"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
I wish to discuss the limitations of the paladin's code, specifically the bolded text above. What does the highlighted text mean to you?
Would you condone any of the following...
...ambush enemies from hiding...
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...
...or would you cite it as a code violation?
|
I've never liked that "and so forth" clause. It doesn't mean anything, and ends up meaning everything.
When running my games I usually make it clear what each paladin's order means when they say: "and so forth".
For some it's never striking the first blow.
For others it's never running from a fight.
For others it's never killing a non-evil creature.
Depending on the paladin and who they are devoted to... and so forth.
Weapons that deal out damage at a distance (including pole arms, missile weapons, and the two-handed sword) call into question the cavalier’s personal bravery, and as such are avoided by all except the most powerful of cavaliers. The cavalier may use these questionable weapons at normal non-proficiency penalties, but their use may violate the character’s chivalric code.
And his code:
The code for a feudal campaign may be summed up as follows.
The DM may adjust this code to fit his or her own campaign.Noble service cheerfully rendered
Defense of any charge unto death
Courage and enterprise in obediences to rule
Respect for all peers and equals
Honor to all above your station
Obedience and respect from all beneath your station
- Scorn for those who are lowly and ignoble (this includes
knightly limitations on weapons and armor)
Military prowess exercised in service to your lord
Courtesy to all ladies (if the cavalier is male)
War is the flowering of chivalry
Battle is the test of manhood
Combat is glory
Personal glory above all in battle
Death to all who oppose the cause
Death before dishonor
While that was for a cavalier, I believe the paladin's code of chivalry starts there and then gets more strict because he then also has to abide by the tenets of good.
I would change the above to say:
As an honorable warrior, paladins feel that weapons that deal out damage at a distance (including pole arms and missile weapons) call into question the paladins’s personal bravery, and as such are avoided unless no other choice exists. The paladin may use these weapons when appropriate but he will likely feel regret in doing so.
The Paladins code:
A paladin gives unrelenting service to his church and god. He defends his gods name and his church from any insult or slight with great vigor. He stands as a bastion of light and glory before his lord.
A paladin defends any charge unto death happily. He defends the innocent, the weak, and the meek, with his life if need be. Glory comes from protecting the innocent.
A paladin serves his lord and his noble superiors so long as such service never is counter to his faith or his church. He defends his country and flag of his king with bravery and dedication against all threats.
A paladin gives respect to all good creatures, meek or mighty. He respects good in all its forms and treats all creatures of good heart with fairness and respect. He never insults or demeans those beneath his station and gives charity to those who need it. A paladin may withhold charity if giving such would result in evil ends.
A paladin will train daily in use of honorable weapons, such as sword, shield, armor, and tools of the knight. He practices the use of noble ranged weapons such as bow for the unfortunate times when his foes refuse to face him in honorable personal combat.
A paladin will never knowingly commit an act of evil. If a paladin unknowingly commits an act of evil he must make proper penance as determined by a cleric of his god.
A paladin may never participate in schemes or plots which will result in evil ends. A paladin destroys or thwarts evil whenever and wherever found.
A paladin may never ally, consort, consult, or bargain with evil under any circumstances, regardless of argument or cause. His god teaches that to do so corrupts his heart and soul and risks damnation. Consorting with evil allows evil to creep into ones heart.
A paladin is required to help, defend, and protect the innocent. He will defend the weak at cost of his own health and safety. He will take every opportunity to defend the weak and ensure the innocent are protected and sheltered from harm. Paladins place the welfare and safety of others before their own.
A paladin punishes those who harm or threaten innocents. He will ensure that those who would threaten or harm the weak or innocent never to do so again.
A paladin must always be honest. He will not lie or deceive others under any circumstance. He must be truthful and honest in his dealings. This includes any form of intentional deception, including intentional omission of information with the intent to mislead.
A paladin does not allow unethical conduct to take place when he can prevent it. If he can not prevent it, he must not carry on with unethical persons. The paladin will know unethical sorts and behavior when encountered. He must make every effort to convince unethical persons of the proper course in life and make every effort to guide them onto the righteous path, but if it becomes clear that he will not succeed he must not risk his own purity of heart by continuing to cavort with the unethical.
A paladin will not allow himself to be distracted while unethical actions take place. Paladins are well aware that not all can be as just and pure as he, and so like children the paladin must watch over and guide them and help show them the moral ideal.
A paladin does not steal. All of his needs will be met by his faith and those that are not are not needs but wants.
A paladin is generous to others. He will share with others and demonstrate charity openly and often. He gives to the needy and donates his time, wealth, and labor, in the service of his god or other worthy causes.
A paladin must display physical leadership. A paladins natural place in all battles is in the front rank, where he can both take the fight to the enemy and place himself between the opposition and his weaker allies. A paladin absorbs blows so that others do not have to.
A paladin must display personal leadership. He must be wise and knowledgeable in tactical strategy and positioning and keep thinking about the next move. He must be always ready to deal with unforeseen situations. He must learn to expect the unexpected. A paladin must be prepared to negotiate with creatures that aren't immediately hostile, and even when attacked, consider why the opponent is attacking before responding with full force. A paladin subdues foes when he can, and kills intelligent, non-evil foes only when he must.
A paladin must display moral leadership. He must display chivalry, honor, respect, grace, trust, bravery, and all of the tenets taught to him in the service of his god. He must display all of these things so that these traits may take root and spread amongst others, bringing chivalry and grace to all who accept and embrace it.
A paladin must seek justice and righteousness in all things and always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome in all matters.
