I got into a discussion the other day with a friend over the code of a paladin. We seem to have some differences of opinion, and the conversation was intriguing, so I thought I'd throw it up here. This isn't about the mechanics of a paladin, and not even really about whether they're sticks in the mud or not (although that does touch this issue on a close tangent). This is an examination of the paladin's code and what's allowed by it.
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.
Additionally, there is this mention about associates:
Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may only accept henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
The relevant (non-mechanical) part dealing with ex-paladins reads as such:
Ex-Paladins: A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities.
All references are from PHB 44.
The biggest difference came from my opinion of a paladin interacting with evil. We both agree the idea that paladins should smite anything that registers as evil first and ask questions later is wrong and false, as it would lead to a lot of dead/fallen/imprisoned paladins.
However, my opinion is that in an campaign like the STAP, where one must seek allies from beings such as Orcus, a paladin is not automatically screwed. It shouldn't be easy for a paladin to make deals like that, but he shouln't be set in total and unyielding opposition to the arrangement with no chance to change his mind (unless he wants to Fall). I rationalize this as another of the famous "greater good" cases, as I have seen done many times before.
I don't see the paladin brokering these deals with Orcus and others as an "association" in that, ideally, the paladin is extremely reticent to proceed with such a course of action and deals with the entity no more than absolutely necessary. Further, in such situations deals of this nature may be absolutely necessary. In that case, the paladin is effectively being unwillingly coerced into interacting with these beings. Thus, he is not willingly associating.
I read "association with evil" as taking a trip down to the local waterfront district to see if there are any drugs for sale, chatting up the thieves and dealers with no intent to do anything about them or no reprehension for their actions, etc. Not simply talking, or even sometimes making arrangements, with evil beings.
This is particularly true if the paladin makes plans to attempt to deal with the evil parties in question in some way or shape after the deal is concluded, if he is at all able.
As far as the greater good argument, my reasoning goes like this: "If Big Baddy completes his plans, he brings more Evil into the world while he continues to exist, and the Little Baddy exists, too. Thus, it's a net gain of Evil. However, if the Little Baddy helps take him down, then the Big Baddy's plans don't reach completion; further, the Big Baddy will likley be gone, leaving the Little Baddy. Thus, a net loss of Evil, and the better option. Further, the Little Baddy is still there to be dealt with later. Additionally, if Good is going to be forced to cooperate with Evil, who better to be paired with Little Baddy than a paladin, who can do the best job of making sure Little Baddy's actions are curtailed, if only for a while? Thus, more Good (or at least a reduction of Evil)."
So, in conclusion of that issue, I don't even see the paladin as needing an atonement spell after having been in such a situation. I actually don't remember what my friend's position was on this matter; he may have somewhat agreed, but I believe he was more hesitant than I to accept this. I was having this conversation with Sexi Golem, so I'm sure he'll post his views on the matter soon.
Anyway, the next and more contentious issue was in regards to the "lawful" aspect of paladins when dealing with evil. I said that paladins aren't in a straight jacket here because, as persons of law (particularly the legal kind, not just "cosmic order") they would be versed in loopholes. So, they could make an agreement with an evil being and simply word their agreement in such a way as to still benefit the paladin. A simple version of this would be, "I promise not to hurt you," which still leaves the option of hurting the bad guy open for the paladin's friends.
Sexi said this reeked of dishonesty, which is against the code. His reasoning was that if you make a promise but plan to weasel your way around it to begin with, it's as bad as not intending to keep it; i.e., dishonest and against the code.
I opposed by holding up devils- also beings of law who are known for their manipulation of loopholes. Sexi's counter was to point out that they are evil, and that is one of the things that makes them that way. He feels the code applies in all situations equally, and thus the paladin must act with honor even towards demons and devils (and, again, that trying to find a loophole in a deal like that is unhonorable). He mentioned that would be upholding the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.
However, I feel that the code is intended for day-to-day interactions, and that dealing with evil has a slightly different context to it. The paladin still cannot lie or cheat, but I wouldn't call it a lie or even a cheat to make a deal with a devil and then turn a loophole back on him; he would do the same to you. Further, I don't see upholding the spirit of the law as an inherently good act. I can see an infernal court ruling that the spirit of the law is more important when it suits their needs, and a celestial court ruling that the letter is more important when the roles are reversed.
So, to summarize this overly long ramble, the questions are, "Can a paladin make limited deals with evil beings as found in the STAP and still be within the bounds of the code?" and "When dealing with evil, is making a deal while intending to exploit a loophole, all for the betterment of good and the lessening of evil, acceptable to the code?"
I say "yes," as I am more interested in giving paladins a more liberal reading, more "wiggle room," so they are more fun to play and more capable of being played (otherwise... what's the point?), whereas Sexi says "no," at least to the second (again, I'm sure he'll chime in here for clarity on the first soon), I assume with the belief that if you choose to play a paladin, you're accepting that roleplaying burden upon yourself and it should be upheld strictly.
This is somewhat more releveant than an idle discussion as I plan on playing a paladin in his games soon. Also, if anyone else has a situation or question regarding paladin codes, I'd love to see this thread grow beyond this original query.
I agree 100% with your logic and conclusion regarding STAP-like deal brokering; it's well-stated and logically consistent. Like Sexi, though, I quibble with the weaseling using loopholes. Devils are bound by contracts because they're lawful, but delight in perverting them and weasel using loopholes because they're evil. A paladin is lawful (and thus bound by the letter of contracts) and good (and thus morally bound to the spirit of his agreements). That doesn't mean he's a prissy annoyance, it just means he can't back-stab his allies (even reluctant ones) with impunity.
Watch John Wayne's (LG) interaction with Genonimo in "Fort Apache" (as opposed to Henry Fonda's LE) for an excellent cinematic version of almost exactly this type of situation.
I see paladins as honest and true to their word. If a paladin is versed in loopholes then he better use that knowledge to avoid traps, not set his own.
In games like the STAP I would definately allow a paladin to play along (if just to keep the game moving) although I would still require him to keep any promises he made, and not make any promises he cannot keep. However If a paladin was to go about gathering extraplanar allies he would probably start with Archons and Angels before he knocked on Orcus' door. Not to mention the fact that bringing a paladin into the house of Orcus seems like a insult worthy of unpleasent disembolment from the demon lord of undead. But that's one reason I don't use published adventures. (Which isn't to say that Savage Tide isn't amazing, it looks fantastic from what I've read and I'd likely steal some Ideas from it for my game if Saern wasn't so well versed in it himself.)
well, I think that when dealing with demons, a paladin is much more loosely bound to the spirit of the law. It's obvious that demons will stab you in the back the first chance they get, so turning the tables here is a case of preemptive retribution. The good in defeating a demon outweighs the chaos of "breaking" a contract. If the second party is not feindish, though, a paladin would uphold the deal. Any humanoid, even an evil one, has a chance of redemption, but a demon or devil, whose nature is evil, should be destroyed by any means necessary.
I beleive there was a post called " A Paladin and his Code"
well, I think that when dealing with demons, a paladin is much more loosely bound to the spirit of the law. It's obvious that demons will stab you in the back the first chance they get, so turning the tables here is a case of preemptive retribution.
