I disagree. Clerics are the tools of the gods, not paladins.
Paladins are the knight in shining armor, the chivalric hero, whose strength is the strength of ten because his heart is pure. He adheres first to his code of honorable behavior; his alignment and his faith are consequences of the code, not the wellspring of it. He does not lie because it is ignoble to lie. He does not use poison because it is unheroic. He does not cheat or steal, for they are beneath his dignity. If his god wants him to hide and sneak like a craven wretch, he finds another faith, with a god worthy of his devotion and compatible with his honor.
|
Part of the problem is that Paladins have been gimped with the judeo-christian moral code. Now this is not a problem if you are playing a campaign based tightly on medieval Europe (like greyhawk or parts of teh Realms), but the further your campaign deviates from from this mold, the less sense Paladins make as written. For example, on a campaign I've been working on for a number of years, I intentionally used three different interpretations of LG to prove this point. According to the SRD,
"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.
and
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
That leaves you a lot of room to work within. here are two examples of non-traditional LG Paladins that may provide some of the flexibility that you desire. I've played with all three, and they were very popular with my groups.
Paladin of Astarte (LG goddess of healing, diplomacy & fertility) - Paladins of Astarte act primarily as diplomats or bodyguards for clerical diplomats, somewhat de-emphasizing their combat role. Astarte's faith breaks western sexual taboos, as all clergy and paladins are required to spend a portion of each year as sacred prostitutes. This policy has a long history in the classical world (the epic of Gilgamesh references such women - as do various other ancient sources). Any children born of such a coupling are considered gifts of the goddess. Any sexual relation between adults that is not forced is considered for the good - especially if children result. In fact, most clergy & paladins of Astrate are the result of such births and are raised by the temple itself.
Paladins of Hyperion (NG god of the sun, protection & goodness) - emphasize the negative aspects of law, and a "convenient" definition of goodness. Paladins of Hyperion KNOW that their faith is correct. The world must have law and goodness if it is to thrive. Those who refuse to see the truth of such a message must be convinced. If they have the temerity to resist such tutelage, they must be chastised. Paladins of Hyperion tend to behave arrogantly and very self-assured. If an attempt to preach to a town fails, but the Paladins are treated well, they likely move on. If however any violence or confrontation occurs, they will often return in greater numbers as they now see the settlement as a den of iniquity in need of cleansing. If the poor villagers attempt to stop their return with violence, they will feel justified in responding in kind, to the point of seizing control of the village and holding trials for those whose behavior does not meet their standards.These guys deviate the furthest from the Paladin norm, and some players never accept that they are in fact LG. But by examining the guidelines in the SRD, you'll see that they do meet the definition.
My point is, that many people assume that Paladins must act according to the 10 commandments or some similar western moral code. however, you can easily use social norms from different societies to make your paladins more unique. I drew upon my large knowledge of the ancient Mediterranean, but there is no reason that the Paladin's code can't be drawn from eastern philosophies or religions. Try to think outside the box and you'll see that you have a lot of options open to you.
The 'Ling
I would be deeply offended if the Paladin had to follow the ten commandments. The first four have to do with honoring a specific deity properly and Paladins aren't required to even have a deity. That being said:
Code of Conduct: Paladins
Nothing causes more arguments in-game than Paladins. Can Paladins kill baby kobolds? What about baby mind flayers? Honestly, while these questions have generated a lot of ink and a lot of bad feelings, they aren't important. Paladins are Lawful Good, but they aren't "champions of Law and Good" – that's an Archon. A Paladin doesn't get Smite Chaos, they aren't forced to abandon team members who behave in a Chaotic fashion (whatever that means). Paladins are Champions of Good™ and they are required to be Lawful. Whether or not that makes any sense depends on how you're handling Law and Chaos.
Paladins are as Good as any character can be, and they are required to follow a code of conduct. However, following this code is not what makes them Good, we know this because Clerics of Good (who detect as being just as Good as Paladins) don't have to follow that code. The code is completely arbitrary, and has no bearing on the relative Goodness of a character. Paladins also lose their powers if they don't drink for a few days, but that doesn't put Blackguards in danger of losing their alignment when they quaff a glass of water.
The Paladin's code is uncompromising, but it is also exhaustive about what it won't allow:
- The Use of Poison: If a park ranger hits a bear with a tranq dart, that's not an Evil act. Poison isn't any more or less Evil than a blade. Paladins can't use poison because they agreed not to – not because there's anything wrong with poison. Maybe Paladins only get to keep their magically enhanced immune system so long as they don't take it for granted by using things that would tax it on purpose. Maybe their concern for public safety is so great that they are only willing to use weapons that look like weapons. Whatever. The point is that Paladins have to be Good and they can't use Poison, and these are separate restrictions.
- Lies: A Paladin can't lie. Whether telling a lie is a good or evil act depends on what you're saying and who you are saying it to. But a Paladin won't do it. That means that if the Nazis come to the door and demand to know if the Paladin is hiding any Jews (she is), she can't glibly say "No." That does not mean that she has to say "Yes, they're right under the stairs!" – it means that she has to tell the Nazis point blank "I'm not going to participate in your genocidal campaign, it's wrong." This will start a fight, and may get everyone killed, so the Paladin is well within her code to eliminate the middle man and just stab the Gestapo right there before answering. That's harsh, but the Paladin's code isn't about doing what's easy, or even what's best. It's about doing what you said you were going to.