A paladin must always be honorable, especially in combat. He must engage the enemy in an honorable fashion, meaning, he does not attack from behind, does not claim an advantage not available to his enemy, and does not seek any victory through deception or trickery. A paladin always prefers personal melee combat with his foes, and chooses such whenever possible. A paladin is licensed by his deity to engage in ranged combat under the following specific circumstances:
1. He is unable to reach an enemy in time to prevent injury to, or the loss of innocent life. He may use a bow or other ranged weapon at his disposal in order to draw the enemies attention away from the innocent, but must refrain from firing from range as soon as innocent life is no longer threatened.
2. An enemy refuses to face him in honorable personal combat and threatens the Paladin or other innocent life.
If a paladin is ever challenged to personal combat, he must either accept, or honorably concede that the challenger is his better. There is no loss of honor in understanding that someone is more skilled than he, as there is always someone more skilled, but he should openly acknowledge their skill, to give them just credit and respect as an honorable warrior deserves.
A paladin must always be brave. He may not ever show fear as doing so demoralizes those he leads and weakens their resolve. He must demonstrate bravery to others so that they take inspiration from his steadfastness.
A paladin may retreat from combat under certain circumstances. Dying in the service of his god is an awesome reward, performing a great service in his name, is a valiant cause, but dying as a random act of chance because he did not retreat from an unimportant battle is not. A paladin is expected to serve happily to the death whenever doing so advances the cause of his god, the needs of the good, or the cause of justice. In other cases it is acceptable to retreat and regroup so that a stronger response can be formed and so that the greater good may be served.
A paladin never kills needlessly. Killing unrepentant Evil creatures is necessary. Killing an unintelligent animal acting on its basic nature is not. A paladin grants mercy whenever appropriate and possible.
A paladin grants mercy to the vanquished and to his prisoners. Should an opponent ask for quarter, he must grant it unless:
1. The foe is of pure evil, evil to its core. In such a case the paladin is required to destroy the foe quickly, but mercifully. He should not cause undo or prolonged suffering.
2. There is no reasonable or practical way to see the prisoner to authorities to face judgment for their crimes. The paladin must use his best personal judgment in these cases.
3. If the vanquished has previously escaped, demonstrates a capacity or capability of escaping, or if said villain has in the past been treated fairly and been provided quarter, only to bring injury his captors and escape, and commit Evil again, he can be deemed an insoluble case and may be judged as necessary.
If a paladin gives quarter to a foe, they become his charge to protect and defend as he would any other. He is responsible for their safety and well-being until they are given over to proper authorities. He must provide defense, food, and shelter until they can be handed over to the appropriate authorities. If a prisoner in his care should get killed or injured while transporting him to the authorities, he is to be held liable for reparations.
Yes, playing a paladin is hard, but worth it.
Samurai <> Paladin
...ambush enemies from hiding...
Not evil but also not honorable.
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
If war has been declared and the intention of attacking made clear, and the enemy refuses to surrender or negotiate, then the paladin may attack first.
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
Not evil but also not honorable.
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
Evil AND dishonorable.
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
Evil AND dishonorable.
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...
Offer him the honorable right to surrender. If he refuses and he is evil, destroy him/them. If he refuses and is not evil, attempt to subdue. If that is not possible then kill them.
I think what people get hung up over is what does and doesn't count as honorable. We've been somewhat tainted by romanticisation of what "honor" means.
I don't think ambushing an enemy is dishonorable. Neither is using ranged attacks while they're separated by a wall of fire. That's using tactics.
Being honorable is simple - don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't steal. These do not preclude you from leading an army. And lastly, don't forget - while I'm not sure if Paizo changed it, the srd states that paladins would need to willfully commit an evil (not chaotic) act, or grossly violate their code of conduct.
|
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...Evil AND dishonorable.
I don't think so. Things should be placed in the right context for the family, but slaying evil in front of their loved ones isn't necessarily evil.
If Alice the Mad Villain holds her innocent husband hostage, and you kill her to keep her from killing her husband, I don't think that's evil. Or necessarily dishonorable. If Alice the Mad Villain is trying to kill you and will not surrender, and her family happens to be watching the battle, this is not evil and/or dishonorable. Ignoring the trauma introduced would be cruel, but I don't understand where this is evil or dishonorable.
What you do should be good or evil whether you're being watched or not, and despite who you're being watched by. Isn't that kind of the point?
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
Okay, about this. I have an in game issue that came up with my party once. I was a Neutral Good Bard. We had a Lawful Neutral Monk and a Paladin also in the party.
We were guardians of a keep and it's surrounding lands. We didn't hold title to the land as non-citizens of the country, but had been charged by the king with the care of it and guardianship of the tenants and town springing up around keep, which we had reclaimed from bandits.
A druid (eco terrorist) began assaulting our farmsteaders, and while we were in search of her, she attacked us. We managed to subdue her, and began to transport her back to the nearest town with a judge (as we weren't citizens, we couldn't hold court or render judgements ourselves), about 3 days travel away. We set up a watch rotation, had her bound and disarmed and under guard at all times. Despite this, she was able to wild shape and escape us.
Some months later a near dead man stumbled into our town - he'd escaped the slaughter of his expedition, and begged our assistance for his companions. We saw to his immediate wounds, left him in the hands of my character's followers, and set off. When we arrived at the killing ground, we found a large barbarian sitting exhausted at a tree and a pile of about forty dead bodies.
We attempted to talk the barbarian down as he stood to face us with his weapon drawn and ready. A snake in the tree he'd been resting against began speaking to him, urging him to kill us. My character used fascinate and suggestion to get him to drop his weapon. Once the weapon was dropped I sent my cohort to snatch up the weapon and run as far away as she could as quickly as possible while the paladin placed manacles on the barbarian.
