil; they are more like Law cooperates in groups for extended periods of time to achieve a goal and Chaos doesnt only getting together for an immediant goal.
When writing your worlds paladin code; consider how it is different from any nobles code; knights code, it should be something like the nobles and knights code with the added stuff from some oaths from a priest specific to the diety. A lot of people have trouble with good and evil in their games; you, as the gm, have to decide how this works; are the dieties the progenitors of Good and does all good come from them or is Good separate and the dieties being imperfect can fail to do Good. For players and gms dealing with highly moral characters; things like individual good, group good; greater good; absolute good have to be defined and have a heirarchy.
wow, hehe, you can guess that in my 20+ years of gming my players and I have hashed through a lot of this stuff :) hope it helps when any of you codify your rules.
hehe thanks for the nice comment Kruelaid
keep in mind that a paladin is a fanatic; absolutely devoted; a bit of a glory hound and looking to have a jihad for the greater good as the fist of the diety; they should not be known to be mister reasonable or forgiving; that is the perview of priests. If a paladin doesnt make nuetral guys nervous and stike terror into the hearts of bad guys; well, I doubt he is doing his job. In some ways he is the pyschotic killer that will sleep good at night because he BELIEVES that what he is doing is right. Scarey eh, read the news lately; lots of modern people would make good paladins.
Do you realize that we are living in the most lawful society ever in the existance on known humans? our lives are more controlled now than any time in history; this is a lawful persons wet dream; you are less free to act than ever; hehe and its we are becoming and will keep becoming more controlled; sheesh; there are already 20 camera lights in ABQ to ticket traffic and about 30 more to hmm report traffic flow; still think our society doesnt breed the paladin mindset; ever watched the crowd on a powerful evangilist.
ok; sorry bout the semithreadjack; the only reason I mentioned this stuff is that you keep in the fantasty mindset; a fantasy world would probably not have the social controls that we have; they generally live in the fear of tomorrow; will they have enough food; will their be fresh water; will the river dry up; will the crops die; will the weather do blah blah; will bandits attack; will monsters do whatever. Always tailor the needs of the church to the needs of the society then tailer the paladin code to the church to defeat the dieties enemies; the code becomes a lot less combersome in this instance; if you have a highly developed society; these rules are going to be much much more complex.
hehe <Valegrim steps down off his LOB soapbox>
Wow the last few posts have been really interesting.
I am looking really closely at what you say and I think I agree.I think that a Paladin should bend the code when his doing so is beyond question. Bending it to do questionable things would mean doing it for unrighteous reasons, would it not? I'm not suggesting that Paladins of Pelor bend the law to do questionable things(ed)...
OK I knew it - I agree with you too. A dangerous BBEG who can't be neutralized must be destroyed, unarmed or not. But not as a matter of routine; it should be a big decision for the Paladin. They have to examine their code and decide that to keep to the spirit of it the BBEG must be destroyed, which is what you're saying, and I think that's cool. But it should only apply to iredeemable, dangerous Evil, not Werewolves or Goblins or Human criminals unless absolutely necessary. And to a LG person, lying, cheating and using poison ARE morally questionable (hell, poisoning someone is illegal) so the Code should not be bent to allow them unless the Paladin is fixing to Fall. Different Paladins should have different codes, sure, but they should all share the generic Code at least. Otherwise what's to stop someone saying "my deity is CG, so my Paladin is sworn to act like a CG person, breaking the law if it serves what he thinks is the greater good."
I'm going to suggest this again: are we forgetting that the RAW says that being lawful CAN result in inflexibility and judgmental characters. It doesn't say that lawful people ARE inflexible. Inflexible laws must be very carefully crafted in order to also be compassionate, and the codes I've seen are neither.
I agree, although I can't see why you think the Code is not compassionate. Here it is:
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities 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.
Except for punishing Evil, which is the paladin's main purpose (otherwise they'd be a pacifist priest), everything in there is compassionate in the eyes of a LG person. I'm not saying I think personally this is true, but I'm saying that to a LG person respecting authority, acting with honour etc are Good (and therefore compassionate) actions.
The terrorist analogy is cool. It's kind of like how Paladins used to be thought of in 1st ed. Maybe all this debate about Paladins comes because OUR world has changed, and is no longer as black and white as it was in 1970s.
True, true.
|
Ok, I'm joining the conversation late in the game so I think this is going to be a big post because I have a lot of different points I wanted to throw out there. So far I think I find myself agreeing primarily with Kahoolin though.
