Update the Paladin Code

[lastknightleft]

Howsabout poison use has nothing to do with good/evil. See the knight class in the PHB II note that it also isn't allowed to use poison (honestly just combine the two codes and you have a perfect paladins code of conduct), it has nothing to do with being evil and everything to do with being unable to defend yourself against a poison, if you fight someone with a sword its you against him and your skill can defend you. But poison all you have to be is unlucky, it's not evil, it is dishonorable, and being honorable is part of what being a paladin is all about.

[quest-master]

Heaven's Agent wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

(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.

Could you please explain to those of us who are unenlightened a case for such methods being neutral or creating order and how the case can not be applied to poison?

[lastknightleft]

Weylin Stormcrowe 798 wrote:

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.

That's exactly what you are able to do right now, and forevermore except maybe in organized play.

[Chris Mortika]

Heaven's Agent wrote:

While these (fireballs, diseases, or other debilitating conditions) 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.

Your mileage varies. Poisons include soporifics, which would allow a Paladin to capture an opponent without harm.

When a mark of justice is triggered, it has effects identical to bestow curse, which might include a -6 penalty to any ability score. Certainly, that's just as destructive as a poison.

A Paladin can use a wand of cause serious wounds. I have a hard time seeing that as serving any purpose other than to destroy a body. (The spell effects could serve a greater purpose. So could poison.)

Moreover, according to the flavor text of the SRD, the ban on poison has nothing to do with the Paladin being good orlawful. It, alongside the prohibition against lying, has to do with character acting honorably.

So, Paladins can't use poison. But it's a code-of-honor restriction, not an alignment restriction. The Paladin's code contains more than just lawiness and gooditude.

[OneWinged4ngel]

My boilerplate response to paladin code discussions.

I wrote:

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment, and abide by a higher standard of morals and honor than the average Good-aligned person. Indeed, she is the paragon of heroic Good, drawn to a higher cause. Truly she is a person of high calibre, moral and otherwise.

There is a code of conduct presented in the PHB, but it really is better classified as an example of a generic paladin's vows and code. However, in your game being a paladin may mean quite a different thing altogether! After all, not all settings are the same, nor are all paladins. They serve various causes and deities, and the nature of Good and Evil is not always so stereotypically straightforward in all settings. Your code should represent the beliefs of your church or cause or whatever it is you, as a paladin, fight for!

Talk with your DM about what it means to be a paladin in your campaign, and the implications of it. If you are the DM, consider this, and what it really to be the paragon of good in your campaign. It should be noted that a single mistake or lack of perfection should not make a paladin fall. Indeed, is it not the lack of perfection and ultimately human(oid) nature of such a heroic figure that makes him all the more endearing and, truly, notable in calibre? After all, any old celestial can be perfect, but a man has to work for it.

Instead, the paladin falls from grace if she grossly violates her code (as stated, yet all too often overlooked, in the PHB. This means that some minor infraction would *not* make the Paladin fall), or if she changes alignment from Lawful Good. Your alignment should be your overall personality and outlook, not the result of the last action you took (although that last action *could* be considered to grossly violate the paladin's code, of course. The paladin's code is not synonymous with alignment). It should be extremely rare for a single act to alter your alignment, and it certainly shouldn't be so if the act was not done with wrongful intentions. Alignment changes should usually be the result of fairly consistent behavior of a character.

PLEASE DO NOT INFLICT YOUR OWN MORAL STANDARDS OR NARROW VIEW OF WHAT A PALADIN SHOULD BE ONTO THE WHOLE FACE OF THE GAME. And yes, I think the caps are justified there. It makes me sick when I read things like "Your paladin is wrong if you don't fall for disobeying one of the Ten Commandments." Ugh. The game is supposed to be designed with everyone's Pathfinder games in mind, not just yours.

Facilitating creative freedom should be a primary goal of Pathfinder.

Also, some ideas for various paladin codes:

http://www.dndarchive.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=370

aaaand...

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=936469

If that doesn't instill in you the notion that you should be able to switch around the paladin code rather than having some hardcoded anachronistic opinionated shill, I don't know what will.

[Robert Miller 55]

I for one allow the use of poison, in combat. But it must be a disabling poison used for the purpose of taking their opponent prisoner. It cannot be a lethal poison, so it must only paralyze, or put them to sleep, etc...

Plus their chivalric code only applies to the "civilized peoples", which typically means only applies with regards to humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, etc... Including their evil versions such as duergar and drow.

So with regards to monster races, such as ogres, giant kind, goblinoid, etc... the Code does not apply.

Why do I do this? Because it makes no sense to apply the Code to races/creatures that have no appreciation and/or understanding of such a code.

So for creatures they can use poison and fight them however they have to. The goal with such creatures is to eradicate them and make the world safe for the "civilized races".

Now does this mean they can freely use poison and even sneak, backstab, and such? No, but if the Paladin becomes convinced they need to resort to such measures to have a better chance of success, they can utilize such actions. Against monsterous creatures.

I also believe that "good" trumps the "lawful", they will only follow laws that are "good". Plus their ultimate authority is not a religion, but the god themselves, so the tenets of that god, typically law, justice, goodness, healing, etc... So they will only follow the laws of their church and their king if they are also in line with what the Paladin believes are the tenets of their god.