At the touch of manacles the barbarian went into a rage, and with his bare hands began to do his best to kill the paladin. We also suddenly found ourselves under attack by the large snake-it began throwing spells at us. The monk went to fight the snake while the paladin fought the barbarian and I tried to keep everyone up. The paladin, staggered at 0 hit points, landed a killing blow on the enraged barbarian and toppled, and the monk had grappled the snake, now in her normal body, and she was the druid we'd all met before. From the barbarian's ravings we determined he'd been driven to attack people by the druid's control and command.
The druid was unconcious at exactly 0 hit points. We were 3 days from lawful judgement again. And we had no new abilities with which we could hold her prisoner to face that judgement - and in the town there probably weren't resources to hold her either.
So...my question...what is a paladin to do in this situation?
3. If the vanquished has previously escaped, demonstrates a capacity or capability of escaping, or if said villain has in the past been treated fairly and been provided quarter, only to bring injury to his captors or others and escape, and commit Evil again, he can be deemed an insoluble case and may be judged (slain) as necessary.
|
|
In my game the DM ruled that because she was a woman and defenseless, if the paladin killed her he'd fall. I was pretty incensed - the paladin wouldn't hurt her after the DM said that - so I had my little halfling bard walk up and slit her throat.
I won't go so far as to say that it was a good action. It was just the least bad action I could see.
The above situation is why I usually won't play paladins. I want to be the honorable protector of innocents - but I've seen so many paladin traps and strange rulings (if you think a member of the sex you're attracted to is sexy, that's an impure thought and you'll fall, etc.) that I just play other classes as if they were paladins. Especially in 3.5, where paladins pretty much got screwed out of anything nice before they fell.
Prisoners and Paladins don't mix very well.
That said, (by my Paladin's code) you did the right thing the first time by trying to transport the captive.
At this point, you know the captive isn't truly defenseless (or won't remain defenseless for long). The captive has the ability to escape and has demonstrated that if he escapes it will result in the death of innocents.
The Paladin always faces the possibility that sections of their code are in irreconcilable conflict in certain circumstances. Here the code of not attacking the defenseless, and the requirement to protect innocents. The paladin has to choose between them, and in this one circumstance, I believe the requirement to protect innocents trumps attacking the (briefly) defenseless.
At first opportunity, the Paladin should consult the temple and determine if atonement is required (regardless of the decision he makes).
I'm in complete agreement with Sammy.
The paladin must choose in this case, and the risk of further harm to innocents, coupled with a foe clearly willing and capable of injuring innocents again, will justify the paladin passing judgment upon the captured foe.
This does not excuse the paladin however, and as Sammy so eloquently stated, after passing judgment on the foe he should seek out a cleric of his god to determine what he shall do to atone for that act. Even though he is justified in doing so I believe a true paladin would be sick in his heart over it and have almost oppressive guilt, possibly only assuaged by a wise cleric explaining how what he did was for the best.
|
|
I'm in complete agreement with Sammy.
The paladin must choose in this case, and the risk of further harm to innocents, coupled with a foe clearly willing and capable of injuring innocents again, will justify the paladin passing judgment upon the captured foe.
This does not excuse the paladin however, and as Sammy so eloquently stated, after passing judgment on the foe he should seek out a cleric of his god to determine what he shall do to atone for that act. Even though he is justified in doing so I believe a true paladin would be sick in his heart over it and have almost oppressive guilt, possibly only assuaged by a wise cleric explaining how what he did was for the best.
I personally consider NOT killing the druid to avoid falling to be evil (not in game, but if the game were reality, and I were given the choice, choosing to keep my powers over protecting the innocents under my care would be evil in my opinon).
Which was pretty much my character's reaction too, in that session.
In my game the DM ruled that because she was a woman and defenseless, if the paladin killed her he'd fall. I was pretty incensed - the paladin wouldn't hurt her after the DM said that - so I had my little halfling bard walk up and slit her throat.
I won't go so far as to say that it was a good action. It was just the least bad action I could see.
The above situation is why I usually won't play paladins. I want to be the honorable protector of innocents - but I've seen so many paladin traps and strange rulings (if you think a member of the sex you're attracted to is sexy, that's an impure thought and you'll fall, etc.) that I just play other classes as if they were paladins. Especially in 3.5, where paladins pretty much got screwed out of anything nice before they fell.
I believe many of the situations you describe are more the fault of umm poor DMing. I don't believe it is the role of a DM to "trap" a paladin and cause him to lose his status. I believe if a DM see's a player about to commit an act he feels would be counter to how he imagines paladins behaving *in his world* he should point that out at the time and make sure the player understands the possible consequences. If the player decides his character would perform the act in question, knowing that it is a deviation of the paladins teachings, then he should face whatever consequences come.
Right now I am playing a naive, purely innocent sort of paladin named Eonas. He has very low intelligence and wisdom but very high charisma. I play him as a loyal, good-hearted, trusting, innocent who seeks to lead others by example. He is truly good at heart and completely trusting. He rarely uses his detect evil ability simply because he believes everyone is good, some misguided, but good none-the-less. He asks the party half-orc fighter to help him read his holy book as he has trouble remembering the longer texts and doesn't really understand the bigger words. Regardless, he knows the book is good, and Iomedae is good, so he just does what he thinks it says. He protects the innocents, he defends the meek, and he has nothing but love for his friends, regardless of race. He was the first to welcome the half orc into the party even in the middle of an encounter where the half orc very much appeared to be an actual orc. I'm having a blast playing the dim but really good kid. My DM knows the role I am going for and I highly doubt he'd lay a trap for me. With that said, I say again, it comes down to DM quality.
Now for the thornier (and more common) scenario...