- Cheating: Paladin's don't cheat. They don't have to keep playing if they figure out that someone else is cheating, but they aren't allowed to cheat at dice to rescue slaves or whatever. Again, there's nothing Good about not cheating, it's just something they have to do in addition to being Good all the time.
- Association Restrictions: Paladins are not allowed to team up with Evil people. They aren't allowed to offer assistance to Evil people and they aren't allowed to receive assistance from Evil people. Intolerance of this sort isn't Evil, but it isn't Good either. It's just another thing that Paladins have to do.
This has to be repeated: Paladins don't get Smite Chaos. They are not champions of Law and Good, they are Champions of Good who are required to be Lawful. If your game is not using Word is Bond Ethics, Paladins have no reason to be Lawful. Paladins are only encouraged to follow the laws of the country they live in if those laws are Good. They are actually forbidden by their code of conduct from following the precepts of Evil nations. The Paladin shtick works equally well as a loner or a leader, and it is by definition distinctly disloyal. A Paladin must abandon compatriots if those compatriots don't live up to her personal standards.
-Frank
|
I disagree. Clerics are the tools of the gods, not paladins.
Paladins are the knight in shining armor, the chivalric hero, whose strength is the strength of ten because his heart is pure. He adheres first to his code of honorable behavior; his alignment and his faith are consequences of the code, not the wellspring of it. He does not lie because it is ignoble to lie. He does not use poison because it is unheroic. He does not cheat or steal, for they are beneath his dignity. If his god wants him to hide and sneak like a craven wretch, he finds another faith, with a god worthy of his devotion and compatible with his honor.
I understand this point of view, but I respectfully disagree.
I love the idea of the paladin code being "updated".
Clerics are tools of the gods- and to me, paladins are tools of ideals. An ideal is a "concept of perfection". There's nothing inherently good or pure about it.
The current concept of a paladin reminds me of 3e's restriction that only evil rangers could have their own race as a favored enemy. At a certain point, someone simply has to ask, "Why?"
The 3.5e PHB has an interesting line: "Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity- devotion to righteousness is enough."
If clerics are servants of their gods and represent their beliefs and agendas, for better and for worse, then paladins are crusaders for a cause, and a crusade, much like an ideal, isn't innately good or evil. A paladin crusades because they believe their cause is worthy and important, and that they're right- but as these boards neatly illustrate, right means something different to nearly everyone. :)
I would argue that the paladin class and concept is not truly built on being good. It is about them being lawful. I think paladins should retain their lawful requirement, but may be good, neutral, or evil. They are single-mindedly devoted to a cause, and have the focus and will to spend their lives in pursuit of their goal, whatever it is.
An example would be my vision of the Hellknights. To be honest, while I have all the Chronicles released so far, I haven't read anything about them yet. I just love their evocative name, and in my game, they are lawful evil paladins. They're implacable in their goals, they pursue missions of their own ideals, and they attempt to purge those who limit or work against their code. They may not have the personality trait of 'chivalrous', but they are no less shining examples of what they believe in.
As for the crunch, I disagree with the usual route of "their abilities are the complete opposite", i.e. instead of curing disease, they inflict it. Evil or neutral paladins would still be required to be paragons of their alignment, and would still gain supernatural aid for their crusades, like a bonus to saving throws, and ability to heal wounds and keep fighting the fight. To stray from this crusade is still to lose these supernatural tools.
Instead of "detect evil" and "smite evil", evil paladins would gain "detect good" and "smite good", and neutral paladins would have to choose at creation, as there is already a precedent for (both detect and smite would have to be good or evil though, no mixing it up).
I think there is a real need for this role in the core classes, and Paizo could be just the one to push this particular envelope. Although I can imagine outrage, I don't feel it would be warranted, because if someone's character ideal is to be the epitome of all that is pure and good in the world, they still can be.
And what could be better for even the most classic-minded, "paladins must be chivalrous" player then to find a nemesis in their neutral or evil counterpart, someone they can in some way respect, but not at all understand? Someone that could have been their brother or sister in an Order, but because of background or life experience is instead a great adversary?
D&D is a fantasy world where good and evil aren't just philosophical concepts. In that world, lawful or chaotic restrictions reflect the personality necessary to advance in a lifestyle, or class. Bards are chaotic people, monks are lawful. That makes sense. Paladins are lawful, but just as there are good, neutral, and evil bards and monks, there would definitely be good, neutral, and evil paladins.
|
|
I would be deeply offended if the Paladin had to follow the ten commandments. The first four have to do with honoring a specific deity properly and Paladins aren't required to even have a deity. That being said:
Code of Conduct: Paladins
Nothing causes more arguments in-game than Paladins. Can Paladins kill baby kobolds? What about baby mind flayers? Honestly, while these questions have generated a lot of ink and a lot of bad feelings, they aren't important. Paladins are Lawful Good, but they aren't "champions of Law and Good" – that's an Archon. A Paladin doesn't get Smite Chaos, they aren't forced to abandon team members who behave in a Chaotic fashion (whatever that means). Paladins are Champions of Good™ and they are required to be Lawful. Whether or not that makes any sense depends on how you're handling Law and Chaos.