The paladin's code applies to HIM, though, and not necessarily to the demon (or to the other PCs, for that matter). A paladin holds himself to a higher moral standard. It's not justified to lie to someone just because they're a liar, because ultimately YOU are the one lying, and doing so is a violation of YOUR code. Weaseling in that manner is a slippery slope leading directly to the Blackguard PrC.
well, I think that when dealing with demons, a paladin is much more loosely bound to the spirit of the law.
One of the finer points of being the paragon of Law is "consistency", the code does not "loosen". If they did then that allows wiggle room for any number of other circumstances and then you end up with a "Code of strict honor and virtue" becoming a set of loose guidlines and suggestions. Not very paladin like to me. Great for a LG fighter. Even better for a NG or CG. But paladins follow heavier guidelines to me.
It's obvious that demons will stab you in the back the first chance they get
Which is one of the reasons the code forbids dealings with them.
In my mind the paladin code exists for a good reason. And any paladin that devotes his life to serving his god and the cause of good I think should feel the same way. Paladins don't follow the code because it lets them keep their horse and their cool powers (although players might), they follow it because they truely believe that it is the best way to make a positive impact in the world.
A paladin should exhaust every possible alternative before he accepts aid or a partnership from a known evil creature. Not because he is a stubborn ass, but because he has seen the deprvities of evil and would have no doubt that the deal or alliance would turn into a backstab. If the paladin has obviously no choice but to team up or face dire and immediate consecuences then he has no conflict with the code he is obviously not willing, as Saern said.
Paladins are paragons of virtue and justice. One of the most important roles of a paladin is to show the world that good can stand alone in the fight against evil. You do not need deceit and dishonor. Honesty and valor have their own power and are superior tools against evil. Any paladin that makes deals with a forked tounge or alliences with evil creatures out of convenience is not only breaking the code, but is betraying the entire purpose behind the existance of Paladins itself.
Just my opinions.
I guess I kind of look at paladins as Roy + a Code. If OoTS's Roy would/could do it, a paladin could (comedic elements aside), because Roy is an excellent portrayal of LG. And I can see Roy promising not to attack someone but doing nothing about it when Belkar go berserk on them, with Roy's only comment being something like, "Look, I only promised I wouldn't attack you. I have no control over Belkar."
I think that's fun and a cool scene to let players engage in (not that it comes up very much; just a hypothetical that my reasoning is based in). Paladins are one of the few types that would feel so compelled to honor their promises so thoroughly in such a situation, so I'd like to give them enough room to play around with it and have fun.
Also, anyone notice that in the "Ex-Paladin" heading, it says that a paladin loses his abilities if he commits an evil act, but never says anything about a chaotic act? It does throw in a mention of "grossly violating the code of conduct," but that's slightly different. I'm not sure if it's simply an oversight, or if there really is a smidgen more wiggle room on the Law/Chaos axis for paladins than there is on the Good/Evil axis.
Probably just an oversight.
I am in wholehearted agreement with Sexi...and I have to say, it's refreshing to see someone posting online who really gets what paladins are supposed to be.
I read "association with evil" as taking a trip down to the local waterfront district to see if there are any drugs for sale, chatting up the thieves and dealers with no intent to do anything about them or no reprehension for their actions, etc. Not simply talking, or even sometimes making arrangements, with evil beings.
I interpret "association with evil" as making deals of any kind with evil creatures. A paladin just won't do that. He may not whip out his sword and cut your evil head off on the spot, but he's not going to promise you he won't in exchange for something from you. He won't even patronize a store that is owned or operated by evil creatures.
Evil creatures are persona non grata to paladins, unless and until they change their evil ways. Period. End of story.
Anyway, the next and more contentious issue was in regards to the "lawful" aspect of paladins when dealing with evil. I said that paladins aren't in a straight jacket here because, as persons of law (particularly the legal kind, not just "cosmic order") they would be versed in loopholes. So, they could make an agreement with an evil being and simply word their agreement in such a way as to still benefit the paladin. A simple version of this would be, "I promise not to hurt you," which still leaves the option of hurting the bad guy open for the paladin's friends.
Sexi said this reeked of dishonesty, which is against the code. His reasoning was that if you make a promise but plan to weasel your way around it to begin with, it's as bad as not intending to keep it; i.e., dishonest and against the code.
Again, I agree 100% with Sexi. He's upholding the spirit of being paladin, rather than adhering only to the letter of the code. If more people approached playing a paladin this way, there'd be a lot fewer "paladin threads" on D&D boards like this one.
However, I feel that the code is intended for day-to-day interactions, and that dealing with evil has a slightly different context to it. The paladin still cannot lie or cheat, but I wouldn't call it a lie or even a cheat to make a deal with a devil and then turn a loophole back on him; he would do the same to you.
IMO, paladins are more "turn the other cheek" than they are "eye for an eye," so the fact that the devil would do the same to him is irrelevant. A paladin will do what (in his view) is right, every time, regardless of what others may do.
I guess I kind of look at paladins as Roy + a Code.
I agree, but the problem is that the Code is essentially: "Thou shalt not do many of the things Roy does."
Probably just an oversight.
There's no way to really know, but I don't think it's an oversight. I think that when the rubber meets the road, it's more important for a paladin to be good than it is for him to be lawful, and thus it is worse for him to willingly do evil than it is for him to momentarily succumb to a chaotic temptation.
IMO, paladins are more "turn the other cheek" than they are "eye for an eye," so the fact that the devil would do the same to him is irrelevant. A paladin will do what (in his view) is right, every time, regardless of what others may do.
However, I feel that the code is intended for day-to-day interactions, and that dealing with evil has a slightly different context to it. The paladin still cannot lie or cheat, but I wouldn't call it a lie or even a cheat to make a deal with a devil and then turn a loophole back on him; he would do the same to you.
I get that, but I wasn't really thinking "eye for an eye" so much as "preventative measures" and "fight fire with fire." He's not using evil or chaotic means to do so, he's not lying and he's abiding by The Rules (tm), so it seems to jive with the Code; I don't see being cunning as un-paladin-ish.
I guess I kind of look at paladins as Roy + a Code.I agree, but the problem is that the Code is essentially: "Thou shalt not do many of the things Roy does."
Roy doesn't lie, cheat, knowingly associate with evil, or even use poison. He never willingly commits and evil act, respects legitimate authority, and helps those in need (so long as they aren't obviously bad guys). I see nothing that sets Roy at odds with the Code. He's a paladin who took the wrong class levels.
I am in wholehearted agreement with Sexi...and I have to say, it's refreshing to see someone posting online who really gets what paladins are supposed to be....
It always cracks me up to see people post their opinion and say how pleased that someone else who agrees with them can also see the ONE GREAT TRUTH! Everyone else is stupid, of course. Well, I for one am glad you are refreshed because your narrow viewpoint reeks.
IMO, paladins are more "turn the other cheek" than they are "eye for an eye," so the fact that the devil would do the same to him is irrelevant. A paladin will do what is (in his view) right, every time, regardless of what others may do.