Plus when they are not within the boundaries of a "authority", such as a city, town, nation, etc... Paladins are "THE LAW", much like Judge Dredd.

So as long as the player tries to take their code seriously, and only makes carefully considered exceptions, such as "monsters", then I am fine with what they do.

Thats how I handle Paladins and their "code".

I would like to see it better addressed though. Only if it agrees with me, otherwise leave it ambiguous and easy to debate or argue.

[david ferris]

Sometimes you have to read betwen the lines and see the intention behind the actual wording.
Will not use poison.. or lies... etc.
Essentially the paladin has vowed not to use techniques that are the hallmarks of evil or cowardly behaviour. The paladin may not consider a particular sedative or paralysing venim to be evil but still consider its availability something to be avoided simply because in the wrong hands it can be used to achieve evil ends by cowardly means or tragic accidental misuse.
It is hard to kill off your enemies by sneaking a sword into their sandwiches.
I would rule that a paladin might openly use a tranqualiser to bring down a raging beast without killing it if the circumstances provided the materials availability and the situational urgency justified immediate results. Perhaps to save innocent lives in immediate danger.
This would require making an attack to deliver the substance, possibly at some risk to the character if the attack misses.
I would not expect a paladin to carry such materials since they can be stolen, mislaid, or become available to the BBEG that manages to actually kill the paladin.

Poison and lies are symbols of evil to the paladin.
The paladin might not want to risk going down the path towards evil by making excuses for taking those "cowardly" options. It is too easy to decieve oneself about the ends justifying the means.

[Spyral Blade]

Historically poison = sneaky. You needed to get 1 hit (usually preemptive) to win. However the paladin stands for a 'fair fight' in that the best swordsman should win. Of course mr Paladin is the best fighter as he has RIGHTEOUSNESS (tm) on his side!!

<\/\/I= Spyral Blade =I\/\/>

[Ixancoatl]

Robert Miller 55 wrote:

Plus their chivalric code only applies to the "civilized peoples", which typically means only applies with regards to humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, etc... Including their evil versions such as duergar and drow.

So with regards to monster races, such as ogres, giant kind, goblinoid, etc... the Code does not apply.

Why do I do this? Because it makes no sense to apply the Code to races/creatures that have no appreciation and/or understanding of such a code.

So for creatures they can use poison and fight them however they have to. The goal with such creatures is to eradicate them and make the world safe for the "civilized races".

A Paladin's code *applies* to the Paladin and his personal actions. It has no relation to *the target*. Saying it doesn't apply to a certain group because they don't have the same civilized beliefs as us borders on fascism. That's how most "civilized cultures" justified slavery. It comes down to one simple thing: if the species is sentient, the paladin's code applies.

Killing anything sentient out of anything but a need to protect the innocent is an evil act. And using the justification "well, they're goblins/kobolds/ogres/big ugly things so they're eventually gonna attack the innocent" is a purile mindset. Remember: innocent until proven guilty! Until they act, they are not violating anyone's life, rights, or safety. (Or should we just inter anyone who looks like the last group of people to attack us?)

[lastknightleft]

Ixancoatl wrote:

(Or should we just inter anyone who looks like the last group of people to attack us?)

Yes

[poodle]

i always thought of the paladin as someone trying to be the best person he can be. That means honourable in the context of the paladin, as well as just, compassionate to those he can be and unforgiving to those who merit punishment. It is not about judeo-christian morality at all. It is simply about being the best person you can be. If your paladin is attempting that then that is all you can ask for.

The most notable of knights were those who followed an internal set of codes not an extrinsic one.

Poison may stop the war but it is not the most honorable way. Challenging the enemy general to a duel is the most honorable. It is not about your success against the enemy but about overcoming your own weaknesses to be the best person you can be. A paladin will sacrifice themselves to do this.

The problem I always had with paladins was deciding whether they are trying to embody goodness or their deity's ideals. I also think we are a little constrained by theideals of the societies we are raised in.
Arguably it could be the right thing to do to slaughter orphans, lepers or the elderly as they would only suffer otherwise and it means that there is more food for everyone else.
Alternatively it might be the right thing to be homosexual unless in a relationship for the purpose of producing children. Historically Sparta and Japan endorsed this.
I personally don't like the slaughter of innocents for the greater good I can see how it could be justified by a 'good' person.

[Pat Payne]

lastknightleft wrote:

Just Kinda Random, but when talking about Paladins I always tell my players to watch king of the hill. Hank Hill= Paladin

Seriously, I've always thought the best example of a paladin is the character (coincidentally enough, named) "Paladin" from the old western "Have Gun - Will Travel."

[joseph kempton]

see, now, it seems to me that, although many of these posts are truly interesting and philosophically gripping, in the end, your paladin must follow the code that you and your DM agree to , I dont think the books should attempt to nail down one single definition of what a paladin code is. Humanity has been trying to define "good" and "evil" for hundreds of years now, and have as many definitions for both as a hound dog has fleas. So , the definition is what you and your DM hammer out. It's what works for that group/campaign. simple.