Paladins are as Good as any character can be, and they are required to follow a code of conduct. However, following this code is not what makes them Good, we know this because Clerics of Good (who detect as being just as Good as Paladins) don't have to follow that code. The code is completely arbitrary, and has no bearing on the relative Goodness of a character. Paladins also lose their powers if they don't drink for a few days, but that doesn't put Blackguards in danger of losing their alignment when they quaff a glass of water.
The Paladin's code is uncompromising, but it is also exhaustive about what it won't allow:
[list]
The Use of Poison: If a park ranger hits a bear with a tranq dart, that's not an Evil act. Poison isn't any more or less Evil than a blade. Paladins can't use poison because they agreed not to – not because there's anything wrong with poison. Maybe Paladins only get to keep their magically enhanced immune system so long as they don't take it for granted by using things that would tax it on purpose. Maybe their concern for public safety is so great that they are only willing to use weapons that look like weapons. Whatever. The point...
hmm... Frank, while what you wrote rings true with my memory of the Paladin code, I was wondering where you referenced the info from? Is it the PHB? A prior edition? Common knowledge and tradition?
The reason I state this, is that none of that info appears in the SRD, and thus would probably be considered copyrighted fluff. Since Paizo is using the SRD as their base, the strict adherence to an "old-school" chivalric Paladin may not really be necessary - or even desirable.
The point of this thread(according to the OP) is to discuss what (if anything) needs updating in the Paladin's code and whether it is desirable or not to do so. The examples I provided before were of paladins that embodied the ideas of law and goodness - in equal precedence. What actually qualifies as goodness is as open to debate and rationalization as the meaning of law in game. Tying the paladin's code to their alignment rather than the "legacy code" from days of yore, may give the class a needed facelift.
I'm curious to see what you have to say on this.
The 'Ling
anyway
|
|
I really think the best one I have found for a pseudo-western paladin code is in the Book of Hallowed Might, p 18, in the sidebar. It's a list of principles the paladin must adhere to: A paladin’s code might be broken down into various
tenets, like the dogmatic structure of a religion. For example:
• Prowess: Seek excellence in all endeavors expected of
a paladin, martial and otherwise, gaining strength to
be used in the service of justice, rather than in personal
aggrandizement.
• Justice: Seek always the path of good, unencumbered
by personal interest. Recognize that the sword of justice
can be a terrible thing, so it must be tempered by
humanity and mercy.
• Loyalty: Be known for unwavering commitment to
the people and ideals you choose to live by. There are
many places in life where compromise may be needed.
Loyalty is not among them.
• Defense: Seek always to defend your nation, your
lord, your family, your companions, and those whom
you believe worthy of loyalty.
• Courage: Being a paladin often means choosing the
more difficult path, the personally expensive one. Be
prepared to make personal sacrifices in service of the
precepts and people you value. At the same time, a
paladin should seek wisdom to see the difference
between courage and foolishness. Courage also
means taking the side of truth in all matters, rather
than seeking the expedient lie.
• Faith: A paladin must have faith in his beliefs, for
faith roots him and offers hope against despair.
• Humility: Place value upon the contributions of others.
Do not boast of your own accomplishments, wait
for others to do this for you. Tell the deeds of others
before your own, according them the renown rightfully
earned through virtuous deeds.
• Largesse: Be generous insofar as your resources allow.
Place the needs of others before your own. Keeping
this in mind makes decisions regarding justice much
simpler.
• Nobility: Seek great stature of character by holding to
the virtues and duties of a paladin. Realize that,
though one can never teach such ideals, the quality of
striving toward them makes one truly noble. Through
your nobility you can also influence others, offering a
compelling example of what one can accomplish in
the service of good.
• Principle: Although a paladin shows wisdom in his
actions and commits no act without due consideration,
when in doubt, do what is right and good for its own
sake. Truth, virtue, fidelity, and honor are motives unto
themselves, and each is larger than any single paladin.
• Franchise: Seek all these achievements as sincerely as
possible, not for the reason of personal gain but
because it is right. Do not restrict your exploration to
a small world, but seek to infuse every aspect of your
life with these qualities. Should you succeed in even a
tiny measure, you will be well remembered for your
quality and virtue.
That's what I'm using, and in fact I'm tying each nation in my world to a select few of these virtues.
It's in the PHB and the SRD:
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.
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 accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Note: I personally would like a Paladin that was based on some kin of reasonable or at least logically defensible theory of The Good rather than the current hodge podge, but assuming backwards compatibility, this is what we have.
-Frank
My view has, generally, been that Paladins are upholders of the seven virtues. ie faith, hope, love, prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.
True justice can be opposed to harsh laws, or laws that protect the mighty from justice. But it is the pursuit of justice that makes paladins' lawful. Well that and temperance, I suppose.
Chaotic good characters favor freedom over justice.
Neutral good characters favor life and balance over justice, and freedom.
Still I think there is plenty of room for interpretation. After all, even in the real world we have a lot of different views as to what constitutes good behavior, and what constitutes reasonable punishment for law breaking.