Now I happen to agree with you somewhat Vegepygmy, but this is a role-playing game and I have played a few Paladins. Because I am playing a role, an individual, he will do things "in his view" not yours.
For example, I played a Paladin who violated his code under certain conditions. He didn't obey the code when he felt it would bring about a result that was bad, and he bent his code if it resulted in greater good. He was willing to be stripped of his Paladin-hood if through a heinous act he could ensure the greater benefit of the many.
If hypothetically my Paladin could save many innocent LG lives by making a pact with Orcus but refused to then he is a serious moron and should be carrying the loss of those lives on his conscience till his day comes.
Sure, he would plug his nose while he did it...
It always cracks me up to see people post their opinion and say how pleased that someone else who agrees with them can also see the ONE GREAT TRUTH! Everyone else is stupid, of course.
Nicely put; political discussions somehow always end up being that way. No reason why paladin ones wouldn't!
Although, to be totally honest, I see as much agreement between Saern and Sexi as I do between Sexi and Vegepygmy...
I think Sexi and I have two different yet valid readings of the rules. I'm being more liberal, he's being more strict. Neither is inherently correct or incorrect. I just like discussing the stuff. :)
I will note however that, yes a paladin may break his Code for the greater good, he is still breaking his Code. You can torture a villain for information to save the city, and you should (in the absolutes of D&D- this isn't an endorsement in the real world at all), but you still tortured him and will lose your paladin-hood until you have atoned.
I think Sexi and I have two different yet valid readings of the rules. I'm being more liberal, he's being more strict. Neither is inherently correct or incorrect. I just like discussing the stuff. :)
I will note however that, yes a paladin may break his Code for the greater good, he is still breaking his Code. You can torture a villain for information to save the city, and you should (in the absolutes of D&D- this isn't an endorsement in the real world at all), but you still tortured him and will lose your paladin-hood until you have atoned.
Totally, and nothing is cooler than an ex-Paladin who lost his Paladin-hood by doing the right thing, and that's (ok, one of the things that ed) what makes playing them fun.
I agree that Roy is an excellent example of LG. But he would not be a paladin because I doubt he would see wisdom in constraining his actions before he even knows what actions he might need to do the right thing. paladins devote their lives to being paladins, to me this must mean that they truely believe the code is the ine way they can do the most good. If you disregard the code of simply overlook it's intent when it is convienient then I don't think that person is suited for paladinhood.
Paladins to me are not just people who smite evil. They are people who destroy evil and leave onlookers with no doubt that good will always prevail. They don't have to be stupid stubborn myopic jackasses. ANY character should be super hesitant to start making pacts with any demigods with chaotic evil alignments, I think that it is reasonible for a paladin to try and find another way. If they can't, then they have no choice and are far from willing in my opinion.
If I were a paladin in savage tide I would have no problem pointing out that any power vaccum created by defeating demigorgon would just lead to a different demon lord to rise to power, this new demon lord coincedentally would also then likely have lots of dangerous information on the parties strengths and weaknesses and every reason to crush them before they gain any more power. Then the world would have avoided a current crisis but gained a new threat and likely lost it's most powerful defenders in the gambit. Dealing with evil is always a win lose for the cause of good, and evil creatures will always try to make sure you lose and they win. In this respect I agree fully with the paladins code. Dealing with evil beings is usually not smart, especially if you are an overall champion of good.
So, to summarize this overly long ramble, the questions are, "Can a paladin make limited deals with evil beings as found in the STAP and still be within the bounds of the code?" and "When dealing with evil, is making a deal while intending to exploit a loophole, all for the betterment of good and the lessening of evil, acceptable to the code?"
First and foremost, please read my comment with both the letter and spirit of what I am saying in mind. I've neither the time nor patience to write an infernal essay :).
To the first question, my thought is that that the paladin must believe that he has exhausted all other viable possibilities before dealing with a demon or devil. Such an act would still violate the code, but not so much as to cause the paladin to lose their abilities, since it is a last resort. Rather than losing their abilities, the paladin would have that (non-mechanical) sick feeling in the pit of their stomach of knowing they did wrong, and might act in ways to try to atone for the sin anyway.
To the second, you are still making a deal, regardless with whom you are dealing. When making a deal, the paladin adheres to both the letter and the spirit of the agreement - that is part of the essence of being a paladin. In gameplay, it would mean that the paladin cannot weave exploitable loopholes into the deal intentionally - if loopholes are realized in the process, the paladin must make the other party or parties involved aware of the loopholes. To do otherwise would be dishonest and grossly against the code. If, however, an outside influence (such as environment or another entity) were to change the circumstances surrounding the deal after it was made, then the sneaky paladin archetype can begin work. Not before.
That's my 2 cp.
When I think of a paladin, I am reminded of Sir Galahad. Remember, paladins are *holy warriors*, not simply really lawful and good fighters. A holy warrior should view the world in a very black and white kind of way-- there is a reason the prestige class for the paladin many of you have described is called a "Gray Guard". Paladins are unyielding because they have the belief that their god's way (and their gods actually DO speak to them and give them powers) is right.
I agree that Roy is an excellent example of LG. But he would not be a paladin because I doubt he would see wisdom in constraining his actions before he even knows what actions he might need to do the right thing.
What? I neither think that accurately describes the character, nor the way a paladin would act.
When I think of a paladin, I am reminded of Sir Galahad. Remember, paladins are *holy warriors*, not simply really lawful and good fighters. A holy warrior should view the world in a very black and white kind of way-- there is a reason the prestige class for the paladin many of you have described is called a "Gray Guard". Paladins are unyielding because they have the belief that their god's way (and their gods actually DO speak to them and give them powers) is right.
D&D is already black and white. Evil is evil. Good is good. Emphasizing that even more than it already is leaves me feeling that the paladins are backing themselves into a corner and, overall, hurting their effectiveness to do good in the world. It's starting to sound like the Knights of Solamnia, who were known for being rediculously stubborn and black and white in their view, and it bit them in the ass more than once. They made bad calls and choices.
I could be failing to interpret your meaning correct (sorry if that's the case), but to me, "black and white" is the type of mentality that says, "There is a demon possessing someone in this town. (For whatever reason,) I have no means to find said demon precisely. But it must be destroyed. Thus, I will burn down the town." That's what "black and white" means to me.
Can a paladin be angry? Can a paladin feel rage? Can a paladin feel hatred? Yes. Paladins are human (or dwarf or gnome or elf or whatever); they still have emotions. A paladin can very well feel those things when facing down a demon, or a devil, or a mass murdering child-raper. Does feeling hatred towards such a being make one less pure? No. They are deserving of scorn and hatred; it would be nearly unthinkable to not feel that way because of what they do.
Moreover, their players have emotions, too. I think too much emphasis on the "Holy, Holy, Holy!" can make paladins near unplayable because it just seems to make them too emotionally remote and distant for many people to get into them. They become stiff, and all alike.