The party is traveling through the dungeon/ruins/whatever. They come under attack from an evil party. They end up taking a prisoner, question the prisoner and get information,
Ok.
and then decide to kill the prisoner for all the normal reasons
Whoa, not ok. My paladin would not allow a prisoner to be killed, UNLESS the point I raised earlier applied, ie, the prisoner has a demonstrated ability to escape and a willingness to harm innocents. Without that evidence then my paladin will not allow a defenseless prisoner to be harmed.
- we don't have a way to keep the prisoner with us as we battle on
My paladins always have rope and gag materials etc. for just this kind of scenario. I know going in I may have to take prisoners so I make sure to be prepared to do so.
- we're days from town,
No excuse. Inconvenience does not justify killing a prisoner.
and what would the town lock him up for anyways?
If the town does not respect my word or the word of a paladin then I would seek a good aligned church, preferably one of my faith.
- if we let him go, we'll just end up fighting him again.
We won't let him go. If need be, my paladin will go solo to return the prisoner to where he belongs. I'll either play an NPC, have a backup PC to play while my paladin does as he is supposed to, or I'll sit out a session while my trek back to town happens "off-stage".
I have my own code for this, but what are your opinions on what the Paladin should do?
I'll use my current paladin as an example. He would take the prisoner as his charge and keep him subdued (tied, chained, whatever). He would take on the prisoner as his ward and see to his safety and well-being until he can be released to a legitimate authority. He would surrender the prisoner to any member of the military of the land, any leader of a settlement, any sheriff, any member of nobility or royalty, any cleric of a good god, or ideally, a cleric of his own god. IF NONE of these were available, he would have to pray to his god for guidance. In the morning, after praying, if he has exhausted all other avenues and if he sees no other reasonable recourse, he might consider killing the prisoner. If he did though, afterwards he'd be wracked by guilt and have to seek out a cleric immediately to determine how to atone for his act.
I let players play paladins loose and easy, while staying within what we feel to be the intent of the rules. Largely for the reasons Jess describes below:
In my game the DM ruled that because she was a woman and defenseless, if the paladin killed her he'd fall. I was pretty incensed - the paladin wouldn't hurt her after the DM said that - so I had my little halfling bard walk up and slit her throat.
I won't go so far as to say that it was a good action. It was just the least bad action I could see.
The above situation is why I usually won't play paladins. I want to be the honorable protector of innocents - but I've seen so many paladin traps and strange rulings (if you think a member of the sex you're attracted to is sexy, that's an impure thought and you'll fall, etc.) that I just play other classes as if they were paladins. Especially in 3.5, where paladins pretty much got screwed out of anything nice before they fell.
You can substitute the word players for "I" in that last paragraph, and I think that's a fairly accurate statement. I've seen it quite a bit. If the DM is frequently, actively trying to catch the paladin in some way they're doing it wrong.
With regards to the OP:
Would you condone any of the following...
...ambush enemies from hiding...
Sure, go ahead.
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
Not ok. The key for me is "prior to their having shown actual hostility".
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
Sure, go ahead.
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
Not ok.
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
Very situational, but probably ok.
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...
Again situational, but probably ok.
|
|
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
Not ok.
I think everyone but I has said this. I wonder...why? I never got any comment on my reply to this - and I don't understand why it would be evil or dishonorable.
What I believe is the key point of my opinion that in and of itself, killing or harming the villain in full view of his/her loved (loving?) ones isn't evil or dishonorable:
What you do should be good or evil whether you're being watched or not, and despite who you're being watched by.
Thoughts?
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
Not ok.
I think everyone but I has said this. I wonder...why? I never got any comment on my reply to this - and I don't understand why it would be evil or dishonorable.
What I believe is the key point of my opinion that in and of itself, killing or harming the villain in full view of his/her loved (loving?) ones isn't evil or dishonorable:
What you do should be good or evil whether you're being watched or not, and despite who you're being watched by.Thoughts?
I don't think I have a fancy answer beyond "it just feels wrong". The spouse and children don't need to suffer for the actions of the villain.
If you want to make the situation more complex I suppose it depends on how we want to define "bring harm to the enemy", and what the enemy is doing just then in full view of spouse and children. It also depends on the disposition of the spouse and children. Context would make the difference. But the one line "bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness" as written with no further details feels wrong to me.
|
|
What I'm trying to say is that the fact that certain people are watching what you do doesn't change how evil or good or honorable or dishonorable an action is. If the action is dishonorable when no one is watching, it's dishonorable when anyone is. Same for evil.
I would say how the paladin acts toward the family impinges on his honor / goodness - but that would be the case whether their parent was a villain or not, whether he killed the parent in front of them, saw them at the parent's public execution, or met them afterward even though they had no idea he brought their parent to justice.
It's not pleasant. But if what you were doing was honorable and / or good when they weren't watching, then I don't think having their eyes on you suddenly makes it dishonorable / evil.
|
Would you condone any of the following......ambush enemies from hiding...
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies......or would you cite it as a code violation?
most of these would help if more is known about the specific incidence. the basics here would be none of these are acceptable. Then again it depends on the enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me:
Paladin does not mean tactically ignorant. It doesn't necessarily mean getting the group killed for your higher cause.
With that in mind:
Yes, you can ambush.
Yes, you can start a combat even if they haven't been overtly agressive, as long as they are evil or they are going to commit evil acts and that is obvious and apparent to you.
(you don't have to wait for the siege to start, to take out the invading army.)
I try to apply the limitations of the paladin in the most favorable way in light of keeping the class fun and interesting to play. The more you limit it, the less people will play them and even less often will a group let them in. They are already the most restrictive and annoying class to let into the group. Try not to make it worse than it already explicitly is.
As to killing a helpless foe: No. Good aligned characters shouldn't be
doing this anyway. It has nothing to do with the Paladin code. Once someone has surrendered or been defeated, killing them anyway is murder.