Paladins are NOT Judeo-Christians. They do not uphold the ten commandments (they have to work on Saturdays). They do not have to adhere to the Catholic virtue/sin guidelines (they are allowed, for example, to perform genetic engineering if for some reason it matters).
They don't live in a monotheist society, and they might not even have a patron god. If they do have a patron god, that god is not required to agree with them on any issue.
-Frank
Actually Frank I got the Idea from the Book of Fiends Unholy Warrior class. As I view that class as being the true Anti-Paladin. It's just that reading that class, and the book of Exalted Deeds, reshaped allot of my views on Paladins in general.
Sorry if I touched a nerve.
|
Paladins are NOT Judeo-Christians. They do not uphold the ten commandments (they have to work on Saturdays). They do not have to adhere to the Catholic virtue/sin guidelines (they are allowed, for example, to perform genetic engineering if for some reason it matters).
They don't live in a monotheist society, and they might not even have a patron god. If they do have a patron god, that god is not required to agree with them on any issue.
-Frank
Indeed: but how do you validate taking a life...Sword or Poison is the same. Lawful Good must ultimately resort to non lethal outcomes first.
"Stand Down Sir! My God requires your Monarchy become a Commonwealth of Equals!"
1. Diplomacy, 2. Blockades, 3. Raids, 4. Suicide Attacks
|
|
Paladins are NOT Judeo-Christians. They do not uphold the ten commandments (they have to work on Saturdays). They do not have to adhere to the Catholic virtue/sin guidelines (they are allowed, for example, to perform genetic engineering if for some reason it matters).
They don't live in a monotheist society, and they might not even have a patron god. If they do have a patron god, that god is not required to agree with them on any issue.
-Frank
But the basic code of the paladin as introduced in AD&D and carried to today is based off the chivalric ideal that was deeply rooted in renaissance romantic views of medieval christian society. While they are not representative of a monotheistic system, every piece of cultural baggage that contributes to the code IS from christianity. The permeation of christian morality is so deeply intertwined in the code that it is difficult to see. Even "Good" is defined by terms and concepts established in the Christian culture of Europe.
We can choose not to carry that forward, but I suspect that you are right about backwards compatibility. However, I seriously doubt that the majority of tables play the Paladin "by the book", so if the rules were changed we may just be embracing common practice.
@yellowdingo:
No it mustn't. D&D law or good doesn't really speak to killing people. In fact, the Lawful Good definition doesn't discourage killing at all. In fact, it encourages it.
From the SRD:
"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."
The player's handbook has an additional line
"Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good".
So, the very definition of Lawful Good involves hate and a complete lack of mercy (at least for those who are evil. And guess what, they can tell).
No, sorry, killing isn't a problem with these folks.
Which is good, because it means they can participate in the default assumption of D&D: mass slaughter. They also aren't restricted from looting the dead, which is also a plus.
This is why I only require Paladins to be Good in alignment, it has cut down on so many arguments. The Lawful part seems to be what causes trouble.
Hey Voss, couldn't help but notice that your bold type quotes didn't mention anything about how killing is a fantastic idea. It isn't that cut and dry. Good characters "respect life" and have "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". While evil "implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others". Ironically enough, killing someone just because they are evil is, in itself, an evil act. The road to evil is paved with such statements as "the good of the many out weigh the good of the one" (especially if "the one" happens to be someone who is not you) and "the ends justify the means".
Well, this is still my opinion, but if you're going to call the class a "paladin", it should evoke the questers for the Grail and the Song of Roland. Which means:
The paladin doesn't lie when the Nazis come to the door. He fights them, to the death. If they already dominate in the area, such that a fight is suicidal, he already has been killed, or withdrew to the neighboring country to raise an army to overthrow the Nazis in open combat.
He deals with evildoers openly, heroically, forthrightly, and in broad daylight. He does not slink or sneak in the darkness, or lie and disguise himself. He is a shining, spotless, naked blade held in the sun.
Certainly, there is room for stealth, for sneaking in the night, for spies, for even the man disguised as a courtier who wields the poisoned blade that fells the tyrant. Which is why you have lawful good rogues, rangers, and fighters. The paladin can fully appreciate their contribution. He just doesn't do it himself, because that isn't what a chivalrous, heroic, and noble knight does.
And that's why all paladins are lawful good. The neutral good or chaotic good champion is not willing to bind himself by such rules. He sees the paladin's code of honor as too rigid, too limiting, to fully serve the greater good. And by not adhering to that standard, they do not tap in to the special power that empowers paladins, and which establishes the mutual brotherhood of paladins across lines of culture, religion, and species.
And when the paladin himself abandons that code? Then he ceases to be aligned with that power, and finds himself an ex-paladin. When he committed an evil act, grossly violated his code, or shifted to another alignment, his very soul ceased to be the type of being that could draw on the power all paladins have as their source. He was not punished; he was simply no longer able to be a paladin, any more than a block of wood can serve as a car tire. Atonement is the only path that can reforge his soul such that he can draw on that power again.
I think the reason we don't have a more defined, detailed code is perfectly in evidence in this thread. I know how I, and most of my group, understand Lawful good, and we realize that the paladin code is actually more strict than just being lawful good.