Not to mention, it can be difficult (unnecessarily and unentertainingly so) to reconcile that in a game where the standard operating procedure is to kick in the door, kill everything that moves, and take their stuff. Certainly you can alter a game from this archetype to suit a paladin more "faithfully," but the other players may not like that (and the paladin player may not even like that). Why make it so that the other players always have to bend around the paladin? Where's the fun and entertainment in that (which is usually the point of D&D)? If another player was being so needy and attention hungry, the DM might take him aside and work with him on that. But because they percieve that as being built into the paladin, it's just something that people are supposed to put up with?
I'm not saying that a paladin should ignore the Code. I'm saying that "LG + Code" (as in, they act like any other LG character, but within the additional restrictions of the Code; i.e., not lying or using poison) is all that's required for a paladin. Not being "Saint Super Cop, Above Human Weakness in All Ways." St. Super Cop gets boring to play real fast. St. Super Cop messes with the rest of the campaign. St. Super Cop isn't attainable, so every paladin would fall eventually.
Part of Goodness is forgiveness and acceptance. If a player is truly playing LG, then they shouldn't have to really put in any more effort whether they're playing a rogue or a paladin. Sure, the rogue can compromise his morals in a tough spot and nothing mechanically happens to him, unlike a paladin. But to me, that's saying, "Hey, look, I can be weak willed anytime it's an advantage!" Hardly something to be considered a boon or good roleplaying, unless you decide to make that a character trait.
Am I even being coherent, or am I rambling beyond comprehension?
EDIT- To condense, I think we're all actually on the same page here re: the STAP scenario when teaming with Orcus. A paladin can legally do it, but only under extreme duress and after expending every other option. I agree with that, and it seems everyone else does to.
When it comes to devils, if one is forced to work with them, I don't see exploiting a loophole against them as outside of the Code. You're dealing with a cosmic personification of Evil, which will destroy you if it gets half a chance. However, you and it both have a tool in common, a tool you both know how to use. If it leaves itself open to an "attack" from that angle, then it's simply common sense and self-preservation to exploit that (just as you would a weakness in whatever armor a foe might be wearing; is it more "honorable" to attack the strongest part of a breastplate, or just dumb?).
Am I even being coherent, or am I rambling beyond comprehension?
Maybe rambling just a bit, but some of your points are well-merited, I think. So are some of the others here. I think the bottom line is that you need to adjudicate based on the group of people playing, and the campaign in progress. What's "cool" and "edgy" and works well for one group might seem a gross violation to another set of players. Because there are no strict mechanics for a paladin's code (thankfully, from my viewpoint), that leaves the details up to the individual players and DMs to hash out. Some people are uncomfortable with this type of ambiguity (as is evidenced by the number of "paladin code" and "alignment system" threads floating around). Those people might want a stricter rule for these things, but for others (like my group), the lack of a solid mechanic makes for an interesting game--you can kind of feel things out and see how they go as you play. That doesn't mean anything goes for paladins--it just means that their code sort of evolves and coalesces as the campaign does.
I've posted this before on other paladin threads, but I see paladins as espousing their deity's beliefs in their attitudes. Paladins don't end up as the archetypal example of the "smite evil" paladin. The paladin that follows the goddess of home and hearth will have a far different view and outlook on life than the paladin that follows the god of justice, or the one that follows the goddess of love (it can happen...I've played one).
Now keep in mind I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play their paladin, I'm just stating that these are my views on the subject. :)
RE: Paladin
Just throwing some gunpowder on the golem here,
If a party has a paladin, and the party also has a rogue who is known to Cheat, Lie, and Steal does that mean the party will turn against one another, and the campaign is doomed from the gate?
Or is it possible to spin this (through role-play?) to allow a campaign in which a party has both a rogue and a paladin.
Note: the rogue is not Evil, lets say he is Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Good even.
Opinons?
You're dealing with a cosmic personification of Evil, which will destroy you if it gets half a chance. However, you and it both have a tool in common, a tool you both know how to use. If it leaves itself open to an "attack" from that angle, then it's simply common sense and self-preservation to exploit that (just as you would a weakness in whatever armor a foe might be wearing; is it more "honorable" to attack the strongest part of a breastplate, or just dumb?).
If a clever paladin can turn a devils trap against it then I see no problem, you're armor analogy makes sense (can't tell if I'm renigging here but, oh well). But the paladin cannot create those loopholes himself without violating the code. It seems very dishonorable to replace your foes armor with paper mache the day before your duel. If the Devil is the one laying down the rules, then the paladin is free to play the game like a master politician (so long as he does not violate the code as he does so), but this scenario seems uber unlikely for a variety of reasons.
1. Paladins do not want to play word games with evil outsiders, even if you deem their "encounter" as not technically associating, a paladin would probably understand that the devil is evil and any deal will likely screw him over, making him not want to make any deals. (In fact that thought would probably occur to many characters, even evil ones.)
2. Paladins do not have to be morons. Devils spend a lot of time gaining power through shifty deals, Paladins should understand this. Thus most paladins (again, most any character with a decent wisdom score) would not value their chances of success too highly in such deals and would avoid them. If I was forced to win a game of chess agianst Big Blue or be killed, I would sure as hell try to find a way to avoid playing that game.
3. What fun is it to play the holy smiter of darkness if you keep getting manhandled and backed into corners by your mortal enemies and forced to do as they ask? Does not seem like a fun campaign for a paladin to me.
The code is not a straight jacket. You can have quirky, fun loving, jokester paladins all you want. The code never states "thou shalt follow the code and do nothing else". I don't see what is so limiting about the code. It isn't an obstacle your character has to overcome in every situation, it should be a part of your characters identity and something you want to adhere to. A paladins alignment is lawful good, not super lawful extra good and the code does not change that. But you have to be lawful, good AND follow the code to be a paladin.
Roy could not be a paladin. If he was then the code would mandate that he do something about Belkar beyond occassionally stopping him from murdering something (actually "common sense" would mandate this anyway but lets hope Rich never decides to poison his fine work with any of that garbage).
RE: Paladin
Just throwing some gunpowder on the golem here,
If a party has a paladin, and the party also has a rogue who is known to Cheat, Lie, and Steal does that mean the party will turn against one another, and the campaign is doomed from the gate?
Or is it possible to spin this (through role-play?) to allow a campaign in which a party has both a rogue and a paladin.
Note: the rogue is not Evil, lets say he is Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Good even.
Opinons?
Not at all. However for this to work out and be fun for everyone I think it might be a good idea for the paladin and rogue's players to have a chat about what to expect when the paladin catches the rogue breaking the law.
The code says "respecting legitimate authority" not "acting as sherrif of wherever you're at". The paladin does not have to turn a friend in for commiting a crime, although some paladins (and many friends) might feel that a few nights in jail might keep them from hanging from the gallows later.
Any paladin I played would lead by example, not by shackling everyone else to his moral standards. Also any paladin aware of his sneaky compatriots activities would tell them up front that he WILL NOT lie for his friend should the law catch up to him. He would also try his hardest to curb and eventually erradicate the rogues more self destructive tendacies in whatever fashion he thinks might have a chance of success. Not because of the code but because he is concerned for a friend.
D&D is already black and white. Evil is evil. Good is good.
Bah, it ate my first post.