-S
...ambush enemies from hiding...
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies......or would you cite it as a code violation?
I have a very strict interpretation of the Paladin code
Ambush: Dishonorable to attack a foe without clearly displaying your intent.
Pre-emptive strike: Dishonorable - see above
Arrows: Dishonorable to strike a foe who cannot dirrectly attack back
Wife&Kids: situational. Shielding eyes from justice is just as dishonorable as causing them pain. You should give them the oportunity to leave if possible, however, as there is no reason to cause undue pain.
Disarmed enemy: dishonorable. You must let them retrieve their weapon without taking the AoO. Likewise it is dishonorable to attack a prone opponent. You may however hold your blade to their throat and offer them the chance to surrender, and kill them if they refuse.
Slay an underpowered/outnumbered foe: situational. You must offer them the chance you yield. If they chose not to take it, their life is forfeit. You are under no obligation to spare them, provided you follow the code above.
Being evil is not grounds in itself to kill a foe. Many merchants are evil, and if you go arround killing them because they are selfish you accomplish nothing but spreading fear.
Non-intelligent foes must still be fought the same way. It is a matter of proving your prowess.
Trickery: you can mislead a foe but never by lying or intentionally presenting information as complete when it is not. In this way, when asked, Lancelot clad in nondescript armor, can tell his foes that he is merely a knight, a wandering knight, a Knight of the King, give them his name, or give them some other nondescript but true title like Favored Knight of the Lady Padme (as long as he has her favor). But he cannot lie and say he is a hedge knight, as this would misrepresent his loyalties. The conclusion they draw from this is up to them, he does not need to make sure they have the right idea. In this way, he can instigate a fight against foes who would normally surrender without a fight.
I try to apply the limitations of the paladin in the most favorable way in light of keeping the class fun and interesting to play. The more you limit it, the less people will play them and even less often will a group let them in. They are already the most restrictive and annoying class to let into the group. Try not to make it worse than it already explicitly is.
-S
I disagree with this. To me, the biggest part is trying to do what needs to be done with the limitations of keeping your honor. Its why I like Sturm Brightblade as a character. These moral decisions are often the best parts of games.
...ambush enemies from hiding...not perse wrong, a paladin does realize an ambush can be the most efficient way to get a battle resolved with the least harm to his allies if a confrontation is needed, it probably is not his preference but he can not risk his allies for the sake of his honor.
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
If they clearly have evil intent, I do not see a problem with this, it might not be the most honorable way to resolve it, but protecting the innocent is more important than honor
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
similar to the ambush, this is not perse wrong, shooting a defeated enemy / fleeing enemy is however
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
This is something a paladin will try to prevent, but it would not be wrong even though the paladin might feel the need to atone, the main thing in my eyes is that he should feel bad about doing it
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
slaying a defeated enemy is not a good(though not necesarily evil) act and certainly not an honorable one, capture or allowing the enemy to flee is prefered, perhaps subdue and tie him up
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...
Give them the oppurtunity to surrender peacefully and respectfully an attempt to intimidate or neutralize the enemy in a non-lethal way might be preferable, though a legion of undead or fiends should not expect such
...or would you cite it as a code violation?
in most of these cases it is not a case of can not do, rather a paladin should look for ways to uphold good and honor, reluctance to commit to less honorable ways to resolve a situation and never choosing cruelty over mercy.[/b]
I think it is fair to require a 'rules of engagement' element. If my Paladin walks into a square and decides 'joe' must die that is evil. If the protection of the innocent or the demands of a lawful authority have declared 'joe' a blight upon the earth he must be cleansed. Circumstances have made Joe an enemy and the Paladin cannot shrink from being the sword of ..... That is for lesser men.
Will a Paladin use concealment to get as close to Joe as he can so that Joe can't take prisoners in the square or kill other people. Regrettably, yes.
Is he likely to pronounce verdict on Joe's living ears before killing him? Yes that is honourable. I say likely because if there is a certainty that this is joe the blight, he has a duty to justice and the common man to be quick and visible. People in the square should know why Joe is being killed. Giving Joe a chance to defend himself amongst a field of innocents is not the highest priority. Speaking is a free action. Joe does not get a second chance to surrender.
This is not without risks. If Joe is mistakenly identified the paladin's code is broken and he must atone. If Joe has been held to be guilty but later found out to be innocent that is regrettable but so long as the command was clear the Paladin is secure in his code. He is a servant of justice and mercy, but a servant nonetheless.
The paladin will use his detect evil power to help him in his action. If Joe is without stain the paladin may err on the side of caution and try to confront joe. This is caution, not mercy or the halting of justice.
If joe is attending the square with his 32 beautiful children, his innocent wife and his sick grandmother for whom he is the only support that does not make joe safe. Pushed to a point, it is regrettable but not against his code to kill joe, especially if joe may escape justice otherwise. That said, the children etc might make the Paladin offer quarter for the sake of mercy but Joe must surrender to the higher powers. In a conflict between mercy and justice the Paladin may choose based on the situation.
Now there are four major changes that can happen to this situation.
1) If Joe is irredeemably evil by virtue of being undead or some absolute condition then joe receives no quarter. To permit him consideration is to open oneself to his blight.
2) Joe has been mistaken but not evil. This is part of the laws of the land. The Paladin may use combat to encourage Joe to pay the appropriate penalty. This is a one time offer and Joe must satisfy the paladin or face combat. Speaking is a free action.
3) If Joe is alone and potentially unarmed. I say potentially because this is a world of magical abilities, spells, and potentially psionics. Joe may be treated with more mercy. I say may because even this is not automatic. Given clear direction from higher power it is not necessarily the servant's job to question the master.