And yet, I also know that I could find people that think that "lawful" means that a LG character will never break a law, and that good is best described as "the opposite of evil" as if its a political party rather than a philosophy in its own rite.
So I think that giving a general idea of what a paladin can and can't do and leaving the rest to the DM and his players is probably best. There is no possible way to quantify every single situation and exception to that situation in the game. Trying to do so results in something like the Knights of Solomnia's Measure, a huge multi volume set of rules on how a knight will conduct himself in every given situation, which still leads to (in setting) many debates in the knighthood itself.
I think that 80% of people playing D&D probably have about a 90% commonality in what they expect out of a paladin, and not worry too much about the 10% "leeway" between interpretations.
The other 20% could probably argue this thing in patterns of detailed logic strong enough to convince a robot from an Isaac Asimov story to self terminate.
As much as i hate to agree with frank (just because :-PPPPP), i believe he's hit the mark on this one....
Hey Voss, couldn't help but notice that your bold type quotes didn't mention anything about how killing is a fantastic idea. It isn't that cut and dry. Good characters "respect life" and have "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". While evil "implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others". Ironically enough, killing someone just because they are evil is, in itself, an evil act. The road to evil is paved with such statements as "the good of the many out weigh the good of the one" (especially if "the one" happens to be someone who is not you) and "the ends justify the means".
'fight without mercy' seems clear to me. On the other hand, respecting life and concern for dignity get a little fuzzy on the practical end. Killing all Evil could easily serve both.
Further- D&D morality barely has any connection with real world morality. Good and Evil are actual forces that interact with the universe as a whole and individual people. If Torm tells his paladins to butcher all followers of Bane without pity or mercy... they really get rewarded for that.
But of course, having a real discussion of D&D alignments is a bit of a joke. They're so badly constructed and self-contradictory that there isn't much point in trying to discuss them rationally. But bringing real-world morality into strikes me as laughable at best, since the entire premise of the game world (including the morality) is built around killing things and bringing home bags of their stuff. Which works with how people actually behave, but it implies moral philosophy pretty much stopped with someone like Cain.
The repeated references to real world religous beliefs in discussing the code of conduct for paladins can be construed as offensive by thier followers... so maybe we should avoid it.
|
|
The repeated references to real world religous beliefs in discussing the code of conduct for paladins can be construed as offensive by thier followers... so maybe we should avoid it.
While I can respectfully understand this concern, and in no way intend to offend, a discussion of the chivalric code cannot go on without reference to its roots in Christianity. I would like to point out that nothing derogatory or offensive has been said about any religion in this thread, rather a reasoned discussion of their connections to the Paladin code has been handled in a mature fashion.
It needs to be recognized that Paladins were the knights of Charlemagne, and the term came to refer to honorable Christain knights shortly after this period. The chivalric code was a moral, religious, and social code for knightly behavior. Religious beliefs helped to establish the moral and social code, so really, held a profound affect on the entire structure.
Effectively, if we are to examine the base assumptions of the class, we need to look at its sources of inspiration, and thus, religion.
|
|
Further- D&D morality barely has any connection with real world morality. Good and Evil are actual forces that interact with the universe as a whole and individual people. If Torm tells his paladins to butcher all followers of Bane without pity or mercy... they really get rewarded for that.
Actually, both Christianity and Islam in the middle ages attempted to reconcile worldly violence with their spiritual dogma. The Christian "Just War" doctrine and the Islamic idea of Jihad (a holy defensive war with strict rules - not how the word is used in the media today) are both examples. Essentially, killing in the name of the faith, or "good" in D&D is acceptable. Most people in the middle ages would have told you that both good and evil were discrete, real, forces in the world. The parallels to D&D are obvious.
But of course, having a real discussion of D&D alignments is a bit of a joke. They're so badly constructed and self-contradictory that there isn't much point in trying to discuss them rationally. But bringing real-world morality into strikes me as laughable at best, since the entire premise of the game world (including the morality) is built around killing things and bringing home bags of their stuff. Which works with how people actually behave, but it implies moral philosophy pretty much stopped with someone like Cain.
You can only state the premise of the game is about killing and looting if you view the hobby in a cynical, somewhat condescending way. In fact this probably hasn't been true since OD&D basic dungeon crawls. I think many would argue that the game is about storytelling and escapism. Killing and looting do not play a central role in every campaign. Game designer draw their inspiration from the real world, literature and history. Since the real world inspires the game, a discussion of where those influences can be seen is not "laughable", but rather logical.
The 'Ling
While its not much more detailed than the original note in the class description, the Code of Conduct listed in the Paladin Guide in the Class Acts article for Dragon 358 (by Amber E Scott), is the guide I gave my paladin player, after she was confused for years by varying and contradictory codes and requirements from 1st and 2nd edition (she is still getting used to being able to use ranged weapons!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First: The Chivalric Code of Europe is no more based on Christianity than the essentially identical Code of Bushido is based on Buddhism, nor the likewise nigh identical Javanmardi is rooted in Islam, nor the code of Xia to be particularly rooted in Taoism. It's based directly on the needs of those in power. Even the word Chivalry comes from the word Callabus and was originally coined by Mithraists in Europe. Remember: it's a code of "honor" developed by and for feudal lords. Fights are "fair" and "just" if the lords are very likely to win against the peasantry, and unjust if the fight could plausibly go either way.