An Arthurian legend tells of a knight who was given a choice: commit a mortal sin or allow some maidens to die. That knight chose to let the maidens (who later turned out to be evil and in on a ruse to make the knight fall from grace) die, since if they were virtuous they would go to heaven, but if he sinned intentionally his soul would be in danger and he would lose God's favor.
It is very easy to rationalize committing the sin as being the "greater good", but that kind of moral flexibility is not what makes a holy warrior. That is not a paladin. That is a fighter who is also a nice guy.
The challenge in roleplaying a paladin is that you must adhere to certain principles *no matter the cost*. If stealing is wrong, you cannot steal *even if it means that you starve* because staying in your god's favor is more important than living. Most people cannot understand the mindset that a paladin has, so they either rationalize away the unique flavor of the class with moral ambiguity, or they criticize it as "too restrictive".
Paladins are a special, deep, and challenging class to play well. They often do not make friends easily or at all because the vast majority of people in the world are not holy. They might all be nice folk, but they are not single-mindedly devoted to upholding a deity's will.
All right, the original questions seem to have lead to a consensus; I find myself in complete agreement with Sexi at last. However, there is one more thing I'd like to tackle.
I sure hope priests of Hieroneous are forced to consider their alignment, behavior, and actions as much as any paladin. I see all this talk about paladins being so difficult to play, but it just occured to my mind (because I've seen it mentioned on the boards before) that a priest of a LG deity should be held to the exact same standards (or, a paladin should be held to the same standards as a priest of a LG deity, which isn't always the same from the outset). Just becaue a cleric of Hieroneous doesn't have the "Code" written into their class doesn't mean that their god wouldn't insist they act the same way.
My opinion on the situation, and I'm going to hazard a guess that most people feel this way already, is that either priests of such gods should be held to the same standards as a paladin or, if those gods have lower standards than this "archetypical paladinhood," the paladins in that game should be held to the lower standards of the priests. In either regard, they should be equal. I can't really concieve of a cleric devoted to a deity with any less conviction than a paladin to his ideas (in many situations I might say a priest should have even more, but that isn't universal).
Just another 2cp from me.
Oh, and Kirth/Rothaeril hit the nail on the head, and Sexi did a good job on explaining the "paladin/rogue" query I think. Friendship counts heavily in the equation.
I'm a bit late but I hope you don't mind me continuing the discussion a little, in response to some interesting points.
The challenge in roleplaying a paladin is that you must adhere to certain principles *no matter the cost*. If stealing is wrong, you cannot steal *even if it means that you starve* because staying in your god's favor is more important than living. Most people cannot understand the mindset that a paladin has, so they either rationalize away the unique flavor of the class with moral ambiguity, or they criticize it as "too restrictive".
Paladins are a special, deep, and challenging class to play well. They often do not make friends easily or at all because the vast majority of people in the world are not holy. They might all be nice folk, but they are not single-mindedly devoted to upholding a deity's will.
This is pretty much exactly how I imagine a paladin. When Saern used the Knights of Solamnia before as an example of black and white and why it wasn't paladin-like, I thought "but that's what I thought paladins are supposed to be like."
Most people accept that characters have to have flaws to be interesting, but it seems that in the case of paladins many people take an acceptable flaw to be that the paladin doesn't live up to the spirit and letter of paladinhood all of the time. I would say that the primary flaw of a paladin is usually that they DO. As Azhrei said, Paladins are holy warriors and most other people aren't. That makes them kind of wierd and inhuman by normal people's standards. To me, and this is my opinion only, the paladin class is best for people who want to play a dogmatic, strong-willed and yes, saintly warrior. A saint who delivers justice to evil doers. Doesn't sound like the sort of bloke you'd want to have a beer with does it? :)
Anything less than that may as well be a LG fighter.
I sure hope priests of Hieroneous are forced to consider their alignment, behavior, and actions as much as any paladin. I see all this talk about paladins being so difficult to play, but it just occured to my mind (because I've seen it mentioned on the boards before) that a priest of a LG deity should be held to the exact same standards (or, a paladin should be held to the same standards as a priest of a LG deity, which isn't always the same from the outset). Just becaue a cleric of Hieroneous doesn't have the "Code" written into their class doesn't mean that their god wouldn't insist they act the same way.
I reckon all clerics should be held to the same standards as paladins, just in different areas. A CG cleric should be just as difficult to play morally as a paladin. The fact that they aren't is a flaw in the rules. For consistency I'd say either constrain the cleric or remove the crunch effects of the Paladin's Code. Constraining the cleric is probably better as they get it easy anyway, and removing the game effects of the Code just destroys the paladin as a class.
Well, it's also just my opinion, but unflinching rigidity to a fault, refusing the see the world in anything but a narrow spectrum of black and white, and aloofness (esecially due to feelings of supposed sanctity) don't count as "saintly" traits in my book, nor does anyone who acts like that deserve the title of "saint." Try "blind pompous ass."
In my view, someone who is truly "holy," no matter what god or force they bow or pray to, if any at all, must be able to laugh and love and be close to those around him. They must be intimate, not distant.
But I guess it's all just matters of opinion and even semantics.
When it comes down to it, the Paladin's Code has to be adapted to the game at hand. Just like every other rule.
If nothing else, this thread displays that. And I believe everyone reading this thread can agree on that.
Disregard the following. I finally noticed what Saern was addressing.
It is left in case anyone is reading / responding to it as I edit.
However, Saern, I need to ask:
"Where is it written that a Paladin has to be saintly?"
If that were the case, then the Book of Exalted Deeds should be renamed the Paladin's Handbook.
It may be a fine line, but there is a difference between being a Paladin and being a saint. As Warriors, Paladins don't normally have the luxury of being saints.
But that is my take on it...
(And for the record, I'd side with Sexi in his interpretations more than Saern.)
It certainly seems that of all the classes, the Paladin places the most constraints on character personality...at least it does if all you see is that alignment and code.
Every other class leaves you quite a bit of latitude. But for me it comes to background and how it's shaped the character.
Here's how I ran one...
The resulting paladin struggled with his past, with his darker impulses always. It also reinforced his mercy towards the neutral (or was it chaotic neutral) rogue.
On their first encounter the rogue stereo-typed the paladin from one comment and unloaded on him with some comments that unknowingly cut directly at the paladin's specific past.
I decided that the paladin would not let himself take any action against the rogue's more dubious ways, until he had satisfied himself that he was not doing so out of anger for the wounding comments.
Soon after he more or less committed himself to seeing the rogue to redemption. While neither gave ground on their essentials, they eventually got along better with each other than with other members of the party...based solely on understanding each other. It probably helped that the rogue was being hunted by an organization that the paladin was oathbound to oppose...but there you go.
Otherwise, Because of the RP constraints, and for the purposes of playing in your average polytheistic D&D campaign...I think the Paladin's Code should really fit the Paladin's god. Coming as close to the god's playbook as mortally possible.
I think an important thing to remember is the difference between the classes in the game and the real world organizations from which they are drawn. In the objective world of D&D the church of Pelor could not go around performing "inquisitions" and killing non believers. Even though plently of tradgedies are commited in the name of benevolent gods in the real world, it doesn't seem right in D&D.