4) If Joe has not been pronounced upon and the Paladin's must rely on his own faith and judgement. The Paladin is not himself a higher power and must endanger himself to protect the life of a potential innocent. This doesn't mean that Joe can ignore the Paladin. A moment of confrontation happens Joe may decide if its verbal or martial.
Perhaps that is more Lawful than Good but then that is how I see Paladins. They receive armor and a sword before they receive lay on hands.
Sigurd
|
The catch is, everything is situational.
A paladin is traveling alone and on foot. He sees that some bandits are planning a trap for passing travelers. Ambushing the bandits would violate his code in this instance, so he instead walks into their trap.
He defeats the bandits, but some run away on horses. He saves those he can, ties them up, and takes them to town.
Paladin resumes his journey and rounds a bend in the road. He sees a dead merchant and his dead guards, with a wagon that has already been thoroughly ransacked. The bandits that got away are mounting up, with the old workhorses now being used to carry their stolen goods.
The Paladin can
1) declare his presence, or let out a battlecry and charge, and hope that he is able to stop all of them before they simply run away.
2) pull out a bow and try to kill their mounts
3) try to ambush them all at once
1) the first option means that he will almost certainly catch at most one of them; the rest will simply run, as they will recognize him and what he did to their companions the last time and know they cannot beat him in a fair fight.
2) the second option might work, but again, he may not be able to bring down all the horses, and the bandits can likely run faster than he in his armor.
3) the third option is the one most likely to stop the bandits. It also requires behaving in an less than completely honest manner - essentially committing a kind of lie of omission. But not declaring his presence is his best (and only realistic) chance of preventing the bandits from causing yet more harm an doing yet more evil.
So this second instance is definately dishonorable, but also the only choice that has any real chance of stopping evil. Of course, one does not justify the other - willfully damning one soul to save a thousand is never the right choice.
So
Is it a violation of the code to move within striking distance of these proven evil foes before attacking?
Is it a violation of the code to move within striking distance of these proven evil foes before leaping into their midst with sword drawn and demand immediate surrender?
Many people in this and the other paladin thread seem to insist that the first is not a violation of the code. I'm not entirely sure myself. But what I find interesting is no one has brought up the second possibility yet.
I suspect we can all agree that the second is definately not a violation of the code - he uses tactics to create a level playing field. The paladin removes an opponents advantage over him (distance and speed), without actually taking advantage of them (by striking with surprise). I do not see how this is a violation of the code.
But, if this is the case, what does it imply for the first example?
What I'm trying to say is that the fact that certain people are watching what you do doesn't change how evil or good or honorable or dishonorable an action is. If the action is dishonorable when no one is watching, it's dishonorable when anyone is. Same for evil.
I would say how the paladin acts toward the family impinges on his honor / goodness - but that would be the case whether their parent was a villain or not, whether he killed the parent in front of them, saw them at the parent's public execution, or met them afterward even though they had no idea he brought their parent to justice.
It's not pleasant. But if what you were doing was honorable and / or good when they weren't watching, then I don't think having their eyes on you suddenly makes it dishonorable / evil.
Just to be clear, I agree with all your points. It seems like you might think we're disagreeing, but really we're not.
It's not a matter of an act becoming dishonorable or evil simply because someone is watching, it's a matter of compassion for the innocent watchers. Sparing the children from seeing their villainous parent cut down in front of them might be the better action in the long run.
I'm not so worried about killing the mounts. Things like that are consistent in terms of setting.
Here's a tough question though.
I am smiting an evil baddie. The baddie jumps on a mount and flees.
Can I use my smite on his mount as it is an instrument of the baddie? Or is the typical mount an innocent I must protect.
In the event that the mount is innocent, must it make attempts to resist the baddie? If the mount is cooperating fully does it risk being smote?
Sigurd
I disagree with this. To me, the biggest part is trying to do what needs to be done with the limitations of keeping your honor. Its why I like Sturm Brightblade as a character. These moral decisions are often the best parts of games.
I try to apply the limitations of the paladin in the most favorable way in light of keeping the class fun and interesting to play. The more you limit it, the less people will play them and even less often will a group let them in. They are already the most restrictive and annoying class to let into the group. Try not to make it worse than it already explicitly is.
-S
I guess I don't understand what you're saying here. You want to apply the limitations of the paladin in the least favorable way? You don't want to keep the class fun and interesting to play? You want to make it worse than it already is? Which is the part you're disagreeing with?
Remember that your personal morals may not match the intent of the rules, the morals that your players have in mind for their characters, or the morals laid down by the paladins deity for that matter. The paladin code, for what it's worth, is open to a certain amount of interpretation. BUT...this interpretation needs to be communicated to the players who want to play a paladin, and they need to agree to whatever moral code is going to be put in place. Anything else is the aforementioned "paladin trap", and is not fair to players.
|
|
Just to be clear, I agree with all your points. It seems like you might think we're disagreeing, but really we're not.
It's not a matter of an act becoming dishonorable or evil simply because someone is watching, it's a matter of compassion for the innocent watchers. Sparing the children from seeing their villainous parent cut down in front of them might be the better action in the long run.
I would prefer a paladin ask the spouse / children not to watch - and give at least a quick explanation of the villain's sins, yes, but the fact that they are watching him harm their loved one doesn't make harming him evil or dishonorable - his mistreatment / cruelty to THEM may be wrong, but not his harm committed to the villain.
Like a cop that allows someone being arrested to step outside so the arrestee's children don't see the cuffs being put on. Arresting a suspect in front of the children isn't evil or dishonorable.
|
|
I'm not so worried about killing the mounts. Things like that are consistent in terms of setting.
Here's a tough question though.