Poison is against the code of chivalry because it works equally well on an armored lancer as it does on a dirt farmer. Not because there is anything inherently evil or immoral about bees, but because the ruling classes are very interested in suppressing weapons which are super effective against themselves.
So no: get your Christianity discussions out of discussions about Paladins. It's historically unimportant in Earth's context, actually meaningless in Golarion or any other major D&D setting, and offensive to more than one person on this board. And yes, the default assumption is still killing enemies and taking their stuff. That's the "standard rewards" paradigm from the DMG, and everything else is an optional rule. Yes, even now in 2008.
-Frank
I have to somewhat agree with Franks ideas on the Paladin in regards to the code, since it's the way I play paladins.
At least in my campaigns, Paladins aren't MORE good than any other good character, but their code fundamentally means that they don't f$&! around.
I like to play paladins like Porter from the movie payback in ethic...only slightly less "not good".
Ok, a fair deal less.
I would have to say that I doubt the reference to what undoubtedly is the conceptual source of the paladin which is most likely crusaders is totally off base for any concepts people may have on them.
|
|
First: The Chivalric Code of Europe is no more based on Christianity than the essentially identical Code of Bushido is based on Buddhism, nor the likewise nigh identical Javanmardi is rooted in Islam, nor the code of Xia to be particularly rooted in Taoism. It's based directly on the needs of those in power. Even the word Chivalry comes from the word Callabus and was originally coined by Mithraists in Europe. Remember: it's a code of "honor" developed by and for feudal lords. Fights are "fair" and "just" if the lords are very likely to win against the peasantry, and unjust if the fight could plausibly go either way.
Poison is against the code of chivalry because it works equally well on an armored lancer as it does on a dirt farmer. Not because there is anything inherently evil or immoral about bees, but because the ruling classes are very interested in suppressing weapons which are super effective against themselves.
So no: get your Christianity discussions out of discussions about Paladins. It's historically unimportant in Earth's context, actually meaningless in Golarion or any other major D&D setting, and offensive to more than one person on this board. And yes, the default assumption is still killing enemies and taking their stuff. That's the "standard rewards" paradigm from the DMG, and everything else is an optional rule. Yes, even now in 2008.
-Frank
sorry Frank, but your plain wrong. Chivalry was an attempt to reconcile necessary warlike behavior of knights with Christian strictures. The resulting code was a blend of the two. They are linked, and that's really all there is too it.
And as for the offensive part, give me a freaking break. NOTHING offensive was said. No negative comments were made. Everything discussed was mentioned in a historical context. there is no plausible way that you could claim that this abstract discussion is offensive.
It appears to me more that you disagree with the premise, and rather than discuss its merits, selectively interpret the historical record to suit your position. Then the infamous "you can't even intellectually discuss religion" cop out appears even in a topic that is inextricably tied to it.
In summary:
1.You're wrong about the lack of christian ties to the code.
2.you're selectively looking at the historical context and dismissing the influence of the single most overwhelming cultural influence of the period.
3.You are ignoring the origin and inspiration of the class and taking the end product out of context.
4.Finally, your arguments boil down to "you're wrong because i don't like what you're saying".
Oh, and then for good measure you claim that the whole discussion is offensive (great way to silence those you disagree with). I would suggest backing up your claims and backing off of the vitriol.
EDIT: and as for Goalrion, The entire point of explaining about the Christian ties was to argue for their removal when designing a Paladin for Golarion. Goodness and Law can be defined in a broader set of terms to make the code more adaptable for game purposes. So at least keep track of why a specific discussion is ongoing.
I am a practicing Catholic, and I'm not thrilled with the constant references to Christianity either. The more Christianity is cited as the basis for the paladin code, the more people that don't like that idea respond to it, and begin to react with hostility toward Christianity in general rather than the assertion that it is the basis of the paladin code, which I'm not sure is particularly cogent to this discussion.
I don't like my religion being used as a basis for a game argument, and the more this gets done, the more comments get made that I either think are off base or offensive, and it all boils back down to the fact that I really don't want my faith being used to argue for or against something in the game.
Yes, paladins are based on characters like the Knights of the Round table and the Peers of Charlemaigne, who in turn were Christian figures, but they aren't the only basis for the holy warrior mold, and they are only a starting point for the idea.
If you want to discuss what the LG alignment means in the game, or what paladin codes have been in the game over the years, and how this may or may not have worked, fine, but I really don't think harping on this as a basis for the paladin's code is any more useful than if I were to claim that clerics could only be male or that they should be celibate, since clerics were "clearly" influenced by Biblical accounts of divine power and medieval era orders like the Hospitalers.
Yes, those were influences, but there are many, many other cultural and fantasy influences that added to the archetype over the years, so that pinning down ONE particular inspiration doesn't really have a lot of meaning when trying to figure out how the class should work in the game.