D&D, while having a clearly middle ages theme, is usually held to a more modern standard of morals. I'm sure that any female PC would get pretty annoyed when her character was jailed for speaking at a public meeting without permission from a male, or having the local regent come down to "deflower" her to consecrate her wedding day. They were called the dark ages for a reason.
While the knights templar and papal warriors might be the inspiration behind the paladins class, I don't think their attitudes and actions are a good example of benevolent behavior. The paladin is a holy warrior by the games definition. Making them a holy warrior by the historical definition is likely to cause lots and lots of pain and frustration for an entire party.
I think an important thing to remember is the difference between the classes in the game and the real world organizations from which they are drawn. In the objective world of D&D the church of Pelor could not go around performing "inquisitions" and killing non believers. Even though plently of tradgedies are commited in the name of benevolent gods in the real world, it doesn't seem right in D&D.
D&D, while having a clearly middle ages theme, is usually held to a more modern standard of morals. I'm sure that any female PC would get pretty annoyed when her character was jailed for speaking at a public meeting without permission from a male, or having the local regent come down to "deflower" her to consecrate her wedding day. They were called the dark ages for a reason.
While the knights templar and papal warriors might be the inspiration behind the paladins class, I don't think their attitudes and actions are a good example of benevolent behavior. The paladin is a holy warrior by the games definition. Making them a holy warrior by the historical definition is likely to cause lots and lots of pain and frustration for an entire party.
We are in 100% agreement now. :)
|
The best paladin I have ever DM'ed was in a campaign about ten years ago.
Butter would not melt in the mouth of the PC or the player for that matter.
The party looked up to this "Sir" as a leader. Once they approached a possibly corrupt town only to be arrested at the gates by the town militia. Throughout the entire discussion of why they were being arrested and why they had to hand over their weapons, everyone was watching the Paladin player for a sign. One word. A nod. Anything. But no he just gave up all his weapons and so they all followed suit.
Later that same day he was taken into a torture chamber and met his evil nemesis and a lot of very hot tools. The moment he saw the bad guy, the paladin exploded into action. The player reasoned his paladin had the proof that the laws were illegitimate, even though everyone had guessed that was the case before.
The priceless moment was when the "naive" paladin found the party and "told" that the town militia could not be trusted.
Great roleplaying.
Cheers
D&D, while having a clearly middle ages theme, is usually held to a more modern standard of morals. I'm sure that any female PC would get pretty annoyed when her character was jailed for speaking at a public meeting without permission from a male, or having the local regent come down to "deflower" her to consecrate her wedding day. They were called the dark ages for a reason.
Yet, not for those reasons.
Pelor wouldn't have an Inquisition because that is not a Lawful Good action. The Knights Templar, while being historical, were not exactly Lawful Good either. In fact, if you want to bring history into this (and you are the first), then I'd make the argument that all major religions show strong evidence of being Lawful Evil-- at best. Historical figures have nothing, nothing to do with the inspiration for the paladin unless you start to count figures like Joan of Arc or other warrior-saints.
However, the holy warrior of whom I speak is not a real person, and never has been. I spoke of Sir Galahad
Using your Pelor example, if Pelor teaches that ALL undead are to be destroyed, a Lawful Good fighter might stumble upon a Chaotic Good mummy and let it go because it's not evil. A paladin (or cleric) of Pelor would not. The paladin would say "My god tells me to destroy all undead, therefore I will destroy this mummy."
I stand firm that allowing players to make the paladin a moral relativist cheapens the class into a Lawful Good fighter/cleric of a Neutral Good god. It's an easy way out that hinders roleplaying and treats the character less like a real person who has given themselves over to an ideal and more like a person who wants special abilities and to play lip service to an ideal-- which may be the whole point you're working toward.
A paladin working alongside someone who is a known thief should be a fighter in a hurry, no matter how much they try to rationalize the fact that they are not living up to their ideals.
That being said, I don't like paladins for specifically the reason that if one person is a paladin and a competent roleplayer, you really need to have a divinely-themed party. Which can be a fun thing in and of itself, of course.
It's an interesting point about the mummy, except that the core game assumes there are no CG mummies. Ever. Anywhere. It's already been hashed out in the "Ethical Question" thread: Undead = Evil. Objective, nasty Evil. Maybe I'm missing the point.
I continue to fail to see why in the world some people feel paladins should be held to impossible standards. And yes, unless everyone is willing to play LN/LG/NG divine oriented or "exalted" characters, or your okay with someone having to sacrifice their fun, they are impossible.
What really confounds me is when people read into paladins that they are stiff to a fault, and then say they don't like them for that reason. They are interpretting paladins that way, and it's only one of many, many interpretations. If said people don't like it or think it makes paladins nigh unplayable (and they would be correct), then change the interpretation. That doesn't require sacrificing the LG/Code aspect, but simply a reinvisioning of it. The only problem with the class is their perception of it.
Why in the world would the game designers include an option in the Core Rules that was so difficult to grapple with that the majority of players couldn't handle it?
Sorry if I came off sounding a little hot under the collar; no offense intended to anyone.
Using your Pelor example, if Pelor teaches that ALL undead are to be destroyed, a Lawful Good fighter might stumble upon a Chaotic Good mummy and let it go because it's not evil. A paladin (or cleric) of Pelor would not. The paladin would say "My god tells me to destroy all undead, therefore I will destroy this mummy."
If their was a chaotic good mummy and a paladin I played found it, destroying it would be important but not the first job on my list.
The first thing to do is to find out what the mummy is there to protect. Whatever the job the mummy was given I'll try to take on the job myself if possible or get the church or some other trustworthy organization to handle it. Once I've eliminated the reason for the mummy to persist I would release it's soul to its final rest out of mercy.
These actions don't violate the code, and are definately in keeping with the LG alignment. To me that is what a paladin is about, I like the roleplaying and I definately don't feel it cheapens the class.
Paladins existed in the real world and were led by myopic and corrupt churches. The stereotypical "stick up the ass, kill anything the law or code tell me too, and everyone else are cowards or evil doers" paladins reek of the same pompous zealotry that made those historic "honored" knights the driving force of many atrocities. That was why I mentioned the historic holy knight. The paladin is a lot like them, except I expect paladins to actually BE good, not just say they are and kill anything they think isn't.
The stereotypical "stick up the ass, kill anything the law or code tell me too, and everyone else are cowards or evil doers" paladins reek of the same pompous zealotry that made those historic "honored" knights the driving force of many atrocities. That was why I mentioned the historic holy knight. The paladin is a lot like them, except I expect paladins to actually BE good, not just say they are and kill anything they think isn't.
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.
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.
I know nothing about sir Galahad. Which is why I was not talking about him, I know scattered facts about real medieval holy knights and was trying to draw parallels between their behavior and some traits that many people assosciate with D&D paladins. Such as the narrow minded-ness and zealotry. If Galahad was where the true holy knight idea came from, then cool thats fine, but when I see a thread compaining about a paladin PC that developes a god complex and forces the party and NPC's to constantly adhere to his standards I am reminded of real papal knights and crusaders (which I agree are certainly not the LG organizationes they claimed to be). This is why I brought them up.