As the first point, I see paladins as being paragons of law and good for the people. That is what separates them from being simply a LG fighter, even one who is devote to a deity. They are meant to uphold their strictures in all ways, to set an example to others in both word and deeds. This attitude needn't extend to others, not everyone can be a paladin and while it needn't be a matter of cockiness it should be a matter of pride. However, it makes sense for a paladin to still wish to guide others towards the light. A paladin will never steal under any circumstance, however if he catches a teammate preparing a theft he needn't simply turn them over to the local sheriff. Instead it seems much more likely that he would try to show the wayward adventurer the benefits of living a just life, both in tangible rewards as well as spiritual ones. This could come in the form of both speaking with him and taking the time to show through your own actions a virtuous life.
The second point I wanted to make related to the idea of a paladin falling. It has been mentioned that such temptations that could bring into questions the paladins code should be avoided, however I think that such doubts and pushing through them any way are one of the things that make the paladin such a powerful character in a game. This sort of moral battle is something that has been a staple of fantasy literature and has set itself in many different modules as well. As an extreme example of this, the campaign of rapan athak(spoiler warning), a module that has made its way up from at least second edition, sets the cruel measure at the end that in order to open the portal to reach the final villain an innocent must be sacrificed, an act that without a doubt will cause a paladin to fall and even anyone with a good bent to question themselves. It becomes a moral battle, after battling all the trials of the dungeon and the surrounding landscape to defeat this evil is the cost too great?
Examples that are less extreme are numerous as well. In the 'Drow War' campaign, the characters slip through a mine held by an enemy trying to use subterfuge to secret away a drow turned traitor. The information that this traitor has is great and could greatly affect the outcome of the war. However, moving through the mine subjects the players to the atrocities being committed upon the slaves and other prisoners in the mine. If they are to reach the traitor and bring him away with them they must turn a blind eye to these things. A good party would have difficulty with this, but the idea that the the many is greater then the few can drive them forward. However a paladin in their midst is under code to protect the innocent and in many interpretations to guard the weak against the strong. Obviously they are not simply going to give up the hope of claiming the information, more lives are at stake, so the moral choice gives rise to much more. They must decide how both sides can be served.
As a final note, I thought to make an example of a paladin that I think served the code well. It was mentioned early on that the Knights of Solamnia were often what people viewed paladins as, their inflexible rigidity and arrogance being seen as a downfall and one that can be a pitfall of the class. However in many ways they seem to be a showing of what can come from a paladin who leans towards one side of his alignment over the other. They have allowed their lawful nature to overwhelm their good side and their code was worth any cost, not only to themselves but to others. In the Dragonlance Chronicles however, Sturm seemed to be much of what was an ideal for a paladin. He upheld his honor strictly, but with a sense of goodness and self sacrifice. His life or even his soul was not worth harm to either his friends or an innocent, he would not have violated the code in even the slightest way to save himself but he would stand against even a superiors understanding of the measure to protect an ally who was in the right. It was mentioned that being led down the path of doubting one's code is inappropriate for a paladin in some way, but through the trials of his life Sturm often found himself at odds with his beliefs or that which he was taught is right but his questioning and doubt of his code led him to a deeper understanding of it. Such conflicts made him one of the most memorable of the characters in the novels. His honor allowed him to be inflexible for himself, however his doubts lead him to not loose himself in his righteousness and guided him to always maintain a 'good' aspect to him even when his brethren lost that.
A very showing aspect of this came in one of the first chapters in the chronicles. The party was being closed in on by a mob of townsfolk and goblin guards after being falsely accused of a crime. As the rest of the group scrambled to prepare to flee he sat calmly and waited for their arrival. He seemed shocked at the idea of fleeing(Run? From this rabble?). However, the party's leader quietly mentioned that there was a lady to protect and it brought him to his feet to guard the party. Even still, he made sure he was the last to leave and always kept himself between the others and the enemy. That is the sign of a paladin to me, justice, valor and principles. Preparedness to face the enemy and self sacrifice if necessary however seeing that the spirit of good and law is served as well as the letter.
Phew, sorry that certainly was long winded. I hope someone else found some good points in it.
Very well said and worth every word.
I suppose you guys are following this thread.
One thing DMs of Savage Tide should also strive for/remember; don't go all hard-core on the alignment thing with any paladins in your group. Paladins should be about the greater good and law rather than the immediate good or law; otherwise, they end up doing a lot more damage than anything else. Lawful Good does not mean "Blindly Follows Tradition and Doesn't Acknowledge Gray Areas of Morality."
I wasted a lot of words saying that.