To my mind, while they may share similarities on view, I find it unlikely there would be a universal code followed by all paladin orders or indvidual paladins. It is going to vary, sometimes to a great degree, between deities and sometimes even two orders serving the same deity. It is also going to vary a great deal between cultures. So aside from the bare basics of lawful good alignment I dont think we can lay down one code for all paladins. I do think that any player of a paladin should submit that paladin's code to the gamemwaster though.
An example that my group uses to show how varied a paladin can be is regarding slavery. A paladin from a lawful good deity in a slave-owning society could legitimately own slaves, including pleasure slaves. It is legal in his society and possibly even condoned by his church. However, a paladin would treat his slaves far better than the average citizen. He would expect them to perform the duties he assigned them (lawful), but would see that they were well treated and would defend them against another free citizen most likely (good). The paladins in this society might be seen as odd byt the average citizen for how he treats his slaves. He would however not be in any danger of losing his paladin status for owning them. In fact, if how he treated them changed drastically, he might lose his status for that. An example of this is the lawful good church of Horus-Re in Mulhurond (from FOrgotten Realms) which owns literally tens of thousands of slaves and leases out those slaves to private citizens.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
You can only state the premise of the game is about killing and looting if you view the hobby in a cynical, somewhat condescending way. In fact this probably hasn't been true since OD&D basic dungeon crawls. I think many would argue that the game is about storytelling and escapism. Killing and looting do not play a central role in every campaign. Game designer draw their inspiration from the real world, literature and history. Since the real world inspires the game, a discussion of where those influences can be seen is not "laughable", but rather logical.The 'Ling
Not at all. I view the game for what it is: light social entertainment.
And no, killing and looting are not the central role in 'every' campaign. But third edition is built around the concept of killing monsters for XP and taking loot home in the form of gold and magic, both of which make your characters more powerful. Worrying about the corner cases is like worrying about ability to role-play in a game of Axis and Allies. You *can* do it, but it isn't the focus of the game.And thats the focus of the game- when you do something successfully (when you win an encounter), your characters are rewarded in one of two (or both) ways that explicitly increase their power levels. Its completely possible to dress the system up and do something else with it, but the basic mechanics that the core of the game is built around, 90+% of the game rules, involve killing things and taking stuff.
As to your first point: yes, people will expend a great deal of effort to justify that killing people and taking their stuff is not only justified, but right. My point is that D&D alignments don't bother with long philosophical tracts trying to weasel moral systems around to that conclusion. They just flat out tell you that killing people with the opposite view is not only right, but necessary. Do so without pity or mercy, and the forces of Good will give you a shiny.
|
Mercury, Arsenic, Cyanide, Blue Whinnis. Poisons. According to the archaic code, the paladin can't use these. What about silver, then? Cold iron? These are ultimately poisonous to a great number of the foes that the paladin fights. If the paladin must use a weapon in combat, and the weapon must be poisonous to the foe to effectively slay the foe, should it not be used? If the paladin had unlimited smites perhaps poison wouldn't be necessary against a demon or devil but alas 1 to 5 for most often run out all too quickly. Too bad yon knight in shining armor received a +2 flaming longsword instead of a +1 holy waraxe from the last dragon's hoard raided. Hold on, holy? Is holy energy not poisonous to evil creatures?
Poison is a weapon. Just as a sword or dagger can assassinate and bring death so can poison. A poison that allows a chance to weaken or damage a foe in open battle should not be dismissed.
Perhaps the code should ban inhaled and ingested poisons that are usually used to kill in deceptive secrecy but allow contact and injury poisons to a limited degree as to not frustrate the occasional paladin who wonders why silversheen can be applied to his sword and not drow poison. Would it not be easier and cleaner to take the evildoer in alive and unconscious rather than lop his head off?
The paladin could simply yell out to his enemy that his weapon will hurt extra bad. In all fairness, the glabrezu can try his best to dodge the blade or run away. Heheheh.
If you go down this route than no weapon at all can be used.
What might be better and very do-able is that each of the pathfinder Dieties gets a list of what is Holy vs. what is sin listing. Vampire had something like that for the differant paths that existed.
Perhaps there is a Paladin order out there that doesn't allow for certain types of food. dressing in certain colors.
There is another reason that thre is pioson has been a big no-no. Chivalric Knights were supposed to be examples of virtue. Thier honor and piety was supposed to carry them through any sort of hardship. Using anything to taint thier sword, no matter how evil the villan or monster, using something like poison meant that you didn't believe that faith and honor was enough.
There are some old christian hold over to, knights shouldn't use a tool that was so often tied to the devil/serpent. Given that Asmodious is a diety in Gloriaon I would imagine that one of his symbols will be a serpent as well and pioson will be one of those things that he holds dear.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The first four have to do with honoring a specific deity properly and Paladins aren't required to even have a deity.
Just a note on a note: paladins in Pathfinder (as of current rules set) are required to have a deity. (See the last paragraphon page 20.)
Even the word Chivalry comes from the word Callabus and was originally coined by Mithraists in Europe.Got any backing on this? My resources note that "Equus callabus' is a North American horse, and the earliest articulations of a "chivalric code" come from
- "Livre des manneurs" (Etienne de Fougeres, 1170's)
- "Ordene de chevalerie" (anonymous, northern French, composed between 1100 and 1250)
- "Book of the Order of Chivalry" (the Majorcan mystic Ramon Lull)
- "The Book of Chivalry" by Geoffrey de Charney in the 14th Century.