I'm sorry if my literary ignorance offended you but, again I was not pretending to know who he is or comment on his behavior (in fact none of my posts even mention him). Also I probably wouldn't give a damn about him or his example of paladinhood anyway. I would not look to real Xaolin monks to determin what the ideal of a D&D monk is either, I'd go with whatever sounds like the most fun to play within the rules and guidlines of the class. If paladin-lite is the only way to make the class playable and enjoyable outside of a LG party of divine casters then so be it. But I don't see how I'm bending the rules at all in my interpretation of the paladins code and alignment. I probably falls way short of Arthurs knights and their code but I don't see anything in the game itself that forces paladins into that small a corner.
The Paladin is certainly one of the most interesting things in D&D I think, I never get tired of discussing them...
One useful point I think is that Paladins are not a historical archetype in any way, they are a mythical archetype like the wizard or sorceror. So the choice when playing a Paladin is not between playing a realistic Knight Templar or a rules-bending Paladin lite, but between the Paladin lite and the archetype of the holy knight. Between these two it seems clear (to me at least) that the rules intend for the paladin to be a holy knight archetype like Galahad. He was nice, happy, virtuous and merciful but also a warrior. If the Paladin was intended to be the modern-style Paladin lite then why the combo of LG and the strict Code? Why not just the Code, and any good alignment? or just LG?
This is why I feel wierd about Paladins. I just don't know how I'm meant to take them. I'm conflicted about them. It's always been made clear according to the rules in every edition that a Paladin in the party messes with everybody else's choices. Take that away and they aren't a Paladin. The thing that makes a character in fiction or a game a holy knight is that they have ridiculously high standards. How do you be merciless AND forgiving? LG AND relaxed about bending the rules? No real person can, so either the Paladin is a cartoon of a holy knight or he isn't a Paladin. But I don't want to remove them from the game because that's like D&D without longswords or Dragons.
Something else to think about too, can someone choose to be a a Paladin, or are they more like Favoured Souls? Can you learn how to use a sword, practice being nice, and then one day a fancy horse just rides up to you? Or does each deity specifically call people to be Paladins, maybe even against their will, and thus control who is and isn't a Paladin and how many there are? Do you decide to be one or are you chosen? If you decide, it doesn't seem that special. If you are called, then that makes it easier I think to imagine a Paladin's mindset: They have incontrovertible evidence that their deity wants them to act like, well, a Paladin at all times. I think it's very important when making sense of the Paladin to know which one is the case in your world. If the choice is with the person, then the world probably has Paladin lites. It's just another choice of character class. If it's with the deity then it's Sir Galahads or nothing, as no-one else will be able to keep Paladinhood. I like the latter as I think if you are going to have Paladins they should be special.
Saern, before you asked what would be the point of a set of rules so hard that all Paladins eventually fall? I think that's exactly the point; You don't decide not to be good because it's too hard, or even impossible. A good person does the right thing anyway even if they know they'll (probably) eventually fail.
As I'm am in the middle of my 5th attempt to read Tolkien (and I'm really enjoying it this time, so I think I'm going to do it), an analogy came to my mind. Paladins in D&D can be like Sir Galahad. But they don't have to be. Just like you can try to play an elf like the ones Tolkien described. But you don't have to. Just like you can try to play a wizard like Merlin or some other mythical figure. But you don't have to. There's room enough for both (or rather, all) in one game of D&D, just like there's room for them in the real world.
Those who have said that a paladin must model their deity are in line with my thinking. Those who say a paladin is likely to be different in each setting/with each group are in line with my thinking. There are my opinions on the matter.
Except for one more: Kahoolin, are you saying that a paladin does good knowing that they will probably fail at some point, with failure meaning "to do The Right Thing," or failure meaning "to follow the Code?"
If they're going to fail to do The Right Thing because they follow the Code... then the Code was wrong. The Code made them do The Wrong Thing. Paladins, priests, and gods themselves would most likely see a problem with this and revise the Code so that one could do both The Right Thing and follow the Code, since the Code is an means to the ends of doing The Right Thing.
If they're going to fail to uphold the Code because they choose to do The Right Thing, and that's outside the Code... then the above still applies. Either way, the Code is flawed and that doesn't jive with the lore of the paladins. A paladin may have to choose between doing Law and doing Good, but that doesn't mean he has to choose whether or not to break the Code or uphold it. There can be situations where such a delimma arises, but it shouldn't be like some type of mandatory right of passage for paladins, to have to choose between the Code and The Right Thing.
Unless I completely misunderstood you. In that case, sorry.
If they're going to fail to do The Right Thing because they follow the Code... then the Code was wrong.
I think this is the core misconception. For a paladin to say that his code is in error, that is tantamount to saying that his GOD is in error. You just can't do that and expect to be believably portraying a holy character.
D&D gods have some advantages over real world ones, specifically in that there is zero debate over whether or not they actually exist. D&D gods are real beings that give you magic powers-- do you really think that someone is going to say "Well heck, Heironeous, I disagree with what you consider to be the right thing to do here," and still keep the blessing of that god?
Saying "My code is wrong" is exactly the sort of independent thought that has no place in religions. A paladin has, in no small way, surrendered some of his free will to his god. "The Right Thing", as you say, is not going to ever be "The Right Thing as I see it," but will always have to be "The Right Thing as my deity sees it."
This doesn't mean you get to go around detecting evil and then smiting random folks in the street, but it does mean that you may have to take a hard stand on things that you, as a player, don't agree with.
That's exactly my point. The Code shouldn't cause a paladin to have to choose between The Right Thing and the Code, or doubt is going to start creeping in, which is a no-no.
I suppose I have two fundamental views that might differ between myself and others. First, I don't consider the Code to be divine law, nor have I ever seen anything in any supplement or rule book indicating such a thing. That doesn't mean that paladins are less beholden to it, but it does allow some room for change. Even the most lawfully devout (yet good) king might realize that the laws occassionally need modification. Refusal to admit this certainly isn't good- that's veering towards Lawful Neutral, and taken too far can even become Lawful Evil.
Secondly, I've always interpreted paladins as doing Good through Law. Good is the end, Law is the means, the tool, the path. Thus, Good is the ultimate objective. That doesn't mean that Law can occaissionally be disregarded when it interferes with Good, but Laws can be changed to reconcile discrepencies.
At any rate, the longer I think about the whole issue, the less feasible and logical the entire premise becomes. It seems that you are either going to come down on someone who is dedicated to Good, and will thus choose to go against Law in some cases (which isn't a paladin), or you are going to be more dedicated to Law and go against Good in some cases (which isn't a paladin). So, I suppose paladins would simply freeze up and mutter "Error... Error... Does not compute... Error..." when they have to make such a choice.
That's exactly my point. The Code shouldn't cause a paladin to have to choose between The Right Thing and the Code, or doubt is going to start creeping in, which is a no-no.
I suppose I have two fundamental views that might differ between myself and others. First, I don't consider the Code to be divine law,
This is where you run into trouble. The Code is the "Lawful" part, and since it is a directive from a Good god, the Code IS Good. It is ALWAYS the Right Thing because that is what his god says is the Right Thing. A paladin doesn't get to make his own judgments and then hope it makes Pelor happy; he has to ask himself what Pelor's would want and then do that.