I am smiting an evil baddie. The baddie jumps on a mount and flees.
Can I use my smite on his mount as it is an instrument of the baddie? Or is the typical mount an innocent I must protect.
In the event that the mount is innocent, must it make attempts to resist the baddie? If the mount is cooperating fully does it risk being smote?
Sigurd
Smite Evil will not work on the horse, any than it would work on a Sunder attempt against his Intelligent, Lawful Neutral sword.
However, attacking the mount is not a violation of the code, any more than Sundering the sword would be. The mount is non-sentient, like the bunny the paladin had for lunch. The sword is willingly allowing itself to be used by a Lawful Evil person, and is not technically alive, and furthermore isn't "killed" so much as "shut off temporarily".
The opposite, J.R. I try to keep the class fun and interesting to play.
Having a paladin in the party is the single biggest drag and source of inter-party problem currently in the rules. he's the only guy so far who gets to wander into the party and dictate what the party does.
Playing a paladin is a 2 step process. 1) find someone willing to. 2) ask the party's permission to play one. When you play a paladin you are forcing everyone else to follow the code as well.
Therefore, I find it best to keep the code as open and forgiving as possible while keeping to the spirit and letter of it as best as possible.
What I mean by that is: if it isn't evil and it isn't excluded, generally speaking its allowed.
Ambushes aren't evil.
Killing someone who is helpless who you could instead take prisoner Is evil.
-S
...ambush enemies from hiding...
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies......or would you cite it as a code violation?
Ambushing? Fair tactic, especially if the paladin has the disadvantage in a straight confrontation.
Pre-emptive strike prior to hostility? Dishonorable.
Ranged attacks while enemy unable to return fire? Situational. If its shooting fish in a barrel, probably dishonorable. If it is a known threat and enemy, AND they do not wish to surrender, then valid.
Innocent spouse/children watching him put to death? Again, situational. If it can be avoided, it is dishonorable. If it's unavoidable, such as the heat of battle and they are merely present, it's out of the Paladin's control. He shouldn't have to stop a fight- one where his own life is on the line, mind you, because an innocent is witnessing it. If it's pretty much an "execution", then yes, take it elsewhere.
Slay disarmed opponent? Dishonorable and Evil. I swordfight in the SCA, and anyone familiar with SCA fighting knows that in tournament fighting, if your opponent is disarmed, you always allow them to retrieve their weapon.
Kill an outmatched/outnumbered opponent? If they do not accept surrender, then there is no alternative. But If no quarter is given, then yes, dishonorable.
People tend to get too stuck up on the Paladin's dogma and goody-two shoes attitude, and take it way too far. A Paladin isn't going to freak out over minor details and infractions, but he can still give someone a hard time about them *if he chooses too*. I just think of them as Police officers. All of them are sworn to uphold law and order, for good. They have a very specific code of conduct they must adhere to. Police will often have sting operations (ambush), and gun down a threat if there's no alternative and they wont' come peacefully. Of course, you can still have the jerk police officers who will cite you for every infraction they can find just because they can. When playing a paladin or questioning his actions, I always just compare it to a police officer and what he would do.
The opposite, J.R. I try to keep the class fun and interesting to play.
Having a paladin in the party is the single biggest drag and source of inter-party problem currently in the rules. he's the only guy so far who gets to wander into the party and dictate what the party does.
Playing a paladin is a 2 step process. 1) find someone willing to. 2) ask the party's permission to play one. When you play a paladin you are forcing everyone else to follow the code as well.
Therefore, I find it best to keep the code as open and forgiving as possible while keeping to the spirit and letter of it as best as possible.
What I mean by that is: if it isn't evil and it isn't excluded, generally speaking its allowed.
Ambushes aren't evil.
Killing someone who is helpless who you could instead take prisoner Is evil.-S
That reply was actually to Caineach. They were quoting you, and the questions were for them.
I think if you re-read my posts in this thread you'll see that you and I are very much in agreement.
Some clarifications to put things in perspective...
In my list of scenarios above, assume that the enemy is an evil civilized humanoid (not an orc or goblinoid) that has committed past atrocities, all of which the paladin is aware. Unless stated otherwise, assume he is in some form or another in position to bring immediate harm upon you or others (he and his band are about to enact their devious plot [sack a nearby town or summon an unstoppable demon perhaps?] or is otherwise actively, visibly threatening you or another). Also assume that the enemy may surrender to the paladin, though not without exhausting his resources and combat/escape options first.
In the case of the preemptive strike assume there is ample evidence leading you to believe that the enemy is a serious threat of some kind (beyond a reasonable doubt), though none of the evidence is truly condemning (that is, not 100% certainty).
In the case of the innocent loved ones, assume that the enemy has done nothing recently (rather you are there to arrest/kill him for past crimes, or in the case of preemptive strike, likely future crimes). Prior to you entering the enemy's home you were unaware that his innocent loved ones were present, though now that you've exposed yourself the enemy has since become an immediate threat (to you, not to his family). The family may take actions to protect your enemy, though they otherwise strive not to bring harm upon anyone.
In the case of an disarmed/ineffectual enemy, assume that the fight is more or less over. The enemy did not surrender without having exhausted all options (and has technically not yet asked for quarter). The enemy is either out of spells, disarmed of all serious weapons, at 0 hp, and/or no longer a meaningful threat.
...I hope that helps.
"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
I wish to discuss the limitations of the paladin's code, specifically the bolded text above. What does the highlighted text mean to you?
Would you condone any of the following...
...ambush enemies from hiding...
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies......or would you cite it as a code violation?
I believe in unifying the Britons, King Arthur used some of those tactics. He hid a few thousand troops in the woods to bring into the fight when the enemy was exhausted. That sounds like an ambush to me. I don't recall who started the fight, but they were all knights. The enemy wasn't evil, they just didn't believe he should be king.