Not a Mithraist in the bunch.
|
I think we're getting away from the main question, i.e. should the paladin code as it is described in the Alpha 2 rules be modified.
My feeling is that in areas as complex as morality and behaviour, core rules should give only the broadest guidelines and the rest should be handled between the player and the DM.
Considering the difficulty of playing a paladin, I made it a 15 level prestige class with a PC or NPC mentor working with the paladin apprentice through the 5 levels of cleric/fighter or cleric/ranger. Most moral issues (baby kobolds, poison, etc.) are encountered over these 5 levels and we can work out the constraints of the code of conduct within the campaign world.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Locworks: Outstanding solution. It perforce gives a fledgling paladin a mentor and guide, to act as the voice of the DM early in his or her career.
I suspect that the weight of three-and-a-half editions of the game having paladins as a base class will keep Jason from implementing it in a "backwards-compatable" system, but it sounds like you have a great campaign.
The word Chivalry is derived from the french Cheval (horse) and Chevalier (horseman or knight). In spanish Caballería (chivalry) and Caballero (knight or chevalier) share the same root - Caballo (horse).
English is one of the few languages that have disassociated the mounted warrior (knight) from his steed, but in most other languages the two words are closely related.
|
|
Locworks: Outstanding solution. It perforce gives a fledgling paladin a mentor and guide, to act as the voice of the DM early in his or her career.
Cheers. Chris. I based it on the Unearthed Arcana option. I'll post the class details updated to PF when I get back home in two weeks time.
I find using an NPC or a PC (played by an experienced and helpful character) less heavy handed than a direct discussion between me and the player. It makes for nice role-playing opportunities and offers quite a sizable pool of XP to the PCs.
I am still of the mind that the paladin's code should not be the perview of the rulebook. There should be a default code in the rulebook, but a player should be able to submit their own code based more on their particular deity or culture. The code should also be prioritized for importance. This would give some variation among even paladins of the same church and culture and add some color as they debated the merits of various aspects of their code, much as knights in the middle ages debated the aspects of the chivalric code.
I personally would not draw the code as heavily as some from the chivalric code, given that many paladins come from cultures lacking any real knightly tradition and often their allegiance is to their deity over any mortal authority or social convention.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
In regards to poison, I feel it should always be disallowed for a paladin. This isn't on a basis of good or evil; that aspect is defined by how the poison is used, and should not be considered in this situation. However, by its very nature poison is chaotic. It's a substance that works to disrupt and/or destroy the natural function of a being's physiology. This flies in the face of the lawful side of a paladin's alignment.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's a substance that works to disrupt and/or destroy the natural function of a being's physiology. This flies in the face of the lawful side of a paladin's alignment.
(laugh)
So does poking around in that physiology with long chunks of steel.And paladins aren't prohibited from using fireballs, diseases, or other debilitating conditions.
No, the poison ban in current versions of D&D is a historic nod to an attempt to keep Paladin powers in check, from back in 1st Edition. The origin of the ban needs to come from the fluff. Some arch-deacon of the Paladin's holy organization, or even the supernatural power that gives Paladins their abilities, had a bad afternoon once with poisons, and has thereafter prohibited Paladins from using the damned stuff.
Or some king was deathly afraid of poisons and sealed off his lands to Paladins until the organization swore every Paladin to agree to eschew venoms. That ban is still in place to this day, although that particular monarch is long dead.
Or a clan of awakened gila monsters petitioned the Paladin organization for entry, and the bigotted leaders of the organization instituted a poison ban to keep the venomous creatures out.
|
Evil people can be innocent
This struck my funny bone.
And as for the offensive part, give me a freaking break. NOTHING offensive was said. No negative comments were made. Everything discussed was mentioned in a historical context. there is no plausible way that you could claim that this abstract discussion is offensive.
I don't like my religion being used as a basis for a game argument, and the more this gets done, the more comments get made that I either think are off base or offensive, and it all boils back down to the fact that I really don't want my faith being used to argue for or against something in the game.
It appears you've been refuted underling. I'm of the same opinion as Knight in this respect.
I personally would not draw the code as heavily as some from the chivalric code, given that many paladins come from cultures lacking any real knightly tradition and often their allegiance is to their deity over any mortal authority or social convention.
I respectfully disagree here; I do not see many paladins emerging from cultures that lack a knightly tradition. The paladin is (IMO) a unique product of divine powers and civilized culture. In religions that accept use of poison, the advantages of deception, etc., I would make clerics the foremost 'champions' of their respective gods.
I also agree with see on most or all of his points of view.
I only hope I haven't stepped on too many toes at once.
(laugh)
So does poking around in that physiology with long chunks of steel.And paladins aren't prohibited from using fireballs, diseases, or other debilitating conditions.
While these do function similarly, a case can be made that such methods can be neutral on the law/chaos scale, or even create order.
However, disrupting order in a body is the only thing poison does. It serves no other purpose than to create chaos, to destroy. Regardless of a paladin's individual beliefs, such actions stand in direct opposition of one of the core defining elements of the class: a paladin's lawful alignment.