When playing a divine character, you have to remember that moral judgments aren't made according to what you, the player, believes, but according to what your character, as someone whose prayers are *actually answered by an inarguably real divine being in whose good graces he wants to stay*, would believe.
That's exactly my point. The Code shouldn't cause a paladin to have to choose between The Right Thing and the Code, or doubt is going to start creeping in, which is a no-no.
I suppose I have two fundamental views that might differ between myself and others. First, I don't consider the Code to be divine law,
This is where you run into trouble. The Code is the "Lawful" part, and since it is a directive from a Good god, the Code IS Good. It is ALWAYS the Right Thing because that is what his god says is the Right Thing. A paladin doesn't get to make his own judgments and then hope it makes Pelor happy; he has to ask himself what Pelor's would want and then do that.
When playing a divine character, you have to remember that moral judgments aren't made according to what you, the player, believes, but according to what your character, as someone whose prayers are *actually answered by an inarguably real divine being in whose good graces he wants to stay*, would believe.
But the Code is not the views of the Paladin's deity. Sure several portions of the Code are part of other deities desires, but there are also parts that do not that diety seems to care about (Pelor wants you to help those in need, but wouldn't seem to care if you lie).
I believe that for each diety there are cases that if the Paladin where to truthfully ask what thier diety would want the answer would conflict with the Code unless that diety specifically believes in the Code.
Except for one more: Kahoolin, are you saying that a paladin does good knowing that they will probably fail at some point, with failure meaning "to do The Right Thing," or failure meaning "to follow the Code?"
If they're going to fail to do The Right Thing because they follow the Code... then the Code was wrong. The Code made them do The Wrong Thing. Paladins, priests, and gods themselves would most likely see a problem with this and revise the Code so that one could do both The Right Thing and follow the Code, since the Code is an means to the ends of doing The Right Thing.
If they're going to fail to uphold the Code because they choose to do The Right Thing, and that's outside the Code... then the above still applies. Either way, the Code is flawed and that doesn't jive with the lore of the paladins. A paladin may have to choose between doing Law and doing Good, but that doesn't mean he has to choose whether or not to break the Code or uphold it. There can be situations where such a delimma arises, but it shouldn't be like some type of mandatory right of passage for paladins, to have to choose between the Code and The Right Thing.
Unless I completely misunderstood you. In that case, sorry.
I usually don't know exactly what I mean myself until someone responds, so thanks for that!
I think what I mean is similar to what Azhrei said. The Code cannot be The Wrong Thing in the eyes of a Paladin PC, ever, because it was laid down by a Good god. People can decide that they think it's wrong, but no-one who thinks the Code is wrong can be a Paladin.
That's what sucks about being a Paladin, and that's also where their power comes from. Paladins of different deities and cultures can be very different from each other, but the one thing they all have in common is that they are committed to the Code above all things.
I think of it like this: A Paladin is expected to die before they break the Code, in even a minor way. If they can't do that then they Fall. I may be wrong, but you seem to have the idea that a good god wouldn't expect this of his followers, and you're right, they wouldn't. But they DO expect it of their Paladins. That's what a Paladin is; a warrior who trusts in his or her god so implicitly that they will follow the Code until death, never thinking "hey, maybe Pelor doesn't want me to follow the Code or die trying, maybe he just wants me to do the best I can until it becomes dangerous and then give up." But that's what a normal follower of Pelor does. The Paladin is the last line of defence, the person who is never allowed to relax their principles and never give up even if it kills them. That's their job, they are like a samurai and their deity is their liege lord. They are there for the ultimate purpose of dying in battle against evil. All of that doesn't mean they are stupid of course, but it does mean if it comes down to "bow to Evil" or "die," a Paladin is expected to choose death. They are a warrior, after all - If they don't want to get hot they should stay out of the kitchen. If they choose to bow to Evil, Pelor or whoever may forgive them later, but they will Fall at least for a time.
And if it comes down to "Do the Right Thing" or "Follow the Code", anyone who thinks that following the Code is NOT doing the Right Thing for whatever reason is no longer a Paladin, at least temporarily. I mean it can be hard to interpret the Code, sure, but I think it's unfair of the DM to create a situation where the Paladin's Code is the Wrong Thing To Do in black and white D&D terms. Paladin PCs should never Fall for following the Code in my opinion, unless they are like Miko Miyazaki and are clearly violating it's spirit.
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. However, it may also be completely irrelevant where the Code comes from- it's semantics at this point.
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.
Let's look back at that part about ex-paladins: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (PHB 44)."
Seems to be pretty clear evidence that the PHB intends for paladins to have some of that steel-like flexibility. Seems that the forgiveness that is part of good hasn't been overlooked, even for paladins (aqs opposed to coming from paladins). Hell, they can even commit a chaotic act, by the book, and not Fall unless it's enough to change their alignment from LG to something else.
EDIT- And I wasn't trying to imply that there are paladins and priests walking around doubting The Code, or thinking that it could make them do The Wrong Thing. However, refusing to analyze The Code is simply blind fanaticism. That's not strength. That's insanity.
Thus, it woul be more likely that a paladin would think as such:
"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. Therefore, the Code has to approve of this action; either the ancient scribes who recorded the Code failed to think of this specific circumstance, which is hardly their fault; or, it is expected of me to be wise enough to figure this out on my own and it therefore has no need to be stated in the Code."
Or something like that- the end result is flexibility without doubt, the possession of which in paladins I never meant to convey.
Well the code has to be more than simply a set of rules since violating the code results in a loss of paladin abilities. Of course, the question is whether it is the paladin's belief in his code that results in his loss of powers or the wrath of his god? The rules aren't clear either way.
There is no clear solution to this debate. Everyone on this thread is intelligent enough to back their viewpoint with reasonable arguments and historical or literary assertions, so who is to be believed? Does it really matter? I think the argument should be less about who is right and more about how paladins can be roleplayed effectively. It really starts with the DM and how he views the paladins code in his campaign world. In my Ice Age campaign the world is a dark and evil place. Paladins are forced by circumstance to treat with evil creatures on a daily basis, but can only associate with evil creatures for any length of time if the evil creatures in question are actively and truthfully seeking to redeem their evil ways. They know they just can't go around smiting every evil thing in sight, and any paladin who does so is quick to meet his maker. I also have different types of paladins depending on what gods they worship. They all still have to follow a code but their interests and tactics are different.
The above is the way I treat paladins in my world and I explain this to my players (with varying degrees of success). It's not necessarily right, but since I'm running the show it's the only way it can really work. Otherwise, things just don't make any sense. My players have to base their views (and paladin characters) on what I have already built.
Paladins are hard to play because of everything that has already been mentioned. No one is quite sure how their take on paladins will be looked at by other players or the DM, and that's not even taking into account the attitude, emotional state, personality, or moral compass of the person playing the paladin. No wonder the pladin's code causes such confusion.
In the end I think everyone is right (or at least not entirely wrong).
"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.
Meh, you can rationalize almost anything if you put it in the context of "the ends justify the means", which is effectively what you want to do here.
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 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.