So, he used ambush and overpowering force, and someone (a knight) struck first (although I honestly can't recall the terms of the battle decided beforehand, so maybe that doesn't qualify). If you're trying to convince someone that the knight in shining armor archetype of myth and legend is the basis for the paladin, I don't know if you can believably say that Arthur & tKoTRT don't qualify.
EDIT: Especially since they're statted out as paladins in the original Deities & Demigods.
Has anyone successfully implemented a alignment tracking system, or honor system similar to 1E oriental honor or dark side/light side scale from star wars. At least with a system or matrix in place you can demonstrate over time if a paladin has fallen from grace.
"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
I wish to discuss the limitations of the paladin's code, specifically the bolded text above. What does the highlighted text mean to you?
Would you condone any of the following...
...ambush enemies from hiding...
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies......or would you cite it as a code violation?
I believe in unifying the Britons, King Arthur used some of those tactics. He hid a few thousand troops in the woods to bring into the fight when the enemy was exhausted. That sounds like an ambush to me. I don't recall who started the fight, but they were all knights. The enemy wasn't evil, they just didn't believe he should be king.
So, he used ambush and overpowering force, and someone (a knight) struck first (although I honestly can't recall the terms of the battle decided beforehand, so maybe that doesn't qualify). If you're trying to convince someone that the knight in shining armor archetype of myth and legend is the basis for the paladin, I don't know if you can believably say that Arthur & tKoTRT don't...
I agree, Arthurian legend is the best basin IMO for what the Paladin code should be based off of. Arthur hid troops to disguise from his enemies his numbers, but hs eemies knew that there would be a fight, or at least the potential for one. There is a small distinction there, but one none the less. Its not an ambush, just suprise reinforcements.
|
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.
I guess I don't understand what you're saying here. You want to apply the limitations of the paladin in the least favorable way? You don't want to keep the class fun and interesting to play? You want to make it worse than it already is? Which is the part you're disagreeing with?
Remember that your personal morals may not match the intent of the rules, the morals that your players have in mind for their characters, or the morals laid down by the paladins deity for that matter. The paladin code, for what it's worth, is open to a certain amount of interpretation. BUT...this interpretation needs to be communicated to the players who want to play a paladin, and they need to agree to whatever moral code is going to be put in place. Anything else is the aforementioned "paladin trap", and is not fair to players.
I want very strict limitations on the Paladin because I feel that is MORE interesting to play than a loose interpretation. Your Paladin should constantly be flirting with losing his powers. No win moral situations are perfectly fine to put players in IMO. When I play, they are often my favorite times.
Of course the exact limitations of the code should be known to the player up front. His character has sworn to uphold it after all.
I do not believe that minor infractions on the Paladin code should remove all the Paladin class abilities. A GM should keep track of infractions and warn the Paladin when he is close to falling. I would like to see a system like dark side points from d20 star wars put in place.
|
|
...ambush enemies from hiding...
Not at all. Sound tactical choice. Were he ambushing innocents, he would fall. Only only if he were doing it knowingly. Example: Hostage scene in The Dark Knight. The police would not fall were they paladins.
...make a pre-emptive strike against an enemy or enemies prior to their having shown actual hostility...
Goes back to the previous statement. If he had no reason to attack them, if they were committing no evil act, he would fall. If they were a cult bent on enslaving the world, he would be perfectly clear.
...pelt enemies to death with ranged attacks from afar while said enemies are unable to return fire...
If they were trapped in a pit and he was just having a bit of sport, he would fall. If they were attempting to find a way through the walls to kill the inhabitants of the fort he protected, fair game.
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
If locked in mortal combat with the enemy, no foul. If he brought the man bound before them and cut his helpless head off, fallen paladin.
...slay an enemy who has just been disarmed, or otherwise rendered ineffectual...
If the enemy could become a threat again and refused to submit, he could be slain. If the paladin killed him while he begged for mercy, fallen paladin.
...kill an enemy who is clearly outnumbered/overpowered by the paladin and/or his allies...
If he could not have incapacitated him safely (-4 to deal nonlethal anyone?) then killing him would be acceptable. Stabbing the lame goblin waving a stick at him would lose his paladinhood.
For reference sake, I'm not sure if it carried over - don't have my books with me - but in 3.5, it was either the paladin making an evil act or a gross violation of their code to make them fall. Little things do not make a paladin fall. What they CAN do is slowly lower his tolerance over time.
I tend to avoid the rather tight Lawful Stupid interpretation in regards to Paladins.
I also to view the tenets of Paladinhood as more what is desirable behavior rather than what is prohibited. Further if there is a list of banned behaviors that list is highly dependent on the faith of the Paladin (I pretty much enforce Paladins that worship Gods).
Using Golarion as an example, a Paladin of Iomedae might have a different set of restrictions than a Paladin of Shelyn or Adabar.
I typically go with something simple at first like
- Protect the innocent
- Defend civilization from those who would destroy it
- Fight evil in all it's forms
- Deal honestly with friend and foe
- You are the shining chosen of your god, do them justice in all your acts
Pretty simple list and really open to interpretation. On top of that I might add specific restrictions of that religion (Shelyn's paladins might be charged with preserving beauty, Adabar's paladins might be required to serve as judges and arbitrators, etc). If the PC really wants to get into a character we will even expand that to dietary restrictions, or celibacy, or poverty.
Basically the less absolute the rules concerning acceptable behavior the more open the character is to interpretation. I really like the image of a Paladin that is forced to decide for himself between 2 conflicting tenets of his faith. Not to the point he needs an atonement spell but more that his faith tortures him as much as it liberates him.